VIDEO: 5 million years of climate data shows the Sun is the driving factor not CO2

/in , , , , /by

In this December 15, 2011 video (below) Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa and director, G.G. Hatch Isotope Laboratories, one of Canada’s leading analytical facilities, testifies before a Canadian Senate hearing on climate change.

Professor Clark presents three important findings on what impacts the earth’s climate:

  1. Earths warming and cooling periods over millions of years has been due to activity on the sun.
  2. H2O (water vapor) is driving green house gas models, not CO2. It is H2O that keeps earth at a livable temperature for mankind.
  3. CO2 has little to do with global warming. CO2 actually helps keep the planet green.

Please take the time to watch this entire video to understand how data and science are used to define green house gases and their effect over time on our climate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada’s Peoples Party: ‘Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future.’

Don’t Let Climate Change Alarmism Ruin Your Future

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

VIDEO: Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change

VIDEO: The Vortex — The New Normal

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

It’s now been one year to the day — yesterday, to be precise — that the first of a series of bombs were exploded by Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò over the Catholic world.

Recall the context: The Pennsylvania grand jury report had been released roughly a week before and was a prevalent topic in the secular press.

The Establishment’s crooked cardinals were somewhat on the defensive, playing the spin game and lying about everything they knew. The news about McCarrick had come out two months earlier and had become something of established fact.

Various Catholics, who up to that point had been pretty sleepy about all this evil, were starting to become red-pilled as the expression goes, meaning having their eyes opened up.

The Vatican had managed to deftly avoid any meaningful on the record comments about what was unfolding in the United States. And then, just as the Pope was on a plane coming back from a trip to Ireland, the news broke like a giant thunderclap.

The former Vatican ambassador to the United States, the papal nuncio, a very highly regarded man was coming public, revealing that not only everything reported about McCarrick was true, but much more importantly, the Pope himself knew, a large contingent of U.S. bishops were involved in the mafia-style cover-up, many of them were active homosexuals and the Pope should resign.

To add to the seriousness of his testimony, he confessed that he was going into hiding for perhaps the rest of his life, for fear of lethal retaliation.

Viganò’s testimony forced the entire issue back onto the front pages and became the topic in the Catholic media world.

It caught everyone, in particular what Viganò would later term the corrupt gay mafia running the Church, completely off guard.

Indeed, the days leading up to the release of his testimony had seen a shift in momentum back to the Establishment; they had trotted out liars like Donald Wuerl and Kevin Farrell to deny the cover-up part of the story surrounding McCarrick.

Wuerl took center stage, which made sense since he was the man who had replaced McCarrick in D.C. and covered up his crimes for him.

He did various interviews where he flat-out lied. Other cardinals rushed to the microphones to lie and deny.

McCarrick may be guilty, they said, but as to the climate in which such an evil monster could climb the ranks, they were all “shocked”

Wuerl, speaking to the lying, cheating, now-disgraced priest Fr. Thomas Rosica, said Catholics have nothing to worry about, the Church was moving along just fine.

The Establishment was re-gaining control of the messaging, which is somewhat easy to do when you are completely unaccountable and non-transparent.

This was the backdrop, a sleepy summer morning, when the Viganò truth bombs exploded over Pope Francis and corrupt gay mafia.

The homosexuals in the hierarchy were sent into a scramble, no one knew how to respond and they didn’t know how to respond because they knew it was the truth. Liars and cheats always melt when confronted with truth; it’s that “deer in the headlights” moment.

Even Pope Francis was caught completely off-guard as reporters fired questions at him. It was in that instant that he gave the response which this papacy will be most remembered for: “I will not say a single word.”

That phrase — not “who am I to judge?” — will be the phrase which encapsulates this pontificate in years to come.

In the ensuing year, Viganò kept issuing new testimonies which kept causing subsequent explosions. He named names, talked about specific instances of corruption and called fellow bishops liars.

Eventually, he gave a name to what he had first termed a “homosexual current” in the hierarchy: “a corrupt gay mafia.”

His relentless testimonies forced the agenda of U.S. bishops in their November meeting in Baltimore.

That it turn forced the Pope’s hand as he directly intervened and ordered the U.S. hierarchy to drop the subject immediately, that he was convening a special sex summit the coming February in Rome.

The implication was that all would be set right at this Roman summit scheduled for three days.

It was not to be the case. It was a sham, designed to cover up and ignore the thrust of Viganò’s claim, that the evil was due to the corrupt gay mafia.

Together, the Pope and the lying Cdls. Blase Cupich and Donald Wuerl, who eventually had to step down in disgrace, developed the PR message that it was not a “corrupt gay mafia,” but rather “clericalism” that was to blame for the crime.

Cupich who had been dispatched by the Pope to put out the blaze, forbid any mention of homosexuality at the summit, or any talk of homopredator clergy abusing anyone other than minors.

The specific subject of seminarians being sexually abused and assaulted by homosexual faculty and staff was strictly off-limits.

The Rome summit in February was where the corrupt gay mafia re-gained control of the narrative. In the popular mind of Catholics who care, a new normal has been established.

Homosexuality within the clerical ranks is now exposed, and Rome doesn’t care. The lack of accountability in this life, and the concentration of power, has allowed the corrupt gay mafia to return to business as usual.

Men like homosexualist James Martin are in one sense even more free now than before to be bold.

The issue now out of the closet, is now able to be lied about and spun tirelessly, and the faithful are now able to be denigrated and mocked by various clergy in heightened political terms like bigot and hater.

What is now blindingly clear is this: The rot and filth of the corrupt gay mafia is deeper and more widespread than anyone who loves the Church could ever have imagined.

This rot and filth has been covered up for, excused and deliberately overlooked by the entire Establishment who rely on their connections and relationships with these evil men to keep bread on their table.

This is a long, long battle that needs to be engaged. It will not go away for years. In fact, until all these wicked prelates are rotting and smoldering in their graves, only then will there be any hope, in a temporal sense, of change — and even then, not a thing is guaranteed.

The climate in religious orders, in the hierarchy, in dioceses and chanceries all over the West is one which embraces the world, does not seek to convert it.

Even among various Catholics who may not necessarily agree with the corrupt gay mafia, there is still a spirit of acquiescence and softness, an emasculation, a lack of willingness to confront evil head-on and call out wickedness in high places in the Church. Ultimately, this is why Viganò is still in hiding for fear of his life.

The major contribution Abp. Viganò made was not to expose the evil, but to show the battle lines, to bring them into the Catholic consciousness.

Now, it is up to the faithful to decide to fight for the soul of the Church. That is going to require highpersonal sacrifice on every level, mostly reputation and relationships.

There is a corrupt gay mafia with a stranglehold on the Church. Loyal sons and daughters of the Church must now fight in any and every way their individual circumstances allow.

The “new normal” must be resisted and defeated.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Medicare for Bernie

/in , , , , , , , /by

Preview: 

  • ​Bernie Sanders is strongly promoting “Medicare for All,” and claims to be its father (“I wrote the damn bill,” he proclaimed to the nation during the second round of Democratic Presidential debates).
  • His plan does not look like Medicare at all. It appears that he hardly knows anything about Medicare. He probably has no experience with it. Despite his advanced age, he does not need to depend on it.
  • If Bernie himself were stuck on Medicare with no way out, he might think it not so wonderful. Has anyone heard him tell people about these Medicare problems?

Bernie Sanders is strongly promoting “Medicare for All,” and claims to be its father (“I wrote the damn bill,” he proclaimed to the nation during the second round of Democratic Presidential debates).

His plan does not look like Medicare at all. It appears that he hardly knows anything about Medicare. He probably has no experience with it. Despite his advanced age, he does not need to depend on it. Members of Congress are allowed to receive Medicare benefits, but unlike most other Americans, they can receive other benefits in addition.

Sitting members of Congress can get routine examinations and consultations from the attending physician in the U.S. Capitol for an annual fee. And military treatment facilities in the Washington area offer free emergency medical and dental care for outpatient services.

Members are also eligible for the Federal Employees Health Insurance Program, and they won’t be kicked off as soon as they reach Medicare age. They do have to go through an ObamaCare exchange, but it is a small one, the DC Health Link, which reportedly functions well. There are 57 gold-tier plans to choose from, not one or two as in many states. Their portion of the premiums could be as little as 25 percent of the total premiums. Apparently, subsidies for senators don’t run out just because their salary exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

Funding for Medicare for All will apparently be vacuumed up from all other sources of payment for “healthcare,” and will go into the big collective pot. Then people can get everything without premiums, copays, or deductibles—so they say. This is not at all like Medicare.

Medicare Part A, for hospital care, is funded through the Medicare payroll tax: a 2.9% first-dollar tax—no deductions–on all employment income, half of which is paid by the employer. Seniors believe that they have been funding this through their working years, as they are constantly told. They have indeed paid, but their taxes were immediately used to pay for the care of older retirees. So, their hospital bill today will be paid from the wages of about 2.5 workers (say the persons pumping their gas, collecting their trash, and repairing their plumbing). Already that is not enough, so the IOUs in the “trust fund” are being redeemed from general tax revenues. That fund will soon be gone, according to the Medicare trustees, as Baby Boomers are flooding into the system. It would vanish in a nanosecond if we loaded in everybody, with or without illegal immigrants.

Medicare has long been implementing ways to curb runaway expenditures. From the mid 1980s comes the Prospective Payment System, or Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), under which payment has nothing to do with services rendered to a particular patient. According to my 1985 “Ode to DRG Creep”:

“Now the pay’s by the head, if alive or if dead,

Diagnosis determines the money,…

We need costs less than average, and discharges quicker

We will get no advantage — For care of the sicker.”

Since “quicker and sicker” discharges might cause a need for readmission, the government penalizes hospitals for readmission. One way to prevent readmission is to discharge to hospice or directly to the morgue. If Bernie were an anonymous Medicare patient, he’d get a consultation on POLST. That’s Physicians Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, which translates in the Newspeak Dictionary to “Legally Enforceable Orders to Terminate Life-Sustaining Treatment Including Food and Water.”

