PopSugar.com ran a column titled “These Badass Women Stood Up to Sexual Harassment by Wearing Black to the Golden Globes.” The column was written by Victoria Messina who wrote that the actresses, “wore black for the patriarchy-smashing occasion.” The article contained an extensive slide show of actresses posing for the cameras wearing black dresses. The message was by wearing a black dress they will somehow stop sexual abuse.
It’s hard to recall a more egregious display of vanity signalling than the black dress protest. It was “please snap me while I pose in my conscience”. MeToo! MeToo!
Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
The black dress attired actresses at the Golden Globe Awards have no idea what sexual oppression is all about. You see there is another group of women who are required by law enforced by their “patriarchy” to wear black, from head to toe, every minute of every day of their lives.
As American women prepare to put on their pink hats for a second time to protest President Donald Trump on the anniversary of his inauguration, women in Iran are taking off their hijabs, protesting an oppressive theocratic regime.
For nearly 40 years since the 1979 revolution, Iranian women have been forced to follow the country’s mandatory dress code, which includes long, loose garments and headscarves known as hijabs. While wearing a hijab here in the United States is a sign of female empowerment, taking them off in Iran is the ultimate sign of defiance.
Hollywood views the patriarchal oppression of women differently than do those who are truly oppressed.
Hollywood has now reached the pinnacle of hyperbole.
Their protest has no meaning nor impact for those women across the globe who are facing cruel abuses from their fathers, husbands, brothers and in some cases slave owners.
Hollywood actresses have turned a blind eye not only to the abuses of their fellow actresses but to the plight of women in countries that treat them as chattel. Hollywood actresses wearing black has not dented let alone smashed the patriarchy in certain countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
These actresses would be strangers in a strange land if they felt the pain of just one little girl married off to an older man.
May we humbly suggest that the real “badass women” are ripping off their black burkas in countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Ben Ritter.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/burka-hollywood-poster-e1515714165944.jpeg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-01-11 18:58:102018-01-11 19:07:54Hollywood’s Crown Jewel of Hyperbole — The Golden Globe Awards
In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, eight current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.
VIDEO: Senior Network Security Engineer Reveals Twitter Ready to Give Trump’s Private DMs to DOJ.
In an email, the alternative social media site, Gab.ai states:
Since August 2016 Gab has been leading the way with exposing the double standards, hypocrisy, and mass censorship of Big Social Media companies in Silicon Valley. We’ve told you about shadow-banning, hypocritical one-sided rule enforcement, unfair treatment of conservatives and Trump supporters, and one-sided political agendas being pushed by these multi-billion dollar communication platforms that are used by hundreds of millions of people.
Over the last several months we’ve been working closely with Project Veritas to help them infiltrate these big technology companies and expose the mass censorship and corruption happening each and everyday. Thanks to James O’Keefe and his team there is now undeniable proof of Twitter employees admitting that censorship, double standards, and hypocrisy are indeed happening on these platforms.
Olinda Hassan is a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety Team. Her team is responsible for the enforcement of Twitter’s rules and regulation, deciding who and what is allowed to be on the platform. Project Veritas caught her on camera saying this:
PV Journalist: “But how do you keep, like, my timeline… how do you keep certain things off my timeline? People will like retweet people.
Olinda: “We’re trying to down rank it, but you also need to have control of your timeline.”
PV Journalist: I’ve tried to, like block people like Cernovich and stuff like that and mute and stuff like that, but they still show up, like all the time.
Olinda: Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on.”
Some of the other admissions captured by Project Veritas are staggering, and confirm everything that Gab has been saying since August 2016: Silicon Valley is censoring Trump supporters, conservatives, and anyone else they disagree with politically. Here’s a quote from a former member of Twitter’s Content Review Team:
PV Journalist: …a user end services person would deem it: “Pro-Trump,” and take it down?
Mo Norai: Yeah, if they said this is: “Pro-Trump” I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?
PV Journalist: So, I flag something it’s going to go by you….
Mo Norai: Correct, and they you know you’re looking at it and you’re like: “Oh hey, this is Pro-Trump ….I don’t like it.
EDITORS NOTE: James O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018. Pre-order the book: http://www.americanpravdabook.com
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/twitter-censorship.jpg370640O'Keefe Media Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngO'Keefe Media Group2018-01-11 16:23:282018-01-14 06:22:23VIDEO EXPOSE: Twitter Engineers To ‘Ban a Way of Talking’ Through ‘Shadow Banning’
We haven’t seen a ton of President Trump’s negotiating prowess so far for probably two reasons: Negotiating politically in D.C. is just flat different from negotiating in business; and Democrats don’t generally want deals — they want to oust Trump. It does, after all, require two sides to want a deal to get a deal.
And that makes Trump’s recent move on immigration not only brilliant, but also shows he is learning how to deal with the general swampiness of D.C. in yet another realm.
First to set the stage. Most conservative observers have seen for years that Democrats are not really interested in any deals involving illegals in the country short of full legalization and citizenship. This always appeared to be one of the calculating strategies for Democrat elections that have little groundings in principles or what is good for Americans: They want illegals in the country — and the issue of illegals — to garner votes for themselves, even if the illegals demonstrably damage lower end working Americans by depressing wages.
Now we have pretty solid evidence to show Democrat’s callous, duplicitous scheming on immigration.
A memo from Jennifer Palmieri, who served as director of communications for President Barack Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton, demands that Democrats go to the wall — so to speak — over the so-called Dreamers of DACA.
“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” wrote Palmieri, who is now president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, perhaps the most influential Democratic political group. News of the memo distributed Monday was first published in The Daily Caller.
Palmieri, whose memo was sent to Democratic allies around the nation, went on about the political imperative:
“Democrats should refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them. Political allegiances are made in moments like these…If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond. In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects,” (Author’s emphasis.)
So what we all suspected is now laid bare, like so much else that has happened since November 2016.
Then, in a move that both outs the Democrats on their dishonesty in all things immigration while at the same time using the media to bypass the media, Trump holds the immigration negotiating meeting with Congressional Republican and Democrat leaders — and let’s the media stay for the entire negotiating session.
Media are typically asked to leave after the photo op moment at the beginning, and then the actual meeting takes place behind closed doors. But Trump simply started the meeting before asking the media to leave and the participants — from both parties — eventually realized that the media were staying. Well, that certainly breaks the mold.
And right from the beginning, Trump asked members from both parties what they want and what they are willing to give up while the cameras were rolling and catching all of it. Since it went out live for some, it is now memorialized all over the internet.
This was brilliant for three reasons:
It forced Democrats to actually make proposals rather than play their dishonest games of negotiating in bad faith. Their choice was a real compromise proposal or be revealed.
It used the media to bypass the media. The liberal and virulently anti-Trump media consistently reports along liberal lines, covering only those issues or events that appear damaging to Trump while ignoring most of 2017’s successes. This little arrangement used their own cameras to eliminate their filter.
It put the lie to all the so-called psychiatrists trotted out by CNN and others to analyze Trump via TV and Twitter and determine he has some mental condition. Obviously his mental faculties are just fine — and perhaps better than most of those opining on him.
The only downside was that Trump said at one point that he would sign whatever the people in that room brought back to him. That sent appropriate shivers through law-and-order Americans as the people in that room are the ones responsible for the mess we have. But Trump knows illegal immigration was one of the primary reasons he was elected. He can deeply influence what is brought back to him to sign, and he will.
