Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse slammed Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s defense of a legislation to expand late-term abortion earlier this week:
The comments the governor of Virginia made were about fourth-term abortions. That’s not abortion, that’s infanticide.
Indeed, Northam’s description of an infant having his or her fate determined by a discussion between a doctor and patient after delivery was quite horrific:
If a mother is in labor . . . the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.
Northam’s comments were made in the wake of the New York’s legislative rollback of limitations on late-term abortion and come in the midst of Planned Parenthood’s push to enshrine abortion to the moment of birth. However, Northam may have overplayed the abortion lobby’s hand and exposed Planned Parenthood’s true intentions as public outcry helped defeat Virginia’s controversial bill.
Now, the battle to protect the lives of fully formed, full-term babies is not done, and FoxNews reports Planned Parenthood Action Fund expects to push for similar measures in over half the states in the country. That is why it is imperative we demand Planned Parenthood’s corporate sponsors cease funding the abortionists infanticide agenda.
Our research has found the following companies and organizations are direct supporters of Planned Parenthood:
Use the links above to see our research and the contact buttons provided to reach out to these corporations.
Planned Parenthood’s disgusting celebration of New York’s Reproductive Health Act clearly illustrates the abortion giant’s agenda—the unrestricted ability to kill fully formed babies. Corporations that support this agenda need to hear from you that they are funding the deaths of their own customers. They also need to know why they will not be doing so with your dollars as you take your business to companies that do not fuel Planned Parenthood’s industry of death.
PJ Media‘s Tyler O’Neil is reporting that some lawyers believe it would be possible due to Google’s two-pronged partnership with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The SPLC, as you all must know by now, every year publishes a hate group list with the goal of silencing those with whom they disagree.
I’m still on the hate map as a “group” when in fact it is just me here (and my cat)!
And, I was on the top 15 anti-Muslim extremists list that SPLC was forced to remove,see here.
Let me be clear—I have no group! I’m just one woman with an opinion.
Hereis PJ Media on the juicy prospect (hat tip: Cathy):
In recent years, the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has faced a slew of lawsuits regarding its deceptive practice of branding mainstream conservative and Christian groups “hate groups” on par with the Ku Klux Klan. Google has decided to partner with the SPLC, even encouraging employees to work for the organization. Conservative lawyers told PJ Media this partnership may make the tech giant vulnerable to defamation and racketeering lawsuits.
This month, Fortune reported that Google’s philanthropic arm, Google.org, launched a program that will pay Google employees to do pro bono work for nonprofit groups for up to six months. The company aims to achieve 50,000 hours of pro bono work this year. Google.org names the SPLC as one of its partners for “inclusion.” Google.org started funding the far-Left group in 2016, and has given the organization $250,000, specifically to fund a “total redesign of the Teaching Tolerance website.”
“Teaching Tolerance,” an SPLC project aimed at teachers for elementary, middle, and high schools across America, has referenced the SPLC’s “hate map,” endorsing the “hate group” labels, before and after Google.org funding. Even if Teaching Tolerance were distanced from the “hate group” smears, Google.org explicitly names the SPLC as the recipient of funding and the partner — which likely means Google employees can do pro bono work for the SPLC.
“It does appear that there’s more than funding that is taking place between Google and the SPLC and other tech companies, to the point where there’s interaction, potentially plotting, and the involvement of their so-called ‘hate group’ label that is designed for one reason — to destroy the opposition based on ideology,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told PJ Media. He said “it’s plausible” Google may face RICO and defamation charges in future lawsuits.
And, of course you know that the Center for Immigration Studies has recently filed a lawsuit against the filthy rich SPLC.
What can you do? First you might want to see if you’ve ‘made it’ onto the latest Hate Map.
If you happen to have easy access to an attorney, you might want to file a suit. But mostly if you see a news story referencing the SPLC’s chosen haters, then be sure to set the record straight with whatever publication is spreading the lies about you or about people you know.
This post is filed in my‘Charity fraud’category and my ‘Media fraud’ category. Media fraud for any publication using the SPLC “research.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/google-485611_640.png452640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-02-02 06:25:262019-02-02 06:26:13Could Google be Dragged into RICO Cases with SPLC?
When I read the following recently I was struck by the parallel between the Democrats and the Media of our day, and the Pharisees and the Herodians of Christ’s day:
1 And he [Christ] entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. (Mark 3: 1-6)
So are we getting this?
Christ had entered into the synagogue, on the Sabbath, and saw a man there with “a withered hand.” And the Pharisees were waiting, watching to see if he, Jesus, had the temerity to heal this man on the Sabbath…thereby profaning it in their debauched minds.
And He, of course, would do just that, but not before asking pointedly: “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?” Was the view of these religious zealots regarding “the Law” so warped that they actually considered it wrong (or “immoral”) to heal on the sabbath?
Clearly they did, as they “straightway took counsel with the Herodians…how they might destroy him.” And that reminded me of what the Media and the Democrats (with either the active or tacit support of Establishment Republicans) do to the President on a daily basis…no matter what his latest “crime” or offense.
The President is not a religious leader. That is not the point. The point is that his enemies – and he has rightly identified the Media as “the enemy of the People” (of those who elected him, at least) – takes “counsel…against him,” seeking “how they might destroy him” even when he is seeking to do good – or, at the very least, seeking to do the exact things that current and former Democrats – politicians and presidents – have either done or spoken strongly in favor of over the years. Now suddenly, these same things are “racist,” “immoral,” or a “symbol of hate.”
Dropping unemployment to a fifty-year low – including among Blacks and Hispanics, as well as women: BAD! Bringing back record numbers of manufacturing job openings, and more jobs overall than people looking for work: WRONG! Raising consumer confidence levels to near record highs: SELFISH!
Renegotiating major international trade deals to benefit American workers and consumers, while reducing federal spending by hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as boosting the expansion of the GDP to near 4% (the average annual expansion rate during Barack Obama’s two terms was just below 1.5%): UNFAIR!
Closing down our Southern Border to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants (which cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $113 Billion a year), and doing all in his power to complete the construction of a wall (on our Southern Border) like some 65 nations (including the U.S.) have done. (There are 196 nations in the world, so one-third of them have walls.) IMMORAL!
Bringing together the leaders of North and South Korea for the first time in nearly 70 years, and extracting a commitment from North Korean President Kim Jong Un to “pursue ‘complete’ denuclearization” – with no mention of an increase in U.S. foreign aid to North Korea to date; pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord which was costing us “a vast fortune” (the effects of which were “quantitatively trivial”); and canceling Barack Obama’s disastrous Iranian nuclear deal: EVIL!
All of which tells us that the answer to the question with which we started – “Is it lawful [for the President] to do good…?” – is a resounding NO! according to the Media/Left in this country. So like the Pharisees of old, the new Sanhedrin in this country – the Global Elites – and their “Herodian” allies in the Deep State, while witnessing the President’s every effort to keep his campaign promises (as seen above) and fulfill his commitment “To Make America Great Again,” have continually sought ways that “they might destroy him.”
In the Meridian of Time, the cry went out with respect to the ‘King of the Jews’: “Let him be crucified! Let him be crucified!” Today, the equally-shrill cry on the part of the Democrats, the Deep State, a number of traitorous Republicans (Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney most notably), and virtually the entire Establishment Press regarding the man whom the People elected as their 45th President, Donald J. Trump, has been “Let him be investigated [until a crime can be found]!” and ultimately, “Let him be impeached!”
In either case, the lust for blood has been the same…and the alleged “crimes” equally absurd.