Bernie might think he had been admitted—say he had an IV in a hospital room. But if he gets discharged before his second midnight, he might be classified as an outpatient, which is covered under Medicare Part B, and get a “surprise” bill for thousands of dollars, because of the “Two-Midnight Rule.”

Or Bernie might expect to have a little rehab after an orthopedic procedure, but if he is in hospital for fewer than three midnights, rehab isn’t covered. He might have the choice of paying out of pocket, or going home where he will be alone, unable to get out of bed.

Yes, Bernie on Medicare will have free choice of doctors—except for the ones who aren’t accepting Medicare patients.

If Bernie himself were stuck on Medicare with no way out, he might think it not so wonderful. Has anyone heard him tell people about these Medicare problems?

Maybe he means the Canadian medicare system. It does have a way out for non-senators—called the United States.

Failing to use required DNA technology to identify criminal aliens

/in , , , , , /by

DHS malfeasance undermines national security and public safety.

The pace at which events occur often makes it all but impossible to keep pace. This is particularly true where the multi-faceted immigration crisis is concerned.

While much attention is paid to the abject lack of security of the U.S./Mexican border, there are many other failings of the immigration system that often go unreported and ignored by the mainstream media and our politicians.  I have repeatedly noted that while I am a firm supporter of the need to construct an effective wall/barrier along the southern border, there are many other elements of the immigration system that are no less important.  I have therefore come to compare the wall along the border with a wing on an airplane.  Without its wing an airplane won’t fly, however, a wing by itself goes nowhere.

On Wednesday August 21,  I was invited by the producers at Fox News’ Fox & Friends First to participate in an interview to discuss a just-posted  Fox News report, Watchdog Alerts President Trump That Border Agency Violated DNA Collection Law For Years, Letting Violent Criminals Walk Free.

That troubling report included the following excerpt:

In a scathing letter to Trump, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) said CBP’s “noncompliance with the law has allowed subjects subsequently accused of violent crimes, including homicide and sexual assault, to elude detection even when detained multiple times by CBP or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

CBP REBUKED FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT DNA FROM MIGRANT DETAINEES

The OSC told the White House that it was taking the “strongest possible step” to “rebuke the agency’s failure to comply with the law,” as well as its “unreasonable” attempts to defend its own conduct.

Under the law, CBP was required to collect DNA from individuals in its custody, to be run against FBI violent-crimes databases. The procedure is separate from DNA collection designed to establish familial relationships among migrants at the border.

Aliens who were released by this demonstration of nonfeasance and, indeed, malfeasance, have committed more violent crimes, thereby claiming more innocent victims.

I accepted the invitation and Fox News has posted my interview under the title, Government watchdog says CBP violated its DNA collection law for years.

As I noted during my interview, bad guys use changes in identity the way a chameleon uses changes in coloration, to hide in plain sight among its intended victims.

Everyone associates the arrest of suspects with the fingerprinting and photographing of those who are arrested as a means of determining their true identities and to make certain that their fingerprints are retained for future reference.  Currently DNA is also used as a means of identifying those who are taken into custody for the same reason.

Fingerprints, photographs and DNA all constitute biometrics.

The law that mandated that ICE and CBP use DNA to properly identify aliens who are taken into custody, was enacted back in 2005.  During the Obama administration, Secretary Janet Napolitano asked the Attorney General to waive this important requirement claiming a lack of resources.  Not surprisingly, the Attorney General complied.

Incredibly, nothing has apparently changed under the Trump administration and, as a consequence, hundreds of thousands of aliens who should have undergone DNA screening did not during the Obama administration and during the current administration.

The issue of the consequence of the failure of immigration law enforcement to effectively use biometrics is not new.  In fact, we can look back to the particularly egregious case of Ángel Maturino Reséndiz-Ramirez  aka the “Railway Killer” as noted in this excerpt in a Wikipedia article about him:

Murders and methodology

By illegally jumping on and off trains within and across Mexico, Canada and the United States, generally crossing borders illegally, Reséndiz was able to evade authorities for a considerable time. United States government records show that he had been deported to Mexico at least four times since first entering the U.S. in 1973.[4]

Reséndiz killed at least 15 people[5] with rocks, a pickaxe, and other blunt objects, mainly in their homes. After each murder, he would linger in the homes for a while, mainly to eat; he took sentimental items and laid out the victims’ driver’s licenses to learn about their lives. He stole jewelry and other items and gave them to his wife and mother, who lived in Rodeo, Durango, Mexico. Much of the jewelry was sold or melted down. Some of the items that were removed from the homes were returned by his wife and mother after his surrender. Money, however, was sometimes left at the scene. He raped some of his female victims; however, rape served as a secondary intent. Most of his victims were found covered with a blanket or otherwise obscured from immediate view.

Reséndiz-Ramirez had been in Border Patrol custody at least four times, was deported back to Mexico, illegally reentered and killed more innocent people.

He was eventually identified as the cold-blooded murderer of at least 15 people, put on trial and found guilty.  He was subsequently executed but his execution did not bring any of his victims back to life.  The families of those victims will never be the same.

Back then immigration law enforcement personnel did not transmit fingerprints electronically but usually by mail!  All too often we would arrest an illegal alien, mail out the fingerprints and then, weeks later, receive a response that the alien was wanted for serious crimes.  Of course, by then he/she had been deported or released.

During my first Congressional hearing, on May 20, 1997 before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud when I was asked about a common problem I encountered in my positions as Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and Special Agent, I replied that one of the biggest challenges was to uncover the true identities of those whom we interacted with and that imposters were a huge issue.  Within a year the former INS began implementing electronic fingerprinting, but on a limited scale.

Here we are approaching the 18th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.  The 9/11 Commission was clear in its finding that the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists was immigration fraud and identity fraud.

Yet we are now finding out that DNA technology which is a tremendously valuable tool that could enhance national security and public safety has been all but ignored by elements of the Department of Homeland Security or, as I came to refer to it when it was first created, the Department of Homeland Surrender.

It is completely unacceptable that CBP and ICE failed in its most fundamental mission: to protect America and Americans from aliens who pose a threat to national security and/or public safety.

Immigration enforcement personnel should learn from the mistakes of the past.  However, as the famed playwright George Bernard Shaw lamented, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

The Trump administration must act swiftly and decisively to plug this gaping hole in the immigration system.

Failure is not an option!

RELATED ARTICLE: Taxpayer-Funded Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Sending Immigration Lawyers to Border so More Migrants Can Get In!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

/in , , , , /by

This week, March for Our Lives – the gun control group that arose in the wake of the criminal mass attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. – released a lengthy plan outlining its vision for firearm regulation in America. Reduced to its essence, the plan is to discourage gun ownership through numerous layers of red tape, fees and government mandates.

Perhaps to their credit, March for Our Lives are more forthcoming in their proposals than disingenuous anti-gun groups who falsely profess commitment to the Second Amendment (see, for example, this week’s article on “Gun Owners for Safety”). No one can come away from reading the entire March for Our lives ”plan” with anything but the impression that the group wants to end gun ownership as America currently knows it. Even the anti-gun mass media has had to admit it is “sweeping,” “ambitious,” and “far-reaching.”

Boasting the Orwellian title of “A Peace Plan for a Safer America,” the agenda is actually a disarmament plan against law-abiding gun owners.

The centerpiece of the plan is the ever-trendy concept of a massive ban on semi-automatic firearms, coupled with a program to force formerly law-abiding owners of those guns to surrender them to the government or face punishment.

The plan doesn’t get into the specifics of which guns would be banned, how much compensation would be offered for their surrender, or what would happen to those who did not comply with this “full mandatory” scheme, but the goal would be “a reduction of our domestic firearm stock by 30%.”

Needless to say, however, any plan that by its own terms aims to have the U.S. government collect and destroy nearly 1 in every 3 guns in America must contemplate harsh treatment for anyone who doesn’t comply. Americans are not known for just casually surrendering their lawfully-acquired property and essential freedoms.

Even those who weren’t forcibly required to surrender their guns would still be subject under the plan to programs to “encourage” the “voluntary” civilian relinquishment of “handguns and other firearms.”

The plan also targets those still stubborn enough to want to legally acquire or keep a gun or ammunition. That would require a “multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.”

Some version of this process, moreover, would have to be repeated each year that the person wanted to keep the gun.

And, of course, licensees would have to pay substantial “annual licensing fees” to atone for the high cost of “gun violence” they themselves are not committing.

Besides the licensing process, which would apparently allow licensing officials some discretion to deny even otherwise qualified applicants, mandatory disqualifiers for gun ownership would also be greatly expanded.

Young adults (ironically, the same demographic being used to market the “Peace Plan”) would be automatically prohibited. Anyone who was considered to have a “propensity for violence” would also be ineligible, a category that could be established by court records, misdemeanor convictions, and apparently even intemperate speech that did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense.

Those who passed this rigorous licensing process, however, would still not be out of the woods. The plan would provide ongoing mechanisms of disarmament, either by license revocation or through a “federal policy” of “extreme risk protection orders” filed by family members or others who objected to the person having a firearm.

As if this weren’t enough, the plan would create a new National Director of Gun Violence Prevention, answerable only to the U.S. President, to marshal the vast resources of the federal government in support of the plan’s gun control agenda. Among other things, this official would be responsible for “educating” the pubic to reject the idea that “guns are safe products” and ensuring Americans understand that “the presence of a firearm in your home dramatically increases your chance of death.”

Characterizing “officer-involved shootings” as a “leading cause of death for young American men,” the plan even takes aim at police use of firearms and deadly force. The aforementioned director would also be tasked with promoting “stricter policies on the use of force” and directing the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct civil rights investigations of local police departments to exact “consent decrees” that subject the departments to federal oversight.

Ironically, at the same time the plan calls for additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners and the police, it also insists on more lenient treatment of convicted criminals through criminal justice, pretrial, and sentencing reforms. The goal, in contrast to the increased surveillance and management of gun owners and police officers, would be to “lower the footprint of the criminal justice system” in everybody else’s lives.

