An Interview With Tucker Carlson on What Makes Trump a ‘Political Genius’

Tucker Carlson, host of the popular Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” spoke to Daily Signal Editor-in-Chief Rob Bluey at The Heritage Foundation’s 41st annual Resource Bank meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Carlson received the prestigious Salvatori Prize, recognizing his work to uphold and advance the principles of America’s founding. The full video, plus an edited transcript of the interview, is below.

Rob Bluey: It is a true honor to celebrate the work that you’ve done, and I want to begin with the advice that you left this audience on how conservatives can take back the culture. You had two pieces of advice. Tell us about them.

Tucker Carlson: Well, have more children. I grew up in a world where it was considered embarrassing to have more than two children. I don’t think that’s the case now among middle-class, upper middle-class people, but it was.

First of all, it’s the most rewarding, greatest, most fun thing you can do. But it’s also the most profound thing. If you don’t like the direction of the country, have children, raise them the way that you want, consistent with your beliefs. It seems like all the answers are basic, nature-based answers, in my opinion. To everything. That’s the most basic of all, have more kids. Raise decent children.

And the second was just say what you think is true. I don’t actually think you get a ton out of confronting people and getting in people’s faces. I don’t think you’re going to convince anybody that way. But I think there’s inherent value in speaking principle out loud without shame or fear. And again, without the expectation that you’re going to win people over right away, because most times you’re not going to.

Aggression really doesn’t help much. I’ve definitely concluded that after years of being aggressive. But I think telling the truth is an inherently valuable act.

Bluey: You’ve had tremendous success with your show. It’s highly rated and millions of people are tuning in. How does that last point inform the work that you do on a day-to-day basis?

Carlson: The show’s successful because it’s on Fox News, which is successful. I’ve worked at a lot of different TV networks, and the network is what matters most.

I don’t imagine that my show is successful because I’m so great. I do think much more about what I say because there’s a bigger audience and because we’re in the middle of this revolutionary moment, and I’m counterrevolutionary.

I don’t say a lot of things without thinking them through, which is good. I mean, occasionally I do and get in trouble for it. But I really try to think through what I really believe and what I really think is true.

Bluey: But I’d say the topics you cover and the way that you conduct your questioning is different and unique from other TV hosts.

Carlson: Well, I don’t have a lot to add. I would just say two things. I think President Trump is interesting, and I agree broadly with his agenda. I certainly agree with immigration, that’s for sure. But I don’t think that every story is about Donald Trump, and most other people at the other networks think every story is about Trump.

I don’t have anything to add to that; I don’t think it’s that interesting. I don’t want to talk about Trump five hours a week, I just don’t. And not because I have some political agenda and it’s bad to talk about; I’m just not that interested, actually. There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on. I try to talk about that.

The second thing is, I really try to have an honest conversation. By the way, my mind occasionally changes. There are a bunch of topics, several topics, where I’ve totally changed my views because someone else had a better point than I did. And I love that.

Tucker Carlson at The Heritage Foundation’s Resource Bank. (Photo: Ivan Apfel Photography for The Heritage Foundation)

Bluey: You have a book coming out this fall called “Ship of Fools.” I want to hear about it because it relates a bit to Trump, right? I mean, you’re going after the elites, the ruling class.

Carlson: The book, like the show, is based on the most obvious questions. I’m not a super-clever person, I try to keep it very simple. Why would America elect Donald Trump president?

And the explanation in Washington is, well, they didn’t really. Putin did. Or voters were just so dumb, they didn’t know the difference. Or America’s racist, so they elected a racist. Those are contemptible nonexplanations. Those are stupid.

The real answer, obviously, is that people were so dissatisfied with the leadership in place as of the first Tuesday in November of 2016, that they decided to punish them by electing Trump.

This was a referendum on the ruling class; and by the way, we have a ruling class, and I’ve lived in it most of my life, so I know it’s real. It’s not a conspiracy, but we have a class system, increasingly, in this country.

The people in charge have done a really bad job on the big things, on foreign policy and the economy; and they’ve gotten us into a number of counterproductive wars. That was a bipartisan effort. It was started by Bush, but it was applauded by Clinton. So it wasn’t one party, it was both parties.

