The belief that gender is assigned at birth has cost one British doctor his job as a disability assessor for the Department of Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom.
Dr. David Mackereth, 55, the father of four, was dismissed from the department after only recently being hired because he told the instructor for a training course that he would not recognize a pronoun that didn’t correspond to a patient’s biological sex, the Telegraph reported Sunday.
Mackereth, who worked 26 years for the National Health Service, says sex is established at birth and is both genetic and biological. That’s something that “has been believed by mankind for centuries,” he said.
“I’m not attacking the transgender movement,” Mackereth said, “but I’m defending my right to freedom of speech, and freedom of belief.”
Mackereth, from Dudley, West Midlands, was hired by the Department of Work and Pensions for “interviewing and then writing independent reports about the health of those claiming disability benefits,” the Telegraph reported.
“I don’t believe I should be compelled to use a specific pronoun. I am not setting out to upset anyone. But if upsetting someone can lead to doctors being sacked, then, as a society we have to examine where we are going,” he told the London newspaper.
After informing the instructor of his objections, “Mackereth then received an email from Advanced Personnel Management, the agency that employed him and would have hired him out to the DWP,” the paper reported.
The email explained that he could “undergo training” regarding the Department of Work and Pensions’ policy, but if he did not address his clients by their preferred pronoun, such action could be “considered to be harassment as defined by the 2010 Equality Act.”
Mackereth now accuses the Department of Work and Pensions and Advanced Personnel Management of violating his right to freedom of speech. The Telegraph also reported that he has concerns that “many other” people of faith like him could be dismissed from jobs if they believe in birth-assigned gender. He is a Reformed Baptist.
A Department of Work and Pensions spokeswoman told the Telegraph: “Dr. Mackereth made it clear during his training that he would refuse to use pronouns which did not match his own view of a person’s biological gender,” and that he would be violating the Equality Act by discriminating against individuals with a “protected characteristic.”
But Mackereth maintains that he is being discriminated against for his beliefs and even went so far as to say that the UK government was policing thought.
“Firstly, we are not allowed to say what we believe. Secondly, as my case shows, we are not allowed to think what we believe,” he said. “Finally, we are not allowed to defend what we believe.”
“The best biology, psychology, and philosophy all support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality and of gender as a social manifestation of bodily sex. Biology isn’t bigotry,” said Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.”
“Government shouldn’t coerce people to think, speak, or act in ways that violate these basic truths. Indeed, there are human costs to getting human nature wrong,” he said.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Staisy Mishchenko/CrowdSpark/Newscom
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180709_UKrainbow-1250x650-e1531221540936.jpg371640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-10 07:19:122018-07-11 05:12:16Refusal to Use Preferred Gender Pronouns Costs British Doctor His Job
President Donald Trump announced on Monday night his nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh, who was included in The Heritage Foundation’s original list of potential Supreme Court nominees, is a very promising choice.
The battle lines were already drawn before Trump made his announcement, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declaring he would not vote for any of the individuals on Trump’s short list.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised the confirmation vote would happen this fall. Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the process of reviewing Kavanaugh’s judicial record and background, with a hearing coming later this summer.
Let’s take a closer look at Kavanaugh.
Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Bethesda, Maryland, Kavanaugh is 53 years old, Catholic, and married with two young daughters (whose basketball teams he coaches). He obtained both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. After law school, Kavanaugh clerked for 3rd Circuit Judge Walter Stapleton and 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski.
Following a one-year fellowship in the office of Solicitor General Ken Starr, Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court (along with fellow law clerk, and current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch).
Kavanaugh next joined Starr at the Office of the Independent Counsel, where he led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster (an aide to President Bill Clinton) and was the principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
He also served as a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a prestigious law firm where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh took on several pro bono matters, including representing Adat Shalom Congregation in its fight against Montgomery County, Maryland, which sought to halt construction of a synagogue, and representing 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez after immigration authorities decided to return him to Cuba.
Prior to his appointment to the bench, Kavanaugh served as associate counsel, senior associate counsel, and then staff secretary to President George W. Bush.
Kavanaugh is no stranger to a tough confirmation process. Although he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit (which is often regarded as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court) in 2003, the Senate did not confirm Kavanaugh until 2006, by a vote of 57-36. Four Democratic senators voted in favor of his confirmation, but none remains in the Senate today.
I think Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, both of whom had substantial White House experience, would probably say that their White House experiences likewise have made them better jurists. But at the time of my confirmation in 2006, it is fair to say that certain senators were not sold on that. They were not sold that the White House was the best launching pad for a position on the D.C. Circuit.
Indeed, one senator at my hearing noted that I had worked at the White House for more than five years and said in his remarks, this nomination “is not just a drop of salt in the partisan wounds, it is the whole shaker.” And this is true. After the hearing, my mom said to me, “I think he really respects you.” As only a mom can.
Approach to Judging
An outstanding writer, Kavanaugh has written approximately 300 opinions during his 12 years on the bench, many dealing with controversial topics that will likely come up during his confirmation hearing. Kavanagh has also written extensively on the separation of powers and statutory interpretation, and has co-authored a book on judicial precedent (along with Bryan Garner and 11 appeals court judges, including then-Judge Gorsuch).
Drawing from his experience working in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh argued in a 2009 article that Congress should consider enacting a law that would protect a sitting president from criminal investigation, indictment, or prosecution while in office. He explained:
The indictment and trial of a sitting president … would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.
Kavanaugh is a committed textualist. As Kavanaugh succinctly stated in a book review published in the Harvard Law Review, “The text of the law is the law.” He has reiterated this view in many of his opinions.
In Fourstar v. Garden City Group, Inc. (2017), he wrote, “It is not a judge’s job to add to or otherwise re-mold statutory text to try to meet a statute’s perceived policy objectives. Instead, we must apply the statute as written.” And in District of Columbia v. Department of Labor (2016), he write, “As judges, we are not authorized to rewrite statutory text simply because we might think it should be updated.”
Kavanaugh is a critic of Chevron deference, under which courts show considerable deference to executive branch agencies in interpreting arguably ambiguous statutes. In his view, “Chevron itself is an atextual invention by courts. In many ways, Chevron is nothing more than a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.”