And it just goes on an on. Most of the worst (and often discredited) thinking in gun control over the last 40 years is included in some form or fashion. For example, the plan calls for:

  • Rationing the purchase of firearms;
  • Banning “high capacity” magazines;
  • Banning online advertising of guns;
  • Banning online sales of ammunition and firearm parts;
  • Holding gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for crimes committed with firearms;
  • Creating a searchable national registry of firearms and firearm owners;
  • Creating national “safe storage” requirements; and
  • Granting the Consumer Products Safety Commission authority to regulate firearms.

How would any of this be consistent with the Second Amendment?

The plan has thought of that, too. The very concept of an individual right to keep and bear arms, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, would undergo a “serious rethinking.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, would be required to reexamine its own conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and work toward repudiating the foundations of the Heller decision.

A “different interpretation of the Second Amendment” would also become a litmus test for the “next generation of federal judges.” The president would choose judicial prospects in concert with March for Our Lives to “develop a slate of gun violence prevention champions for federal judicial nominations ….”

Even the U.S. Supreme Court itself would face “reform” under the plan, the better to ensure that “structural limitations” did not stand in the way of the court eventually reversing the “excoriated” and “controversial” Heller decision.

But the plan doesn’t stop there. It even envisions a federally-funded “Safety Corps,” modeled on the Peace Corps, to pay legions of young activists to promote the principles and objectives of the “Peace Plan.”

The “Peace Plan” concludes by calling “on every Presidential candidate for the 2020 election” to endorse it.

So far, none of the candidates seem to have taken the bait.

But if any of them do, March for our Lives will have done the entire American electorate a favor by showing just how far some politicians are willing to go to eradicate America’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Divide and Conquer: Giffords (Formerly LCAV) Looks to Split Gun Owners to Enact Controls

Florida Alert! “Assault Weapons” Ban Amendment Bans ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS

Another Week, Another Democrat Presidential Contender Out to Round Up America’s Guns

Flag on the Play: Media Promotes Gun Confiscation Laws by Exaggerating “Study” Results

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Inconvenient Truth about Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Laws

/in , , , , , , , /by

There are two broad categories of lies that could be referred to as crimes of commission and crimes of omission.

The crime of commission is when facts are blatantly misrepresented, while the crime of omission involves leaving out relevant information, for example, when statements are taken out of context or relevant information is left out of the report.

These tactics have become commonplace and routine particularly when the mainstream media reports on the Trump administration and also when it reports on issues pertaining to immigration.

When the Trump administration promulgates policies that impact immigration, synergy kicks in and the truth is likely nowhere to be found.

Over a century ago a popular expression, the streets are paved with gold, drew immigrants to the United States who were determined to strike it rich in America.  When they got here they found that the streets were paved, not with gold, but with cobblestones that came from the cargo holds of ships that used those cobblestones as ballast.

Back then the cargo holds of the merchant ships that arrived at America’s ports were filled with cobblestones that served as ballast to keep those ships stable on the voyage to the United States.  Once here, those stones were off-loaded and all sorts of products that were made in America replaced the cobblestones in the cargo holds of those ships that returned to their original ports with merchandise to be sold.

The cobblestones were used to pave the roads of the port cities.

Nevertheless the immigrants who came to America worked hard and earned a living and built their futures in our nation.  None of them expected, nor received a “free ride.”

You could say that rather than being paved with gold, the streets were paved with blood, sweat and tears of the immigrants.

With their new-found freedom to worship and to pursue their dreams, many succeeded in building successful and happy lives in the United States.

On August 12, 2019 Business Today breathlessly published a Reuters News report under the title, “New Trump administration rule to target legal immigrants who get public assistance”.  The subtitle of that report utterly twisted the truth:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that would limit legal immigration by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor

That article also included this excerpt:

The 837-page rule could be the most drastic of all the Trump administration’s policies targeting the legal immigration system, experts have said. Advocates for immigrants have criticized the plan as an effort to cut legal immigration without going through Congress to change U.S. law.

The new rule is derived from the Immigration Act of 1882, which allows the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone likely to become a “public charge.”

That last paragraph creates the utterly false impression that President Trump had to dig back to law books published 137 years ago to find legal justification for invoking the concept of public charge to prevent aliens on public assistance from receiving lawful immigrant status.

In reality, while the notion of public charge was first codified in 1882, it has persisted in all subsequent rewrites of America’s immigration laws and, in fact, is still an element of the current Immigration and Nationality Act.

The claim that Trump’s public charge policies would deny entry to aliens who are poor is false.  This concern does not deny entry to aliens who are poor.  Historically many immigrants who were destitute have come to the United States.  However, they worked their way up the economic ladder to create the American Dream for themselves, their families and ultimately, for America.

The issue is not whether or not an alien seeking to enter the U.S. is poor but if that alien has the physical capabilities and skills and/or education to work and be self-sufficient in the United States.

In fact, Ellis Island was run by Public Health officials along with immigration officials.  Public Health officials had two concerns- that the arriving immigrants were not suffering from dangerous communicable diseases that could create a deadly epidemic and that the arriving immigrants were mentally and physically capable of working and supporting themselves and, perhaps, their families.

My earlier article, “The Left’s Immigration Con Game”, referenced the extraordinary documentary, “Forgotten Ellis Island”, that chronicles the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic and runs contrary to the bogus mythology told by the immigration anarchists of today.

On August 16, 2019 CNBC reported, “Advocacy groups file suit to block Trump’s new ‘public charge’ immigration rule” that included this outrageous quote:

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration or whether or not people are wealthy.”

More recently NBC reported, “New York, Connecticut and Vermont sue to block Trump’s public charge rule.”

Once again, the Left is resorting to “Lawfare”, filing lawsuits to achieve political objectives.

The quote that appears in the CNBC article noted above from Western Center on Law and Poverty was quick to invoke race.  Let us also be clear that race, religion and/or ethnicity play absolutely no role in determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.

The grounds for determining admissibility of aliens into the United States is codified in a section of the current Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

Among the categories of aliens who are excludible are aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, serious mental illness, are criminals, spies, terrorists, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, aliens who had been previously deported (removed) from the United States and aliens who have committed fraud in their applications for visas and/or immigration benefits.

Additionally, it establishes that aliens are inadmissible (excludible) if they are likely to become public charges.

This is how the current Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously lays out the entire issue of public charge:

(4)  Public charge

(A)   In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B)   Factors to be taken into account

(i)  In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s–

(I)  age;

(II)  health;

(III)  family status;

(IV)  assets, resources, and financial status;  and

(V)  education and skills.

(ii)  In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

The media has accused President Trump of wanting to separate families.  In point of fact, family members may provide an affidavit of support wherein they guarantee that they will provide financial assistance to their family members who seek to immigrate to the United States.  This would help to unite families not divide them.

The issue is not about dividing families or denying poor people an opportunity to immigrate to the United States, but to protect the financial solvency of the United States, an issue of increasing concern as the national debt continues to soar into the stratosphere, by simply enforcing existing laws.

I must remind you that the imposition of American policies to address public charge laws is not new, but has a long-established history that goes back 137 years.

It is clear that the United States is unable to secure its borders.  Billions of humans around the world live below the poverty line.  If the United States was to permit all of the world’s poor to come to America with the expectation of receiving free healthcare, free education, housing subsidies and other such free benefits, our nation would implode.

As it is, our national debt has soared into the stratosphere and continues its upward trajectory.

The time has come for the Radical Left to be reminded of one of their favorite chants, the one that deals with “sustainability!”

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Donald Trump is the Dennis Rodman of Politics

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump is the Dennis Rodman of politics.  To my Democrat friends, now that you have stopped laughing, please continue reading; to my Republican friends, this is a supreme compliment to President Trump, please continue reading.

I have had the pleasure of talking with Rodman privately in the past and found him to be one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.  And he has one of the most magnetic personalities I have ever encountered.

No one dislikes him and he immediately makes everyone feel at home around him.

Those who understand Rodman best are those who do not try to understand him; they simply accept him at face value and give him the freedom to be himself.

Everyone in the N.B.A. wanted Rodman on their team because they knew he would deliver on the court.

Nevermind him wearing a wedding dress to his book release party in the 90s.  He would show up late for practices and games; but despite this disruption, every N.B.A. team would have gladly taken him because he was viewed as a winner.

Notice the number of Hall of Fame coaches Rodman played for: Chuck Daley (Pistons), Phil Jackson (Bulls), and Greg Popovich (Spurs).  These were coaches who had a firm grip on their teams and coached for N.B.A. teams that are all storied franchises as far as management goes.

Similarly, Donald Trump in many ways is like Dennis Rodman.  You will go crazy trying to understand him with “conventional wisdom.”

Those who understand him best are those who don’t try to constrain and contain him.  They stand back and marvel at his ability to use the tool of “misdirection” to confuse his enemies.

Trump told us during the 2016 campaign that he likes to keep people guessing about him and his policies; well, he has not disappointed us in this regard.

Rodman wearing a dress had nothing to do with his prolific rebounding on the court, having led the NBA in rebounds seven straight years or him being named to seven NBA All-Defensive First teams; and most did not realize at the time that Rodman was paid $ 10 million dollars for wearing that dress.  Now tell me who is the fool.

Many cringed at Rodman’s off the court antics and his total honesty when reporters asked him questions; but not one person in the N.B.A. would ever say Rodman didn’t make every team he played for better.

Similarly, people cringe at Trump’s tweets, his bluntness in media interviews, and his constant stream of consciousness in front of the media; but this is the same guy that got his tax cut in 2017 that gave us a bullish economy, that broke the ice with North Korea by doing a face to face, and put America’s interest above other nations.

Democrats, the radical liberal media, and never Trumpers are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how Trump won the nomination in 2016, yet alone the presidency.

Their conclusion is that Trump voters are stupid, ignorant, white supremacists, white nationalists, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, crazy, etc.

