Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits

/in , , , , , , /by

By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek.

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.

About the Authors: 

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

Roger Bezdek

Dr. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and President of Management Information Services, Inc., in Washington, D.C.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Hong Kong is by Arisa Chattasa@golfarisa.

100 Years Ago, U.S. Marines Helped Turn the Tide of World War I

/in , , , /by

Americans rightly remember the Americans who stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, to liberate Europe, but we also should commemorate the Americans who, 100 years ago, fought in another fierce battle in France that began on June 6—the Battle of Belleau Wood.

It was one of the most brutal battles the Marines ever fought as they confronted the vicious technology of modern warfare. But when it was over, they had won a battle that would turn the tide of World War I in favor of the Allies and lead to eventual victory over Germany.

When the Americans entered the war in April 1917, the Allies were in desperate straits. The Russian Revolution caused the withdrawal of Russia from the war, and the collapse of the Italian army left the French and the British holding up their weak partner, Italy.

The Germans were able to reinforce the Western front with 50 divisions, where millions of young men in the Allied forces had been slaughtered in the trenches and killing fields of northern France. Most historians say the Americans arrived just in time.

In the spring of 1918, the Germans launched their largest offensive since 1914, pushing back the British while the French virtually collapsed. German forces drove through the French army to within 45 miles of Paris, causing the French government to make plans to evacuate the city.

When the Allies were able to launch a counterattack, they ordered the U.S. Marines to attack at Belleau Wood, an area of open fields and 200 acres of deep woods where four German divisions were well dug in and equipped with modern artillery, trench mortars, heavy machine guns, and poison gas. But capturing Belleau Wood was key to turning back the German advance.

The 5th and 6th Marine Regiments were given the job. As they moved into position, the leathernecks passed fleeing French troops who yelled at them to retreat from the advancing German forces. Marine Capt. Lloyd Williams, in the best tradition of the Corps, yelled back, “Retreat? Hell, we just got here.”

The fight for Belleau Wood was violent, bloody, and ferocious from the very beginning, when the Marines had to cross a wheat field against relentless German machine gun fire with almost no artillery support.

One of the noncommissioned officers who led the Marines was one of the most famous in the history of the Corps—Sgt. Major Daniel Joseph “Dan” Daly.

The words Daly yelled at his men as they started the battle are carved in stone at the Marine Corps museum outside Quantico, Virginia: “Come on you sons of b—–s, do you want to live forever?”

Daly already had won two Congressional Medals of Honor—one for helping defend the American consulate in what is now known as Beijing during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and another in Haiti in 1915.

He would be awarded the Navy Cross for his actions at Belleau Wood, where more than 1,000 Marines were killed the first day as they charged into a hailstorm of bullets and steel to try to get across that wheat field.

When the Marines finally got to the woods, they found them honey-combed with German machine gun nests. The Marines engaged in hand-to-hand fighting with their rifles, pistols, hand grenades, and bayonets. They fought day and night without being relieved, often without water and rations, to the point of exhaustion, while the Germans remained well supplied, with new troops constantly being brought up from the rear to reinforce the German positions.

The Marines fought in those woods for three weeks to defeat the Germans and lost another 1,000 dead and 8,000 injured. It was the bloodiest battle in their history, quite different from the types of fights they previously had engaged in against forces such as the Barbary pirates or guerillas in the Philippines, the Caribbean, and the Americas.

More Marines were killed and wounded in that one engagement than in all the prior battles combined since their founding—a 55 percent casualty rate. It was a foretaste of the kinds of battles the Marines would fight in the next war—the Pacific campaign of World War II on islands such as Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal.

Among the Congressional Medals of Honor awarded at Belleau Woods, one was to Gunnery Sgt. F. Stockham, who gave his gas mask to a wounded Marine during a German gas attack. Stockham died a few days later from the effects of the gas.

The ferocity of the Marines at Belleau Woods caused the Germans to name them “Teufel Hunden,” the Hounds from Hell or the Devil Dogs, a moniker that the Marines adopted.

According to H.W. Crocker III, in his history of the American military, “Don’t Tread on Me,” German military intelligence was so impressed with the “bravery and dash” of the Marines that they likened them to a “storm troop,” which to the German military, was the highest possible praise. The “qualities of the men individually may be described as remarkable” said the Germans, with the words of one prisoner that was captured as “characteristic—‘WE KILL OR WE GET KILLED.’”

At Belleau Wood, the Marines had gone up against the most professional fighting force in the world and the best divisions of the German army—and won. Gen. Black Jack Pershing, the leader of the American Expeditionary Force, was so impressed by the tenacity of the Marines at Belleau Wood that he was quoted as saying, “The deadliest weapon in the world is a United States Marine and his rifle.”

The defeat of the Germans at Belleau Wood helped end the German offensive and led directly to the end of the “War to End All Wars.” The French actually renamed Belleau Wood the “Bois de la Brigade de Marine”—“The Wood of the Marine Brigade.”

The 5th and 6th Marine Regiments received the Croix de Guerre, the French medal for bravery. In fact, they won that award two more times, the only units in the American Expeditionary Force to do so.

So, as we remember the sacrifices of the many men who fought on D-Day on June 6, 1944, let’s not forget the Devil Dogs who 100 years ago on June 6 gave the Germans a lesson in Marine Corps bravery, fearlessness, and sheer determination that helped end one of the bloodiest wars in human history.

Semper Fi.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of American Marines fighting German soldiers in the Battle of Belleau Wood in 1918. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

Black to Basics on School Shootings

/in , , , , , /by

There isn’t a good person alive who wouldn’t do everything in their power to stop the horror story that keeps playing out in our nation’s schools. It shouldn’t matter what political party you subscribe to, how much money you make, or where you’re from, everyone wants the shootings that have snuffed out hundreds of innocent lives to end. But, the reality is, until we have an honest conversation about our culture and what’s driving our young people to do this, it won’t. An honest conversation was exactly what Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) was trying to have during a meeting with local pastors last week. Unfortunately for Diane, who’s running for governor in Tennessee, her opponents just couldn’t resist the opportunity to take her quotes out of context and turn an opportunity for sincere dialogue into a cheap political headline.

Like a lot of conservatives, Diane knows that there’s no magic solution to the violence that’s sweeping through society. Our children aren’t picking up guns and killing their classmates because there’s a Second Amendment. There’s been a Second Amendment for almost 230 years — and commonplace shootings have only been around the last 20. As Dr. Ben Carson once said, the heart of the matter is the heart. Gun control only deals with one aspect of that. Until we’re willing to address the motivation for the violence, Americans won’t change anything. There has to be a moral component – an agreement that, somewhere along the way, our society lost its way.

