Traditional masculinity is “harmful”—but don’t take it from us. That’s the new verdict of the American Psychological Association. We discuss the association’s new guidelines on counseling for men and boys, as well as the ideological shift behind it. Plus: President Donald Trump’s policy in Syria seems to be in flux. Last month, he announced U.S. troops would be withdrawing, but now the timeline seems longer. Heritage Foundation Middle East expert Jim Phillips unpacks what Trump’s goals in Syria are, and how they can best be achieved.
We also cover these stories:
Trump is visiting the border today.
Trump tweeted that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would stop sending money to California until the state improves its forest fire prevention practices.
Fifty-one percent of Democrats now call themselves liberals.
The first lady of California would like to be known as the “first partner.”
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and podcast by The Daily Signal is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Joel Bengs on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/joel-bengs-498744-unsplash-e1547130496132.jpg364640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-01-10 09:30:172019-01-10 09:55:32Podcast: What Woke Scientists Don’t Get About Masculinity
NumbersUSA is urging its supporters to get behind this legislation.
Coming to America to have a baby has got to be one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on Americans.
You can’t go to any other major country in the world (except Canada), have a baby and claim a right for that child to be a citizen of the country in which the mother happened to give birth. The practice has actually become an industry in some parts of the US.
For the fifth consecutive Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, that would prevent children born to illegal-alien parents in the United States from automatically receiving U.S. citizenship. The bill was introduced with 20 original cosponsors.
The Birthright Citizenship Act would restrict the granting of automatic citizenship to newborns who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. The legislation would also allow the granting of automatic citizenship to newborns who have at least one parent who is an alien serving the armed forces.
The Birthright Citizenship Act is one of NumbersUSA’s 5 Great Solutions to reforming the nation’s immigration system. The United States is one of only two industrialized nations (Canada) to still grant automatic citizenship to all children born in the country.
Below are the brave co-sponsors so far. Numbers wants you to put pressure on your member of Congress to grow a spine and support H.R. 140.
Here are the co-sponsors so far (if you are represented by one of these members, THANK THEM FOR PUTTING AMERICA FIRST!):
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-5)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-4)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5)
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL-3)
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL-11)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA-10)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-1)
Rep. Steven M. Palazzo (R-MS-4)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO-6)
Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC-7)
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC-11)
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH-8)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-4)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC-2)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC-3)
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC-5)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-4)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX-11)
Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14)
Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX-36)
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI-6)
Tell your member to stop this fraud on America! It is an opportunity to go on the political offense for a change!
Why don’t the rest of the Republicans get it—this scam is about giving birth to the next generation of Democrats!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rep-steve-king.jpg360640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-01-08 16:36:442019-01-08 16:38:27Rep. Steve King Introduces Legislation to End Birthright Citizenship
Tonight, the President of the United States will be addressing the nation regarding the issue of border security. It is expected that the President will provide a defense of his tough stance on his demands to fund the wall. He will likely paint a dire picture of conditions south of the border. He will share with the country the challenges faced due to inadequate resources and the lack of a physical barrier. And in all likelihood the President’s message will make sense and will resonate with the American people who, although squeamish on government shutdowns, overwhelmingly demand that the federal government enforce our borders and ensure our safety and welfare.
In response, Democrats have asked the networks for an opportunity to rebut; an opportunity they will surely be given. But their request brings up two issues; one an inductive conclusion and the other an inescapable paradox.
The conclusion is that the Democrats worry they are losing the war of words regarding border security. With every week that passes, the Democrats lose what they have always deployed as their greatest weapon regarding government shutdowns: shock value. Theirs is the tactic of equating a government shutdown with the end of the world. They do this, not only to paint the Republicans as evil, uncaring, and irresponsible, but also because to Democrats, the role of government is indispensable to life in society. Even a partial shutdown, for them, is tantamount to a cataclysmic natural disaster.
But as the weeks grind on, the American people continue to see that the partial government shutdown, by and large, is not a threat to their daily existence. People are continuing to get their healthcare. Their banks are still doing business. The military is still operating, and yes, the IRS is working on delivering those precious refund checks.
But despite the fading, fake cataclysm of the shutdown, the permanent truth of the inadequacies of our border’s security continues to shine. The problems south of the border continue to exist, and the multi-thousand-member caravans preparing to attempt to stroll into the United States continue to form.
The net effect is a nasty, rancid, and tumultuous loss for the Democrats, and Democrats know it. Add to their losing effort a presidential address on the matter from the Oval Office, and the result is potentially catastrophic to their indefensible cause. It is for this reason that Democratic leaders wish to speak to the American people tonight, bringing us to the second issue: how can they speak when they won’t even listen?
Democratic leaders, chief amongst these are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have engaged in the highly obnoxious and potentially destructive strategy of not listening to their political opponents, particularly to those may have developed an expertise on the field. When border security agents appeared at the White House Press Room and discussed their first-hand accounts regarding the indispensable importance of a barrier to border security, the Democrats’ dismissive answer was simply to say that the agents were wrong. No facts to back them up; just the assertion.
And when President Trump invited Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen to a meeting with the President and leaders from both parties at the White House, Pelosi’s and Schumer’s response was to repeatedly interrupt her, and again, claim she was wrong.
So now, the two leaders who have recurrently demonstrated an unwillingness and incapacity to listen to opposing points of view want us to listen to them.
My initial inclination is: what for?
The fact is that I, as opposed to them, will listen to what they have to say. I will do this out of respect for our political process and because I recognize that our country has devolved to a state where we have refused to listen to each other, and Pelosi and Schumer have painted themselves into being part of the problem.
In the end, however, I am confident I will side with the President for, amongst other reasons, his opponents’ demonstrated reluctance to learn from what the President and those charged with working directly on the issue of border security have to say.
Despite their appearance tonight to rebut the President, I will likely conclude that Pelosi and Schumer are part of the problem; not the solution.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ken-treloar-346065-unsplash-e1546982130791.jpg454639Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-01-08 16:15:452019-01-08 16:22:01Schumer And Pelosi Want Us To Listen To Them After The President Speaks; What For?
