BACK TO THE FUTURE: Hollywood is Out of Control. Is it Time to Reinstate Public ‘Morality Codes’?

Chris Lewis from the University of Colorado Boulder produced a short historical report on the The Production Code of 1930, known as The Hays Code. To read The Production Code published on March 31, 1930 click here.

The historical report states:

From virtually the earliest years of their existence, movies were regarded by many people as a baleful influence on public morality. In the United States, censorship was exercised pretty much on a local option basis. Many states and individual cities had their own censorship boards that often ordered the deletion of shots, scenes, and/or title cards before a film could be exhibited within its borders, sometimes banning films outright. The fact that a film was banned somewhere was very often turned into a marketing ploy to gain publicity in other, less easily offended cities. [Emphasis added]

Lewis noted:

By 1922, however, spurred by several recent high-profile scandals involving Hollywood celebrities, calls for some type of federal action were heard. In self-defense, motion picture producers passed a succession of moral rules or “codes” meant to guide the content of motion pictures, overseen by former postmaster Will Hays and often referred to as the “Hays Code.” [Emphasis added]

Karl Marx said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” The Production Code of 1930 was in-part a reaction to the “first sexual revolution” which, according to Wikipedia, was during the Roaring Twenties after World War I and it included writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edna Saint Vincent Millay, and Ernest Hemingway.

It appears that Hollywood is repeating itself and is seen by many as farcical.

In 2017 Americans saw Hollywood battered by an ongoing series of sex scandals first reported in an October 5th, 2017 New York Times article titled “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades.” This story, coupled with growing numbers of both actors and actresses coming forward to report sexual abuses, has led to the #MeToo movement.

Lewis wrote:

In 1930, therefore, a new code—which came to be known as the Hollywood Production Code—was written. The industry accepted it nominally, although many movies stretched it to its limits or simply ignored it, prompting more public outcry. Movies made between 1930-34 are thus often referred to as “pre-code,” even though the Production Code was theoretically in effect. Many filmmakers during this period tried to stretch the code to its limits, if not defying it outright, especially in their use of sexual innuendoes, risqué costumes, and implicitly immoral characters. [Emphasis added]

In 1968 The Production Code of 1930 was abandoned by Hollywood and replaced by a letter rating system for movies, which, slightly modified, is still used today. This change in ratings was in-part a reaction to the “second sexual revolution.” According to Wikipedia,

[T]he age of changes in perception and practices of sexuality that developed from around 1960 was to reach mainstream America, most of western Europe, and parts of Asia. Indeed, the available quantitative evidence demonstrates that measures of non-traditional sexual behavior (e.g., gonorrhea incidence, births out of wedlock, and births to teenagers) began to rise dramatically in the mid to late 1950s. It brought about profound shifts in the attitudes to women’s sexuality, homosexuality, pre-marital sexuality and the freedom of sexual expression.

Psychologists and scientists such as Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey influenced the revolution, as well as literature and films, and the social movements of the period, including the counterculture movement, the women’s movement, and the gay rights movement. The counterculture contributed to the awareness of radical cultural change that was the social matrix of the sexual revolution. [Emphasis added]

Lewis wrote this about the current system of ratings:

… [The] Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) letter ratings was first established in 1968 (and later slightly modified), freeing filmmakers to include whatever content they desired and submit it for an official rating. These ratings, however, were not based upon moral values or attitudes (as the Production Code’s guidelines had emphasized), but simply upon the content itself. Somewhat vague quotas for levels of violence, sexual activity or discussions, nudity, and profanity were used to divide films into groups, with a letter assigned to give viewers a rough idea of what it might or might not contain. [Emphasis added]

Perhaps it is time to go back to a system based upon ‘moral values or attitudes” in order to save future generations?

Hollywood has become the purveyor of immorality and politics for profit. Hollywood actively promotes the counterculture, the pro-choice women’s, and the gay rights movements. While it is true that the individual can decide not to go the a particular movie because it does not appeal to their sensibilities. The rapid growth of streaming videos on YouTube, via smart phones, computers, and tablets, make it nearly impossible to control content.

It may be time to go back to insure the future. Why? Because in 2018 movies are regarded by many people as a baleful influence on public morality.

President Trump has made defending religious liberty a hallmark of his administration. It may be time for cities, states and Congress to defend morality and re-institute “morality codes” for not only movies but online and streaming content?

What do you think?

RELATED ARTICLE: Hollywood ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and its happening again!

The Sex-Change Revolution Is Based on Ideology, Not Science

Twenty-eight years ago, the release of “When Harry Met Sally” highlighted one big debate: whether men and women could really be just friends.

That question may still be up in the air, but now we are being forced to confront a more fundamental debate: whether men can really become women.

America is in the midst of what has been called a “transgender moment.” In the space of a year, transgender issues went from something that most Americans had never heard of to a cause claiming the mantle of civil rights.

But can a boy truly be “trapped” in a girl’s body? Can modern medicine really “reassign” sex? Is sex something “assigned” in the first place? What’s the loving response to a friend or child experiencing a gender identity conflict? What should our law say on these issues?

These shouldn’t be difficult questions.

Just a few years before “When Harry Met Sally” hit theaters, Dr. Paul McHugh thought he had convinced the vast majority of medical professionals not to go along with bold claims about sex and gender being proffered by some of his colleagues. And as chair of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, McHugh put a stop to sex-reassignment surgery at Hopkins.

Once the elite Johns Hopkins did this, many medical centers across the nation followed suit.

But in recent years we have seen a resurgence of these drastic procedures—not in light of new scientific evidence, mind you, but as a result of a growing ideological movement. Such is our transgender moment.

The people increasingly in the spotlight of this moment are children.

In the past 10 years, dozens of pediatric gender clinics have sprung up throughout the United States. In 2007, Boston Children’s Hospital “became the first major program in the United States to focus on transgender children and adolescents,” as its own website brags.

A decade later, over 45 gender clinics opened their doors to our nation’s children—telling parents that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be the only way to prevent teen suicides.

Never mind that according to the best studies—the ones that even transgender activists themselves cite—80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will come to identify with and embrace their bodily sex.