“We have devalued life in this country,” Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said after the Parkland shooting. “We threw God out of school… We have families that are broken apart, no fathers at home. We have incredible heinous violence as a game, two hours a day in front of their eyes. And we stand here and we wonder why this happens to certain students.” Rep. Black couldn’t agree more. She, like so many Americans, thinks a big part of the problem starts at home. “As a nurse, I look at the root cause…I think it’s a deterioration of family. They don’t have that good support system. And where are they looking? They’re looking for something… maybe on the internet, maybe something in a small group of friends. And they’re going in the wrong direction.” She made the connection with violent movies, and the steady desensitizing that’s taking place with America’s young people. And it isn’t just violence, Diane went on, but pervasiveness of all kinds.

“Pornography. It’s available — it’s available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there’s pornography there. All of this is available without parental guidance. And I think that is a big part of the root cause that we see so many young people that have mental illness get caught in these places.”

“Every one of those school shootings go back to looking at that child, and their friends can actually pinpoint a time where they saw a change in their behavior.”

“So I believe mental illness is something we’ve got to address. We’ve got to address the family.”

Almost immediately, some liberals ran to their keyboards and started tapping out columns, suggesting that Diane Black was blaming school shootings on pornography. Obviously, that’s a distortion of what she said. Pornography is just another example of the damaging influences that have somehow become morally acceptable in this culture. With the advent of technology, violence, sex, profanity, contempt, ridicule, bullying – it’s all at our fingertips. And worse, at our children’s.

Thirty years ago, every teenager wasn’t walking around with a smartphone that let them download every vile and grotesque thing on command. If you think pornography isn’t one of the contributors to violence, then you haven’t read the data. The link between crimes like sexual assault and porn is there, whether the media wants to admit it or not. Our friends at Fight the New Drug make a pretty compelling case that, like so many other addictions, pornography is mentally numbing.

“‘… [T]he FBI’s own statistics show that pornography is found at 80 percent of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes of the perpetrators.’ Now we think that’s kind of tough to ignore, while those who promote porn think this is easy to overlook… We’re not saying consuming porn will automatically make someone a serial rapist. Even so, looking at the raw data, porn is connected with sexual violence.”

Still unconvinced? Read this astonishing piece in the New York Times about what teenagers are learning from online porn, including how to rough up your sex partner. “‘It gets in your head,” Q. said about the harsh treatment of the actresses in these videos. ‘If this girl wants it, then maybe the majority of girls want it.'” “As one suburban high school senior boy told me recently, ‘I’ve never seen a girl in porn who doesn’t look like she’s having a good time.'” Maggie Jones, who did every parent in America a public service by publishing this feature, points out that Indiana University did a national survey of teenagers, and around one-sixth of boys admitted to sex acts like choking a partner. And yet we think that violence won’t translate into other aggressive behavior? Or worse, we don’t understand that devaluing or disrespecting other people gradually chips away at human decency — or dignity?

Pornography didn’t kill those 17 bright, promising futures in Parkland. No one, including Diane Black, is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is that these are the slow burns of the cultural crisis that’s destroying us.

Josh McDowell delivered a powerful talk on the impact of pornography at our Watchmen on the Wall conference last month. If you haven’t watched it, please do so.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: At SCOTUS, a Make or Bake Moment

1 Year After Trump’s Approval, Where Keystone XL, Dakota Pipelines Stand

/in , , , , , /by

It’s been a little more than a year since President Donald Trump approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines amid concerns the projects would destroy the environment.

Trump signed an executive order in January 2017, approving both pipelines as activists claimed they would desecrate the land. Keystone XL is getting bogged down in regulatory morass, but the so-called DAPL is humming along, producing hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day.

dcnf-logo

Former President Barack Obama rejected DAPL before leaving office in 2016 and blocked Keystone XL in early 2015, claiming the Canadian line was unnecessary and hurt the U.S.’ credibility as a climate crusader. Trump overturned both orders, giving DAPL immediate approval and XL permission once local entities okay construction on the Keystone extension.

DAPL, which crosses underneath the Missouri River in North Dakota, began pumping oil in May 2017 and has caused oil production in North Dakota to skyrocket—reaching nearly 1.2 million barrels of crude oil produced per day in October.

The state also reported 60 active drilling rigs in April—more than double the number that were operational in May 2016. North Dakota launched 14,450 producing wells, the highest on record.

Officials also anticipate as much as $250 million in additional revenues during the 2018 budget term, surpassing the state treasury’s expectations. Increased energy production provided significant tax revenues for the state, with North Dakota’s Legacy Fund surpassing $5 billion in May. Oil production from DAPL was the catalyst for the improved fortunes, officials believe.

The project would not have seen completion were it not for Trump’s intervention. American Indian groups and environmentalists initially helped prod Obama into nixing the $3.8 billion pipeline. Members of Standing Rock Sioux, for example, believed the multibillion-dollar pipeline risked poisoning the tribe’s water supply and treading on sacred land, despite assessments concluding the DAPL was safe and largely avoided sensitive areas.

Activists ramped-up their anti-DAPL crusade shortly after Trump was elected. Two environmentalists with a long history of engaging in eco-terrorism were arrested in July 2017 for allegedly using blowtorches to burn heavy equipment on the pipeline route in North Iowa.

Keystone XL has seen similar reactions but has not yet received the go-ahead to begin construction.

TransCanada has dealt with years of delays and stonewalling. The Calgary-based company was relatively unknown until it proposed extending Canada’s oil pipeline system TransCanada projects. Keystone’s extension, which is expected to cost around $8 billion, will transport up to 830,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.

Keystone XL has also been bogged down in significant legal quagmires. Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, among others, initiated a lawsuit in March 2017, claiming Trump’s approval was unlawful. Their case is being held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

But things could be looking up for TransCanada. The company already received enough commitments from oil companies to extend the pipeline, it announced in January. TransCanada believes work on the controversial project could begin in 2019.

TransCanada still needs easements from landowners in Nebraska and must secure water-crossing permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and land rights and construction approvals from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: Starbucks CEO Unaware of His Company’s Support for Planned Parenthood

/in , , , /by

When Starbucks closed over 8,000 stores this week to conduct “racial bias education,” a group of pro-life leaders penned an open letter to CEO Kevin Johnson explaining the company’s complicity in enabling America’s most racist organization: Planned Parenthood. The letter outlines how Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger and the abortion giant targets minority neighborhoods to this day.

