Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked the Under Secretary for Policy John Rood several key questions that confirm that President Trump can build the wall without declaring a state of emergency or the need for Congress to pass any bill. The answer is 10 U.S.C. § 284.
Watch:
TRANSCRIPT
BROOKS: I want to direct your attention to 10 United States Code § 284 which authorizes President Trump to deploy the United States military to the southern border to build fences and to do a lot of other things, and for clarity, if you look it up in the dictionary the word fence includes the word barrier and the word barrier includes walls made of a wide variety of different materials.
So that having been said, it seems to me that 10 U.S. Code § 284 can be used by the President of the United States to direct the United States military to build a wall. Now as of today, you’ve mentioned military forces along the southern border, have any of them been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284?
ROOD: Congressman, I don’t believe any of our forces have been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284. You are correct, however, that that use of authority would authorize the secretary of defense to erect barriers, roads, fencing, those types of materials to disrupt drug smuggling.
BROOKS: Does 10 U.S.C. § 284 as you understand it, require the declaration of a national emergency before it is implemented?
ROOD: No.
BROOKS: It does not?
ROOD: No.
BROOKS: Has President Trump, to your knowledge, ever used 10 U.S.C § 284 to direct the military to build the wall that is necessary for border security?
ROOD: No, not to my knowledge, Congressman.
BROOKS: If President Trump were to direct the Pentagon and the United States military pursuant to 10 U.S.C § 284 to build such barriers as are necessary to secure our southern border from drug trafficking and international crime cartels would the United States military obey that order?
ROOD: If we judge it to be a lawful order, yes sir. And I assume it would be.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/dorian-hurst-660666-unsplash-e1548948508970.jpg470640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-31 10:28:552019-01-31 10:42:3210 U.S.C. § 284: The Law That Will Build The Wall
This story should warm your heart—we are nabbing at least some of the cheaters!
This time it was by setting a trap for them with the creation of a fake university with all the trappings of a real college.
The feds fake University of Farmington was located in this building says the Detroit News
Thanks to theDetroit News for another juicy story.
Feds used fake Michigan university in immigration sting
Federal agents used a fake university in Farmington Hills to lure alleged phony foreign students who were trying to stay in the United States illegally.
The University of Farmington had no staff, no instructors, no curriculum and no classes but was utilized by undercover Homeland Security agents to identify people involved in immigration fraud, according to federal grand jury indictments unsealed Wednesday.
Eight student recruiters were charged with participating in a conspiracy to help at least 600 foreign citizens stay in the U.S. illegally, according to the indictments, which describe a novel investigation that dates to 2015 but intensified one month into President Donald Trump’s tenure as part of a broader crackdown on illegal immigration.
Simultaneously Wednesday, federal agents arrested dozens of University of Farmington students in a nationwide sweep. The students were arrested on immigration violations and face possible deportation, according to a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Most of the recruiters and students involved are originally from India, according to prosecutors.
“It’s creative and it’s not entrapment,” said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor. “The government can put out the bait, but it’s up to the defendants to fall for it.”
Those charged include:
• Bharath Kakireddy, 29, of Lake Mary, Florida. • Aswanth Nune, 26, of Atlanta. • Suresh Reddy Kandala, 31, of Culpeper, Virginia. • Phanideep Karnati, 35, of Louisville, Kentucky. • Prem Kumar Rampeesa, 26, of Charlotte, North Carolina. • Santosh Reddy Sama, 28, of Fremont, California. • Avinash Thakkallapally, 28, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. • Naveen Prathipati, 29, of Dallas.
[….]
“… the university was being used by foreign citizens as a ‘pay to stay’ schemewhich allowed these individuals to stay in the United States as a result of of foreign citizens falsely asserting that they were enrolled as full-time students in an approved educational program and that they were making normal progress toward completion of the course of study,” the indictment reads.
More here. Please go read it and send traffic to the story because the reporter, Robert Snell, has been doing great work on fraud cases.
Are you thinking about this? As we focus virtually all mainstream media coverage on the crisis at our southern border (yes, it is important), the national media is keeping us in the dark about some huge stories involving illegal immigrants (and legal ones !) who are ripping us off through fraud and other criminal activity that we must suffer and pay for.
It was great talking with you. As per our conversation, I agree that we as Christians must love and pray for all people. However, there is an undeniable extremely aggressive campaign by LGBTQ activists to force biblical principles, values and Jesus underground. States and corporations are afraid to say no to anything LGBTQ activists demand. I’ve written numerous articles about LGBTQ bullying with links confirming the facts.
Planned Parenthood successfully implemented mandatory sex ed in public schools teaching elementary kids oral sex, anal sex, BDSM, how to use fruit as sex toys and rimming. Students are encouraged to experiment with homosexuality and transgender-ism. Teachers are being banned from addressing students as boys and girls claiming it is insensitive to transgenders and is gender bigoted.
I could go on and go with stories about how LGBTQ activists are aggressively stealing the hearts and minds of our kids while cramming their lifestyle down our throats.
Public schools are forcing our kids to embrace lifestyles clearly against the Word of God. Far too many Christians are going along with it in the name of acting in love. I cannot believe God is pleased with parents surrendering their children to LGBTQ activists for indoctrination. We are in this mess because Christians have been too passive for decades. Those who identify as LGBTQ are only 3% of the population.
The greatest trick of LGBTQ activists is to portray themselves as victims of us intolerant Christians. The truth is they are the ones aggressively seeking to make quoting the Bible illegal. LGBTQ activists in California just tried to pass a law to make the Bible illegal. Christians successfully voted it down. Praise God.
Jesus is still the answer for the world today. But, “evil prospers when good men do nothing”. (Edmund Burke)
In His Love,
Lloyd
My Christian Brother’s Response:
In response to my letter, my Christian brother left me a voice-mail expressing his anger at me. I noticed he did not express any shock, outrage or anger over LGBTQ activists aggressively seeking to sex and transgender our kids. He concluded his rant saying, “I refuse to hate these (LGBTQ) people.”
Folks, did you read anything in my letter advocating hating LGBTQ? No.
And yet, this fellow Christian believes pushing back against LGBTQ activists’ agenda is hate. This is the deception we are dealing with folks.
We must continue to pray.
EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.
President Donald Trump will invite guests related to the ongoing situation at the U.S. southern border during his State of the Union address, he told The Daily Caller in an exclusive Oval Office interview Wednesday.
“I will say that some of them will be border-related, some of them will be people who have suffered very badly because we didn’t do what we should’ve done in a very dangerous part of our country, and so that’s going to be a part of it, absolutely,” Trump said when asked for an exclusive preview of his State of the Union guests.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress inside the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 30, 2018. REUTERS/Win McNamee/Pool
The president then scheduled a meeting in front of The Daily Caller with his senior staff for the next day to discuss that very matter.
Trump said of the address that while some of it will focus on the border crisis, other parts will touch on economic progress in the United States, saying:
At the same time, the world is not doing well and we’re going great. You look at the numbers, we’re hitting highs. I get no credit for it. It’s like, when do you ever hear them talking about — we just hit 25,000 and you won’t even hear a thing about it. If President Obama were there — and don’t forget, he was paying no interest. We’re actually paying interest. You know, he was paying no interest. He didn’t have liquidity being drained out of the market in order to pay down, which we have. How about $50 billion a month? $50 billion a month.
If I had a no-interest, no-liquidity situation with respect to the market, I mean, forget it. It would actually be incredible the numbers. Big difference. Tremendous difference.
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF DAILY CALLER INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
THE DAILY CALLER: Stephen Paddock, the shooter in Las Vegas in 2017. The FBI just closed its investigation yesterday without determining any motive. But don’t you think Americans deserve to know why so many people died in the worst mass shooting in modern history?
POTUS: It was a horrible event. He was a very, very sick person, obviously. It was very unusual in that there didn’t seem to be your standard set of reasons as to why this would happen. I’m a little surprised that the report wasn’t much longer but at the same time I can understand it. It was just a — just a terrible thing. They were unable to find a real reason other than, obviously, he was sick and they didn’t know it.
So, I was a little surprised and a lot disappointed that they weren’t able to find the reason. Because you’d like to find a reason for that.
THE DAILY CALLER: Were you following the developments through that case?
POTUS: I was watching it like everybody else. I thought it was horrible. I went to the hospital, I saw many of the victims and right after the event it was horrible. It was inconceivable. But he was a very sick person and nobody would’ve known it. Nobody had any idea. He had money — or at least they think he had money. He was a gambler, you know, you don’t see too many gamblers that have money.
I think they worked very hard. I will tell you they worked very hard on that case. They just were unable to find anything from all of the facts. Because I’ve looked at some of the things also and it was a very unusual case of a very sick person who just, people never saw that coming.
THE DAILY CALLER: Speaking of the FBI, sir, were you comfortable with the way and the force that was used against the raid in Roger Stone’s house? Do you think that was appropriate for your FBI to be doing that in a white collar case?
POTUS: I thought it was very unusual. You know, I’ve stayed out of that whole situation so that — because there was no collusion whatsoever. There was no nothing done wrong and frankly, I could have waded in very early, I could have ended it very easily if I wanted to but just let it run its course. But I will say, like, I’m speaking for a lot of people that were very disappointed to see that go down that way, to see it happen where it was on camera, on top of it.
That was a very, very disappointing scene —
THE DAILY CALLER: You thought it was unusual that CNN was there?
POTUS: — You have 29 people and you have armored vehicles and you had all of the other and, you know, many people know Roger, and Roger is not a person that they would have to worry about from that standpoint. I thought it was sad to see it.
THE DAILY CALLER: Would you ask the FBI to review its use of force, its militarization when it handles cases like this?
POTUS: I think it’s a good question for you to ask, and it’s something I’ll think about.
THE DAILY CALLER: One last question related to that. On the Paddock case, all of America was really interested to find out what happened there.
POTUS: Including me.