Never mind that 41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. Never mind that people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide.

These statistics should stop us in our tracks. Clearly, we must work to find ways to effectively prevent these suicides and address the underlying causes. We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging children to “transition.”

Many psychologists and psychiatrists think of gender dysphoria as similar to other dysphorias, or forms of discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia. The feelings of discomfort can lead to mistaken beliefs about oneself or about reality, and then to actions in accordance with those false beliefs.

The most helpful therapies focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.

Operating in the background is a sound understanding of physical and mental health—proper function of one’s body and mind—and a sound understanding of medicine as a practice aimed at restoring health, not simply satisfying the desires of patients.

For human beings to flourish, they need to feel comfortable in their own bodies, readily identify with their sex, and believe that they are who they actually are.

In my new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” I argue that McHugh got it right. 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.

In my book I offer a balanced approach to the policy issues, a nuanced vision of human embodiment, and a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

Despite activists’ best efforts to put up a unified front, Harry cannot become Sally. Activists’ desperate insistence to the contrary suggests that the transgender moment is fleeting.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment

Planned Transgenderhood

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

VIDEO: Schumer Shutdown Makes Clear Democrats’ Real Priorities

A couple of days before the shutdown, Genevieve Wood recorded this commentary, which you can either watch above or read below.  Since then, Senate Democrats, whose leader is Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., did indeed refuse to join Republicans to vote for a spending bill, and so the government did shut down. 

As you may have heard, a government shutdown is looming here in D.C. Many of you out there watching probably think, “So what? That can be a good thing. Less of Washington, fewer bureaucrats telling us what to do and how to spend our money.”  Those are all good points.

But that is not why Democrats are threatening to shut down the government.

Let’s keep in mind this is the same party that is always telling us if we shut down the government, this will be a travesty for millions of Americans, so many government programs and services will be unmet.

But yet they’re still willing to do so. Why is that?

Well, it’s because their liberal base is demanding that in this election year they put the needs and desires of those who are here in this country illegally before anybody else.

So if you’re an American who wants to live in a safe community and wants a safe border, too bad for you. If you’re a man or woman serving in our military, sworn to protect us around the world, well, we’re just not going to get those funds in that the military may need. And if you’re somebody who is not an American citizen but you’re standing in line because you, too, want to have a chance at the American dream and you’re trying to do it the right way? To all of those folks, Democrats are saying, “Get to the back of the line. ”

Now for all of you of [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] recipients out there who may feel as though you’re kind of a pawn in this whole thing: Well, you have a reason to believe that. Keep in mind Democrats have made promises to you before. But when Barack Obama was president, Nancy [Pelosi] was running the House, Harry [Reid] was running the Senate—for two years, Democrats were in control of the White House and Congress, they did absolutely nada.

That’s why Democrats are willing to shut down government. The reality is they don’t really want a deal on immigration. They talk about addressing the needs of the DACA population, but they have no time to address the other side of the immigration issue, border security and enforcement.

Here’s the deal. Democrats are fearful that President [Donald] Trump and Republicans could go into the midterm elections with both victories on tax cuts and immigration reform. So at the end of the day, that’s what all of this is about. It’s an election year, and that means politics, not people, are their priority.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Genevieve Wood

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Senate voted 81-18 to break a Democratic filibuster on a stalled government spending bill, clearing the way to end the three-day government shutdown. – Fox News

Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration – Washington Times

‘We Are Outraged!’ Illegal Alien Activists Turn on Democrats After Amnesty-or-Shutdown Fail – Breitbart News

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

I Went to the Women’s March. Here Are 11 Things I Saw.

WARNING: This article contains adult content, due to the nature of signs and words used as part of the Women’s March.

Women wearing pink cat hats descended on the nation’s capital Saturday for a second time to march for women’s rights and protest a president they believe is disrespectful toward women.

“There’s a lot of inequality, especially when it comes to access to birth control, or health care, or abortion, or just women’s rights in general,” said one attendee from Minnesota who held a sign that read, “Saturdays are for the girls.”

As for President Donald Trump, she added, “He’s not my favorite.”

Compared to most attendees, this was toned down. Here are 11 things we saw and heard at the 2018 Women’s March in Washington.

1. Fewer people, equal passion.

The first Women’s March brought people to Washington, from near and far, but numbers this year were significantly smaller, not reaching the end of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Spirits, however, were equally as high.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

2. Women’s March attendees blocking pro-life protesters’ graphic signs.

Last year, pro-life groups were told they weren’t welcome at the Women’s March. This year, invited or not, they showed up—signs in hand.

Some of the pro-life signs were graphic, showing aborted babies at 20 weeks. In response to the graphic signs, pro-choice Women’s March attendees attempted to block the pro-life signs from being seen.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

3. “Transphobic” hats.

Despite concerns about the pink cat hats being intolerant toward transgender women and women of color, they were on wide display again.

Those concerns arose last year during a panel I attended at the Women’s Convention in Detroit, hosted by the Women’s March. That panel, using the full vulgarity for the female body part, was titled “Not All P—-es Are Pink and Not All Women Have P—-es.”

The panel’s description, also using the vulgar term, read: “P—y hats became the symbol of the Women’s March movement. But for many women, the p—y hats represent an erasure of women of color and trans women in the feminist movement—because not all p—-es are pink, and not all women have p—-es. This panel will address how to fully include trans women, particularly trans women of color, in the feminist movement.”

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

4. Vulgar signs protesting vulgarity.

In speaking to attendees, many women objected to Trump’s more controversial comments, such as the NBC “Access Hollywood” “grab her by the p—y” recording from 2005, and the alleged recent “s—hole” remarks.

However, the signs used by some Women’s March attendees to protest Trump were in some cases just as vulgar.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

5. Interesting costumes.

From witches to sharks, protesters found a way to relate their themes to Trump.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

6. U.S. Park Police protect attendees, despite a government shutdown.

During the 2013 government shutdown under the Obama administration, officials closed national parks, museums, and monuments, and in some cases, barricaded them off from the public.