And in 2017, while delivering the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at The Heritage Foundation, Kavanaugh spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers and concluded:
Statutory interpretation is inherently complex, people say. It is all politics anyway, some contend. I have heard all the excuses. I have been doing this for 11 years. I am not buying it. In my view, it is a mistake to think that this current mess in statutory interpretation is somehow the natural and unalterable order of things. Put simply, we can do better in the realm of statutory interpretation. And for the sake of the neutral and impartial rule of law, we must do better.
His record as a judge reflects a skepticism toward Chevron deference. Indeed, Kavanaugh has written or joined dozens of opinions finding an agency’s actions unlawful as well as many dissenting opinions (some of which were ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court) in which the court’s majority upheld agency actions.
For example, he dissented from his court’s ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency could disregard cost-benefit analysis when considering a proposed rule in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (2012). The Supreme Court later reversed that decision, citing Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion.
And in U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (2017), a case involving net neutrality, Kavanaugh dissented from the court’s refusal to hear the case en banc. He argued that the Federal Communications Commission was not entitled to Chevron deference because Congress had not explicitly delegated authority to the FCC to treat the internet like a public utility subject to regulation.
Other Notable Opinions
In terms of the separation of powers, Kavanaugh dissented in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2008), arguing that limitations on the president’s ability to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board violated the Constitution. He stated that the “President’s power to remove is critical to the President’s power to control the Executive Branch and perform his Article II responsibilities.”
Similarly, in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2016), Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion holding that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—an independent agency headed by a single individual who can only be removed for cause—was unconstitutional.
When the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc reached the opposite conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote a powerful dissent suggesting that the Supreme Court might wish to reconsider its holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935), which upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies.
Separation of powers was also at the heart of the 2016 per curiam (unsigned) opinion that Kavanaugh joined in al-Bahlul v. U.S., in which the court upheld the conviction before a military commission of Osama bin Laden’s driver for conspiracy to commit war crimes. While the majority declined to reach the issue of whether Congress had the authority to make conspiracy a triable offense before a military tribunal (because it is not an offense under the international laws of war), Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion stating that “federal courts are not empowered to smuggle international law into the U.S. Constitution and then wield it as a club against Congress and the President in wartime.”
This opinion echoed Kavanaugh’s earlier concurrence in al-Bihani v. Obama (2010), in which he argued that international law should not present a judicially enforceable limit on the president’s statutory authority to detain enemy combatants unless Congress expressly incorporates international law norms into U.S. law.
As for the Second Amendment, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia (2011)—a follow-on case to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling acknowledging the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms. Kavanaugh would have held D.C.’s ban on the possession of semi-automatic rifles unconstitutional, stating that “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”
Anticipating the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Kavanaugh ruled in Emily’s List v. FEC (2009) that the commission’s regulations limiting independent political expenditures by non-profit organizations violated the First Amendment. Kavanaugh also wrote the majority opinion in South Carolina v. Holder (2012), upholding South Carolina’s voter ID law.
In 2010 in Newdow, the D.C. Circuit rejected an establishment clause challenge to prayers offered at the presidential inauguration and to the inclusion of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. While the majority held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and therefore did not reach the merits of the case, Kavanaugh concurred, stating that he would have reached the merits (which is why he has been criticized by some conservatives) and squarely ruled against the challengers, finding that “both ‘so help me God’ in the Presidential oath and the prayers at the Presidential Inauguration do not violate the Establishment Clause.”
In 2015 in Priests for Life v. Burwell, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not prohibit the Obama administration from requiring religious non-profit groups who objected to the so-called contraceptive mandate to file forms with their insurers that would have facilitated contraceptive coverage, including abortifacients, for their employees.
In a dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh stated that he would have invalidated the mandate as a violation of the deeply held religious convictions of those organizations, arguing that even if the government could, for the sake of argument, establish a compelling interest in ensuring that women have access to contraceptive services, the Obama administration should still lose because there were less restrictive means available to accomplish that objective.
A Key Abortion Case
Somewhat unfairly, even entertaining this possibility triggered the objections of some conservatives, who sought to cast Kavanaugh as a weak champion of religious liberty. Kavanaugh’s position was ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell (2016).
Moreover, as far as Kavanaugh’s commitment to religious liberty, it is worth noting that during the recent oral arguments in Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a case challenging D.C. Metro’s ban on religious advertising, including Christmas ads, Kavanaugh asked some tough questions of Metro’s lawyer, stating his view that the ban was “pure discrimination” and “odious” to the First Amendment.
In 2017, in Garza, Kavanaugh voted twice in favor of the Trump administration’s legal argument that an illegal immigrant minor in U.S. custody does not have a right to an immediate government-facilitated abortion on demand.
In the initial panel decision, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, reversing the district court ruling in favor of the illegal immigrant minor. When the full D.C. Circuit reviewed the case and ruled in favor of the illegal immigrant, Kavanaugh dissented, stating that the court had “badly erred” in adopting a “radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence” and inventing “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.”
His dissent fully endorsed the government’s “permissible interests in favoring fetal life” and “refraining from facilitating abortion.” In a separate dissent, Judge Karen Henderson concluded that as a noncitizen, the young woman had no right to an abortion.
Some conservatives have criticized Kavanaugh for not joining Henderson’s opinion. However, Kavanaugh not only didn’t need to go as far as Henderson did to rule in the government’s favor, the government’s attorneys had conceded that an unlawful immigrant minor is assumed to have a right to an abortion.
Finally, in 2011 in Seven-Sky, the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate under the Commerce Clause in a surprising opinion by Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee and a highly-respected conservative jurist.
Kavanaugh dissented, writing that the mandate was “unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and predicting that it would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit” (forecasting the dissenting views of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).
Rather than taking the majority’s commerce clause argument head-on (which is what Kavanaugh’s critics would have preferred), he explained that it was premature to rule on the individual mandate’s constitutionality and that the case was not ripe for adjudication under the Anti-Injunction Act because the mandate had not yet taken effect, a defect which Kavanaugh believed deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the case.