RELATED VIDEO: President Trump holds bi-partisan immigration meeting.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-welfare-e1511197551226.jpg391640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-01-11 15:58:232018-01-11 17:33:37Trump Uses the Media to Bypass the Media, Outs Democrats on Immigration
Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.
“From 2007-2012, about 61,000 illegals were able to infiltrate Israel,” yet this tiny nation has survived, despite being surrounded by mortal enemies that have sought its destruction since its birth.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared what should be obvious to every Western nation and be expected from citizens: that “every country has an obligation to protect its borders.”
While the West is now faced with border invasions, there is another parallel problem that Israel has long dealt with. America and Canada are now confronted with the Muslim Brotherhood Plan to “sabotage its miserable house” and conquer it; Israel, meanwhile, has been faced with documented charters to obliterate it:
Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”, vowing that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
According to the PLO Charter: “Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement..a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.” So therefore, justification is made to obliterate the Jewish state in the name of a warped view of peace and harmony. In fact, the PLO manifesto’s stated purpose is the for “liquidation of the Zionist presence”.
The Fatah Charter describes “the Israeli existence in Palestine” as “a Zionist invasion.”
Compared with Israel, the West is lagging in dealing with issues of jihad threat and terror. What has now arrived to torment the West and usurp its democracy, Israel has been contending with for decades, and has earned its place as a model.
“How to Successfully Stop Illegal Immigration: Follow Israel’s Model”, by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, January 9, 2018:
EILAT, Israel – Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.
“Every country has an obligation to protect its borders,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week while announcing new steps to deport illegal migrants currently residing in Israel. “Protecting the borders from illegal infiltration is both the right and the fundamental obligation of a sovereign country.”
Here are Israel’s five primary methods of fighting illegal immigration.
1 – Build a barrier.
While most people are familiar with Israel’s West Bank security barrier, constructed to thwart terrorist infiltration, less well known is that Israel in 2013 completed a barrier that runs the length of the vast Israel-Egypt border to stem the flow of illegal African migrants entering the country. Upon completion of the barrier, the numbers of illegals crossing into the Jewish state slowed to a trickle and entirely stopped this past year.
From 2007-2012, about 61,000 illegals were able to infiltrate Israel, with most originating from Africa. The first half of 2012 saw 9,570 illegals enter Israel, but that number was slashed to only 34 the first six months after most of the barrier was constructed. 2015 brought with it 213 border breaches, prompting Israel to raise the height of the fence from 5 to 8 meters along a vulnerable stretch of the barrier. Israel’s Defense Ministry documented only 11 successful infiltration attempts in 2016. Israel says that not a single illegal migrant successfully infiltrated in 2017.
The Egypt-Israel barrier consists of warning systems, an electronic “smart” fence and information collection centers. Critically, Israel’s borders are patrolled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The West Bank barrier is another successful model. Israel began construction of it in 2002 at the height of the second Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war of shootings and suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. That intifada was launched after PLO leader Yasser Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state during U.S.-mediated negotiations in the summer of 2000.
Upon the completion of a significant continuous section of the security fence in 2003 and the implementation of security checkpoints, Israel saw a marked decrease in the number of suicide bombers able to penetrate Israeli cities.
About 95% of the barrier consists of a chain-link fence backed up by high-tech surveillance systems and IDF patrols and not the concrete barrier routinely shown by the news media. The concrete barriers are usually only located in areas where the wall intersects with Israeli communities and roads, including areas of previous Palestinian shooting attacks.
2 – Forcibly deport illegal immigrants.
The infiltration of illegal aliens brought with it rises in crime rates and impacted the security of Israeli cities, especially south Tel Aviv, where many residents complain of no longer feeling safe. According to UN statistics from 2013, some 77% of the Africans that infiltrated Israel are males between the ages of 18 and 35. Very few of the infiltrators are refugees fleeing persecution. Most are economic migrants looking for work. The illegal migrants were also opposed by Palestinians since they provided cheap labor and competed with Palestinians for some jobs.
Over the past year, 4,012 illegals voluntarily left Israel after security forces here started to step up deportation efforts. Last week, the Knesset approved the Infiltrator’s Bill, which allows the country to forcibly deport illegal infiltrators, with exceptions for children, the elderly, parents of dependent minors, those with refugee applications pending and victims of slavery or human trafficking.
3 – Provide incentives for illegals to leave on their own.
Israel has given notice to all illegals that they have 90 days to vacate. If the illegal migrants go willingly during that time period, they will be provided $3,500 and can depart to their home countries or to third countries. After the 90 day grace period, Israel has warned that illegals will be imprisoned or deported.
4 – Cut off all government funds.
Israel’s Knesset last month also advanced a bill to close the country’s Holot detention facility, where the Israeli government currently pays for food and housing for illegal infiltrators.
5 – Crack down on employers who hire illegals…..
ABOUT CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
Christine Douglass-Williams is author of the book The Challenge of Modernizing Islam. She is a regular writer for Jihad Watch, Public Affairs and Media Consultant to the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem Canada and on the board of advisors for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Christine is also a former-federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and past advisor to the former Office of Religious Freedom in Canada. Christine has conducted over 1,700 live television interviews as a current affairs talk show host and television producer on CTS TV in Burlington, capturing six international awards (including the Telly, Videographer and Omni Awards). A past political and crime news reporter and news room editor, Christine has also served as a regular national columnist with Metro News where she also provided news analysis on political and diversity issues. Her writings have appeared in many publications including: the Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage Magazine, USA Today Online, Wall Street online and the Gatestone Institute in New York where she has been on the Board of Governors.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/israeli-border-wall-e1515681077398.jpg398640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2018-01-11 09:31:242018-01-11 09:45:19How to successfully stop illegal immigration: Follow Israel’s model
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would not sign an immigration bill without funding for a border wall—clarifying some doubt left over from a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress a day earlier about reaching a deal on the policy for the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
Asked during a joint White House press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg if he would sign a deal that didn’t include the wall, Trump responded, “No, no.”
“It’s got to include the wall. We need the wall for security,” the president said. “We need the wall for safety. We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in. I would imagine that the people in the room — both Democrat and Republican —I really believe they’re going to come up with a solution to the DACA problems.”
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, proposed legislation Wednesday to allow illegal immigrants brought to the country as minors receive protection from deportation to get a three-year renewal; to provide $30 billion for construction of the wall, adding 5,000 Border Patrol agents, and another 5,000 Customs and Border Protection officers; defund sanctuary cities; and require employers to use E-Verify to ensure the legal status of workers. Co-authors of the legislation are Reps. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, and Martha McSally, R-Ariz.
When meeting with members of Congress Tuesday, the bipartisan group decided to address four issues: DACA, border security, chain migration, and the visa lottery system.
During the meeting, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked the president about doing a “clean” DACA bill and saving the other issues for a second phase of a “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Trump, at first, seemed to be warm to the idea.
“We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive,” Trump said in response to Feinstein. “I think a lot of people would like to see that. But we need to do DACA first.”
After that, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., jumped into explain the need for border security.
Trump later said during the meeting: “To me, a ‘clean’ bill is a bill of DACA. We take care of them, and we also take care of security, and the Democrats want border security, too. … Then we go to comprehensive later on.”
DACA stemmed from President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action that shielded an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation brought to the country as minors. Comprehensive immigration reform has in past proposals included providing legal status to the more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
Last fall, the Justice Department announced it was reversing DACA, under threat of a lawsuit from 10 state attorneys general, giving Congress a deadline of March for legislating a replacement. However, on the same day as the bipartisan meeting, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to maintain the program. The Justice Department announced it would appeal the ruling.
