In delivering his State of the Union before a joint session of Congress last night, President Trump spoke about the nation’s burgeoning economy, strong national defense, and improved opportunities being opening up for the poor and middle class.
One thing he didn’t mention, however, was climate change. And that put CNN’s John King into a tizzy:
“Every leader, whatever his party should be talking about climate change. You can have a debate about what to do about it. But that the President of the United States, at this moment in the world, did not mention climate change in even a sentence is, just frankly, a disgrace.”
Of course, global warming was dutifully mentioned in the Democratic response to the President’s speech. It was, to be sure, a throw away line. All Georgia’s Stacey Adam’s simply said was: “We can do more, [like] take action on climate change.” Apparently that was enough for Mr. King to praise her as delivering the “best response” he ever heard.
Other Democrats were similarly put off by the President’s attack on socialism. After denouncing the Venezuela’s authoritarian government, Trump boldly proclaimed, “We will never be a socialist country.”
It was a good line. A great line. It brought almost everyone, even Nancy Pelosi, to their feet.
Not, however, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She remained plopped down. Frozen. “Is this a campaign stop or a State of the Union?” she would later chirp to a reporter. As for the President’s “socialism” remarks, “I thought it was great – I think he’s scared.”
One doesn’t have to read between the lines to understand the Democrats are not happy today. The president scored well last night. They are left to nit pick.
They are right about one thing though: No, the president didn’t directly mention “global warming.” Perhaps he should have. Of course, not in the manner the Greens would suppose.
It might have been nice if the President mentioned how he saved America from the disastrous Paris Accord, redirected priorities away from enforcing senseless climate regs that hamper businesses and our military, and steered the EPA away from imposing costly rules that would have shuttered countless energy plants, lost jobs, and driven up prices. These are indeed noteworthy achievements, we believe, but probably wouldn’t have earned him any additional good will from across the aisle.
The truth is the president did talk about the environment, albeit indirectly. How so? By letting us all know how well America’s economy is humming along.
The fact of the matter is that a growing economy is good news for the environment. Countries which have full employment, robust economic growth and provide law and order are precisely the ones that can best furnish for their citizens clean air and water. Socialistic countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China and the former Soviet Union stand as rich examples of the opposite.
The President, by pushing America’s economy to perform better through tax cuts, less regulation, and unleashing our energy potential, is doing more than his predecessor did in helping us keep America’s environment better protected.
If only Mr. King and Ms. Cortez had a clue.
EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/state-of-the-climate-2-e1549502083440.jpg368640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2019-02-06 20:14:582019-02-06 20:14:59State of the climate
The settlers and the founders of this country spoke a lot about their posterity—the generations that would follow them. For example, the Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution” (emphasis added).
Long before the Constitution was written, Rev. John Winthrop, the founder of Boston and leader of the first major migration of the Puritans from England, told his followers in the famous “City on a Hill” speech (actually called, “A Model of Christian Charity”): “Now the only way to avoid …shipwreck and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God.” That was in 1630.
When the Puritans founded Harvard in 1636 for the sake of ministerial training and later named it in honor of Rev. John Harvard because of his generous donations, they mentioned posterity as part of their raison d’etre. Their goal was “to advance Learning and to perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust.”
The Massachusetts Congress in 1775 declared, “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. Fleets, troops, and every implement of war are sent into the province, to wrest from you that freedom which it is your duty, even at the risk of your lives, to hand inviolate to posterity.”
On December 16, 1796, President George Washington wrote to Congress about the need to “secure to ourselves and to posterity that liberty which is to all of us so dear.”
Posterity. Posterity. Posterity.
But now liberalized abortion laws are taking aim at our posterity. New York just passed a law that out-Roe’s Roe v. Wade. The 1973 abortion ruling from the Supreme Court stated explicitly that it was legalizing abortion for the first trimester. On the same day, the Court also issued the companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton, which allows for later term abortions if a doctor approves.
The law New York recently passed will allow for abortion right up to the moment of birth. Lawmakers in Virginia tried to pass a similar law—essentially sanctioning infanticide—allowing for an “abortion” after birth.
Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue told me, “The recent discussion on late-term abortions and even the killing of newborns is a tough discussion that Americans must have in order to help us face the brutal reality of what abortion does to an innocent and living baby. This discussion is waking up people and may help to finally bring this barbaric practice to an end.”
We could say that on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court declared war on our posterity. And now, 60 million abortions later—we are still suffering as a nation.
No wonder we cannot keep up with our social security payments. We have killed off 60 million of our posterity, many of whom would be paying in by now.
How will future generations judge this one? We now have 4D sonograms. We can see the humanity of the unborn. There, in color, is our posterity—just waiting to come out—but too often he or she (and it’s always a he or she, never an “it”) meets a violent, premature end. Future generations will look back at us and our barbarism toward our posterity in the way we today look back at slave-owners.
One commentator noted, “What’s the most dangerous place in America? It’s in your mother’s womb.” It should be the safest place in America.
Abortion clinics are often asked by scared women (the vast majority of whom feel that they are forced to abort), “Is it a baby?” The facility personnel tell them it’s just a clump of tissue, it’s just a bunch of cells. It’s not really a baby. Then in many cases they carefully perform the abortions in such a way so they can save the kidneys, the liver, the lungs, the heart, the brains. Why? So they can sell these to laboratories for research for monetary profit. All of this is documented by David Daleiden and his undercover videos. Apparently, our posterity can fetch a good price in the marketplace.
“Posterity,” declared John Adams in a letter to his wife (4/26/1777), “You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent it in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”
Forget our posterity, say the modern humanists—only “we the born” have value today. Our forefathers sacrificed for their posterity—us. But “we the born” today sacrifice our posterity for our own (perceived) well-being, to our everlasting shame.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/dennis-acevedo-762843-unsplash-e1549500823678.jpg425640Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Newcombe, D. Min.2019-02-06 19:53:582019-02-06 19:53:59We the Born
I found, with a few exceptions, Ms. Abrams in the beginning to be very Trump like. For example, both Ms. Abrams and President Trump want safe schools. The difference is how they view this issue. For example, Ms. Adams’ party focuses on gun control, President Trump is focused on both protecting children and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Ms. Abrams talked about the middle class. President Trump talked about how the economy and how it is lifting up every American regardless of class. Ms. Abrams, despite the economic and jobs data, said “far too many hardworking Americans are falling behind living paycheck to paycheck most without labor unions to protect them.” She said the Republican tax bill “rigged the system” and “rather than bringing back jobs plants are closing,” “layoffs are looming,” “wages struggle to keep pace with the actual cost of living.”
How can this be?
Ms. Abrams attacked President Trump (the government shutdown) and the Republican leadership. President Trump did not attack any Democrat, rather he blamed both political parties for many of the crisis that his administration is currently facing. President Trump talked about public policies that have worked to make Americans and America prosperous and a clear vision for the future.
It appeared that Ms. Abrams holds the same values as President Trump of faith, family, community, hard work, opportunity, fairness and prosperity. However, their views of America are very, very different. Reality or politics?
Please watch Ms. Stacy Abrams give the Democratic Party response to the SOTU:
The difference between Ms. Abrams, who is not in office, and President Trump, who is the Commander-In-Chief, is between words and actions.
President Trump has a record of service albeit short as this is his first public office held. Ms. Abrams has held office longer serving in the Georgia legislature. Ms. Adams said that she disagreed with her Republican counterparts in the Georgia legislature but they got things done together to get things done. Will this message resonate with members of Congress from both parties? Time will tell.
February 15th is fast approaching. The continuing resolution with end. Will Democrats and Republicans unite to solve problems? Will it be compromise or resist?
The question is now what?
There are two distinct views of America presented by President Trump and Ms. Abrams. One moving forward and one moving backward. Watch both speeches. Make up your mind independently.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Stacey-Abrams-e1549460001937.jpg358640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-02-06 08:33:552019-02-06 08:42:46Stacey Abrams Democratic Party Response to the SOTU Sounded Trump Like
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS Remarks as prepared for delivery TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and my fellow Americans:
We meet tonight at a moment of unlimited potential. As we begin a new Congress, I stand here ready to work with you to achieve historic breakthroughs for all Americans.
Millions of our fellow citizens are watching us now, gathered in this great chamber, hoping that we will govern not as two parties but as one Nation.
The agenda I will lay out this evening is not a Republican agenda or a Democrat agenda. It is the agenda of the American people.
Many of us campaigned on the same core promises: to defend American jobs and demand fair trade for American workers; to rebuild and revitalize our Nation’s infrastructure; to reduce the price of healthcare and prescription drugs; to create an immigration system that is safe, lawful, modern and secure; and to pursue a foreign policy that puts America’s interests first.
There is a new opportunity in American politics, if only we have the courage to seize it. Victory is not winning for our party. Victory is winning for our country.
This year, America will recognize two important anniversaries that show us the majesty of America’s mission, and the power of American pride.
In June, we mark 75 years since the start of what General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the Great Crusade — the Allied liberation of Europe in World War II. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, 15,000 young American men jumped from the sky, and 60,000 more stormed in from the sea, to save our civilization from tyranny. Here with us tonight are three of those heroes: Private First Class Joseph Reilly, Staff Sergeant Irving Locker, and Sergeant Herman Zeitchik. Gentlemen, we salute you.
In 2019, we also celebrate 50 years since brave young pilots flew a quarter of a million miles through space to plant the American flag on the face of the moon. Half a century later, we are joined by one of the Apollo 11 astronauts who planted that flag: Buzz Aldrin. This year, American astronauts will go back to space on American rockets.
In the 20th century, America saved freedom, transformed science, and redefined the middle class standard of living for the entire world to see. Now, we must step boldly and bravely into the next chapter of this great American adventure, and we must create a new standard of living for the 21st century. An amazing quality of life for all of our citizens is within our reach.
We can make our communities safer, our families stronger, our culture richer, our faith deeper, and our middle class bigger and more prosperous than ever before.
But we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution — and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good.