Author’s Note:
Since the cry of impeachment is ALL that those who watch the Establishment Media ever see or hear, it is up to the rest of us to speak out, and post the TRUTH on Social Media (assuming it won’t be blocked)! While this may seem like a small thing, in the end it is HUGE, as what is trending effectively tells the world what WE are thinking…or, at least, what those who are not afraid to speak are thinking! Have those of us who are Christians not all declared that had we been there in the crowd, on that dark day long ago, when Pilate asked the people what should be done with Jesus of Nazareth, WE would have cried out to save him? That we will never know…but do we remain silent now? Our President should not have to bear this, our burden, alone.
In speaking out we may not convince or sway the majority, but at least we may save ourselves, our family, and our friends. We ourselves are the only person whom any of us can control, but for each of us – and perhaps for the country and the world – that may just be enough!
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/made-in-america-white-house-e1549064807357.jpg354640T. M. Ballantynehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngT. M. Ballantyne2019-02-01 18:46:582019-02-01 18:55:08“Is it lawful [for the President] to do good…?”
On January first, when Iwelcomed youto my new blog, I said my first priority was to counter the media reports that have begun to spew from the Open Borders propaganda machine about how migrants of all stripes are just the ticket for saving America’s economy while bringing the joys of diversity to you, the deplorables.
And so it is funny thatthis news from Utica, NY published yesterday is exactly what I warned about one month ago.
You will be seeing news like this from sea to shining sea in the lead-up to the 2020 Presidential contest.
The Cities Refugees Saved
Of course, I question the premise of the story from CityLab in the first place. Why must we save a city that is no longer providing jobs or has been poorly run by Democrats for decades?
First just so you know here are the ‘brains’ behind the New American Economypropaganda machine. Tell me if this bunch has anything more on their minds than cheap immigrant labor and more Democrat voters!
CityLab calls the New American Economy, a bipartisan immigration reform group!
This is my post from earlier this month on the New American Economy.
CityLabreports that the New American Economy gang has teamed up (has hired) a film company to put together a film that will showcase Utica’s booming refugee-driven economy. (They love films!)
Symbol of the NEW Utica: Historic Methodist Church becomes a mosque
Film maker Adam Bedient (director of photography and editor at Off Ramp Films) says he grew up nearby and it was just a dying city but now, joy of joys the Bosnian Muslims that Bill Clinton welcomed to America have turned the city around.
Now, he’s working on a full-length feature about the refugee communities in Utica, and when he drives through town, he finds it simmering with new life. Old buildings are getting refurbished. Construction cranes bob up and down. And at the center of town is a long-vacant historic Methodist church that has been renovated and converted into a beautiful mosque—a symbol of the new Utica.
The CitiLabstory goes on to report how the city is thriving. You can read it yourself.
When you see news like this, look to see if they have included any mention of problems, like the one I reported at Refugee Resettlement Watch in 2015 about the school funding crisis when the city of Utica sued the state of New York for a refugee-created school funding shortfall.
See if they mention anything about dollars from Washington (from you) that fuel the local ‘new American’ economy via welfare—food stamps, housing subsidies, healthcare, federal grants for myriad refugee/immigrant services, grants to non-profits that service migrants and so forth.
In other words , is Utica a prime example of simply shifting federal tax dollars to a dying city?
Useful graphic from the story. Heads up if you live in one of those cities, you might be next for a propaganda film about your growing refugee population. At RRW I wrote about problems in almost every one of them!
CityLab goes on (as expected) to bash the President and White House policy staffer Stephen Miller saying they don’t know what they are talking about when they express concerns about the cost of more refugee resettlement or any issues of safety and security. You can read it all here.
The story wraps with a quote from Bedient about that on-going debate,
This kind of wrangling over the true impact of refugees doesn’t get much traction in Utica, where refugees now make up almost a quarter of the city’s population, Bedient says. It’s not really up for debate at this point—“it’s a part of the city’s identity now,” he says.
Bottomline, the New American Economy and the Open Borders cabal have decided, there is no longer any debate, so shut up!
Here is what I don’t get!
Utica, has been paraded out for over a decade as a city saved by refugees, but no group on the immigration control side of the debate has ever (to my knowledge) gone to Utica to investigate the claims and counter them. Why is that?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/new-american-economy-logo.jpg361640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-02-01 10:37:172019-02-01 10:37:19Utica, NY and the New American Economy’s Propaganda
President Donald Trump will invite guests related to the ongoing situation at the U.S. southern border during his State of the Union address, he told The Daily Caller in an exclusive Oval Office interview Wednesday.
“I will say that some of them will be border-related, some of them will be people who have suffered very badly because we didn’t do what we should’ve done in a very dangerous part of our country, and so that’s going to be a part of it, absolutely,” Trump said when asked for an exclusive preview of his State of the Union guests.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress inside the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 30, 2018. REUTERS/Win McNamee/Pool
The president then scheduled a meeting in front of The Daily Caller with his senior staff for the next day to discuss that very matter.
Trump said of the address that while some of it will focus on the border crisis, other parts will touch on economic progress in the United States, saying:
At the same time, the world is not doing well and we’re going great. You look at the numbers, we’re hitting highs. I get no credit for it. It’s like, when do you ever hear them talking about — we just hit 25,000 and you won’t even hear a thing about it. If President Obama were there — and don’t forget, he was paying no interest. We’re actually paying interest. You know, he was paying no interest. He didn’t have liquidity being drained out of the market in order to pay down, which we have. How about $50 billion a month? $50 billion a month.
If I had a no-interest, no-liquidity situation with respect to the market, I mean, forget it. It would actually be incredible the numbers. Big difference. Tremendous difference.
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF DAILY CALLER INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
THE DAILY CALLER: Stephen Paddock, the shooter in Las Vegas in 2017. The FBI just closed its investigation yesterday without determining any motive. But don’t you think Americans deserve to know why so many people died in the worst mass shooting in modern history?
POTUS: It was a horrible event. He was a very, very sick person, obviously. It was very unusual in that there didn’t seem to be your standard set of reasons as to why this would happen. I’m a little surprised that the report wasn’t much longer but at the same time I can understand it. It was just a — just a terrible thing. They were unable to find a real reason other than, obviously, he was sick and they didn’t know it.
So, I was a little surprised and a lot disappointed that they weren’t able to find the reason. Because you’d like to find a reason for that.
THE DAILY CALLER: Were you following the developments through that case?
POTUS: I was watching it like everybody else. I thought it was horrible. I went to the hospital, I saw many of the victims and right after the event it was horrible. It was inconceivable. But he was a very sick person and nobody would’ve known it. Nobody had any idea. He had money — or at least they think he had money. He was a gambler, you know, you don’t see too many gamblers that have money.
I think they worked very hard. I will tell you they worked very hard on that case. They just were unable to find anything from all of the facts. Because I’ve looked at some of the things also and it was a very unusual case of a very sick person who just, people never saw that coming.
THE DAILY CALLER: Speaking of the FBI, sir, were you comfortable with the way and the force that was used against the raid in Roger Stone’s house? Do you think that was appropriate for your FBI to be doing that in a white collar case?
POTUS: I thought it was very unusual. You know, I’ve stayed out of that whole situation so that — because there was no collusion whatsoever. There was no nothing done wrong and frankly, I could have waded in very early, I could have ended it very easily if I wanted to but just let it run its course. But I will say, like, I’m speaking for a lot of people that were very disappointed to see that go down that way, to see it happen where it was on camera, on top of it.
That was a very, very disappointing scene —
THE DAILY CALLER: You thought it was unusual that CNN was there?
POTUS: — You have 29 people and you have armored vehicles and you had all of the other and, you know, many people know Roger, and Roger is not a person that they would have to worry about from that standpoint. I thought it was sad to see it.
THE DAILY CALLER: Would you ask the FBI to review its use of force, its militarization when it handles cases like this?