THE DAILY CALLER: Of course. And I wonder how many resources in the FBI were committed to the Paddock case versus committed to the Mueller investigation. How much money was spent? How many people were on those things? How do those two things compare?
POTUS: What a great question that is. It’s one of the better questions. I hope you’re going to play your question because that is a very, very interesting — you’re talking about, I guess they’re well over 30 million dollars now on this Russian collusion hoax, and everybody knows it’s a hoax. They’ve spent all this money. Nothing. No phone calls, no meetings, no nothing. You look at it, and you say, isn’t that sad to have devoted this time, this energy over a — you know, look, there’s been numerous books written right now, including number one best sellers, calling it a “hoax.” And it is very sad. That is very sad. By the way, to me, both very sad events.
But that is very interesting to ask, where you’ve had so many people killed, and so badly wounded, because I went to the hospital. You had people so badly wounded. People never talk about the wounded. The level of hurt and devastation for a whole lifetime. You know, many people just devastated for a lifetime. They’ll never be the same. And you look at that by comparison to the Russian hoax, it’s a shame. The Russian witch hunt, it’s a shame.
THE DAILY CALLER: Speaking of that, sir, Matt Whitaker came out I think a couple of days ago. He said that the Mueller probe seems to be wrapping up, generally. Has he communicated that to you?
POTUS: No. No, I haven’t spoken to him about that. I would say that I think after almost two years it certainly should be. Process crimes or process, you know, questions, the answer is different than what you thought it might be and some people say they lost their memory or a lack of memory, which a lot of people can understand that too.
No, I never spoke to him about that.
THE DAILY CALLER: So Whitaker or whoever is heading as the attorney general at the time will get to make a decision about releasing the report that Mueller sends him —
POTUS: I don’t know what —
THE DAILY CALLER: Is that the kind of thing you’ll sign off on if and when it comes to that decision?
POTUS: They’ll have to make their decision within the Justice Department. They will make the decision as to what they do. I could’ve taken a much different stance, I could’ve gotten involved in this, I could’ve terminated everything. I could’ve ended everything. I’ve chosen to stay out of it. But I had the right to, as you know, I had the right if I wanted to to end everything. I could’ve just said, ‘that’s enough.’ Many people thought that’s what I should do.
THE DAILY CALLER: You know, Andrew McCarthy has made the case that the reason Comey was recommended to be fired by Rod Rosenstein is that he went out in public and he made a public indictment of Hillary Clinton without actually recommending a prosecution.
In other words, he made a character indictment of her in the court of public opinion. In Andrew McCarthy’s view, if this report comes out from Mueller and it does anything to try and go after you for any reason that doesn’t have any criminality involved, that would be a disservice to you. That’s not justice if the Justice Department is trying to say things to hurt your character but they don’t have anything to do with criminality.
POTUS: Well, I never had anything to do with the Russians having to do with this. I ran a great campaign. I ran a campaign that now they say was better than that gentleman’s [Andrew Jackson’s] campaign in the 1800s and we did a great job.
And we got 306 to 223 and that’s that. Won states that nobody thought were possible to win. Remember the expression, ‘he cannot get to 270.’ And we got way beyond 270.
And I don’t even say she ran a bad campaign. I think I ran a very good campaign.
THE DAILY CALLER: Well the people who elected you are very interested in the immigration decision and what’s going on with this negotiation. Republicans in charge of Congress for two years didn’t get to your wall promise in Congress. How big of a roadblock to wall funding was Paul Ryan now that he’s gone?
POTUS: Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that because I don’t like this bill,’ although I love the bill for what it did for the military. And therefore, if it weren’t for the military I would have vetoed it.
Just so you understand, our military needed funding desperately. Totally depleted. And this bill was great for the military. Had I vetoed it, you would never have gotten the numbers back that I got: $700 and $716 billion over the last two years. Which is substantially more — much more than President Obama was able to get for the military.
So that was a negative but a big factor as to why that was the reason I signed it. But another very big factor was the fact that Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so we need the wall.
And then he went lame duck. And once he went lame duck it was just really an exercise in waving to people and the power was gone, so I was very disappointed. I was very disappointed in Paul because the wall was so desperately needed. And it is. And I’ll get the wall.
THE DAILY CALLER: Did he lie to you? Did he play you?
POTUS: I don’t want to say he lied. I think he probably meant it at the time, I guess. I hope. So I don’t call that lying. But when he went lame duck, meaning, he said he’s not running again — and it was very unusual because usually they’ll do that sometime after an election and he didn’t want to do that because it’s somewhat misrepresenting and I understand that too. But maybe you don’t run, okay? Maybe you just don’t run. And he had an excellent person taking his place in Congress, he ran a great campaign, did a really good job.
So Paul said, ‘please sign the omnibus bill.’ Now, in all fairness to Paul, I may have signed it anyway because it was so much more money than anyone ever thought possible for the military, and equal to the wall and maybe even greater than the wall was my promise to refurbish the military.
You know, I made many statements, many promises. In fact, here are some of them, folks. But those are some of the things we’ve accomplished. VA choice, VA accountability — you know, these are things that for decades and decades and I got a lot of these things. Tax cuts, regulation cuts by far the most that anybody’s ever got, biggest tax cuts. And that’s why you look at the market — we just hit over 25,000. We’re back where we were, right?
So anyway, that’s the story.
THE DAILY CALLER: One thing that some conservatives are worried about is that you’re prepared to give away some status for illegal immigrants in exchange for the things that you want. So when it comes to DACA, in these negotiations that are going on on Capitol Hill, how far are you willing to go there?
POTUS: So I don’t know if you saw — you know, there was a couple of days ago, ‘he’s going to give up DACA, he’s going to —’
First of all, it’s not mine to give up right now because DACA is going to the Supreme Court, hopefully. But miraculously, and horribly, they lost DACA. This was a case that President Obama said, essentially, he doesn’t have the right to sign. But they went, as usual, to the Ninth Circuit and they won a case, they won an appeal, and now it’s hopefully going to the Supreme Court soon because this is a very important case.
We should win that case easily, you know, it should be won.
Now, if it is won, then we’ll talk about DACA but right now — when that case was lost we were very close to making a deal. And then a judge in the Ninth Circuit agreed that President Obama, although President Obama didn’t think he had a right to do it, he said that — as soon as that was done, I said, ‘that’s the end of that deal.’
We had a deal for some DACA — for a lot of things. But we had a deal done and I said to people when that case was lost — well, it wasn’t lost permanently, I think we’re going to ultimately win — that’s the time I want to talk about it.
THE DAILY CALLER: So DACA is tabled until the court resolves it?
POTUS: Well I said to people, I saw yesterday, ‘well, what about DACA,’ I said, ‘it’s highly unlikely.’ I was tougher than anybody else on that. I could see doing something for DACA but I want to find out what the Supreme Court’s gonna do first.
THE DAILY CALLER: Chuck Schumer said he doesn’t want the White House playing a role in negotiations on Capitol Hill—
POTUS: I don’t blame him.
THE DAILY CALLER: How much of a role are you going to play?
Because he doesn’t want me to make the deal. He doesn’t want to make me — because my idea of a deal is different than other people’s. Without our involvement a deal’s not going to get done and I think we’re going to — look, that deal. Look, there are numerous things we could do, including declaring a national emergency where we have very good law on our side, including the fact that I’m already building a tremendous amount of wall. People don’t realize that.
I’m going to be announcing the exact numbers but I’ll have over a hundred miles of wall either built or under construction between new and renovated. Over a hundred miles. We have a tremendous amount of money right now to build a wall. We’re building the wall. I’ll be announcing some numbers on — but in addition to that we declare a national emergency if this doesn’t work out.
THE DAILY CALLER: I believe you have a military base in Yuma, Arizona. Are you going to do some wall there? Is that the plan?
POTUS: We have, I believe, that area — yes. We have a tremendous problem in that area.
It’s very interesting, California, You know, they always say, ‘don’t build a wall,’ well, they were begging me to build a wall over in San Diego. The day I finished they said, ‘don’t build a wall.’ But they were begging me to build the wall because people were pouring in through that border, through that area.
We built a brand new wall. That’s not a renovated wall, that’s a brand new wall. We took down the old wall, we built a brand new wall. It’s fantastic, looks great, they did a great job, totally stopped everybody from coming in. The day we completed it California started saying, ‘don’t build a wall, we don’t want a wall.’ They want drones, right? Flying up around.
THE DAILY CALLER: You talked about the courts, sir. Are you keeping an eye right now on Justice Ginsburg’s health?
POTUS: Well, look, I hope that she’s healthy, I hope she’s happy, and I hope she lives for a long time.
THE DAILY CALLER: Would you commit to replacing her with somebody who was on that list — somebody like Amy Barrett who a lot of conservatives have looked at?
POTUS: Well I’ve been very religious. I’ve very much confined myself to that list, as you know. And that list has great people on it and I would say it’s highly likely I would stay. I think one of the things —
THE DAILY CALLER: But Amy Barrett would be a choice?
POTUS: No, she would certainly be a choice. I think anybody on that list would be a choice. They’re great people. I’ve been told, and I don’t know that that’s true, I would be surprised if it’s true, but a lot of people said that list was one of the reasons I won.
Because, being a non-politician, where you don’t have a record of choosing people, people just didn’t know who I would choose. And Supreme Court, especially for the Republican Party, it seems, was very, very important and I came up with the idea of a list of 20 and then I increased it to 25, 25 people and they’re very outstanding people. I felt so badly that Justice Kavanaugh had to go through what he had to go through but now he’s a Supreme Court justice and he’s going to be a great one.
Justice Gorsuch went through much easier and he’s going to be a great one.
THE DAILY CALLER: And in that process you had to deal with a couple of Democratic senators: Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein. And the report is that you have agreed or the White House has agreed, your White House counsel, to giving Democrats a say in who gets to be on the Ninth Circuit.