Together, we can break decades of political stalemate. We can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions, and unlock the extraordinary promise of America’s future. The decision is ours to make.
We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction.
Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness.
Over the last 2 years, my Administration has moved with urgency and historic speed to confront problems neglected by leaders of both parties over many decades.
In just over 2 years since the election, we have launched an unprecedented economic boom — a boom that has rarely been seen before. We have created 5.3 million new jobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs — something which almost everyone said was impossible to do, but the fact is, we are just getting started.
Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I promised to fight for, faster than anyone else. Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps. The United States economy is growing almost twice as fast today as when I took office, and we are considered far and away the hottest economy anywhere in the world. Unemployment has reached the lowest rate in half a century. African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment for Americans with disabilities has also reached an all-time low. More people are working now than at any time in our history –- 157 million.
We passed a massive tax cut for working families and doubled the child tax credit.
We virtually ended the estate, or death, tax on small businesses, ranches, and family farms.
We eliminated the very unpopular Obamacare individual mandate penalty — and to give critically ill patients access to life-saving cures, we passed right to try.
My Administration has cut more regulations in a short time than any other administration during its entire tenure. Companies are coming back to our country in large numbers thanks to historic reductions in taxes and regulations.
We have unleashed a revolution in American energy — the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.
After 24 months of rapid progress, our economy is the envy of the world, our military is the most powerful on earth, and America is winning each and every day. Members of Congress: the State of our Union is strong. Our country is vibrant and our economy is thriving like never before.
On Friday, it was announced that we added another 304,000 jobs last month alone — almost double what was expected. An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations.
If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!
We must be united at home to defeat our adversaries abroad.
This new era of cooperation can start with finally confirming the more than 300 highly qualified nominees who are still stuck in the Senate – some after years of waiting. The Senate has failed to act on these nominations, which is unfair to the nominees and to our country.
Now is the time for bipartisan action. Believe it or not, we have already proven that it is possible.
In the last Congress, both parties came together to pass unprecedented legislation to confront the opioid crisis, a sweeping new Farm Bill, historic VA reforms, and after four decades of rejection, we passed VA Accountability so we can finally terminate those who mistreat our wonderful veterans.
And just weeks ago, both parties united for groundbreaking criminal justice reform. Last year, I heard through friends the story of Alice Johnson. I was deeply moved. In 1997, Alice was sentenced to life in prison as a first-time non-violent drug offender. Over the next two decades, she became a prison minister, inspiring others to choose a better path. She had a big impact on that prison population — and far beyond.
Alice’s story underscores the disparities and unfairness that can exist in criminal sentencing — and the need to remedy this injustice. She served almost 22 years and had expected to be in prison for the rest of her life.
In June, I commuted Alice’s sentence — and she is here with us tonight. Alice, thank you for reminding us that we always have the power to shape our own destiny.
When I saw Alice’s beautiful family greet her at the prison gates, hugging and kissing and crying and laughing, I knew I did the right thing.
Inspired by stories like Alice’s, my Administration worked closely with members of both parties to sign the First Step Act into law. This legislation reformed sentencing laws that have wrongly and disproportionately harmed the African-American community. The First Step Act gives non-violent offenders the chance to re-enter society as productive, law-abiding citizens. Now, States across the country are following our lead. America is a Nation that believes in redemption.
We are also joined tonight by Matthew Charles from Tennessee. In 1996, at age 30, Matthew was sentenced to 35 years for selling drugs and related offenses. Over the next two decades, he completed more than 30 Bible studies, became a law clerk, and mentored fellow inmates. Now, Matthew is the very first person to be released from prison under the First Step Act. Matthew, on behalf of all Americans: welcome home.
As we have seen, when we are united, we can make astonishing strides for our country. Now, Republicans and Democrats must join forces again to confront an urgent national crisis.
The Congress has 10 days left to pass a bill that will fund our Government, protect our homeland, and secure our southern border.
Now is the time for the Congress to show the world that America is committed to ending illegal immigration and putting the ruthless coyotes, cartels, drug dealers, and human traffickers out of business.
As we speak, large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States. We have just heard that Mexican cities, in order to remove the illegal immigrants from their communities, are getting trucks and buses to bring them up to our country in areas where there is little border protection. I have ordered another 3,750 troops to our southern border to prepare for the tremendous onslaught.
This is a moral issue. The lawless state of our southern border is a threat to the safety, security, and financial well‑being of all Americans. We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens. This includes our obligation to the millions of immigrants living here today, who followed the rules and respected our laws. Legal immigrants enrich our Nation and strengthen our society in countless ways. I want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally.
Tonight, I am asking you to defend our very dangerous southern border out of love and devotion to our fellow citizens and to our country.
No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration. Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards.
Meanwhile, working class Americans are left to pay the price for mass illegal migration — reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools and hospitals, increased crime, and a depleted social safety net.
Tolerance for illegal immigration is not compassionate — it is cruel. One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north. Smugglers use migrant children as human pawns to exploit our laws and gain access to our country.
Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery.
Tens of thousands of innocent Americans are killed by lethal drugs that cross our border and flood into our cities — including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl.
The savage gang, MS-13, now operates in 20 different American States, and they almost all come through our southern border. Just yesterday, an MS-13 gang member was taken into custody for a fatal shooting on a subway platform in New York City. We are removing these gang members by the thousands, but until we secure our border they’re going to keep streaming back in.
Year after year, countless Americans are murdered by criminal illegal aliens.
I’ve gotten to know many wonderful Angel Moms, Dads, and families – no one should ever have to suffer the horrible heartache they have endured.
Here tonight is Debra Bissell. Just three weeks ago, Debra’s parents, Gerald and Sharon, were burglarized and shot to death in their Reno, Nevada, home by an illegal alien. They were in their eighties and are survived by four children, 11 grandchildren, and 20 great-grandchildren. Also here tonight are Gerald and Sharon’s granddaughter, Heather, and great‑granddaughter, Madison.
To Debra, Heather, Madison, please stand: few can understand your pain. But I will never forget, and I will fight for the memory of Gerald and Sharon, that it should never happen again.
Not one more American life should be lost because our Nation failed to control its very dangerous border.
In the last 2 years, our brave ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of criminal aliens, including those charged or convicted of nearly 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 killings.
We are joined tonight by one of those law enforcement heroes: ICE Special Agent Elvin Hernandez. When Elvin was a boy, he and his family legally immigrated to the United States from the Dominican Republic. At the age of eight, Elvin told his dad he wanted to become a Special Agent. Today, he leads investigations into the scourge of international sex trafficking. Elvin says: “If I can make sure these young girls get their justice, I’ve done my job.” Thanks to his work and that of his colleagues, more than 300 women and girls have been rescued from horror and more than 1,500 sadistic traffickers have been put behind bars in the last year.
Special Agent Hernandez, please stand: We will always support the brave men and women of Law Enforcement — and I pledge to you tonight that we will never abolish our heroes from ICE.
My Administration has sent to the Congress a commonsense proposal to end the crisis on our southern border.
It includes humanitarian assistance, more law enforcement, drug detection at our ports, closing loopholes that enable child smuggling, and plans for a new physical barrier, or wall, to secure the vast areas between our ports of entry. In the past, most of the people in this room voted for a wall — but the proper wall never got built. I’ll get it built.
This is a smart, strategic, see-through steel barrier — not just a simple concrete wall. It will be deployed in the areas identified by border agents as having the greatest need, and as these agents will tell you, where walls go up, illegal crossings go way down.
San Diego used to have the most illegal border crossings in the country. In response, and at the request of San Diego residents and political leaders, a strong security wall was put in place. This powerful barrier almost completely ended illegal crossings.
The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our Nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities.
Simply put, walls work and walls save lives. So let’s work together, compromise, and reach a deal that will truly make America safe.
As we work to defend our people’s safety, we must also ensure our economic resurgence continues at a rapid pace.
No one has benefitted more from our thriving economy than women, who have filled 58 percent of the new jobs created in the last year. All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before — and exactly one century after the Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in the Congress than ever before.
As part of our commitment to improving opportunity for women everywhere, this Thursday we are launching the first ever Government-wide initiative focused on economic empowerment for women in developing countries.
To build on our incredible economic success, one priority is paramount — reversing decades of calamitous trade policies.
We are now making it clear to China that after years of targeting our industries, and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and wealth has come to an end.
Therefore, we recently imposed tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods — and now our Treasury is receiving billions of dollars a month from a country that never gave us a dime. But I don’t blame China for taking advantage of us — I blame our leaders and representatives for allowing this travesty to happen. I have great respect for President Xi, and we are now working on a new trade deal with China. But it must include real, structural change to end unfair trade practices, reduce our chronic trade deficit, and protect American jobs.
Another historic trade blunder was the catastrophe known as NAFTA.
I have met the men and women of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Hampshire, and many other States whose dreams were shattered by NAFTA. For years, politicians promised them they would negotiate for a better deal. But no one ever tried — until now.
Our new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — or USMCA — will replace NAFTA and deliver for American workers: bringing back our manufacturing jobs, expanding American agriculture, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that more cars are proudly stamped with four beautiful words: made in the USA.
Tonight, I am also asking you to pass the United States Reciprocal Trade Act, so that if another country places an unfair tariff on an American product, we can charge them the exact same tariff on the same product that they sell to us.
Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America’s crumbling infrastructure.
I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill — and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.
The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs — and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.
Already, as a result of my Administration’s efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years.
But we must do more. It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, unfair, and together we can stop it.
I am asking the Congress to pass legislation that finally takes on the problem of global freeloading and delivers fairness and price transparency for American patients. We should also require drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals to disclose real prices to foster competition and bring costs down.
No force in history has done more to advance the human condition than American freedom. In recent years we have made remarkable progress in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Scientific breakthroughs have brought a once-distant dream within reach. My budget will ask Democrats and Republicans to make the needed commitment to eliminate the HIV epidemic in the United States within 10 years. Together, we will defeat AIDS in America.