Read the letter here.

Alveda C. King, niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., also wrote:

It’s time for corporations like Starbucks that claim to care about “racial-bias” to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s house of horrors, which has taken precious lives away from minority communities and from society at large.

However, in an interview this week, Johnson claimed he did not realize Starbucks supported Planned Parenthood’s racist abortion agenda.

Starbucks’s support for Planned Parenthood has been documented by 2ndVote, and apparently confirmed by a company spokesperson this week:

“Starbucks does not have a corporate relationship or sponsorship with Planned Parenthood. Starbucks is listed as a donor of an organization because the Starbucks ‘Partner Match’ program provides matched cash awards for contributions made by Starbucks partners (employees). … Most 501(c)(3) designated nonprofit organizations in the U.S. and most Registered Charities in Canada qualify to receive matching funds.”

If Starbucks actually does care about eliminating racism, shouldn’t they start by ending all financial ties to Planned Parenthood? Remember, by supporting the abortion giant, Starbucks is also complicit in the abortion industry’s links to sexual abuse and sex trafficking.

Let Starbucks leadership know what you think by sending a message using the buttons below:

Contact Starbucks! Reach Out to Starbucks on Facebook!

You can see all the companies that support Planned Parenthood’s abortion industry on our resource page here.

Help us continue developing the content and research that conservatives are using to hold corporations for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Abuse Cover-Ups Haven’t Stopped Starbucks’ Funding of Planned Parenthood

Google Blames Wikipedia for Listing Nazism as One of California Republican Party’s Ideologies

/in , , , , /by

Google reportedly identified one of the ideologies of the California Republican Party as “Nazism” on its highly popular search platform.

The piece of inaccurate information, which is hyperlinked to presumably take web browsers to more information about the hateful, fascist persuasion, is found in the “knowledge panel,” a sidebar widget that presents further, more immediate information.

dcnf-logo

The feature has had problems before, specifically when an embedded fact-check feature tried to erroneously pin specious claims on articles written by The Daily Caller.

Google eventually suspended the fact-check project after The Daily Caller News Foundation investigated and pressed further.

The most recent misattribution was first reported on by Vice News. Other ideologies listed besides Nazism, according to a screenshot obtained by Vice’s Alex Thompson, include “Conservatism, Market Liberalism, Fiscal conservatism, and Green conservatism.”

Many, especially those on the right, will suspect that it may have been done by a rogue Google employee or inadvertently through a flawed algorithm.

Google, however, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that it’s because sometimes “people vandalize public information sources, like Wikipedia, which can impact the information that appears in search.”

Wikipedia is for the most part open-source, meaning that almost anyone with only limited verification can add, amend, and delete information.

“We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that’s what happened here,” a Google spokeswoman said.

Nevertheless, it comes at an inopportune time for the subject as California primaries are less than a week way. It’s not clear how long the tag was up for, but absentee ballots have been casted for some time ahead of the elections.

The listing caught the attention, particularly the ire of many, of course, who are Republican or on that end of the political spectrum.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, for example, took notice and equated it to an apparent bias.

The listing has since been removed, but how much damage it may have done is not clear. Google says it was only up for a short period of time.

“This would have been fixed systematically once we processed the removal from Wikipedia,” the company representative concluded. “But when we noticed the vandalism we worked quickly to accelerate this process to remove the erroneous information.”

COLUMN BY

Eric Lieberman

Eric Lieberman is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is by Charles Platiau/Reuters/Newscom.

Farmer settles $2 million lawsuit against high-flying Green realtors

/in , , , , , /by

After a decade of litigation involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees, Virginia farmer Martha Boneta has reached a settlement in her $2 million lawsuit against a husband-and-wife team of realtors whom she accused of colluding with an environmental group to drive her off her land.

While the terms of the settlement cannot be disclosed, Boneta is pleased with the outcome of her ordeal. “Justice has been served,” Boneta said triumphantly. “But no American should have to endure ten years of torment. No amount of money can ever make up for the suffering my family and I have had to go through.”

Boneta is the owner of a 64-acre farm located in Fauquier County, Va., about 50 miles west of Washington, D.C. Nestled on the edge of the picturesque Blue Ridge Mountains, Liberty Farm, as her property is known, has been painstakingly restored by Boneta, whose family purchased it in 2006. In addition to producing a variety of crops, the property serves as an animal-rescue farm, providing a home for sheep, goats, alpacas, emus, llamas, and other animals.

But casting a dark shadow over Liberty Farm have been efforts by well-connected people who, she believes, coveted her land. In her lawsuit against Phil and Patricia Thomas, Boneta accused the pair of malicious interference in her business, relentless harassment, and a host of other disturbing actions. Phil Thomas is owner of Thomas & Talbot Real Estate in high-end Middleburg, Va.; Patricia Thomas is principal broker with the firm and an attorney licensed to practice in the Old Dominion.

Targeting her Mortgage

Court records in Fauquier County show that the realtors colluded with an environmental group and government officials to purchase the farmer’s mortgage and otherwise meddle with her mortgage, including contacting the lender several times demanding that it sell her mortgage to the realtors. Court records also show that the realtors contacted various government agencies demanding that they investigate Boneta for such activities as carving pumpkins on her farm, hosting hay rides, and allowing visitors to pick their own vegetables. Records also reveal that Patricia Thomas used her law firm’s letterhead in letters to government officials urging them to take action against Boneta.

To avoid her communications from coming to light under the Freedom of Information Act, Thomas, court records show, sent packages with documents she obtained using her Virginia realtor license to the residences of government officials. These documents included Boneta’s banking records.

In one bizarre incident, court records show that Patricia Thomas called 911 one winter day claiming that Boneta’s cattle were freezing, requiring authorities to spend taxpayer funds to send inspector to her farm, only to find that the animals were in good care. More details on the harassment of Boneta can be found here.

Such was the demonization of Boneta that she was forced to shut down her farm in 2012. But public outrage over her mistreatment led in 2014 to enactment of legislation – known as the “Boneta Bill” — in the Virginia General Assembly that provided additional protection to farmers and enabled her farm to reopen.