There’s a Wall Street Journal editorial about this and so people like Erick Erickson have come out and have criticized this decision because they’re saying you’re basically giving up two seats on the Ninth Circuit when you’re not renominating the people from before.
POTUS: Well, I know nothing about it. That I can tell you. I would not do it. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t do that.
In fact, you can tell them for the first time, I will not do that. It’s a false report.
I’ve had many false reports from the Wall Street editorial board. Like, as an example, right now we’re negotiating with China. We’re doing very well. Wall Street — they don’t like tariffs. If we didn’t have tariffs they wouldn’t even be talking to us. They would not even be talking to us. You understand that?
THE DAILY CALLER: Well, on that issue, let me ask you about China. At the end of this, if there is not intellectual property protections in the deal, will you push the tariffs?
POTUS: Well, what happens is that right now China’s paying 25 percent on $50 billion worth of goods. Mostly high technology. And I was going to charge them 25 percent on $200 billion worth of goods and then I’d have $267 billion leftover where I’m not charging them anything. At their request, and subject to this deal until March 1st, I’m charging them 10 percent on 200 billion. You’ve got the 50 and the 25, then you’ve got 200 and I’m charging them 10 percent until March 1st. After March 1st it will go up to 25 percent.
So yeah, that’s very important to me.
You know, billions of dollars are being poured into our treasury. Billions. We never had five cents come into our treasury. Now we have billions of dollars and in addition, and very importantly…
The president returns to the issue of the Ninth Circuit court.
POTUS: The Ninth Circuit is so much in one direction that you couldn’t make that deal. Look, I’ve lost … the United States has lost so many cases in the Ninth Circuit and, you know, I had an argument — a slight argument, which, I think was not too much of an argument — with Justice Roberts about the Ninth Circuit. If I did that, what are we doing? We have to catch up because we are so far behind on the Ninth Circuit. So I would never make that deal. And I can tell you, if it is made I would end it, but it wasn’t, you know, not that I know of.
No, the answer is: I would not do that. You don’t catch up by making those deals.
THE DAILY CALLER: Let me ask you about religious bigotry. I want to read a list to you first and then get your reaction because I think you’re going to want to react to this.
A number of high-profile Democrats have recently attacked people of faith for their religious beliefs.
POTUS: Terrible.
THE DAILY CALLER: You’ve got anti-Semitism in the leadership of the Women’s March, sitting members of Congress who’ve expressed or condoned anti-Semitism, attacks on Second Lady Karen Pence for teaching at a Christian school, attacks by Democratic senators on your judicial nominees for being Catholic or members of the Knights of Columbus, attacks on the boys of Covington Catholic High School for being Catholic and Trump supporters.
Does the Democratic Party have a crisis of bigotry and how should they handle it?
POTUS: I think it’s a crisis for our country because there’s never been a time — I saw where today, I believe it was a congressman, took ‘in God we trust’ —
THE DAILY CALLER: ‘So help me God.’
POTUS: ‘So help me God.’ Took the phrase off of a document. And I said, ‘Where are we going?’
I think it’s a terrible thing for our country and I think it’s certainly a terrible thing for the Democrats because I don’t think they’re going to be able to get away with it.
THE DAILY CALLER: Another thing, sir, Virginia Gov. [Ralph] Northam actually right before this, suggested a mother who wants to have an abortion while in labor should instead be allowed to let her baby die after delivery if that’s her choice. Do you think that would be infanticide?
POTUS: I watched that this morning. I watched the person testifying and I felt it was terrible.
THE DAILY CALLER: The Virginia delegate?
POTUS: Yes. Do you remember during the debate I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb just prior to birth? And I used the term ‘rip’? That’s what it is. That’s what they’re doing, it’s terrible.
THE DAILY CALLER: Do you think this is an embrace by the Democrats of this type of abortion agenda?
POTUS: I think this is going to lift up the whole pro-life movement like maybe it’s never been lifted before. And the pro-life movement is very much a 50-50, it’s a very 50-50 issue. Actually it’s gained a point or two over the years, but it’s been very much 49-51 and vice-versa. I think this really will lift up the issue because people have never thought of it in those terms. Cause she actually said, you know, the day of, virtually the day of birth.
THE DAILY CALLER: Northam suggested that today too.
POTUS: Oh did he? So he confirmed that?
THE DAILY CALLER: And he’s a pediatric neurosurgeon.
POTUS: I’m surprised that he did that. I’ve met him a number of times. I’m surprised that he said that. I saw the woman do it — who ever that was, was that the attorney general?
THE DAILY CALLER: She’s a delegate. Kathy Tran, a delegate in Virginia.
POTUS: So I was very, very surprised that they would say that and allow that.
THE DAILY CALLER: Could you give us an exclusive preview of the State of the Union? What can we expect? Who are the guests that are going to be in the gallery?
POTUS: Well, in fact, we’re making up a list very shortly.
But I will say that some of them will be border-related, some of them will be people who have suffered very badly because we didn’t do what we should’ve done in a very dangerous part of our country, and so that’s going to be a part of it, absolutely.
At the same time, the world is not doing well and we’re going great. You look at the numbers, we’re hitting highs. I get no credit for it. It’s like, when do you ever hear them talking about — we just hit 25,000 and you won’t even hear a thing about it. If President Obama were there — and don’t forget, he was paying no interest. We’re actually paying interest. You know, he was paying no interest. He didn’t have liquidity being drained out of the market in order to pay it down, which we have. How about 50 billion dollars a month? $50 billion a month.
If I had a no interest, no liquidity situation with respect to the market, I mean, forget it. It would actually be incredible, the numbers. Big difference. Tremendous difference.
THE DAILY CALLER: The Super Bowl this weekend, I just want to get you on that because you’re an NFL fan. I’m just going to stick to the Patriots here for a second. What makes Kraft, Brady, and Belichick so much better than everybody else and how are they always back in the big game?
POTUS: So, it’s talent, it’s chemistry — they have a great chemistry with each other — I mean, I like all three of them, as you know, I’m very good friends with them. Coach Belichick endorsed me, you remember that?
Belichick is so tough and Kraft is a great guy. The three of them they just have — how good was Brady, I mean, the last game? Not the last game, the last two games. Brady plays better under pressure than he does in a regular game. I mean, that last two minutes the way he was throwing the ball down the field — they were bullets.
And I’ve seen how hard that ball comes at you, those guys were doing a great job. They were catching that, you know? That ball is whipped.
THE DAILY CALLER: Have you noticed that all of the kneeling basically stopped this year and the ratings went up and the revenue went up? Is there any part of you that says, ‘Yeah, I won that fight’?
POTUS: No, I don’t want to take credit for that. You know I get along very well with the NFL. I helped them in Canada, you know that story where they were having a dispute for many years with Canada. And as part of NAFTA, you know, the termination of NAFTA and the new — but as part of NAFTA, which is now the USMCA, I was able to get their dispute settled because they’re a great American company and I don’t want great American companies to have problems.
In fact, Commissioner [Roger] Goodell called me and he thanked me, you know, they were working on that thing for years. It was having to do with the advertisements for the Super Bowl, it was a long-term problem and I got it solved.
I think it’s great what they did, it looks like it’s straightened out. I think that may be famous last words, let’s see what happens, but I think in the end it really worked out great. And, you know what, their ratings went up along with — as that problem went down, their ratings went up.
THE DAILY CALLER: So you’re satisfied with Goodell’s performance? You don’t think he should go?
POTUS: No, I think — look, I think that worked out very well. I was very pleased that he called me to thank me for helping him with Canada and yeah, it looks good. And their games have really been good other than one call. It was a little bit — I feel badly, it was a great state that voted for me, Louisiana. I feel very badly for Louisiana because that was maybe the worst call I’ve ever seen but I guess there’s nothing they can do about that. And you might say it, I feel badly for Louisiana.
THE DAILY CALLER: One final one on 2020 if you don’t mind. Who is your dream candidate in 2020 to run against?
POTUS: Well so far a lot of them. I don’t mind. I think that there’s a lot of talk about — it looks like Elizabeth Warren has not caught on like they thought she would. She fell into a trap. It’s called the Pocahontas trap.
There’s so many of them. The truth is there are some I’d love to run against.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-daily-caller-interview-e1548926741693.jpg412640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-01-31 04:30:132019-01-31 10:01:38EXCLUSIVE: Trump Says State Of The Union Guests Will Be ‘Border-Related’
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer couldn’t contain their glee when the President agreed last week to a short term continuing resolution to reopen the government for three weeks. But this was not a win for the Democrats and no one should interpret it that way. First, only a few agencies were shut down, so the constant hyping of the shutdown by the media was a deliberate effort to magnify the problem to assist their Democrat allies.
But since one of the agencies was the Department of Homeland Security, it not only forced the Border Patrol to work without pay, but began creating problems for travelers as TSA personnel began skipping work. Those people who did skip work — about 10 percent of the workforce — did not do that independently. You can be sure they got the green light from their union, the American Federation of Government Employees , which coordinated with congressional Democrats (read Pelosi & Schumer), to ramp up pressure on the president.
Of course this is yet another way Democrats demonstrate their utter disregard for the American people. They knew that a disruption in travel plans would make another great optic for their media allies, who had already begun hyping the “soup kitchen” narrative. Meanwhile, realizing the publicity opportunity, or perhaps wanting to stick it to President Trump, or both, DC restaurants began offering free food to those poor government workers!
The entire thing was a charade.
So President Trump realized this was not politically winnable, as more and more GOP members of Congress grew wobbly. So, in the interest of reducing hardship for government employees working without pay, and the deleterious impact the Schumer/Pelosi/union game was having on the American people, President Trump agreed to a temporary opening to give them a breather.
He was forced to do this because Democrat leaders are determined to put their interests ahead of those of the American people, no matter what. This is nothing new. Over 13,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens over the past few years, many more were raped and had other unconscionable crimes committed against them, but the bottomless selfishness of congressional Democrats, and the spineless Chamber of Commerce bathroom attendants of the Republican Party, have prevented any efforts to stem the tide of mass migration across our borders by illegal aliens.