The issue of abortion is emotional, heated, and fraught with passionate opinions on all sides, and rightly so—the lives of human beings in the womb hang in the balance. It’s no surprise, then, that a lot of misguided, inflammatory, and patently false rhetoric inevitably surrounds the abortion issue whenever it is debated.
Dr. Ingrid Skop, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist for 22 years, is passionate about inserting some much-needed scientific truth and common sense into the abortion debate from the perspective of a medical professional who works with pregnant women on a daily basis. In FRC’s new video series and corresponding publication, she dispels 10 common myths about abortion.
Over the next two weeks leading up to FRC’s ProLifeCon and the March for Life, we will be releasing a series of 10 videos of Dr. Skop discussing each myth about abortion. For a more detailed discussion of each myth, be sure to read FRC and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (AAPLOG) new publication authored by Dr. Skop, Top 10 Myths About Abortion.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/19_AbortionMyths_1200x630-e1546980991474.jpg360640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-01-08 15:56:402019-01-15 18:20:39Top 10 Myths About Abortion
The 116th U.S. Congress was sworn in on January 3rd. As expected, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) was elected Speaker of the House, who has the unenviable job of binding up a divided chamber of Congress, as well her own party, the Democrats. This will be Mrs. Pelosi’s last hurrah and will likely mark her legacy in the history books. Whereas the House is in the hands of the Democrats, the Senate remains under Republican control. Translation, nothing of substance will happen for the next two years as the two chambers will be hopelessly gridlocked. In terms of House Democrats, the Speaker will likely have trouble controlling the far left who fought her election as Speaker.
Beginning from Day One, the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand to confront Republicans and President Trump. The subject of impeaching the President raised its ugly head again and as I predicted the desire to do so will prove to be irresistible to Democrats. Frankly, the charges are frivolous, and veteran House Democrats know even if it is passed in their chamber, the president will be exonerated in the Republican controlled Senate. So, why go through this futile exercise? To simply besmirch the character of the president as a prelude to the 2020 presidential election. The only problem is, they will likely raise the ire of the American people who elected Mr. Trump, and this is what concerns the party’s leadership. It is more about character assassination as opposed to introducing legislation to solve our problems.
Freshmen Democrats are already rattling sabers. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI) unapologetically called the president a Mother******. This was followed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accusing the president of being a “no question” racist in a 60 Minutes interview. Neither taunts will play well in Poughkeepsie.
More trouble is in the offing though. Rep. Steve Cohen (TN) introduced legislation to eliminate the Electoral College in presidential elections, relying on the popular vote instead. Devised by our founding fathers, the Electoral College is simply brilliant in terms of maintaining parity between the interests of rural America and large metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, it is not well understood in the country anymore, particularly since Civic classes are no longer being taught in high schools. Should this legislation pass the House, it will not see the light of day in the Senate, as it would mean people in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, will dictate who becomes president, with little regard for main stream America. This is precisely the scenario our founding fathers hoped to avoid.
Rep. Cohen also introduced legislation to prohibit presidents from issuing pardons to themselves, their families, their administration or their campaign staff. This is a major change as the presidents have long possessed the right to pardon. What they want to avoid is a situation, such as in the final days of President Bill Clinton’s administration where he pardoned his Whitewater cronies, such as Susan McDougal. This too will likely not pass the Senate.
Also, legislation has been introduced mandating the publishing of tax returns of presidential candidates and executives in office. As I have reported in the past, this has always been an optional report for candidates to produce. It is likely the main stream media is driving this initiative. Personally, I believe your finances are your own personal affair. If you want to disclose it, fine, if not, that is fine also. Frankly, if the Democrats believe strongly in this, this should be made equally applicable to ALL government officials, including Congress and the Supreme Court, along with state, county, and municipal governments. What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. This legislation will likely not pass as well.
Last, but certainly not least, the House and the president are at a stalemate regarding reopening the government and funding a wall for the southern border. The irresistible force has met the immovable object, and no amount of negotiations is going to change anything as it will be viewed as a sign of weakness by both sides. The one exception might be if President Trump does as he suggests and declares a national emergency which would allow him to appropriate funds for the wall. This will likely happen as the president has been releasing data and testimonies of the problems at our southern border in recent weeks. Should the president declare an emergency, it offers Democrats a way out of the confrontation without losing face, and the government can start back up again.
All of this highlights the gridlock in the nation’s capitol which we better get used to. The intent of the Democrats is to make the president look bad as we approach 2020. In addition to the legislation listed here, we will likely see a flurry of subpoenas designed to tie up the president and his administration, thereby obstructing his agenda. Because of the gridlock, we will not see anything of substance resulting from the 116th Congress, certainly not health care reform (which the Democrats campaigned on).
The only possibility might be in the area of addressing the nation’s decaying infrastructure but I am not optimistic about passage of such legislation as we are now embroiled in a game of one-upmanship, and neither side want to give the other a win.
Rep. Pelosi’s legacy will likely be defined by the gridlock of the Congress and the Democrat’s inability to bring this president to heel. If their shenanigan’s persist, they will run the risk of angering the American people, and assuring the Republicans regain the House, not to mention securing President Trump a second term. It will also likely fracture the Democrats, leaving us wondering who will become leader of their party in the House following Mrs. Pelosi’s tour of duty. People like Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD), Rep. Ray Lujan (NM), and Rep. James Clyburn (SC) will likely be viewed as clones of Mrs. Pelosi and may very well be rebuffed by younger Democrats who will want to chart a new course to the left.
The only thing we know for sure about the next two years is that it certainly will not be boring and the news media will support whoever emerges as an effective leader of the party.
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce Is Right column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Jomar on Unsplash. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jomar-271602-unsplash-2-e1546950155758.jpg371640Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2019-01-08 07:16:142019-03-06 18:07:37The 116th Congress is Off and Running … But Where To?
For years, I’ve heard American leftists say Sweden is proof that socialism works, that it doesn’t have to turn out as badly as the Soviet Union or Cuba or Venezuela did.