Boneta has also filed suit against the Warrenton, Va.-based Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), in which she accuses the group of colluding the Thomases and of abusing its oversight of a conservation easement the PEC holds on her farm. That suit is still pending, and the future of the PEC’s oversight of the conservation easement remains in doubt.

“Fight for the American Dream”

What is not in doubt is that, in coming out swinging against the Thomases and the PEC, Martha Boneta has shown that the little guy or gal can fight back and win. Thanks to the example she has set, Boneta was named as one of the nation’s most amazing women by Country Women magazine. Two film documentaries – “Farming in Fear” and “Unsung Hero” have been made about her struggle to hold on to her farm.

“No matter how long it takes, stand you ground, and justice will be served,” she says. “When the bad guys try to steal your land and everything you have worked for your entire life, dig in your heels and fight for the American Dream.”

About the Author: 

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

RELATED ARTICLE: Neighbors, Farmer Settle Pitched Lawsuit Over Green Groups and Her Property Rights

VIDEO: Republicans like Elizabeth Heng may be part of California’s millennial ‘red wave’

/in , , , , /by

The Boston Globes’ James Pindell in a December 8, 2016 article titled “Calif. was the exception to 2016’s red wave. Now it might be Trump’s bulwark too” wrote:

In last month’s election, Republicans even surprised themselves with how well they did across the country.

Except in California.

Donald Trump won the popular vote when you add up 49 states.

Except when you include California.

Hispanics and white liberals simply didn’t turn out to vote at the levels they needed to give Hillary Clinton a victory in the presidential election.

Except in California.

Indeed, Democrats are at a low point nationally.

Except in California, where they control the governorship, both Senate seats, and super-majorities in the Legislature.

Read more.

One of the Congressional seats up for grabs is District 16, currently held by Representative Jim Costa (D-Fresno). Costa is being challenged by Elizabeth Heng a business woman who has never held public office and has no military experience. Sound familiar?

PRNewswire reports

Elizabeth Heng is launching a district-wide television campaign highlighting her congressional campaign with a vision to restore our communities and bring new leadership to Washington, D.C.

“Great things can come from great adversity” is a central theme for 33-year-old Elizabeth Heng, who is passionate about giving back to her community.

The daughter of refugees who lived through the killing fields of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, Elizabeth was raised in Fresno where her family instilled a strong work ethic. Growing up, she worked at the local Asian grocery store her parents still run.

Elizabeth attended public school in Fresno and was class Valedictorian of Sunnyside High School. Elected student body president at Stanford University, she earned her bachelor’s degree in Political Science and went on to graduate from the Yale University School of Management with an MBA.

After graduating, Elizabeth helped her family build a successful cellular phone business. Today, the company employs more than 800 people throughout the state.

Elizabeth worked for the bi-partisan U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and learned firsthand how to fix what’s broken in Washington, D.C. A next-generation leader, Elizabeth is a committed problem solver with a new vision to create opportunities for the district.

Learn more about Elizabeth Heng by clicking here.

Here is Elizabeth Heng’s powerful campaign ad:

Marijuana Industry Harming Babies? Not on Our Watch!

/in , , , , , , /by

Two weeks ago, The Marijuana Report published a story (3rd article) about a new study showing that 70 percent of 400 Colorado dispensaries recommended marijuana to pregnant women for morning sickness. Scientific studies show the drug can harm the unborn when mothers use it.

Today, the Marijuana Accountability Project (MAC) and Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) are hanging baby bibs on dispensary doors, State House offices and the Colorado Department of Revenue, which regulates the industry. The bibs display the slogan: “Don’t hurt our future – CO kids.”

“Going against all available science, the marijuana industry is now recommending pot for pregnant women, actively putting their profits ahead of the healthy development of future Coloradans,” says Justin Luke Riley, MAC’s founder.

“This is a new low,” adds Dr. Kevin Sabet, founder and president of SAM. “We demand that the Colorado state government take immediate action and stop the pot industry from continuing with this. Pot and pregnancy don’t mix.”

See the MAC/SAM news release here.

Acute Poisonings from a Synthetic Cannabinoid Sold as Cannabidiol — Utah, 2017–2018

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that a federal/state investigation identified 52 suspected cases in Utah of adverse reactions people experienced after consuming CBD products that turned out to contain a synthetic cannabinoid, 4-CCB, but no CBD. Most of the people vaped the liquid, and 60 percent went to emergency departments with such adverse effects as altered mental status, nausea or vomiting, and seizures or shaking.

Many of the products were labeled Yolo CBD oil, pictured above. They displayed no manufacturer’s name or list of ingredients.

Cannabidiol is a non-psychoactive component of marijuana that scientists are studying for potential medical use. It is illegal under federal law and in Utah, although it can be bought online and in local shops.

Rapid discovery of the problem and state and federal warnings to the public contained the outbreak.

The CDC report warns, “This investigation highlights the hazards of consuming unregulated products labeled as CBD. States could consider regulating products labeled as CBD and establishing surveillance systems for illness associated with products labeled as CBD to minimize the risk for recurrences of this emerging public health threat.”

Executive Editor’s note: Amazon lists 13 pages of CBD oil products. Typing “CBD oil images” into Google brings up hundreds more. There is no guarantee any are safe. States that have legalized marijuana for medical use sometimes test products and find their labels are not always accurate.

Read the CDC report here.

Inside a Raid on a Cuban Drug Den in Colorado

This week NBC’s Today Show aired a video that shows everything is not all right with marijuana legalization in Colorado, as its officials would have you believe.

Advocates promised voters in 2012 that legalization would wipe out the marijuana black market. But the law allows people to grow their own at home, and pot cartels are taking that literally. Many are renting homes in upscale communities, gutting them, and growing huge marijuana crops inside. And that’s not legal, even in Colorado.

This shocking video shows how out of control the black market has become in the state by taking up residence in people’s homes and neighborhoods.

Click on picture or here to view the video.

Study Links Marijuana to Increased Death Risk among Young Heart Attack Sufferers

About 10 percent of people age 50 or younger who suffer a certain kind of heart attack (a Type 1 myocardial infarction or MI) use marijuana, cocaine, or both.

Researchers studied 2,097 patients in that age range from two Boston medical centers. They identified marijuana use in 6 percent of patients, cocaine use in 4.7 percent, and 1.7 percent used both.

Compared to nonusers, ratios for all-cause mortality were 2.09 for marijuana and 1.91 for cocaine; for cardiovascular death, ratios were 2.13 for marijuana and 2.32 for cocaine.