Despite the drama that constantly surrounds this president, most Americans believe he is fighting for the rights of and supremacy of America.

Most of the foreign leaders I talk to about Trump have great respect for his singular focus of putting the interests of America first and not the wishes of the European Union, NATO, or the United Nations which are all controlled by radical liberal globalist elites.

These foreign leaders are all amazed that its taken this long for an American president to put their own country first.

So, Americans had to decide whether they wanted to win the global Mr. Congeniality contest like we did with former president Obama and were made to look weak; or elect Dennis Rodman, er Trump, and win championships, i.e., advancing a conservative agenda.

America overwhelmingly chose Dennis Rodman.  America no longer wanted to lose with style, Obama; but rather they wanted to win with blood on their uniforms because they were in a fight.

Winning is winning.  There is absolutely no consolation in losing!

Those who support Trump are loyal to him, despite all of his eccentricities, because they see in him a fighter, yes maybe even a bully; but he is fighting for values they believe in:  marriage between man and woman, genders are either male or female, protection of religious freedoms, pro-life, America’s interest above global elites.

Why other American presidents sold us out is a big question.  Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency is America’s response to our globalist political elites from both parties here in the U.S.

Trump doesn’t seem to care about being popular; but rather advancing the cause of America around the world.  And for this he is considered racist, isolationist, and xenophobic?

Really?

In the immortal words of my boy, Niccolo Machiavelli, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

Obama feared not being loved and America lost; Trump hates not being feared and America is winning.

VIDEO: 5 big takeaways from President Trump at the G-7 Summit

/in , , , /by

1600 DAILY reports:

President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump return home after attending this year’s G-7 Summit in Biarritz, France. President Trump met with world leaders to strengthen our alliances, secure better trade deals, and—as always—keep the interests of the American people front and center on the global stage.

The summit began in 1975 as an opportunity for world leaders to meet face-to-face and find solutions to the most pressing modern-day global challenges.

This year was no exception, as President Trump worked with our allies to chart a course toward even more prosperity both here at home and around the world. Here are a few of the biggest takeaways from the trip:

  • A message of unity. President Trump and President Emmanuel Macron of host nation France held a joint press conference earlier today. Over the weekend, they worked together to achieve progress on a number of fronts, including global security, fair trade practices, and better economic opportunity for all. “I want to thank you very much, Mr. President, for the incredible job you did. This is a truly successful G-7,” President Trump said.
  • Securing a billion-dollar trade deal. One of the biggest wins from the summit was President Trump’s announcement of locking in a trade agreement with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. The deal secures market access for a number of American agricultural goods, and Japan has agreed to purchase large sums of our farmers’ corn.
  • Promoting USMCA. With Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by his side, President Trump talked about the importance of expanding America’s trading partnership with our neighbors by passing the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement. With both Canada and Mexico having essentially finalized it, President Trump noted that it’s time for American lawmakers to do the same. “Our farmers love it, the unions love it, the workers love it, manufacturers love it . . . hopefully that’ll be put to a vote very soon.”
  • Developing stronger trade with Europe. While meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Trump discussed how best to meet global and regional security challenges and previewed even better trade relations to come with Germany and the European Union. Germany is “a great trading partner,” he said. “And we probably think we’re going to be upping the trade over a very short period of time.”
  • Helping to reduce India-Pakistan tensions. In his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, President Trump reaffirmed the need for dialogue between India and Pakistan and also worked to build on the great economic relations between our nations.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Supporters Have ALL The Moral High Ground. Don’t Cede One Inch Of It To The Left.

Antifa Update

/in , , , , , /by

It has been some time since I last wrote about Antifa, the self-proclaimed anarchists/communists who have adopted violent tactics to attack anyone not agreeing with their political agenda, which is nothing less than to subvert and overthrow the government of the United states. Their tactics are well recorded on film, everything from Berkeley, to attacking conservative writer Andy Ngo, to the recent confrontation in Portland, Oregon, and much more.

They are anti-capitalists, anti-religion (particularly Christianity), but they are also very organized. The scary part is they are misguided, armed, and view themselves as international terrorists, a true recipe for disaster. Interestingly, aside from former VP Joe Biden, I am told all of the other Democrat presidential candidates have yet to condemn Antifa and, as such, it is presumed they are soliciting the support of the group which is considered far-left and sympathetic to Democrat causes. In contrast, the Trump administration has openly condemned the group.

Recently, Republican Congressmen introduced resolutions to declare Antifa a terrorist organization. In the Senate, Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (LA) and Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) introduced Senate Resolution 279 (July 18, 2019). One week later, Rep. Brian K. Fitzpatrick (PA-1) introduced House Resolution 525 (July 25, 2019) based on the language contained in the Senate version. The Senate version was referred to the Judiciary Committee for review, and the House version has moved to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. It will be interesting to see how these two bills progress through the two chambers, and if anyone opposes them.

Two people have already voiced their displeasure with the proposed legislation. The first is Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union, who told The Washington Post she opposes labeling groups as domestic terrorists, seeing it as a threat to the freedoms embodied in the First Amendment. The second person, Rep Debra Haaland (NM-D) claims Antifa represents “peaceful protesters” trying to “safeguard their city.” I have trouble with this in lieu of the recent developments in Portland where the Antifa protesters came to provoke a confrontation.

Should the legislation pass, this will mean Antifa can be treated as any other terrorist group and subject to prosecution under the Patriot Act. Some suggest this is too extreme, that they are just misled kids who don’t comprehend the legalities of their actions. Their behavior though is reminiscent of the Gestapo which came to power in 1933 in Nazi Germany. The biggest difference between the two groups is the Gestapo was an arm of the government, but not so with Antifa. Nonetheless, their tactics were similar in they both attacked anyone who did not conform to their ideology.

You may think classifying Antifa as a terrorist organization is a no-brainer, that everyone would like to be rid of them. Not so fast. It has become a political football for the Democrats who do not want to alienate this far-left group of voters. Yes, I think they deplore the actual violence they create, but they are looking to groups like Antifa to loudly strong-arm and neutralize groups on the right, just as the Gestapo’s “goon squads” did in Germany. Likewise, they may be sharpening their skills for political intimidation at the voting precincts. So, do not look for any significant action to pass on Antifa until after the 2020 elections, if at all. It is not in the best interests of the Democrats to do so at this time.

By the way, I find it interesting the “Anti-Fascists” (hence the origin of their name), still do not know what a fascist is. Rather, they should just look in the mirror.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my new books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

RELATED ARTICLE: Iowa Professor Becomes Poster Child For Antifa Violence

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right Column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

More Women Now Understand that Guns Save Lives

/in , , , /by

A woman wrote in New York Times,

“While it appeared to be counterintuitive to people who did not grow up around firearms, we saw guns in our house as tools of protection and empowerment — for women who lived alone in a house without a man. And, on a couple of occasions, the guns helped deterred intended crime and saved our lives as women.”

A lot of women have the similar stories and experiences of how they accomplished self-defense, hence life-saving with the help of a gun. But, does gun really save life? Keep reading to learn more.

Guns for Self Defense – A Myth or Magic?

In many cases, a lot of women wonder if they are making the right decision to acquire a gun. This contemplation stems from certain ugly and fatal incidents associated with keeping guns at home.

Typical example of such incident is the case of the woman whose son killed 20 kids in an elementary school, including some adults. It was later discovered that the gun he used was his mom’s. In fact, the woman had multiple guns all to herself and kept them at home.

And, it’s hard to also forget the case of Christy Salters Martin — a professional boxer who also possessed a concealed carry permit. Her husband shot her with the gun she acquired when she tried to walk away from him. As a result, she now cautions women to be careful and not make the mistake she made. She added that merely possessing a gun as a woman is not the solution to staying safe. Often, the women are overpowered by the male culprits who would end up using the gun on the women.

However, some other women have a contrary opinion. The opinion states that “guns are amazing equalizer between men and women.” Wayne LaPierre declared “there’s something a rapist deserves — a good woman armed with a gun.” Wanye is a member of the National Rifle Association and serves as the executive vice president of the association.

The Best Weapon for a Woman’s Safe Defense is Gun

Janalee Tobias is the founder and president of Women Against Gun Control. According to Janalee, a number of women have transformed and built confidence by the reason of learning how to handle firearms properly. She concluded that there’s no better weapon for a woman to use as self-defense and protection tool than a gun. She added that “Guns are magical. When people perceive you have a gun, they will be careful not to meddle with you. In fact, they will be afraid of you.”

Women are Increasingly Being Involved in Roles that Require Protecting Themselves and the People Under their Care

In places such as Louisiana, a group exists that empower and educate female gun owners. Typical example of such group is the Well Armed Woman Chapters. In Bayou region, Adrianna Eschete is the chapter leader. According to her, “More often, women are finding themselves in responsibilities necessitating the need to protect those under their care.” And of course, such women also need some form of protection for themselves.

Adrianna added that “more and more ladies today are independent — some are single moms, others are alone in their homes because their husbands are working in a different region, state or country, and some go about alone in building their careers. In fact, some women stay out late into the nights running errands. Don’t over look this — a lot of women are caught up in situations where they are the ones providing protection for themselves and those under their care, rather than being the protected.”

A elderly woman of 63 years old who killed a 16-year old burglar has this to say,

“When I heard noise in my home late at night, I managed to retrieve the gun I stashed in my safe.  I was face to face with a young boy who was holding a shotgun and demanding that I give him money.”

It’s a pity he’s no more, but I was only doing what I had to do – defend myself and family right inside my own home, at such late hour. I don’t have to wait until he harms me or my family, I had to act fast — exercise the right to defend myself.”

Report

The National Shooting Sports Foundation provided a study report in 2015. According to the report, nearly 49 percent of the female folks affirmed they got a gun for both home defense and self-protection. The study also pointed that over 80% of the women surveyed said they feel more secure and safer because of the firearm in their possession, while the rest of the female respondents (more than 73 percent) agreed that having a firearm is a matter of self reliance and more importantly a matter of survival.