POTUS: I think it’s a good question for you to ask, and it’s something I’ll think about.
THE DAILY CALLER: One last question related to that. On the Paddock case, all of America was really interested to find out what happened there.
POTUS: Including me.
THE DAILY CALLER: Of course. And I wonder how many resources in the FBI were committed to the Paddock case versus committed to the Mueller investigation. How much money was spent? How many people were on those things? How do those two things compare?
POTUS: What a great question that is. It’s one of the better questions. I hope you’re going to play your question because that is a very, very interesting — you’re talking about, I guess they’re well over 30 million dollars now on this Russian collusion hoax, and everybody knows it’s a hoax. They’ve spent all this money. Nothing. No phone calls, no meetings, no nothing. You look at it, and you say, isn’t that sad to have devoted this time, this energy over a — you know, look, there’s been numerous books written right now, including number one best sellers, calling it a “hoax.” And it is very sad. That is very sad. By the way, to me, both very sad events.
But that is very interesting to ask, where you’ve had so many people killed, and so badly wounded, because I went to the hospital. You had people so badly wounded. People never talk about the wounded. The level of hurt and devastation for a whole lifetime. You know, many people just devastated for a lifetime. They’ll never be the same. And you look at that by comparison to the Russian hoax, it’s a shame. The Russian witch hunt, it’s a shame.
THE DAILY CALLER: Speaking of that, sir, Matt Whitaker came out I think a couple of days ago. He said that the Mueller probe seems to be wrapping up, generally. Has he communicated that to you?
POTUS: No. No, I haven’t spoken to him about that. I would say that I think after almost two years it certainly should be. Process crimes or process, you know, questions, the answer is different than what you thought it might be and some people say they lost their memory or a lack of memory, which a lot of people can understand that too.
No, I never spoke to him about that.
THE DAILY CALLER: So Whitaker or whoever is heading as the attorney general at the time will get to make a decision about releasing the report that Mueller sends him —
POTUS: I don’t know what —
THE DAILY CALLER: Is that the kind of thing you’ll sign off on if and when it comes to that decision?
POTUS: They’ll have to make their decision within the Justice Department. They will make the decision as to what they do. I could’ve taken a much different stance, I could’ve gotten involved in this, I could’ve terminated everything. I could’ve ended everything. I’ve chosen to stay out of it. But I had the right to, as you know, I had the right if I wanted to to end everything. I could’ve just said, ‘that’s enough.’ Many people thought that’s what I should do.
THE DAILY CALLER: You know, Andrew McCarthy has made the case that the reason Comey was recommended to be fired by Rod Rosenstein is that he went out in public and he made a public indictment of Hillary Clinton without actually recommending a prosecution.
In other words, he made a character indictment of her in the court of public opinion. In Andrew McCarthy’s view, if this report comes out from Mueller and it does anything to try and go after you for any reason that doesn’t have any criminality involved, that would be a disservice to you. That’s not justice if the Justice Department is trying to say things to hurt your character but they don’t have anything to do with criminality.
POTUS: Well, I never had anything to do with the Russians having to do with this. I ran a great campaign. I ran a campaign that now they say was better than that gentleman’s [Andrew Jackson’s] campaign in the 1800s and we did a great job.
And we got 306 to 223 and that’s that. Won states that nobody thought were possible to win. Remember the expression, ‘he cannot get to 270.’ And we got way beyond 270.
And I don’t even say she ran a bad campaign. I think I ran a very good campaign.
THE DAILY CALLER: Well the people who elected you are very interested in the immigration decision and what’s going on with this negotiation. Republicans in charge of Congress for two years didn’t get to your wall promise in Congress. How big of a roadblock to wall funding was Paul Ryan now that he’s gone?
POTUS: Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that because I don’t like this bill,’ although I love the bill for what it did for the military. And therefore, if it weren’t for the military I would have vetoed it.
Just so you understand, our military needed funding desperately. Totally depleted. And this bill was great for the military. Had I vetoed it, you would never have gotten the numbers back that I got: $700 and $716 billion over the last two years. Which is substantially more — much more than President Obama was able to get for the military.
So that was a negative but a big factor as to why that was the reason I signed it. But another very big factor was the fact that Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so we need the wall.
And then he went lame duck. And once he went lame duck it was just really an exercise in waving to people and the power was gone, so I was very disappointed. I was very disappointed in Paul because the wall was so desperately needed. And it is. And I’ll get the wall.
THE DAILY CALLER: Did he lie to you? Did he play you?
POTUS: I don’t want to say he lied. I think he probably meant it at the time, I guess. I hope. So I don’t call that lying. But when he went lame duck, meaning, he said he’s not running again — and it was very unusual because usually they’ll do that sometime after an election and he didn’t want to do that because it’s somewhat misrepresenting and I understand that too. But maybe you don’t run, okay? Maybe you just don’t run. And he had an excellent person taking his place in Congress, he ran a great campaign, did a really good job.
So Paul said, ‘please sign the omnibus bill.’ Now, in all fairness to Paul, I may have signed it anyway because it was so much more money than anyone ever thought possible for the military, and equal to the wall and maybe even greater than the wall was my promise to refurbish the military.
You know, I made many statements, many promises. In fact, here are some of them, folks. But those are some of the things we’ve accomplished. VA choice, VA accountability — you know, these are things that for decades and decades and I got a lot of these things. Tax cuts, regulation cuts by far the most that anybody’s ever got, biggest tax cuts. And that’s why you look at the market — we just hit over 25,000. We’re back where we were, right?
So anyway, that’s the story.
THE DAILY CALLER: One thing that some conservatives are worried about is that you’re prepared to give away some status for illegal immigrants in exchange for the things that you want. So when it comes to DACA, in these negotiations that are going on on Capitol Hill, how far are you willing to go there?
POTUS: So I don’t know if you saw — you know, there was a couple of days ago, ‘he’s going to give up DACA, he’s going to —’
First of all, it’s not mine to give up right now because DACA is going to the Supreme Court, hopefully. But miraculously, and horribly, they lost DACA. This was a case that President Obama said, essentially, he doesn’t have the right to sign. But they went, as usual, to the Ninth Circuit and they won a case, they won an appeal, and now it’s hopefully going to the Supreme Court soon because this is a very important case.
We should win that case easily, you know, it should be won.
Now, if it is won, then we’ll talk about DACA but right now — when that case was lost we were very close to making a deal. And then a judge in the Ninth Circuit agreed that President Obama, although President Obama didn’t think he had a right to do it, he said that — as soon as that was done, I said, ‘that’s the end of that deal.’
We had a deal for some DACA — for a lot of things. But we had a deal done and I said to people when that case was lost — well, it wasn’t lost permanently, I think we’re going to ultimately win — that’s the time I want to talk about it.
THE DAILY CALLER: So DACA is tabled until the court resolves it?
POTUS: Well I said to people, I saw yesterday, ‘well, what about DACA,’ I said, ‘it’s highly unlikely.’ I was tougher than anybody else on that. I could see doing something for DACA but I want to find out what the Supreme Court’s gonna do first.
THE DAILY CALLER: Chuck Schumer said he doesn’t want the White House playing a role in negotiations on Capitol Hill—
POTUS: I don’t blame him.
THE DAILY CALLER: How much of a role are you going to play?
Because he doesn’t want me to make the deal. He doesn’t want to make me — because my idea of a deal is different than other people’s. Without our involvement a deal’s not going to get done and I think we’re going to — look, that deal. Look, there are numerous things we could do, including declaring a national emergency where we have very good law on our side, including the fact that I’m already building a tremendous amount of wall. People don’t realize that.