Trump also took questions about the possible interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, named to investigate possible collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.
“There is collusion, but it is really with the Democrats and the Russians far more than it is with the Republicans and Russians,” Trump said.
Many legal experts said they believe Mueller if focused less on Russia and more on building an obstruction of justice case against Trump or associates.
“When they have no collusion, and nobody’s found any collusion, at any level, it seems unlikely that you’d even have an interview,” Trump said.
RELATED VIDEO: President Trump and Prime Minister Solberg of Norway hold joint news conference
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 President Donald Trump answering questions from reporters during a joint news conference with Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway Wednesday in the East Room of the White House. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/NorwayTrump-1250x650-e1515676861588.jpg381640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-11 08:21:512018-01-11 08:43:09Trump: Immigration Deal Has ‘Got to Include the Wall’
Project 21’s Horace Cooper joined The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood to discuss the historic low unemployment rate for black Americans and how the left is co-opting Martin Luther King Jr. Day to protest tax reform and promote action for illegal immigrants covered by the DACA program. Here is an edited transcript of the video.
Wood: Horace, Martin Luther King Day is coming up next week, and there has been a lot of interesting news, especially for the black community on the economic front, in this past week or so. What do you make of the numbers coming out?
Cooper: The news for black America is amazing. It’s phenomenal. We have had three separate records accomplished: In June of 2017, in September of 2017, and in January of 2018, we have set record low unemployment for black Americans. And what’s really exciting, relative to the rest of the country, is black Americans are making much more progress … and that’s, like, really big gains.
Wood: You probably just heard that overflight. We’re very close to the Pentagon right now and Reagan Airport, so you’re going to hear a lot of airplanes. Horace, we talk about historic numbers. This is the lowest black unemployment has been in over 45 years. Why all of a sudden? Is it President Obama’s economy, which is kind of what he claimed in the last few weeks?
Cooper: It was surprising to me to hear the president make these claims.
Wood: The former president.
Cooper: The former [president], Obama, make these claims. It was very surprising because from 2009 to 2015, black America’s unemployment rate turned to the worst numbers that we have seen as a community. It was the very policies that he pushed that caused this disparity.
Here’s the thing: Black American unemployment typically is somewhere between 40 percent and even 100 percent higher than white America’s unemployment. When this [black unemployment rate] number in 2018 reached 6.8 percent, that was the narrowest gap we’ve ever seen. We saw nothing like that during the Obama administration.
And it didn’t surprise me, because the policies of President Obama were more focused on handing out food stamps, and assistance, and government handouts, rather than seeing to it that the most important civil rights of all, your right to be independent, your right to be self-sufficient, [were] being honored with policies of limited government. That’s not Obama’s plan.
Wood: Now, President Trump has been in office only one year. What do you think explains the nosedive in unemployment across the board, but particularly with minority Americans?
Cooper: Any investor, any businessman, any company understands now that America is open for business and if you’d like to do business in the United States, we’re going to say, ‘That’s great.’ Remember what the last president said? ‘You didn’t build that.’ The last president said people that did things, that built things that were consequential, they were the people that we have to go after, to [put in a] stranglehold, a litany of regulations. And by the way, The Heritage Foundation did seminal studies every year, talking about how the last president set records for how many regulatory strangleholds he put on the United States.
This president, President Trump, is doing just the opposite. Two things: One is, he is not bringing new regulations into place, but [two,] he is actually rolling back the bad regulations that we saw before. So businesses are opening up and it turns out the pool of people that are most available right now, because of multiple years of bad regulatory and economic growth, are black Americans. And those people therefore are rushing into the marketplace. This is great news.
Wood: It’s great news. But as you well know, Horace, as we come up to MLK Day you are going to have a lot of folks out there talking about how the Trump administration, the tax reform package that was passed just before Christmas, is bad particularly for black Americans. We know this because they have already said they were going to do it.
[House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi and a lot of others are going to be holding events over the weekend in “honor” of Martin Luther King Jr., kind of hijacking the holiday, I would argue. To go tell black Americans why this is actually a bad economy for them, the complete opposite of all the numbers and evidence.
Cooper: Here’s the irony, what the left wants to tell black America is, ‘Who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes?’ If you want to look at your bank account, if you want to look at the value of your home, if you want to make that the test, then you’ll look and you’ll say, ‘Wow, the news is amazing. My uncle, my cousin, even my next-door neighbor, they’re getting jobs that they didn’t have.’
A record 2 million fewer people are receiving food assistance under the Trump administration than before. But it is also not a surprise to me. Here’s the thing: When you look at Martin Luther King, most people remember the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. What they don’t recall is that the main reason for the big rally at the Lincoln Memorial [in August 1963] was a jobs program.
Black Americans were worried and concerned that there weren’t a lot of great economic opportunities. And that’s how this [March on Washington in 1963] got organized. The essence of what black America and the civil rights effort was about was letting people be able to get the kinds of things that control their own lives.
Wood: The right to a quality education, the right to good jobs.
Cooper: Absolutely. Right. A great house.
Wood: Not the right to handouts, wanting handouts.
Cooper: Absolutely. But the left, with these teach-ins as you mentioned, it’s cynical what they are doing. They don’t have a program for black America. Black America rejected—people don’t realize this—black America rejected Barack Obama’s program. How do I know this? [In 2008], the highest percentage of black Americans in history voted for the Democrat [Obama].
In 2012, we saw something happen that we have never seen before. Fewer black people voted for the re-election of a president. We haven’t seen that in 120 years. Not with Clinton, not with Nixon, not with Reagan. Every other re-elected president got more black votes than they did the first time around.
Wood: And why do you think that is? Do you think people really made the calculation within the black community, he hasn’t done what he said he was going to do?
Cooper: They absolutely could see that. You can’t show up the day before Election Day and have to wait for a handout, and then on the day after go and say I’m going to vote for this guy because he is making me great. But the Democrats and the left have been very good, and that’s what this teach-in is about.
Wood: Well, you make a point. And I want to talk more about Project 21 because I’m sure a lot of folks watching are going to say, ‘Wow, the news media doesn’t usually go out and find people like Horace Cooper to talk about Martin Luther King Day.’
They want to know where there are more Horace Coopers. And Project 21 is one of those organizations. The release that you all put out talked about, in addition to the teach-in, that while all of that is going on, the liberals are also pushing the DREAM Act and trying to legalize a lot of illegal immigrants.
Cooper: Oh, it’s a classic bait and switch, a beautiful bait and switch. When you don’t have a good program for people—by program, I mean a policy initiative that would be good for them—what you do is you find something to distract them.
What’s ironic is they’re not going to succeed in telling people, in this teach-in that they announced, that ‘You shouldn’t want the tax cuts you are about to get, you shouldn’t want more money in your bank account, you shouldn’t want more flexibility in the kinds of jobs. And that’s what’s coming your way. You don’t want that, that’s bad, we want to make you understand that the Trump regulatory tax policies are bad for you.’
Meanwhile, what they don’t say is ‘By the way, we do have a program, not for you, [but] we have a program. It is primarily focused on illegal immigrants. And in fact, even as late as today, the talk is we’ll shut the government down if we don’t get the ability to get the illegal immigration support policy changes that we want. Hey, black America, look at the teach-ins, that’s what we’ve got for you; but for our new favored class, we’ve got real policy changes that are designed to improve and make their livelihoods better.’
