41 Inconvenient Truths on the “New Energy Economy”

Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.” He’s right.

A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden” of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”

He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.

Herein, then, is a summary of some of the bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation, and citations.)

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.

3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.

4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.

5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” ten-fold.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.

8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33 percent, the economy grew 80 percent and global energy use is up 40 percent.

9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70 percent, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50 percent.

10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.

11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50 percent, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.

13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.

14. To make enough batteries to store two day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).

15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.

16. Every $1 billion spent on data centers leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on data centers is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.

17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.

18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hourthe shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.

19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41 percent and 29 percent capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as ten percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.

21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.

22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improved at about 0.7 percent per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to a 50 percent increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.

23. Over 90 percent of America’s electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70 percent of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20 percent since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.

26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.

27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.

28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.

31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33 percent of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26 percent.

32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60 percent of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45 percent.

33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500 percent greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.

34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.

36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).

37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.

38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.

This article is republished with permission from Economics 21. 


Ilhan Omar’s 4th of July message is critical of US, after she celebrates Somali Independence Day

If it weren’t already clear where her loyalties lie, the contrast between these two messages should remove any doubts anyone may still have.

Ilhan Omar Sends Somber Fourth Of July Message Days After Celebrating Somali Independence Day,” by Molly Prince, Daily Caller, July 5, 2019:

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar urged Americans to celebrate the Fourth of July by reflecting on “how much further we have to go,” standing in contrast to her joyful celebration of Somali Independence Day four days prior.

“Today gives us all a chance to reflect on how far we have come as a country and how much further we have to go to achieve full equality for all people,” Omar tweeted July 4. “We are at a tipping point for progress right now.”

“Happy 4th of July,” she added.

Omar’s congressional office also tweeted a Fourth of July message, stating that Independence Day is a time to celebrate American values such as freedom of the press, equal protection of all minorities and America’s role in guaranteeing human rights worldwide.

While there was no mention of America’s independence from Britain, the tweet listed the Constitution, despite the holiday actually celebrating the Declaration of Independence.

Omar’s congressional office also included “freedom from foreign influence” as a reason to celebrate the Fourth of July. Omar faced massive backlash in February after she suggested Jews’ support of Israel is paid for. She later denied the age-old anti-Semitic canard contending she was simply referring to “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

“We must continue to strive to make our union even more perfect,” Omar’s office added to the Independence Day tweet.

The message of reflection comes only days after Omar posted a video of herself joyfully dancing along during a Somali Independence Day celebration.

“Happy Independence Day Somalia,” Omar tweeted July 1 before adding “Somalia hanoolaato,” which translates into “Long live Somalia.”

The congresswoman’s celebratory tweet also included a passage from Somali’s previous national anthem that translates roughly into English as “Somalis, wake up, wake up and support each other. Support your country. Support them forever.”

Omar, a Somali immigrant, became one of America’s first Muslim congresswomen when sworn into office in 2018. Her time in office has been embroiled in allegations of anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiments….

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Why the Minimum Wage Can’t Solve the Poverty Problem [+Video]

“A higher minimum wage is sold as a way to help millions out of poverty. The reality is that it only benefits a small minority to the cost of everyone else.” – Paul Boyce

If wages for those at the bottom are high, you may naturally expect low poverty rates. No matter how you define it, higher wages would most logically relieve poverty levels. This is also the argument made by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). An increase in the minimum wage may very well reduce poverty in the short-term. However, there will be adjustments. In reality, a higher minimum wage changes the types of people living in poverty rather than the overall number.

A higher minimum wage will help those who have a job but not those who are unable to find employment. This favors more skilled and experienced employees who are generally more productive. To an employer, it is more justifiable to employ someone with experience. They are generally able to produce a greater level of output with a higher degree of quality. At the same time, this creates a trap. To the employee, there is less incentive to move on to more productive and higher paid positions.

What we see is the employee getting paid more. What we don’t see is the loss of their potential output. Not only is there reduced incentive, but there is also reduced opportunity. Many businesses are already moving to flatter business structures. This means fewer opportunities to progress to managerial positions. We are already seeing the likes of Walmart and McDonalds moving toward this kind of structure.

Though employees on the minimum wage are getting paid more, social mobility suffers. For example, research by Neumark and Nizalova found negative long-term effects from the minimum wage. Their study concluded that the minimum wage had two restricting effects. First, it restricts teens and young adults by deterring their employment. This means they are unable to acquire the necessary employment skills at a young age. Second, employers compensate for the higher wage by reducing their investment in training. Once again, this reduces the long-term skills that teens and young adults gain. Consequently, the ability to move onto more meaningful employment is restricted.

Furthermore, research by Clemens and Wither also found significant declines in economic mobility as a result of the minimum wage. Their study reiterates the conclusions of Neumark and Nizalova. The reduction in upward mobility is largely due to the reduction in opportunities for accumulating work experience.

The minimum wage reduces social mobility, but does it reduce poverty? Media outlets like CNBC are quick to highlight that the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation. If it had, it would be nearly $11. So the minimum wage has lost much of its value since its peak in 1968. If there were a link between the minimum wage and poverty, we would expect higher poverty rates today. However, the opposite is true.