The researchers stress not enough is known yet to confirm causal effects, but say their study indicates a pressing need for more research to determine the potential relationship between drug use and poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Read Cardiovascular Business article here.

Read the Journal of the American College of Cardiology abstract here.

When Marijuana Is Used before Cigarettes or Alcohol: Demographic Predictors and Associations with Heavy Use, Cannabis Use Disorder, and Other Drug-related Outcomes

Gateway drugs for youth are alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. This study finds that adolescents who use marijuana first are more likely to be male, older, and Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, multiracial, or Hispanic rather than White or Asian.

Researchers analyzed data on 275,559 people aged 12 to 21 from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health between 2004 and 2014. Over that time, those using marijuana first (compared to alcohol or tobacco first) increased from 4.8 percent to 8.8 percent.

Those who began with marijuana were also more likely to become heavy users and to develop a cannabis use disorder.

The researchers say their study suggests that drug prevention strategies may need to target groups differently based on their risk of initiating alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana use first.

Read Prevention Science study here. See chart explanation on page 5.

Marijuana: Big Tobacco 2.0

This excellent article explains the parallels between the tobacco and marijuana industries.

“Savvy corporations such as Philip Morris, Lucky Strike, R.J. Reynolds, and the rest pitched their products with campaigns that made use of what were then revolutionary fields of advertising, public relations, and social psychology, portraying an inherently worthless, corrosive product as something that empowered, bettered, and liberated its consumers,” the author writes. And the marijuana industry is executing the same playbook, he continues.

“As was the case with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana is said to prove you’re sociable, hip, and modern.

“As with tobacco, marijuana is portrayed not only as largely harmless, but as objectively good for you, with a credible function as self-medication for all sorts of ailments.

“As with tobacco, marijuana is presented as a signifier of individual liberty and self-empowerment.

“As with critics of tobacco, critics of marijuana are cast as petty tyrants trampling on freedom while peddling hysterical junk science.

“And as with the tobacco industry, a cash-flush marijuana industry is eager to use its wealth to slant scientific study and political debate, lest its flattering claims begin to sire organized suspicion.”

Read full National Review article here.

Nazism and Communism Are Two Sides of the Collectivist Coin

/in , , , , , /by

Big government is coercive government, regardless of what label is applied.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

In 2016, I toured the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Cambodia, which memorializes the victims of communist butchery in that nation.

Earlier today, I was lucky enough to get a tour through the House of Terror, a museum in Budapest that commemorates the horrors that Hungary endured during both Nazi occupation and Soviet occupation.

House of Terror

Some of the exhibits are uplifting, such as the photo from the 1956 uprising that shows a toppled statue of Stalin.

Other parts are downright depressing.

Or, in the case of these torture instruments, certain exhibits are utterly horrifying (you can use your imagination to figure out what the communists did with the glass tubes).

If you go to Hungary, the House of Terror should be on your list of things to do.

I was particularly gratified to learn that it’s the most-visited museum in Budapest. Not simply because it’s filled with interesting material, but because it helps people understand that all forms of statism are wrong.

The House of Terror has exhibits on the brutality of Nazi rule and the brutality of Marxist rule.

Which is a good excuse for me to share excerpts from a couple of columns on the common thread between fascism and socialism.

All Forms of Statism Are Wrong

In a column last November for the Foundation for Economic Education, Brittany Hunter shared some of Friedrich Hayek’s analysis of the philosophical link between national socialism and international socialism.

F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, …in chapter twelve, …Hayek highlights the very important connection between the socialist and Nazi intellectuals by profiling a handful of prominent German Marxist supporters… Hayek points out that contrary to what many think, Nazism did not simply appear out of thin air and infect the minds of docile German people. There were academic roots that, while grown in the soil of socialist thought, grew into a philosophy that praised German superiority, ultimate war, and the degradation of the individual.

…Beginning his list of influential thinkers prior to WWII, Hayek begins with the dedicated Marxist who later embraced nationalism and dictatorship, Werner Sombart (1863-1941). …He seethed with criticism for the English people, who, in his mind, had lost their warlike instincts. …His other main criticism of English culture was the emphasis placed on the individual. For Sombart, individual happiness was hampering societies from being truly great. …Professor Johann Plenge (1874-1963) was another leading intellectual authority on Marxist thought during this time. He also saw war with England as a necessary struggle between two opposite principles: emphasis on the individual and organization and socialism. …Interestingly enough, many…socialist philosophers eventually abandoned Marxism in favor of National Socialism… while Prussian militarism was seen to be the enemy of socialism, Spengler helped bridge that gap. Both schools of thought require an abandonment of the individual identity. …This hatred and fear of the individual is the worldview espoused by these thinkers and it continues on with those who claim to be socialists today. Unless the concept of individualism is completely eradicated, the glorified state cannot come into existence.”

Earlier this year, Byron Chiado echoed this analysis of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom in another FEE column, pointing out that all forms of socialism reject classical liberalism.

The bulk of the book makes the argument that central planning and interventionism inevitably lead to authoritarianism… Towards the end of the book, he deals with the undeniable authoritarians of his time and casts the national-socialist movement as one built on disgust with liberalism. …Sombart, like many Germans in the early 20th century, was compelled by a case for war between the British and Germany on the grounds that the British…pursuit of individual happiness, which he saw as a disease contracted from a society built on commercialism. Laissez-faire was an unnatural anarchic order giving rise to parasites and dishonest merchants… another Marxist, Sociologist Johann Plenge…moved into the shamelessly totalitarian realm that attracted so many Marxist leaders… Hayek gives…a warning to England; that the “conservative socialism” en vogue at the time was a German export, which for reasons he details throughout the book, will inevitably become totalitarian. …This was not a sensationalist attempt to prove his point. Hayek was rather calmly pointing out an example of the type of government one could expect in a society that has discarded liberalism for planning.”

Amen. Big government is coercive government, regardless of what label is applied.

Which is why libertarianism (what Hayek would have called liberalism, meaning classical liberalism) is the proper philosophy of government. Assuming, of course, one values individual rights and civil society.

P.S. I also visited the Solidarity Museum in Poland a few years ago. Maybe I could put together a guide-book on the horrors of totalitarianism.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

She Voted for Obama Twice. Now Antonia Okafor Explains Why She’s a Conservative Who Advocates Gun Rights.

/in , , , , /by

This is an edited transcript of a conversation between Antonia Okafor and Katrina Trinko on the May 22 edition of The Daily Signal podcast. Okafor weighed in on her own journey to becoming a conservative, Kanye West, gun rights, and school safety. 