Wood: And in many cases, though, trying to get [illegal immigrants] into the same government programs that got [black Americans] trapped into big government.
Cooper: Well, of course, that’s the ultimate goal.
Wood: Because those folks will often times also turn into voters once they get locked into government. And they become the party of big government.
Cooper: It’s a vicious cycle.
Wood: You’re right, it’s a bait and switch. Let’s talk about Project 21. Tell everybody what Project 21 is, how they can get involved, and how they can learn more about it.
Cooper: Project 21 is an organization made up of black Americans who have rejected the idea that the only way for black Americans to succeed is if the government specifically engages in a series of handouts or preferential treatment. We are people, moderate and conservative, who say that the best way for black Americans to succeed is the same way it is for [all] Americans to succeed: Strong families, hard work. Get a good education, engage in the kind of policies where you personally save your money, you’re not extravagant. Where you make the sacrifice and you hand your children.
We believe in limited government, we believe in family values. We believe the church and the synagoge are the primary place where good values get inculcated. Our organization welcomes any American that believes in those kinds of things and wants to make sure that those are the values that we put forward. That got America started, that got America to succeed, that’s the future for America.
Wood: And that’s a lot of things that Martin Luther King Jr. absolutely stood for.
Cooper: Absolutely.
Wood: Horace, thank you. I’ve known this guy for over 20 years, he is rock-solid. It’s great being on with you. Thanks for coming on and being out here and talking with us.
Cooper: Thanks for having me on The Signal.
Wood: And thank you everybody. Check out Project 21. And thank you for watching us right here on The Daily Signal’s Facebook Live.
Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: @genevievewood.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TRUMP-OBAMA.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-11 07:46:562018-01-12 17:11:17VIDEO: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs for Black Americans
I won’t make any assumptions about how many readers noticed I took a three-month break from column writing.
Nevertheless, I want to explain why.
I needed the time to finish the first volume of the biggest project of my life as a writer, a commentary on the first five books of the Bible, or what are called the Torah in Hebrew.
The commentary is addressed to people of every faith and, especially, to people of no faith.
I have believed all my life that the primary crisis in America and the West is the abandonment of Judeo-Christian values, or, one might say, the dismissal of the Bible.
Virtually everyone on the left thinks America would be better off as a secular nation. And virtually all conservative intellectuals don’t think it matters. How many intellectuals study the Bible and teach it to their children?
And yet, from the time long before the United States became a country until well into the 1950s, the Bible was not only the most widely read book in America—it was the primary vehicle by which each generation passed on morality and wisdom to the next generation.
Since that time, we have gone from a Bible-based society to a Bible-ignorant one—from the Bible being the Greatest Book to the Bible being an irrelevant book.
Ask your college-age child, niece, nephew, or grandchild to identify Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel, or the ten plagues. Get ready for some blank stares.
I recently asked some college graduates (none of whom were Jewish) to name the four Gospels. None could.
But what we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual, and sexist.
Our society, one of whose mottos is “In God We Trust,” is becoming as godless as Western Europe—and, consequently, as morally confused and unwise as Europe.
Just as most professors regard most Bible believers as foolish, I have more or less the same view of most college professors in the liberal arts.
When I hear that someone has a Ph.D. in sociology, anthropology, political science, or English, let alone women’s studies or gender studies, I assume that he or she is morally confused and bereft of wisdom. Some are not, of course. But they constitute a small minority.
Whenever teenagers call my radio show or I meet one in person, I can usually identify—almost immediately—the ones who are receiving a religion-based education. They are far more likely to act mature and have more wisdom than their Bible-free peers.
One of our two greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, rarely attended church, but he read the Bible daily. As he said while president, “In regard to this great book, I have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man.”
Were he able to observe America today, Lincoln would be shocked by many things. But none would shock him as much as the widespread ignorance of and contempt for the Bible.
I have taught the Torah, from the Hebrew original, for 40 years. Of the many things I have been blessed to be able to do—from hosting a national radio show to conducting orchestras—teaching Torah is my favorite.
When asked how it has affected my life, I often note that in my early 20s, when I was working through issues I had with my parents, there was nevertheless not a week during which I did not call them.
And there was one reason for this: I believe that God commanded us to “Honor your father and your mother.”
In my commentary, I point out that while the Torah commands us to love our neighbor, love God, and love strangers, it never commands us to love our parents. It was sophisticated enough to recognize that love of parents may be impossible but showing honor to a parent is a behavioral choice.
In America, there is an epidemic of children who no longer talk to one or both of their parents. In a few cases, this is warranted. But in most cases, adult children are inflicting terrible, unfair pain upon their parents.
This is one of a myriad of examples where believing in a God-based text is transformative.
Secular callers tell me that they hardly need the Ten Commandments to desist from murdering anyone. That may well be true. But apparently, a lot of people could use the Ten Commandments to avoid inflicting terrible pain on (admittedly, flawed) parents.
The title of my work is “The Rational Bible” because my vehicle to God and the Bible is reason. If you have ever wondered why all of America’s founders revered the Bible, let alone why anyone today might do so, this book should provide an explanation.
My ultimate aim is to help make the Bible America’s book once again.
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/Bible2-1250x650-e1515673221483.jpg384640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-01-11 07:20:302018-01-11 07:23:58My Quest to Help Americans Rediscover the Bible
Like a lot of pregnant women, the young mom who visited Planned Parenthood in St. Paul last summer wasn’t sure she wanted to have the abortion. Already well into her second trimester, she was started to have second thoughts about whether this was the right decision for her or her baby. But, pressured by doctors to go through with it, she agreed — giving her permission for them to start the painful, two-day procedure. When the time came, she watched in shock as the male abortionist started “jamming that needle in and out” of her stomach. Finally, she was told: he couldn’t reach the baby’s heart to inject it with the fatal drug that would kill it. Panicked that her child might survive the abortion, she asked, “What if the baby was to come out alive?” The female doctor paused and said, “Most likely, we would break the baby’s neck.”
Horrified, she asked them to stop the dilation and went home. Her baby survived. But dozens of unborn children, who cross that same threshold every day, aren’t so lucky. As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, the killing of a tiny child — whether she’s in the womb or breathing on her own — is what “choice” is all about. The decision of destroying a life, they’ve argued, even one who’s lived through the worst our world had to offer, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.” Even if it’s murder. They’ll deliver a baby alive to harvest its organs or they’ll cover up a botched abortion by leaving the little survivor to die. Either way, they’re breaking the law. And Republicans in Congress have had enough.
For more than two years, they’ve held hearings, launched investigations, and turned over reams of damning evidence to the FBI. Now, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says, it’s time to act. “Next week– the week of the annual March for Life, when tens of thousands of Americans come to Washington to give voice to the voiceless unborn — the House will vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act,” he announced. The bill, which easily passed the same House in 2015, never got a vote in the Senate. This time, leaders vow, it will. Although a similar measure was signed into law by President Bush in 2003, it never had the teeth pro-lifers needed to hold the abortion industry accountable. Under this version, the law would not only criminalize people who let newborns die (or actively kill them) but gives moms a private right of action to sue.
“…[I]f a baby is born after a failed abortion attempt, he or she should be given the same medical care as a baby born any other way,” McCarthy explained. “There is absolutely no ambiguity here. This is about protecting babies who are born and alive, and nobody should be against that.” Tell that to Planned Parenthood. They’ve argued that the bill would have a “chilling” effect on the “provision of abortion services.” “I cannot think of a more chilling effect,” Arina Grossu fired back, “than continuing to let abortionists get away with infanticide, the intentional killing of born-alive, breathing babies after an attempted abortion.”