But that’s not what Swedish historian Johan Norberg says in a new documentary and Stossel TV video.
“Sweden is not socialist—because the government doesn’t own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea,” says Norberg.
“We did have a period in the 1970s and 1980s when we had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily. And that’s the period in Swedish history when our economy was going south.”
Per capita gross domestic product fell. Sweden’s growth fell behind other countries. Inflation increased.
Even socialistic Swedes complained about the high taxes.
Astrid Lindgren, author of the popular “Pippi Longstocking” children’s books, discovered that she was losing money by being popular. She had to pay a tax of 102 percent on any new book she sold.
“She wrote this angry essay about a witch who was mean and vicious—but not as vicious as the Swedish tax authorities,” says Norberg.
Yet even those high taxes did not bring in enough money to fund Sweden’s big welfare state.
“People couldn’t get the pension that they thought they depended on for the future,” recounts Norberg. “At that point the Swedish population just said, ‘Enough, we can’t do this.’”
Sweden then reduced government’s role.
They cut public spending, privatized the national rail network, abolished certain government monopolies, eliminated inheritance taxes, and sold state-owned businesses like the maker of Absolut Vodka.
They also reduced pension promises “so that it wasn’t as unsustainable,” adds Norberg.
As a result, says Norberg, his “impoverished peasant nation developed into one of the world’s richest countries.”
He acknowledges that Sweden, in some areas, has a big government: “We do have a bigger welfare state than the U.S., higher taxes than the U.S., but in other areas, when it comes to free markets, when it comes to competition, when it comes to free trade, Sweden is actually more free market.”
Sweden’s free market is not burdened by the U.S.’s excessive regulations, special-interest subsidies, and crony bailouts. That allows it to fund Sweden’s big welfare programs.
“Today our taxes pay for pensions—you (in the U.S.) call it Social Security—for 18-month paid parental leave, government-paid childcare for working families,” says Norberg.
But Sweden’s government doesn’t run all those programs. “Having the government manage all of these things didn’t work well.”
So they privatized.
“We realized in Sweden that with these government monopolies, we don’t get the innovation that we get when we have competition,” says Norberg.
Sweden switched to a school voucher system. That allows parents to pick their kids’ school and forced schools to compete for the voucher money.
“One result that we’ve seen is not just that the private schools are better,” says Norberg, “but even public schools in the vicinity of private schools often improve, because they have to.”
Sweden also partially privatized its retirement system. In America, the Cato Institute proposed something similar. President George W. Bush supported the idea but didn’t explain it well. He dropped the idea when politicians complained that privatizing Social Security scared voters.
Swedes were frightened by the idea at first, too, says Norberg, “But when they realized that the alternative was that the whole pension system would collapse, they thought that this was much better than doing nothing.”
So Sweden supports its welfare state with private pensions, school choice, and fewer regulations, and in international economic freedom comparisons, Sweden often earns a higher ranking than the U.S.
Next time you hear Democratic Socialists talk about how socialist Sweden is, remind them that the big welfare state is funded by Swedes’ free-market practices, not their socialist ones.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is ready to tax the rich to make her Green New Deal a reality.
“People are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes,” the recently elected New York Democrat told TV show “60 Minutes” in an interview set to air Sunday.
Speaking of prior decades’ taxation rates in the country, Ocasio-Cortez added, “Once you get to the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the avowed “democratic socialist” went with the predictable “tax the rich” formula in order to pay for a massive government program to combat climate change.
But it would hardly be good news for most Americans if Ocasio-Cortez got her way.
In fact, such a scheme would mean that her constituents in New York City would pay a max income tax rate of 82.6 percent, as Americans for Tax Reform was quick to point out. Perhaps New Yorkers deserve what they voted for, but does the country?
Interest in the Green New Deal
While Democratic House leadership has so far balked at the Green New Deal, it enjoys strong support from over 40 members of Congress, per The Daily Caller.
A poll released in December also shows Americans might be more inclined than you’d think to support the plan. The poll, from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, showed that 8 out of 10 Americans hadn’t heard about it.
But when asked if they would support it—albeit with a very favorable description of the deal that didn’t discuss higher taxes, for instance—81 percent of registered voters said they would back it.
However, polls tend to change quickly when people learn about how much policies cost them, and the details of the Green New Deal demonstrate that it’s about more than just a higher tax on a tiny number of rich people.
A Radical Agenda
In fact, the tax hikes on the rich would be one of the least radical parts of the agenda.
It’s no exaggeration to say that if implemented, the Green New Deal would upend our way of life and destroy the liberty and prosperity that Americans, of all backgrounds, currently enjoy.
Those changes are going to come with real costs. According to an editorial for Investor’s Business Daily, moving the economy away from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy will come “at a cost of about $5.2 trillion over 20 years.”
Even if we’re willing to shoulder the costs, it’s, well, impossible to achieve.
“Producing 100 percent of electricity from renewable sources is a practical impossibility in the near future,” stated a report issued by the Senate Republican Policy Committee in December. The report, which looked at the Green New Deal, continued:
Scientists doubt it would be achievable by 2050, let alone 2029, the deadline Democrats would set. Such a massive overhaul in power generation would require the closure and replacement of about 83 percent of U.S. electricity generation, including all coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants. … Today, renewable electricity—mainly wind, solar, and hydroelectric—provides only 17 percent of American electricity.
Make no mistake: While progressives have long been focused on green extremist policies, the Green New Deal proposals are significantly more radical than other environmentalist ideas like carbon taxes and subsidies for green industries. Foregoing the sticks-and-carrots approach to addressing climate change, this deal would instead rely on the ruthless bludgeoning of private industry and citizens through the levers of the state.
In fact, the plan outright dismisses attempts to “incentivize the private sector” toward greener policies as “simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas-neutral economy as quickly as needed.”
Instead, the plan calls for direct government intervention to be its “prime driver.” (And in a mere 10 years, no less!)