Tonight, I am also asking you to join me in another fight that all Americans can get behind: the fight against childhood cancer.
Joining Melania in the gallery this evening is a very brave 10-year-old girl, Grace Eline. Every birthday since she was 4, Grace asked her friends to donate to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. She did not know that one day she might be a patient herself. Last year, Grace was diagnosed with brain cancer. Immediately, she began radiation treatment. At the same time, she rallied her community and raised more than $40,000 for the fight against cancer. When Grace completed treatment last fall, her doctors and nurses cheered with tears in their eyes as she hung up a poster that read: “Last Day of Chemo.” Grace — you are an inspiration to us all.
Many childhood cancers have not seen new therapies in decades. My budget will ask the Congress for $500 million over the next 10 years to fund this critical life-saving research.
To help support working parents, the time has come to pass school choice for America’s children. I am also proud to be the first President to include in my budget a plan for nationwide paid family leave — so that every new parent has the chance to bond with their newborn child.
There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our Nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.
To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.
Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.
The final part of my agenda is to protect America’s National Security.
Over the last 2 years, we have begun to fully rebuild the United States Military — with $700 billion last year and $716 billion this year. We are also getting other nations to pay their fair share. For years, the United States was being treated very unfairly by NATO — but now we have secured a $100 billion increase in defense spending from NATO allies.
As part of our military build-up, the United States is developing a state-of-the-art Missile Defense System.
Under my Administration, we will never apologize for advancing America’s interests.
For example, decades ago the United States entered into a treaty with Russia in which we agreed to limit and reduce our missile capabilities. While we followed the agreement to the letter, Russia repeatedly violated its terms. That is why I announced that the United States is officially withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty.
Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can’t –- in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.
As part of a bold new diplomacy, we continue our historic push for peace on the Korean Peninsula. Our hostages have come home, nuclear testing has stopped, and there has not been a missile launch in 15 months. If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea with potentially millions of people killed. Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good one. And Chairman Kim and I will meet again on February 27 and 28 in Vietnam.
Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido.
We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom — and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair.
Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence –- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.
One of the most complex set of challenges we face is in the Middle East.
Our approach is based on principled realism — not discredited theories that have failed for decades to yield progress. For this reason, my Administration recognized the true capital of Israel — and proudly opened the American Embassy in Jerusalem.
Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East.
As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.
When I took office, ISIS controlled more than 20,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria. Today, we have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty killers.
Now, as we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.
I have also accelerated our negotiations to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan. Our troops have fought with unmatched valor — and thanks to their bravery, we are now able to pursue a political solution to this long and bloody conflict.
In Afghanistan, my Administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement — but we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace.
Above all, friend and foe alike must never doubt this Nation’s power and will to defend our people. Eighteen years ago, terrorists attacked the USS Cole — and last month American forces killed one of the leaders of the attack.
We are honored to be joined tonight by Tom Wibberley, whose son, Navy Seaman Craig Wibberley, was one of the 17 sailors we tragically lost. Tom: we vow to always remember the heroes of the USS Cole.
My Administration has acted decisively to confront the world’s leading state sponsor of terror: the radical regime in Iran.
To ensure this corrupt dictatorship never acquires nuclear weapons, I withdrew the United States from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. And last fall, we put in place the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a country.
We will not avert our eyes from a regime that chants death to America and threatens genocide against the Jewish people. We must never ignore the vile poison of anti-Semitism, or those who spread its venomous creed. With one voice, we must confront this hatred anywhere and everywhere it occurs.
Just months ago, 11 Jewish-Americans were viciously murdered in an anti-semitic attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. SWAT Officer Timothy Matson raced into the gunfire and was shot seven times chasing down the killer. Timothy has just had his 12th surgery — but he made the trip to be here with us tonight. Officer Matson: we are forever grateful for your courage in the face of evil.
Tonight, we are also joined by Pittsburgh survivor Judah Samet. He arrived at the synagogue as the massacre began. But not only did Judah narrowly escape death last fall — more than seven decades ago, he narrowly survived the Nazi concentration camps. Today is Judah’s 81st birthday. Judah says he can still remember the exact moment, nearly 75 years ago, after 10 months in a concentration camp, when he and his family were put on a train, and told they were going to another camp. Suddenly the train screeched to a halt. A soldier appeared. Judah’s family braced for the worst. Then, his father cried out with joy: “It’s the Americans.”
A second Holocaust survivor who is here tonight, Joshua Kaufman, was a prisoner at Dachau Concentration Camp. He remembers watching through a hole in the wall of a cattle car as American soldiers rolled in with tanks. “To me,” Joshua recalls, “the American soldiers were proof that God exists, and they came down from the sky.”
I began this evening by honoring three soldiers who fought on D-Day in the Second World War. One of them was Herman Zeitchik. But there is more to Herman’s story. A year after he stormed the beaches of Normandy, Herman was one of those American soldiers who helped liberate Dachau. He was one of the Americans who helped rescue Joshua from that hell on earth. Almost 75 years later, Herman and Joshua are both together in the gallery tonight — seated side-by-side, here in the home of American freedom. Herman and Joshua: your presence this evening honors and uplifts our entire Nation.
When American soldiers set out beneath the dark skies over the English Channel in the early hours of D-Day, 1944, they were just young men of 18 and 19, hurtling on fragile landing craft toward the most momentous battle in the history of war.
They did not know if they would survive the hour. They did not know if they would grow old. But they knew that America had to prevail. Their cause was this Nation, and generations yet unborn.
Why did they do it? They did it for America — they did it for us.
Everything that has come since — our triumph over communism, our giant leaps of science and discovery, our unrivaled progress toward equality and justice — all of it is possible thanks to the blood and tears and courage and vision of the Americans who came before.
Think of this Capitol — think of this very chamber, where lawmakers before you voted to end slavery, to build the railroads and the highways, to defeat fascism, to secure civil rights, to face down an evil empire.
Here tonight, we have legislators from across this magnificent republic. You have come from the rocky shores of Maine and the volcanic peaks of Hawaii; from the snowy woods of Wisconsin and the red deserts of Arizona; from the green farms of Kentucky and the golden beaches of California. Together, we represent the most extraordinary Nation in all of history.
What will we do with this moment? How will we be remembered? I ask the men and women of this Congress: Look at the opportunities before us! Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead. Our most exciting journeys still await. Our biggest victories are still to come. We have not yet begun to dream.
We must choose whether we are defined by our differences — or whether we dare to transcend them.
We must choose whether we will squander our inheritance — or whether we will proudly declare that we are Americans. We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown.
This is the time to re-ignite the American imagination. This is the time to search for the tallest summit, and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.
This is our future — our fate — and our choice to make. I am asking you to choose greatness.
No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together.
We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls. And we must always keep faith in America’s destiny — that one Nation, under God, must be the hope and the promise and the light and the glory among all the nations of the world!
Thank you. God Bless You, God Bless America, and good night!
THE WHITE HOUSE, February 5, 2019.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/state-of-the-union-2019-e1549455338298.png360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-02-06 07:15:512019-02-06 13:26:00President Donald J. Trump State of the Union Speech February 5, 2019
Naturalization of Palestinian diaspora in Arab countries is potentially the most significant element in Trump’s “ultimate deal”.
In recent weeks, rumors have been swirling as to the substance of the much anticipated “deal of the century”, billed by the Trump administration as a compelling blueprint for resolving the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has plagued the region for decades. Shrouded in secrecy, it has long been held under wraps by the White House, allegedly waiting for an opportune moment to unveil it.
In this regard, recent reports suggest that Trump may well be planning to present it publically soon after the upcoming elections in Israel in April. While most the attention—and speculation—has been focused on the concessions—principally the territorial ones—that the sides will purportedly be called upon to make, there is another element, just as significant—indeed, arguably more so—that is now being alluded to as comprising a central component of the “deal”. This is the naturalization of the Palestinian diaspora, numbering several million, resident for decades in various countries across the Arab world—particularly Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. This development is an upshot of the Trump administration’s laudable approach to the anomalous UN entity, UNRWA (The United Nation Relief and Works).
I have detailed elsewhere why UNRWA is such an egregious and injurious anomaly and what pernicious consequences result from this perverse situation. According, it will suffice here to point out that because of the unique (read “anomalous”) definition that UNRWA has for determining who is a refugee and mandate of how they are to be dealt with, the number of designated “refugees” has increased dramatically over time. This is in stark contradiction to all other groups of refugees in the world, who are under the auspices of another UN entity, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)—and whose numbers typically decrease over time.
In this matter, the US administration has—despite hitherto unexplained and inexplicable Israeli reluctance—exposed the fraudulent fiasco of UNRWA. As its erstwhile biggest benefactor, the US has retracted all funding from the organization. But more importantly, it has focused a glaring spotlight on the myth of the “Palestinian refugees” and the spectacularly inflated number of such alleged “refugees”—which even include those who have long acquired citizenship of some other country! This salutary US initiative has the potential to rescind the recognition of the bulk of the Palestinian diaspora as “refugees”.
Thus, even if they continue to receive international aid to help ameliorate their humanitarian situation, this will not be as potential returnees to their alleged homeland in Israel. Clearly, once the Palestinian diaspora is stripped of its fraudulent “refugee” status, the door is then open to settling them in third party countries, other than their claimed homeland, and to their naturalization as citizens of these counties—as is the case with other refugee groups in the world. In this regard, the Trump administration has reportedly undertaken an important initiative–see here; here; and here. According to these reports, President Trump has informed several Arab countries that he plans to disclose a citizenship plan for Palestinian refugees living in those countries.
Significantly, Palestinian sources told a London based news outlet:
“Trump informed several Arab countries that the plan will include Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.”
According to these sources: “the big surprise [is] that these countries have already agreed to naturalize Palestinian refugees.”
Moreover, it was reported that senior US officials are expected to seriously raise an American initiative with several Arab countries—including stipulation of the tools to implement it, the number of refugees, the required expenses, and the logistics demanded from hosting countries for supervising the process of “naturalization of refugees”. It is difficult to overstate the significance of such an initiative!