In evaluating each of these decisions, it is worth remembering that Kavanaugh sits on a court in which a majority of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents and would certainly not be considered conservative jurists.
Moreover, a good conservative judge might well decide to fashion an opinion in a way designed to maximize the likelihood that a closely-divided Supreme Court would ultimately agree to hear the case and adopt his position, a strategy that Kavanaugh has effectively utilized on several occasions over the years. As Kavanaugh stated during his Story Lecture at Heritage, “[W]hen Justice Kennedy says something, I listen.”
In short, Kavanaugh has been playing the long game to advance an understanding of the laws and Constitution that is faithful to the text and original meaning.
Approach to the Law
In a 2017 speech at Notre Dame Law School, Kavanaugh spoke about Scalia’s impact on the law and the late justice’s view that federal judges “should not be making policy-laden judgments.” Kavanaugh remarked, “I believe very deeply in [the] visions of the rule of law as a law of rules, and of the judge as umpire. By that, I mean a neutral, impartial judiciary that decides cases based on settled principles without regard to policy preferences or political allegiances or which party is on which side in a particular case.”
He elaborated on what Scalia stood for as a judge:
[R]ead the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. The Constitution is a document of majestic specificity defining governmental structure, individual rights, and the role of a judge. Remember that the structural provisions of the Constitution—the separation of powers and federalism—are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberty. … Remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits.
Though Kavanaugh was speaking about Scalia, his words could very well describe his own approach to the law and his commitment to the Constitution.
Americans undoubtedly will learn more about Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court, and the important, but limited, role judges should play in our government as the confirmation process unfolds in the Senate.
While Schumer and other Senate Democrats have already announced their intention to block any nominee, they will have a hard case to make given Kavanaugh’s impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.
John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research. Twitter: @malcolm_john.
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: @EHSlattery.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, speaking last year at The Heritage Foundation, to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. (Photo: Willis Bretz for The Heritage Foundation)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Kavanaugh-1250x650-e1531219823618.jpg394640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-10 06:57:262018-07-11 05:17:51Trump Hits Another Home Run With Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh
A Communist New York University professor Sam LaVigne created a database of over 1,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees’ personal information and spread it to Antifa.
The intent was to intimidate, threaten, and harm ICE agents and their families.
He needs to be fired but NYU is very hard-left these days.
Sam LaVigne, a far-left artist and game designer, is an adjunct professor at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts, Fox News reports.
After creating the database, he shared it to his 3,600 followers on Twitter Tuesday morning. The Communist-Anarchist Antifa picked it up and spread it around to their violent allies. It also spread to a Reddit subgroup.
“Doxxing [exposing personal information on] ICE agents is good and moral,” one Reddit user posted on a thread that shared the database.
The Florida Family Association (FFA) sent out an email asking members to contact NYU about LaVigne stating:
NYU Professor Sam Lavigne created a data base on 1,595 ICE employees using personal information posted at LinkedIn. Lavigne shared the information with his 3,600 Twitter followers in an effort to doxx the ICE employees. Doxxing is defined as searching for and publishing private personal data with the intent of provoking malice toward the subjects of the doxxing.
GitHub, Medium, and Twitter all pulled Lavigne’s data on the ICE employees. The Daily Caller reports in part: Github, where Lavigne published the database, removed the page, saying it violated its terms of service. “We removed the project because it violates our community guidelines,” a GitHub spokesperson said. “In general, we have policies against use of GitHub for doxxing and harassment, and violating a third party’s privacy.”
Unfortunately, the leftist terrorist group Antifa copied Lavigne’s data base before it was removed by GitHub, Medium, and Twitter.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email urging the NYU Board of Trustees to consider the seriousness of Professor Sam LaVigne’s doxxing and take appropriate disciplinary action. To send an email, please click the below link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. Readers may also edit the subject or message text if they wish.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sam-lavigne-e1531214806618.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-07-10 05:37:572018-07-10 08:57:47NYU Professor Sam LaVigne publishes personal information on over 1,500 ICE employees — Take Action
Right up front, there are some things that I need to tell you about myself. I want you to know where I came from and how I got to where I am today — my walkaway path. I don’t want to ever be accused of deception or dishonesty. So, in full disclosure:
I was not born a Constitutionalist. I did not live my life with an inherent understanding of Liberty and what is necessary to defend it. I was not raised a Christian. For some, these things will be a stumbling block, so you need to know from me.
I was raised a Democrat. The only thing more evil than Satan was a Republican in my home. There were no choices to be made in voting…straight Democratic Party line was the only choice.
I was an environmentalist — a rabid environmentalist. Some of my best friends were members of GreenPeace and I supported the WWF and PETA. I believed the earth would be better if there we no people at all. I was a vegetarian by ideology, not for health reasons, for almost 15 years.
I believed in the “good” of scientific manipulations of food and the necessity of vaccines. Not only believed this, but helped create them when I was a biochemist for Monsanto.
I believed in Global Warming and defended it vigorously. I believed in the Big Bang and openly criticized those who believed in creationism as ignorant and misled.
I believed Government’s duty and purpose was to be a provider for the people. I supported programs that would give the government more control over the people. I even believed a One World Government was the best way to go to ensure “global peace.” I supported the principles of socialism, although I cannot claim to have known at the time it was socialism, per se, that I supported.
I supported abortion and often openly condemned others for being pro-life. I have argued with abortion protesters on street corners and called them names that I am not proud of.
I was not only not a Christian, but I practiced many other religions, including many occult versions. I was bitter against God and felt that only ignorant, weak people needed faith. I was too intelligent and too educated for such a feeble crutch.
I was not born with the knowledge that I have now. I did not wake up one morning with a divine epiphany. I traveled a long road to walkaway from the lies. Learned some hard and painful lessons. My beliefs were challenged and I came to know the Truth. Now I am a true constitutionalist. I have written six books about the Constitution and Liberty. I have a radio show heard by 2 million people every week. I teach the Constitution all over America and even started my own online training program called “Liberty First University.”
I am able to stand firm on what I believe because I have discovered the difference between truth and lies. I am able to defend the truth because I walked the path. I can show you my path of discovery, and to be guaranteed it is not tied to any political motivation or personal gain — unless you call the liberation that comes from knowing the truth in the face of lies, a personal gain.