They made a bunch of assumptions about the economy that turned out to be wrong, and they helped destroy the American middle class, and then they don’t care. So they’re terrible. They’re deeply unwise and selfish and stupid.

Trump is the result of decades of unwise, selfish, and stupid leadership. It’s so obvious. I’m not a genius, I’m hardly a genius. It’s just so clear, and no one says that. I’m not sure why.

Carlson: He’s certainly made the divisions clear, which was always his role. Trump is whatever the opposite of a technocrat is; it’s Donald Trump. He’s not a detail man, to put it mildly.

He hasn’t swept into town with the “Mandate for Leadership” that Heritage produced in 1980 to guide the Reagan transformation of Washington. Here is how you handle every department of government. There’s nothing like that. And that really wasn’t the point. One hopes that there will subsequently be someone like that, but that’s not Trump’s role.

Trump’s role was to realign, or to make what had already happened obvious to everyone—which is that Republican Party really didn’t represent its voters very well, and the Democratic Party didn’t represent its voters very well either.

Actually, it’s not a contest between left and right so much as it’s a contest or a struggle between people who’ve benefited from the way things were going—me and all my neighbors—and everyone else who has gone backward, particularly economically.

If I could just say, the one sort of sin that conservatives like me committed was not paying attention to the massive transfer of wealth upward, and the stagnation in the middle. We thought that income inequality was something that you weren’t supposed to talk about, or you only cared about if you were Bernie Sanders and against capitalism. I’m totally for capitalism, but that’s bad.

You don’t want to live in a country where a small group of people control everything because you will have a revolution, and the system will be destroyed. Conservatives missed that and liberals were benefiting from it, so they didn’t say anything. That’s what the book’s about.

Bluey: You brought up Bernie Sanders and the left, and we’re having a conversation right now about whether we’re going to have a huge wave of progressives come into Congress next year. What is the left’s end game in view?

Carlson: The end game is always the same, which is to take back power. And Trump is offensive to them probably for a bunch of reasons, but the core offense is taking power away from them, disempowering the technocratic class.

Trump is the candidate for people who didn’t go to Choate and Princeton and Harvard Business School, and work at McKinsey. Those are his voters. The people who did buy into the system—with the expectation they would be in charge—are deeply offended by that, deeply offended by the power transfer.

So the point always is to take back control. But below that, a bunch of different things are going on. And politically, I think it’s pretty obvious now there’s no actual agenda. It’s not like they’re mad about trade.

They don’t like Trump, and Trump’s weird kind of unintentional political genius is to drive his opponents crazy. So all of a sudden you have liberals, some of whom are kind of reasonable, smart people, defending MS-13 and the dignity of porn stars. They basically are pivoting against Trump in such a way where whatever he’s for, they’re against and vice versa. Whatever he’s against, they’re for.

But then do they really want to be on the side of no borders, or calling ICE the stormtroopers, or defending Salvadoran gang members? Like, what?

He’s driven them crazy, and how does that work itself out? I don’t really know, it’s amazing to watch it, though, I’ll tell you that.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson received the prestigious Salvatori Prize, recognizing his work to uphold and advance the principles of America’s founding. The award was presented by The Heritage Foundation’s David Azerrad, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics and AWC Family Foundation fellow. (Photo: Ivan Apfel Photography for The Heritage Foundation)

Bluey: It sure is amazing to watch. Tucker, finally, I want to ask you: You started your career at The Heritage Foundation as a writer for Policy Review. Here you are today receiving the Salvatori Prize. What does it mean to you to win this high honor?

Carlson: I’ve always been grateful to Heritage for doing the most important thing you can do for a young person, particularly a young man, and that’s give him a job—making $14,000 a year! But no one else was hiring me, and Heritage did.

Adam Meyerson, who ran Policy Review, hired me and really kind of systematically taught me journalism. He was conservative, it was a conservative publication. But I actually didn’t write about politics, I wrote about the police and it was kind of nonpolitical. It was more a study in how to gather information, organize it coherently in an expository essay, just the basics. They’re not very complicated, but someone needed to teach me, and he did.