Despite Congress’ failing to reach an agreement to keep the government open Friday night—which just happened to be the evening before the 2018 Women’s March—the Trump administration did all it could to minimize the impact of the shutdown, effectively allowing the march to go on as usual.

When I asked a U.S. Park Police officer why he was still working during a government shutdown, he responded: “Just because they didn’t do the right thing doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.”

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

7. Nonaligned lefty cat lovers who don’t like Trump.

Meow.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

8. “Beautiful weather.”

And some harmless trolling.

9. More vulgarity.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

10. “The Handmaid’s Tale”

The costume is inspired by by Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a book (and Hulu television series) about women who are oppressed and kept in captivity for reproductive purposes and  impregnated against their will. Last year, Planned Parenthood used this theme to protest the GOP health care bill, and since then, it’s a regular at women’s protests.

Awalin Sopan, of Northern Virginia, said she was scared when watching “Handmaid’s Tale.”

“I felt like, oh, this could happen,” she told Bre Payton of The Federalist and me.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

11. The First Amendment peacefully on full display.

Although there were some verbal clashes between pro-lifers and march participants, the Women’s March was a peaceful demonstration showcasing the power of the First Amendment.

(Photo: Kelsey Harkness/The Daily Signal)

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Podcast: The Difference Between the Women’s March and the March for Life

RELATED VIDEO: Lying, Shrieking Harpies: Women’s March 2018 | The Michael Knowles Show.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the second iteration of the Women’s March was held on Saturday, Jan. 20, 2018, in front of the Lincoln Memorial. (Photo: The Daily Signal/Kelsey Harkness)

Let Them Eat Cake: Pelosi hosts 192 Democrats at D.C. restaurant as military families go unpaid

Kristinn Taylor in a Gateway Pundit article reports:

According to media reports, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) invited the 192 Democrat Members of the House of Representatives out to dinner at a fancy Italian restaurant in Washington, D.C. Saturday during the first day of the government shutdown.

The restaurant is the Acqua Al 2 with a rather expensive a la carte menu with a salad costing $14, cheapest soup $8, cheapest dinner $12 and dessert $12. So the dinner, without drinks or beverages, cost Rep. Pelosi at approximately $46 per guest or about $8,882 to feed her 192 Democrat colleagues, not including a tip, for the night’s celebration.

At some point around 1789, when being told that her French subjects had no bread, Marie-Antoinette (bride of France’s King Louis XVI) supposedly sniffed, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—“Let them eat cake.”

Responding to a Jake Sherman tweet “PELOSI hosting a dinner for all House Dems tonight at aqua al 2, Thomas-S FL asked, “Can my @USArmy daughter go?”

It appears that Nancy Pelosi is just as obliviousness to the conditions and daily lives of ordinary people and members of the U.S. military as was Marie-Antoinette.

We know that Marie-Antoinette was convicted and sent to the guillotine on October 16, 1793. Will Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic Party face the same fate during the 2018 midterm elections 225 years after Marie-Antoinette’s demise? Time will tell.

RELATED VIDEO: Complicit

Whose to blame for the Government Shutdown? It boils down to the number “3”!

On Saturday, January 20th, 2018 at 7:44 p.m. EST House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent out a fundraising email titled “Paul Ryan just lied:” Rep. Pelosi wrote:

I just watched Paul Ryan blatantly lie on the House floor.

He blamed DEMOCRATS for this shutdown — and said we “refused to do our job.”

So who is right? Rep. Pelosi or Rep. Paul Ryan.

The House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the government on a continuing resolution. The bill was sent to the U.S. Senate for a vote. The U.S. Senate did not bring the bill up for a vote because a procedural motion failed to pass. Due to U.S. Senate rules the motion requires 60 votes to move the funding bill forward. The vote was 50 to 49 and the motion failed.

Who is actually responsible for this vote that stopped funding for the government? Answer: Those U.S. Senators who voted NO!

According to the vote:

  • Senator John McCain (R-AZ) DID NOT VOTE due to illness.
  • Two Independents voted NO.
  • Five Republicans voted NO.
  • Forty-two Democrats voted NO.

If all the Republicans, including John McCain, and the two Independent Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King voted YES, the bill would still have failed on a vote of 57 to 43. Therefore, to pass the procedural motion required 3 more Senate Democrats to vote YES.

Recall when Senator John McCain was the vote that killed the repeal of Obamacare and Democrats Celebrated his stance? Well, three Democrats killed the procedural motion which lead to the current government shutdown.

Should Rep. Nancy Pelosi be pointing fingers?

It is now up to voters in those states to decide if a NO vote, and the resulting government shutdown, will become a NO vote at the polls for those U.S. Senators up for re-election in 2018 who voted NO!

For as former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Tip O’Neill (D-MA) wrote, “All politics is local.”

ROLL CALL OF “NO” VOTES ON THE SENATE PROCEDURAL MOTION BY STATE:

Arizona
Sen. Jeff Flake, Republican: NO
Sen. John McCain, Republican: Did not vote
California
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat: NO
Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat: NO
Colorado
Sen. Michael Bennet, Democrat: NO
Connecticut
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Democrat: NO
Sen. Christopher Murphy, Democrat: NO
Delaware
Sen. Thomas Carper, Democrat: NO
Sen. Chris Coons, Democrat: NO
Florida
Sen. Bill Nelson, Democrat: NO
Hawaii
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat: NO
Sen. Brian Schatz, Democrat: NO
Illinois
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat: NO
Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat: NO
Kentucky
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republican: NO
Sen. Rand Paul, Republican: NO
Massachusetts
Sen. Edward Markey, Democrat: NO
Sen Elizabeth Warren, Democrat: NO
Maryland
Sen. Ben Cardin, Democrat: NO
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Democrat: NO
Maine
Sen. Angus King, Independent: NO
Michigan
Sen. Gary Peters, Democrat: NO
Sen. Debby Stabenow, Democrat: NO
Minnesota
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Democrat: NO
Sen. Tina Smith, Democrat: NO
Montana
Sen. Jon Tester, Democrat: NO
New Hampshire
Sen. Maggie Hassan, Democrat: NO
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat: NO
New Jersey
Sen. Cory Booker, Democrat: NO
Sen. Robert Menendez, Democrat: NO
New Mexico
Sen. Martin Heinrich, Democrat: NO
Sen. Tom Udall, Democrat: NO
Nevada
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Democrat: NO
New York
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat: NO
Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democrat: NO
Ohio
Sen. Sherrod Brown, Democrat: NO
Oregon
Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democrat: NO
Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat: NO
Pennsylvania
Sen. Bob Casey, Democrat: NO
Rhode Island
Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat: NO
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat: NO
South Carolina
Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican NO
Utah
Sen. Mike Lee, Republican: NO
Virginia
Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat: NO
Sen. Mark Warner, Democrat: NO
Vermont
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat: NO
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent: NO
Washington
Sen. Maria Cantwell, Democrat: NO
Sen. Patty Murray, Democrat: NO
Wisconsin
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat: NO