The African-American poverty rate declined from 34.7 percent in 1968 to 21.4 percent in 2016. For whites, it declined from 10 percent to 8.8 percent in the same period. The main contributing factor to this decline is economic growth and the availability of jobs, not a higher minimum wage.On occasion, the minimum wage has been negatively correlated with poverty. If the minimum wage increases in real terms, poverty also decreases. If we look at the increases in 1997, the minimum wage increased in real terms. The poverty rate subsequently fell from 13.3 percent to 11.3 percent in 2000. This was surely a win for the minimum wage argument, right? Well, this came during a period of remarkable economic growth. When people are employed, they generally escape poverty. When jobs become more available, poverty decreases. The economy grows despite the minimum wage—not because of it. In fact, the empirical evidence provides little support for claims that minimum wages boost economic growth or alleviate poverty during downturns.

Data from the US Census Bureau stated that 12.3 percent of the population lived in poverty in 2017. That’s roughly 39.7 million people. Of those, 17.2 percent, or 6.9 million people, were considered “working poor.” However, when only those who were continuously employed over the previous year were included, it fell to 5.3 million. Of those, 3.2 million were in full-time work below the poverty level.

The minimum wage was raised three times between 2007 and 2009. However, this came during one of the worst recessions on record. The last economically stable period where the minimum wage increased was 1996 to 1997. It increased to $5.15 in 1997, equal to $7.87 in 2017 prices. While the inflation-adjusted rate declined, the rate of in-work poverty also declined. The number of workers who were employed all-year round but still in poverty fell from 1.96 percent of the population in 1998 to 1.64 percent in 2017.

The percentage of people in working poverty is at record lows despite the minimum wage remaining stagnant at the federal level. This has not detracted from the prominence of the debate. Over the last 20 years, however, there has been an adjustment among the “working poor.” That adjustment has been a shift toward part-time work. While 30 percent of the working poor worked part-time in 1998, 40 percent did in 2017. The majority of this has come through voluntary means, which is to say that people are classified as suffering from “in-work poverty” through their own free will. Usually, this is because their household income is actually in excess of the poverty level. The minimum wage job is therefore but a supplementary income.

Raising the minimum wage won’t help those on part-time work out of poverty. It won’t help the other 34.4 million, either. Many of those are either disabled, unemployed, or children. In fact, it may very well make the situation worse. Employment is the best way out of poverty, but raising the minimum wage makes it that much more difficult for low-skilled workers to obtain that employment.A higher minimum wage is sold as a way to help millions out of poverty.

Single-mothers and their children are most at risk of falling into poverty. Many require job flexibility to fit around child care. Raising the minimum wage will make it easier for businesses to pick workers who are more able to fit around their working hours, leaving single mothers without employment.What’s more, many of those 3.2 million in working poverty include tipped workers. The trouble with this is that it overestimates the figure. All tipped workers earning below the minimum wage will be included, but so will those who are actually earning above the poverty rate. The number of people in working poverty falls further when we include tips. Furthermore, such statistics do not include cash transfers such as tax credits or housing benefits. Once these are included, the actual figure falls further. So, the statistics provided are often misleading and drastically overstate the problem. This is an important point because a higher minimum wage is sold as a way to help millions out of poverty. The reality is that it only benefits a small minority to the cost of everyone else. Even then, that small minority will see their hours reduced as a result, leaving everyone worse off.


Turkey: State-run media calls upon Turks to donate to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s campaign fund

Here is the real collusion. But as always, the establishment media and the political elites will protect Omar from any political consequences, should she take such donations.

Turkish media calls for Turks to fund, support Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s campaign,” MEMRI, July 2, 2019:

(July 2, 2019 / MEMRI) Tarek Cherkaoui, the manager of the Turkish state-run news channel TRT World’s research center, wrote an article in April calling upon Turks to donate to the campaign fund of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). The article was widely reprinted in the Turkish media.

The article, written for the English-language website of the Turkish pro-government daily Yeni Şafak and published on April 1, 2019, was titled “Media Flak Directed At Ilhan Omar No Surprise At All.” At least seven other Turkish media outlets ran the article, in both English and in Turkish.

It should be noted that U.S. federal law prohibits foreign nationals from donating to political candidates.

In the article, Cherkaoui wrote that “donating money to Omar’s campaign fund would be an adequate way of denying powerful organizations the power to censor alternative voices.”

It is difficult to calculate the reach this call has had among Turkish readers, but Yeni Şafak’s Turkish-language website is one of Turkey’s most popular news websites, and as of Sept. 2018 its Turkish print edition had a weekly circulation of 111,622. Given Omar’s popularity in Turkey, and the fact that the article was published in Turkish as well as in English, it is likely that some Turks have sought to donate to her campaign fund….


26 Muslim Scholars Denounce “Fascist” Israel, Claim Jerusalem Will Be Capital of a New Caliphate

Turkey and other Muslim countries endorse China’s Muslim concentration camps

UK: Muslims plotted vehicular jihad massacre at London Pride celebration

RELATED VIDEO: David Wood and Robert Spencer on the Tommy Robinson verdict in the UK.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Jewish Identity Excluded from Identity Politics

A recent survey by the Jewish Electorate Institute indicates that 71% of registered Jewish voters disapprove of the way President Trump handles anti-Semitism and 73% feel less secure since he took office.  Clearly, many associate him with bigotry in spite of his staunch support for Israel, warm relationships with Jewish colleagues and family members, and policy of challenging Jew-hatred at the United Nations and around the globe.

Though Jewish Democrats can disagree with Mr. Trump’s politics, personality, or confrontational style, he has no known connections to anti-Semitic or anti-Israel organizations, churches or ideologues – unlike Barack Obama, whom they pronounced “good for the Jews” despite a questionable background that would have disqualified any Republican in their eyes.  Curiously, they expressed little concern when thousands of anti-Semitic acts and hate-crimes were committed, and violent assaults against Jews nearly doubled, during Mr. Obama’s presidency.