A Typical Scenario

Julia Benson, 29 years old, lives with her daughter, being a single mom, in a region with high crime rate. According to Julia, “I already owned a gun when I was 18 — it was given to me by my first boyfriend for self defense and protection. And now that I’m alone with my precious daughter, in a secluded and crime-prone area, I acquired more guns – shotguns and handguns. The reason is that my residence is very far away from the city — as a result, relying on the police when emergency arises could be fatal. So, I have to protect myself and my daughter. I depend on myself to protect my daughter and myself. It’s something that women who find themselves a lone should consider.”

However, those concerned about the proliferation of guns in today’s society are calling for a proper balance. These people are of the opinion that the proliferation of gun has not done much to reduce crime rates, but it appears it’s making matters worse  —- including the cases of homicides and suicides, of which women have been reported to be more victims than their male counterparts.

Socialism Infects the Globe, It Must be Defeated

/in , , , , , /by

After Jeffrey Epstein’s bizarre death, Attorney General William Barr found “Serious Irregularities” and ordered an investigation. He also promised that: “We will get to the bottom of what happened and there will be accountability.” Unfortunately, America faces a whole range of “Serious Irregularities.” They are the ills, tentacles or symptoms of Socialism in our domestic and foreign policies: from the Russia Probe to war in Afghanistan, from two Soviet style propagandist-manipulators Rep. Omar and Tlaib to the conversion of the Dems to Socialist party. To understand the nexus of these issues you have to know that they all have been brought about by the ideological war going on between Capitalism and Communism/Socialism for the last hundred years. Read my column American Socialism: The Enemy Within, New Right Network, August 1, 2019.

The recent mysterious, failed Russian military experiment and nuclear radiation of the world a-la Chernobyl indicates old Soviet intent to dominate and their usual attempt to cover it up their mistakes. Just watch, Russia will blame America for the crime they committed. Actually, most of the trouble in America and the world derives from and is caused by Russia and Putin’s KGB. I am emphasizing the significance of the KGB, because it represents Russia today and am using the term KGB to represent the entirety of the Russian Intelligence Services. If you’re wondering what any of this has to do with mass shootings in America, political mistrust of the government, and the other ills at this moment in time, simply imagine the decades of the KGB’s infiltration to do just that–fighting the American Republic from within….

To be aware of interconnection between all fronts of this war, you have to know well the enemy and the variety of forms, methods, and tricks used against Capitalism by the radical army of Communist/ Socialist mafia. Trump’s tariff-war, systematic mass shootings, the rise of Anti-Semitism, violence, and unspeakable hatred are only a few symptoms of this war. Yet, they are inextricably connected to each other by a philosophical concept of Soviet Socialism, the Stalinist Dogma of “Divide and Conquer.” Trump’s tariff-war with Communist China is a part of this long war. Yes, read the book by Michael Pillsbury, who scholastically identified this war: The Hundred-Year Marathon CHINA’S SECRET STRATEGY TO REPLACE AMERICA AS THE GLOBAL SUPERPOWER. If we want to survive we can’t escape and hide from it, because the ultimate agenda of Communism/Socialism is the destruction of Capitalism, Western civilization, and the American Republic.

Mass shootings have also taken a chronicle character in America since it started with Columbine School Shooting in 1999, under Clinton. It was investigated very poorly, missing the major cause—use of mentally disturbed people by the KGB. Mental Health is the crux of the matter. I had discussed the issue and blamed the incompetence on our Intel then, in my book The Russian Factor: From Cold War to Global Terrorism, Xlibris, 2006. There is a direct connection between the Columbine School Shooting under Clinton and Epstein’s repulsive crime spread globally: a pedophile, who also sponsored the Clinton Foundation, which I called “the eyes and ears of the KGB.” We still don’t understand Russia and its Intelligence Apparatus, which is destroying America from within. Trump is right, alleging that the Clintons were behind Jeffrey Epstein’s sudden death. My hopes for AG Barr’s awareness of the ongoing war to execute a successful investigation of the International Watergate No.2 in America.

What is at stake in this war? Everything America cares about: our set of values, democratic institutions, our personal liberty, and all freedoms we enjoy under the unique and most humane system known to the world, left to us by our Founding Fathers. I have been writing about this war for the last thirty years, because I recognized the main culprit of the war—Stalinist Soviet Socialism–a system of corruption, abuse, and fraud, built within the Democrat Party. I had lived through Soviet Socialism for half of my adult life and, as a former Soviet attorney, I know the system pretty well… Soviet Socialism is the enemy of humanity, installed and functioning in the half of the world today. Trump is right, talking about a “long-term catastrophe,” he warned us about our national security twenty years ago…

An Axis of Evil Spreads the Infection

As a matter of fact, the roots of the tariff’s war are much larger and broader than only China. Yes, it started a hundred years ago, but not in China, it was waged by Russia against Western civilization after the 1917 Socialist Revolution. It‘s still going on! History is the Mother of all sciences. If you go back and research the history of Stalinist Soviet Socialism, you will find interesting facts. Knowing that Russia alone can’t spread his ideological Dogma, Stalin began exporting communism abroad. The erroneous American foreign policy for decades gave the Russian KGB and military the opportunity to expand the fraudulent ideology of Socialism and consolidate the power globally.

Stalin started by converting Mongolia, North Korea, China, Eastern Europe,  Palestine, his devoted disciples continued expansion to Syria, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, and Turkey. All Intelligence Services of those countries had been built imitating the Soviet structure and were subordinated to the Kremlin—they all went through the KGB’s schooling. Today it is not Russia or China, we are dealing with the Axis of Evil under the umbrella and supervision of Russia. Nothing reciprocal is possible with those countries. This Axis of Evil doesn’t favor a specific race or nationality, yet, none of those countries honor agreements they have signed and don’t follow the International order unless it furthers their aims. The main point for them is–their common ideology aimed at ruining Western civilization.

To this end, Socialism has also created the groups of radical Islamic terrorists from al-Qaeda to ISIS spreading the KGB’s criminal methods throughout the world, using them and the rest of the Socialist mafia to implement Stalinist ideology. In this connection Afghanistan is a turning point to understand the destabilizing role of Russia, which, in fact, has a long border with Afghanistan and is using it. I have repeated many times that knowledge of Russia, its Security Apparatus, and its methods and tricks is a must. To understand this destabilizing role of Russia, please read in this e-magazine my column The KGB’s Roots and Pedigrees, October 19, 2017.

It is not Brexit, but October 1, 2019 is a very significant date for China—Seventy years as a Communist State, designed and built by Stalinist Russia. Though China has changed the economic structure of the Communist system and injected Crony Capitalism, the span of seventy years is looming. In that period of time the Russian socialist economy had collapsed unable to compete with Capitalism. I am not predicting a collapse of China, yet the uprising in Hong Kong is a Ringling Bell for a disaster similar to Tiananmen Square. Remember, after Political Correctness and Social engineering Communism uses brutal violence to prevent their regime from collapsing! Stay tuned!

California: The First Socialist State in America

America did not escape the Stalin’s design as well…To grasp the Truth you should know the transformation which has taken place in the Democrat Party, which is not democratic any longer. Instead, we are dealing with the typical Socialist Party. A Socialist mafia with a socialist agenda aligns with The Axis of Evil to destroy America’s capitalist economic system in order to integrate it into the socialist system worldwide…

Don’t be surprised that California experiences defecation crises. History can explain the tragic transformation of California to Socialism. It was 1963 when University of Berkeley held a communist strategy meeting, where the primary targets were determined. Look at this:

“Primary targets were determined, namely; Family, Free Enterprise, Morality (by/ censorship) and Environmental. At the same meeting they adopted the goals of the “Naked Communist” by Cleon Scouse (1970) were set up as their preamble.” There are 45 goals in total in different stages of the communists operating covertly toward the socialization our nation. “In 1992 A communist strategy meeting was held at the University of California Berkeley, for the sole purpose of updating their objectives, originally proposed in 1963.” To get the essence of those goals, let me give you only four of them:

15. Capture one of the political parties in the United States. I’ve written you about the transformation of the Dems to a Socialist mafia for the last thirty years.

19. Use student riots to foment publicity. Look at the riots in our Universities and Colleges against the First Amendment and the foundation of the American Republic.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy making positions. I was warning you about Andropov’s design to infiltrate American media and all security services for the last several decades. I am a victim of that, writing the truth about Russia, my writings were banned by the FBI Socialist mafia.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. Our culture has become unrecognizable due to a success of our enemies…

Those four goals are very familiar to me, I had lived through their successful execution in Russia—it was called Soviet Socialism. I won’t surprise you, but these exact goals depicts the Socialism in California and America—a system of abuse, injustice, corruption, and fraud…

Don’t be surprised that almost 90% of the agenda had been accomplished in California. If you watch TV, you know the result in a city of millionaires, San-Francisco: abject poverty, violence, and homelessness are out of control, endangering public health. As a result of the official distribution of syringes for addicts, their spent needles and even their excrement litter the streets. There is also risk of a national epidemics of typhus … This is what American Socialism brought San Francisco by the Dems!

As you can see the enemies of the American Republic have the same agenda: whether it is Socialism/Communism within or “The Axis of Evil” outside the country—those are acting in unison against the American Republic on different fronts. Just look at some Dems’ candidates for the US Presidency using the KGB’s play-book: they are scaring us with existential threat of “humanity caused change climate,” for decades, yet, the science did not support them. I identified several of those candidates as being sponsored by the KGB.

What do you think about the events mentioned above by me? Do they constitute “Serious Irregularities” in the American Republic? And another question: Who are you Governor Gavin Newsom? Why do you hate the unique and most humane system left to us by our Founding Fathers???