So when someone says to you…”Did you know that person used to be associated with this or that group or used to believe this… How can you possibly believe him now?” Remember this story.
It is good to question someone’s “transformation.” You should do that. If they cannot show you that walkaway path, step by step, you should question their motivations.
But do not discount someone’s current position just because of who they used to be or who they used to associate with or what they used to believe. Sometimes it is not a selfish or deceptive motivation, but a path to enlightenment.
Do you have a family member who is a progressive? Do you have a co-worker that is hostile to the truth? Don’t give up hope! We have an obligation to bring the truth, to show them they can walkaway from lies. When truth is the enemy or the source of hostile response, you know for sure that someone is afraid they are believing lies! Their foundation is being rocked, so keep on rocking! Keep shining that light. Keep walking a consistent walk. Saint Francis of Assisi said, “All… should preach by their deeds.” Let your deeds be Truth, let your walk be Liberty.
Remember, we all had to wake up somehow. All you have to do is take the first step to truth and then walkaway from the lies.
ABOUT KRISANNE HALL
KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the U.S. Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. She is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and has an internationally popular radio and television show. Her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found atwww.KrisAnneHall.com. Get the book “Sovereign Duty” to learn what the designers of our Constitution wanted Americans to do when their federal government became bloated and out of control. Find this book on Amazon, Barns & Noble, Wal-Mart, and many other merchants.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/walkaway-Brandon-e1530966268668.jpg360640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-07-09 18:12:082018-07-09 18:12:08WalkAway: A Word From a Recovering Liberal
In an email Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School student Kyle Kashuv wrote:
Up until February 14th, I was just your normal high school kid living in Parkland, Florida.
Then everything changed. After witnessing the horrible tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, our school and classmates were thrust into the national spotlight for all of the wrong reasons. News teams from all over the country wanted to talk to my classmates about their reactions and stances on gun control.
While David Hogg hogged the national spotlight by sensationalizing this tragedy and blaming this horrific act on guns, myself and some of my classmates felt largely ignored. We too were survivors, but no one wanted to talk to us because we didn’t fit their pro-gun control narrative.
That’s when I decided I couldn’t let this dangerous narrative go unchallenged. I chose to speak up and become an outspoken advocate of the Second Amendment and argue against gun control.
I’ve had several incredible opportunities since speaking out, like meeting the President of the United States and his wonderful First Lady, Melania Trump.
Now I’m ready to take on the next chapter in life. I’m proud to announce that I have accepted the job as Turning Point USA’s High School Coordinator! In my new role, I plan to defend our Second Amendment rights and bring Turning Point USA’s messages of free markets, free people, and limited government to high schoolers across the country.
Watch Kyle talk about his efforts during media interviews:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/kyle-kasnikof-e1531169074554.png363640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-07-09 16:56:142018-07-09 16:56:14Getting to Know Parkland Student Kyle Kashuv — Who is Standing for Our Rights
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.
Democrats fear constitutionalists will overturn Roe v. Wade
WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – Fearing that devoted constitutionalists if placed on the High Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion activists are urging Democratic senators to screen judicial nominees using a new personal liberty standard.
At a press conference Thursday in Washington, Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, unveiled a new litmus test for discerning nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court who could reverse Roe. Speaking on behalf of several pro-abortion groups, Laguens said:
We are calling for a personal liberty standard, that a Senate must only confirm a justice who affirmatively declares that they believe that the Constitution protects individual liberty and the right of all people to make personal decisions about their bodies and their personal relationships, including the use of contraception, the right to have an abortion and the freedom to marry who you choose.
Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, explained during the press conference that the new standard is needed because Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts both affirmed during their confirmation hearings that Roe was “settled law” and “precedent,” only seeming to rule otherwise once seated on the High Court.
Fallen added, “We’re here to warn Trump’s nominee … that calling Roe a precedent or settled law is not enough, not even close.”
He then brought up the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was adamant about enforcing the Constitution as it was originally understood by its writers — a judicial philosophy known as originalism.
“Trump’s own litmus test has raised the bar for what a nominee must answer at a hearing. Because so many of these people on Trump’s shortlist are scholars of the late Antonin Scalia, we are not going to accept any jiggery-pokery on Roe v. Wade, and we are not going to accept any applesauce answers on the Affordable Care Act,” Fallen said.
Gorsuch is seen by many as closely following in the judicial footsteps of Scalia. Gorsuch was promoted by Leonard Leo, vice president of the conservative Federalist Society, which seeks to have the Constitution applied according to the original understanding of its authors and the American people. Leo is credited with helping Trump form his list of Supreme Court nominees. But most, if not all, of these judges see Roe as indefensible when pitted against the Constitution.
Even liberals believe the Constitution doesn’t explicitly contain a so-called personal right to abortion. Rodney Smolla, a professor at the University of Richmond, last year conceded, “I think the framers were inviting future generations of Americans to apply their own experiences in saying that there may be certain rights, like rights of privacy, that we now think of as vital that they didn’t put down explicitly on the list of rights in the bill of rights.”
Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court must overturn Roe in order to restore jurisprudence, says Evan Bernick of the Federalist Society. Roe, left unchallenged, presents a serious danger to society, writes Bernick:
It exposes ordinary citizens to government power of a kind that the Framers regarded as “the very definition of tyranny.” The minotaur of arbitrary government, unlike that of “judicial supremacy,” is no myth — it is all too real, and it is fast devouring rights once held sacred. It is time that constitutionalists cease encouraging judges to keep it satiated.
If you’re under the impression that the system exists merely to facilitate your partisan agenda, it’s not surprising that you also believe it’s broken every time things don’t go your way. This is why so many Democrats argue that we should “fix” the Electoral College when they lose a presidential election and “fix” the filibuster when they run the Senate and now “fix” the Supreme Court when they don’t run the Senate.
During the Obama presidency, liberal pundits groused about the supposed crisis posed by a “dysfunctional” Congress. In political media parlance, “dysfunction” can be roughly translated into “Democrats aren’t able to do as they’d like.” Congress, as you know, was only broken when President Obama wasn’t getting his agenda passed, not when his party was imposing a wholly partisan, unprecedented health care regime on all Americans.