The Heritage Foundation made that possible and I’ve always been grateful for that. I don’t know why they hired me. I wouldn’t have hired me. I was a total loser. But they did, and so I’ve never stopped being thankful for that, ever.

Bluey: We’re so glad it worked out.

Carlson: Thank you. I am too.

Bluey: Make sure you watch his show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Pre-order the book, “Ship of Fools.” Tucker, great to be with you.

Carlson: Great to see you, Rob.

INTERVIEW BY

Portrait of Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey

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

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

Islamic Republic of Iran admits to facilitating 9/11 attack

You can read the details of how Iran helped facilitate the 9/11 attacks in my new book, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS (preorder here). The funny thing is that as I was adding that section to the book, I was thinking to myself, “Here is the part that will make some readers dismiss the book as containing some crazy conspiracy theory.” My publicist Mohammad-Javad Larijani, however, has now helpfully taken care of that problem.

“Iran Admits To Facilitating 9/11 Terror Attacks,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 8, 2018:

Iranian officials, in a first, have admitted to facilitating the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. by secretly aiding the free travel of al Qaeda operatives who eventually went on to fly commercial airliners into the Twin Towers in New York City, according to new remarks from a senior Iranian official.

Mohammad-Javad Larijani, an international affairs assistant in the Iran’s judiciary, disclosed in Farsi-language remarks broadcast on Iran’s state-controlled television that Iranian intelligence officials secretly helped provide the al Qaeda attackers with passage and gave them refuge in the Islamic Republic, according to an English translation published by Al Arabiya.

“Our government agreed not to stamp the passports of some of them because they were on transit flights for two hours, and they were resuming their flights without having their passports stamped. However their movements were under the complete supervision of the Iranian intelligence,” Larijani was quoted as saying.

The remarks represent the first time senior Iranian officials have publicly admitted to aiding al Qaeda and playing a direct role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks.

The U.S. government has long accused Iran of playing a role in the attacks and even fined the Islamic Republic billions as a result. The U.S. 9/11 Commission assembled to investigate the attacks concluded that Iran played a role in facilitating the al Qaeda terrorists.

Larijani admitted that Iranian officials did not stamp the passports of the al Qaeda militants in order to obfuscate their movements and prevent detection by foreign governments. Al Qaeda operative also were given safe refuge in Iran….

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook on the hunt to remove nationalist Burmese patriot monks from their platform

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Trump excluded Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups from Iftar at White House

In Jihad Watch’s coverage of Donald Trump’s welcoming Muslims to the White House for a Ramadan Iftar dinner, Robert Spencer indicated that Trump’s statement about Ramadan’s message of “timeless message of peace, clarity [sic], and love” was a “dispiriting reiteration of the fantasies that prevailed in Washington during the three administrations (at least) that preceded his.”

It is also interesting that Trump excluded Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups from his Iftar:

Among the excluded political groups were the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Also excluded were the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

CAIR, ISNA and ICNA, as well as other mainstream Muslim groups, are all linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. That they were not invited to the White House is a significant statement.

The exclusion is a sharp change from former President Barack Obama, who put the Brotherhood-linked groups front-and-center in his Iftar dinners and his Middle East strategy.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates are enemies to America, enemies to democracy, and to the West. The next step for the Trump administration and other Western democracies would be to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, given its established mandate….

that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

“Trump Excludes Brotherhood-Tied Groups from Iftar Dinner”, by Neil Munro, Breitbart, July 7, 2018:

President Donald Trump excluded a variety of domestic Islamic groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood from his first White House annual Islamic ‘Iftar’ dinner.

The exclusion is a sharp change from former President Barack Obama, who put the Brotherhood-linked groups front-and-center in his Iftar dinners and his Middle East strategy. His regional strategy crashed once the Brotherhood groups in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and other countries were unable to restrain their Islamic radicalism during the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Reports show that most of the invitees at the dinner were the ambassadors of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco. The dinner marks the end of the Islamic Ramadan season of fasting.