Socialism—Humanity’s Most Dangerous Sickness

In the beginning of this column, I called “Serious Irregularities” the ills, tentacles or symptoms of Socialism in our domestic and foreign policies: from Russia Probe to the war in Afghanistan, from two Soviet style propagandist-manipulators Rep. Omar and Tlaib to the conversion of the Dems to Socialist Party. Yes, I recognized the Soviet style of propagandist-manipulators Rep. Omar and Tlaib, they are the epitome of Stalinist Political Correctness: lies and fraud. I don’t believe anything coming from their mouths. World Jewish Congress condemns Rep. Rashida Tlaib. I dedicated several columns to Stalinist P.C. let me give it again: “… Political correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of a quintessential system of lies, fraud, and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization to create of One World Socialist Government under Kremlin’s rule.”

I identified another long term objective when the Muslim invasion of Europe took place. It was executed by the KGB in cahoots with Socialist mafia of Greece, Turkey, with the silent agreement of the EU and Germany. All Caravans on our Southern border have been planned by the same culprits. Yet, it is not my duty to present the analysis on all of the KGB’s crimes, as they fight against social and economic freedom in America and the world. It is a duty of the FBI to prevent destabilization of America by the Socialist mafia! The FBI was obligated to do that during the last several decades! They did not! The result is an institutional failure of the FBI! Read my columns here.

Look at the Dems’ candidates for presidency—they are an irresponsible and ignorant lot, and an arrogant Socialist herd of clowns united by a collectivized hatred toward President Trump. Alas, our deceived and fooled Millennial generation seems to prefer socialism, hoping for “free stuff.” They are inculcated by socialist professors in cosmetic socialism, and escaped knowledge of the malevolent and evil side of socialism. They all have no idea the horrors Socialism will bring. They never read my books and don’t know how it is terrible to live in a communal apartment and stay in line for hours to buy milk. Socialism is the enemy of Humanity! America must know that!

Jerry McCormick is right: “When you implement a socialist government, you will eventually have people starving for the necessities of life on a regular basis. Currently, in Venezuela, there are people who have to cross the border to get basic supplies like milk, eggs, and bread. When these kinds of desperate conditions arise, you see violence in your streets and the authoritarian regime sends people to prison and worse. Report: At least 7,000 Venezuelan deaths can be attributed to socialist regime, Patriot News Alerts, July 28, 2019 by Jerry McCormick.

Communism/Socialism did not come to Russia as the result of a demanding public. It was imposed on her from a small minority hiding behind democratic slogans in Russian Duma (parliament). They had ousted a Provisional Government and after a volley from Aurora-ship in Petrograd, the Bolsheviks proclaimed a victory of Socialist Revolution in 1917. Read about Alexander Kerensky, who ran from Petrograd wearing a woman’s dress. His government was overthrown by the Lenin-led Bolsheviks. In reality it was a coup d’état committed by the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Pay attention to what is going on in the House of Representatives in America: the creeping coup d’état against President Trump by Socialist mafia has been going on for the last three years… Don’t be surprised by the similarity with Russia—the countries of the Axis of Evil have the same agenda and Socialist mafia, schooled by the KGB, operating in a similar manner around the world. North Korea is threatening us by testing weaponry, Russia endangers the world with nuclear radiation, Iran is launching missiles, and Syria is poisoning and gassing its people. All leaders of those countries have destabilized the world and hate our successful freedom loving U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

And so do the Dems. Watch the DNC and radical leftists, who I call American Socialist mafia. They hate Trump, and in the best tradition of Stalinism, blame him for the crimes they had committed:

  • They collaborated with Russia for decades and created a hoax of Trump/Dossier, while accusing Trump of treason by being Putin’s agent.
  • They applied fascist methods and tactics in violence like a POGROM in Berkley and accused Trump of being a fascist, calling him Hitler.
  • They are defending a vicious Anti-Semitism of the Islamists in the House of Representatives and accusing Trump of Anti-Semitism, calling him a racist.
  • They are destroying and dividing American Republic for decades and calling Trump a divider, when he is successfully building a Great America.

Enough is enough, wake up America!

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com

The Unchanging Principles of Conservatism Defined

/in , , , , /by

At The Heritage Foundation, we’re always thinking about ways to talk to new and nontraditional audiences about how conservative principles can create the greatest freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society for the American people.

We realize that for these ideas to take hold, we have to counter the false narratives of left-leaning media outlets, educational institutions, and politicians.

We also see how messaging to new audiences can be diluted when some institutions and politicians who bear the “conservative” label drift far from fundamental conservative principles.

This not only hurts the conservative brand, but it also leaves these audiences thinking we’re not authentic about our views and that we change them based on convenience. It harms our credibility and leaves them thinking what we told them was right and true really wasn’t.

Many institutions and politicians start out as conservative, but if they’re not firmly rooted in principles, they can deviate from the path.

This is called trajectory: In physics, think of throwing a ball straight ahead. Eventually, forces like wind and gravity will cause the ball to curve and drop instead of continuing straight.

In politics and policy, the forces that create a curved trajectory—deviating from principles—include pressure from the media or political opponents, pressure from those you normally agree with deviating from principles themselves, or not wanting to be seen as the only one advocating for a position that’s right but not popular.

Since principles are meant to represent our highest ideals and should be based on fundamental truths, they should mostly be unchanging.

While good conservatives may have differing viewpoints about some aspects of conservatism, there are certain fundamental principles where we must remain resolute. In fact, at The Heritage Foundation, we call them the True North principles because they represent a fixed direction on which to stay focused, regardless of which ways the forces may be pressuring us.

Some of these major principles include:

  • The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty, and property—a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life, but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
  • The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the U.S. Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.
  • Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.
  • Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs, and welfare.
  • America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.
  • Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
  • Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.
  • Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.
  • America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
  • America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

These are just some of the unchanging principles of conservatism.

As the left continues to push policies like “Medicare for All,” free college tuition, open borders, and depleting the strength of the military, conservatives must counter these policies with a strong voice.

We must convince more and more people that our ideas work better and can assure a more free and prosperous future for all Americans. If we don’t do that, and more Americans succumb to the false promises of the statists, we soon won’t recognize America.

If ever there was a time we needed to be clear about our principles, it is now.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Kay Coles James

Kay Coles James is president of The Heritage Foundation. James formerly served as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and as Virginia’s secretary of health and human resources. She is also the founder and president of The Gloucester Institute. 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: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Higher Ed Is Dominated by the Left. So Where Should Conservative Students Turn for Help?

/in , , , , /by

It is no secret that college campuses have become a bastion for progressive thought and activism. With so many universities striving to push their left-wing agenda on young people, the work of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is more important than ever.

On today’s episode of The Daily Signal Podcast, Charlie Copeland, ISI’s president and CEO, shares how his organization is working on college campuses all over America to provide students with an educational background on conservative thought. Copeland weighs in on the state of high education today and what trends he is seeing across university campuses.

Listen to the full episode or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rob Bluey: We are joined by Charlie Copeland, president and CEO of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. ISI is an organization that’s focused on providing college students with an educational background on conservative thought.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Charlie, thanks for joining us.

Charlie Copeland: Thank you so much for having me. I’m looking forward to it.

Bluey: Well, Charlie, as you and I know, students across America are heading back to campus, or in many cases probably already there, and ISI’s mission is to inspire them to discover, embrace, and advance the principles and virtues that make America free and prosperous.

Tell us, as those students are now back in their classes and experiencing all the joys of campus life, how do you go about accomplishing that on so many of these bastions of liberal thought in America?

Copeland: We’ve been around since 1953, and so we’ve got some pretty good experience. The first place that we start is with our faculty associates. We have a network of faculty, conservative faculty and libertarian faculty, on campuses across the country. Interestingly enough, they do exist. They’re woefully outnumbered, but they do exist.

We’ve been offering graduate student fellowships since the early ’60s. About 600 faculty on campuses across the country are actually ISI graduate student fellows. Then there’s another almost 2,400 faculty that are on the campus that we’ve engaged with in one way or another, and we communicate regularly to them with content ideas, with curriculum ideas, and other information about conservative ideas and where the educational space is in conservative circles.

In return to that, they provide us access to some of their students. We are really looking for bright, deep-thinking, intellectually curious conservative and libertarian college students who really … understand that there’s something else out there than what they’re being fed by 90% of the faculty, and they’re looking for it, and they find it through our faculty associates.

Then we also have a few staff that we have of regional directors, and they’re usually just a year or two out of college. They carry a caseload of college campuses, and they go and they meet with students and help those students develop ISI societies. They help those students organize and host lectures and debates.

We’ll also work with students to set up student journalism programs and student newspapers. We’ve got on almost 60 campuses conservative-focused, if you will, coming from the conservative side, investigative journalism newspapers that do stories on campus.

It’s really very robust, and it’s across the board.

As I said, we have these faculty members that help us identify students. We have our staff, our regional directors that help identify students. Then we have other students that will say, “Hey, I know this young student, male or woman, or whatever, and they’d love to get involved in ISI,” and we dial them in.

Lastly, we do a lot of social media outreach. Any parent or grandparent or aunt or uncle or student who may be listening to the podcast, if they go to join.isi.org, they can sign up and get an intellectual starter kit, which includes a book from Russell Kirk and some other material, as well as Modern Age, which is an intellectual journal we’ve got, and some regular updates on conservative thought, both from economics, policy, philosophy, and politics.

Virginia Allen: That’s great.

Well, you’ve now served as ISI’s president since 2016, after a career in politics and business. Can you share about the founding of ISI and why your predecessors saw the need for an organization that would advance critical thinking among college students?

Copeland: We go back a long way. We were founded in 1953, and our first president was William F. Buckley Jr. We’ve got some big shoes to fill over those many, many years. He started ISI, or became the first president, after writing his book “God and Man at Yale,” in which Bill Buckley pointed out, and, again, this is 1953, that the campus culture was being increasingly dominated by a progressive, secular, left-leaning faculty elite. So he started this, and we’ve been working away at it ever since.

Flash forward to today, where, as I mentioned, we’ve got almost 3,000 faculty associates that we work with, we’ve got 100 societies on campus, we run almost 200 lectures and debates every year.