I’m going to be announcing the exact numbers but I’ll have over a hundred miles of wall either built or under construction between new and renovated. Over a hundred miles. We have a tremendous amount of money right now to build a wall. We’re building the wall. I’ll be announcing some numbers on — but in addition to that we declare a national emergency if this doesn’t work out.
THE DAILY CALLER: I believe you have a military base in Yuma, Arizona. Are you going to do some wall there? Is that the plan?
POTUS: We have, I believe, that area — yes. We have a tremendous problem in that area.
It’s very interesting, California, You know, they always say, ‘don’t build a wall,’ well, they were begging me to build a wall over in San Diego. The day I finished they said, ‘don’t build a wall.’ But they were begging me to build the wall because people were pouring in through that border, through that area.
We built a brand new wall. That’s not a renovated wall, that’s a brand new wall. We took down the old wall, we built a brand new wall. It’s fantastic, looks great, they did a great job, totally stopped everybody from coming in. The day we completed it California started saying, ‘don’t build a wall, we don’t want a wall.’ They want drones, right? Flying up around.
THE DAILY CALLER: You talked about the courts, sir. Are you keeping an eye right now on Justice Ginsburg’s health?
POTUS: Well, look, I hope that she’s healthy, I hope she’s happy, and I hope she lives for a long time.
THE DAILY CALLER: Would you commit to replacing her with somebody who was on that list — somebody like Amy Barrett who a lot of conservatives have looked at?
POTUS: Well I’ve been very religious. I’ve very much confined myself to that list, as you know. And that list has great people on it and I would say it’s highly likely I would stay. I think one of the things —
THE DAILY CALLER: But Amy Barrett would be a choice?
POTUS: No, she would certainly be a choice. I think anybody on that list would be a choice. They’re great people. I’ve been told, and I don’t know that that’s true, I would be surprised if it’s true, but a lot of people said that list was one of the reasons I won.
Because, being a non-politician, where you don’t have a record of choosing people, people just didn’t know who I would choose. And Supreme Court, especially for the Republican Party, it seems, was very, very important and I came up with the idea of a list of 20 and then I increased it to 25, 25 people and they’re very outstanding people. I felt so badly that Justice Kavanaugh had to go through what he had to go through but now he’s a Supreme Court justice and he’s going to be a great one.
Justice Gorsuch went through much easier and he’s going to be a great one.
THE DAILY CALLER: And in that process you had to deal with a couple of Democratic senators: Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein. And the report is that you have agreed or the White House has agreed, your White House counsel, to giving Democrats a say in who gets to be on the Ninth Circuit.
There’s a Wall Street Journal editorial about this and so people like Erick Erickson have come out and have criticized this decision because they’re saying you’re basically giving up two seats on the Ninth Circuit when you’re not renominating the people from before.
POTUS: Well, I know nothing about it. That I can tell you. I would not do it. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t do that.
In fact, you can tell them for the first time, I will not do that. It’s a false report.
I’ve had many false reports from the Wall Street editorial board. Like, as an example, right now we’re negotiating with China. We’re doing very well. Wall Street — they don’t like tariffs. If we didn’t have tariffs they wouldn’t even be talking to us. They would not even be talking to us. You understand that?
THE DAILY CALLER: Well, on that issue, let me ask you about China. At the end of this, if there is not intellectual property protections in the deal, will you push the tariffs?
POTUS: Well, what happens is that right now China’s paying 25 percent on $50 billion worth of goods. Mostly high technology. And I was going to charge them 25 percent on $200 billion worth of goods and then I’d have $267 billion leftover where I’m not charging them anything. At their request, and subject to this deal until March 1st, I’m charging them 10 percent on 200 billion. You’ve got the 50 and the 25, then you’ve got 200 and I’m charging them 10 percent until March 1st. After March 1st it will go up to 25 percent.
So yeah, that’s very important to me.
You know, billions of dollars are being poured into our treasury. Billions. We never had five cents come into our treasury. Now we have billions of dollars and in addition, and very importantly…
The president returns to the issue of the Ninth Circuit court.
POTUS: The Ninth Circuit is so much in one direction that you couldn’t make that deal. Look, I’ve lost … the United States has lost so many cases in the Ninth Circuit and, you know, I had an argument — a slight argument, which, I think was not too much of an argument — with Justice Roberts about the Ninth Circuit. If I did that, what are we doing? We have to catch up because we are so far behind on the Ninth Circuit. So I would never make that deal. And I can tell you, if it is made I would end it, but it wasn’t, you know, not that I know of.
No, the answer is: I would not do that. You don’t catch up by making those deals.
THE DAILY CALLER: Let me ask you about religious bigotry. I want to read a list to you first and then get your reaction because I think you’re going to want to react to this.
A number of high-profile Democrats have recently attacked people of faith for their religious beliefs.
POTUS: Terrible.
THE DAILY CALLER: You’ve got anti-Semitism in the leadership of the Women’s March, sitting members of Congress who’ve expressed or condoned anti-Semitism, attacks on Second Lady Karen Pence for teaching at a Christian school, attacks by Democratic senators on your judicial nominees for being Catholic or members of the Knights of Columbus, attacks on the boys of Covington Catholic High School for being Catholic and Trump supporters.
Does the Democratic Party have a crisis of bigotry and how should they handle it?
POTUS: I think it’s a crisis for our country because there’s never been a time — I saw where today, I believe it was a congressman, took ‘in God we trust’ —
THE DAILY CALLER: ‘So help me God.’
POTUS: ‘So help me God.’ Took the phrase off of a document. And I said, ‘Where are we going?’
I think it’s a terrible thing for our country and I think it’s certainly a terrible thing for the Democrats because I don’t think they’re going to be able to get away with it.
THE DAILY CALLER: Another thing, sir, Virginia Gov. [Ralph] Northam actually right before this, suggested a mother who wants to have an abortion while in labor should instead be allowed to let her baby die after delivery if that’s her choice. Do you think that would be infanticide?
POTUS: I watched that this morning. I watched the person testifying and I felt it was terrible.
THE DAILY CALLER: The Virginia delegate?
POTUS: Yes. Do you remember during the debate I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb just prior to birth? And I used the term ‘rip’? That’s what it is. That’s what they’re doing, it’s terrible.
THE DAILY CALLER: Do you think this is an embrace by the Democrats of this type of abortion agenda?
POTUS: I think this is going to lift up the whole pro-life movement like maybe it’s never been lifted before. And the pro-life movement is very much a 50-50, it’s a very 50-50 issue. Actually it’s gained a point or two over the years, but it’s been very much 49-51 and vice-versa. I think this really will lift up the issue because people have never thought of it in those terms. Cause she actually said, you know, the day of, virtually the day of birth.
THE DAILY CALLER: Northam suggested that today too.
POTUS: Oh did he? So he confirmed that?
THE DAILY CALLER: And he’s a pediatric neurosurgeon.
POTUS: I’m surprised that he did that. I’ve met him a number of times. I’m surprised that he said that. I saw the woman do it — who ever that was, was that the attorney general?
THE DAILY CALLER: She’s a delegate. Kathy Tran, a delegate in Virginia.
POTUS: So I was very, very surprised that they would say that and allow that.
THE DAILY CALLER: Could you give us an exclusive preview of the State of the Union? What can we expect? Who are the guests that are going to be in the gallery?
POTUS: Well, in fact, we’re making up a list very shortly.
But I will say that some of them will be border-related, some of them will be people who have suffered very badly because we didn’t do what we should’ve done in a very dangerous part of our country, and so that’s going to be a part of it, absolutely.