Among the excluded political groups were the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Also excluded were the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which cater to Muslim immigrants from Arab countries and from the Indian sub-continent.

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation. MPAC was “established in 1988 by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah… [and] is yet another Islamist wolf in the ‘social justice’ clothing of the hard Left,” said Andrew McCarthy, a prosecutor who convicted several Muslims for the New York jihad attacks.

Exclusion is a financial hit for various groups, some of which rely on domestic — or even foreign — donors who support them because of the groups’ claimed ability to advance Islamic goals in U.S. politics.

The exclusion also shows that the White House rejects the groups’ unproven claim to be legitimate and popular political representatives of Muslims in America. Polls show these groups have little sway among the Muslims who live in America. Also, Muslims in America are already represented in Washington by their local congressional representatives…..

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Jihad Watch.

Homeschooling Skyrockets

Until communities retake control of their local school boards, and until there are sweeping changes in the educational process so children are taught to read, write, and do arithmetic…oh, and write in cursive so their brains and neurological system can develop properly; and until the socialist agenda now rampant in our schools, including no longer teaching well or at any length about our founding as an exceptional nation, and what our founding documents truly mean, and why they came about in the first place; until Common Core and other  New-World Order crap is sponged from the educational system; until dollar numbers demonstrate beyond a doubt that our classrooms are properly prepared with all the needed manipulatives – and Kleenex and toilet paper; until parents (tax payers) begin to demand a full accounting of the never ending cycle of pay increases which never seem to trickle down into classrooms; until school boards once again become accountable to the citizens of that particular district, there will continue to be an exodus of students into private or charter schools.

It has taken time to gain momentum but parents are beginning to grasp the scam of continued and increased funding for education while the product being turned out is less than impressive.  One large school district in Arizona was excited to tell any and everyone who would listen that 80% of their senior’s graduate high school.  What about the other 20% that don’t graduate?!  And out of that 80% what is not told is that only 15-20% attend a university, with the remainder going on to junior college, but even then after a year many drop out.  Junior College is fine, and actually makes great sense helping to get lower division college courses out of the way before tackling those within your major.  Likewise junior college is less expensive than a university.  But beneath the smiles and all is right with the world, a bitter and hard truth remains.  A very large portion of students still matriculating cannot successfully work at the academic level they are occupying, much less at institutions of higher learning and taking challenging academics.

Additionally…the social reprogramming and social Marxism deliberately taught in our school systems is atrocious and getting worse. 

As parents pull away from the quickly deteriorating schools and systems, turning to either home schooling, charter schools, or private schools funding based on student enrollments will also deteriorate, and teachers will once again be out marching and protesting.

Parents truly need to confront local school boards about turning out a better product, one based on time honored traditional educational practices, versus the shift to New Age and New-World Order philosophy and thinking.  Parents are their child’s best advocate.  Many parents have found their voices in this regard, and it shows by the numbers of children withdrawn from schools.  Advocate on!  Pulling your student from a poorly functioning/performing school is another form.

Children are our best hope for the future…take a long and sober look and tell me what you see?

Homeschooling skyrockets as more parents get fed up with Left-wing social engineering and violence in public schools

by JD Heyes

(Natural News) Thanks to the incessant Left-wing counter-culture social engineering and increasing levels of violence and bullying, more American parents are pulling their kids out of failing government schools and teaching them at home.

Read more of this post

Background Checks WERE Done on Applicants for Florida Gun Licences

EDITORS NOTE: On June 8th, 2018 the Tampa Bay Times reported that Florida’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS) — the agency led by Adam Putnam — failed to conduct complete criminal background checks on concealed weapons permit applicants. Agricultural Commissioner Putnam and Congressman Ron DeSantis are running for the Republican nomination for Governor. Both strongly support the Second Amendment.

The media isn’t getting it right and anti-gun Democrats don’t want to get it right —  for some, it’s all about attacking a candidate for political reasons. This issue is extremely important to all firearms owners and license holders.  Truth and facts matter, so here is what really happened.

THE FACTS:

The Division of Licensing under the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS) did, in fact, do background checks on applicants for licenses to carry concealed weapons or firearms.