For, no matter what the other elements of the “ultimate deal” are, it has the potential to remove the ominous overhang of a five million strong (and counting) Palestinian diaspora that threatens to inundate the Jewish state and nullify its ability to function as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
It is therefore, an element that deserves firm support and encouragement—and should be resolutely pursued as a “stand alone” initiative—irrespective of how one envisages any prospective division of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/syria-1034467_640.jpg425640Dr. Martin Shermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Martin Sherman2019-02-06 06:50:452019-11-06 04:42:41Will Trump’s Mid East Deal Naturalize Palestinians in Arab Countries?
Years from now, when history looks back on the Democratic Party, one date will almost certainly stand out: July 25, 2016. That was the Tuesday, in the capital of the Revolution, when everything changed. For the first time in America’s 240 years, a major political party threw its full support behind one of the most savage and violent practices of the modern age: full-term, no-apologies abortion.
It’s just a party platform, some said. It doesn’t mean anything. Try telling that to Americans today, who watched in stunned silence last night as a leader of the U.S. Senate walked to the same floor where giants of freedom have stood and defended the killing of a perfect, fully-born child. It was not just a party platform when another senator, Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.), looked at the other side of the aisle and saw a group of men and women willing to “betray the universal truth of human dignity and [turn] the stomachs of civilized people… in every country on earth.” And it wasn’t just a party platform when, the only other time this issue came up for a vote, every Senate Democrat agreed: infanticide is wrong.
The moment Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) rose to her feet and objected to protecting the survivors of abortion will be a defining one for Democrats. It should have signified to everyone that the radicalization of the party that started in 2016 is now complete. And like so many others, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) could only look on in horror. “This is the world’s greatest deliberative body,” she said. But “there is nothing great, there is nothing moral or even humane, about the discussion that we have before us today.”
New Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) stood in disbelief. “Is this really the extremism of the Democratic party?” After decades of proving that there was still some scrap of moderation in their abortion agenda, liberals have thrown off any pretense of solemnity or restraint. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh debate, they’ve significantly overplayed their hand. “I can’t imagine a vision less just or less consistent with the goodness and compassion of the American people,” Hawley argued.
He’s right. “Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions ‘generally’ legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position,” Alexandra Desanctis warns. Less than a quarter of their own party is willing to follow them into the most radical terrain on abortion ever broached. “Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed.”
With almost an eerie detachment to the issue at hand, Murray tried to frame the bill as unnecessary. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed in her brief justification for stopping its passage. But, as so many have pointed out, only 26 states have “affirmative protections” for born-alive babies. Even if all 50 did, what’s the harm in reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to protecting these innocent survivors? Surely a party that can eat up hours of the legislative clock with a passionate plea to save the Delta Smelt can spare some sympathy for endangered children.
Even after yesterday’s disgrace, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no intentions of walking away from survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, who wouldn’t be alive today if Democrats got their way. Before the vote, McConnell cautioned that if the other side stopped the bill, it “would make quite a disturbing statement.” If they do, he vowed, “I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.”
To almost every American, “health care” does not include the killing of innocent newborns. “But in defending bills that expand the right to abort [living children], Democrats are giving away the game,” Desanctis predicts. “Most people, even those who favor some abortion access, instinctively recoil from what they see. These late-term abortion bills do more than reveal Democratic radicalism. They draw back the veil of euphemism to expose abortion for what it is: At every stage of pregnancy, it is the taking of a human life. For the anti-abortion movement, it is a pivotal moment to insist upon that truth.”
That’s where you come in. If you haven’t contacted your senators about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, make sure you do today. Let them know that extremists like Patty Murray stand alone!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/020519_murray_770x400-e1549416026479.jpg372640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-02-05 20:21:492019-04-17 06:38:35Killer Party: Dems Stand Alone on Infanticide
My previous article for FrontPage Magazine focused on specific threats to the United States that were linked to border security issues raised in the January 29, 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Worldwide Threats that was itself predicated on the Intelligence Community’s just-released World-Wide Threat Assessment.
I used the information disclosed at the hearing and contained in that threat assessment report about the dangers to America created by transnational criminal organizations and translational gangs such as MS-13 and the drug cartels in Mexico, as well as the crimes and activities of human traffickers that support the Trump administration’s demands for a border wall, a wall that unbelievably, the leaders of the Democratic Party adamantly oppose.
However, the report included much more material about other global threats that confront the United States and its interests. Simply stated, the world is a dangerous place.
Among the other threats addressed in the report were those posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Today we will take a hard look at China and how its aggressive and relentless pursuit of global dominance threatens America.
Before we go any further, we must remember that China is led by a totalitarian Communist regime that is not an ally but rather a serious adversary of the United States.
President Trump is the first American President in decades to take a strong position against Chinese transgressions against the United States where trade, currency manipulation and espionage are concerned.
China has moved swiftly to consolidate its stranglehold on its own citizens by politically eliminating presidential term limits and exploiting ever more sophisticated technological tools such as social media, facial recognition technology, and other such hi-tech means.
On January 13, 2019 CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a report on the developments in artificial intelligence (AI) brought about by venture capitalist Kai-Fu Lee’s investments and China’s effort to dominate the AI field.
There is no shortage of specific examples of Chinese espionage committed against the United States and U.S. companies. Such espionage has become so routine and commonplace that the U.S intelligence services have come to refer to this as “Chinese Take-Out”!
Frequently Chinese citizens who acquire lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship use that status to facilitate espionage against America and American companies.
Hongjin Tan, a 35 year old Chinese national and U.S. legal permanent resident, was arrested on Dec. 20 and charged with theft of trade secrets. Tan is alleged to have stolen the trade secrets from his employer, a U.S. petroleum company.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Trent Shores for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Special Agent in Charge Kathryn Peterson of the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office.
“Hongjin Tan allegedly stole trade secrets related to a product worth more than $1 billion from his U.S.-based petroleum company employer, to use for the benefit of a Chinese company where he was offered employment,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers. “The theft of intellectual property harms American companies and American workers. As our recent cases show, all too often these thefts involve the Chinese government or Chinese companies. The Department recently launched an initiative to protect our economy from such illegal practices emanating from China, and we continue to make this a top priority.”
On January 28, 2019 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a press release, Chinese telecommunications conglomerate Huawei and Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng charged with financial fraud.
On that same day, January 28th, the Justice Department issued a press release about the same investigation, Chinese Telecommunications Device Manufacturer and its U.S. Affiliate Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets, Wire Fraud, and Obstruction Of Justice /Huawei Corporate Entities Conspired to Steal Trade Secret Technology and Offered Bonus to Workers who Stole Confidential Information from Companies Around the World.
Besides imposing tariffs against Chinese imports, President Trump has also imposed restrictions on Chinese students who are studying in the United States. This was the focus of my article, “Trump Administration Restricts Chinese Students – Finally, America confronts a massive espionage operation.”
This is a welcome change by the administration to protect America and Americans. I have written several articles about Chinese espionage and belligerence and how, for decades, our universities have been training foreign students who seek to exploit our educational system to further the goals and agendas of America’s adversaries, including hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students who, as they acquire first-rate education in the United States, have been able to work for American companies under the auspices of Optional Practical Training that enables foreign students to apply their training and education in real world jobs for American companies in the United States. This program has facilitated Chinese espionage against American companies including ones that have military contracts.
These long-overdue efforts of the Trump administration should be cheered and supported by all Americans and even American allies around the world who should take similar actions.
Three of my relatively recent articles highlight China’s massive espionage campaign against the United States:
When American companies, in a quest for cheap labor and reduced regulation, have set up factories in China, China has seized the opportunity to engage in industrial espionage against those companies proving that sometimes short-term savings cost more, often much more, in the end.
In some instances, American companies have voluntarily cooperated with China’s totalitarian regime. For example, Google has been enlisted by the Chinese government to help crack down on civil liberties in China against its own citizens even as Google actively and aggressively opposes any efforts by the U.S. government to protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorists.
My recent article “Google vs Border Security” referenced an article published by The Intercept, titled, “Google Plans To Launch Censored Search Engine In China, Leaked Documents Reveal.”
Eager to do lucrative business in China, Google was willing to “go along to get along” while its dealing with the U.S. government went in precisely the opposite direction.
A September 21, 2018, Newsweek article, “Google Brainstormed Ways To Combat Trump’s Travel Ban By Leveraging Search Results For Pro-Immigration Causes,” included the following excerpt: “Google, along with Apple, Facebook and other technology companies, filed a joint amicus brief challenging the travel ban, stating that it “inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.“
Now let’s turn to the Threat Assessment. Consider this excerpt that is found on pages 24 and 25:
China
The Chinese Communist Party’s Concentration of Power
China is deepening its authoritarian turn under President Xi Jinping, and the resulting hardening of Chinese politics and governance probably will make it more difficult for the leadership to recognize and correct policy errors, including in relations with the United States and our allies and partners.
President Xi removed one of the few remaining checks on his authority when he eliminated presidential term limits in March 2018, and the Chinese Communist Party has reasserted control over the economy and society, tightened legal and media controls, marginalized independent voices, and intensified repression of Chinese Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities.
The Chinese Government also is harnessing technology, including facial recognition, biometrics, and vehicle GPS tracking, to bolster its apparatus of domestic monitoring and control.
Beijing’s increasing restrictions on scholars’ and researchers’ freedom of movement and communication with US counterparts may increase the prospects for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of US policies.
Universities in the United States have been willing to accept Chinese demands for changes in curricula in exchange for funding from China. On January 17, 2018 Politico published a report, How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms that begins with this passage:
Last year, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte made an announcement to great fanfare: The university would soon open a branch of the Confucius Institute, the Chinese government-funded educational institutions that teach Chinese language, culture and history. The Confucius Institute would “help students be better equipped to succeed in an increasingly globalized world,” says Nancy Gutierrez, UNC Charlotte’s dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and “broaden the University’s outreach and support for language instruction and cultural opportunities in the Charlotte community,” according to a press release.