Katrina Trinko: Joining us today is Antonia Okafor, a political commentator and the CEO of EmPOWERed, an organization devoted to the Second Amendment rights of women on college campuses. Antonia, thanks for joining us today.

Antonia Okafor: Thanks for having me, Katrina.

Trinko: First question. You yourself voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

Okafor: Yes.

Trinko: Why did you vote for him and what since then has changed your mind on political matters?

Okafor:  I grew up in a pretty traditional Democratic family. I remember when I was young my mom telling me that, ‘If you could vote right now, you would vote for Bill Clinton.’ I remember that.

I just thought I was a Democrat growing up and then I went to college and realized … I was actually taking public policy courses and realizing … [that the policies] for the Democratic Party, I didn’t actually believe in.

Doing a lot more research and realizing that, you know what, my values that I grew up with that actually, coincidentally, and ironically [the values] my mother taught me—working very hard, education is an equalizer for everyone, that traditional family and the nuclear family is important to success, and having a faith in Jesus Christ is important to success as well—and just those traditional values really made me realize that I was in a party that did not reconcile with my values and I needed to change, particularly with the pro-life issue, but then later on, the pro-gun issue.

The only party that I believe that was really always consistently focused on those issues was the Republican Party.

After 2012, I’m [remembering] … voting for Barack Obama, even though I did have a hard time at that even doing that, but realizing that I will never vote again against my values and I would not vote for the Democratic Party because they weren’t doing what was important in that instance for my values.

Trinko: I think your story is particularly interesting because so many people go to college and actually come out liberal, or come out more liberal. This is sort of a personal question, but I’d just be curious: Why do you think you were open to changing? Why was your experience so different than so many other college students?

Okafor: You know what? I think I was open because kind of like what’s going on right now, [although] I think it’s to a worse degree because everybody’s so anti-Trump. It’s because the media’s so focused on making Republicans look like racists, and sexists, and misogynists, and horrible people.

Then me, I guess, I just have this affinity to be around people, or to seek out information for myself. I remember I was like, OK, if they’re really this bad I want to see for myself. Going out and talking to people who were Republicans and finding out that they weren’t bad people, in fact, they were amazing people and they actually share the same values. I mean, who would’ve thunk it that if you did your actual research, that you would find a lot of what people were saying is false.

That’s what happened to me, and so a lot of questions ensued after that of what else I was just believing without actually doing my research and homework on.

I came to find out that there were a lot of things that I didn’t believe that mainstream media for a long time was telling me that I should. It was them saying that you must be a certain way as a black woman, you must think this certain way or you’re not a black woman that made me actually, ‘You know what, I want to do my research and find out why they’re saying this.’

Come to find out, that’s exactly the opposite.

I think that’s what really spurred me onto being more open to finding out what my actual beliefs were and if I believe what they believe.

Trinko: OK. Well, that’s interesting because that relates to, of course, Kanye West, [who] had a huge backlash when he didn’t even really say he supported Trump, just said maybe not everything conservatives say is the spawn of Satan, essentially. What did you think about the backlash? Are we in a unique moment here? What’s going on?

Okafor: Well, two things. Even with Kanye West, I think actually I’m more saddened about what Chance the Rapper said and the backlash that he got right after that. Actually, he had apologized when he said that not all black people have to vote for Democrats. He apologized after that.

I was like, what are you apologizing for? I mean, statistically that’s true but unfortunately with, I think, African-Americans … the media, mostly the left, has been able to monopolize the conversation and narrative when it comes to that, [making it] … that you’re black and these people are white and therefore, if you’re a black person, you should vote for the Democratic Party.

Only white people are for gun rights, only white people are Republican, are conservatives. They’ve done a great job of doing that for so long but, no, because you’re a black person does not mean that you have to vote for the Democratic Party. If anything, when I found out that 95 percent of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama and then 88 percent of them voted for Hillary Clinton, that’s more than any other demographic group and it’s an overwhelming proportion more as well. I mean, Latinos, they voted 66 percent for Hillary Clinton.

I think, for a long time the left has used this narrative that as a black person particularly … you are supposed to vote a certain way.

I think a lot of people like Kanye, and Chance the Rapper, if they apologize or not, are starting to realize that maybe I don’t vote for Republicans, maybe I’m not a conservative. That’s what Kanye said—he said, I don’t really know if I would label myself as a conservative, but I think a different way.

We’ll see what he says, but I think it’s good that we’re having a conversation anyway, to say that you as a person are independent and you can think independently and make up your own decisions regardless of your race or your gender.

I think people are sick and tired of people putting them in boxes. I know I was sick and tired of it.

Trinko: Well, one of the criticisms of conservatives over the years has been they don’t really show up to a lot of minority events. Sen. Rand Paul [R-Ky.], when he was running for president, made a big deal of [it]: ‘I’m actually going to go to African-American neighborhoods, I’m going to speak, I’m going to be involved.’ What do you think conservatives should be doing to reach out to African-Americans?

Okafor: You know what? I’m a testament that that worked, because I remember seeing him when I was afraid of—

Trinko: Oh, Paul?

Okafor: Yeah, of seeing that he was going out to Howard [University in Washington, D.C.], he was going out to these HBCUs [historically black colleges and universities] and … still talking about conservative values.

I hadn’t seen that before, I hadn’t seen politicians on our side who had these values that would go out and talk to people, but not also pander to them and change their values because they’re in a different area.

I remember looking at Rand Paul and him being so focused and so true to his beliefs and his principles, and not budging on those. But the fact that he was even there in the first place just went to show that, yeah, these values are for everyone.

It made me realize that I could be conservative—come out of the closet—and champion these values. Also, still be a black person, still advocate for the fact that I’m very pro-criminal justice reform, and prison reform, and I’m so glad that now we’re seeing that with Trump looking into that, and people coming to a consensus.

It’s a lot of things that we can come to an agreement with and come together in but unfortunately, especially the other side I think sees that and sees that if they don’t make it a partisan issue then they could lose people.

They could have people like me five years later going from voting for Obama to voting for President Trump. That’s scary to them.

Trinko: Well, to switch gears a little bit, you’ve mentioned your support for gun rights. There was, unfortunately, another tragic school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. You’re a Texan yourself. What do you think the response should be? How do you think we should handle all these calls from the left for gun control [being] the answer?