The fears voiced by Jewish Democrats regarding Mr. Trump’s supposed bigotry seem disingenuous considering their party’s tolerance for anti-Israel advocacy and progressive anti-Semites.  And in advocating a partisan agenda that impugns Israel’s national integrity and rationalizes ancient stereotypes as political expression, they betray heritage, tradition, and common sense.  Many define themselves through identity politics, but the identity they assert is not really Jewish. Instead, they espouse a grievance-based platform that glorifies radicalism, devalues Jewish history, and fosters hatred against their people and ancient homeland.

Democratic Party membership today includes BDS activists and classical conspiracy theorists who are not shy about pushing their anti-Israel agenda, and yet liberal Jews continue sitting in the same tent.  They were ambivalent during the 2016 election cycle as party radicals burned Israeli flags, and they remain so today when Congressional Democrats spew hateful or ignorant rhetoric.

True, some expressed outrage when Ilhan Omar asserted classical stereotypes against Jewish organizations, Rashida Tlaib questioned the allegiance of pro-Israel legislators and claimed Palestinians gave “safe haven” to Holocaust survivors, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asserted the Israeli “occupation” myth and praised anti-Semitic British politician Jeremy Corbyn.  But their umbrage was short-lived, and there was no outcry when Democrats stripped a House resolution of language solely and specifically condemning anti-Semitism. Party leaders have only compounded the problem by labeling as racist, Islamophobic, or misogynistic those who criticize House Reps. Tlaib, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez and others for such egregious comments.

Though liberals accuse Trump of prejudice, today’s epidemic of Jew-hatred began under Obama, who pandered to anti-Semitic progressives and validated the BDS movement.  In contrast, claims of pervasive conservative bias have been exposed by surveys indicating far less Jew-hatred – and far greater support for Israel – among Republicans than Democrats.  Consistent with these findings, Congressional voting patterns reflect solid support for Israel from House and Senate Republicans. Conversely, there is no dispute that anti-Israel movements, programs, and events (e.g., BDS, Israel Apartheid Week) are endorsed by Democrats, progressives, and Islamists, but spurned by conservatives and Republicans.

Those who accuse Trump of anti-Semitism are hard-pressed to corroborate their claims.  His relationships with Jews and Jewish institutions over the years have been positive, and his treatment of Israel exemplary.  In contrast, Barack Obama had a troubling record that Jewish Democrats simply ignored. He sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty-two years, reportedly hobnobbed with members of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam in Chicago, counted among friends and colleagues people like Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, and treated Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu disrespectfully throughout his presidency.

The tendency of liberals to ignore Democratic anti-Semitism suggests they are not serious about confronting it.  If they were, they would make a priority of denouncing bigotry on the left as conservatives have done on the right since the 1990s.  Their obsession with phantom Republican prejudice stems from their flawed understanding of Jewishness as progressive metaphor and endorsement of ideologies that contravene traditional Judaism as authentically Jewish.  The resulting absurdity is exemplified by their reluctance to condemn Democratic bigots the way British Jews have denounced Corbyn and the Labour Party. They prefer to blame Republicans for anti-Semitism – much of which comes from the left – over putting their own house in order.

Jewish progressives cannot tolerate Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu, whom they despise, but this disdain reflects the projection of their political values onto an Israeli society that has far different priorities.  Likewise, though the Reform and Conservative movements elevate “social justice” over traditional observance, most Israelis question their relevance.  And whereas Americans believe that excoriating Trump and adulating Obama are Jewish mandates, Israelis tend to disagree.  In fact, many appreciate Trump’s admiration for Israel and stance against global anti-Semitism, but wonder how US Jews could have supported Obama despite his relationships with Israel haters, apologetic views on radical Islam, and apparent disdain for the Jewish State.  More fundamentally, many are baffled that American Jews would trade ancestral loyalty for political causes that are extraneous to or inconsistent with traditional Judaism (e.g., transgender activism, Palestinian advocacy).

As observed by the late Prof. Daniel J. Elazar more than twenty years ago, most non-Orthodox Israelis, whether identifying as traditional or secular, incorporate observance into their lives to varying degrees.  And while some might not oppose official recognition of liberal Judaism, “except for a minuscule handful, they do not seek it for themselves nor do they respond to it positively,” he wrote then, noting further: “It is not just that the religiously Orthodox Jews in Israel have not found satisfaction in those two diaspora-originated movements [i.e., Reform and Conservative], but, perhaps especially, neither have the religiously moderate traditional or secularist Jews.” (“Why Reform and Conservative Judaism have Not Worked in Israel.”)  Though not all Israelis are stringently observant, most seem to accept the validity of Jewish tradition.

These observations are no less relevant today, as American liberals and their movements have distinguished themselves by (a) seeking to impose sociopolitical standards on Israel that most Israelis find irrelevant and (b) promoting causes that many believe threaten their country’s sovereignty and Jewish character.  Nothing illustrates this more than the liberal American propensity for dialoguing with Islamist front groups posing as moderate, supporting organizations like J Street, and legitimizing Palestinian national claims that negate Jewish history – all while demanding that Israel kneel before the altar of progressivism.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis reject liberal Judaism for its ethical relativism as much as its lenient ritual orientation.