But how often does that happen? According to David Daleiden’s videos, a lot more than we think. Yet even on the stand, under oath, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards denied it. “There was one specific video,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) reminded Richards, “…describing harvesting the brain of a late-term boy. She said she wasn’t sure if the baby was alive since its heart was still beating and she harvested its brain by cutting his head open starting with the chin. Do you recall that?” She said she didn’t. “There is nothing she has ever described,” Richards claimed, “that I could attest to has ever happened.” Based on hours of footage, the findings of the House Select Panel on Infant Lives, and the testimony of this one (out of who-knows-how-many) young Minnesota mother, it does happen. And obviously, the practice is far more widespread than Planned Parenthood, its president, or our former president will ever admit.
Murdering an innocent human being is not, and never has been, a constitutional right. That’s true whether the person is nine seconds old or 90 years old. Join Leader McCarthy, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and 60 of her co-sponsors by calling your House member and supporting the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act. Even one lost baby is too many.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/011018_bornalive_700x400-e1515627240633.png366640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-01-10 18:34:342018-01-10 18:34:34The House’s Born Ultimatum
Most Americans were probably drop-jawed to learn there was a state in the union where government overseers prohibited the people from pumping their own gas. The ultra-progressive and ever-controlling Oregon Legislature had banned this otherwise normal behavior for more than 50 years, ostensibly to provide some form of protection for its residents.
This is the practical reality of the general principle that government coddling creates entitlement, pampered residents with fewer freedoms, and reduced abilities to live independently. Oregon has been telling its residents for generations they are incapable of pumping their own gas, and now there are generations of Oregonians who are terrified at the prospect of doing what more than 300 million other Americans do without a thought.
The first thing that comes to mind are the scenes from the animated Pixar movie Wall-E, where the remainder of earth’s population cruise the galaxy on the spaceship Axiom. The passengers are so dependent on the automated ship that they have become obese, too feeble to walk and incapable of caring for themselves. They definitely would not have been able to pump their own gas.
But now the Oregon Legislature moved partially into the 1980s when it recently passed a law allowing rural gas stations to let people pump their own gas. Portlandians are still safe from the ordeal; government continues to protect them from gas pump handles. But others in the supposed rugged rural areas are outraged at the change (because outrage comes easily these days.)
Take a look at some of these Facebook comments from Oregonians in response to the legislature catching up to 1980 America:
“I don’t even know HOW to pump gas and I am 62, native Oregonian … I say NO THANKS! I don’t like to smell like gasoline!” one woman commented.
“No! Disabled, seniors, people with young children in the car need help,” another woman wrote. “Not to mention getting out of your car with transients around and not feeling safe too. This is a very bad idea. Grr.”
“I’ve lived in this state my whole life and I refuse to pump my own gas. This is a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas.”
This is really a thing in Oregon. Most of the rest of the country may laugh and mock them (except big-government nanny state New Jersey, the only remaining state with such a law) but people long relying on government-forced service don’t like losing that service. They believe they have an entitlement.
“I think that we are getting tarnished in social media,” Lizzy Acker, a reporter for The Oregonian, told NPR. Well, yes. There’s sort of a reason for that. But Acker is confident in Oregonians ability to actually pump their own gas. “And I think most Oregonians are self-sufficient enough to figure out how to pump their own gas.”
Just read that statement. There may not be a better example of how progressivism breeds dependency on government — more and more power for government over weaker and weaker people. Not surprisingly — to people who understand how capitalism works — Oregon is one of the most expensive states in the union for a gallon of gas.
Oregon’s 56-year gas-pumping law is a cautionary example of how more government regulation and control immediately limits freedoms and breeds dependence and entitlement.
Perhaps one day, all Americans will be free to pump their own gas. But only if they choose leaders with a vision for freedom over governmental dominion.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/oregon-welcome-sign.jpg356640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-01-10 18:18:312018-01-10 18:18:31Entitlement Kicks in Over Oregon Self-Service Gas Pumps
Did you ever wish you could buy liberals for what you know they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth? A common theme among progressives is that conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re dumb. Reagan was dumb. G.W. Bush was dumb. Trump is dumb. “Knuckle-dragger,” “mouth-breather,” “stupid” and “uncultured” are typical pejoratives hurled at conservatives, who apparently tend to live in trailer parks, require dental care, handle snakes and marry first cousins. Why, I had a liberal actor (excuse the redundancy) tell me once that I wasn’t necessarily bad, just not as “evolved” as he was. (I had a great retort at the ready, but decided to just lash him with my tail instead.)
The reason for this arrogance isn’t as simple as many may think, as it relates to a deep psychological phenomenon that makes it difficult for those afflicted to evolve out of the leftist primordial soup.
I’ll introduce this with a story. Many years ago I was at an affair attended by a very chauvinistic, left-wing Greek fellow who would expound upon the superiority of Greek culture while at times demeaning the U.S. He was like the father character in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, only with an anti-American twist. Desiring to take him down a peg and do a little face-to face trolling, I finally said with a smirk, “If all that’s true, why is Greece now like a Third World country?” (For those offended, know that I have great respect for ancient Greek accomplishments, just love moussaka and have the physique of a Spartan hoplite.)
Well, I exaggerate not when saying he turned red and, with veins popping out in his neck, exclaimed, “Don’t say that! Don’t say that!!” It was the kind of situation where you get the feeling the guy might take a swing at you.
His intense reaction wasn’t hard to explain. His self-esteem, his self-image, were wholly dependent upon the idea that he was a member of an elite, a superior group, with which he identified so closely that there was little to no separation in his mind between it and him. This was something deeply ingrained, part of the fabric of his being. Thus, any challenge to this idea struck directly at an intractable self-image, threatening to upset his ego’s world order, which had him, through group association, at its very pinnacle.
This phenomenon is common. It’s often exhibited by those considering themselves part of a “master race” or any kind of special group. It can be very comforting: A person may not be very accomplished, intelligent or gifted and might otherwise feel quite inadequate. But his group association saves his psyche’s day, for whatever he is or isn’t, at least he’s not like those other people, those untouchables. What this means is that the claim to superiority is often a cover for feelings of inferiority.
Remember that at issue here isn’t a mere intellectual appreciation. For example, I truly believe Western culture (which did originate with ancient Greece, mind you) is superior to all others. Yet I derive no self-esteem from being a “Westerner”; it’s just not part of who I am. Rather, the phenomenon in question here is a deeply emotional one.
For this reason, it’s wholly resistant to intellectual appeals. You can’t logically talk someone out of something irrational on which his self-worth is entirely based. In fact, if it begins to dawn on such a person that his notions of superiority — and hence his self-image — rest on a lie, it will be intensely painful and depressing. The individual will thus have a strong incentive to rationalize this realization away.
I don’t claim that every single leftist derives his self-esteem from the notion he’s part of a superior group called “liberals,” nor does this phenomenon completely explain leftist resistance to reason. But it is common among devoted liberals, and it’s part of why, as a group, they can’t give traditionalist views a fair hearing. Doing so doesn’t just threaten their ideology; it threatens who they are, their entire self-image. Any argument that may give them even an inkling they may be wrong can induce a bit of panic and is thus quickly rationalized away — often as the rambling of uneducated, un-evolved mouth-breathers who just don’t know any better.