Okafor: Part of it is that, unfortunately, they always get to dictate when we get to talk about the whole issue, after [the shooting]. You know, every time we have a tragedy, to be honest, now it’s like [comedian] Chelsea Handler says something, that’s when it starts the conversation on Twitter, unfortunately.

Trinko: Oh, Twitter.

Okafor: She’s the precursor of when gun control and gun rights conversation [happens]. It’s a sad society, but it’s true. They get to dictate when it’s appropriate to start talking about that, and we respond.

We shouldn’t respond anymore, we should be on the forefront, we should be leading the conversation.

That’s why I started my organization, Empower, because I knew as a gun rights activist, as someone who was part of the organization that brought campus carry to Texas in 2015, we are really … The movement is going to be pushed by young women.

I found that as a young woman that self-defense is important to us, particularly on college campuses. With the … gun control narrative, they don’t want people to see that. They don’t want to say that the strong, empowered woman, the college-educated woman [who] knows other strong, empowered, college-educated women who also happen to be pro-gun.

They want the narrative to be: If you’re a feminist, if you’re pro-female, then you can’t be pro-gun. That’s false. If anything, if you’re pro-female, you should be pro-gun, it’s one of the best equalizers that we have in this great country.

It’s horrific and we do need to do something about it. If anyone, especially my generation … [having] grown up in Columbine [era], grown up with both Virginia Techs and all these shootings on college campuses and high school campuses …

We don’t believe in [gun control] anymore and we want something different. This is our time to put out something different and to say that it’s not about the gun, it’s about the person behind the firearm that we should be focusing on.

Trinko: I certainly share your frustration that feminism always seems to box out conservative women, whether it’s abortion, or gun rights. No matter what, if you’re not right thinking, oh, suddenly you don’t care about women, which drives me insane.

Okafor: That New York Times article.

Trinko: Oh my gosh.

Okafor: They just had saying that the myth of conservative [feminism]—

Trinko: They were saying [conservatives] can’t appropriate feminism …

Okafor: I was like, thank you. First of all, the first feminists are the ones who were pro-life, so if anything, we could say ‘the myth of liberal feminism’ … I’m not going to say that because feminism is not dictated by liberal, or progressive, or being conservative. It’s about equality between the sexes. Absolutely, I believe it’s a big 10 issue when it comes to that.

Empowering women can look like, you can be empowered as a woman and believe that you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm just as much as you can be empowered if you don’t want that. I mean, just as long as you’re not impeding on other people’s rights, I think that’s what it comes down to. That’s really the equality of rights.

Trinko: What is the response to your group then on college campuses? As I mentioned, I don’t think historically or traditionally people tend to think of college women as gun carriers or advocates of gun rights.

Okafor: Yeah, well, it was because of my time as an advocate for campus carry and realizing that’s who the anti-gun side was always focusing on … women on college campuses, and making it seem like they were the ones who should not have guns. They were the ones who should not have any, or be advocates of anybody having firearms at all, and being very frustrated in the fact that, no, that’s exactly the opposite.

I wanted those pro-gun women to have a voice because I knew they were out there, I’d talked to them, I’d spoken to even professors who definitely don’t feel like they have a voice if they’re pro-gun on campuses. They would email me all the time during my time with students for conceal carry saying, ‘I completely support what you’re doing, I just cannot say anything or I would never get tenure.’

Trinko: Oh gosh, that’s so frustrating.

Okafor: Yeah, exactly. I was just like, you know what, they’re out there. People don’t want them to have a voice, but I can give them a voice, I have a platform, let me do so. I think that was my opportunity and so I’ve been grateful the last year that people actually believe the same thing too, I thought it was just me being crazy, but it’s not.

There are a lot of people who are just afraid to say something. The same thing with March for Our Lives and these high school students telling me that they’re afraid to say things too because their peers and their administrators are telling them the opposite, [that] if they believe anything other than being anti-gun, then they’re awful people, and that’s just not true. We need people to stand up for them because they’re afraid to stand up for themselves.

Trinko: And that’s such an important point. I often think, how different would our politics be if everyone was able to speak about what they truly believed?

Okafor: Yeah.

Trinko: I do realize, not everyone gets to work at a conservative outlet where you’re OK with that. There’s a lot of societal pressure, but I’ve definitely experienced the same phenomenon where people will say to you quietly, or behind closed doors, ‘I agree.’ It’s like, OK, well say that out loud.

Okafor: I’ve had people who agree with me after lectures. There’s a few African-American women that came up to me after my Dartmouth lecture just a couple weeks ago. I was like, ‘Can I take a picture with you?’ They’re like, ‘You had really good points.’ [And then] they’re like, ‘Is this going to be on social media?’ I was like, ‘Yeah, you don’t want it.’ [They said], ‘Yeah, let’s not do it.’ I’m like, ‘Oh, OK. Well, I understand.’

It’s sad that they feel like they can’t outwardly agree with me because then they’ll be a traitor to their race and their gender.

Trinko: Well, someday.

Okafor: Yeah, someday.

Trinko: I’m sure you’re inspiring a lot of people … thank you so much for joining us today, Antonia.

Okafor: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: .

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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

VIDEO: ‘They Stood for Something and We Owe Them Something’ — Reagan’s 1986 Memorial Day Speech

/in , , , /by

America’s beloved 40th president, Ronald Reagan, spoke at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day in 1986. His speech reminds us to be thankful for the valor of others and that Memorial Day is a time to remember the “splendor of America” and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

COMMENTARY BY

Video Team

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How You Can Honor the Fallen This Memorial Day

Remember the Heroes of Flight 93 on Memorial Day

We Hear You: Some Free Speech to Honor Those the Nation Salutes on Memorial Day

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.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

COVER-UP: Broward County Sheriff’s son held down 14-year old boy while friend sodomized him with a baseball bat

/in , , , , , /by

Bob Norman an investigative reporter for ABC News in Miami in his article “Parents call for investigation into Stoneman Douglas assault involving sheriff’s son” reports:

…But now, a report that recently surfaced has some victims’ families calling for a renewed investigation of [Broward Deputy Sheriff and Stoneman Douglas resource officer] Peterson for a case he handled four years to the day prior to the massacre. The case involved two 17-year-old students bullying a 14-year-old freshman, with one holding down the younger boy by his ankles while the other kicked the victim, grabbed his genitals and then took the victim’s own baseball bat and began shoving it against his buttocks, simulating rape, through the boy’s clothes. 