But the Confucius Institutes’ goals are a little less wholesome and edifying than they sound—and this is by the Chinese government’s own account. A 2011 speech by a standing member of the Politburo in Beijing laid out the case: “The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding our culture abroad,” Li Changchun said. “It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”
Li, it now seems, was right to exult. More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.
Yet along with their growth have come consistent questions about whether the institutes belong on campuses that profess to promote free inquiry. Confucius Institutes teach a very particular, Beijing-approved version of Chinese culture and history: one that ignores concerns over human rights, for example, and teaches that Taiwan and Tibet indisputably belong to Mainland China. Take it from the aforementioned Li, who also said in 2009 that Confucius Institutes are an “important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” Critics also charge that the centers have led to a climate of self-censorship on campuses that play host to them.
Remarkably, even as Antifa thugs and university administrations seek to block American conservatives from providing their perspectives on college campuses across the United States, Communist China’s outrageous propaganda is embraced and welcomed on American college campuses.
Lenin has been quoted as saying, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Today there is a fire sale on rope in America and it must end. The sooner the better!
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rter-e1549404642645.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2019-02-05 17:10:512019-02-05 17:10:53Chinese Aggression Against the U.S.A.
“Booker announced bright and early this morning that he’s running for president. We all know he was running months ago when he started grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearings. Spartacus showed his true beliefs back then: He’s another gun-grabbing, Trump-despising liberal who’s out for power at all costs.” —Grant Stinchfield
EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/COREY-BOOKER-NRA.jpg338600NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2019-02-05 16:58:162019-02-05 16:58:16VIDEO: The Disarmament Primary Is Gearing Up for Its Own Spartacus Moment
Sifting through the internet’s conjecture and extracting the economic truth.
f you have spent much time on Facebook the last few days, you may have seen this meme being passed around from a user named Thomas Corbett:
It has already been shared over 109,000 times, and it is just one of a number of similar viral claims regarding minimum wage and housing from people engaged in the #FightFor15 (or I suppose #FightFor33 if you’re the New York Times).
Others include this one from @pookleblinkie on Twitter with over 60,200 retweets:
They each make the case that housing is unaffordable for people working minimum wage jobs, largely in service of the overall case to raise the federally mandated wage floor.
So what’s wrong with these memes?
As it turns out… quite a bit.
Fake Numbers
One major red flag that should be immediately apparent is that the numbers for all three viral images are completely different. The first claims that the average rent is $1,418, the second claims $1,234, and the third is presented more circuitously but implicitly claims $1,018.
The NLIHC graphic comes close, but the latest numbers show that as of 2017, the real median rent in the United States was $1,012 per month. This makes Thomas Corbett’s rental price claim 40 percent higher than reality and it makes the one from “pookleblinkie” about 22 percent higher, so we can dismiss both of those as factually off-base from the start.
NLIHC’s website states that their source for housing prices is HUD’s “Fair Market Rents” database, so for the sake of argument, I’m happy to overlook any minor discrepancies there. To their credit, they also show a state-by-state comparison, which is important because the average cost of living varies significantly depending on what part of the country you’re in.
That said, even state-by-state data is probably insufficient as the significant cost of living differences are found between urban, suburban, and rural areas. Not merely based on what state you happen to live in.
Still, the idea that low-income earners have absolutely no way to afford housing is a popular belief, and even if the median rent for the United States is $1,012 a month, that would still be well out of range for someone earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour. In fact, even if 100 percent of the minimum wage earner’s income went into housing—which is clearly impossible—they still would not be able to afford a home at all.
But here’s where we see another serious flaw in the argument.
We’re not comparing apples to apples.
Bottoms Versus Middles
It makes no sense to compare median rental prices to the lowest possible wages. It would only make sense to compare the bottom of the wage distribution to the bottom of the rent distribution. Making a more accurate comparison reveals a completely different picture. For instance, when we compare median rental prices to the median household income in the United States for 2017, we find that the annual cost of renting would be $12,144 on a salary of $60,336/year.
That means that the median rental price is only 20 percent of the median household income.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe there’s any way to break down rental home price data by quintile, but anyone familiar with the concept of a “median” knows that it is the number that falls in the middle of the data distribution.
This means that just as there are an immense number of rental homes that cost significantly higher than $1,012/mo. throughout America, there are an equal number of rental homes that cost less than $1,012/mo. There are also a number of housing options that make a lot more sense than trying to rent a place by yourself as someone working a single minimum wage job.
What’s so Tragic about Roommates?
As someone who has spent his entire adult life post-bachelor’s degree living in expensive major cities (New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Atlanta), I had roommates in every apartment I lived in long after my wages exceeded minimum wage. This is perfectly normal, and sharing costs is hardly something to see as a hardship or a social justice issue. As an added bonus, some of my former roommates are still close friends.
Another way to reduce living expenses is to rent a single room in an existing house—something I have also done at various points in my life. That can bring rental expenses down to the low hundreds of dollars per month even in city centers.
And speaking of city centers, the closer you live to the hub of urban activity, the more expensive rental prices are going to be, so expanding your apartment search to homes that are farther away and commuting in can also save hundreds of dollars a month on rent.
Like many adults, I’ve used each of these approaches to pay less than the median rental price in multiple cities, and I don’t think anyone should regard any of these experiences as humiliating or cruel. To the contrary, they are all frugal ways to make the most of your income.
This is also to say nothing of policy changes that would make new home construction more affordable and less time-consuming by streamlining the permitting processes, reducing zoning restrictions, reducing the number of aspects of the process that require city approval, and just generally lowering the barriers to building. Those kinds of policies would pave the way (pun intended) for an increase in the supply of new homes, which would reduce the cost of existing properties.
Tragically, the inaccurate cost claims are not the only major errors embedded in these images. They’re also more subtly deceptive regarding the demographics of minimum wage earners themselves.
Teens and Twenties
Each of these memes suggests or implies that minimum wage workers are primarily adults with families who have only one income-earner. They also imply that a significant number of people are stuck in minimum wage jobs for their entire lives. And from the way our society frequently talks about minimum wage earners, you’d think that they were a massive group of people.
None of these implications are accurate.
In fact, just 2.6 percent of all wage and salary workers in the United States are working at minimum wage occupations. The overwhelming majority of our workforce earns more than minimum wage. What’s more, 50.4 percent of people working minimum wage jobs are under 25 years old, and 24 percent are still teenagers (16-19). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.
Furthermore, people who work minimum wage jobs are far more likely to be unmarried/never-married, to lack a high school diploma (hardly a surprise when a large portion are still in high school), and most—64 percent—are working part-time. If when you picture minimum wage workers, you think of the high school or college-aged kid working at a grocery store or a quick-service food restaurant, your picture is pretty accurate.
That’s not to say that there aren’t older people with children trying to support themselves on minimum wage jobs. There are, but they are comparatively rare. Only about 15 percent of all minimum wage workers are the primary provider for a family with one or more children. That’s just 0.39 percent of the total workforce, which is around 600,000 people in the entire United States.
And of course, that group certainly qualifies for numerous forms of public assistance, including EBT and housing subsidies—which has not been factored into any of these memes either.
I know this has been a lot of statistics and math, but my goal is to arm the valiant readers who have made it to the end of this article with some better information and some logic so that when you’re browsing Facebook and come across misleading memes, you’re better able to spot the errors.
Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/woman-on-computer-laughing-min-e1549403195772.jpg427640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-02-05 16:46:492019-02-05 20:14:47Minimum Wage Memes: What They Miss and How They Mislead
Capitalism is not “a system of competition” any more than any other system.
Capitalism has often been described as “a system of competition” by its adversaries, or a system “based on competition.” Naturally, this assertion is usually coupled with a spirited oration on how this “tooth ‘n’ nail” competition psychologically corrupts us—pitting man against man in a “race to the bottom.”
Many of capitalism’s most vocal advocates have themselves imbibed this premise uncritically. They leap to a fervent defense of competition, extolling its virtues—real or perceived. In my view, this is a mistake. To accept without evaluation the presupposition that capitalism is a system of competition—in contrast to other hypothetical systems of cooperation (namely socialism and communism)—is to frame the very debate itself in leftist terms and play the game on an unfairly tilted gameboard.
Competition Is Fierce for Government-Controlled Resources
This is not to say that those who defend competition do not raise some worthy points. For example: If not competition, then what is the alternative? Is there to be one central provider of each good and service available who gets to decide on our behalf how it is best to be produced and then allocated?
Adding to that, if competition is wrong in the market, then why not in the political sphere? Surely democracy is out of the question if competition is a corrupting factor—because what do political candidates do if not compete for office? Think of the competition this generates between political parties, not to mention the ensuing competition between firms and individuals for preferential treatment from politicians and legislators and competition between lobbyists, think-tanks, and voters to receive benefits out of the public purse.
If the free and voluntary section of society is a system of competition, how much more so is government? Surely democracy is a “system of competition.” Politicians are competing for the very machinations of control in our society. For the right to pass and enforce laws that apply to everyone (whether they agree with them or not) and to force them to pay for their enforcement. They are not simply competing for market share where the winner of the competition is the one that satisfies the most demand.
We can sidestep the more mundane economic arguments in favor of competition for the moment, such as the case that it increases efficiency and cheapens goods while driving innovation, as we are all familiar with them already.
Capitalism Is About Voluntary Exchange
This is not to say that competition is necessarily an evil, either. The problem lies in defining capitalism as “a system of competition”—in comparison to other systems that are supposedly “cooperative”—is a rhetorical ploy. Those who profess it may honestly believe it to be so, but it’s not true. Capitalism is not “a system of competition” any more than any other system. Capitalism (at least in its free-market, laissez-faire ideal) is a system of the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the absence of physical coercion, theft, compulsion or fraud, predicated upon the fundamental right to own and accumulate property.
Or, for brevity: Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange predicated upon the right to own property.