This phenomenon is exacerbated by two related factors. First, liberals are generally dysfunctional, vice-ridden people who embrace what we call liberalism because its underlying moral relativism/nihilism helps them justify their sins (they become the arbiters of their own “values” — “Everything is gray, a matter of perspective. I have my own ‘truth’”). Simultaneously, liberalism allows these virtue-bereft people to virtue-signal by paying homage to the day’s fashionable values. In other words, liberals are generally morally “unaccomplished” people who often have nothing to cling to but the illusion of intellectual, and often moral, superiority.
Second, conservatives are more likely to have authentic faith while liberals tend be to avowed or de facto atheists, which is why church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting patterns. This has an effect. Theists may, and hopefully will, recognize moral differences among people and groups; any tendency to become haughty, however, is often tempered by a divine injunction prescribing humility and the knowledge that we’re all sinners, part of a fallen race. Love for others is also demanded. But atheism involves no such requirements; in fact, its correlative moral relativism/nihilism (explained here) makes “If it feels good, do it” the ultimate guide for behavior. Moreover, unable to look up at divine perfection, and with the individual becoming his own source of (pseudo) “morality,” the self is often exalted, the ego deified. Like a pharaoh believing he’s a god on Earth, it then becomes easy to look down on others.
Just as liberalism is defined not by an unchanging set of doctrines but by opposition to conservatism and what it defends — the status quo — godless liberals can only judge themselves relative to other people. And being moral train wrecks, they can’t really be happy. But, hey, whatever they may or mayn’t be, Mr. Conservative, at least they’re not you. And that’s one status quo they’re dead set on maintaining.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/PEOPLE-LOOKING-DOWN.jpg360640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2018-01-10 10:57:022018-01-10 10:57:21Leftist Arrogance: Why Liberals ‘Need’ to Look Down on Conservatives
As you get older, you discover there are fewer shades of gray in life. As you gain experience, you tend to see things more in terms of black-and-white. You now possess an appreciation of what works and what doesn’t, which is why people ask for your advice. Some would say you become less tolerant of others but the truth is you’ve simply been down that road before and don’t want to revisit it. From this, you learn the subtle truths of how the world works.
The United States is a beautiful concept; the land of opportunity founded as a Constitutional Republic. I have been fortunate to see many different systems around the world, but I believe we have it better than just about everyone else. However, we are not without faults, ugly truths about who we are and how we operate. It’s what makes us tick and provides insight into the American psyche.
What follows is what I refer to as the ugly truth of America; things we all know are true but don’t want to admit. Consequently, we have learned to accept them and adapted our lives accordingly.
1. Yes, Americans are not really happy with their lives. I tend to believe this is caused by the tension we are under, both financially and politically. Norway is considered the happiest country on the planet. The USA isn’t even in the Top 10; currently we are at #14, having dropped one point from 2016. Americans seem to be most happy when they score a personal victory, not necessarily as a team. For example, an individual will relish a job promotion even if the company is struggling to survive. Strange. As an aside, I didn’t see too many smiles during the recent holidays. Shoppers all seemed to be resigned to their fate and wore sour pusses on their faces. If you happen to greet someone pleasantly they typically look at you suspiciously.
2. Yes, there is a privileged class in America. As much as we would like to believe the law serves everyone equally, this is simply not true. Money and celebrity buys influence in this country and puts people above the law, if for no other reason they can purchase the finest legal minds in the country. Rarely are such people jailed. This also means America is a politically charged nation where advancement is based not necessarily on performance, but who you know and how you know them. We see this in companies, both commercial and nonprofit, as well as in government.
3. Yes, America embraces a drug culture. The country recently recognized opioid drugs as bad, but we somehow see no connection to marijuana. The reality is, America wants to remain high all the time and, as such, is the #1 consumer of drugs. To prove it, see how far you get trying to recall legislation regarding recreational or medicinal marijuana in this country.
4. Yes, Americans are addicted to technology. Even though it stunts our maturation process and empathy for others, our sense of humor and communication skills, and our ability to socialize, Americans cannot live without their personal technology. Then again, neither can most of the world.
5. Yes, Americans are historically ignorant. When you compare the USA to other countries, Americans are grossly in the dark regarding the past. This leads to misunderstandings regarding the principles of government (the Electoral College is an excellent example), and dooms us to commit prior mistakes repetitiously. It’s interesting, in an age where technology affords us 24/7 news and info, most millennials are ignorant of our past and how their country works. As the famed American historian David McCullough observed, “We are raising a generation that is historically illiterate and have a very sketchy, thin knowledge of the system on which our entire civilization is based on. It is regrettable and dangerous.”
6. Yes, the American public is sheeple. Most use limited brainpower in their daily affairs and, as such, are weak willed and can be easily manipulated by the media. This is likely related to their addiction to drugs and technology. Due to changing values, Americans today lack common sense. They do not want to know the truth, preferring instead only the news and information corresponding to their way of thinking. This is to be expected as the media is unable to offer the American people factual news, only spin.
7. Yes, the system is fixed. Donald Trump hit a hot button when he first brought this subject up in the 2016 election, but it is found not just in politics, but in just about everything else; e.g., job progression in companies and nonprofits. This explains why there are so many suck-ups in the land. Americans have been taught to lie and cheat at all costs to attain goals. Instead of living in a “win-win” environment whereby both parties can achieve prosperity together, we now live in an age of “win-lose” meaning we can only win at the cost of the other party losing.
8. Yes, Americans are reactionaries, not pro-active planners. We prefer allowing our opponents to knock us down before we are stirred to action. There are many examples to illustrate the point, e.g., Hurricane Katrina, Pearl Harbor, 911, the USS Maine, etc. This is a severe weakness we possess, something the rest of the world is cognizant of.
9. Yes, programmers control everything, be it our televisions, automobiles, communication devices, business equipment, etc. But know this, programmers will only do what is best for them, not the end-user. What is intuitive to the programmer is not so for the rest of us. Most useful tools are designed by accident, not on purpose. As such, they control the mindware of the public.
10. Yes, most Americans do not know how to drive. The USA is #1 in terms of automobile accidents, head-and-shoulders above everyone else. Because of self-absorption, we are preoccupied doing everything else other than driving cars in an alert manner; e.g., People texting and talking on the phone, eating, doing drugs or drinking, applying makeup, etc. Electric cars will likely cure this over time, another sign we are losing our freedom and independence.
11. Yes, American morality is in decline, representing a sign of decay to our culture. For example, loyalty is in decline and can be purchased by the highest bidder. Interest in organized religion and patriotism are also in decline. We also tend to lack empathy for others and consequently are self-absorbed. Our sense of right-and-wrong is split along political ideologies, thereby denoting the true division in the country.
One thing we are not is a nation of racists.
We are a melting pot of people living in a highly competitive society. I cannot think of another country with as many different types of cultures, a true heterogeneous society where each group tries to outperform the others. Some respond positively to competition, others do not. I do not believe we are devoid of racism completely, it is inevitable in a mixed racial society, but there are probably more racists outside of the United States today than there are inside. I find the use of the “racist” label in America today is more of a diversionary tactic for political purposes as opposed to possessing any true substance.
Some will say America is a land where you cannot win. This is simply not true as the Constitution was deliberately designed to provide the individual with certain unalienable rights, particularly opportunity, yet there are no guarantees for success. This is the bedrock of capitalism.