A Trojan Horse of Liberal Goodies
But that’s not all. There’s more.
The Green New Deal doesn’t just include environmentalist proposals: It also includes a grab bag of other left-wing goodies to “mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional, and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low-income, deindustrialized, or other marginalized communities in such a way that builds wealth and ownership at the community level.)”
Among the liberal wish list items included, the Green New Deal contains a proposal for universal health care and a basic minimum income program to make up for all the jobs lost in the process of transitioning to a fully green economy.
Of course, this will all come with an immense cost.
Citing an analysis by the Mercatus Center, Bob Moffit, a health care expert at The Heritage Foundation, wrote that the “Medicare for All” legislation proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years. A universal minimum income or basic income plan would also likely cost trillions of dollarsa year.
The entire federal budget in 2018 was $4 trillion. The Green New Deal would require the U.S. to massively expand this already-bloated budget that is burying us in debt.
How do Green New Deal proponents propose to pay for this extreme growth in government?
“[I]n the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars,” the plan says. “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.”
In other words, by massively hiking taxes, and then borrowing and ultimately printing money. Then it would use public banks run by unaccountable bureaucrats to carry the whole thing out.
That’s not very democratic, but it is socialistic—an American version of a Soviet-style five-year plan focused on command-and-control economic solutions that have proven to fail the world over.
As Justin Haskins, executive editor at the Heartland Institute, wrote for the Washington Examiner: “Make no mistake about it: This is one of the most dangerous and extreme proposals offered in modern U.S. history. It’s the sort of thing you’d see in the Soviet Union, not the United States.”
The Stakes Just Got Higher
If there is one positive thing the Green New Deal does, it’s that it brings to light the fact that much of the environmentalist agenda is just a thinly veiled vehicle for implementing far-left socialism.
Given the fact that nearly half of millennials say they’d rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism, according to a 2017 poll conducted by the Victims of Communism, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that these ideas didn’t die at the end of the Cold War.
They’ve been repackaged by young, hip millennials, like Ocasio-Cortez, who can deceive a generation, mostly detached from history, into believing that the failed flim-flam sauce of socialism can somehow work this time around.
Despite overwhelming evidence of failure and suffering, the American left is now more openly embracing socialism—a worrying and disturbing trend that needs to be countered.
It’s no longer just Sanders waging this crusade in Congress. It is a growing cohort of younger, even more extreme members who are attempting to revive ideas that should have been left in the ash heap of history. As Sanders himself recently noted in a CNN interview, his 2016 campaign helped make certain positions “mainstream” that were previously “considered extreme and fringe.”
Whatever one thinks about Ocasio-Cortez, it’s undeniable that she connects with a large and growing subset of voters. Her everywoman persona and ability to seem truly genuine is making her a potent voice on the left.
The Instagram cooking advice and dance routines may be charming and relatable—especially to millennials—but attention to these trivial matters masks the radicalism and bankruptcy of her views.
Socialism is not the cure for what ails America, and it hardly takes a history lesson to figure this out.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. Photo: SteveSands /NewYorkNewswire/MEGA/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/190104_GreenNewDeal-1250x650-e1546861517270.jpg394640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-01-07 06:46:102019-01-07 06:58:12The Green New Deal Is a Trojan Horse for Socialism
During an early morning traffic stop in a small town near the Bay Area, everything we fight against came together in a perfect storm and led to the death of a man who symbolized everything we at NRATV stand for. The man in question was a police officer, a legal immigrant, a father and a husband. But he served a community bound by laws that put him last.
Illegal immigration, the war on cops, illegal-weapons possession, all embodied by a man in a pickup, joined together and ended the life of a law enforcement officer. With no regard for life, no respect for law enforcement, and no regrets for his actions, an illegal immigrant, who escaped deportation twice because of sanctuary-city laws, wielded an illegal weapon and carried out an attack on one of America’s finest.
For days, the murderer was on the run, asking for help from those who would, doing everything he could to traverse the hundreds of miles back to his home country of Mexico. He sought refuge from the demands of American law.
He had crossed the border into Arizona illegally years before, but that didn’t matter to the California state government. They welcomed it.
He was a prime candidate for deportation, but that didn’t matter to state law enforcement. They concealed it.
He had already been arrested twice for driving while intoxicated, but that didn’t matter to the judge. He pardoned it.
Gustavo Perez Arriaga was a product of political correctness, disrespect for the rule of law, and prosecutorial discretion run amok. Because of the implementation of these progressive positions, Gustavo Perez Arriaga was enabled to kill Cpl. Ronil Singh.
All Ronil Singh ever wanted was move to the United States and become a cop. To him, there was no better place than America and no nobler profession than that of police officer—at least that’s what he told Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson almost eight years ago. “[I] came here solely to be a police officer and be a part of this country,” the Fiji native said, “to protect what was given and allowed to [me].”
But on the day after Christmas, during what seemed to be a relatively routine call, Cpl. Singh came face to face with a deadly and counterfeit version of the American dream and lost his life.
Gustavo Perez Arriaga, who was later revealed to actually be named Paulo Virgen Mendoza, fled the scene, but after a two-day manhunt, he was caught 200 miles away from the scene of the crime.
U.S. Southern Border.
For the 12 years he served as governor of California, Jerry Brown gave his stamp of approval on countless bills that have resulted in anti-cop legislation and California’s current and illegal status as a sanctuary state. California is a place where neither the law nor the Second Amendment matter—a place where political correctness reigns freely and the lives of law enforcement officers are just a bump in the road to Utopia.
California is a place where neither the law nor the Second Amendment matter.
The laws aren’t unique to California, though. The House of Representatives is controlled by the party of open borders, sanctuary cities, and the war on cops. They continue to pursue an agenda that will leave countless in its wake, solely for a strengthened voting bloc and perpetual power.
It’s up to us—those who are members of a group we call freedom’s safest place—to make our voices heard, to make a stand for the American dream, for legal immigration, for a secure border, for the lives of our officers, and for a safe and prosperous country.
EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/border-patrol.jpg339600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-01-06 16:29:132019-01-06 16:29:15The American Way of Life Was Assaulted in the Murder of Cpl. Ronil Singh
Gun controllers frustrated that their federal agenda has been repeatedly rejected by Americans through their elected representatives are seeking to restrict gun rights by way of the private financial system. The goal is to pressure financial services companies into either not doing business with the firearms industry and gun owners or to comprehensively surveille their lawful activity.
On December 24, the gun confiscation supporters at the New York Times ran a thinly-veiled advocacy piece by Andrew Ross Sorkin in the news section, titled, “Devastating Arsenals, Bought With Plastic and Nary a Red Flag.” The piece outlined how some of the perpetrators of high-profile mass murders had purchased firearms and ammunition in the same manner that many ordinary law-abiding Americans do, with credit cards.
The online edition of the piece carried the headline “How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings,” suggesting that financial services companies were somehow complicit in violence by facilitating the exchange of lawful goods that were ultimately used for criminal purposes. Under such juvenile logic the U.S. Treasury Department should have to answer for all of the unlawful conduct they’ve facilitated by printing dollars and minting coins.
According to the misbranded op-ed, banks and other financial services companies are “uniquely positioned” to monitor gun owner purchasing habits. Under Sorkin’s preferred scenario, credit card companies would require retailers to tag firearms-related purchases with additional data that could be used by the credit card companies to compile information on gun owners. The surveillance data could then be used to flag suspicious purchases for law enforcement.
Moreover, the piece suggests that this data collection could be used to restrict certain types of lawful firearms transactions outright. Sorkin suggested,
Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods this year announced that they would not sell firearms to anyone under 21. If banks chose to use the systems they already have in place, they might decide to monitor such customers, perhaps preventing them from buying multiple guns in a short period of time.
To their credit, when asked for comment by the Times’s advocate, the major financial transaction firms expressed a reluctance to violate the privacy of their law-abiding customers. A Visa spokesperson explained, “We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods or services… Asking Visa or other payment networks to arbitrate what legal goods can be purchased sets a dangerous precedent.” A Mastercard spokesperson added that the transaction company values the privacy of their customers’ “own purchasing decisions.”
Sorkin’s “news article” echoes many of the ideas he advocated in a February 2018 Times commentary. Making clear Sorkin has none of the objectivity on this topic one might have expected from a professional journalist pursuing a news story, the earlier piece overtly advocated for leveraging the private financial system to restrict firearms transactions. Sorkin contended that it would take “leadership and courage” on behalf of the financial services industry in order to implement his private firearms restrictions, which included a plan to eliminate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms “from virtually every firearms store in America.” Were journalistic ethics as integral to the operation of the legacy press as those institutions purport, Sorkin’s authorship of the more recent item may have drawn interest of a forthright editor, ombudsman, or the Columbia Journalism Review.
The Sorkin article is just part of a wider-ranging effort to attack firearms owners through the financial system. In April 2018, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety expressed their support for increased credit card company surveillance of firearms transactions. Moreover, the anti-gun organization has developed “guidelines” for financial institutions doing business with the firearms industry. Under the guidelines, firearms manufacturers and retailers would be forced to adopt a host of gun control measures in order to do business with financial services providers.
In 2013, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice instituted Operation Chokepoint. Under the program, the DOJ leveraged the power of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to discourage banks from transacting with lawful businesses they deemed to be “associated with high-risk activity,” including members of the firearms industry.
The anti-gun proposals targeting credit card companies should be of grave concern to all gun owners. As the Federal Reserve regularly reports, consumer use of credit and debit cards is growing. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s 2017 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice reported that “[i]n October 2017, the period covered by this DCPC, consumers made most of their payments with cash (30.3 percent of payments), debit cards (26.2 percent), and credit cards (21.0 percent).”
The recent credit card proposals also prompt important questions. Under what a scenario would a gun owner’s purchases be flagged as suspicious or be outright denied? Might the criteria be defined by anti-gun activists to include any volume of firearms-related goods they consider deviant? Gun owners routinely purchase large quantities of firearms products and ammunition for the same reason consumers buy anything in bulk, to save money.
Moreover, gun owners should be aware that any increase in the information that the financial services companies collect may wind up in the federal government’s hands. A June 2013 item in the Wall Street Journal reported that the National Security Agency was scooping large quantities of data from credit card providers. At the time, experts speculated that the NSA would not be able to obtain the exact products an individual purchased, but could see where the purchases were made and the merchant category codes. Changing merchant category code data to be more descriptive is one of the ways control advocates intend to advance their credit card company gun control scheme.
Even those who do not value the right to keep and bear arms but do cherish their other civil liberties should be concerned with the recent credit card transaction proposals. Back in early 2018, when some of these ideas were first floated, Georgetown University Law Professor Adam Levitin pointed out, “There’s a privacy angle here… There’s the slippery slope danger if it’s guns today maybe it is pornography tomorrow and the day after it’s right-wing literature.”
And with even mainstream television fare such as “Friends,” “Seinfeld,” and “The Simpsons” having come under fire by today’s social justice vigilante mob, it’s difficult to imagine any product or service that could be immune from their perpetually outraged sensibilities.
New rules or surveillance procedures imposed by the credit card industry on firearms transactions would have a profound negative effect on gun owners and the firearms industry and pose a broader threat to all liberty-minded Americans. NRA will continue to monitor these efforts and keep our members apprised of any further developments.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by NRA-ILA is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/credit-cards-nraila-e1546688393692.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-01-05 06:40:092019-01-05 06:40:10Gun Controllers Want Credit Card Companies to Monitor and Restrict Lawful Purchases
People born in New York City who don’t identify as male or female will soon be able to select a nonbinary gender category on their birth certificates.
The New York City Council and Board of Health voted on Wednesday to include a third gender category, “X,” on birth certificates starting Jan. 1, 2019. Furthermore, the legislation will discontinue the need for a doctor’s note or health care provider’s affidavit to change one’s gender marker.