One might even venture, therefore, that it is capitalism that is the system most characterized by cooperation.
Granted, upon seeing this definition, many would still debate us over the morality of accumulating property. Or perhaps whether the “negative” right to ownership when it comes to the rich should take precedence over the “positive” right to healthcare or education at their expense when it comes to the poor. We can even debate whether the relationship between capitalists and their employees is really free of coercion given the power disparity between the two groups. Indeed, these are debates I delight in exploring further. However, none of this is a justification for defining capitalism as a system that is more competition-based than others.
Because Scarcity Exists, Competition Will Always Exist Under Any System
After all, it is not the presence of private property or the free exchange of goods that creates the presence of competition in a capitalist system. Scarcity causes that. In any situation of scarcity of resources, there is bound to be some form of competition over those resources (as well as over how those resources are allocated).
If we have a system that allows voluntary exchange, some competition is bound to arise out of that, but that would happen under any system. Even if you had a completely communistic society that was centrally planned and involved no exchange of money whatsoever, people’s time would still be limited. If you were a filmmaker in this society, you would probably want as many people to see your films as possible, as would every other filmmaker. This would put you at least somewhat in competition with them. Does this mean that communism, too, is a system of competition?
Certainly, you would be competing for the only customer—the sponsorship of the state. Corruption and cronyism would surely be the result. Who gets their film made and who doesn’t? Who allocates the highly desirable job of being a filmmaker over the undesirable job of being a street-sweeper or refuse collector, and how can their favor be courted? The competition will commence, but instead of being decided by the free and voluntary exchange of filmgoers, investors, and filmmakers, it will be decided by someone else, I would argue, in a rather more authoritarian fashion. (For a particularly vivid and chilling illustration of how communism substitutes market competition over customers —which is at least tied to the provision of desirable services—for the completely unmeritocratic competition over gaining favor from the corrupt power structure of the state, I refer the reader to Ayn Rand’s first novel, We The Living.)
Competition is just a feature of living in a world of scarcity, and it would exist in any system. Socialism cannot do away with competition—nor can any other system.
Opportunity Cost Means Competition Is Everywhere
The implications of these facts reach into any circumstances of scarcity beyond the economy. For example, suppose two friends each invite me over to dinner for an evening. I might have to make a choice between their invitations, which will result in one of them losing out on my company. Does this then mean that friendship is a system of competition?
We can’t see all of our friends all of the time, or even all of them at the same time. Even if we do, we are bound to have to split our attention among them. In addition to that, we can only maintain so many close friendships at once, and we definitely can’t be friends with everyone. All of this means that, inevitably, we have to make choices.
We each make decisions on who to make and maintain friendships with based upon our value judgments, conscious or unconscious. Perhaps based on how happy we feel around them, how long we have known one another, how much we have in common, how much we trust someone or how loyal they have shown themselves to be, how much they educate, enrich, or enlighten us, or perhaps based upon what roles they allow us to fulfill in their lives. There can be countless other reasons. The fact is we decide.
People who feel that they will benefit from our company, for whatever reason, will make attempts to spend time with us. We will invariably begin to make choices about who to spend time with based upon our values, schedule, and what other activities we are willing to sacrifice to see them. These are basic facts of life, but they hardly make friendship a system of competition.
Similarly, in the market, our time and resources are limited. We make value-based judgments about choices of products and services to consume based upon what utility we think they will bring to us, sacrificing some options for others. Maybe we will choose a coffee shop based on which has the best-tasting coffee, or maybe based on which provides the nicest atmosphere, or maybe based on which is closest, or where the customer service is best, or which is the cheapest, or which we have gone to the longest and therefore find familiar, or perhaps even based on which we think has the best ethos—for example, because they are a social enterprise that only sells fair trade produce and deliberately seeks to employ and train disadvantaged people. The fact is we decide.
Each service provider believes they will benefit from our custom and will make attempts to attract us, placing an upward pressure on the quality of services and a downward pressure on price, which we may correctly identify as a form of competition. Since human beings are not infallible, sometimes someone might buy a coffee that they don’t end up liking, but over the long-term, the competition is likely to be won by the satisfaction of customers.
The Benefits of Free Choice
The miraculous wonder we miss when we focus our attention upon the competition, which derives from choice, is the ability to choose, itself. For example, suppose two commercial events are being held on the same evening. Each prospective patron will want to choose whichever event appeals to them the most, and for whatever reasons they choose based upon what they value in an event. Now, to simply mention that these events are “in competition” would be to completely miss the crucial point that event-goers (who are in the majority compared to event organizers) have a choice of two events which they may prefer to go to one of rather than one alone.
In fact, there is actually farmore cooperationinvolved in providing people with goods and services than there is competition. To accomplish anything in the marketplace, one must cooperate with buyers, sellers, managers, employees, suppliers, customers, advertisers, promoters, marketers, collective buyers, and so on.
Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, illustrated this in his most famous essay, “I, Pencil,” first published in 1958. In it, he notes that not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make a pencil. He goes onto explain that the cedarwood is sourced from Oregon and the logs milled in California. The graphite is mined in Ceylon, mixed with clay from Mississippi, and then treated with a hot mixture that includes candelilla wax from Mexico to increase its strength and smoothness. The six coats of lacquer come separately from the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil. In fact, when you include those who manufacture and transport the equipment involved in these processes, you cannot help but marvel at the fact that millions of people have a hand in its creation. They are working in concert, in cooperation, and as a result, you can get a pencil for pennies.
Market Competition Brings Choice Out of Scarcity
Because people make choices with scarce resources and limited time, competition will be an inherent part of any economic system so long as there is scarcity. The primary feature of free-market capitalism is not competition, but choice. Rather than moderate the amount of competition in an economy, state intervention will replace competition to serve customers and convince them to voluntarily spend their money on a wide array of ever-expanding goods and services. We can contrast this with other systems in which competition rages over who can gain the favor of those who control the levers of government. That is where the real “tooth and nail” begins.
Antony Sammeroff co-hosts the Scottish Liberty Podcast and has featured prominently on other libertarian-themed shows, including The Tom Woods Show, Lions of Liberty, the School Sucks Podcast, and many more.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: MaxPixel.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/screen-shot-2019-01-29-at-114842-am-e1549400981558.png342640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-02-05 16:24:462019-02-05 16:24:48Freedom of Choice—Not Competition—Is What Sets Capitalism Apart
Joshua Trump, a 6th grade Delaware student bullied by his fellow students for sharing a last name with President Donald Trump, has been invited by the White House to attend the State of the Union address.
“Unfortunately, Joshua has been bullied in school due to his last name,” read a statement from the office of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. “He is thankful to the First Lady and the Trump family for their support.”
First lady Melania Trump’s “Be Best” initiative focuses on the physical and mental health of children, including reducing bullying.
The 11-year-old made news in December when he reportedly started going by Joshua Berto, his father’s surname, in an attempt to stave off bullying from classmates.
“They curse at him, they call him an idiot, they call him stupid,” his mother, Megan Trump, told ABC.
At one point, Joshua’s father, Bobby Berto, homeschooled his son for a year because of the bullying.
The Pennsylvania-based group Teach Anti-Bullying awarded Joshua the “Medal of Courage” in December and encouraged him to keep his name.
Joshua Trump will join other notable guests of the president and first lady, including holocaust survivor Judah Samet, freed prisoners Alice Johnson and Matthew Charles, and child cancer survivor Grace Eline.
COLUMN BY
Scott Morefield
Scott Morefield is a freelance reporter at The Daily Caller and a weekly columnist at Townhall. Additionally, Scott’s editorial columns have been featured on National Review, The Federalist, TheBlaze, Breitbart, WND, The Hill, and many other sites. Follow Scott on Twitter.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-clapping-e1549372375305.jpg391640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2019-02-05 08:13:062019-02-17 05:17:52Trump Invites Boy To SOTU — He Was Bullied For Sharing His Last Name
In the wake of the 2016 election which justifiably trashed the hopes of Hillary Clinton and radical feminists, the progressive Democrat juggernaut is firing up an even bigger hate machine for 2020. In desperation, they went all the way back to 1985 to get the parts for this machine.
Biblical Christianity is grossly perverted in the narrative, and is deceptively associated with the same kind of barbaric tactics used to control women in Islamic countries. Men are portrayed as using women for surrogate sexual slavery in a misogynistic repressive patriarchy, with painful and violent penalties for non-compliance.
“The Handmaid’s Tale” is disguised as a story about women being victimized by brutal men practicing a Puritanical hierarchical model of Old Testament-inspired social and religious fanaticism, supposedly based on the biblical story of Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah. In reality, the entire production is a satanically-crafted dialectic of nightmarish visceral propaganda aimed at undermining men and discrediting religion. A dialectic is the portrayal of two opposing forces or ideas. Dialectics is concerned with or acting through conflict. Thus a dialectician is one skilled at pitting two groups against each other in order in order to act through them to bring about “change” or “progress.” This is how Marxist class warfare operates, and it is clearly and abundantly evident in this deeply troubling TV series.
Set in the near-term future, this fictional narrative depicts a feminist dystopian America in which a Christian fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship rules America after a nuclear civil war which kills the President and most of Congress. The new regime, a militant groupnamed “The Sons of Jacob,” reorganizes America into a fascist form of police-state government known as the Republic of Gilead, and institutes a caste system for women with color-coded dress, based upon whether they are fertile to bear children. In the series, the birthrate has collapsed due to infertility caused by pollution and disease. The fertile women are subjugated as “handmaids” for child-bearing servitude by government officials, and forced to wear blood-red capes and white bonnets. Infertile women are enslaved to perform menial tasks and hazardous work. The “handmaids” are also forced to commit ritualized group murder of certain individuals which the government considers undesirable. Lesbians, homosexuals, and transgender individuals are brutally executed. Dead bodies are left to rot, hanging in public as a stark warning to anyone daring to oppose The Sons of Jacob and the Republic of Gilead.