Some will also accuse me of being a pessimist in my assessment of the United States, but I am not, as Twain would suggest, I am an optimist who hasn’t arrived yet.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/american-eagle-1-e1515589109927.jpg379640Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2018-01-10 07:58:472018-01-10 08:37:53The Ugly Truth About America
I recently attended a meeting of the Media Roundtable in Sarasota, FL. The group of over 40 attendees are former owners, executives, leaders, reporters and TV personalities in the news/media industry. The discussion came up about the First Amendment. All agreed that the First Amendment was critical to a Constitutional Republican form of government. The vast majority of those in attendance self identify as Democrats.
Recently White House strategist Stephen Miller appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper. The interview briefly made the headlines because of Tapper cutting off the interview by saying “I think I’ve wasted enough of my viewers’ time.” As a former radio talk show host I learned that it is best to allow a guest on my program the freedom to express themselves and let the audience decide how to interpret the interview.
QUESTION: Is CNN and Mr. Tapper interested in allowing freedom of speech?
You decide after watching a followup interview done with Mr. Miller by Tucker Carlson on the Fox News Channel:
FULL TRANSCRIPT, VIA FOX NEWS:
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Stephen Miller joins us tonight.
Stephen Miller, thanks a lot for coming on.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE POLICY ADVISER: Hey. Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: So, CNN called around to news organizations and said you were escorted off the set by security. Presumably you are not a physical threat, you are not armed. My question is, but they thought you were a threat. Do you think if you have been, I don’t know, a member of MS-13 here illegally, that CNN would have had security pull you off the set?
MILLER: I assume if I was a member of MS-13 here illegally, they would be clamoring to get me into the voting booth. But I think that — I think that like many things CNN says, like this story has the most important virtue of all CNN stories as being not true.
CARLSON: Well, here’s what we know is true, and here’s what —
MILLER: An amazing true, but not —
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: — what was striking to me about the whole thing. So, there was a video apparently taken without your knowledge of you on the set after the segment ended during the commercial break, and someone apparently from CNN, I don’t know who else would have access to it, leaked that to other news organizations.
What do you make of that?
MILLER: Well, it’s just another example of CNN’s very low journalistic standards. But I was glad to have people hear what I said on camera and off camera, which that CNN has been extraordinarily biased, extraordinarily unfair to the president and is not giving their information — their viewers honest information.
CARLSON: So, you wanted to talk about immigration. And the DACA debate is obviously the focus of a lot of energy in the Congress right now. The priorities for the administration you have said are, ending chain migration, financing a border wall and ending the diversity lottery. Of those three, what would you say is the most important priority from your point of view?
MILLER: Well, look, we need them all because the reality is that anything you do on DACA is going to have some predictable consequences, right? You’re going to have an increase in new illegal immigration, so you need to have a wall. You need to close the enforcement loopholes.
And then you’re also going to have an increase in the overall number of people coming into the country and that’s what you have to deal with chain migration. You have to deal with the visa lottery. And these are crucial reforms to make the system work for Americans.
You know, Donald Trump has a very radical idea and that’s that when we make changes to our immigration laws, the group we should be most concerned about are everyday hardworking Americans, the citizens who make this country run, who obey the laws, follow the rules, pay their taxes, show up and vote — the people who are loyal to this country. And Donald Trump is saying our country should be loyal to them in return.
CARLSON: So, Democrats argue back that ending chain migration and ending the diversity lottery would prevent a lot of people — decent people from coming into this country. What’s their argument against financing the border wall?
MILLER: Well —
CARLSON: Why do you think they oppose that?
MILLER: Well, as you know, I mean, they all voted for a border barrier, a hard physical border barrier back in 2006, the Secure Fence Act. Joe Biden voted for it, Barack Obama voted for it. Hillary Clinton voted for, et cetera.
So, that’s — that’s just a new position they apparently have that they are opposed to any form of border security.
CARLSON: What animated it? Why is that an absolute sticking point for Democrats? A bunch of them have said, including in leadership, we’re not supporting anything that includes financing a border wall? Why?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: — anything to that?
MILLER: Look, if Democrats oppose a border wall, they’re just saying they want continued, unendingly illegal immigration.
But let me deal with other question, too. You talk about you guys say, well, you know, if you have chain migration, it could keep good people out. There are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them are good, hardworking, decent, honest, principled people. But the reality is there’s a limit to how many people any country can bring in. And we as a country have a right to say we want to bring people based on their ability to contribute to our economy, to be safe, productive citizens, and to uplift the nation as a whole.
You think about our current system of chain migration, Tucker. So, over the last 10 years, we’ve admitted about 10 million people through our chain migration system.
To understand how many people that is, you’re talking about every hour, that’s about the size of a high school auditorium. Every day, it’s the size of a large high school. Every week, a small city. Every month, a medium to average size city. And every year, a very large city, a city the size of Washington, D.C., or almost a San Francisco, every single year, just through chain migration.
What’s the effect of that on taxpayers? What’s the effect of that on wage earners? What’s the effect of that —
CARLSON: And that’s illegal.
MILLER: Right. That’s just folks coming in on green cards through chain migration.
CARLSON: So, what’s the — I always ask this question of proponents of immigration, including of illegal immigration. What is the ideal number of immigrants, people from other countries, moving here every year?
MILLER: Right. And oftentimes, they won’t have an answer to that question.
CARLSON: Well, what’s your answer?
MILLER: The — I mean, I have — I have my own views on it, but I think the important point is ending chain migration, as the president has called for, is necessary not just for economic security but for national security.
You saw the recent attempted terrorist attack in New York. The individual who came here — was brought to the chain migration system, right? They came through her nephew’s green card.
CARLSON: Right.
MILLER: And that’s just not a smart way for a country to run its immigration system.
CARLSON: So, what should be the criteria for entry in the United States?
MILLER: Well, you know, Donald Trump supported the RAISE Act. And it looked at things like, what’s your proficiency in the language? What economic skills do you have? Do have a background in sciences? Do you have a background in engineering? Do you have a background in law or writing?
It looked at things like your age. Obviously, you bring in immigrants who are in their 80s or 90s, that’s going to have a significant expense on society. So, you wanted folks primarily in their working years.
CARLSON: But what about — I mean, we interviewed someone last week and said, who will pick the strawberries? I mean, how many immigrants, low-wage, low skilled immigrants do we need a year for the ag sector?
MILLER: Well, as you know, only about 1 percent of the immigrant population of the country works in agriculture. So, it’s discussed a lot but it’s a very small portion of the overall labor force. The typical jobs that a lower skilled immigration worker might do might be construction work, it might be hospitality work, it might be restaurant work, or might be not working at all and just going onto the welfare system if there isn’t a job for that individual.
CARLSON: So, if there’s no clear economic rationale for an immigration system and it doesn’t sound like there is one, there’s no economists saying we need to bring in this number of low skilled immigrants, then why does the Democratic Party support our current system and want to liberalize the current system so vehemently? What motivates them?
MILLER: Well, you are asking the right question, but I think the context of this debate, the question that the president is putting forth for the American people is when we have an immigration system, whose needs are we fundamentally trying to serve? The needs of special interests? The needs of politicians, the needs of foreign countries and foreign nationals, the needs of our own country and our own workers?