Unlike their Israeli counterparts, US Jews seem to suffer from identity erosion influenced by declining observance, substandard Jewish education, and the sacralization of liberal politics.  Though many claim their Jewishness requires them to reject Trump, they conflate identity with secular ideals that defy Jewish tradition. Liberals can dislike Trump for any reason or none at all, but they cannot claim their disdain is Judaically-mandated.  Nor can they ignore how Trump has reversed his predecessor’s course of demeaning Israel, enabling Islamic radicalism, empowering Iran, and whitewashing leftist anti-Semitism.

Jewish history is replete with examples of those who rejected heritage and community.  During the Hellenistic period, many emulated Greek culture and repudiated their ancestors, while during medieval times some accepted baptism and sought to lead others astray.  The apostate Nicholas Donin in 1240 denounced the Talmud to Pope Gregory IX, inflamed Dominican ire, and instigated public disputations and Talmud burnings. Similarly, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1509 advocated expelling Jews from German lands, kidnapping and baptizing their children, and burning Hebrew texts.  During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many joined European radical movements, abandoned Judaism, and discouraged education and observance.

Whereas yesterday’s apostates renounced religion and culture, today’s progressives claim fealty to tradition while falsely equating Jewish identity with non-Jewish priorities.  They misuse terms like “tikkun olam” and “Mussar” to imply Judaic authenticity, though doing so only illustrates their distance from tradition. True tikkun olam involves the promotion of societal harmony through Halakhic observance, while authentic Mussar calls for ethical character development through Torah study, mitzvah observance, and personal introspection.  Neither promotes ideals that are alien to Judaism.

Many American Jews today know little of their heritage and attempt to fill the gaps with agendas that bear no resemblance to the Judaism of their ancestors.  Though Jewish voters can certainly support any policies their consciences may dictate, tradition does not require them to be liberal Democrats – or conservative Republicans.

As for President Trump, they can support or oppose him for any reason.  But they cannot claim that hatred for the man reflects Jewish virtue – and certainly not in light of his support for Israel and condemnation of global anti-Semitism.  Nor can they oppose him based on dubious claims of prejudice, especially when they ignore or excuse flagrant anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party. Whatever moral authority they claim to possess is only diluted when they condemn Jew-hatred where it doesn’t exist but grant a pass where it does.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Great Democrat Treason — Vietnam

Never ever forget what the Democrats did to our troops in Vietnam!

Ben Shapiro Is Reshaping Media As Rush Did 30 Years Ago

When working in newsrooms in the 1990s, my journalism colleagues often asked me why Rush Limbaugh was so popular. They could not fathom it.  I explained it was basic supply meeting pent-up demand; that is, conservatives had felt under attack in every area of media and here came a guy with a microphone giving voice to their worldview, and providing analysis and twists that were done no where else.

Limbaugh ushered in a revolution of talk radio hosts, creating an entire industry known as conservative talk radio and probably saving the AM dial. Before Fox News, conservative talk radio stood alone in the flood of liberal media. And spawned Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham and more. Most of these hosts are Baby Boomers and have a fairly set way of thinking and doing. (Notably, Beck the least in that regard, via both worldview and business model, and Prager with Prager U.) A lot of conservatism has reflected that old set way — at least in the Republican base.

But now we have something new in Ben Shapiro, who is arguably the most popular conservative in the country, although Rush and Sean fans may dispute that. Shapiro’s been on the scene for awhile, starting with a nationally syndicated column at 17 years old. But he’s exploded in recent years with the largest conservative podcast, a newly minted national radio show and best-selling books, while still writing for the Daily Wire and acting as Editor.

He’s simply sprinted past all of the much older and more established radio commentators.

Why? What makes Shapiro different?

Yes, he is smart, fast-talking, aggressive yet reasonable and has a quantum hard-drive for a memory. His worldview as a Christian-friendly, Orthodox Jew millennial conservative is almost hilariously unique. He’s fearless taking on the Left and usually acquits himself with a good pummelling. People eat up his “Ben Shapiro destroys…” Youtube videos usually answering questions at college campuses. He’s just a fresh voice in so many ways.

But there’s something else going on, and why people like me also gravitate to Shapiro. He simply puts more meat on the bone than the talk radio predecessors, throws far fewer bombs, rants less and more frequently explains what the other side is thinking or strategizing — fairly or not dependent on your worldview.

For too long, many of our talk radio hosts have spit out the same name-calling invectives and one-sided rants that have felt good but have not prepped any listener for dealing with an informed liberal. I can always tell my conservative friends who spend a lot of time listening to conservative talk radio. The vernacular is well-repeated. It too often boils down to: liberals are evil, they’re idiots, they hate America, and they think we’re all “racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.” OK. Fair enough. Got it. But now what?

This is not a shot at these guys. I remember hearing Rush for the first time around 1989 or 1990 driving on U.S. 67 north of the Quad-Cities along the Mississippi River on the way home from my newspaper job in Davenport, flipping through stations when I came across this guy saying what I believe. I listened for a few minutes and was drop-jawed. This was no where else! I pulled into a dirt driveway, put it in park and just listened.

Supply was just beginning to meet demand and Rush was the pioneer.

But the supply of good red-meat conservative insights and rants (which I like as much as the next guy) is exceeding demand and has for awhile as everyone seeks to get in on the schtick. The typical pendulum of supply and demand seeking equilibrium and rarely finding it.

I’ve long wanted more, and sought it out in books and podcasts. Particularly podcasts in recent years where I can get long-form interviews and more in-depth information than what feels like the same old, same old on radio.

Shapiro goes at least part way toward meeting that demand. He provides reams more data and context on issues. While standard talk radio tells you X is a terrible idea. Shapiro frequently tells you why X is a terrible idea. That is a big step forward and one that obviously conservative millennials are attracted to — and there are growing numbers of those — but also that older conservatives are drawn to.