Trump explained his reasoning in a Tweet on Friday:
Democrats have no interest in hearing from the Angel Moms who’ve lost children to illegal aliens. They are consumed with the effort to swamp our shores with enough future voters to secure for themselves a permanent majority without having to offer anything of value to the American people (because they have nothing of value to offer.)
When a few of the Angel Moms went to Nancy Pelosi’s office to confront her about her failure to support border protection, she hid behind a wall. Ironic, no? Former House Speaker Paul Ryan refused to allow a vote on wall funding. These people are despicable! How many lives would have been saved had they not been slaves to their own interests?
President Trump is the only leader in Washington who has shown any leadership. He did so again here. He didnot bow to Pelosi and Schumer’s stonewalling. He relented to give those who suffered at the hands of the Democrats a chance to recover. Now he has given the Democrats what they wanted — insisting on negotiations after the government agencies affected by the shutdown were reopened.
The ball is now in the Democrats’ court. They can negotiate on the terms they demanded. But they won’t. Nancy and Chuck will continue to stonewall, spending the next three weeks showing their true nature. And as usual, the media will support them, and continues to magnify the false message that Trump “caved.” Just as it did with the Covington kids, Ben Shapiro’s comments about “baby Hitler” at the March for Life, and the Buzzfeed story on Michael Cohen that the Mueller team took the extraordinary step of refuting.
CNN just coincidentally happened to be at Roger Stone’s house when the FBI launched a pre-dawn raid with heavily armed SWAT teams typically used against terrorist hideouts and meth labs. For example, twelve police were involved in the drug raid in Houston on Monday, where five police were injured and two criminals killed. Meanwhile, twenty-nine heavily armed agents participated in the raid against Stone, and netted them an old man in bathrobe and slippers – a real threat apparently. And to top it off, they forced his wife to stand outside in bare feet and a nightgown.
It is illegal for the FBI to coordinate with the media, but it plainly did here, alerting CNN beforehand. The whole shameful episode was conducted for the optics. This is the level of the Mueller team’s ethics.
Are they all so tone deaf that they don’t realize how ugly, out of touch, partisan and agenda-driven they look? So after 21 days, the government will shut downagain. Having given Democrats everything they asked for and still facing resistance, President Trump will have every justification to declare a national emergency and begin building the Wall.
Trump’s legal authority to do so is unquestionable. That probably will not stop the unethical Democrats and their allies in the judiciary. Pelosi and Co. are already building a case for a legal challenge by Congress, and a parallel PR campaign to convince American voters that a wall is not in our interest and would “harm communities.” It’s a lot like Pelosi’s infamous “wrap-up smear” video, where she explains how they use the media to smear opponents.
But how many communities have been harmed by Congressional inaction? Are 13,000 homicides not enough; 30,000 rapes? If they really don’t understand the position President Trump has put them in, and continue to obstruct through illegal court challenges, it will be obvious to the public that their agenda is entirely self-serving and dangerous — ignoring public safety for their own partisan goals.
As Border Patrol agent Fernando Grijalva told CBS correspondent Mireya Villarreal on Friday, “I’ve seen six different presidents in the time that I’ve been with the Border Patrol, and this is the worst crisis that I’ve seen.” (Emphasis theirs.)
But President Trump has bent over backwards to try to make Washington work. This is why, despite the risk to his support among conservatives, he has made every effort to accommodate the partisans. With each day that passes, they have proven themselves unworthy of that generosity. President Trump will build the Wall, slapping them down as they so richly deserve. He reiterated his intention today, tweeting, “If the committee of Republicans and Democrats now meeting on Border Security is not discussing or contemplating a Wall or Physical Barrier, they are Wasting their time!”
One final note that might cheer you up. While all this controversy rages, the Wall is actually being built as we speak.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-words.jpg360640Jim Simpsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJim Simpson2019-01-30 19:53:072019-03-07 05:43:25Trump’s Agreement to Reopen Government was Not a Democrat Victory
House Democrats proposed to strike “so help you God” from witnesses’ oaths before a major committee as part of their proposed rules package.
The current draft of the proposed House Committee on Natural Resources rules package replaces all gender-specific pronouns with “their,” and substitutes committee “chair” for “chairman” in committee documents. The rules package also proposes that witnesses who testify before the committee be administered an oath bereft of any reference to faith or God and that adds the phrase “under penalty of law.”
“Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” the proposed oath reads, according to the draft obtained by Fox News Tuesday.
Republican leadership decried the proposed removal of faith-based language as a sign that the Democratic Party was shifting toward Marxism.
“It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of their first acts in the majority,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming told Fox News. “They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”
Oddly enough, the proposal to remove references to God comes just two months after Democrats proposed to remove a 181-year-old restriction on wearing religious headgear on the House floor in order to accommodate newly-elected Muslim women members.
The House Committee on Natural Resources is expected to vote in the coming week on whether to approve the rules proposal, which, if adopted, will be immediately implemented.
Joshua Gill is the religion reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. He is a former member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @Joshua_K_Gill.
Recently, I heard from a woman who has a teenage daughter four years into the process of transitioning.
Throughout that time, this mom has been trying to get left-leaning media and think tanks and professional associations to take seriously the concerns coming from the left.
Instead she’s found herself and her colleagues essentially left behind by the left.
But her situation is hardly unique in today’s America.
Just last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report showing that 2 percent of American high school students now identify as transgender.
That’s a population-wide statistic. The percentage is even higher in particular communities and schools.
Girls are affected the most. In many western countries this has become an epidemic. Recently, the U.K. ordered an investigation into why the number of young girls seeking treatment at gender clinics increased by 4,000 percent.
Something is going on.
Too many of these young people feel unsafe, attacked, and they commit self-harm.
We need to find better ways to support them without damaging their bodies for life.
And so this mom, who wants to remain anonymous, wanted to know if The Heritage Foundation could host a conversation featuring liberals with concerns about the left’s embrace of the transgender agenda. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is currently pushing the Equality Act, which would have legal ramifications for those who don’t agree with the transgender agenda.
We were willing—and we did.
On Monday, I hosted at Heritage an event titled “The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left.”
Heritage’s founder, Ed Feulner, is famous for saying that it’s better to add and multiply than to divide and subtract. Undoubtedly, the people on this panel disagree about many things. I likely disagree with them about abortion, gay marriage, taxes, trade, foreign policy—just to name a few.
And that’s OK.
Just because we disagree about some things, even many things, that doesn’t mean we disagree about everything. And where we do agree, we can—and should—work together.
Because make no mistake: The current LGBT agenda is poised to affect everyone on both the left and right.
“Gender identity” refers to an individual’s inner sense of being a man or a woman or both or neither. It exists along a spectrum and can be fluid. It’s entirely arbitrary and self-disclosed. And rather incoherent, as it’s not at all clear what it means to “feel like” a woman, or how I would know if I felt like one, or why my feeling like a woman (whatever that means) would make me a woman.
As a result, if “gender identity” becomes a protected class in federal civil rights law, as Pelosi’s Equality Act would result in, there will be serious negative consequences. That’s where we agree. And that’s where we can work together.
As I spoke with that anonymous mother about the possibility of a public event, several things became clear.
First, the media wants to present the transgender cause as the next wave of civil rights and as the natural extension of the past decade of LGBT successes. If you support what the media calls gay rights, you have to support trans rights. If you support what the media calls marriage equality, you have to support trans equality.
There’s little willingness to recognize that the LGB and the T are radically dissimilar, especially as applied to children.
Second, the media wants to present this issue as one of science vs. faith. That there’s a consensus among doctors that people are born trans, that children as young as 2 or 3 can know their “true” gender identity, and that social transitioning and sex reassignment procedures—now referred to as “gender affirmation” or “gender confirmation”—are safe and effective treatment protocols. And that the only people who could think otherwise must be acting based on bigotry and blind faith.
Third, the media wants to ignore all of the costs. They don’t care about the damage being done to young people’s bodies and minds—in fact, they celebrate it as a civil right.
They don’t care about the privacy and safety and equality of girls, when boys who identify as girls can share female-only spaces—like showers and locker rooms and bathrooms—and when boys who identify as girls win female athletic competitions.
They don’t care about the ability of doctors to practice good medicine, when bad medicine becomes mandated as a civil right, and good medicine becomes outlawed as a civil wrong.
And they don’t care about the rights of parents to find the best care for their kids.
Sadly, some religious people give support to these narratives, when they agree to support “gender identity” laws, provided they get a religious exemption.
But bad public policy doesn’t become good by exemptions for oneself that do nothing for the privacy, safety, equality, and liberty of others.
“Gender identity” ideology will impact everyone. Right and left. Conservative and liberal. Religious and secular.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lgbt-3899645_640.jpg413640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-30 18:20:572019-01-30 18:20:59The Left Is Shunning Liberals With Concerns About Transgender Agenda
Miami, FL – A school principal has taken his case against the School Board of Miami-Dade County to the Supreme Court. On January 16, 2019, the plaintiff, Dr. Alberto Fernandez, filed an appeal to the court claiming the board violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly when the school district retaliated against him for his involvement in converting a public school to a charter school.
Dr. Fernandez was the principal for 15 years at Neva King Cooper (NKC), a school for students with severe intellectual and physical disabilities, during alleged violations. In February 2012, NKC’s school advisory council recommended to explore converting NKC to a charter school, in accordance with Florida law. Fernandez supported the idea.
In May 2012, the school district investigated and transferred Fernandez and two other NKC employees for their involvement, claiming that charter school conversion was not part of their job duties. The district also issued a gag order prohibiting the employees from speaking to the school community. The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated the district’s actions. In November 2012, the OIG issued a Fact-Finding Report unfavorable to the district. Subsequently, the Florida Commissioner of Education sent Superintendent Alberto Carvalho a letter notifying him that there was reasonable grounds to believe that “unlawful reprisal” against Fernandez and the other employees had occurred, and that the case would be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to conduct a hearing.