Background checks were done through FCIC (Florida Criminal Information Computer system) and NCIC (National Criminal Information Computer system — the national FBI fingerprint data base) and they also did a NICS check (National Instant Check System), which is the name-based background check system.

The NICS system is the same system used by retail firearms dealers to do background checks when a person buys a firearm.

ALL THREE BACKGROUND CHECKS WERE DONE.

During the time the employee failed to do her job, approximately 350,000 applicants for carry licenses were processed. Of those 350,000, 365 had a disqualifier based on the NICS background check.

The employee should have uploaded those 365 into the internal computer system to stop the processing of those applications. She did not. So those 365 applicants got their licenses anyhow.

Although they got their licenses to CARRY firearms, they still would not have been allowed to purchase a firearm from a firearms dealer because the same NICS background check would have been performed by a dealer and would have stopped them from purchasing a firearm.

A license to carry does not exempt a person from the background check required when you purchase a firearm.  The license ONLY exempts a license holder from the 3-day waiting period.

When the Division discovered the problem, the employee was let go.  The Division then ran new background checks on all 365 applicants who initially had NICS name-based disqualifiers. Of those 365, 74 were cleared and 291 still had disqualifiers, so their licenses to carry firearms were immediately suspended.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.  The facts don’t fit narrative being pushed by the anti-gun political opponents of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, who is a candidate for Governor.

Feel free to forward this Alert to family members, friends and fellow sportsmen and firearms owners.

Meet the Arnolds: Planned Parenthood’s Billionaire Benefactors

With Starbucks in hot water over its donations to Planned Parenthood, 2ndVote decided to look into other major donors to the abortionist the general public might night be aware of.

John and Laura Arnold

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation has donated almost one billion dollars to research since 2011. The organization is renowned for its focus on evidence-based solutions to public policy problems. Its grants fund projects have funded research on those suffering from mental healthbetter understanding of gun violence, and bail reform.

What’s less known is that behind the Foundation’s “evidence-based” efforts is frequently distinctly left-wing, anti-life advocacy.

For example, while the Arnolds give to both parties, John Arnold was a bundler for the 2008 Obama campaign. According to Huffington Post in 2012:

Billionaire John Arnold, a former Enron trader and his wife Laura, were slated to host in their Houston home a $10,000-ticket Obama fundraiser to feature Michelle Obama last October (the event was postponed). Arnold describes himself as a libertarian, and his wife Laura identifies as a Democrat. Still, Arnold was one of Obama’s top 2008 donors, a bundler who gave the campaign between $50,000 and $100,000. According to Huffington Post’s FundRace, he has given $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund 2012.

Both Arnolds have also contributed a few thousand each to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and hundreds of thousands to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The Arnolds have also personally donated millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood’s powerful political arm. In the past two years alone, the Arnolds contributed to the following pro-abortion entities:

Also, their foundation gave nearly $1.5 million in 2015 and 2016 to Improving Contraceptive Options Now (ICON), a research project of MRDC which explicitly focuses on funding abortion-inducing drugs and devices like the Intra-Uterine Device for teenagers.

See more of 2nd Vote’s research on which companies and non-profits are funding Planned Parenthood here.

 Help us continue providing valuable content like this by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Abuse Cover-Ups Haven’t Stopped Starbucks’ Funding of Planned Parenthood

CrossFit Exposed: LGBT Ideology Trumps Fitness & Health

CrossFit CEO Greg Glassman has spent years helping other people become physically fit. It has made him a wealthy man and made his company one of the world’s largest. He has used that influence to fight against the soda lobby and to urge politicians to act on behalf of “science” to improve Americans’ health.

Unfortunately, this week Glassman used ideology instead of science to fire an employee who espoused traditional Christian sexual values. This hypocrisy — science and research which show that same-sex sexual relationships are inherently harmful to the human body — is doubly appalling because it is a betrayal of America’s tradition of religious tolerance.