The highly graphic scenes (WARNING: not for viewing by children) portray women being beaten, burned, raped, or hanged and drowned for insubordination or disobedience. A single message permeates the series: men are superior and women are to be subservient, or face violent consequences. The film-making style is diabolically designed to evoke dialectic emotions of hate between men and women. The target audience is women, with the subliminal intent of compelling them to revile men and religion.
The timing of this TV series, and remarks made by author Margaret Atwood confirm that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is intended to get women to rise up to reverse the results of the 2016 election in 2020. The author, Margaret Atwood, speaks of the TV series as a form ofpushing back against Donald Trump and conservatives. She claims that America under Donald Trump is trending toward the fictional Republic of Gilead portrayed in the story, so this is a rallying call for women to rise up in 2020. The fake news network CNN says that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is Trump’s America. The TV series even cleverly attempts to convince conservative women that by prioritizing religious faith and homemaking over feminist equality, they are denying themselves any stake in their own future.
A careful analysis of “The Handmaid’s Tale” requires us to reflect very purposefully on the malevolent agenda behind this narrative. The program content and subliminal message is of course, total propaganda, but nonetheless expertly crafted. Women are not truly abused by Biblical Christianity nor generally subjugated by men in our society. But our mortal adversaries, the Cultural Marxists, are experts at crafting effective propaganda to achieve their agenda. That’s how we got feminism in the first place, and with it contraception and abortion on demand. Likewise, homosexual marriage and transgenderism have been imposed on America using the same tactics of misinformation driven home by the media and Hollywood.
The ultimate Progressive goal is to lay the foundation for a so-called “utopian” future when the Marxists (not the Christians) will be the authoritarians in positions of power, and everyone else will be subjugated and deprived of liberty. One means to this end is the propaganda trick of Dialectics, as employed in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” if we remain sufficiently comatose to fall for the clever deception.
TAKE-AWAY LESSON:
If we underestimate our adversaries, we are destined to be dominated and enslaved by them. In a most ironic twist, the dystopian message of “The Handmaid’s Tale” applies to all Americans today, but not in the sense depicted by author Margaret Atwood. This fictional narrative is a grim warning to anyone wanting to preserve liberty and our way of life, not from fictional threats by Christians, but from the real and relentless Cultural Marxists whose tactic has always been “the end justifies the means.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/handmadens-tale.jpg474724James Michael Francis Komaniecki, P.E.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJames Michael Francis Komaniecki, P.E.2019-02-05 07:31:342019-02-05 07:54:09Manhood and Biblical Christianity are Poisoned by “The Handmaid’s Tale”
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that allows partial birth abortion, infanticide. Governor Cuomo was so proud of the legislation that he “directed One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink to celebrate signing the Reproductive Health Act.”
“The Catholic Church is discussing as to whether New York Governor Cuomo should be excommunicated from the church for signing the state’s new abortion bill,” he explained to his nearly two million followers. “This law allows for the murder of unborn children up until the day of their birth.”
“I call on my friend Cardinal Dolan to take a moral stand,” continued Graham. “Whether it moves the governor’s calloused heart or not, it will have a great impact on not only the church in New York, but on the church worldwide.”
“It’s about standing for right over wrong, good over evil,” he added.
Graham then quoted Albany Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, “I don’t see it as something to celebrate … the kind of procedures that now are possible in New York state, we wouldn’t even do to a dog or a cat. … It’s torture.”
First, Cardinal Dolan states that “excommunication should not be used as a weapon.” However, most people are calling for excommunication because Governor Cuomo has committed a highly visible immoral offense and celebrates it.
Second, Cardinal Dolan states “the cannon does not support excommunication for pro-abortion politicians.” However, some cannon lawyers disagree. C. 1364 provides the same penalty for heresy—“the obstinate denial or doubt after baptism of some truth which is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”
Third, Cardinal Dolan states “clergy should address the situation with the parishioner privately.” However, Cardinal Dolan has done that but Governor Cuomo continues to push back publicly.
Fourth, Cardinal Dolan states “excommunication would not be effective as many politicians would welcome it as a sign of their refusal to be ‘bullied by the Church,’ thinking it would therefore give them a political advantage.” However, enforcing church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life and celebration of immorality should be the priority over concern about how politicians may use excommunication to their advantage.
Article 5: The Fifth Commandment You shall not kill. 54
I. Respect for Human Life
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. 72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. 73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. 74
Governor Cuomo’s public enthusiasm for this legislation is extreme, in the Catholic Church’s face, and far from the average pro-abortion politician. Cuomo went well beyond approving the legislation by celebrating its depravity. Now other states are considering similar heinous legislation as progressives see how far left they can push their agenda against Judeo-Christian values.
The National Catholic Register published an article by Monsignor Charles Pope titled: “Catholic Abortion Supporters Like Cuomo Must Face Penalties.” The article states in part: “There comes a time when something is so egregious and boldly sinful that it must be met with strong ecclesial and canonical penalties and remedies. It is time to end the charade, even the lie, that Andrew Cuomo and others like him are Catholics in good standing. They are not, and this must be made plain to them and to others.”
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to encourage Cardinal Timothy Dolan to excommunicate New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for his egregious and boldly immoral support for partial birth abortion, infanticide..
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/excommunicate-cuomo.jpg382640Florida Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Association2019-02-05 06:53:022019-02-05 14:06:56Encourage Cardinal Dolan to excommunicate Governor Cuomo for signing legislation that allows infanticide.
Note:There’s so much happening in the Church and the nation on abortion that we thought it right to run two columns today. Michael Pakaluk argues that the brazenness of the New York State law may actually make overturning Roe v. Wade more likely as people come to see how extreme abortion supporters have become. Anthony Francois, who has worked on related issues on the state and national level, explains that Cardinal Dolan’s refusal to excommunicate Andrew Cuomo may make sense – IF it’s part of a larger strategy (so far not in sight) that will actually build up Catholic resistance. There’s much food for thought here on the key human rights issue of our time. – Robert Royal
Roe’s Imminent Demise
By Michael Pakaluk
When I teach about abortion, I start with a poll. “How many of you believe that abortion is legal only for the first three months of pregnancy?” All the students raise their hands – naturally enough, because this is what the media has repeatedly told them.
I then go to my computer, connected to an overhead projector, and search on “late-term abortion near me.” The search comes up with clinics in one’s own neighborhood offering abortions up to 24 or even 36 weeks.
For example, in Washington, DC, Capital Women’s Services explains under its pull-down tab for Late Term Abortions that it “offers late-term abortion care up to 36 weeks under certain circumstances, such as for fetal or maternal indications.”
That’s a devilishly obscure phrase, “Maternal indications.” The clinic explains, “The U.S. Supreme Court, in its classic Roe v. Wade Decision, ruled that abortions are legal at any gestation to preserve the life or the health of the woman.” (Note the finesse of language: “at any gestation,” not “at any gestational age,” as the latter raises the awkward question, whose age?)
Well, they at least get Roe v. Wade. And “health” as defined in Roe’s companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, brought in psychological and socioeconomic considerations as included under “health.”
The website goes on: “Maternal health problems can be very distressing in themselves, and doubly upsetting because they can sometimes mean that a pregnancy cannot be continued. These are tragic situations, and we will always respect the right of a woman to make her own medical decisions regarding her own life, her own body, and her own family.”
Sure, humanity dictates that women will not usually abort their babies at eight months because of a runny nose. And there are undeniably tragic cases, not to be minimized. But suppose the mother wants an abortion at 32-weeks “gestation” because her boyfriend has just abandoned her, and getting up three times a night to go to the bathroom now seems completely unbearable?
“We will always respect your decision,” the clinic says flatly. They will insist on a consultation, of course, and charge extra money, but the abortion will be available.
After that, I show my class pictures of unborn children at 32 or 36 weeks. Then I go to a website which gives the description, from an abortion textbook, of a D&X abortion (“dilation and extraction”), or a “partial birth” abortion. Invariably the response from my students is the same: shock and utter disbelief. “How can they allow that?” “ How can this be legal?”
Cheers for New York’s abortion bill
The correct answer is not so much that it is legal as that it is not illegal. It once was illegal, but the Supreme Court held that no authority of law could deem it illegal.
My students naturally elide “allowed” to “legal.” The old legal philosophers said that there were three acts of law: to forbid, to require, or to permit. Anything under law had to be deemed one of these three. We are “one nation, under law,” after all. So, in the face of the grisly reality of late-term abortion – my students implicitly infer – some authority must have decided that these acts belonged in the “permitted” category, not the “forbidden” category. But, strictly, no: what Roe did was declare null the laws which made such things forbidden. It did not replace these laws with a new law, which said what was permitted and on what grounds. Strictly, it created zones of lawlessness.
This is why I am actually heartened by the recent law in New York and the prospect of similar laws in Vermont and Virginia. I believe such laws make it more likely that Roe will be overturned, and they will hasten the passage of laws that will outlaw abortion.
There was something safely popular about Roe’s merely striking down a hindrance. Roe had always shared the appeal of the nonsensical mantra, “it is forbidden to forbid.” No one likes saying no per se; saying nos imply to no, then, looks like an easy win. And one could also always feign a surprise at the consequences, a lack of responsibility for what followed. (“I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices. . . . Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” as Chief Justice Burger put it with astounding simplicity in his concurring opinion to Roe.)
But saying yes, in contrast, is unsafe. It reveals plainly what you love, and what you fail to love. Now you have actually declared abortion to be in the category of the permitted under law – and therefore you have been shown additionally to have a twisted concept of lawfulness. What you call law we call power employed to protect your interests. We know that type.
Abortion rights rhetoric has shifted back-and-forth over the years, between an apologetic approach, claiming weakness, and a brazen approach, boasting strength, though these are not found in equal proportion: it is as if after a hundred of the apologetic pieces (“no one likes abortion, it is a regrettable necessity”), someone has to come along with a brazen piece to clear the air (“every woman who gets an abortion knows it is killing, but sometimes one must kill to get by”).
These attitudes exist uncomfortably together. But legislation like New York’s resolves the tension in favor of the brazen, from which many will recoil in horror: Do we really think this? Do we hold this?