At the same time, the world is not doing well and we’re going great. You look at the numbers, we’re hitting highs. I get no credit for it. It’s like, when do you ever hear them talking about — we just hit 25,000 and you won’t even hear a thing about it. If President Obama were there — and don’t forget, he was paying no interest. We’re actually paying interest. You know, he was paying no interest. He didn’t have liquidity being drained out of the market in order to pay it down, which we have. How about 50 billion dollars a month? $50 billion a month.
If I had a no interest, no liquidity situation with respect to the market, I mean, forget it. It would actually be incredible, the numbers. Big difference. Tremendous difference.
THE DAILY CALLER: The Super Bowl this weekend, I just want to get you on that because you’re an NFL fan. I’m just going to stick to the Patriots here for a second. What makes Kraft, Brady, and Belichick so much better than everybody else and how are they always back in the big game?
POTUS: So, it’s talent, it’s chemistry — they have a great chemistry with each other — I mean, I like all three of them, as you know, I’m very good friends with them. Coach Belichick endorsed me, you remember that?
Belichick is so tough and Kraft is a great guy. The three of them they just have — how good was Brady, I mean, the last game? Not the last game, the last two games. Brady plays better under pressure than he does in a regular game. I mean, that last two minutes the way he was throwing the ball down the field — they were bullets.
And I’ve seen how hard that ball comes at you, those guys were doing a great job. They were catching that, you know? That ball is whipped.
THE DAILY CALLER: Have you noticed that all of the kneeling basically stopped this year and the ratings went up and the revenue went up? Is there any part of you that says, ‘Yeah, I won that fight’?
POTUS: No, I don’t want to take credit for that. You know I get along very well with the NFL. I helped them in Canada, you know that story where they were having a dispute for many years with Canada. And as part of NAFTA, you know, the termination of NAFTA and the new — but as part of NAFTA, which is now the USMCA, I was able to get their dispute settled because they’re a great American company and I don’t want great American companies to have problems.
In fact, Commissioner [Roger] Goodell called me and he thanked me, you know, they were working on that thing for years. It was having to do with the advertisements for the Super Bowl, it was a long-term problem and I got it solved.
I think it’s great what they did, it looks like it’s straightened out. I think that may be famous last words, let’s see what happens, but I think in the end it really worked out great. And, you know what, their ratings went up along with — as that problem went down, their ratings went up.
THE DAILY CALLER: So you’re satisfied with Goodell’s performance? You don’t think he should go?
POTUS: No, I think — look, I think that worked out very well. I was very pleased that he called me to thank me for helping him with Canada and yeah, it looks good. And their games have really been good other than one call. It was a little bit — I feel badly, it was a great state that voted for me, Louisiana. I feel very badly for Louisiana because that was maybe the worst call I’ve ever seen but I guess there’s nothing they can do about that. And you might say it, I feel badly for Louisiana.
THE DAILY CALLER: One final one on 2020 if you don’t mind. Who is your dream candidate in 2020 to run against?
POTUS: Well so far a lot of them. I don’t mind. I think that there’s a lot of talk about — it looks like Elizabeth Warren has not caught on like they thought she would. She fell into a trap. It’s called the Pocahontas trap.
There’s so many of them. The truth is there are some I’d love to run against.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-daily-caller-interview-e1548926741693.jpg412640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-01-31 04:30:132019-01-31 10:01:38EXCLUSIVE: Trump Says State Of The Union Guests Will Be ‘Border-Related’
House Democrats proposed to strike “so help you God” from witnesses’ oaths before a major committee as part of their proposed rules package.
The current draft of the proposed House Committee on Natural Resources rules package replaces all gender-specific pronouns with “their,” and substitutes committee “chair” for “chairman” in committee documents. The rules package also proposes that witnesses who testify before the committee be administered an oath bereft of any reference to faith or God and that adds the phrase “under penalty of law.”
“Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” the proposed oath reads, according to the draft obtained by Fox News Tuesday.
Republican leadership decried the proposed removal of faith-based language as a sign that the Democratic Party was shifting toward Marxism.
“It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of their first acts in the majority,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming told Fox News. “They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”
Oddly enough, the proposal to remove references to God comes just two months after Democrats proposed to remove a 181-year-old restriction on wearing religious headgear on the House floor in order to accommodate newly-elected Muslim women members.
The House Committee on Natural Resources is expected to vote in the coming week on whether to approve the rules proposal, which, if adopted, will be immediately implemented.
Joshua Gill is the religion reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. He is a former member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @Joshua_K_Gill.
Progressivism has exposed America to self-destruction by welcoming aliens who, by their own confession, brazenly declare that they are here to challenge and then destroy our way of life.
Whereas America’s doors have always been open to people of all races and religions who come with hope and gratitude for the opportunities granted in a free society, we were unprepared for those who want to erase our history and accomplishments, destroy our monuments and customs, and replace our laws with their barbarism, in the hope of replicating their oppressive regimes here.
Two Muslim women have been voted into officeunder the cover of deceptive manifestos. They misrepresented their platform and have thereby candidly sullied the dignity of their positions, insulted the United States, the Executive Office of the President and, specifically, our esteemed President Donald J Trump.
Ilhan Omar Photo: Facebook
Ilhan Omar, new congresswoman from Minnesota, a Somali immigrant with a history of making disparaging statements against Israel, our ally,was appointed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Nancy Pelosi, who has also turned her back on Israel and American interests and security. Wasting no time to investigate and understand America’s ties to Saudi Arabia or to Israel, Omar, prompted by her personal defiance and beliefs as a Somalian Muslim, not as an American, called for decreased financial aid to Saudi Arabia and labelled Israel an evil regime, challenging the latter’s government and actual existence.
First, the US provides little military aid; rather, we are selling 6,700 missiles as part of a $1 billion deal to Saudi Arabia for its anti-terrorism training and education and for food to civil-war-torn Yemen. Omar is either ignorant or else chooses to dismiss the essence of America’s financial transactions. Second, she has brought with her the 1400-year history of Islamic hatred for Jews, Christians and Hindus, and Islam’s centuries of condoned torture, enslavement, and slaughter perpetrated on 900 million people who refused conversion to Islam. The slaughter continues to this day, as noted on the Religion of Peace website: 34,494 (at this writing) deadly Islamic terrorist attacks in 29 countries, since 9/11. During the week of January 19th, 28 attacks in 12 countries, 135 killed, 171 injured, and 6 suicide blasts were reported.
Without once acknowledging Islam’s destructive role in world affairs, how Islamic countries are truly apartheid and violent, she denounces Israel as an authoritative apartheid regime rather than the parliamentary democracy that it is, representing and treating equally every segment of its multi-racial, -religious, -ethnic society. Her comments are virulently anti-Semitic and, when challenged, she cannot provide a sliver of evidence for her accusations, but has no compunction about repeating them later. Having been raised in deep-seated enmity, she ignores the Islamic wars waged against everyone, and the discord sown in what had previously been peaceful nations.
In keeping with the Islamic dedication to taqiyya, an accepted Islamic war strategy, she denied her support of boycotting Israel before her election, but has now admitted her true position.
Omar blatantly supports the effort to debilitate America’s greatest ally – the Democratic State of Israel. The Arab attacks against Jews have been constant for centuries, throughout the Islamic world, in Israel, and across Europe. The horrific jihadi attacks include stabbings, beheadings, and an ongoing fire jihad over 8,000-plus acres of forestry and agricultural land, its human and animal inhabitants, while also jeopardizing their own dispensable youth and women. Jihad continues here in stealth from those who work to fundamentally change our laws and allegiances.
Oddly, with the exception of a Muslim tribe, Yibir, that claims to have descended from Hebrews before the arrival of Somali nomads, there are no Jews in apartheid Somalia, so from where does Omar’s intense animus derive except from the Koran and Hadiths, which are rife with Mohammed’s scorn and teachings. As he stated on his deathbed: “Let there not be two religions in Arabia,” thus sealing the eternal intolerance and fate of all who would not accept Islamic law and rule. Mohammed commanded Muslims to fight the non-Muslims by “all means possible for all times.”