Judge Edward Bauer held the hearing from January to February 2014. The school board contended that Fernandez and the other employees had been investigated and transferred as a result of their role in the charter school conversion. The judge debunked the board’s investigations and questioned the validity of the district’s reasons for the transfers, which were against board policy. He recommended that the FDOE enter a final order finding that the school board violated Florida Statute 1002.33 (4) (a), Unlawful Reprisal, with respect to each plaintiff. The judge’s recommended order also stated that the school board pay plaintiffs’ attorney fees, which totaled over $250,000. The judge, however, did not recommend that Fernandez and the other plaintiffs be returned to the NKC, as the plaintiffs had already been reassigned to similar positions in accordance with Florida law. On November 6, 2014, the FDOE entered a final order which restated the judge’s recommended order.*
On May 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a case in federal court for violations of their First Amendment rights. Afterward, the school board filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the judge, Darrin P. Gayles, ruled against the board’s motion and allowed more inquiry. Then, the board filed for a summary judgment (a court’s ruling without a trial). However, the board changed its original position, claiming that converting NKC to a charter school waspart of the plaintiffs’ job duties, thus, not protected by the First Amendment. The judge ruled in favor of one of the employee’s because the employee was not an administrator, but ruled against Fernandez and the other plaintiff. The judge reasoned that Fernandez and the other employee, who was an administrator, provided “leadership” and, therefore, were acting in their official capacities when speaking about the charter school. Fernandez appealed to the 11th Circuit, but that court ruled in favor of the board. Fernandez, therefore, appealed to the Supreme Court.**
For more information contact Dr. Thomas Elfers, Esq. (786) 232-8074 or thomaselfers@comcast.com.
** The District Circuit Court’s ruling can be found at https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/ Case no.15-cv-21915-Gayles. The 11th Circuit’s ruling can be found at https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/ Case No. 17-14319. For a copy of the petition to the Supreme Court, please contact plaintiff’s attorney, Dr. Thomas Elfers at the number and/or email above.
EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission by the author. The featured image is from Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/supreme-court-546279_640.jpg417640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-01-30 15:49:052019-01-30 15:49:07School Principal from Miami, Florida Appeals to Supreme Court for First Amendment Violations
The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline (abuse) of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing of allegedly dishonorable females.
World Hijab Day is February 1st. The mission of World Hijab Day is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab.
The hijab symbolizes many tenets of Sharia law that oppress women. While most Muslim women in America do NOT wear the hijab, leftist media and retailers in their frenzy to be diverse have made the hijab its new symbol of diversity. Leftist embracement, promotion and defense of the hijab reinforces the Sharia mandated headgear for women. Their support for the hijab is hurting the chances of women embracing the fullness of the liberty that is extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab as well as taking a stand against the harsh Sharia tenets that oppress them.
One way to counter World Hijab Day is to submit an editorial or opinion for publication in newspapers. We are providing two editorials below for you to consider submitting to your newspaper. The second editorial is the same as the first except it has been edited to 250 words which is the limit of some papers. Please feel free to make changes to these editorials or write your own opinion. Florida Family Association has published more information regarding the hijab here.
Most news media provide a form or email address on their website to make submission easy. The best way to find this form or email address is to search the internet with the words “newspaper name editorial.”
If you are willing and would like to voice concern to the public regarding the realities of the hijab please consider submitting an editorial or commentary to your newspaper. Please let us know if they publish your submission.
LONGER EDITORIAL
Title: Embrace liberty, doff hijab.
The mission of World Hijab Day (February 1st) is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab. Perhaps Muslim women feel uncomfortable wearing the hijab in public because they know that millions of Americans see the hijab as exemplifying one of many harsh tenets of Sharia law that oppress women.
The hijab has replaced the pink triangle as the progressive left’s top symbol of diversity. However, tens of millions of Americans including thousands of Muslim women view the hijab as a symbol of Islamist, misogynistic repression. Nearly sixty percent of Muslims in America do not wear the hijab according to Pew Research published by NPR on April 21, 2011.
Some scholars of Islam teach that the Quran does not mandate the hijab. The hijab was invented and mandated by Mussah Sadr, an Iranian mullah, in the 1970s, 1300 years after the Quran was written. Sadr issued a Sharia edict that required women to wear the hijab to allegedly prevent their rape. Women In The World media published an article on September 15, 2015 titled “The day 100,000 Iranian women protested the head scarf.” The article displayed a seldom-seen collection of photographs, shot in Tehran in 1979, of thousands of women who are not wearing hijabs or other oppressive attire prior to Sadr enforcing Iran’s new Islamist hijab law.
British Muslim Qanta Ahmed wrote on March 18, 2017 in The Spectator UK: “As a Muslim, I strongly support the right to ban the veil. At last, the European Court of Justice has made a stand for European values. Rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention. They’re derived not from the Quran or early Islamic tradition but from a misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine.”
The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline (abuse) of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing of allegedly dishonorable females. Hopefully, Muslim women will embrace the fullness of the liberty that is extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab as most other Muslim women have done in America as well as take a stand against the harsh Sharia tenets that oppress them.
SHORTENED EDITORIAL 250 WORDS
Title: Embrace liberty, doff hijab.
The mission of World Hijab Day (February 1st) is to allegedly make non-Muslims aware of the societal response to Muslim women who wear a hijab. Perhaps Muslim women feel uncomfortable wearing the hijab in public because they know that millions of Americans see the hijab as exemplifying many tenets of Sharia law that oppress women.
The hijab has replaced the pink triangle as the progressive left’s top symbol of diversity. However, tens of millions of Americans including thousands of Muslim women view the hijab as a symbol of Islamist, misogynistic repression. Nearly sixty percent of Muslims in America do not wear the hijab according to Pew Research published by NPR on April 21, 2011.
The hijab was invented and mandated by Mussah Sadr, an Iranian mullah, in the 1970s, 1300 years after the Quran was written. Sadr issued a Sharia edict that required women to wear the hijab to allegedly prevent their rape. Women In The World media published an article on September 15, 2015 titled “The day 100,000 Iranian women protested the head scarf.” The article displayed photographs taken in 1979 of thousands of Iranian women who were not wearing hijabs.
The same Sharia law that dictates women must wear the hijab also advocates harsh discipline of wives, genital mutilation of girls and honor killing. Hopefully, Muslim women will embrace the fullness of the liberty extended to them by the United States Constitution by doffing the oppressive hijab and standing against other oppressive Sharia tenets.
EDITORS NOTE: This FFA column is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/muslim-3655698_640.jpg426640Florida Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Association2019-01-30 15:03:352019-01-31 05:15:55Will you consider sending an editorial to your local paper to counter leftist promotion of World Hijab Day?
Many across the nation are rightfully outraged by the signing of the abortion expansion bill in New York. In response to fears that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the New York legislature, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, teamed up with the abortion industry to further tighten their grip on the Empire state following the 2018 midterms.
The bottom line is that the recently signed “Reproductive Health Act” goes way beyond a simple expansion of abortion in New York. As is typical with the Left, it takes some digging to bring the true intentions of this ghastly bill to light. It turns out that existing common-sense protections for women and children are stripped away in the name of late-term abortion expansion. This bill fulfills every wish that a late-term abortionist could have, and I have no doubt it will set the stage for the next Kermit Gosnell.
The new law expands the list of medical professionals able to commit abortions (including late-term abortions) from physicians to practically any healthcare professional authorized under New York’s education law (physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives, for example). This endangers women by allowing less experienced, less trained, and less qualified medical professionals to commit abortions.
The new law also removes requirements related to late-term abortions. Specifically, it repeals a requirement that abortions after 12 weeks be done in hospitals, thus increasing the likelihood that late-term abortions are done in less than safe facilities. The bill also removes a requirement that an additional physician be present in the event that an unborn child survives an abortion, as well as legal protections for born alive infants in the state’s social services law, civil rights law, and penal code. Eliminating these common-sense and popular protections for abortion survivors means that abortion survivors can be denied life-saving treatment in the moments following their live birth.
What is most disturbing is that the new law also eliminates the authority previously granted to coroners to examine the cause of death in criminal abortions. Earlier this year, Dr. Robert Rho plead guilty to criminal negligence after his actions resulted in the death of a 30-year-old woman who bled out following a botched abortion. Even more disturbing is the fact that this bill strips “personhood” out of the penal code, which means if a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death of her unborn child, the perpetrator can no longer be charged with murder. By preventing coroners from investigating deaths as a result of botched abortions and assault, it is not only women’s health that is in danger, but it is a travesty of justice for the loved ones of patients who are killed by abortionists and of mothers whose unborn children are killed by an attacker.
The new year has brought a new level of desperation for the abortion lobby. They’re demonstrating a willingness to go beyond simply defending Roe v. Wade. Long gone are the days when their abortion mantra was “safe, legal, and rare.” It seems “abortion, on demand, without apology” is even giving way to a new mantra for big abortion. They now want license to strip away any and all protections meant to ensure women aren’t harmed in late-term abortions, as well as eliminate rights for abortion survivors and assault victims.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/012919_newyork_770x400-e1548845415510.jpg373640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-01-30 05:50:282019-01-30 05:50:29The True Depravity of NY’s New Abortion Law
Documents Detail Nancy Pelosi’s Love of Flying at Our Expense.
Nancy Pelosi’s plan to fly into a war zone to thank the troops, which President Trump put on hold, was déjà vu all over again. We’ve been watching her taxpayer-supported travel for years. I discuss our prior work here in an op-ed for Fox News.
Just this week, we released documents we obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Air Force that detail $134,587.81 plus $50,000 for an advance of funds for an “escort officer” for a total of $184.587.81 for then-House Minority Leader Pelosi’s Congressional delegation (CODEL) to Italy and Ukraine in 2015.