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.”
In New York City the uncontested slogan of yesterday became public policy January 1, 2019. A date that will live in absurdity.
Gender is binary!
One is born either a male or female. This distinction is based upon science. One’s DNA determines one’s gender. The gender of a baby can be determined using DNA tests as early as 9 weeks of gestation.
The Family Research Council has produced a new publication with a concise explanation of Why “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” Should Never Be Specially Protected Categories Under the Law. Written by Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg, the new Issue Brief explains that SOGI laws, like that enacted in New York City,
are not justified in principle;
are invasive and cause tangible harms; and
are coercive and cannot be reconciled with religious liberty.
Gender Dysphoria
The American Psychiatric Association defines Gender Dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.
People with gender dysphoria may often experience significant distress and/or problems functioning associated with this conflict between the way they feel and think of themselves (referred to as experienced or expressed gender) and their physical or assigned gender.
Conclusion
QUESTION: How can a newly born baby in New York City select it’s gender category? ANSWER: He or she can’t.
So, who would make the determination to classify a child as Gender-X? The child’s parents? The child’s pediatrician? The child’s grandparents? What impact can classifying a child Gender-X have in the future? Will it impact the child’s education, what sports team the child plays on? Will it impact the child negatively or positively?
Is the purpose of New York City’s Gender X law to protect the LGBT community? If so, they already are under the laws of the city and state of New York, as well as the U.S. Constitution. Will this law raise a generation of children who will suffer from gender dysphoria? Perhaps, only time will tell.
This law can lead to gender confusion, significant distress and/or problems. Boy and girl, man and woman are being replace with what, exactly? Answer: Gender-X!
Church Militant has learned from extremely reliable sources that the Vatican investigation into disgraced former cardinal Theodore McCarrick appears to have gone into cover-up mode.
In an unbelievable turn of events, Church investigators are now presenting the accusations against McCarrick from a former altar boy as not credible. But what is proving to be astonishing is the rationale.
The case as laid out to Church Militant is that the then-16-year-old boy went to St. Patrick’s Cathedral to seek out McCarrick and serve midnight Mass in 1972 where McCarrick groped and fondled him in the sacristy.
Even though the boy did not go to St. Patrick’s with any sexual intentions in mind, investigators for the Vatican are spinning the details in such a way as to say that McCarrick is at least partially exonerated, if not totally, because the boy presented himself to McCarrick and McCarrick did not pursue him.
Additionally, they say that since the boy was 16, a question now arises regarding the age of consent and if this could still be viewed as sexual abuse of a minor.The investigators now appear to be scuttling both parts of the accusations — was it actual ‘abuse’ and was the boy an actual minor?Tweet
The investigators now appear to be scuttling both parts of the accusations — was it actual “abuse” and was the boy an actual minor?
Those with intimate knowledge of the investigation are saying it’s part of a “cover-up,” claiming the Vatican is trying to recast the molestation as somehow consensual sex — a theme actually brought forward by Chicago Cdl. Blase Cupich at the bishops’ November meeting in Baltimore — that consensual homosexual sex involving a priest is a different matter.
The fallout from this latest news has sent shock waves through the ecclesiastical world, especially the archdiocese of New York, which publicly announced the McCarrick news back on June 20.
New York Cdl. Timothy Dolan’s entire charge of credible evidence against McCarrick was now severely jeopardized by the way the Vatican was spinning the case.
And this is why: James Grein, longtime victim of McCarrick, was interviewed at length by New York archdiocese Vicar General Richard Welch last week about details surrounding his abuse at the hands of McCarrick.
With Dolan’s original case against McCarrick apparently blown out of the water by Vatican investigators, Dolan needed to put together another case and do it fast. This one would have to be airtight, and in the case of James Grein, he found it.
In his speech at the rally, Grein gave details of the decade-plus homosexual abuse endured by him from McCarrick. He also gave further details on a YouTube video with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
Between the New York Times article, his speech at the rally, his interview with Taylor Marshall and an additional interview he gave Church Militant following his testimony against McCarrick given in New York last week, it appears Dolan may have his airtight case.Rome and Pope Francis are the problem here — Rome, Pope Francis and the homosexual clerical culture dominating the Church.Tweet
But what is extremely telling — as well as disturbing — according to insiders, is that the knee-jerk response from the Vatican seems to be to want to cover up, or in the very least discredit and downplay, the charges against McCarrick, and that, faithful Catholics tell Church Militant, is a big red flag that the Vatican is more concerned with cover-up than the truth.
At the moment, U.S. bishops are huddled at Mundelein Seminary in Chicago for a week-long retreat about sex abuse ordered by Pope Francis, and in just six weeks time, the sex abuse summit gets underway in Rome.
Given these latest developments and leaks, many are thinking that all of this is just one huge smokescreen, that Rome has no real concern about this issue, too easily adopts a “blame the victim” approach and is content to treat this entire scandal as just an “American thing” that will be forgotten soon enough.
Conclusion: Rome and Pope Francis are the problem here — Rome, Pope Francis and the homosexual clerical culture dominating the Church.
Stay close to Church Militant for further news as developments warrant.
EDITORS NOTE: This column by Church Militant with images is republished with permission.
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court is being tasked with tackling the most significant of societal issues: our freedom to worship.
This time, the argument is embodied in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association. Familiarly enough, the legal action pits the American people’s abilities to have a longstanding religious symbol remain in the public square against those of secular activists to have them forcibly removed.
The present controversy involves a cross that sits at the center of an intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland dating back to 1922 when local residents set out to build a structure honoring 49 local soldiers who died serving the United States in World War I. The plan called for the construction of a 40-foot tall cross as homage to the fallen heroes.
The Peace Cross, as it eventually came to be known, was completed in 1925, where it has stood as a symbol of the city’s reverence and respect for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our great country. As the nation’s history progressed and America suffered through other conflicts, the Cross served as a natural gathering place to honor the fallen heroes from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Gulf Storm, among other conflicts.