In any event, the political establishment spent six years wringing its hands about subsequent GOP electoral success, which was an organic political reaction that strengthened separation of powers and reflected the nation’s ideological divisions. Although you’d never know it listening to political coverage, it meant the system was working just fine.
Yet many of the president’s boosters, including Ezra Klein, then at The Washington Post, began arguing that not only was Congress broken (bad) but it was “fundamentally broken” (really bad!). By 2013, after Republicans had made gains in the Senate, Klein and others were arguing for increasing majoritarianism to “fix” the problem. It was the GOP’s “unprecedented obstructionism” (a euphemism for disagreeing with Obama on policy) that supposedly left them with no other choice.
Now, if the majority of voters had been truly disgusted by “obstructionism,” the GOP would have paid a political price for its actions. The opposite occurred. Perhaps instinctively, voters wanted a more ideologically balanced Washington. So Democrats decided the system was the problem.
What we call “norm breaking” these days was referred to as “reform” during the Obama administration. “Reformers” such as Klein and his allies persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a man who had once argued that weakening the Senate filibuster would “destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government,” to use the “nuclear option” and blow up Senate rules on judicial filibusters so Obama could stack the courts.
“Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform,” Reid tweeted in 2013. “It had to be done.”
But then the unanticipated began happening. For one thing, the GOP won the majority, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, despite immense pressure, refused to give Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a vote. That was well within his authority as majority leader, his constitutional authority and his ideological imperative to stop Democrats from transforming the Supreme Court into an entity relying on empathy over the Constitution.
This tactic opened a seat for the next president. Then Donald Trump also won. Unexpectedly. And guess what’s broken now.
“The way we choose Supreme Court nominees is broken,” laments Klein, now at Vox. “Here’s how to fix it.”
Klein isn’t alone. Others, such as Harvard’s Ian Samuel, are more straightforwardly partisan, proposing that the next Democratic candidate promise to add six justices to the Supreme Court to neutralize the power of the textualists and create a progressive court. Although the Constitution doesn’t stipulate the number of justices needed and Democrats are free to make such promises if they like, you’d think liberals would have learned their lesson during the Obama years.
The real anxiety driving liberals is the reality of President Trump’s getting another Supreme Court justice, the kind of nominee any conservative president would most likely have picked. This person will presumably help constrain progressive policies because many of those policies rely on coercion and unconstitutional intrusions into personal freedom. Maybe it’s not the system that’s broken but rather the left’s agenda.
The arrogance of the age — maybe every age — is that intellectuals believe, by default, that they’re smarter, more moral and more evolved than those who came before them. We often hear the left griping about the antiquated nature of the Constitution. It was Klein, after all, who once claimed that the Constitution is a confusing document because it is old.
We can disagree about the usefulness of Enlightenment ideas. But when Klein contends that the “chaotic, ugly realpolitik that followed Justice Antonin Scalia’s death” necessitates a “fix,” he is being transparently partisan. Nothing is more chaotic than altering the rules every time you experience a political defeat. And nothing says realpolitik more than attempting to “fix” a system for practical political concerns when your ideological goals fall short.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: @davidharsanyi.
Dear Readers:
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greeting supporters during a ‘get out to caucus’ event on Jan. 30, 2016 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (Photo: SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-clinton-2-e1531133474712.jpg376640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-09 06:53:432018-07-09 06:53:43The System Doesn’t Need to Be ‘Fixed’ Every Time Liberals Lose
Despite rampant speculation that President Donald Trump’s trade policy might increase some car prices, how his regulatory relief agenda may lower sticker prices and increase safety goes largely ignored.
How did this happen? The Trump administration is revising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards imposed on automakers during the Obama era. In particular, they are no longer holding manufacturers to a 2025 fleet mandate of 54.5 miles per gallon.
When the rollback was first announced, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao declared it “a win for the American economy.” Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt called it “good for consumers and good for the environment.”
While a victory for all consumers, it’s a particularly welcome relief to those in poor and minority communities looking to ascend the socio-economic ladder and get an equal shot at achieving the American Dream.
CAFE standards have been around for 40 years, but green crusaders in the Obama administration put them on steroids. During the Obama presidency, the industry was required to increase fuel efficiency by around nine miles per gallon. In 2012, it imposed a spike from 30.2 miles per gallon for a passenger car in model year 2011 to 60 miles per gallon over 14 years.
American car prices have risen steadily with higher CAFE standards. According to Heritage Foundation research, car prices rose while other big-ticket durable goods prices dropped.
“If vehicle prices had tracked furniture and appliance prices since 2007,” a 2016 Heritage study noted, “they would be 23.4 percent lower than they are today.”
Comparatively, the average cost of a car in the United States rose $6,200 above trending prices in other countries.
Higher prices lower opportunity. Those without much disposable income find themselves unable to afford new CAFE-friendly vehicles.
Using federal data, a National Automobile Dealers Association study concluded that between 3.1 and 14.9 million households might lack the credit necessary to buy a new vehicle under the original 2025 CAFE scenario. This fate would undoubtedly fall hardest on minority communities due to lower earnings.
And then there’s safety. One way to meet stringent fuel efficiency goals is to make vehicles smaller and lighter.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety explicitly warns that “bigger, heavier vehicles protect their occupants better.” That means those forced into the smaller cars are inherently less safe.
But all of this will at least help the environment, right? Maybe not.
Obama administration assertions about the effect of CAFE standards on climate change were both trivial and elusive. Then add mitigating factors such as poorer households keeping dirtier vehicles on the roads longer out of financial necessity.
Minority advocates embrace Trump’s CAFE relief. In a letter to Chao and Pruitt, the Project 21 black leadership network stated: “Excessive regulatory costs that make products unaffordable are one of the most significant non-racial obstacles to black economic progress … Increasing black hardship and jeopardizing driver safety for such a small payoff is simply irrational.”
Project 21 announced the policy shift was “Blueprint Compliant” with its new “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America”–that specifically recommended reforming CAFE standards–to improve black opportunity.