And so, at the end of the day, our hope for a bipartisan deal is that you can have enough Democrats say that listening to the voters and the voice of the American people, we want a system that serves American workers first. And what Donald Trump has done that’s so exceptional is for the first time that I can remember, for the first time you can probably remember, we have a president of this country who when he talks but immigration, he talks about what is right for the everyday hardworking person.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: We’re almost out of time, so I just want to get to one quick political question, which is: Democrats have said they are not going to come to any deal with these three components in it — border wall, reducing chain migration, ending diversity lottery. Where’s the wiggle room on the White House side?
MILLER: Look, Democrats ultimately have to make a choice. They care a lot about providing benefit to illegal immigrants. We’re saying to them, if you want to make a deal, then you have to both deliver benefits for American families and American taxpayers too. And if both sides are willing to agree with those terms, Tucker, then we can have a deal.
And most importantly, we can have an immigration system that 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now produces more assimilation, higher wages, more economic opportunity and better prospect for immigrants and U.S.-born alike.
CARLSON: Stephen Miller, thank you.
MILLER: Hey. Thank you.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/White-House-strategist-Stephen-Miller.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-01-10 07:42:142018-01-10 07:48:57VIDEO: White House Strategist Stephen Miller on CNN-Tapper Fiasco, Immigration, Chain Migration, The Wall
For every parent who’s tried to tell their teenage kids that “everyone’s not doing it,” here’s proof! According to the CDC’s new nationwide report, the number of high school students who said they’ve ever had sex dropped from 47 percent in 2005 to 41 percent in 2015. The good news is even better for African American students, who showed improvements across the board, followed by Hispanics who practiced more abstinence in three of the four grades.
None of this is thanks to President Obama, researchers say. After two terms of the last administration’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” approach, most experts agree he accomplished one thing: making the situation worse. “Compared with their peers,” a 2016 study by the American Journal of Public Health found, “teenagers in the [government’s programs] were more likely to begin having sex… and more likely to get pregnant.” And it’s no wonder. The curriculum was so extreme that 40 percent of young people actually said they felt more pressure to engage in sex from their sex ed classes than from their boyfriends or girlfriends!
In other words, the Obama administration wasn’t just wasting money on an approach that doesn’t work but also makes the problems worse! Fortunately, conservatives in Congress have been steadily chipping away at the dollars America is wasting on these failures. Under the latest spending bill, Republicans take direct aim at the $110 million money pit of the liberals’ Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs and start redirecting a portion of it to a message that even Obama’s CDC reluctantly endorsed: abstinence.
And guess what? This approach isn’t just what works, but what teenagers want. According to our friends at Ascend, most young people support saving sex for marriage. Most of them don’t like the idea of casual sex, want to wait, or wish they’d waited longer. When the CDC released its latest numbers on teen sex, researchers were stumped. Most people just assumed kids were having sex. And maybe that’s part of the problem. We’re so busy teaching about birth control that we don’t even bother with self-control.
Somewhere along the way, it became assumed, not discouraged, that teenagers would have sex. And as a result, we have an entire area of teen education accelerates the risks instead of curbing them. Think about the other behaviors that can devastate a young person’s life. We don’t tell kids to drink less. We tell them not to drink, period. The same with smoking. We don’t hand them filters assuming that they’ll light up anyway. We challenge them not to.
Most teenagers want to be challenged to stay pure too. Unfortunately, there just aren’t enough people teaching them how. Maybe parents are too embarrassed to talk about sex or think their kids aren’t listening. Well, I’ve got news for you — they are. Valerie Huber, who left Ascend to take a leadership post in Trump’s Health and Human Services Department, knows from personal experience: “The healthiest message for youth is one that gives youth the skills and information to avoid the risks of teen sex, not merely reduce them. This is a message that is relevant in 2016, since the majority of teens have not had sex, far fewer, in fact, than 20 years ago.” It’s time to adapt our thinking, our strategies, and our public policy to an approach that makes the most sense for our kids and their future. And based on the latest research, that isn’t Obama’s.
This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/high-school-students-e1515547083453.jpg367640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-01-09 20:18:272018-01-09 20:18:27Number of High School Students Who Have Had Sex Drops
Former Google employee James Damore is suing Google, accusing the tech giant of discrimination against conservatives and whites.
The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Gonzalez joins us to discuss that lawsuit, Silicon Valley’s diversity problem, and why the Census should stop dividing Americans into six ethnic categories.
Plus: President Donald Trump shows his love for the national anthem, and the author of “Fire and Fury” won’t release the tape recordings.
Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.
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.
In our through-the-looking-glass world, we so often view matters backwards without even realizing it. Take DACA (actually, leave it), where even many conservatives consider it a given that the individuals covered under it must somehow be granted amnesty.
Overlooked is that they’ve already been granted amnesty.
Consider: Imagine you return from a trip to find someone has broken into your home, is squatting there and is eating your food and using your services. Might you not call the police? Might this invader not be charged with various crimes, such as breaking and entering, trespassing and theft?
Now, let’s say that for some reason you feel compassion for the individual — maybe because he’s a young adult whose father broke open your door and told him to make himself at home — and instead of pressing charges, you just tell him he must leave your place and never return. How would you react if, after exhibiting such mercy, a community activist called you bigoted and intolerant and insisted you grant “amnesty” by allowing the interloper to live with you permanently? Would you not be outraged and point out that you’re already granting amnesty by not pressing charges? In fact, the attack on your character might stiffen your resolve to expel the trespasser.
This is largely analogous to the situation with the DACA illegals: They have already received amnesty. We’re not going to punish them for remaining in our country, even though they’ve long known their presence here was a violation of law. We’re not even going to demand they reimburse us for the American services (e.g., education, handouts) from which they’ve greatly benefitted. They’re way ahead of the game (and we’re being played). Insisting someone return to his native land is not punishment. It’s mercy. It simply amounts to making things right.
Of course, we often hear the argument that the “DREAMers” — a sickening, manipulative propaganda term if ever there were one (how about “Schemers”?) — are enriching the U.S. Contrary to this assertion, however, DACA recipients have considerably lower educational attainment than do American citizens. Almost a quarter are functionally illiterate, 73 percent live in low-income housing and only four percent complete college, according to certain studies. Allowing DACA individuals — who range from high-school age to middle age — to stay, “is really the importation of an additional underclass,” as American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson puts it. (It’s also the importation of future Democrat voters.)
Having said this, let’s for a moment assume Invasion USA advocates are right about DACA aliens’ achievement. They then should stop being selfish and allow these bursting-with-potential people to enrich their native lands. Talk about cultural appropriation: We suck the best and brightest from these Third World countries and then wonder why they’re in shambles. You leftists ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Denuding a developing nation of its intellectual capital is a type of resource rape.
Returning to my analogy (and to seriousness), why aren’t we outraged about the DACA appeals, as we’d be if someone insisted we coddle a home invader? Sadly, it’s because we’re no longer a nation, properly defined. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family (think: the Sioux Nation); it’s one united people — not disparate peoples trying to coexist within the same borders.
Whether large or small, whether a family in a home or national family, such a cohesive entity will naturally defend the home front from invaders. In contrast, a balkanized country, a land of strangers, doesn’t react as viscerally to the introduction of more strangers. It has already been diversified out of its defense mechanisms.
Everyone should be mindful that we have, quite generously, already offered amnesty. We’re not insisting on DACA — Draconian Action against Childhood Arrivals. The Schemers just need to go home.
Anyway, that would be the dominant attitude in a nation. As for us…well, that’s a different matter.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/daca-1.jpg357640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2018-01-09 09:33:372018-01-09 09:33:37Truth on DACA: We’ve Already Granted Amnesty to These Illegals