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House: Dems Are ‘Obstructionist Losers’ For Forcing Shutdown.

How senators voted on the government shutdown – CNN

Trump is right! Don’t bring Africa to America

This is an incredible report from Karin McQuillan at American Thinker thanks to reader George for sharing it.

Entitled:

What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right

It is one woman’s account of a year in Africa in which she describes the huge cultural chasm between African countries and America and she begins with one literal difference that relates to Trump’s supposed s***hole comment.

Africans in ConcordThree weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Last time I was in Paris, I saw a beautiful African woman in a grand boubou have her child defecate on the sidewalk next to Notre Dame Cathedral.  The French police officer, ten steps from her, turned his head not to see.

I have seen.  I am not turning my head and pretending unpleasant things are not true.

Senegal was not a hellhole.  Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms.  But they are not our terms.  The excrement is the least of it.  Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

Continue reading, I promise it will be well worth every minute of your time.

After you read the American Thinker piece, read this that came across my desk at the same time from “welcoming” Concord, NH. The liberal disconnect will be obvious.

RELATED VIDEO:  Shit Matters – An Introduction to Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS) from the British Medical Journal featuring Kamal Kar – the Godfather of CLTS.

Hollywood ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and its happening again!

In June 2013 a book titled “The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler” was published by Harvard University Press. The book was written by Ben Urwand, a Junior Fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows.  Urwand in his book asserts that Hollywood actively “collaborated” with Nazi Germany, hence the title “The Collaboration.” There are some who disagreed with Urwand’s assertion such as The New Yorker’s David Denby, who reviewed Urwand’s book and wrote an article titled “How Could Harvard Have Published Ben Urwand’s ‘The Collaboration’?

What both Urwand and Denby agree upon is that Hollywood, driven by profits, censored movies to appease a tyrannical government.

Denby in his article quotes Steven Alan Carr, author of “Hollywood and Anti-Semitism: A Cultural History Up to World War II.” Carr in an email to Denby stated,

“The idea that Hollywood collaborated with the Nazis mistakes a tactic for a strategy. The fact that those in Hollywood, rightly or wrongly, saw negotiations with the Nazis as a key way to leverage keeping American films in theatres abroad seems especially important.”

Whether tactic or strategy it is clear that the largest Hollywood studios wrongly worked with Adolf Hitler’s representatives to present Germany, the Nazi Party and the Aryan race in a favorable light, regardless of the truth.

KEY TAKE AWAY: In the 1930s Hollywood was driven by profit and did whatever it takes to sell its movies, even self-censor. What drives Hollywood is pure greed!

Adolf Hitler understood the political power of the silver screen. Hitler loved Hollywood movies. Hitler understood that foreign films would have a social impact on Germans. The Nazis were racists but wanted that fact hidden. Wikipedia notes:

Hitler made references to an “Aryan Race” founding a superior type of humanity. The purest stock of Aryans according to Nazi ideology was the Nordic people of Germany, England, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

The Nazis claimed that Germanic people specifically represented a southern branch of the Aryan-Nordic population. The Nazis did not consider all Germans to be of the Nordic type (which predominated the north), and stated that Germany also had a large “Alpine” population (identified by, among other features, shorter height and higher incidences of darker hair and eyes).

Hitler and Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther framed this as an issue to be corrected through selective breeding for “Nordic” traits.

DW.com writes this about Urwand’s book:

The US-based Australian scholar [Urwand] writes that American film bosses and functionaries started working closely with the Germans in the early 1930s, in order to ensure that their productions would run in Germany.

According to the historian, the Americans got themselves involved in an ominous deal, agreeing to editing stipulations for Hollywood productions and making sure that films didn’t contain criticism of the Nazi regime. They allegedly rejected projects that would have brought up the persecution of Jews in Germany, writes Urwand.

It was the behavior of MGM head Louis B. Mayer that gave Urwand the idea for his book. Mayer apparently showed the German consul in Los Angeles at the time all of MGM’s films – to get his approval before they ran. If the consul didn’t agree with a particular scene – say, because it put Germany in a negative light – then it was removed from the film. Mayer’s story inspired Urwand to embark on nine years of research.

Like other American companies such as IBM or General Motors, the Hollywood studios put profit over principles in their decision to do business with the Nazis, wrote Urwand, adding that the studio bosses, many of whom were Jewish immigrants, put up with a lot to maintain ties with Germany. [Emphasis added]

Today Hollywood is back to its old tricks of self-censoring but this time politics trumps profits.

According to The Verge domestic movie theater attendance has hit a 25-year low in 2017. The Verge reported:

Movie theater attendance in the US and Canada in 2017 fell to its lowest point since at least 1992, Bloomberg reportsBox Office Mojo estimates around 1.24 billion tickets were sold, a drop off of 5.8 percent from the previous year. Even with higher ticket prices, domestic revenue also dropped 2.7 percent from last year, from $11.4 billion to $11.1 billion.

 Question: Why? Answer: Politics!

Hollywood has become overtly political. A recent example is Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris.” A Truth Politics article titled “As Hollywood Tries To Stop New Patriotic Movie, Clint Eastwood Gives Them Brutal Surprise” reports:

His current film, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is in the final edits, but the Hollywood crowd hates it, and they tried to stop certain people from seeing it. The reason is the pro-American message it sends, described in this synopsis on Google: “In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe.”