The industry also responded to consumer demand. Ford scaled back its CAFE-geared small sedans–retaining the Mustang and Focus Active crossover while favoring SUVs and light trucks. This is Ford’s family-friendly, workforce-ready, and consumer-focused fleet.
The Trump administration’s rollback of fuel efficiency mandates to favor the present-day economy over ambiguous predictions is a smart move. It promises more vehicles people want to safely transport their families, engage opportunities, and fuel the economy. It also respects the situations of the American consumer–particularly those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Derrick Hollie is president of Reaching America and host of Reaching America on Demand podcast. The organization addresses complex social issues impacting African-American communities. Twitter: @DJHollie.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Toru Hanai/Reuters/Newscom
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180607_CAFE-1250x650-e1531131790355.jpg370640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-09 06:23:202018-07-09 06:38:48Trump’s Fuel=Efficiency Reality Check Revs Up the American Economy
HPR: …The State of Hawaii has announced a new policy regarding the collection of so-called agency fees from non-members of public employee unions.
The policy, outlined in a memo from the State Comptroller, was spurred by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Janus v AFSCME. That case, brought by Illinois state employee Mark Janus, overturned a precedent established in 1977 that allowed public unions to collect dues from all public employees, regardless of their membership status in the union.
Non-members were charged a reduced rate compared to full members. These agency fees could not be used for lobbying or political purposes. That precedent was established in the 1977 Supreme Court case Adood v Detroit Board of Education, which found that non-members still benefit from collective bargaining carried out by unions and should contribute to funding those non-political actions.
Here in Hawaii, the State Department of Accounting and General Services automatically withholds dues and agency fees from all state employees on behalf of the union. However, in the memo published yesterday State Comptroller Roderick Becker said it is the State’s intent to “suspend non-member deductions as soon as possible.”
But that appears to be easier said than done.
The state’s payroll system does not contain state workers’ union membership status. The state has evidently been relying on each of the various public employee unions to identify members and non-members. This makes it difficult to go about stopping payroll deductions for non-members.
The memo from the Comptroller’s office indicates that the Department of Accounting and General Services is asking unions to confirm whether or not they have a non-member population and to provide the names of those members to the state. Once the names of non-members have been provided, agency fee withholdings will be suspended.
One state worker who is a member of the Hawaii Government Employees Association told HPR that following the Janus decision he attempted to change his status with HGEA to non-member. The employee was told that change could not be made until it was time to renew his annual membership in Hawaii’s largest public union….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Hawaii-Government-Employees-Association-logo.jpg366640Hawaii Free Presshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngHawaii Free Press2018-07-09 05:56:312018-07-09 05:56:31Unions Conspire with State to Illegally Continue Fee Collection for Non-Union Employees
“Sexually explicit content” does not have to depict “a child engaging in sexual activity,” according to Department of Justice guidelines. The movie could still be considered child pornography if the content meets the threshold of being “sufficiently sexually suggestive.”
The scene shows two young girls, 7 and 9 years old, experimenting sexually by playing “horse” on pillows, reported Faithwire.
PJ Media writer Megan Fox originally reported the film to the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Wednesday, and described the scene in question as “graphic and includes an orgasm.”
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of the Netflix logo pictured on a television in this illustration photograph taken in Encinitas, California, U.S., January 18, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/netflix-1250x650-e1531097542138.jpg375640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-07-08 20:53:132018-07-10 08:49:25Netflix Investigated for Allegedly Allowing Child Porn on Site
In the next few columns, we’re going to be talking about energy policy.
In previous columns, we concluded that fossil fuels are a moral form of energy that should be expanded, not restricted. But, there’s one qualifier. We can say there are moral forms of energy, but it’s only moral to use them if they are being used the right way.
Minimizing misuse
Like any technology, fossil fuels can be misused. Part of ensuring the proper use of fossil fuels involves every company doing its best to be ethical and having a major emphasis on safety.
By the same token, consumers of fossil fuels need to be responsible—for example, performing regular maintenance on their heating systems and vehicles. Everybody has a part in making sure that all forms of energy are used as safely as possible. But that’s not enough.
Once we’ve concluded that fossil fuel energy is a fundamentally good technology when used in a beneficial way, we need to have the right kinds of laws in place to ensure that it is used in a beneficial way.
This brings us to the issue of energy policy.
We need policies that protect our right to use energy responsibly and that punish people when they deliberately fail to use energy responsibly and endanger our lives.
The three energy freedoms
One of the major things we need is proper policy to protect us from companies endangering neighbors, whether through explosions, spills, or dangerous emissions like smog.
But we also need policy to protect companies, and more broadly to protect production, from people who want to stop it. Imagine you’re running a company that’s trying to drill for oil and somebody who doesn’t like oil tries to sabotage your rigs. That can cause you to lose millions and millions of dollars. The government needs to protect every producer from people who try to sabotage them—whether it’s direct sabotage or getting the government to sabotage projects they don’t like. Having policies that restrict our ability to develop is a major threat to progress. And less progress means less prosperity.
Finally, we need policy to protect innovation. We want the energy market to evolve over time, but with the wrong policies it is very easy for special interests to stop innovation. One thing fundamental to innovation is competition. It’s important that we be free to choose the best kinds of energy—that we be free to choose fossil fuels when they’re the best form, but also others when they’re the best. Often, however, companies will want to suppress competition. But if we care about human flourishing, what we need are policies that protect everyone who’s not endangering others to compete.
We can think of policy, then, in terms of three crucial freedoms:
freedom from endangerment
freedom to develop
freedom to compete
We’ll be discussing each of these freedoms in more depth.
Dear America: Who’s Driving the Bus?is a philosophy book that offers a universal paradigm for understanding the often confounding and contradictory ways in which people behave.
America is currently embroiled in a second civil war that it is unaware of and that threatens our way of life. The civil war in this country is being fought over the same thing all great wars are fought over: power. But in this war, the adversaries are ourselves. Civil War II is not a race war, an economic war, or a war between states. It is a psychological battle between states of mind that will determine who has the power in our society, who is in control.