As things progressed, Bladensburg grew, and the property upon which the Peace Cross stood came to rest at the intersection of multiple growing thoroughfares. Eventually, the state bought the land upon which the Cross stood in 1961, instantly transforming it into the public domain.
Despite the change in the Peace Cross’s status, there was still no objection to its continued presence; that is until the American Humanitarian Association came along.
The Association is made up of a group of individuals who claim to be offended by the Cross’s presence and want it removed. Its argument is that the Cross represents an unconstitutional intermingling between church and state, since, according to the Association, its presence on public land represents the adoption or approval of religion by the government.
In keeping with its strong objection to the Peace Cross, the Association, along with a group of local residents, brought an action against the Maryland National Park And Planning Commission to have the cross removed. The Planning Commission fought back and was eventually granted summary judgment by the district court and told that the Cross could remain. The case was subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which disagreed and ordered that the Cross be removed. The case is now being argued before the Supreme Court.
The Peace Cross case is a manifestation of the many problems of American jurisprudence in the way it handles cases of religious freedom.
The issue of public worship and respect for our religious freedoms is of elemental importance to all Americans. Religious liberty is at the very root of the nation’s foundation, and its scope and ramifications are fundamental to what it means to be human. Without the direct relationship between our Creator and each one of us, there is no limit to the intrusion government can theoretically have upon the individual. In fact, the only factor placing a limit upon government’s authority over each person is the individual’s greater allegiance to God. Absent this, government may logically run rampant over man.
It is for this reason that the acknowledgment of man’s divinity is so important in a democratic society as it is a constant reminder that both government and man are limited in their scope and power by a greater being, our Creator. Conversely, removing such reminders, like the Cross, serve to diminish the role of religion and worship in people’s daily lives and makes it that much easier for government to intrude upon our freedoms.
Sadly, whereas symbols like the Peace Cross were rarely disturbed during the nineteenth century, beginning in the middle of the twentieth century, they were openly assaulted, not only culturally, but by jurists and advocates.
One of the defining moments of the assault came in a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman involving a state’s ability to apply tax money in support of private schools, many of them religious. Here, the Court prohibited such an association as an intrusion upon the wall of separation between church and state. More importantly, the Court created a three-pronged test it would apply in order to determine whether an action or a law offended the Constitution. In short, the Court said that in order to have a law stand constitutional scrutiny related to religious freedom, the government would have to show three things: 1) a secular purpose; 2) that the law or act did not act principally to advance or inhibit religion; and 3) it did not create an “excessive entanglement with religion.”
Under these requirements, secularists have met with great success in attacking public expressions of worship, religious symbols, and prayer. Since the Lemon test, secularists have been able to force courts to order the removal of crosses and Ten Commandment tablets from public lands, prevent prayer in schools, keep people from praying at commencement ceremonies, and erase Christmas symbols from municipal seasonal celebrations. If your city no longer calls its December tree a Christmas tree, or now calls its Christmas parade a Holiday parade, there is a big chance it is due to the fear of the Lemon test.
But the Lemon test has not escaped criticism. Many, including renowned law professors and jurists have argued that the test allows absurd outcomes and does not properly reflect the wishes of the American people. Some have even called for the test to be displaced. In fact, in a case questioning whether the Ten Commandments should be removed from the Texas Capitol, Justice Stephen Breyer opted not to use the test. In upholding the ability of the tablets to remain, Breyer suggested an approach different from the one used in Lemon. Breyer acknowledged that the Ten Commandments were openly religious, but despite that, he maintained that the tablets should remain because it was “part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage.”
The fact is that if Breyer had employed the Lemon test, his conclusion would likely have been opposite of what he felt was the more correct posture, and we would have witnessed yet another situation where religion and religious freedom would have been beaten down.
Enter the 2018 conservative Supreme Court. It is interesting that the Supreme Court decided to hear the Peace Cross case. Indeed, the lower court applied the Lemon test and arrived at the conventional position. The Supreme Court could have passed on this case and let it stand. But it did not.
The fact that the Court opted to hear this case is an opportunity for it to enter the arena of religious freedom and religious worship. What the Court actually does with this case, of course, remains to be seen. In the end, it could use the Lemon test and provide further clarification on its application.
It could, on the other hand, do something truly innovative. It could review the assault that has taken place upon religious freedom with the Lemon sword and take the future of the First Amendment in a more permissive direction.
For our posterity’s sake, let’s hope that it does the latter.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. It is republished with permission. The featured image is from the Save The Peace Cross Facebook page.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/peace-cross-e1546549059278.jpg403640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2019-01-03 15:59:032019-01-03 16:02:07The Peace Cross And Restoring Religious Freedom
It is the height of hypocrisy to ask the United States government, already USD $22 trillion in debt, to fund handing out free money to the entire nation.
Universal basic income has had a phenomenal year in 2018 when it comes to publicity. Silicon Valley billionaires, academics, and leftist politicians are raving about the brilliant new scheme, which we are told will prevent a Social Darwinist dystopian future in which average Joes everywhere stand to lose their low-functioning blue collar jobs to the grave perils of automation.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO and one of the three wealthiest individuals in the world, is a big fan. He has emerged as a high-profile public cheerleader for the universal basic income scheme. During last year’s Harvard commencement address, the fanciful concept featured prominently: “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”
Zuckerberg seems to miss something on a basic human nature level. It may be fashionable to promote a philosophy of egalitarianism. The reality, however, is that human beings are not equal in terms of ability or anything else. Under our constitutional system, human beings enjoy equal protection of our constitutional rights, but that hardly means we should expect equality of outcomes. And that is something the Silicon Valley pseudo-socialists will never understand.
A Fanciful Notion
It would be nice to believe that a universal basic income program would allow human beings to fully realize their potential. Young people with few opportunities would enjoy the economic freedom to become captains of industry, technological pioneers, and inventors, perhaps learning how to code in their free time, developing software programs, and founding the next major social media platform to compete with Facebook.