All records regarding mission taskings of flights escorting members of Congress
All records concerning transportation costs for transporting members of Congress
All passenger manifests (DD-2131) for transporting members of Congress
All weekly travel reports for members of Congress
The documents show that from July 30 to August 6, Pelosi took a trip to Milan, Rome and Naples, Italy, and Kiev, Ukraine, for herself, her husband, several members of congress and their spouses. The Italy trip included Milan, Rome and Naples with visits to the Vatican Museum, Sistine Chapel, Duomo and viewing Da Vinci’s “Last Supper.”
The documents also show the Air Force’s negative response to a Pelosi staff request for a specific crew for Pelosi’s flight. An official notes that it: “would be a disastrous precedent to set even if it were possible.” The Air Force further points out: “Our ARC crews have plenty to balance already with military duties and their civilian employers.”
The documents also detail a CODEL trip for Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO), who traveled commercial flights to Asia, including Tokyo and Okinawa, Japan; Seoul, Korea; plus Beijing and Hong Kong, China. This trip, with flights and per diems, cost at least $26,009.03.
We previously uncovered that Pelosi’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over one two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.
Our work exposing Pelosi’s travel abuses resulted in her successor John Boehner declining to use Air Force luxury jets to travel to his Ohio congressional district.
Our leaders live like kings and queens at our expense, and this might be a good time for those who pay for it to rise up and just say no.
Progressivism has exposed America to self-destruction by welcoming aliens who, by their own confession, brazenly declare that they are here to challenge and then destroy our way of life.
Whereas America’s doors have always been open to people of all races and religions who come with hope and gratitude for the opportunities granted in a free society, we were unprepared for those who want to erase our history and accomplishments, destroy our monuments and customs, and replace our laws with their barbarism, in the hope of replicating their oppressive regimes here.
Two Muslim women have been voted into officeunder the cover of deceptive manifestos. They misrepresented their platform and have thereby candidly sullied the dignity of their positions, insulted the United States, the Executive Office of the President and, specifically, our esteemed President Donald J Trump.
Ilhan Omar Photo: Facebook
Ilhan Omar, new congresswoman from Minnesota, a Somali immigrant with a history of making disparaging statements against Israel, our ally,was appointed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Nancy Pelosi, who has also turned her back on Israel and American interests and security. Wasting no time to investigate and understand America’s ties to Saudi Arabia or to Israel, Omar, prompted by her personal defiance and beliefs as a Somalian Muslim, not as an American, called for decreased financial aid to Saudi Arabia and labelled Israel an evil regime, challenging the latter’s government and actual existence.
First, the US provides little military aid; rather, we are selling 6,700 missiles as part of a $1 billion deal to Saudi Arabia for its anti-terrorism training and education and for food to civil-war-torn Yemen. Omar is either ignorant or else chooses to dismiss the essence of America’s financial transactions. Second, she has brought with her the 1400-year history of Islamic hatred for Jews, Christians and Hindus, and Islam’s centuries of condoned torture, enslavement, and slaughter perpetrated on 900 million people who refused conversion to Islam. The slaughter continues to this day, as noted on the Religion of Peace website: 34,494 (at this writing) deadly Islamic terrorist attacks in 29 countries, since 9/11. During the week of January 19th, 28 attacks in 12 countries, 135 killed, 171 injured, and 6 suicide blasts were reported.
Without once acknowledging Islam’s destructive role in world affairs, how Islamic countries are truly apartheid and violent, she denounces Israel as an authoritative apartheid regime rather than the parliamentary democracy that it is, representing and treating equally every segment of its multi-racial, -religious, -ethnic society. Her comments are virulently anti-Semitic and, when challenged, she cannot provide a sliver of evidence for her accusations, but has no compunction about repeating them later. Having been raised in deep-seated enmity, she ignores the Islamic wars waged against everyone, and the discord sown in what had previously been peaceful nations.
In keeping with the Islamic dedication to taqiyya, an accepted Islamic war strategy, she denied her support of boycotting Israel before her election, but has now admitted her true position.
Omar blatantly supports the effort to debilitate America’s greatest ally – the Democratic State of Israel. The Arab attacks against Jews have been constant for centuries, throughout the Islamic world, in Israel, and across Europe. The horrific jihadi attacks include stabbings, beheadings, and an ongoing fire jihad over 8,000-plus acres of forestry and agricultural land, its human and animal inhabitants, while also jeopardizing their own dispensable youth and women. Jihad continues here in stealth from those who work to fundamentally change our laws and allegiances.
Oddly, with the exception of a Muslim tribe, Yibir, that claims to have descended from Hebrews before the arrival of Somali nomads, there are no Jews in apartheid Somalia, so from where does Omar’s intense animus derive except from the Koran and Hadiths, which are rife with Mohammed’s scorn and teachings. As he stated on his deathbed: “Let there not be two religions in Arabia,” thus sealing the eternal intolerance and fate of all who would not accept Islamic law and rule. Mohammed commanded Muslims to fight the non-Muslims by “all means possible for all times.”
The centuries of persecution, forced conversion, expulsion and massacre began with the Jews of Khaybar and the Christians of Najran, and have been passed downto the present day. This, then, is the origin of the mindset of Ilhan Omar.
Rashida Tlaib Photo: Facebook
Muslima Rashida Tlaib, another new member of Congress who identifies as Palestinianand blatantly displays her detestation for our President, is unquestionably an expression of hate for America and our Constitution. She opposes everything that President Trump stresses, particularly his articulation of friendship with Israel and acceptance of Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. A sticky notewith the name “Palestine” covers Israel on her office map, and she asked to be sworn in on the Thomas Jefferson Koran, the Islamic prayer book that demands holy war and death to Jews and Christiansthroughout the world. The Koran allows no allegiance to our country or our values; Jefferson obtained it in order to understand the Barbary pirates (North African jihadis) who were attacking non-military ships belonging to America and eight other Christian nations in the 1700s. When attempts to negotiate peace failed, our ambassador learned that the Muslims would always wage war in order to spread Islam, increase their slave trade, and to qualify for vigorous sexual activity inthe Islamic version of heaven. It was then that Jefferson obtained a 1734 English translation of the Koran to understand the nature of ourexistential enemy. It was not purchased and kept out of reverence, as Tlaib would have us believe.
Not only did Tlaib not display an American flag at her primary victory celebration, but she also wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag and invited rabid Israeli-hater, Abbas Hamideh, to her celebratory dinner party. Hamideh is a co-founder of Al-Awda, a group dedicated to the platform of the delegitimization and eradication of Israel. In a photo with him, she is wearing a keffiyeh, a scarf of jihad, holy war. There is no doubt: she is not here as an American, and she will not legislate as an American. She and her like-minded friends, including the vast membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, antisemitic jihadas Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory and others are working to control American policies and speech with the goal of establishing sharia law in the West and using the cry of “Islamophobia” against any criticism that might alert the public to the scheme.
A member of the Democrat Socialists of America, Tlaib strongly supports the boycott-divestment-sanctions movement (BDS) to bring about Israel’s economic destruction, and to create an “Islamic state in Palestine” in its place. She is tied to the designated-terrorist group, Hamas, known for its political, social, humanitarian and military activities committed to defeating Israel, and which recruits students for suicide attacks, supports intifada, guarantees support and homes for the martyrs’ families, and works to obstruct Israel’s trade agreements with international propaganda and boycotts, while working to flood Israel with terrorist-trained Palestinians. Aligned with J Street, one of the most virulent anti-Israel organizations in the history of Zionism and Judaism, Tlaib plans to lead a taxpayer-funded mission of lawmakers to Israel’s Judea and Samaria at the same time that the traditional Israel mission is planned – to oppose the truth with the false Palestinian narrative. To be noted: recent tax forms for a George Soros Open Society Foundation show an expenditure of $85,307 to Rashida Tlaib (p.97 of a 321-page report), which she failed to disclose when she ran for office.
Both Omar and Tlaib deceived their voters on their views about America, presenting themselves as moderate American citizens, but later admitting their true course – Islamic supremacy. They were brought here initiallyfor conquest by population, known as hijra, and they now seek to defeat our nation through our own laws. Tlaib had the audacity to announce, “Each passing day brings more pain for the people most directly hurt by this president, and these are days we simply cannot get back. The time for impeachment proceedings is now.” On 4 Jan 2019, 10:08 AM, she tweeted, “Americans have spent decades raping and pillaging my people.” Her people are Palestinians, not Americans.
Clearly, both women have taken their positions not for their interest in America, but in order to promote their inherent Koranic beliefs, which focus on the destruction of Israel and the supplanting of freedom for worldwide sharia. Islam is here to be the dominant religion on Earth. Omar and Tlaib should be removed from their positions, not merely because they are a clear and present danger to our republic, but also because their positions were gained as a result of the misrepresentation of themselves to their constituents.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Ilhan Omar’s Facebook page.
Polylogism is the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos. – Ludwig von Mises
The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own brand.
Image credit: Flicker-Recuerdos de Pandora | CC BY 2.0
Until the middle of the 19th century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.
Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual cooperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.
Denouncing Logic
Yet, in the course of the 19th century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the “proletarian philosopher” Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker’s class position. What thinking produces is not truth but “ideologies.” This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the “bourgeois” origin of the physicists.
The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by “bourgeois” economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries’ ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.
Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only “ideological” statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that “the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple.” The proletarian logic is not “ideology” but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency. One of their champions, Professor Mannheim, tries to demonstrate that there exists a group of men, the “unattached intellectuals,” who are equipped with the gift of grasping truth without falling prey to ideological errors. Of course, Professor Mannheim is convinced that he is the foremost of these “unattached intellectuals.” You simply cannot refute him. If you disagree with him, you only prove thereby that you yourself are not one of this elite of “unattached intellectuals” and that your utterances are ideological nonsense.