Likewise, by creating jurisdictions where Roe is now affirmed in state law, it will look as though, politically, Roe can be overturned by the Supreme Court. It can be overturned without being overturned, fully. (And who cares about flyover states clinging to their guns, religion, and heartbeat bills?)
The abortion debate has, fatiguingly, raged long enough that its resolution into separate settlements will seem long overdue – a peace of Westphalia, indeed, but still something like a peace.
Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is acting dean of the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is coming out from Regnery Gateway in March 2019.
So Cardinal Dolan, What’s the Plan?
By Anthony Francois
Enough of whether New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan should excommunicate Governor Andrew Cuomo, and what the media or Cuomo’s political supporters or Planned Parenthood or anyone else of ill will would make of such a move. I have no particular quarrel with those calling for it, other than to observe that it is, in fact, the province of the bishop to decide. It just isn’t really the most important point.
Excommunication, the Cardinal says, would be politically counterproductive. That is not an ecclesiastical judgment but a secular one. In that order of things, Cardinal Dolan is by definition – and Church teaching – no more an authority than any member of his flock.
So, how can we assess the wisdom of Dolan’s call on the politics of the matter?
We would need to know what “productive” would mean in order to assess whether excommunicating the Governor aids or hinders it. We would need to know what strategy is being implemented to know whether any particular act was within or without the plan. But nothing remotely like a Catholic political strategy to change the trajectory of New York state’s final descent into child killing madness is on offer.
One strategy might be: build up the moral formation of New York’s Roman Catholics to the point that Andrew Cuomo and his ilk will someday have to give a damn about what they think on this matter.
What is Cardinal Dolan’s strategy for catechizing (or perhaps evangelizing is the right word) New York City’s Catholics to the point where they, as voters, won’t stand for this sort of thing anymore? Is there one?
Dolan’s diocese has almost 3 million Catholics, a third of all residents. New York City is said to be one of America’s most Catholic cities, and New York is one of the nation’s most Catholic states by population. Roman Catholicism is the Empire State’s largest religious grouping.
But if you look at those claims by how many New York Catholics will vote to re-elect Cuomo, or any legislator who voted for this monstrosity, the number that currently matters to any Catholic pro-life political strategy is very, very much smaller.
Governor Cuomo just won re-election with 59 percent of the statewide vote. Dolan’s archdiocese provided Cuomo with over a third of his total votes, and voted for him at roughly the same rate as the rest of the state. Looking at Dolan’s counties that Cuomo won, the effect is more dramatic: just under a third of Cuomo’s total statewide vote came from these counties, which he carried by 66 percent. Zooming in on New York City alone, Cuomo won the heart of Dolan’s archdiocese by 86 percent in Manhattan and 90 percent in the Bronx.
These facts demonstrate two things. First: making a rapid and significant difference in New York’s political landscape on abortion is probably an unrealistic short-term goal for the Cardinal. So why should anyone care about excommunicating Cuomo, which is marginal to such a goal? You might as well ask what effect canceling a Netflix subscription has on colonizing Mars.
This is an actual screenshot from an online story about New York’s recent abortion law with the unplanned, serendipitous juxtaposition of an ad.
Second: Cardinal Dolan urgently needs to do something more effective to evangelize his whole flock on whether they should ever vote for zealous legal enablers of child killing. As it stands now, in any one-on-one contest between Cuomo and Dolan, almost all of the Cardinal’s people are rooting for the Governor. He needs to change that.
Reasonable minds will differ on what would be productive to that effort. But who in the chancery cares what the Church’s enemies think about a bishop’s effort to help Catholics understand that you shouldn’t vote for those who make a top priority of liquidating the unborn?
Catechetical, liturgical, and disciplinary reform are not easy. But these are the only “resources” that the Archbishop of New York has to form his flock to the point that they will rally as Catholic voters to stand athwart barbarism. None of Cardinal Dolan’s other responsibilities contribute anything significant to that effort. They may have ancillary value to some of the Church’s enterprises, but they aren’t making Big Apple Catholics more pro-life.
Whatever other good they do, none of the Archdiocese of New York’s public contracts or philanthropic collections to provide social services provide substantial moral formation or courage to broad swaths of voting Catholics on this issue. None of Cardinal Dolan’s otherwise appropriate and arguably useful relationships with politicians, as such, teaches the faithful how to deal with those pols at the ballot box on this issue.
Grand Marshalling the St. Patrick’s Day Parade isn’t, without more, giving Catholic New Yorkers the zeal of the Patron of Ireland, or anything more conducive than a pub crawl to virtue or spiritual wellbeing. The Al Smith Dinner may raise a pile for the Church, but it doesn’t form consciences, no matter how many viewers C-SPAN reaches with it.
If the Cardinal wants to face down Andrew Cuomo over abortion with a crowd at his back, he is going to need to do something “productive” to get his people back.
None of which is to say that Cardinal Dolan doesn’t care about the most important of his responsibilities, or put an honest or capable effort into them. But it is to say that if he thinks that political considerations dictate that “those who oppose the Church” are a more important audience at this time than “those who adhere to the Church,” he doesn’t understand what are and are not his political opportunities.
The only way he is going to improve his political opportunities is by prioritizing the formation of his flock over trying to manage optics or manipulate what the enemies of the Church will say about him.
So fine, if excommunicating Cuomo will undermine some plan to make the faithful of New York a more effective bulwark in defense of the unborn, then by all means, forget it.
But please, if not, enough about how not disciplining him is good politics.
Tony Francois is a Senior Attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, where he specializes in constitutional and environmental law. He and his family reside in Sacramento, California. The views expressed are solely his own.
I was speaking with a friend and he used the phrase “you only have one life to live.” It’s a commonly used statement when one is considering say taking a vacation to an exotic spot, buying something that is very expensive or doing something that one would not usually do. It is an excuse to be extravagant or imprudent. The idea that one has only one life allows one to do things now without a virtuous, ethical or moral basis. It allows one to become self serving. To live for the here and now, the future consequences be damned.
There’s only one problem with living as if you only have one life. It can allow you to do the unthinkable. It can lead to moral relativism.
Moral Relativism vs. Moral Objectivism
Luke Pollard, who studied philosophy and theology at Oxford and Rebecca Massey-Chase, who studied English and Philosophy at Bristol, co-authored an article titled “An Argument on the Moral Argument” published in Volume 57 of Philosophy Now in 2006. Pollard wrote:
There are two views in ethics: morality is either ‘objective’ or ‘relative’. Objectivism in morality is the theory that there are at least some moral statements that are right or wrong, whether we believe them to be or not. These truths are not dependant upon us or upon any changeable thing. For instance, “Torturing babies just for fun is wrong” is objectively true whether we believe it to be or not. Even if everyone was brainwashed into thinking that it is morally acceptable, torturing babies just for fun would still be wrong.
Moral relativism, on the other hand, is the complete rejection of moral objectivism. At its core is the assertion that all moral statements are grounded purely in the whim and subjective taste of each individual or culture.
This ethics issue of moral relativism has come to the forefront recently with New York State legalizing the killing of babies at the moment of birth (infanticide). Infanticide is now the ultimate goal of the morally relative, albeit legal, act of abortion.
Infanticide, Mass Murder and Genocide
Infanticide has now become public policy. They are many examples of moral relativism in human history, from mass murders to genocide on an industrial scale. Is history repeating itself?
From the mass killings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in 2017 to the Holocaust between 1941 and 1945, the one common factor is moral relativism. Moral statements, like though shall not murder, are “grounded purely in the whim and subjective taste of each individual or culture.”
Pollard argued,
One culture may think that torturing babies just for fun is okay and another that it is wrong: under relativism, both views are equally valid. We cannot tell a baby-torturer that what they do is wrong, and they should stop – their torturing is just as morally acceptable as our non-torturing. There is no logical reason why they should change. And, by relativism, if a society did change their behaviour, they could not have progressed morally, because there is no unchangeable measure by which to test their values. They have simply altered their moral outlook, and nothing else. There is no value-added, because there is no value.
When life has no value then what can the individual or collective do in the name of adding value?
Pollard concluded, “Relativism is clearly ridiculous.”
Moral Objectivism and God
Moral objectivism requires a belief in one all powerful monotheistic God. The three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in a monotheistic God.
However Rebecca Massey-Chase argued,
In stating torturing babies just for fun is wrong “whether we believe it to be or not”, Luke [Pollard] is simply stating a view that he knows those reading this will probably (hopefully) agree with. But there is no reason why that specific precept is any more ‘objectively true’ than any other example he could have extracted from the ethics of his own personal moral criteria. Furthermore, he clearly believes that he can access God’s dictates on morality; yet what evidence is there to support his claims that he, or indeed anyone, can know such objective truth? Does one find it in divine revelation or religious texts; and if so, which ones? Is the Bible the absolute authority?
[ … ]
Luke maintains that objective moral values do exist, and thus necessarily God exists. He maintains that he is providing us with a proof of this hypothesis. However, I suggest that he is demonstrating only firmly held belief. His arguments rest on his perceptions of the world. I approach this argument from a different position; my perceptions are different and I see no reason to accept his main premises. I reject his claim to knowledge on a matter that rests only on belief and interpretation.
Massey-Chase is questioning if God exists. Philosophers have been arguing this for centuries. The final conclusion is the following logical argument:
Objective moral values exist.
Objective moral values necessitate the existence of a God.
Therefore, a God exists.
These statements are only true of one believe that there is a God and His Son is Jesus Crist. As John 3:16 reads.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Without God and His Son there is no life after death. There is nothing but one life to live, which can lead to moral relativism. Moral relativism can, and has, lead to atrocities like the law allowing the killing of babies in New York state.
The question is what morally relative atrocity comes next?
EDITORS NOTE: The featured images is from Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ethics-2991600_640.jpg452640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-02-04 19:40:552019-02-05 18:15:55The Great Lie: ‘You Only Have One Life To Live’