The centuries of persecution, forced conversion, expulsion and massacre began with the Jews of Khaybar and the Christians of Najran, and have been passed downto the present day. This, then, is the origin of the mindset of Ilhan Omar.
Rashida Tlaib Photo: Facebook
Muslima Rashida Tlaib, another new member of Congress who identifies as Palestinianand blatantly displays her detestation for our President, is unquestionably an expression of hate for America and our Constitution. She opposes everything that President Trump stresses, particularly his articulation of friendship with Israel and acceptance of Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. A sticky notewith the name “Palestine” covers Israel on her office map, and she asked to be sworn in on the Thomas Jefferson Koran, the Islamic prayer book that demands holy war and death to Jews and Christiansthroughout the world. The Koran allows no allegiance to our country or our values; Jefferson obtained it in order to understand the Barbary pirates (North African jihadis) who were attacking non-military ships belonging to America and eight other Christian nations in the 1700s. When attempts to negotiate peace failed, our ambassador learned that the Muslims would always wage war in order to spread Islam, increase their slave trade, and to qualify for vigorous sexual activity inthe Islamic version of heaven. It was then that Jefferson obtained a 1734 English translation of the Koran to understand the nature of ourexistential enemy. It was not purchased and kept out of reverence, as Tlaib would have us believe.
Not only did Tlaib not display an American flag at her primary victory celebration, but she also wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag and invited rabid Israeli-hater, Abbas Hamideh, to her celebratory dinner party. Hamideh is a co-founder of Al-Awda, a group dedicated to the platform of the delegitimization and eradication of Israel. In a photo with him, she is wearing a keffiyeh, a scarf of jihad, holy war. There is no doubt: she is not here as an American, and she will not legislate as an American. She and her like-minded friends, including the vast membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, antisemitic jihadas Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory and others are working to control American policies and speech with the goal of establishing sharia law in the West and using the cry of “Islamophobia” against any criticism that might alert the public to the scheme.
A member of the Democrat Socialists of America, Tlaib strongly supports the boycott-divestment-sanctions movement (BDS) to bring about Israel’s economic destruction, and to create an “Islamic state in Palestine” in its place. She is tied to the designated-terrorist group, Hamas, known for its political, social, humanitarian and military activities committed to defeating Israel, and which recruits students for suicide attacks, supports intifada, guarantees support and homes for the martyrs’ families, and works to obstruct Israel’s trade agreements with international propaganda and boycotts, while working to flood Israel with terrorist-trained Palestinians. Aligned with J Street, one of the most virulent anti-Israel organizations in the history of Zionism and Judaism, Tlaib plans to lead a taxpayer-funded mission of lawmakers to Israel’s Judea and Samaria at the same time that the traditional Israel mission is planned – to oppose the truth with the false Palestinian narrative. To be noted: recent tax forms for a George Soros Open Society Foundation show an expenditure of $85,307 to Rashida Tlaib (p.97 of a 321-page report), which she failed to disclose when she ran for office.
Both Omar and Tlaib deceived their voters on their views about America, presenting themselves as moderate American citizens, but later admitting their true course – Islamic supremacy. They were brought here initiallyfor conquest by population, known as hijra, and they now seek to defeat our nation through our own laws. Tlaib had the audacity to announce, “Each passing day brings more pain for the people most directly hurt by this president, and these are days we simply cannot get back. The time for impeachment proceedings is now.” On 4 Jan 2019, 10:08 AM, she tweeted, “Americans have spent decades raping and pillaging my people.” Her people are Palestinians, not Americans.
Clearly, both women have taken their positions not for their interest in America, but in order to promote their inherent Koranic beliefs, which focus on the destruction of Israel and the supplanting of freedom for worldwide sharia. Islam is here to be the dominant religion on Earth. Omar and Tlaib should be removed from their positions, not merely because they are a clear and present danger to our republic, but also because their positions were gained as a result of the misrepresentation of themselves to their constituents.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Ilhan Omar’s Facebook page.
Polylogism is the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos. – Ludwig von Mises
The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own brand.
Image credit: Flicker-Recuerdos de Pandora | CC BY 2.0
Until the middle of the 19th century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.
Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual cooperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.
Denouncing Logic
Yet, in the course of the 19th century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the “proletarian philosopher” Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker’s class position. What thinking produces is not truth but “ideologies.” This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the “bourgeois” origin of the physicists.
The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by “bourgeois” economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries’ ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.
Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only “ideological” statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that “the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple.” The proletarian logic is not “ideology” but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency. One of their champions, Professor Mannheim, tries to demonstrate that there exists a group of men, the “unattached intellectuals,” who are equipped with the gift of grasping truth without falling prey to ideological errors. Of course, Professor Mannheim is convinced that he is the foremost of these “unattached intellectuals.” You simply cannot refute him. If you disagree with him, you only prove thereby that you yourself are not one of this elite of “unattached intellectuals” and that your utterances are ideological nonsense.
Polylogism and the Nazis
The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics, and so on. But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor Tirala, his counterpart as champion of Aryan epistemology, declares that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are those of the Aryans. In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from the pollution of the Western philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. They are in search of arteigen German science, that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the Germans.
We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man’s mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result. We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.
Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British. It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of relativity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which—although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic—are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to. But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details.
Polylogism has a peculiar method of dealing with dissenting views. If its supporters fail to unmask the background of an opponent, they simply brand him a traitor. Both Marxians and Nazis know only two categories of adversaries. The aliens—whether members of a nonproletarian class or of a non-Aryan race—are wrong because they are aliens; the opponents of proletarian or Aryan origin are wrong because they are traitors. Thus they lightly dispose of the unpleasant fact that there is dissension among the members of what they call their own class or race.
The Nazis contrast German economics with Jewish and Anglo-Saxon economics. But what they call German economics differs not at all from some trends in foreign economics. It developed out of the teachings of the Genevese Sismondi and of the French and British socialists. Some of the older representatives of this alleged German economics merely imported foreign thought into Germany. Frederick List brought the ideas of Alexander Hamilton to Germany, Hildebrand and Brentano brought the ideas of early British socialism. Arteigen German economics is almost identical with contemporary trends in other countries, e.g., with American Institutionalism.
On the other hand, what the Nazis call Western economics and therefore artfremd is to a great extent an achievement of men to whom even the Nazis cannot deny the term German. Nazi economists wasted much time in searching the genealogical tree of Carl Menger for Jewish ancestors; they did not succeed. It is nonsensical to explain the conflict between economic theory, on the one hand, and Institutionalism and historical empiricism, on the other hand, as a racial or national conflict.
Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) taught in Vienna and New York and served as a close adviser to the Foundation for Economic Education. He is considered the leading theorist of the Austrian School of the 20th century.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/swastikas-906653_640.jpg426640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-29 19:03:332019-01-29 19:03:35What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx
George J. Marlin raises a question very much on the minds of many Catholics. Surely, some rebuke from New York’s bishops is necessary.
In March 1970, the New York State Legislature repealed the anti-abortion law that had been on the books since 1830. The bill narrowly passed, due to support from several legislators from heavily Catholic districts who were subsequently defeated for their apostasy in the November elections.
Back in those days, the Catholic Church in New York possessed moral authority; and the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Terrence Cooke, was not afraid to use that power in the public square.
Cardinal Cooke led the charge to repeal the law that permitted unrestricted abortions up to 24 weeks. And in May 1972, the State Legislature did just that and reinstated the 1830 statute.