What we’re looking for is, again, that really bright, deep-thinking, intellectually curious conservative or libertarian thinker who’s going to go on when they graduate and be a leader somewhere. They’re going to be a leader in their community, a leader in their state, a leader in the country, and maybe that’s in business or maybe it’s in politics, maybe it’s in the law.

The founders of The Federalist Society that have done such a great job identifying and promoting conservative justices were all ISI alumni. Two members of the Supreme Court, Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch, both participated in ISI programming when they were on college campus.

I could go on and on with the number of folks that you and I would would all know out there that went through ISI programming.

We want to identify those kids because we firmly believe that one person with courage and intellect makes a majority … We know they have the courage and we know that they’re bright, and we want to make sure they understand where these root and foundational principles come from and why they are still appropriate to today’s culture, to today’s society, to today’s world—as a matter of fact, they’re more important today than ever—and why these are the tickets that will continue to make Americans, and frankly, the rest of the world, prosper and grow.

Bluey: Charlie, thanks so much for sharing that impact that you’re having. One of the things that I think is fascinating is the involvement you have on such a deep level on so many college campuses across this country. As you talk to students, or maybe some faculty in certain cases, what issues do you hear coming up over and over again today that our listeners should be aware of?

Copeland: There are a handful of issues, and they revolve around, as you might imagine, things like free speech. They revolve around intellectual diversity. They revolve around feeling that you are able to espouse and debate the ideas that you believe are correct. Maybe you find out that they’re not, but they’re afraid to necessarily even raise those points. It’s gone beyond just sort of this, ” … I don’t want to look like I’m the only one in the class,” to, in many cases, a fear of property and physical safety.

We, last year, identified what we thought were five of the most compelling activities of suppression of free speech, and that suppression of free speech came not only from fellow students, which were probably the least frequent suppressive activities, but from the faculty or the administrations themselves.

That’s what I think is much newer today, over the last 20 years, than you might’ve seen previously on college campus, is the administration and the faculty themselves really driving a dogma and a perception down to students that, if you don’t parrot back to us what we’ve said to you, we will affect your grades, we’ll affect what courses you can get into, we’ll affect what housing you might even get into, because the administrations and the faculty have significant leverage over students.

It is a power structure, and our students are the ones that are on the receiving end of that.

Then sometimes you wind up with the Antifas of the world and groups like that that are physically assaulting students, but it really is the universities themselves that have created bureaucracies that are trying to stamp out conservative or libertarian or free thought.

Allen: One of the key debates among young people and across America right now is gun control. When you speak with students on this issue, what are some of their concerns?

Copeland: The average student that we work with is not all that worried about gun control writ large, other than they believe in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Obviously, they’re as affected as the rest of us are by these instances of mass shootings that get so much publicity. …

Again, our students are really bright, insightful young people, and they know it is not a soundbite issue. Whenever anybody says, “Oh, well, I’m just for commonsense gun reform,” well, what does that even mean? It’s when they start saying, “Well, we should do this or that,” that all of a sudden common sense disappears, and our students recognize that.

We’ve had students, even over the summer, write in some of our student journals editorials that are research-based across the board talking about, is this a mental health issue or is this a broader denigration of our culture issue? Should we have red laws? Should we not? What is the impact of these shootings versus the impact of just being on a college campus?

Every year on every college campus, there are acts of violence that do not get the coverage that a single grotesque act does, like Dayton or El Paso. And both Dayton and El Paso, as we all know, were conducted by individuals that had very different worldviews, although they both believed in the green agenda. But that’s not what was driving them. It was an anger, as far as I can tell, about American culture.

Our students, I think, very much understand that, to a certain extent, because they are in an area of culture on the college campus that is not the “preferred culture” by the administration and the faculty. They understand the harshness that now occurs and how social media creates a pile-on mentality.

I think that they’re very thoughtful and they’re very upset, but they don’t believe that you’re just going to solve this by snapping your fingers and saying, “Well, if we had ‘red flag laws’ and identified folks with mental health issues … ” because much gun violence is not committed by people with mental health issues, but they are people that are disconnected from society. Our students see that connection as directly as anybody else because they’re outnumbered on campus so significantly.

Bluey: Charlie, it’s so refreshing to hear you talk about the students having a principled point of view, and value for the founding principles of this country, and also the critical thinking skills to hopefully decipher what they hear about and read about.

We’re already here at the beginning of the the academic year and hearing stories about the political correctness on college campuses. We just had on The Daily Signal Podcast Penny Nance talking about her and her own son’s experience at Virginia Tech, for instance.

What advice do you have for parents who might be looking to ISI or to you personally for advice on some of the things that they’re hearing about on their children’s college campuses and how maybe the values that are reflected from those administrators stand in such stark contrast with those of their own family? What do you have to say to them?

Copeland: First, I would say to them, have their son or daughter go to join.isi.org, and make sure that that they’re tied into an intellectual community of bright, deep-thinking kids that are national in scope, and also involved in that community are our faculty associates across the country. And thirdly, involved in that community is our alumni base, which goes back decades. We’ve got alumni in almost every community around the country. That would be No. 1, join.isi.org.

The next thing I would certainly do is reach out to every campus … Our faculty associates are on 37% of college campuses, and most of those are on the elite schools, the large state schools, as well as some of the smaller liberal arts colleges.

So, there are conservative faculty members that are there, and reach out to us and get the name of who that faculty member is and go talk to them.

In addition to that, one of the questions I would ask that faculty member is, “Who are the other faculty members that may not be conservative on this campus, but who value viewpoint diversity and are good teachers?” Because there are good teachers on the left who recognize that no ideology or no set of beliefs has all the answers to all the questions that face society. If we had those answers, we would have solved them by now.

So, who are the good professors that will challenge you and make you think, even if those professors come from the left? Because there’s value in hearing and debating that type of viewpoint.

The last piece is identify other students who are not … There’s these radical, dogmatic, left-leaning students who aren’t really there to learn, but they’re there to threaten and cajole.

You can do well on almost every college campus across this country, but when you are a conservative or a libertarian and you want to try to investigate those intellectual backgrounds, you have to do more work, and you have to be very focused on what you do and avoid the useless courses that really junk up most college curriculum at this point in time.

The other thing is you need to have a sense of humor. It is so easy to be outraged at some of the, really, just childish things that other students and faculty and, honestly, the administration will do. If you let it eat you up and let it get you angry, you’re playing their game.

Roger Scruton is going to be speaking at our annual dinner. Well, he’s leaving a video message for us. He’s ill. But he talks about finding beauty in the world. I think that is something that conservatives do much better than liberals, is look and identify true beauty, not just this passing fad. I think that if we’re happy warriors who identify the right professors and the right students, you will be successful.

Allen: I love that expression, happy warriors. Thank you for sharing that.

You mentioned social media and how ISI is adapting to the way students get information today. What are some ways conservatives can more effectively communicate with Gen Z and with other young people?

Copeland: I think that everybody hangs out in Twitter, and Twitter is a little bit of an outrage factory. It’s designed to be that way. You can’t have deep intellectual discourse in 280 characters or less.

It’s fun to participate there and be there and that kind of stuff, but if you really want true discussion and discourse, social media is not the place to do that. …

You look at some of these folks who founded social media companies, and they clearly are not very good at interpersonal relationships, which is probably why they created computer programs to handle their interpersonal relationships for them.

If you really want to have discourse, you’ve got to go do that in person. You’ve got to go to an election. You’ve got to go to a debate. You have to have a discussion group or a reading group.

I would use social media largely to try to create those events and those opportunities to sit down with one, two, five, 20 other people and talk about the deep ideas and how to apply them to today’s community and culture.

Bluey: Charlie, I’m so glad to hear you say that. We often hear that same type of advice from our president at Heritage, Kay Coles James. What she does in terms of showing up—

Copeland: It’s good advice.

Bluey: Yes, it certainly is.

One of the other ways that you’re having success at ISI is through conservative journalism and teaching people the principles and the practices that go into creating some of those successful dialogues and discourse through campus publications.

Tell us more about that journalism program and what kinds of work that students are doing through ISI’s support.

Copeland: The student journalism program, we’ve been doing this for over 20 years, and we’ve got 57, 58 papers. They’re investigative journalist-type papers. If a student wants to start one of those papers, again, they can go to our website, and there’s an area on that website where they can indicate that.

We have a staff member here who actually ran a student newspaper when he was in college a couple of years ago and is a very bright and smart young man, and we’ve got a lot of great things going on there.

We have a couple of classes that we will offer throughout the year to help them get started, a couple of conferences that we invite student journalists to so that they can get an understanding of, “How do I do this? How do I run a student newspaper?” I use air quotes on that because only a handful of them actually still print hard copies. They’re largely web-based at this point in time.

It’s one thing to put content up on the web. It’s another thing, “How do you go and get the stories? And what kinds of stories should they be looking for?”

Then we help to promote those to other outlets, so that, in some cases, they can be picked up by national media and others and maybe even create the point of the sphere of a specific issue that might have occurred on a campus, whether it’s about free speech or whether it’s about viewpoint diversity or whether it’s about inappropriate behavior by a faculty member or what have you. We really want to encourage those papers along.

Then we offer, every year, 10 summer internships, paid internships, that we place our student journalists at major media outlets—Raleigh News & Observer, National Review—and we offer 10 full-year paid when you graduate fellowships at similar national or regional news outlets. We’ve got folks at places like USA Today, for crying out loud, and The Wall Street Journal. We’re very cognizant of trying to place these really bright kids who are great writers at these outlets because they do a great job.

In the last year, 70% of our fellows who wanted to stay in journalism were able to get jobs within the journalism area, and some of our alumni: Marc Thiessen, columnist at The Washington Post; Jonathan Karl, ABC News; Laura Ingraham at Fox; and Katrina Trinko at The Daily Signal.

Allen: Thank you for mentioning The Daily Signal.

Can you tell us just one more time about how students can get involved with ISI?