To say this is a fanciful notion is an understatement. There are human beings who are highly motivated. There are human beings who are incredibly lazy and unproductive. There are human beings with IQs of 130, and there are human beings with IQs of 70. What message will human beings take away from receiving a monthly check, with no strings attached, for USD $1,000…or $2,000, or $5,000? Will this usher in some golden new age of invention, of technological wonder, of allowing the teeming and downtrodden masses to realize their full potential?
Such a program has never been tried on a large scale, so there are no empirical results, except for small-scale test runs. A basic understanding of human nature, coupled with common sense, however, suggests that the UBI is not the golden panacea that a few starry-eyed Silicon Valley billionaires make it out to be.
Why should we reward human beings for doing nothing? Mark Zuckerberg is the rare technological genius who would spend his free time coding and developing his own social media platform. What about typical human beings? With a check in the mail each month for doing nothing, how many are now going to be “liberated” to work in what they really love, and how many are going to be encouraged to do nothing?
The Numbers Don’t Add up
Setting aside human nature, for a moment, let’s take a look at the economics of a UBI program.
Surprise, surprise. They are phenomenally expensive to implement. Just doling out USD $1,000 a month to Americans would cost USD $3.8 trillion a year, according to a recent study by Bridgewater Associates. Well, golly, that’s a tab even Zuckerberg can’t pick up.
National and local governments across the world have been cutting funding for UBI programs in droves. They are expensive and wreak havoc on local budgets. Unsurprisingly, taxpayers (one would presume even of a left-wing bent) don’t take too kindly to funding such pilot programs, especially when they are not the beneficiaries of this state largesse.
Programs in both Canada and Finland have been shut down under political and budgetary pressure, which brings us to the point.
Zuckerberg can champion the idea of a UBI all he wants, but unless he and his Silicon Valley brethren are prepared to fund them personally, they will remain pipe dreams.
Even with an incredibly low-brow American public, ever more eager to get something for nothing through the smoke and mirrors of big government socialism, I believe Americans are intelligent enough to see through the farce of the basic income.
I have no problem with Mark Zuckerberg or other wealthy benefactors funding such programs and showing us their data—holding up the great successes for all the world to see. But it is the height of hypocrisy to ask the United States government, already USD $22 trillion in debt, to fund handing out free money to the entire nation.
David Unsworth is a Boston native. He received degrees in History and Political Science from Washington University in St. Louis and subsequently spent five years working in real estate development in New York City.
EDITORS NOTE: This column by FEE with images is republished with permission. The featured image by geralt on Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ubi-e1546548033634.jpg427640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-03 15:42:122019-03-06 18:22:36Universal Basic Income Is a (Costly) Socialist Pipe Dream
The “man,” Mumtaz Rauf, 39, was arrested at Fair Oaks Mall in Fairfax, Virginia after a sharp-eyed teen saw what looked like a camera peeping down at her while she was trying on clothes in a mall shop.
Mumtaz Rauf
The incident is alleged to have happened at Forever 21 in the late afternoon of Christmas eve.
The girl reported her fear about someone possibly filming her to a store clerk who then spotted a man hurrying from the store.
Rauf was arrested in a dressing room in another store a short time later.
NBC Washingtonreported (see the video too!) that when police arrived Rauf had a pinhole camera on him, some black tape and a Bluetooth transmitter.
Rauf “was charged with unlawful filming of a minor, which is a felony because of the victim’s age,” continued the NBC report.
Rauf’s tools of the trade from INSIDENOVA story
Rauf was previously a bartender in Alexandria and had been profiled almost a year ago to the day in the Old Town Crier.
In the interview Rauf was asked, “How did you get started in the bartending business?”
His reply: “High hopes of money, women and fame.” (Hmmm!)
Fairfax County Police believe that this was not a one-time event, so if you think you may have been filmed in a dressing room at Fair Oaks Mall, call police at 703-591-0966.
The story was reported by other local news outlets here and here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/alex-bocharov-437320-unsplash-e1546459295384.jpg427640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-01-02 15:01:482019-01-02 15:01:50Virginia: Alexandria “Man” Arrested on Christmas Eve for Filming a Minor in Mall Dressing Room
Shevon Desai, Hailey Mooney andJo Angela Oehrli from the University of Michigan have created a Fake News Guide. The guide provides extensive data on what is fake news, how to recognize its various iterations and provides information on bias in the media.
Included in their guide is Claire Wardle, of FirstDraftNews.com, visual image below to help consumers of news think about the ecosystem of mis- and disinformation. Wardle provides seven general categories of fake news.
What Is Fake News?
Desai, Mooney and Oehrli state:
“Fake news” is a term that has come to mean different things to different people. At its core, we are defining “fake news” as those news stories that are false: the story itself is fabricated, with no verifiable facts, sources or quotes. Sometimes these stories may be propaganda that is intentionally designed to mislead the reader, or may be designed as “clickbait” written for economic incentives (the writer profits on the number of people who click on the story). In recent years, fake news stories have proliferated via social media, in part because they are so easily and quickly shared online.
Desai, Mooney and Oehrli also define mis and dis-information. Authors of mis- and dis-information include:
Someone wanting to make money, regardless of the content of the article (for example, Macedonian teenagers)
Satirists who want to either make a point or entertain you, or both
Poor or untrained journalists – the pressure of the 24 hour news cycle as well as the explosion of news sites may contribute to shoddy writing that doesn’t follow professional journalistic standards or ethics
Partisans who want to influence political beliefs and policy makers
Think critically. Use the strategies on these pages to evaluate the likely accuracy of information.
Think twice. If you have any doubt, do NOT share the information.
The Bottom Line
After reading the Fake News Guide I have determined that it is the individual reader who must decide what is fake news. It is not up to any social media site’s “community standards” to make this judgement. Why? Because they can be, and in many cases are, themselves biased.
In America an informed and educated citizenry is necessary to be able to think critically and think twice.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/elijah-o-donnell-603766-unsplash-2-e1546424812391.jpg440640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-02 05:37:402019-01-02 06:09:04What is Fake News? How can you recognize it?