Sadly, Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the repeal of the liberalized abortion law shortly thereafter.
The New York abortion issue became moot, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.
Fast forward forty years and abortion has once again made headlines in New York thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo, a baptized Catholic and graduate of Archbishop Molly High School in Queens and Fordham University in the Bronx, has abandoned some major moral tenets of his faith.
In 2011, his first year in office, he engineered the passage of same-sex marriage legislation. “Marriage equality,” he declared, “is a question of principle and the state shouldn’t discriminate against same-sex couples who wish to get married.”
Then on January 16, 2014, Cuomo announced, on a radio show, that Catholics and others with traditional moral views were unfit citizens who were no longer welcome in New York:
Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
It gets worse.
Cuomo has been off the rails on the subject of abortion. In his 2013 State of the State Address, he cast his lot with the radical pro-abortion lobby, screaming four times, “It’s her body; it’s her choice!”
Cuomo introduced legislation that would repeal the 1970 abortion law, and would codify abortion as a “fundamental right of privacy,” a classification even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected.
Cuomo’s proposal was bottled up in the Republican-Conservative-controlled State Senate for four years. But last November, the GOP lost control of that legislative chamber.
A jubilant Cuomo boasted that his so-called Reproductive Health Act would be the first order of business before the newly organized Legislature in January 2019.
And so it was.
On January 22, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Legislature passed the bill, to thundering applause and wild laughter. Minutes later, to a standing ovation, Cuomo signed it into law.
Standing (right to left in the photo), during the visit of Pope Francis to St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York (September 23, 2015), are the author, Mayor Bill DeBlasio, Sandra Lee (Andrew Cuomo’s domestic partner), and the governor.
This law goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. It removes abortion clauses from the penal code and “creates a right to the procedure under the public health law.”
Although abortions are restricted to the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, exceptions are so broad (i.e., economic, social, or emotional distress) that anyone will be able to procure an abortion up to minutes before giving birth. In other words, the lives of unborn children who have viability outside the womb can now be terminated by doctors and non-doctors.
Governor Andrew Cuomo is very different than his father, Governor Mario Cuomo. The elder Cuomo tried to be St. Thomas More and Machiavelli at one and the same time.
In his famous 1984 Notre Dame speech on “Religious Belief and Public Morality,” the More-Cuomo said “The Catholic Church is my spiritual home. My head is there and my hope. . . .[and] I accept the Church’s teaching on abortion.” But the Machiavelli-Cuomo gave himself an “out” by claiming that as a public official, he could not impose his private religious views on the rest of society.
Mario Cuomo demonstrated the absurdity of his position every time he vetoed death penalty legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature and was supported by over 60 percent of New Yorkers. Cuomo imposed his personal moral objections even though there was public opinion against him.
Andrew Cuomo is vastly different from his father. There is no duality; he prefers to be a Machiavellian and he promotes whatever works to advance his political ambitions.
In fact, it has been reported that when he was Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, one of his first acts “was to distribute the book by Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, to his key aides. . .telling them: ‘This is my leadership philosophy.’”
Cuomo uses or spurns the Church when it suits his political ends. While he discarded Church teaching on abortion, he embraced and praised Pope Francis’s message concerning the needy and the marginalized. And when the pope visited St. Patrick’s Cathedral on September 24, 2015, Cuomo made sure he was in a front pew. It was great political theater for the governor.
Since Andrew Cuomo has dismissed the fundamental Church teaching that all persons have the right to life because they are made in the image of God, maybe it’s time the Church dismissed him.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that “Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.”
So, at the very least, the bishops of New York should announce publicly that because Cuomo has caused public scandal, he must be denied Communion.
Or the bishops, if they have the mettle, might call Cuomo in and point out the canonical penalties they are prepared to impose if he does not renounce his heresy. Whether or not that includes excommunication is a matter for canon lawyers.
But something really must be done, lest New York’s bishops confirm the growing perception that the Catholic Church is a compromised paper tiger.
Venezuelans took to the streets across their country Wednesday to protest the beginning of a second term for President Nicolás Maduro.
Following years of famine, the decimation of savings, and the destruction of a once-leading Latin American economy, tens—perhaps hundreds—of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets across their country Wednesday to protest the beginning of a second term for President Nicolás Maduro.
Maduro was reelected in May 2018 in what many, including the Atlantic Council and The New York Times, have called a “sham election,” with the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela’s modern history.
The People Have Had Enough
Protesters aim to force Maduro’s resignation so that new elections may be held. Speaking on the street before a camera and holding a Venezuelan flag, one woman addressed Maduro directly: “Understand it, sir: Venezuela has outgrown you!”
Maduro’s socialist ruling party was first swept to power by his predecessor Hugo Chavez in 1998 following Chavez’s unsuccessful violent overthrow of the Venezuelan government six years before. Since then, this movement has orchestrated government takeovers of various parts of Venezuelan society that used to be in the hands of individuals, most notably the country’s productive oil sector. The extreme shortages of basic goods and services that resulted from these destructive policy choices made life difficult for everyday Venezuelans without connections to those in the government. Compounded by an inflation rate expected to reach 10,000,000 percent this year, the Venezuelan standard of living has plummeted. Where the median Venezuelan monthly income is only $8, a two-pound bag of onions costs $2.
Once Latin America’s “breadbasket,” Venezuela is now famished.
Leading into Wednesday’s protests, Venezuelan opposition leader and president of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó declared himself to be Venezuela’s interim president. He was recognized quickly by the US, various international groups, and at least four other Latin American countries.
“We will stay on the street until Venezuela is liberated,” declared Mr. Guaidó.
Given the government’s violent response to previous shows of opposition, it is no stretch to say that Mr. Guaidó and every protester is risking everything to try to escape the tyrannical rule.
Socialism Has Taken Its Toll
Venezuela’s current state is due directly to the mentalities of Chavez and Maduro and their belief in “economic war” to right the wrongs that hurt people daily. Their approach to see economic and social problems as a condition to solve with policy weapons (and actual weapons against those who do not fall in line) has produced only misery, sickness, and death.
Former FEE intern Jorge Jraissati tells his country’s heartbreaking story in a hit video released just last year. Jorge describes the crime, poverty, and fear resulting from the relentless warfare the Venezuelan government has waged on the Venezuelan people.
We at FEE stand with the people inside and outside of Venezuela who are working to bring freedom to every person in Venezuela. But we’re not naive to the realities or dangers of the situation.
Maduro could use the crisis to crush the opposition and consolidate power further. There’s the potential of bloody civil war or the ascension of a right-wing tyrant in the mold of Pinochet. International tensions could escalate.
Yet, on one point, we’re certain: the brave people on the streets of Caracas and every city in Venezuela deserve the chance to plot their own destiny, and we hope today is the beginning of the end of their long suffering.
Richard N. Lorenc is FEE’s Executive Vice President and serves as managing director of FEE’s Youth Education and Audience Research (“YEAR”) project to develop and promote new content and distribution techniques for free-market ideas.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: Wikipedia
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/venezuela_protest-e1548584989673.jpg360640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-27 05:29:582019-01-27 05:29:59Venezuelans Stand on the Edge of History
Within minutes after President Trump made his Rose Garden announcement that a “deal” was made to reopen the government the Democratic National Campaign Committee (DNCC.org) sent out the below email:
Watch the video of President Trump’s announcement:
A good friend of mine noted that “compromise is the art of losing slowly.” It now appears that President Trump is more interested in making a deal than keeping America safe by building the wall. Now making a deal is the art of losing slowly.
President Trump now has five options:
Sign legislation passed by both houses of Congress that does not include the $5.7 billion to build the wall.
Veto legislation passed by both houses of Congress that does not include the $5.7 billion to build the wall.