The human growth process is twofold; it has a physical component and a psychological component. Chronological age is an uncontested biological accomplishment. Psychological growth is another matter entirely. We struggle with the wish to become powerful, independent adults and the longing to remain powerless, dependent children.
Psychological growth is the universal challenge of childhood. Every society in the world needs its children to grow into physical and psychological adulthood in order to continue the cycle of life. Theoretically, if a society were to remain a society of children that society would necessarily collapse and extinguish itself. The psychological growth process is a difficult struggle, but it always involves a choice. It is impossible to become a responsible adult without choosing to relinquish the irresponsibility of childhood.
Until the 1960s American institutions cooperated in common cause to help American children become responsible adults whose individualism and embrace of the meritocracy produced enormous contributions to society that strengthened the country. The family, the church, and the government including educational curricula were uniformly determined that American children grow into responsible productive psychological adulthood. What happened?
After WWII the enemies of the United States understood that to end American dominance as a super power it was necessary to destroy the infrastructure that supported American exceptionalism. The Culture War was a deliberate attempt to shatter the American infrastructure of god, government, and family. This is how it works.
We all begin as children: helpless, dependent, self-absorbed, and completely lacking boundaries. We exist in a state of fusion unable to distinguish self from other. The universal task of childhood is to emerge from this state of total narcissism; the method is learning. The child slowly learns to become a psychological adult by gradually relinquishing the total self-absorption of infancy. The child learns to identify self by discovering the reality of other.
The degree to which we have emerged from our state of total narcissism is the measure of our mental health. A state of mind is not fixed. It is constantly shifting along the growth continuum, anywhere from total, infantile narcissism to responsible psychological adulthood depending upon the level and stability of the individual’s inner development and the strength of the external pressures challenging it.
Let us imagine a single life span as a time line beginning with birth and ending with death. Ideally the chronological development of this life corresponds with its psychological development. Whether an individual’s lifetime is ideal or traumatic, his growth patterns and level of functioning can be visualized as points on his growth continuum.
At any given moment in time he can know which state of his mind is functioning along his time line., Is he functioning like a rational adult? If so, which adult? The parent? The sibling? The businessman? The friend? Is he behaving like an adolescent? Or is he behaving like a child? An oppositional adolescent? A frightened child? A happy child?
When the rational adult identifies a child as the state of mind that is in command at the moment, he has identified one of his inner children. An innerchild is a psychological entity – one of the historical children who exist within each of us. We must remember that we are each the the whole of our life’s experience and that the children we once were continue to exist internally as parts of ourselves. Even after we reach chronological adulthood, the narcissism of childhood exists within our minds. Each inner child is a mobile entity seeking control of the individual’s mind. The inner child’s struggle for power continues to challenge the individual’s rational, adult state of mind.
If we understand the growth process and the complexities of the human mind we can understand how one person can perceive us completely differently than another, and we can make sense of the often confounding and contradictory ways in which people behave. Imagine yourself as a big yellow school bus with many seats to accommodate your inner entities and their different moods, roles, and states of being. The bus travels along the time line that is your lifetime picking up new passengers as you grow and develop. The driver of the bus is always selected from the passengers on your bus. To understand how one person perceives us so differently than another we must ask ourselves the defining question, “Who’s driving the bus?”
The power struggle between one’s inner children against one’s rational adult over who will drive the bus is the source of Civil War II. Civil War II begins as a personal, internal war and eventually finds its way into external society. The current demonstrations of infantile behavior exhibited by angry leftist millennials having temper tantrums, uncontrolled outbursts of profanity, calls for violence, demands for safe spaces, Play-Doh, and service dogs are all symptomatic of a lost internal battle to the demanding angry inner child. How did this happen?
From America’s beginnings until the 1960s America’s children were encouraged to grow up psychologically and take their rightful place in the adult world of rational thinking and objective reality. American exceptionalism was a product of the physical and psychological growth of its citizens incentivized to excel by opportunities for upward mobility supported by individualism and the meritocracy.
The ongoing leftist Culture War on America is a relentless attack on American psychological adulthood. The pressure to regress Americans back to childhood dependency and the world of subjective reality is a deliberate reversal of traditional American norms designed to collapse America from within. Educational indoctrination, media propaganda, and the drug culture of unproductive apathy, are weapons of the Culture War introduced in the 60s and expanded exponentially under Barack Obama. WHY?
Socialism is a binary political structure with a massive childlike population dependent upon a ruling elite who demand total government control. Socialism is the transitional political system required to internationalize America and impose one world planetary governance. Obama is a globalist puppet whose deceitful promise to transform America was his seditious plan to turn America into a socialist state in preparation for one world government. This is how it works.
Obama engaged America’s angry inner children. Identity politics are based on victimhood. Instead of mobilizing the empowered rational adults able to effect constructive social and political change, Obama’s policies are designed to mobilize the angriest entities of childhood who feel marginalized and prefer destruction, temper tantrums, and anarchy. Chronological age is irrelevant. Robert DeNiro is a primetime example of a mobilized angry inner child disguised as a middle-aged adult. DeNiro’s outbursts of profanity would be rejected and reviled in a community of rational adults, but Hollywood glitterati are a community of angry inner children. Their behavior is out of control because their inner children who lack impulse control are driving their buses.
“Progressive” left is an oxymoron. The radical left lives in a regressive world that strives for childhood dependence rather than adult independence. Instead of striving for the empowerment of rational adulthood they compete for victimhood and the regressive powerlessness of childhood. Here is the problem. The radical left deceitfully promotes socialism’s cradle to grave government care as social justice and income equality. It is the greatest bait and switch of the 21st century.
What the duped inner children do not understand is that free stuff is not free. The price for free stuff is freedom and total surrender to the parental government. Total government control over an infantilized population is the infrastructure of every despotic regime on Earth. There is no social justice or income equality in despotism. Childhood belongs to children – when childhood is advanced into adulthood it is the infrastructure of tyranny.
President Trump is diametrically opposed to the regressive policies of Obama and the radical leftist Democrats. President Trump believes in the Founding Fathers commitment to individualism and the meritocracy. He represents a return to rational thinking and a demand for psychological adulthood. The underdeveloped leftist Democrats that have been indoctrinated toward dependency and childhood cannot bear President Trump’s demand to grow up and live in the adult world of objective reality.