The summary adds, “Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board. The heroic trio is comprised of Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, who play themselves in the film.”

Hollywood tried to limit the audience by giving the film an “R” rating. But Clint Eastwood fought back. Truth Politics noted:

The movie stirs real patriotic emotion and honors the three American heroes who have military backgrounds. It shows an Islamic terrorist, who gains entry into France as a migrant, attempting to slaughter 500 people, with three Americans stopping him. This just isn’t the type of movie the Hollywood crowd makes, and they tried to screw Eastwood by giving it an “R” rating.

The reason they gave for the “R” rating was it showed “violence,” and this pissed off Clint Eastwood, who is making this film so teens could also see a movie with real American values. It was a cheap shot by the liberal Hollywood idiots, and Eastwood decided that wasn’t going to happen. The legendary star shocked the Hollywood crowd by taking on the rating board himself, something that never happens. And, not only did he take them on, he blew them away.

“Clint Eastwood has won an appeal to overturn the R rating originally assigned to his upcoming film, The 15:17 to Paris. Instead, it will be rated PG-13. According to a source, the R rating was given for the train attack scene at the center of the film, which the Classification and Rating Administration described as ‘a sequence of violence and bloody images,’” reported Hollywood Reporter.

Like Hitler, who knew that a movie is a powerful form of propaganda, Hollywood is now using movies to propagandize.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Hollywood and Congressional Democrats are on the same page when it comes to changing minds via the silver screen. Both have learned their lesson well from Nazi Germany.

The Democrats decided to shutdown the federal government on January 19th, 2018 in the name of illegal aliens. Hollywood is losing at the box office. Democrats may lose big at the ballot box in 2018.

Time will tell.

Ambassador at Large Looms Large for Religious Freedom

As Vice President Mike Pence touches down in the Middle East, the U.S. Senate just gave him something else to talk about — the possibility of a new Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom.

Yesterday, Republicans jumped a key hurdle in appointing Governor Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) to the post, which will come as a relief to people like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Together, they’ve fought to make freedom a greater priority for their countries, which have been under relentless attack from extremists.

Now that the Foreign Relations Committee has given Brownback the green light, it’s time for the full Senate to act on Governor Brownback’s confirmation. After eight years of leading from behind, this move is yet another example of the Trump administration trying to give the world’s persecuted new hope — first, that they aren’t alone, and secondly, that help is on the way. The sooner Gov. Brownback is confirmed as ambassador, the sooner the U.S. will be able to expand its efforts to help the persecuted.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

March Shows Trump in Step with Pro-lifers

‘Pro-Choice’ Doesn’t Mean Anti-Regulation!

Watch the Pro-life Pros at ProLifeCon…

Don’t Let Liberals End Opinion Diversity Under Cover of ‘Fake News’ Campaign

The issue of fake news is very much in the news, as it were, and President Donald Trump is being compared to Stalin for his dismissal of journalists who are purveyors of it as “enemies of the American people.”

It may be good to jog our memory back to how the term “fake news” arrived among us.

Only then do we remember that it first was intended to be used as a weapon in a sustained campaign by liberals to regain their former monopoly over news delivery, and end one of the most important and hard-won victories by conservatives—the information diversity that arrived with the internet.

Disinformation, of course, has been among us since man first began to use language, sought to conceal something, and lied about it. So a very long time.

But the present use of the term fake news is of much more recent vintage, as we can see in this chart:

Internet searches for “fake news” really kicked up in early November 2016. It is to then that we can trace this Nov. 6, 2016, article by The New York Times’ media critic, Jim Rutenberg, credited with the first use of the term.

“The internet-borne forces that are eating away at print advertising are enabling a host of faux-journalistic players to pollute the democracy with dangerously fake news items,” Rutenberg wrote.

The purpose of Rutenberg’s jeremiad was to draw attention to the secular demise of mainstream newspaper outlets and decry the success of conservative outlets.

Rutenberg’s evidence was comprised of outrageous examples of conspiracy mongering by alt-right sites—content, he complained, that can “live alongside that of The Times or The Boston Globe or The Washington Post on the Facebook newsfeed and be just as well read, if not more so.”

But it is clear from his piece that his real target was opinion diversity.

“If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” Rutenberg quoted The Washington Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, as asking.

We heard a very similar version in former President Barack Obama’s complaint to David Letterman this month:

One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts. If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.

We know which planet our 44th president inhabits, and which he thinks is in a galaxy far, far away.

We also know whose “basic facts” Rutenberg trusted: In his seminal 2016 column, he mentions the hard-left and equally conspiracy-driven MSNBC as a normal, mainstream network.

The loss of the previous progressive monopoly on the dissemination of news and analysis has poisoned the liberal soul since the internet came on the scene.

The left’s “fake news” campaign began, then, as an attempt to smear all legitimate conservative news purveyors, from Fox News Channel to The Weekly Standard to the Washington Examiner and, of course, The Daily Signal, that provide an alternative news selection and interpretation.

This effort to delegitimize conservative outlets went horribly wrong, of course, when Trump appropriated the term and weaponized it. I must admit that when the president started doing it, I thought it wouldn’t fly. The current brouhaha proves that I was wrong.

As a former journalist, I don’t particularly like calling newsmen “the enemies of the American people.” It is indeed a term once used by Stalin. (Though it hardly makes Trump a Stalinist, a distinction that should be reserved for those who actually massacre millions and oppress those who survive.)

My friends in the media are not enemies of the American people. But they are mostly liberal.

Ask the more existential question, “Do liberals like America?” and that’s harder to answer. Many liberals don’t hide their contempt for the U.S. (there are many, many examples; find them yourself) and many others still proffer to like an America I don’t recognize.

Which is why we should all be present in the marketplace of ideas. After gaining this beachhead, conservatives must protect it against what will be sustained attempts to dislodge them.

In 2014, I had a celebrated exchange with Darrell West and Beth Stone at Brookings Institution over their frightening call in a paper for digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter to change their algorithms in a manner that would prioritize information from liberal sources.