One of those assailants, the boy who allegedly held down the victim, was Israel’s son, Brett. Defense attorney Alex Arreaza, who represents shooting victim Anthony Borges, who was shot five times in the Valentine’s Day massacre but survived, said the case could have led to felony charges.

“He could be charged with a lewd and lascivious, and I’m being conservative,” Arreaza said.

Peterson claims in the report that it was a “simple battery” under the board’s discipline matrix, and he decided to give both of the boy’s attackers a three-day suspension. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

Heavy.com in an article titled “Brett Israel: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” reports:

Deputy Scot Peterson is being sued by Andrew Pollack, the father of Meadow Pollack who was shot dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14. Pollack told ABC Miami, “[Peterson] was lazy and this could have given him protection to keep his job at the school during those four years.” Pollack, who is also on an investigative committee looking into the Parkland massacre, said that Peterson was rewarded with job security for protecting the sheriff’s son.

Peterson was widely criticized for his perceived cowardice during the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. As the school’s resource officer, Peterson did not engage the suspect.

[ … ]

On his Twitter page, Brett Israel has been constantly defending his father against attacks over the handling of the Douglas High School shooting.

[ … ]

Brett has also been [at] odds with Parkland survivor, Kyle Kashuv, who is known for placing the blame of the massacre at the feet of “the cowards of Broward,” referring to Sheriff Israel’s department. When Kashuv shared a Daily Caller article about a no-confidence vote for Sheriff Israel, Brett wrote on Twitter, “You know Kyle, I hate to denounce you because I like what you stand for but this whole “politically motivated” movement to have the Sheriff removed has to stop. There is no basis for criminal conduct.”

Read more.

It is the duty of the Broward County School Board to protect its students. It is the duty of the Broward County Sheriff to protect and defend the citizens of Broward County, Florida. As the case of Nickolas Cruz moves forward more information about the shooting will be revealed. As the civil suit moves forward more information will be revealed.

It appears the political systems in Broward county are dysfunctional at the least and potentially criminal at the worst.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Brett Israel from his Facebook page.

‘Collusion against Trump’ Timeline by Sharyl Attkisson

/in , , , , , /by

Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson is an Emmy award winning investigative journalist, host of Sinclair’s Sunday morning news program “Full Measure,” and author of the New York Times bestsellers: “The Smear” and Stonewalled.” Ms. Attkisson has compiled a complete collusion against Donald J. Trump timeline and published it on her website. This timeline is most valuable as it connects-the-dots from 2011 to the present.

I highly recommend you visit Ms. Attkisson’s collusion against Trump timeline to understand the who, what, where and why of what is now become known as “Spygate.”

Ms. Attkisson writes:

t’s easy to find timelines that detail Trump-Russia collusion developments. Here are links to two of them I recommend:

Politifact Russia-Trump timeline

Washington Post Russia-Trump timeline

On the other side, evidence has emerged in the past year that makes it clear there were organized efforts to collude against candidate Donald Trump–and then President Trump. For example:

  • Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
  • A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
  • There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
  • The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
  • Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties.

But it’s not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these events.

Here’s a work in progress.

(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a correlation.)

“Collusion against Trump” Timeline

 

Laying Down Their Lives for Their Friends

/in , , , , /by

“It’s something I will never forget. Never,” recalled 106-year-old Ray Chavez, America’s oldest survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor in an interview this morning with FRC’s radio producer Russ Jones. The World War II veteran was honored yesterday by President Trump — a visit Chavez called “the highlight of my life.” But he also shared another motivator for traveling more than 2,600 miles away from his home in Poway, California: to ensure the nation never forgets “what we went through.”

Last year, the San Diego Tribune reported Chavez’s role in history on the morning of the Pearl Harbor attack:

“Chavez had just gone to bed after a night aboard the Condor. A San Diego fishing boat that had been converted into a minesweeper and stationed in Hawaii, the Condor was cruising near Pearl Harbor when a lookout spotted a submarine. ‘We’ve got company!’ the lookout yelled.

At the helm, Chavez couldn’t see the intruder. When a friend relieved him, he walked to the Condor’s port side and scanned the dark sea.

“All I saw was a periscope,” he said.

“About 3:50 a.m. on December 7, the Condor reported the sighting. The destroyer Ward searched the area and around 6:37 a.m., sighted and attacked the sub.

“Preceding the Zeros assault on Pearl Harbor by more than an hour, this was the first American action in World War II.”

Within hours, 2,341 of his fellow brave Americans in uniform would lay down their lives for the cause of freedom. On this Memorial Day, we can and should remember their sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many others who have given the last full measure of devotion to this country of ours. This is not just another three-day weekend. It’s a time for remembrance. It’s a time for thanksgiving, that our country still has so many who are willing to risk all in this world for the sake of their families, and fellow Americans.

We also honor all those who stand ready to defend America. As President Trump said yesterday in announcing the cancellation of the summit with North Korea, “I’ve spoken to General Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our military, which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world that has been greatly enhanced recently, as you all know, is ready if necessary.” And more ready they are – especially now that they finally have a commander-in-chief who is putting the focus on the military’s mission: preparing to fight and win wars.

North Korea’s Kim Jun Un is learning that this is a president who won’t be pushed around like President Obama. As FRC’s General Boykin noted, “Kim got overconfident and pushed the president too far. He is now most likely thinking through where he went wrong and what he has to do to resurrect the summit.”

A lot is at stake especially for the estimated 300,000 Christians in North Korea – with as many as 50,000 of them in hard labor camps. Open Doors USA ranks North Korea as #1 in the world as the most dangerous country to be a Christian. To the relief of North Korea’s Christians and so many persecuted people of different faiths around the globe, America is regaining its voice on international religious liberty. While the move toward North Korea’s denuclearization is at the forefront of everyone’s minds, we must continue to pray and press North Korea to move away from totalitarianism where religious minorities have suffered so greatly.

As we pray that the people of North Korea will one day live in freedom, let us thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. And let us also remember that freedom is not free, which is what Memorial Day is designed to do. So this weekend take time to pray; pray a prayer of thanksgiving for those who have bought and fought for our freedom. And just as importantly, pray for those families who are reminded of the cost of freedom each time they see the empty seat at the table or the absence at the family gathering. In remembering their deeds, paying homage to their memory, and praying for those left behind, we preserve this last best hope of men on earth.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Activist Judges Scrub Bathroom Complaint

Watchmen: Standing on the Wall and in the Gap