If Shapiro is roughly Rush 2.0 30 years later — William F. Buckley without the pretensions — then what we’re likely to see is a lot of people following his footsteps, just as we saw an entire industry follow Rush’s. We’re already seeing that with young conservative personalities. But young ranters a la old ranters is not the future. Depth, context, data and fearlessness with opponents (Rush never debates a liberal) may well be — and that does not have an age requirement attached.

Further, Shapiro’s radio program is utilizing his podcast format on radio, which has the potential to revolutionize a somewhat ossified radio industry facing stiffening competition from podcasts and new media.

Shapiro’s style and altered format — if it works — could be one of the healthier trends long-term for conservatism by creating a new breed of conservative-thought influencers, building on the first generation with a new and updated model that leaves conservatives more informed and armed than the 1.0 version.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

REVIEW: The movie ‘ANNA’ shows the true Evil of the Communist Empire

While watching the EuropaCorp/Summit Entertainment film “ANNA” I was reminded of the March 8, 1983 speech (excerpt below) that President Ronald Reagan gave to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida.

President Reagan for the very first time used phrase “evil empire” to describe Communism. He talked about clean shaven men who further the cause of Communism and warned the assembled religious leaders, and every American, that there truly is an ongoing battle between good (America and freedom) and evil (Communism and control).

The movie ANNA is a must see to understand how the Communist state controls the individual. This film depicts the true evils of Communism during the waning days of the former Soviet Union.

The main character is Anna Poliatova, played by Sasha Luss, a citizen of the Soviet Union. Anna’s life is pure misery. Her boyfriend is a thief, her apartment in Moscow is hell on earth. Anna decides to join the Russian Navy and fills out an application. She is then approached by KGB recruiter Alexander “Alex” Tchenkov, played by Luke Evans. From that point on her life goes from one of destitution and misery to one of total control by the state. She has no identity except those given to her by the KGB. She goes on to violate all of the Ten Commandments, a requirement to be a citizen of the Soviet Union and member of the KGB.

Rotten Tomatoes gave this movie a low rating. I believe they did so because of the message that French screenwriter, director and producer Luc Besson is sending to the world — Communism is evil incarnate.

This movie is timely because Communism/Marxism/Socialism is on the rise in America. It is rearing its ugly head in groups like Antifa, the CPUSA, Democratic Socialists and even within the Democratic Party itself.

Throughout the film Anna only wants one thing — to be free. Free from the state. Free to live her own life. Free to become what she wants to become, not what the state dictates to her to be.

If you take away nothing else take away the idea that gaining one’s freedom is worth any cost. For Anna freedom does not come free. She pays the price but at the end prevails by turning the evil empire against itself.

RELATED ARTICLE: How socialism violates all Ten Commandments – Washington Times

RELATED VIDEO: Watch the full “Evil Empire” Speech by President Ronald Reagan to the National Association of Evangelicals.

What That Gallup Poll Actually Found: Democrats Don’t Like America

The headlines were all screaming that Americans’ pride in being American is at an all-time low. The narrative being, of course, that it was the terrible orange man in the White House that ruined everything.

But goodness, if only someone in the media would read (and report) the poll numbers. Because that is not the story at all.

The truth according to the poll itself is that Democrats’ pride in being an American is at an all-time low of 22 percent. More specifically, 22 percent are “extremely proud.” When combined with “very proud” — a second option in the Gallup Poll — it gets up to a still measly 51 percent.

Republican “extreme pride” remains a robust 76 percent. When combined with “very proud” it is an almost unanimous 95 percent.

Even Independents are about twice as proud of America as Democrats: 41 percent are “extremely proud” while the total when including “very proud” comes to 67 percent.

These numbers are rather astounding, and undergird the critique that an awful lot of Democrats do not like this country — and undergird with Democrats own answers.

Some will disclaim that this is only because a Republican is in the White House and that when a Democrat is president, Republican pride falls. Nope.

Actually, it’s only Democrats who seem to fluctuate based on who is president. When Obama was elected to office in 2008, Democrat “extreme pride” was 45 percent — still rather pathetic, but twice what it is today. But Republican “extreme pride” was 78 percent — essentially exactly what it is today.

Republicans are almost universally proud to be American. Democrats, according to their own answers to the pollsters, are just not. When you look at the rhetoric used and the policies being promoted, you see the truth in this.

Gallup’s headline is clickbait. “American Pride Hits New Low; Few Proud of Political System.” This is what the media ran with. But it was Democrats’ pride that hit a new low. And the “political system” was a separate question from overall pride in the country.

But Gallup’s narrative at the bottom finally tells the actual story:

“The latest overall declines in patriotism are largely driven by Democrats, whose self-reported pride has historically been lower and has fluctuated more than Republicans’. Democrats’ latest 22% extreme pride reading is the group’s lowest in Gallup’s 19 years of measurement, and is half of what it was several months before Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory.

For their part, most Republicans have remained extremely proud of their country, and the latest 76% reading is just 10 points below the high recorded in 2003. Even when Barack Obama was in office, Republicans’ extreme pride never fell below 68%.”

Large numbers of Democrats, close to a majority, simply do not like America by their own admission. Republicans almost unanimously do.

RELATED ARTICLE: Happy Fourth of July: Nike Nixes American Flag

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: ‘Mini AOC’ Doxxed and Threatened, Family Shuts Down All Her Social Accounts

The family of a young girl who went viral for mocking Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shut down all of her social accounts Wednesday, after receiving death threats and harassing phone calls.