Copeland: The best way for a student to get involved in ISI, because it’s easy, is join.isi.org. You just put in your email, where you’re going to school, or if you’re at school, what grade you’re in, and we will send you an intellectual starter kit and we will get you onto our regular weekly email message, which usually includes three or four different five-to-seven-minute reads on conservative intellectual thought and history.

We’ll also be able to tie you into whether there’s a local ISI society there or if we have a faculty associate on that campus, as well as perhaps get you tied into debates and lectures.

We offer about five or six regional conferences every year. We have a summer honors conference, as well as we offer a freedom of virtue conference. That would be the No. 1 way.

No. 2 way is to look for an ISI society on your campus, as well as whether or not you think there’s a conservative professor on your campus. That professor is likely an ISI faculty associate and can get you tied in as well. But the best way is join.isi.org.

Bluey: Charlie, that’s great. Congratulations again on the success you’re having at ISI, and thanks for spending the time with The Daily Signal to tell us about it.

Copeland: Thank you very much, and thank you guys for what you do.

Bluey: We look forward to keeping in touch and following your work.

Copeland: You bet. Thanks so much.

COLUMN BY

Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Unchanging Principles of Conservatism Defined

How Jefferson Lost Some Luster in His Own Hometown

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: This Daily Signal column us republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

New York Times’ ‘1619 Project,’ the MacArthur Foundation and Eugenics

/in , , , , , , /by

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

The New York Times “1619 Project” was funded by the MacArthur Foundation. Why is this important?

Because the MacArthur Foundation has also funded population control as a “major objective.”

In the 1998 book “Archons And Acolytes: The New Power Elite” Clarence C. Walton wrote:

Eugenics became a fashionable cause, and courses in the subject were soon introduced by a number of colleges and universities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided ample financial support, generously funding international conferences and research projects, and earning unwanted praise from the Nazis who welcomed the international respectability that their eugenicists needed. Today the Ford and MacArthur Foundations have also made population control a major objective of their funding efforts. In the first phase of the eugenics movement, artificial birth control (with Margaret Sanger identified as its major force) became the preferred method for controlling population growth.” [Emphasis added]

In 2013 the MacArthur Foundation presented their genius award to Angela Duckworth. Duckworth, a Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a book titled “Grit: The Power Of Passion And Perseverance” in which she quoted Francis Gabon, the father of Eugenics. Duckworth wrote:

When I got to graduate school, I learned that psychologists have long wondered why some people succeed and others fail. Among the earliest was Francis Gabon, who debated the topic with his half cousin, Charles Darwin.

[ … ]

In 1869, Galton published his first scientific study [Hereditary Genius] on the origins of high achievement. After assembling lists of well-known figures in science, athletics, music, poetry, and law — among other domains — he gathered whatever biographical information he could. Outliers, Galton concluded, are remarkable in three ways: they demonstrate unusual “ability” in combination with exceptional “zeal” and “the capacity for hard labor.” [Emphasis added

Grit author Duckworth has also written for, or has been written about in, the New York Times here, here and here. SpeEdChange wrote:

The New York Times, have unquestionably accepted the work of a professor who has based her research in the work of a writer whose work brutalized and killed millions during the 19th and 20th Centuries, including the Nazi Holocaust, the Japanese assault on China during World War II, and the ethnic cleansing in Europe’s Balkans at the end of last century. There are also stories symbolized by the tale of Carrie Buck, where there’s an unquestionable direct line from Angela Duckworth’s favorite thinker to a deep well of human misery.

So the MacArthur Foundation has funded the New York Times‘ “1619 Project” and promoted population control and presented a genius award to a professor who idolizes the father of Eugenics.

Is there an affinity for racial purity in the form of population control espoused by Francis Gabon?

Is there a connection? We simply report, you will in the end decide.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: The Ford Foundation | Scott Walter – Capital Research Center

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Times’ ‘1619 Project’ Has Key Error About Our Founding

New York Times’ 1619 Project: All the News that’s Fit for the MacArthur Foundation?

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger In Her Own Words

How States Got Away with Sterilizing 60,000 Americans

New York Times’ 1619 Project: All the News that’s Fit for the MacArthur Foundation?

/in , , , , , /by

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect Bryan Stevenson’s 1995 MacArthur Fellowship.

The New York Times’s controversial “1619 Project” is a series of essays and features examining the history of slavery in the U.S. and how that still affects modern America. Commenting on the history of the project itself, the media giant credits the idea to staff writer Nikole Hannah-Jones “who won a MacArthur Grant in 2017,” and notes Ms. Hannah-Jones also brought aboard “Kellie Jones, a Columbia University art historian and 2016 MacArthur Fellow.”

Tens of thousands of acrimonious words have been written about 1619 since its release, but very little has been said about its connection to the MacArthur Foundation by way of the “MacArthur Fellows” program (the so-called “MacArthur Genius” grants). And—similarly—there is the affiliation with the Pulitzer Center (no relation to the famous journalism prize of the same name), the New York Times’ “education partner” for 1619. Pulitzer credits MacArthur as one if its “primary core” donors.

The fingerprints of this politically left-leaning “non-profit” seem to be all over this controversy.

The New York Times promoted 1619 non-controversially as “an invitation to reframe how the country discusses the role and history of its black citizens.” RSVP’s coming back on that “invitation” have included Republican U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (once better known as Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. – a former history professor), who went on Fox News to say the “whole project is a lie.” Meanwhile, on the “other side” a lot of the lockstep left media is preoccupied not with the invitation to discuss the contents of the work, but instead with analyzing and criticizing right-of-center critiques of the project.

In a more nuanced analysis, a researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute said the effort was “an ambitious collaboration to address the painful but necessary aspects of American history” that nonetheless contains debatable “claims about the relationship between modern American capitalism and slavery.” This perspective (shared by other libertarians over at Reason magazine) gets the controversy correct: 1619 is a mixed bag of both valuable fact and vapid fiction.

On the valuable (albeit controversial) side is the essay by the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, Bryan Stevenson, (also a 1995 MacArthur Fellow) linking the legacy of slavery to policies that built our dysfunctional criminal justice system. In the so-called “home of the free” we have the world’s highest incarceration rate and put more of our people in cages than does communist China, which has 4.5 times our population and little of our respect for civil liberties. One need not buy all of Stevenson’s conclusions to agree on the importance of opening this wound to inspection and cleansing.

The worst example on the “vapid fiction” side is a 1619 essay crediting racism as the reason we still don’t have universal health care. Fun fact: 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s health reform proposal would have created universal taxpayer-subsidized coverage if McCain had been elected and implemented it. Historical irony: John McCain was not elected because—demonstrating something clearly NOT fueled by racism—a clear majority of Americans voted instead for a guy whose plan did not provide universal coverage, namely Barack Obama.

But a close runner up for worst 1619 essay is Princeton University sociologist Matthew Desmond’s effort to both assert the dubious “brutality” of American capitalism and tie that to slavery. To pick on just the funniest of the many problems with this, the private university paying him teaches fewer than 10,000 students with a $26 billion endowment—an amount that exceeds the annual GDP of decidedly not-capitalist Laos (population 6.7 million). Desmond’s likely one-percenter Princeton salary and tenure is the bitter fruit of “brutal” capitalism.

MacArthur awarded Desmond a genius prize in 2015.

The MacArthur prizes come with a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. And—as might be expected—“genius” is a rare thing to find; so difficult, in fact, that sharp-eyed genius spotters can’t find it if your brain doesn’t skew to the political left. According to a 2015 profile in Chicago Magazine discussing the political bias of the MacArthur staff, the “interests of the foundation have tended to be fairly liberal” and there “could hardly be a more liberal grant, for example, than the MacArthur Fellowship.”

That isn’t an exaggeration. In 1968, genius struck serial Doomsday alarmist Paul Ehrlich. He co-founded Zero Population Growth and began predicting the “utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity,” which he said would occur within the ensuing 15 years. But by the mid-1980s the world had added another billion-plus mouths to feed; still, famine has become a problem associated only with wars and bad policies inflicted on people by horrible (non-capitalist) societies. Ehrlich subsequently adjusted his End Times prophecies to fit the emerging field of climate change, and the folks at MacArthur (no doubt impressed by the flexibility of his genius) awarded him a fellowship in 1990.

The MacArthur Foundation—assets $6.2 billion, as of 2015—was funded by John D. MacArthur, a politically right-of-center billionaire banker who established the charity so as to keep big government from taking his money away via estate taxes. But, showing what was perhaps a lack of “MacArthur genius,” he failed to stipulate what should be done with the fortune before he died in 1978. His charity is now the plaything of capitalist-hating leftists.

Influencing media has become a big part of MacArthur’s business. A June 2018 report co-produced by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, revealed MacArthur to be the sixth-largest funder of non-profit journalism for the years 2010-2015 (inclusive). Recipients of MacArthur media money included ProPublica and the left-leaning Center for Public Integrity (which currently sports a main page with a half-dozen links collectively headlined: “Trump’s Tax Cuts: The Rich Get Richer”).

There is nothing inherently wrong with mixing non-profit news sources with a for-profit newsroom like that at the New York Times. In theory, it could increase the important facts and perspectives reaching news consumers. As noted, there are essays in the 1619 Project that meet this standard, but they’re mingled with (to put it charitably) very debatable opinions, and (less charitably) fiction mislabeled as fact.

The New York Times masthead famously reads “All the news that’s fit to print.” At a minimum, that should mean fully disclosing to readers the ideological bias of sources—such as MacArthur—that get printed. At best, and just as mainstream media has done relentlessly for right-of-center donors, shouldn’t it also mean a critical, deep-dive research that reveals to readers the powerfully well-heeled funders of left-wing bias in media?

COLUMN BY

Ken Braun

Ken Braun is CRC’s senior investigative researcher and authors profiles for InfluenceWatch.org and the Capital Research magazine. He previously worked for several free market policy organizations, spent six… + MORE BY KEN BRAUN.

RELATED ARTICLE: New York Times’ ‘1619 Project’ Has Key Error About Our Founding

EDITORS NOTE: This CRC column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.