The full story can be seen here and here. The short version is that a CrossFit-affiliated fitness center in Indianapolis cancelled a planned LGBT Pride workout because the owner believed that “total health involves the body, the emotions, relationships, and the spirit.” According to the owner, pride is “the foundational detractor from health” and “as a business we will choose to deploy our resources towards those efforts and causes that line up with our own values and beliefs.”

LGBT activists’ reactions caused that gym to close. Things escalated when CrossFit’s now-fired Chief Knowledge Officer Russell Berger – a Christian pastor – said in since-deleted Tweets, “The intolerence of the LGBTQ ideology toward any alternative views is mind-blowing” and that “the tactics of some in the LGBTQ movement toward dissent is an existential threat to the freedom of expression.”

Glassman made things clear in a statement to BuzzFeed:

“He needs to take a big dose of ‘shut the f— up’ and hide out for a while. It’s sad,” Glassman told BuzzFeed. “We do so much good work with such pure hearts — to have some zealot in his off-time do something this stupid, we’re all upset.

Berger’s firing makes two things clear. First, CrossFit is aligned with leftist hostility to anything short of celebration of LGBT ideology. Second, their mission to use data to improve physical fitness only goes so far. The fact is that same-sex sexual relationships are unhealthy. Centers for Disease Control studies have shown time and again that same-sex sexual relationships are linked to emotional and physical harm — including the highest rates of HIV/AIDS for men. And a researcher at Catholic University of America showed that children raised by same-sex couples are less emotionally healthy compared to those raised in homes led by heterosexual, married parents.

Millions of people rely on CrossFit for guidance on physical fitness. We urge you to use your second vote to tell CrossFit that their intolerance and hypocrisy are unacceptable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Indianapolis CrossFit Gym Cancels LGBT Member’s ‘PRIDE’ Workout Because It Goes Against God’s Wishes

CrossFit Just Fired Its Spokesperson Who Said LGBT Pride Is A “Sin”

G7 — World Throws Tantrum As President Trump Puts America First

Leading up to the G7 summit, the entirety of the world Left, from Eurocrats to Media to American Democrats, are angry and supposedly fearful over President Trump starting a new trade war and tearing down the post World War II world order. They claim he is destabilizing the western world and much of the globe.

But that stability was for too long built on America shouldering everyone else’s load, from military protection for Europeans who could afford to do more for their own defense to unfavorable trade deals with those same Europeans and non-allied competitors such as China. In the decade or two after WWII decimated the world, that probably made sense. Maybe even through the fall of the Soviet Union in 1988, although that is less clear. But by 2018?

A shakeup in that part of the Post-War order is long overdue, and many common-sense Americans know this. And it may ultimately be good for the Europeans, depending on their long-term response.

The global pre-G7 hand-wringing and anger of the elitist Left is more akin to a child who has been coddled and spoiled and is suddenly being held to account for his actions. That child is naturally going to be angry and throw a tantrum.

This is most clear with our cushioned western European allies. Our eastern European allies are less elitist, less cushioned and have a more pro-American take.

Donald Tusk, President of the European Council and an elitist bureaucrat among elitist bureaucrats, arrogantly dismissed President Trump as mere “seasonal turbulence.” It’s really pitch perfect for exactly what is wrong in Europe, including that this man, a “president,” is utterly unaccountable and unreachable by any European voters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after Trump criticized European leaders for not spending what they promised to spend on military as part of NATO — part of America shouldering an undue share of their burden: “the times when we could fully rely on others are to some extent over.”

Germany has been one of the biggest leeches on the American military, and thus American taxpayer, even though they were at the front line of the Iron Curtain. If Merkel is saying “fully rely” on America to carry too much of the German defense burden, then hopefully she is right. It doesn’t mean we aren’t allies

But Merkel, arguably the worst Post-War German Chancellor (counting only West Germans when the nation was divided) has continued on her anti-Trump, and anti-America-first rhetoric leading up to the G7.

Just Wednesday, she said, “That was my takeaway from the NATO summit, and in the meantime I continue to feel confirmed by my statement…All of that confirms the assessment that the world is being reorganized.”

Merkel, along with French, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and other western European leaders combine the NATO comments with Trump’s decision to exit from the Paris global climate treaty — which has since been revealed to be the empty vessel it was — and his exit from the Iran nuclear “accord” last month with his push for more fair trade for Americans, as a threat.