A tweet from the account purporting to belong to the little girl’s stepfather said she will not be doing any more content because the harassment and death threats “have gone too far” and threaten her and the family’s safety.

“Ava will not be doing any more MINI AOC content,” the tweet said. “The Left’s Harassment and death threats have gone too far for our family. We have been getting calls on our personal phone numbers. For our safety and our child’s safety, we deleted all Mini AOC accounts.”

The 8-year-old girl, known as “Mini AOC,” got attention for her impersonations of Ocasio-Cortez, such as a tweet in which she mocked the New York Democrat’s theatrics over the migrant crisis. “Every time I plan a visit to the park it’s closed!” she tweeted, along with several photos of her dressed up to look like Ocasio-Cortez when she visited a migrant detention center this week.

She appeared on Fox Business in May to discuss her impersonations, saying her dad and her uncle encouraged her to start making videos because they thought she bore a striking resemblance to Ocasio-Cortez. She said she likes Ocasio-Cortez, but “not that much” and impersonated her saying “did you know that?” when prompted by the Fox News host.

Her Twitter, Instagram and YouTube accounts are shut down. Her Twitter handle was taken over by another user, who tweeted from the account saying they want to prevent a “leftist takeover” of the handle.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Democrats Finally Oppose Border Crossing

And so finally the Democrats are opposing the border crossing but not Mexico, instead the DMZ in North Korea!

I mentioned this way back when President Trump first met with Kim Jong Un, that North Korea has been a deep state controlled op for about six decades. What President Trump is actually doing, is freeing North Korea from the clutches of the deep state. Iran will be next and perhaps later Cuba and others as well. The world is being realigned as the un-rigging is now well underway. Seems the ruling elite and their previous puppet globalists Presidents, with their long sought after goal of a tyrannical global police state, has met it’s match; Trump and the Patriots. It’s a new day dawning!

The deep state likes to keep the world at war with the US leading the way. They work with the central banking system and the private for profit Federal Reserve (of which Trump is unofficially controlling now-wait until next year!). They fund both sides of every war taking in not only financial gains, but also control over people and regions in order to meet their goals of planetary domination. Kim Jong Un has been given the choice to remain under the control of the old guard and remain isolated from the world with its brutal dictatorship rule and its people starving to death, or to come aboard with the new guard and have a chance to restructure its country, economy and form of governing and begin over years to come, to enter the global marketplace in terms of trade and so on.


Oh yeah, and the threat that the deep state used to empower North Korea in terms of nuclear threats from the “rocket man”, you know that nuclear war that Trump was going to usher in as foretold by Clinton and the fake news media back in 2016? Well this has turned out to be the complete opposite. Just as the Muller witch hunt. Well how abut them apples! Screw you, we have had enough.

Thank God and thank you President Trump. We are winning. And the de-class is barely even gotten underway. Vote Trump. Get other unregistered Republicans to do the same as though your life depended on it. Why?  Because it does.

Debate Over July Fourth DC Festivities Shows How Out of Touch Elites Are

With the upcoming White House-sponsored ceremony honoring the U.S. military on the National Mall, this Independence Day will look a little different in Washington, D.C.

A quick scan of headlines, opinion columns, and social media shows this is apparently quite upsetting to many in the political class. But to borrow the oft-used social media exclamation, “I’m sorry, I thought this was America.”

The reaction to the president’s Fourth of July plans has been a textbook case illustrating the disconnect between the “elites” and the majority of Americans.

In addition to the usual festivities on the National Mall, the White House is hosting “Salute to America,” an event specially focused on honoring the military, which will feature flyovers by the F-22 Raptor, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, and the Navy’s Blue Angels; various armored vehicles stationed around the area for tourists to see up-close; and remarks from the president himself.

Controversial, right?

The political commentariat seems to think so. “The president is fulfilling, sort of scratching, a long-term itch to have a military parade on the taxpayer dime,” opined John Avlon on CNN Wednesday morning.

The Washington Post’s James Hohmann claims, “This is not the first federal holiday Trump has politicized,” while drawing a not-so-subtle comparison between the event and the antics of adversarial dictators:

Trump seems to sincerely believe that tanks, jets and brute force are what make a country great. … The hard truth is that even the most odious regimes in the world are perfectly capable of rolling tanks into their capitals.

The bad takes don’t stop there, however. Responding to a photo of several armored vehicles being trucked into D.C. for the event, former CIA analyst Nada Bakos tweeted late Wednesday, “In a democracy, a military show of force is an indicator things aren’t going well.”

Not to be outdone, Sarah McLaughlin of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education tweeted, “Nothing signifies celebration of a holiday about breaking free from an oppressive government better than ‘tanks in the streets.’”

These examples of partisan sniping raise the simple question: What exactly is wrong with such a celebration?

Tuesday’s USA Today headline sums it up perfectly: “Trump’s 4th of July military show has visitors pumped, but critics slam it as an ego trip.”

It might be easy for those in “the swamp” to take for granted what the military does every day, and how they do it. As a veteran, the same is sometimes true for me.

We make a grave mistake, however, when we assume that Americans as a whole—indeed, those who make up the “true” America outside the Beltway—aren’t interested. We are wrong to assume they don’t appreciate every chance to show their gratitude for what the military does on a daily basis.

Part of the rich American tradition is celebrating those who not only secured our freedom more than two centuries ago, but who have stood up every day and every night since to maintain it.