Polylogism and the Nazis
The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics, and so on. But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor Tirala, his counterpart as champion of Aryan epistemology, declares that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are those of the Aryans. In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from the pollution of the Western philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. They are in search of arteigen German science, that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the Germans.
We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man’s mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result. We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.
Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British. It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of relativity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which—although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic—are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to. But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details.
Polylogism has a peculiar method of dealing with dissenting views. If its supporters fail to unmask the background of an opponent, they simply brand him a traitor. Both Marxians and Nazis know only two categories of adversaries. The aliens—whether members of a nonproletarian class or of a non-Aryan race—are wrong because they are aliens; the opponents of proletarian or Aryan origin are wrong because they are traitors. Thus they lightly dispose of the unpleasant fact that there is dissension among the members of what they call their own class or race.
The Nazis contrast German economics with Jewish and Anglo-Saxon economics. But what they call German economics differs not at all from some trends in foreign economics. It developed out of the teachings of the Genevese Sismondi and of the French and British socialists. Some of the older representatives of this alleged German economics merely imported foreign thought into Germany. Frederick List brought the ideas of Alexander Hamilton to Germany, Hildebrand and Brentano brought the ideas of early British socialism. Arteigen German economics is almost identical with contemporary trends in other countries, e.g., with American Institutionalism.
On the other hand, what the Nazis call Western economics and therefore artfremd is to a great extent an achievement of men to whom even the Nazis cannot deny the term German. Nazi economists wasted much time in searching the genealogical tree of Carl Menger for Jewish ancestors; they did not succeed. It is nonsensical to explain the conflict between economic theory, on the one hand, and Institutionalism and historical empiricism, on the other hand, as a racial or national conflict.
Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) taught in Vienna and New York and served as a close adviser to the Foundation for Economic Education. He is considered the leading theorist of the Austrian School of the 20th century.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/swastikas-906653_640.jpg426640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-29 19:03:332019-01-29 19:03:35What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx
If the media is “creating and fomenting” anger, this is only part of a bigger story. It may be time to take a lesson from ‘1984’, the political allegory by George Orwell.
What could be a better story for a media devoid of “journalistic ethics” than a group of Catholic high school students, wearing MAGA hats, seemingly mocking a Native American elder?
On social media, people expressed wishes to inflict harm on Nicholas Sandmann. Nicholas is the student who, rather than mocking Native American Nathan Phillips, was stoically smiling. Even after exculpatory evidence was available, some double-downed on their first assessment of Sandmann.
If the media is “creating and fomenting” anger, this is only part of a bigger story. It may be time to take a lesson from 1984, the political allegory by George Orwell. In the totalitarian society created by Orwell, the hate expressed towards the Party’s enemy Emmanuel Goldstein already existed in the minds of the haters. The media are responsible for their lack of ethics, but we are accountable for our own hatred.
Two Minutes Hate
In Orwell’s society, the population is required to engage in a daily ritual called Two Minutes Hate. The Party’s enemies, often Emmanuel Goldstein, are made to seem grotesque. Party members are mandated to rage at these hideous scapegoats:
The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started. As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen.
Readers of 1984 are uncertain if Emmanuel Goldstein really exists. Fictitious or not, Goldstein is perceived as the biggest enemy of the state. Orwell describes the ritual of the daily rage:
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.
Tellingly, Orwell writes, “[T]he rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.” Read Orwell’s observation carefully: The Party depends on its ability to tap into pre-existing rage. Individuals blinded and bonded by rage are easily controlled by the state.
On social media following the Covington High student incident, as in 1984, “a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through [the critics of Nicholas Sandmann] like an electric current.”
A universal truth about human minds is revealed in 1984 and in the events involving the Covington High students. In Stephen Covey’s words, “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are—or, as we are conditioned to see it.”
Through our beliefs, thoughts, and feelings, we interpret what we see and mistake our interpretations for reality. We don’t realize, as Covey puts it, that “When we open our mouths to describe what we see, we in effect describe ourselves, our perceptions, our paradigms.”
“When other people disagree with us,” Covey writes, “we immediately think something is wrong with them.”
We are sure our perceptions are true. The real truth is we rage because we want to rage. Who among us wants to see ourselves as a rager? We want our rage to be someone else’s fault. Enter projection.
Projection is our ego’s attempt to absolve itself of responsibility for our thoughts and feelings by denying they exist in us and finding what we have denied in other people.
How Projection Works
If it snows where you live, you have probably experienced a snowplow operator undoing your snow clearing efforts. Municipal snowplow operators don’t remove snow to make your personal snow removal easier; that’s just a fact of life. Yet every winter there seems to be a news story of an incensed homeowner attacking a snowplow operator. A snowplow operator can’t cause rage, yet one’s interpretation of the operator’s actions can.
Do you see yourself as a considerate person? Do you value being recognized as considerate? There will be times your actions are less than considerate. If you don’t acknowledge the less-than-kind part of your mind, there are consequences.
If we think of ourselves as considerate but act inconsiderately, our buttons will be pushed by people whose actions we perceive as inconsiderate. We will project our inconsiderate side onto someone else whose weakness we see as more egregious than our own. By not cleaning up our own act, we will be driven to find our failures in a family member, a colleague, or someone else we don’t even know.
Not willing to acknowledge our own shortcomings, we might shout from the rooftops or, in today’s age, tweet: I have found the guilty SOB who deserves to be punished. There is a reason other people push our buttons—when we are not aware of our own failings, we try to get rid of the resulting guilt by making a psychological punching bag of someone else.
When I get angry over the failings of others, I strengthen—not release—that sense of failure in myself. Projection guarantees I won’t change. Instead, I will have more of what I am trying to get rid of by seeing it in others. As in 1984, rage begets more rage. Projections boomerang.
We have a choice: we can look honestly at what is in our mind, or we can attack others.
Is Trump the Left’s Emmanuel Goldstein?
Donald Trump is the great psychological scapegoat of our time. Daily, we hear he is the stupid one, or he is the cruel one, or he is the lazy one. I can’t recall another American being the object of so much scorn. Is Trump today’s Emmanuel Goldstein?
Not that Trump isn’t, for example, a lazy, undisciplined thinker. The point is, we can discern something without getting incensed by it. We don’t have to get irate at the bus driver speeding down the street; wisely, we choose to not step off the curb. When you experience intense thoughts of judgment and feelings of anger, take notice. The key to understanding that you are projecting is the anger and judgment you feel.
We Hate Ourselves for Our Mistreatment of Others
We do not hate others for their failures, but for our own. We can’t help but hate ourselves for our mistreatment of others. This is so because in everyone’s mind is a memory, however dim, of our connection to all of humanity.
In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius expressed his belief that “Everything is interwoven, and the web is holy; none of its parts are unconnected.” Yet we often forget; separation rather than connectedness seems to be reality. To overcome the tendencies of his mind, Aurelius practiced a mental discipline:
Keep reminding yourself of the way things are connected, of their relatedness. All things are implicated in one another and in sympathy with each other. This event is the consequence of some other one. Things push and pull on each other, and breathe together, and are one.
Ryan Holliday writes that sympatheia—“the belief in mutual interdependence among everything in the universe, that we are all one”—is “perhaps the most radical idea in all of Stoicism.”
Projection is antithetical to sympatheia. When we project, we set out to show our false perceptions of our own virtues are true. To prove our innocence, someone else has to be guilty. We think our perception of bad conduct in others justifies our own lousy behavior. When our mind clears we see how ridiculous our posturing is. In his book, Bonds That Make Us Free, philosopher Terry Warner equates our displays of self-righteousness with bad acting:
Those who are not self-deceivingly stuck in their own accusing thoughts and feelings will see our public presentation of ourselves for what it is—an insecure, self-conscious, anxious striving to make a point about ourselves that is always a bit excessive, like bad acting.
People may be bad actors, but those who won’t take responsibility for their own failings are placing the rest of us in harm’s way. Damon Linker warns: “[I]t’s just a matter of time before real-world violence breaks out in response to an online conflagration.”
Those who became unhinged over the hatred they perceived in the Covington High students were projecting the unexamined hatred in their own minds. Instead of projecting, we can offer understanding and kindness.
Orwell was right, haters are going to hate. Yet, when we are willing to look at our unexamined self and take responsibility for it, there is nothing to project. In that space, nothing is left but our common humanity—we all have a right mind and a wrong mind and the power to choose again.
Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/screen-shot-2019-01-28-at-103043-am-e1548791130544.png362640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-29 14:45:582019-01-29 14:47:21Long Before the Covington High Incident, Orwell Revealed the Truth about Hate
Gordon Gekko missed the mark with his famous Wall Street monologue about American capitalism. It is not greed but economic growth that is, for lack of a better word, good. Growth is right. Growth works. Growth clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Growth has marked the upward surge of mankind. And growth—you mark my words—will save that malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
This is probably pretty obvious to most Americans. Strong economic growth means more jobs and higher wages. Just take a look at the current expansion. It has only been moderate as goes the pace of growth, but it has been sustained. And month after month of a growing economy has brought down the unemployment rate to its lowest level since 1969, even as real wages continue to grow for all income levels. That’s especially true for working-class Americans. The 3.5 percent unemployment rate for Americans with only a high school diploma is the lowest since 2000. Indeed, despite all the debate about income inequality, earnings have been growing faster for those at the bottom than at the top.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump tours a Carrier factory with Vice President-elect Mike Pence in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S., December 1, 2016. Reuters/Mike Segar
Or look at it this way: In their research paper “Productivity and Pay: Is the link broken?” Harvard’s Anna Stansbury and Lawrence Summers find that higher productivity growth is associated with higher average and median compensation growth. The economists show that if productivity growth had been as fast from 1973 to 2016 as it was from 1949 to 1973—about twice as high—median and mean compensation would have been around 41 percent higher.