But West and Stone won, and social networks are now “fact-checking” their content. As my colleague Katrina Trinko points out here, this is censoring the news.

Ending opinion diversity this way is the real threat to freedom of the press and the First Amendment, and what should keep those who worry about it awake at night.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Mike Gonzalez

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Fut ure: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.” Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

The Ugly Reason For Durbin’s Claim of Trump’s “Sh**hole” Comment

Lost in the ongoing poopy-storm surrounding what President Trump may or may not have said regarding the relative sanitary conditions of certain third-world countries, is this perhaps larger question:

Why did Sen. Dick Durbin do it? Why did the Illinois Democrat, with only a passing relationship with the truth, run to the media to claim Trump called some awful third-world countries poopy-holes?

Whether Trump said it or not, and whether this is more evidence that he is racist, has been debated and analyzed ad nauseum for what feels like an eternity in this era of a new news cycle every few hours. For a possibly fictional story about the President using a bad word in a meeting, it sure is hanging on. And for good reason — the same reason Durbin sprinted to the cameras with his tale.

Democrats don’t want an immigration deal. They do not want any immigration solution short of 100 percent of what they are asking for across the board.  What do they want?

The issue. Specifically, a galvanizing issue to inflame the Latino vote. In the same way they continually stoke racial tensions (and in this case, it’s a two-fer) to gin up black voter turnout and support, they need Hispanics angry and frightened to obtain their voter turnout and support. They believe that making Republicans look intransigent against “brown” people, and forcing “dreamers” out of the country will accomplish that. Based on how the media is guaranteed to dishonestly cover such an issue, they are probably right in their calculations.

Consider: If we seriously began solving race relations and immigration issues, how could Democrats drum up 70 percent of the Latino vote and 90 percent of the black vote? If those minorities did not feel the need for Democrats to alternately protect them from Republicans and give them other Americans’ stuff, why would they need the Democrats? Electorally speaking, without those margins, Democrats could not expect any chance of winning.

If this analysis is true — and it is for Democratic leadership based on all past and current actions, including Obama’s endless race-baiting when he had a chance to lead the nation in real reconciliation — that says something truly cold and ugly about Democratic leadership. (Democratic leadership as opposed to many rank-and-file Democratic voters we may know personally who follow the sound bites and spin and actually may want the best for minorities and not just electoral leverage. They just believe the spin on Republicans because they trust the media. Not their first mistake.)

What this says is that it appears Democratic leadership would rather Americans suffer, even Americans that make up their loyal voting base, than risk losing electoral advantage. It’s not like there are not Republicans who act this way, too. Of course there are. But this is just on marching display in front of us for Democrats.

Dick Durbin either saw or made up the chance to tank the negotiations. It’s hard to see any other motive. Making Trump personally look bad could have waited until the following day, or that afternoon, as that is pretty much all the media does now.

This was a different motive than simple anti-Trumpism. Far more cold-hearted and cynical. Sorry, loyal minority Democratic voters. Your party seems to be just using and abusing you.

EDITORS NOTE: In answering the charges made against the Obama administration’s targeting and seizing of private phone records of AP reporters and employees, and intimidation of Fox News reporter James Rosen by Obama’s Justice Department, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) defended Obama’s actions by in-essence stating the Constitution is out of date in regards to journalism.  He suggested to Chris Wallace of Fox News’ that he believes certain people should not have First Amendment Rights, and then went on to say that the Constitution is out of date in 2013.  He asks if the Constitution applies to Bloggers and Twitter Users;  “Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.””

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Check out The Revolutionary Act’s Youtube Channel.

VIDEO: Donald J. Trump is the first President to address the March for Life

President Donald J. Trump once again made history today, January 19th, 2018. President Trump is the first sitting President to address the national March for Life.

It is prophetic that Trump is the 45th President of the United States and he addressed the 45th March for Life in Washington, D.C. God must be smiling.

FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SPEECH TO THE 45TH ANNUAL MARCH FOR LIFE

[To cheering crowd] Thank you very much, that’s so nice. Sit, please.

We have tens of thousands of people watching this right down the road, tens of thousands. So, I congratulate you, and at least we picked a beautiful day, you can’t get a more beautiful day. I want to thank our Vice President Mike Pence for that wonderful introduction. I also want to thank you and Karen for being true champions for life. Thank you, and thank Karen.

Today I’m honored and really proud to be the first president to stand with you here at the White House to address the 45th March for Life, that’s very very special, 45th March for Life, and this is a truly remarkable group. Today tens of thousands of families, students, and patriots, and really just great citizens gather here in our nations Capitol. You come from many backgrounds, and many places, but you all come for one beautiful cause, to build a society where life is celebrated and protected and cherished.

The March for Life is a movement born out of love: you love your families; you love your neighbors; you love our nation; and you love every child born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God.

We know that life is the greatest miracle of all. We see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful, innocent, and glorious-newborn child in her loving arms. I want to thank every person here today and all across our country who works with such big hearts and tireless devotion to make sure that parents have the caring support they need to choose life.

Because of you, tens of thousands of Americans have been born and reached their full God-given potential, because of you. You’re living witnesses of this year’s March for life theme, and that theme is, ‘Love Saves Lives.’

As you all know Roe versus Wade has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world. For example, in the United States, it’s one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions along with China North Korea and others. Right now, in a number of States, the laws allow a baby to be born [sic, aborted] from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month.

It is wrong. It has to change.

Americans are more and more pro-life. You see that all the time. In fact, only 12% of Americans support abortion on demand at any time.

Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the ‘right to life.’

Tomorrow will mark exactly one year since I took the oath of office. And I will say our country is doing really well. Our economy is perhaps the best it’s ever been. You look at the job numbers, the companies pouring back into our country,  look at the stock market at an all-time high, unemployment at a 17-year low, unemployment for African workers at the lowest mark in the history of our country, unemployment for Hispanic at a record-low in history, unemployment for women, think of this, at an 18-year low.

We’re really proud of what we’re doing.

And during my first week in office, I reinstated a policy first put in place by Pres. Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City Policy.