It is wholly appropriate to emphasize the military’s vital role in our ongoing independence, and to give Americans the opportunity to see for themselves what our service members are doing with their tax dollars.

Indeed, while Washington Post’s Hohmann is correct that military might alone does not a great nation make, a strong and vibrant military—under the leadership of a commander in chief elected by the people—is the first line of defense against all threats to our nation and our Constitution, and a deterrent to an array of evils abroad.

That’s why the meltdown over “Salute to America” is so dissonant. Not only has our nation’s capital hosted numerous such celebrations of our military before—as CBS’ Maj. Mike Lyons points out—but getting so stridently upset just because Trump is doing so lacks a certain sense of perspective:

If you are losing your mind and your 4th of July is ‘ruined’ because two tanks, a Bradley, a recovery vehicle and maybe a few HUMVEEs are going to be on the National Mall tomorrow, just stay in bed under the covers until it’s over.

“But Trump is politicizing the military,” some argue.

This makes little sense. Is the president truly supposed to remain silent on the day most central to our national identity? Is it wrong for his administration to take the initiative in emphasizing the military’s importance to that identity?

If this was truly just a political stunt, one would expect a far more robust list of assets on display, or even a true military parade, like those in France every Bastille Day.

“Salute to America” is about one thing: reminding our nation of those who stand vigilant in defense of our liberty. It’s about honoring those who have given, and continue to give, so much for our nation. And it’s about remembering why we can celebrate this day year after year.

Instead of making it political, let’s focus on those things.


Portrait of John Cooper

John Cooper is the senior communications manager for the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He served as an active duty officer in the U.S. Air Force from 2010-2014. Twitter: .


America’s Long History of Military Parades

It’s Actually OK to Be Proud of the Military on Independence Day

Podcast: A July Fourth Show Like No Other

A Fallen Warrior and the Unfading Flag

The Most Problematic Women in American History

A Nation Worth Lauding

Happy Fourth of July: Nike Nixes American Flag

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Era of the Ungrateful American

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I can’t fathom the ingratitude of American soccer star Meghan Rapinoe’s attitude toward America.

Writer Warner Todd Huston notes,

“Rapinoe raised eyebrows in the 2018 season by taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem even though she is playing for the U.S. Women’s National soccer team. Her taking a knee only came to an end starting in the 2019 season because the team passed a rule requiring players to stand during the anthem. But she right away said that she would never sing the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ again, nor would she place her hand over her heart because she hates America.”

Sadly, she is by no means alone. There are millions of ungrateful Americans today.

I remember years ago seeing one of The Far Side cartoons by Gary Larson which showed one dog in his den showing another dog his mounted, stuffed trophies on his wall. There were a couple of stuffed cat heads and bird heads and also a human hand mounted on the wall. The host dog was saying to his guest, “And that’s the hand that fed me.”

What a fascinating contrast. Last week a man and his infant daughter tragically drowned trying to get to this country through illegal means. And yet the soccer star who was born here has nothing but contempt for the land of opportunity that has given her so many opportunities.

This reminds me of people who are ungrateful to the Lord, even though every beat of their heart is by His grace. When He says, “Enough,” it is over and then comes the judgment.

President Lincoln reminded us of our need for thankfulness to God when he called for a day of fasting and prayer during the conflict that tore this country apart.

On March 30, 1863, he wrote,

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven ….But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.” [Emphasis added]

Our own prosperity as a nation has caused us to forget the Lord, said our 16th president: “Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!”

With another Fourth of July upon us, I think it is a good time to recall why we should be grateful as Americans. This country was born through the sacrifices of those who went before us.

What is the Fourth of July? It commemorates that date in 1776 when 56 men in Philadelphia, representing three million people, agreed by voice vote to adopt the final wording of our national birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence.

They knew their lives were on the line by voting for independence from England, and a handful of them paid the ultimate price for this declaration. Several of them were specifically targeted by the British.

The document declared that the rights of man come not from the king or the state, but from the Creator. It declared that when a government interferes too much with God-given rights, the government ultimately becomes illegitimate.

This declaration came years after futile attempts to work with the king to bring about an acceptable peace. But as the “men of Boston” put it, according to the great 19th century historian, George Bancroft:

“While America is still on her knees, the king aims a dagger at her heart.”

We seem to forget the sacrifices of the founding fathers who bequeathed the freedoms, and subsequently, the prosperity we enjoy in this country.

A key founding father John Adams declared:

“It is the will of heaven that the two countries should be sundered forever…” America would become its own nation, separate from England.”

Adams adds that if we have to endure hardship because of it, God will still help see us through:

“[I]t may be the will of heaven that America shall suffer calamities still more wasting and distresses yet more dreadful. If this is to be the case, the furnace of affliction produces refinement in states as well as individuals; but I submit all my hopes and fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the faith may be, I firmly believe.”

The men who birthed America and declared independence laid everything on line, as they trusted in God.

Why should Meghan Rapinhoe be grateful? Because she was born in a country which gave her opportunity to “write her own script” as some might put it. It is hard for me to comprehend  ungrateful Americans.


Democrat Lawmaker Speaks Out Against Nike

Nike’s Betsy Ross Flag Freak-Out Shows Moral Inconsistency of Left

VIDEO: Robert Spencer confronts Antifa in Stuttgart, Germany, in 2011

Antifa is much in the news these days with their brutal beating of journalist Andy Ngo in Portland. Many Americans assume that Antifa is a new group, but in reality, it is only new, or relatively new, in the United States. Back in 2011, I spoke at an outdoor rally in Stuttgart, Germany, and Antifa was out in force. Hundreds of police were there also, and if they had not been, I would not be writing this today: before I spoke, I was standing in front of the massive police phalanx with some members of the German group that had invited me; among them was a young man who I took to be one of their number until I shook his hand and smiled and he responded, “If it weren’t for all these police here, I would have knifed you by now.”