Sign legislation passed by both houses of Congress that does include the $5.7 billion to build the wall.
If Congress does not pass legislation that includes the $5.7 billion to build the wall then declare a national emergency and build the wall.
Do nothing and let the current border situation continue to worsen.
The question is will President Trump, now that he has signed the temporary CR, demand that Pelosi keep her word and open up the House chambers for the State of the Union address?
As the DNCC.org email highlights, “Time for some accountability.” The House and Senate Democrats plan on holding Trump accountable. As they do and the legacy media parrot their propaganda the Republicans will cower in fear. For you see the opposite of peace isn’t war, it is fear. The Democrats and media strike fear in the hearts of Republicans.
Ayn Rand wrote:
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”
President Trump and the Republican Party are in a state of constant retreat. The Democrats are in a constant state of applying pressure. Today may go down in political history as the end of the Trump presidency.
Trump’s signature slogan was, like George H.W. Bush’s read my lips, “build the wall.” The wall will not be built because the Democrats rightly understand that they have won. They aren’t tired of winning.
The presidential election cycle that is just beginning could turn out to become a rout. The Republicans could lose the Senate and the White House.
Today, January 25, 2019 is the beginning of the retreat and the decline and fall of MAGA. The end.
Hundreds of thousands of desperate, hungry, fed-up Venezuelans took to the streets today in cities all over the country after Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez, president of the opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela, declared himself Interim President.
Statements of official recognition and support quickly followed from U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials, Canada, and many countries in Central and South America. The governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey, notably, remain solidly behind current President Nicolas Maduro.
By day’s end, Maduro cut off diplomatic ties with the U.S. and gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country. The Trump administration fired back, saying through a spokesman that “all options are on the table.”
While the diplomatic, moral, and verbal support of the U.S. and other regional countries is surely important, what will matter even more are several factors likely beyond any of their control.
Will the Venezuelan people remain on the streets this time, no matter what?
Will the Venezuelan military remain loyal to Maduro even to the point of firing live rounds at their fellow Venezuelans? (The answer to that may already be coming into view, as there have been reports of live fire from the Venezuelan Guardia Nacional and casualties earlier today.)
Will Maduro’s Cuban, Hizballah, and/or Iranian “security advisors” take an even more active, direct role in putting down what may be the most serious challenge to Maduro’s rule yet?
Stay tuned, as Diosdado Cabello, a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly and reportedly one of the most corrupt politicians in the country, has called Maduro supporters to defend Miraflores Palace, the official presidential residence, in downtown Caracas.
About Clare M. Lopez
Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy. She previously was a Senior Fellow with the Center as well as with the London Center for Policy Research, member of Sen. Ted Cruz’ 2016 presidential campaign national security advisory team, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, and a career operations officer with the CIA. Read her complete bio here. Follow Lopez on Twitter @ClareMLopezView all posts by Clare M. Lopez →
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/andres-gerlotti-560502-unsplash-e1548430161192.jpg427640Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2019-01-25 10:30:102019-01-25 10:31:10Chaos in Venezuela by Clare M. Lopez
One Republican member of Congress is standing against fake news. Congressman Mo Brooks, R-Alabama took to the floor and gave a clear and precise evisceration of CNN.
Congressman Brooks also spoke on how MS 13 gang members brutally murdered a grandmother and her granddaughter. Illegals have even impacted the state of Alabama. Watch:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mo-brooks.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-24 20:31:502019-01-24 20:32:18VIDEO: Republican member of Congress calls CNN ‘fake news king’
Students at March for Life become target of fake news, face threats of violence from the Left.
COVINGTON, Ky. (ChurchMilitant.com) – Students at a Catholic school are getting demonized both in the media and by Catholic leaders after a misleading video clip cast them as racists.
Students at Covington Catholic High School were waiting for their bus at the Lincoln Memorial when Black Hebrew Israelite protestors started shouting insults and slurs at them, using words like “cracker” and “faggot.” The students did school spirit cheers to drown out the insults when a small group of Native American protestors came into the crowd. One Native American, beating a drum and singing, waded into the crowd of high school boys and walked up to one boy wearing a Make America Great Again hat. The man stood face to face with the boy, beating the drum just a few inches from his face.
The man beating the drum, activist Nathan Phillips, told the media that the high schoolers surrounded him, threatened and mocked him and chanted “build the wall.” A short video clip from the encounter was deceptively edited to make it look like all the high school students, including the boy face to face with Phillips, had surrounded Phillips and were all mocking his Native American heritage.
One video clip shows at least one high schooler in the crowd apparently making the “hatchet” hand motion, which is widely considered offensive to Native Americans. Many of the students in the crowd are wearing spirit wear from Covington Catholic High School — a Catholic all-boys school in Northern Kentucky.
The diocese of Covington, Covington Catholic High School and even the U.S. bishops’ conference quickly condemned the high schoolers seen in the edited video clip, accusing them of engaging in “raw partisan activism” and lacking “respect of the human person.”
Now, that teenage boy and his colleagues are facing threats of violence from leftists on social media, even though later video evidence shows that Phillips was the instigator of the encounter, not the high schooler.
In fact, video footage taken by one of the Black Israel activists shows Phillips and the other Native Americans approaching the high schoolers peacefully, and it seems as though their drumming is joining in on the high schoolers’ cheers.
A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gave a thinly veiled criticism of the high schoolers on Twitter, writing, “The Pro-Life movement is not merely a political movement and should never be reduced to raw partisan activism. It is an invitation to treat one another, born and unborn, as children of God. Ugly examples to the contrary are unacceptable to the authentic pro-life generation.”
Meanwhile, the diocese of Covington released a joint statement on the incident, along with Covington Catholic High School, condemning the students while also admitting that the incident is still “being investigated.”
The brief statement reads, “We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C. We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person.”
It continues, “The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.”
Even the mayor of Covington joined in on the condemnations in an op-ed for local newspaper The Cincinnati Enquirer. Covington, Kentucky is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Ohio.
More recently, some headlines online hinted that the school might be considering a lawsuit against the media for slandering the students. But it is unclear what the sources are for this, and the statement condemning the students remained on the diocese’s website at the time of publication. The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.Tweet
The boy that Phillips got face to face with later identified himself as Nick Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic. He and his family released a statement to the media on Sunday through an attorney and spokesperson. In this statement, Sandmann said, “I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me.”
He went on, “We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.”
“I believed that by remaining motionless and calm,” Sandmann wrote, “I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.”
Sandmann added, “I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me — to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.”I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me.Tweet
Phillips, a lifelong activist, was in the nation’s capital for the Indigenous Peoples’ March.
There is a Change.org petition siding with the boys of Covington Catholic High School and opposing their expulsion from the school. At the time of publication, it had nearly 13,000 signatures.
Another petition calls for all the news outfits who smeared the high schoolers to issue an “immediate apology.” This petition has garnered nearly 9,000 signatures.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with videos and images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-01-21-March_for_Life_Fake_News-e1548240896229.jpg356640Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-01-23 05:56:072019-01-23 06:04:35US Bishops, Diocese Throw Covington Catholic Students Under The Bus [+Video]
We are still waiting to hear if authorities in Carson City, Nevada will be filing charges against a “man” they have in custody.
Wilbur Martinez-Guzman
See my post yesterday (click here) for news about the arrest of Wilbur Martinez-Guzman, 19. Police believe he is responsible for a murder spree in Nevada earlier this month that left four people dead in their homes.
Here are two of those murdered Americans. (Thanks to TwoLaine for sending the link).
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Wilbur-Martinez-Guzman-e1548198878361.jpg427640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-01-22 18:14:522019-01-22 18:14:53Will This Illegal Alien be Charged in their Murder?