I strongly supported the House of Representatives’ pain-capable bill, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide. And I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.

On the National Day of Prayer, I signed an executive order to protect religious liberty. [I’m] very proud of that. Today, I’m announcing that we’ve just issued a new proposal to protect conscience rights and religious freedoms of doctors, nurses, and other medical professions. So important.

I have also just reversed the previous administration’s policy that restricted state efforts to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law.

We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society. But this movement can only succeed with the heart and the soul and the prayer of the people.

Here with us today is Marianne Donadio from Greensboro North Carolina. Where is Marianne? Hello, come on up here Marianne. Come. Nice to see you, by the way.

Marianne was 17 when she found out that she was pregnant. At first, she felt like she had no place to turn. But when she told her parents they responded with total love, total affection, total support. Great parents? Great? [Trump asked Marianne. She responded in the affirmative] I thought you were going to say that. I had to be careful.

Marianne bravely chose life and soon gave birth to her son. She named him Benedict which means blessing. Marianne was so grateful for her parents love and support that she felt called to serve those who were not as fortunate as her. She joined with others in her community to start a maternity home to care for homeless women who were pregnant. That’s great. They named it ‘Room at the Inn.’ Today, Marianne and her husband Don are the parents of six beautiful children. And her eldest son Benedict and her daughter Maria join us here today. Where are they? Come on over. That’s great.

Over the last 15 years, Room at the Inn has provided housing, childcare, counseling, education, and job-training to more than 400 women. Even more importantly, it has given them hope. It has shown each woman she is not forgotten, that she is not alone, and that she really now has a whole family of people who will help her succeed.

That hope is the true gift of this incredible movement that brings us together today.

It is the gift of friendship, the gift of mentorship, and the gift of encouragement, love, and support. Those are beautiful words and those are beautiful gifts.

And most importantly of all, it is the gift of life itself – that is why we March, that is why we pray, and that is why we declare that America’s future will be filled with goodness, peace, joy, dignity, and life for every child of God.

Thank you to the March for life, special, special people. And we are with you all the way. May God bless you and may God bless America. Thank you. Thank you.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Roe v. Wade Is My Generation’s Dred Scott

Why Pro-Lifers Have Cause for Hope

29 of the Best Signs at the March for Life

Facebook blocks crowdfunding site for new movie on how abortion became legal in U.S.

In March for Life Address, Trump Prods Senate to Pass Late-Term Abortion Ban

A movement born out of love

Ignore the Scam: Planned Parenthood No Supporter of African-Americans

Paul Ryan Explains Why He Thinks the Pro-Life Movement Is ‘on the Rise’

At March for Life, Pam Tebow Recounts How Super Bowl Ad Saved Baby’s Life

EXPOSED: 4,333 Catholic Priests in the U.S. Accused of Sexually Abusing Children and/or Possessing Child Pornography

According to the National Federation of Priests’ Councils (NFPC) as of 2016 there was, “a total of 37,192 priests in the United States (25,760 diocesan priests and 11,432 religious priests).” The NFPC reported that 590 priests were ordained in 2017.

According to the United States Conference of Bishops, Priestly Life and Ministry website:

The Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations (CCLV) serves the bishops’ committee on CCLV which provides leadership regarding priestly life and ministry and to respond to the needs and concerns of priests.

[ … ]

The Secretariat also assists the Bishops’ Committee on Child and Youth Protection which develops projects and resources to assist bishops in dealing with the problem of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and religious. [Emphasis added]

The featured image (above) is of Fr. James Martin, S.J. introducing the rock band Metallica with the devil horns sign (Screenshot: The Colbert Report, 09/24/13). According to TFP Student Action, media reports found that Fr. Martin:

  • Supports transgenderism for children
  • Said that Catholics should “reverence” homosexual unions
  • Favors homosexual kissing during Mass (sacrilege against God)
  • Tweeted a blasphemous photo of Our Lady of Guadalupe to 169,000 followers (Dec. 12, 2017)
  • Received an award from New Ways Ministry, a group condemned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Lucia I. Suarez Sang in a January 18th, 2018 Fox News article titled “Pope Francis defends bishop accused of sexual abuse cover up: ‘Bring me proof’” reported:

Pope Francis appeared to strongly defend a Chilean bishop accused of covering up a priest’s sexual abuse of young boys just days after meeting and weeping with survivors.

“The day they bring me proof against Bishop [Juan] Barros, then I will speak,” Francis said when a journalist asked about the 61-year-old bishop, appointed by him in 2015, despite the cover up accusations. “There is not a single piece of proof against him. This calumny [or slander]. Is this clear?”

Many Chileans are still furious at Francis’ decision to appoint Bishop Juan Barros as the bishop of the southern city of Osorno. Barros was a protégé of the country’s most notorious pedophile priest, the Rev. Fernando Karadima.

Read more.

There is one organization that tracks allegations of sexual abuses by Catholic Priests in the United States. The organization is Bishop Accountability.

Bishop Accountability has a searchable database of all U.S. Catholic clergy accused of sexually abusing children and/or possessing child abuse images, commonly referred to as child pornography. According to the Bishop Accountability website:

This database provides convenient access, for law enforcement and other interested persons, to the names of all U.S. Catholic clergy accused of sexually abusing children and/or possessing child abuse images, commonly referred to as child pornography. Links are provided to the publicly filed court documents and mainstream media articles that are the sources for this database, and a factual summary of the allegations is provided for each accused person. This database continues and extends the work done by the Diocese of Tucson, which published the first diocesan list on June 21, 2002, and the approximately two dozen dioceses that have since published lists of their own. Their efforts were based on internal diocesan lists (see a sample from Boston) maintained during the 1990s. Our list also has other precursors, as described in our overview.

The Database of Publicly Accused Priests does not state or imply that individuals facing allegations are guilty of a crime or liable for civil claims. The reports contained in the database are merely allegations. The U.S. legal system presumes that a person accused of or charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, individuals who may be defendants in civil actions are presumed not to be liable for such claims unless a plaintiff proves otherwise. Admissions of guilt or liability are not typically a part of civil or private settlements. For more information, see our posting policy.