As the other speakers and I spoke, Antifa members threw rocks, bottles, and manure at us, while screaming things such as “Nazis raus.” This was ironic, as they were behaving much more like Nazis than those they were screaming at. So I decided to address them. In the midst of this barrage, I stood at the front of the stage and addressed the Leftists, while they blew their vuvuzelas and booed to try to drown me out, and kept on throwing things. This is what I said:

I came from the United States of America to stand for freedom, with all free people, against the forces of oppression and darkness which you are representing.

I came here in order to stand with the people who are fighting for the freedoms that make it possible for you to do what you are doing today.

Not the violence and hatred, but to stand and dissent, but you can’t stand to have any kind of rational discussion, you can’t stand having dissent, you have to try to throw bottles, and drown us out, because you are cowards, because you know that you stand for nothing except for oppression and darkness and hatred, and that is why you are there.

And that is why I am here.

You are fronting for the most radically intolerant and hateful ideology on the planet. Everywhere in the world, everywhere in the world, where there are Muslims and non-Muslims, there is conflict because the Muslims attack the non-Muslims. The Qur’an teaches to make war against the unbelievers, and to subjugate them.

And you are already subjugated! You are already their useful idiots. You are already their tools. You are out here in their service.

And you think you’re fighting for freedom. You are fighting for your own slavery!

You are fighting for your own enslavement.

And it will come. It will come to you.

You are fighting for an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, and one day you will wish you had the freedom of speech, and one day, you will wish you had the freedom of speech that you are trying to fight against today.

You are fronting for an ideology that denies the freedom of conscience and will kill you if you disagree, which is exactly what you want to do already.

You are fighting on behalf of an ideology that denies equality of rights for women, and all the women among you will one day be enslaved, if you get what you want.

You are fighting for the destruction of all the freedoms that you enjoy.

You are fighting for the utter defeat of your own selves, and your own life.

You are slaves seeking slavery. You are the oppressed loving your oppression, and thinking that you are standing for freedom.

You are the most foolish, you are the most evil, foolish, people on Earth.

We are standing for the human rights of all people. Of the oppressed Christians in Indonesia, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in the Sudan that you just heard about.

We are standing for the oppressed people who are targeted by Islamic jihad everywhere around the world. In Israel. Everywhere around the world.

And so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you!


CAIR Joins Antifa Supporters in Mocking Beaten Journalist

Hamas-linked CAIR leader attacks Michelle Malkin for aiding journalist Andy Ngo after his brutal beating by Antifa

Soros, Koch brothers advance Iran lobby in new Washington think tank

With backing from Hamas-linked CAIR, Ilhan Omar targets FBI’s terror watchlist

RELATED VIDEO: America Under Siege – Civil War 2017.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch video and column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

How Hollywood has Fallen into the Abyss by promoting the Seven Deadly Sins

Today, Hollywood no longer makes films like the 1956 movie The Ten Commandments, rather it looks for ways to fully embrace the Seven Deadly Sins in its films.

The Guardian’s Henry Barns did an interview with John Cusack about his 2014 film Maps to the Stars. During the interview Cusack stated, “Hollywood is a whorehouse and people go mad.” Three years later we saw unfolding how producer Harvey Weinstein became the poster child for Hollywood as “a whorehouse.” Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins along with: Gluttony, Greed, Laziness, Wrath, Envy and Pride. Notably gay pride.

When you watch any film look for Hollywood to promote one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins.

We saw the film industry lose its audience in 2017 as it fell deeper into the abyss. While attendance grew in 2018 it may have been because of a company called MoviePass which offered unlimited movie tickets at select theatres for $9.99 a month. Today MoviePass is struggling to stay in business.

Recently Hollywood studios announced that it would not film in Georgia because the state legislature passed, and Governor Brian Kemp signed into law, a heart beat bill to protect the unborn. There is at least one exception. One man is standing against Hollywood, his name is Clint Eastwood. Eastwood will be in Georgia filming The Ballad of Richard Jewell. The movie is about American security guard, Richard Jewell, who heroically saved thousands of lives from an exploding bomb at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. Jewell was unjustly vilified by the media, which falsely reported that he was a terrorist responsible for the bombing.

Hollywood is all about envy and pride.

Hollywood rewards itself with the Emmy, a golden idol, for making films that violate not only the Seven Deadly Sins but also the Ten Commandments. Murder, rape, incest, hate, pride, envy, gluttony, greed, wrath and sloth are common themes in films today. Add to this list the glorification of man over God, drug and alcohol abuse and of course homosexuality.

Even worse is that these Seven Deadly Sins and the Ten Commandments have cartoon characters in animime games and videos that our children play. Children are being exposed to every known sin in video games, on the silver screen and even in our public school classrooms with Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). Watch:

Perhaps Hollywood will come to its senses and begin making more and more movies that emphasize Faith, Purity, Patience, Love, Selflessness, Truth, Repose, Pacifism, Reticence and Piety? Films like Toy Story 4, Catching Faith and Yesterday or the television series The Chosen.

We as parents, grandparents and citizens can only be watchful and go to see those movies that present a positive and loving message.


Americans Vastly Overestimates Gay Population, Gallup Poll Finds

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’