Growth Skeptics
Yet a growing number of policymakers and pundits on the left and right are questioning the primacy of growth as the key objective of national economic policy. Democrats and progressives are focused on new policies to redistribute wealth, such as Medicare for all, a federal jobs guarantee, or a universal basic income. Meanwhile, Republicans and conservatives, grappling with a president who questions the value of free trade and immigration, have grown publicly skeptical of market capitalism. “The free market has been sorting it out for a while, and America has been losing,” said Vice President Mike Pence. And they have become skeptical of the core goal of increasing economic growth.
Leading the charge among the wonks is Oren Cass, a Manhattan Institute scholar and former policy director for the 2012 Mitt Romney presidential campaign. In his new book, The Once and Future Worker, Cass writes that although “economic growth and rising material living standards are laudable goals … they by no means guarantee the health of a labor market that will meet society’s long-term needs.”
The criticisms of growth skeptics range from the ahistorical to the utopian. Of course, a fast-rising tide of economic growth does not guarantee all boats will rise at the same pace or at a pace that society deems sufficient. “Guarantee,” after all, is a strong word. Depending on the strength one attributes to it, it’s possible nothing can “guarantee” the outcome that some growth critics want: all winners, no losers, no trade-offs, no disruption. But if by guarantee we don’t mean “ensure with ironclad certainty” but only “approximate more closely than any available alternative,” economic growth remains society’s best bet. Indeed, this very urge to undervalue growth’s benefits is the surest sign that growth in America has become a victim of its own success.
G.K. Chesterton famously noted how modern types of reformers see institutions or practices and think, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the wise reply, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away.” Institutions and policies that endure decade after decade often serve a useful purpose even if that purpose isn’t immediately apparent, and we should be cautious before shrugging them off as unimportant. Our growth-oriented economic policy is a perfect example. It brings tremendous benefits, yet we now risk taking it for granted.
And what an odd time to question the benefits. The Obama administration was much derided for its apparently self-serving claim, made in the 2013 Economic Report of the President, “that in the 21st Century, real GDP growth in the United States is likely to be permanently slower than it was in earlier eras.” But it was a perfectly reasonable baseline forecast that continues to reflect the economic consensus from Wall Street to Washington. For instance: The Federal Reserve’s long-term, real GDP forecast stands at 1.8 percent, about half the average pace from 1947 to the start of the Great Recession. And even that reduced pace of growth seems a tad too optimistic for JP Morgan, which pegs the economy’s long-term growth potential at 1.5 percent.
Obstacles to Growth
There are good reasons why the experts seem so gloomy. The most important—and, perhaps, most inescapable—is demographics. The aging of the labor force, lower birth rates, and a slowing rate of immigration suggest a slowdown in the growth of the American labor force to around 0.5 percent annually going forward—as compared with roughly 2 percent in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. economy expanded at a 4.1 percent annual pace during the ’60s—a decade that today’s nationalist populists look back on with great nostalgia. But growth would have been less than 3 percent if the labor force had been growing as slowly back then as it is currently.
The other big obstacle to faster growth is weak productivity, which downshifted just before the Great Recession and has yet to rebound. For the American economy to grow as fast in the future as it has overall since World War II, output per worker will need to rise sharply. Indeed, that is a big goal of the 2017 Republican-pushed corporate tax cuts. They are supposed to increase business investment and eventually productivity growth. But there are no signs either is happening yet, much to the dismay of many conservative economists. The only other hope lies beyond Washington’s tinkering: The private sector continues to innovate. Maybe Silicon Valley will eventually come to the rescue, as innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence and robotics eventually spreads throughout the non-tech economy. The history of radical technological advances, such as electrification, suggest that it can take some time before businesses figure out how to effectively employ them.
The Tangible Benefits of Growth
It can be easy to dismiss all this talk of growth rates as the abstract muttering of economists far removed from the everyday concerns of the average American. As a corrective, George Mason economist Tyler Cowen poses a useful thought experiment in his latest book, Stubborn Attachments. Imagine we redo U.S. history, he says, “but assume the country’s economy had grown one percentage point less each year between 1870 and 1990. In that scenario, the United States of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990.”
Michael Strain, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, makes a similar point when he writes:
Imagine the world in the year 1900. There was no air travel, no antibiotics, no iPhone, no Amazon Prime, no modern high school and no air conditioning. … Anyone who played down growth a century ago wouldn’t have known they were arguing against any of these things, because none of these growth-enabled features of modern life had been invented yet. But they would have been putting the existence of all these at risk by stifling, even marginally, the economic engine that allowed for their creation.
Sustained and solid growth is what makes these advances possible and is what separates the median American today from the median residents of the world’s developing economies. Sacrificing a tenth of a percentage point here and two-tenths there to, say, protect favored industries from foreign competition or levy punitive taxes on obscenely rich entrepreneurs may seem like a worthwhile tradeoff in the moment. But because of how growth compounds over time, in the long-term such trade-offs aren’t just unappealing but inexplicable. As the Nobel Laureate in economics Robert Lucas wrote, “Once one starts to think about [exponential growth], it is hard to think about anything else.” Marginally slowing down economic growth to achieve other policy goals might cause little harm to us, but it seems both less fair and less wise when the welfare of ensuing generations are accounted for. In Strain’s words, “What in the world of tomorrow doesn’t yet exist? We need growth in order to find the answer, both for ourselves, and for posterity.”
It is strange that intellectuals are dismissing the importance of economic growth at just the point when it is becoming harder to generate—and doubly weird after a long stretch of sluggish growth that has almost certainly played a role in the surge of populist politicians such as President Trump. And these populist leaders are pushing the sorts of policies that make a future of slow growth even more likely.
Misguided Hindsight
Trump looks back to the immediate decades after World War Two as the golden age of the American economy. His presidential campaign, for instance, made a point of promising the return of mass employment in the industrial-age industries of steel and coal. Cass, too, has pointed to those decades as an alternate model of economic growth. As he said during a recent think-tank event:
The period of time when productivity growth was really booming most in the American economy was a time when tax rates were much higher, immigration rates were much lower, there was virtually no international trade by the standards of the 1920s or today, and there was a much smaller or non-existent safety net. The idea that what we currently call the pro-growth agenda is actually what has aligned with high growth isn’t true.
That is a wrong-headed interpretation of economic history. While it is true that the so-called golden age era is known for fast economic and productivity growth, economists generally do not credit the lack of trade or immigration. Rather, notes the Congressional Budget Office in a review of research literature on the subject, “the golden age may be more accurately interpreted as the full final exploitation of an earlier burst of innovations through electrification, suburbanization, completion and increasing exploitation of the highway system, and production of consumer appliances.” In other words, huge technological advances in the 1920s and 1930s reaped benefits for decades.
Unfortunately, those productivity gains, along with American industrial superiority over its war-ravaged competitors, have created a myth about the postwar American economy—a myth that populists continue to spread. Yet Fortress America entered the 1970s ill-prepared for the inevitable global competition as the rest of the world’s advanced economies finally recovered.
Both Trump and Cass, therefore, have it backward. It wasn’t too much globalization and economic openness that undermined large swaths of the manufacturing economy, but too little. As Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan write in Capitalism in America:
The 1970s was the decade when Americans finally had to grapple with the fact that it was losing its leadership in an ever widening range of industries. Though the best American companies such as General Electric and Pfizer powered ahead, a striking number treaded water. They had succeeded during the long postwar boom not because they had any particular merit, but because Europe and Japan were still recovering from World War Two and they collapsed at the first sniff of competition.
The last thing the American economy needs today is a reduction in competitive intensity, whether achieved by shielding industries with tariffs or keeping out the immigrants that help grow the workforce and provide expertise to key industries, especially technology. Nearly half of our “unicorn companies,” another name for U.S. startups worth over $1 billion dollars, were founded by immigrants. Immigrant scientists and entrepreneurs play a disproportionate role in driving the tech progress necessary for sustained productivity growth. Forty percent of Fortune 500 companies have a first- or second-generation immigrant founder. Immigrants may compete with other Americans, but they also employ them.
The Only Viable Solution
The critics of a growth-above-all approach might grant that no other national policy is better at generating material prosperity. But, they say, life requires more than mere materialism. We crave community, beauty, and a certain degree of stability. It is this objection that Harvard’s Benjamin Friedman sought to address in his 2006 book, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. True, capitalism and the creative destruction that drive it can disrupt traditional cultures or degrade the environment. And from the Old Testament to the present, men have fretted over usury’s effects on one’s soul (today we might say finance’s effects on one’s morals). But growth doesn’t only erode individual and societal morality. Besides improving material conditions, growth improves moral ones, as well.
Friedman notes how sustained growth “shapes the social, political and, ultimately, the moral character of a people” and “more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness, and dedication to democracy.” Slow growth, on the other hand, leads to ugly consequences, especially if voters begin to feel it is inevitable. In times of stagnation, economic policy tilts toward dividing up a fixed pie rather than enlarging everyone’s share. It could mean a society that is less willing to entertain the benefits of international trade, more hostile toward immigration and immigrants, and more comfortable with regulating business.
In fact, “could” is putting it mildly. The tariffs, legislative efforts to reduce immigration, and frequent threats to regulate America’s most successful companies, such as Google and Amazon, already show some of the consequences of the sluggish recovery from the Great Recession—and this from what is supposed to be America’s pro-growth party.
Growth is, and remains, good. Growth is right, staving off a zero-sum politics defined more by group conflict than productive cooperation. Growth works, improving everyone’s standard of living, if not always equally, at least steadily. Growth clarifies, exposing business to competition, and prevents industrial calcification. Growth signifies the evolutionary and upward surge of mankind, evident in everything from modern medicine to interstellar space travel. And a policy geared toward increasing economic growth—pursued attentively and unapologetically—will save the United States of America. All other national economic strategies are but pale imitations.
James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, the opinion and commentary wing of Thomson Reuters.
RELATED VIDEO: Who Gets the Credit for the Booming Economy?
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: Image by geralt on Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/growth-e1548783455131.jpg384640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-01-29 12:37:502019-03-06 17:52:11Only Economic Growth Will Save the United States of America