To search the Bishop Accountability Database by priest’s name, Diocese or state please click here.

A quick search of the five largest states by population found the following numbers of Catholic priests accused of of sexually abusing children and/or possessing child pornography:

  1. California – 512
  2. Texas – 131
  3. Florida – 103
  4. New York – 326
  5. Illinois – 251

Perhaps it is time for Pope Francis and the United States Conference of Bishops to get serious about purging its ranks of pedophiles and pederasts?

RELATED RESOURCES:

Survivors’ Accounts

Assignment Records of Accused Priests

Timeline of Major Events, Documents, Reports, and Commentary

Thousands of Articles on the Crisis

Grand Jury Reports and Other Analyses

HHS Announces New Conscience and Religious Freedom Division

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is pleased to announce the formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  The announcement took place at an event at HHS headquarters from 10:30 a.m. to noon on January 18, 2018, see below video.

Speakers included Acting Secretary Eric D. Hargan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Representative Vicky Hartzler, Senator James Lankford, OCR Director Roger Severino, and special guests.

The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division has been established to restore federal enforcement of our nation’s laws that protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious freedom.  OCR is the law enforcement agency within HHS that enforces federal laws protecting civil rights and conscience in health and human services, and the security and privacy of people’s health information.  The creation of the new division will provide HHS with the focus it needs to more vigorously and effectively enforce existing laws protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights.

OCR already has enforcement authority over federal conscience protection statutes, such as the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Weldon Amendments; Section 1553 of the Affordable Care Act (on assisted suicide); and certain federal nondiscrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion in a variety of HHS programs.

OCR Director Severino said,

“Laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights are just empty words on paper if they aren’t enforced. No one should be forced to choose between helping sick people and living by one’s deepest moral or religious convictions, and the new division will help guarantee that victims of unlawful discrimination find justice. For too long, governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming and it begins here and now.”

Acting HHS Secretary Hargan said,

“President Trump promised the American people that his administration would vigorously uphold the rights of conscience and religious freedom.  That promise is being kept today. The Founding Fathers knew that a nation that respects conscience rights is more diverse and more free, and OCR’s new division will help make that vision a reality.”

To learn more about the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, visit us at www.hhs.gov/conscience.

To file a complaint with OCR based on a violation of civil rights, conscience or religious freedom, or health information privacy, visit us at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/complaints.

Burdened by Debt: The Best and Worst States at Managing Debt

How does your state rank in terms of debt management? A new study by Credible exposes where people are best (and worst) at managing their credit card bills, student loan debt, and housing costs.

Read on to see how your financial profile compares to the average person in your state—and across state borders.

Key highlights

    • Michigan, Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri have the highest scores in the U.S., with low debt-to-income ratios: on average, Michigan residents in this dataset spent just 25.3% of their monthly income on credit card, student loan, and housing payments—the lowest percentage in the U.S.
    • Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Montana came in towards the bottom of the list with the highest average debt-to-income ratios: Residents of Hawaii spend, on average, 36.2% of their monthly paychecks on credit card, student loan, and housing payments—the highest percentage in the nation, and over 43% more than residents of Michigan
    • Monthly credit card payments were highest in Minnesota ($241/month), Hawaii ($238), Nevada ($234), New Jersey ($231), and Connecticut ($231)
    • Conversely, those in Mississippi ($154), Louisiana ($157), Washington, D.C. ($160), Arkansas ($174), and South Carolina ($181) spend the least on paying off credit card debt
  • The data showed average student loan payments to be highest in D.C., Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, and New Jersey, and lowest in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Wyoming, and North Dakota

Map: debt and income by state

Toggle through the menu below to see the overall score, average monthly credit card, student loan, and mortgage payments, and average annual income for each state.

Financial health is relative

On average, Americans included in this dataset paid $207 on their credit card debt, $370 on their student loans, and $906 on their housing each month, while taking home an average salary of $60,671.

But what’s the special sauce that makes some states’ residents so much better at debt management than others?

Well, it depends.

In Michigan, for example, cost of living plays a large role. Low average monthly housing payments relative to average income (combined with lower than average credit card and student loan payments) push the state up the rankings.

At the other end of the spectrum, some states rank lower because of particularly high payments made in one category or another.

Residents of Hawaii, for example, pay the second highest amount on monthly credit card bills and fourth highest amount on housing costs and their average income isn’t high enough to offset those costs.

$207

Average monthly credit card payment of all Americans included in this dataset

$370

Average monthly student loan payment of all Americans included in this dataset

$906

Average monthly housing payment of all Americans included in this dataset

One in five borrowers is a homeowner

Mortgage debt can increase a resident’s debt-to-income ratio. The vast majority of the 540,000 borrowers included in this analysis are not homeowners but nearly 19% have one or more mortgages.

Of that group, the average housing payment increases to $1,705, nearly double the average housing payment for all borrowers, a group that includes renters, homeowners, and people living with parents.

You are not your state

While this new ranking sheds light on how residents of various states perform in terms of debt management, keep in mind that these are average numbers — and that your debt is a personal matter.

No matter how your state ranks, find a debt payoff plan that fits your budget and lifestyle, as well as minimizes what you’ll owe in interest as you pay off each loan.

For example, balance transfer credit cards can be useful to begin paying off your credit card debt. These cards will often offer you six to 18 months of 0% APR for balance transfers, giving you some time to get your finances in order without accruing a ton of interest. If paying off credit card debt is one of your goals, Credible can help you find the best balance transfer credit cards of 2018.

Methodology

We used proprietary data from over 540,000 borrowers with student loan debt from all 50 U.S. states and D.C. to calculate average monthly credit card, student loan, and housing payments as a percentage of average monthly income. Therefore, the debt-to-income ratio we used to rank all states included credit card debt, student loan debt, and housing costs (such as rent or mortgage payments).

That percentage was then assigned a normalized score from 0-100 for each state, 0 being where debt payments are the highest percentage of monthly income, and 100 being where monthly payments are the lowest percentage of monthly income.

Full rankings and data