Every parent is familiar with the temper tantrums of children being told NO. Effective parents are not intimidated or persuaded by temper tantrums. Effective parents do not reward tantrums, effective parents reward restraint. It is time for the rational adults in America to say NO to the temper tantrums of an increasingly out of control regressed population disguised as adults.
The Obama/Clinton leftist Democrats were told NO when America elected President Donald Trump. Obama’s seditious “resistance” movement is a national temper tantrum powered by an army of angry inner children designed to overthrow the sitting President of the United States. President Donald Trump demands objective reality and psychological adulthood to make America great again. He understands the psychodynamics of regression being used in the Culture War against America.
Obama’s drive to shatter America from within actively promotes policies that engage our angry inner children and encourage regression. Thought precedes behavior. People who think like children act like children regardless of their chronological age. For America to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave it is necessary for its citizenry to GROW UP psychologically! It is necessary to embrace rational adulthood and reject the bait and switch snare of eternal childhood.
There is no freedom without personal responsibility and rational adulthood. At this moment in history the quality of life in our nation is devolving because our society is being overrun by out of control inner children disguised as adults who are trying to seize power from responsible adults. To reverse the trend and restore the course toward growth and self-sufficiency, the responsible adults in our society need to confront the narcissism that is threatening to overwhelm us. Narcissism must be identified as the enemy of civilized life for individuals, families, societies, and humanity.
Chaos is the antithesis of civilization. The degree to which we emerge from a state of individual narcissism will determine the level of development with which we can relate to our families, society, and humanity. Chaos is the natural environment of the narcissist – no rules, no regulations, no demands, no responsibilities. It is the world that is appropriate only to the infant, a world of unconditional love an acceptance.
If we are to be civilized, we must insist the chaos of childhood remains in childhood. We must distinguish self from other and establish our own boundaries so that we can respect the boundaries of our family members, society, and humanity. We must give up the regressive demand for unconditional love and acceptance and move forward developmentally to a place where rules are respected as the infrastructure of civilized life. We must return to the meritocracy as the standard for advancement. We must ask ourselves, “Who’s Driving the Bus?” and be sure that it is our most rational adult self at the wheel.
This article encapsulates all the reasons why the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act is a horribly bad piece of legislation (with the exception of the Marshall, Guardian and/or Safety Officer piece to put armed school officials or an armed security guard at all schools – basically PCSO Sheriff Judd’s plan). The rest is just scary and/or an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that adds more power and control to state and local governments – in fact much of it is down right Marxist in my opinion.
Any Republican in the Florida Legislature who voted Yes for this law along with Governor Scott who signed it should be ashamed of themselves.
I just read all 105 pages of the law again very slowly and it scares the hell out of me especially the part about the ex parte and Risk Protection Orders allowing the courts to seize all firearms of a person from their home or elsewhere accused (and must prove their innocence) of being a threat or risk to themselves or others without DUE PROCESS and in my view in clear violation of our 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights.
I highly recommend you read this law for yourself (here) especially pages 27 – 47 and 57 – 61 and send it out to others to read for themselves. If this doesn’t scare you/them then you are much too trusting of our system of Justice and its corruption by the left and establishment types in many areas than I am. At the Federal level they are trying the same thing called “Red Flag” laws.
I really don’t understand why the NRA is only going after the lowering of the age piece and not the ex parte order piece which is clearly dangerous for all legal carry permit holders and gun owners regardless of age especially in the hands of liberal judges, liberal prosecutors and LE officials in Democrat controlled areas (counties and cities).
We can’t deny that these ex parte order and Risk Protection Order pieces of this terrible law will facilitate the weaponizing of the law against 2nd Amendment rights! This is especially so where there are Liberal Judges and Prosecutors based in liberal districts, counties and cities.
Wake Up
This law is mostly about gun control rather than school safety! It is about solidifying the leftist base that wants to take away all firearms. It is simply a knee jerk reaction to leftist propaganda and politicizing dead children killed by a lunatic who should have been in jail or at least disarmed and this would never have happened.
The terrible Parkland High School shootings resulted from a failure of the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff and his Department to do their job in protecting schools including a Broward Coward Deputy on scene who refused to run to the sound of the gun and 3 other deputies who arrived while shooting still ongoing and hid behind barricade. Co – responsible is the School Superintendent and Board who put in place Barack Obama & Eric Holder’s Promises program to not identify or arrest criminal minority teenagers.
Where is the condemnation and firing of Sheriff Israel, his on school site Deputies who hid behind barriers as the firing continued for 4-6 mins and the on Site Captain scene commander who wouldn’t allow Fire Chief & his EMTs to render aid to the wounded for over 20 mins and the Superintendent of Schools of Broward County & his School Board who put in place the ill-conceived Obama Promise Program to cover up teenage minority criminals including the shooter – Cruz?
We need to be on a crusade about these 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment violations of our rights in this very dangerous, slip shod, knee jerk reaction law which is based on emotional outbursts from the left seeking gun control. The Parkland shootings are a clear result of a failure of law enforcement at the Federal and County levels and school board officials in Broward county and not every law abiding gun owner in Florida.
It seems to me that only a few folks seem concerned about this as all I hear from many conservative group and 2A advocacy circles are crickets.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/scott-signing-gun-control-bill-e1531086624743.jpg369640Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2018-07-08 17:52:012018-08-01 06:12:17How bad is the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety [and gun control] Act?
Intersectionality is the newest fad in political activism. What is it? Who’s involved? And furthermore, what does it even mean? No one is better prepared to answer these questions than Daily Wire editor-in-chief and podcast sensation Ben Shapiro, who breaks it all down in this invaluable video.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Intersectionality-Type.jpg360640Prager Universityhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPrager University2018-07-08 17:04:442018-07-08 17:19:45VIDEO: What Is Intersectionality?
That’s when I decided I couldn’t let this dangerous narrative go unchallenged. I chose to speak up and become an outspoken advocate of the Second Amendment and argue against gun control.