It’s only a threat to the coddled. Ultimately, forcing the Europeans to stand more firmly on their own two legs, and compete for fairly, will be good for them unless they just lay on the floor scream in tantrum mode. They probably will not. After an adjustment period, they will begin altering policies to reflect the new reality and potentially become more lean and competitive and be able to carry more of their own defense load.

Because the reality is that the American economy is rocking from top to bottom, and a lot of it is due directly to the election of Trump and his deregulation and tax policies.

Here is a telling confession from a top American economist: “A lot of us economists have had our long-term forecasts ruined by the election of Donald Trump,” Moody Managing Director and Chief Economist John Lonski told Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney. “The idea was that growth would be stuck at 2 percent indefinitely, stagnation had set in for the long run and now we’re not so sure that is necessarily going to be the cast.”

GDP growth is now estimated to be 3.5 percent this year. Trump has changed the domestic paradigm as he is working on the international paradigm.

Trump upsetting the table cart domestically has meant net good things for all Americans who don’t want to just live on the dole. It can mean the same for our European allies, too. But they’ll have to adjust.

We won’t see that sentiment at the G7 summit. But we might down the road.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Larry Kudlow: “Trump Is Presiding Over Extraordinary Growth. G-7 Leaders Should Notice.”

Peter Navarro: The Era of American Complacency on Trade Is Over

Donald Trump Calls for Total Tariff Removals at G7 Summit.

Trump Takes On World Leaders For The Betterment Of American Businesses

President Trump Stomps On “Fake News” CNN at Quebec G7 Presser (VIDEO)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: White People

Are white people really as bad as the militant left make them out to be?

RELATED ARTICLE: Republicans Are More Eager to Vote This Year Than Democrats.

California Farmer Has Guns Confiscated and Faces Felony Charges After Trying to Register Rifle

California residents attempting to comply with the Golden State’s ever-increasing swamp of firearms laws and regulations should take warning. According to a report out of Bakersfield, a good faith effort to obey the state’s labyrinthine firearm rules will not spare a gun owner in technical violation of the law from the wrath of the California Department of Justice.

Back on May 17, local NBC affiliate KGET reported on the case of farmer Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann. According to the news outlet, the trouble started back in April when Kirschenmann attempted to register a rifle he owned with the California DOJ.

In California, “assault weapons,” or commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms with features the California State Assembly finds distasteful, are subject to registration. Pursuant to SB 880 and AB 1135, the California DOJ is now accepting registration of firearms lawfully owned prior to January 1, 2017 that fit the state’s new, stricter, definition of an “assault weapon” signed into law in July 2016. The change in definition targets firearms equipped with a “bullet button,” which allows the user to efficiently remove a fixed magazine with the use of a tool. The registration period runs through June 30, 2018.

The KGET report explained that during his attempt to comply with state law, Kirschenmann submitted photos of “an illegally modified” AR-15 to the California DOJ. This prompted an investigation by the DOJ that culminated in a raid of Kirschenmann’s home. Once inside the property, investigators allegedly discovered several unregistered “assault weapons,” a pair of suppressors, and what California terms a “multiburst trigger activator.”

Kirschenmann was arraigned on May 21 and given $150,000 bail. The farmer faces nine felony counts of unlawful possession of an “assault weapon,” two counts of possessing a suppressor, and one charge of possessing a “multiburst trigger activator.” There is nothing in the report to indicate Kirschenmann violated any federal laws or that he has misused his firearms in any manner.

The California DOJ’s persecution of Kirschenmann, following what appears to have been an honest attempt to obtain assistance in complying with state law, will sow further mistrust between the state government and gun owners.

The climate of distrust is understandable. Becerra and his predecessor, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), have been at the forefront of demonizing gun owners. At Becerra’s 2017 confirmation hearing he told lawmakers that he considered his NRA F- rating “a badge of honor.” Back in February, Harris told the media that Americans can’t take pride in their country due to what she considers insufficient gun control laws.

Many gun owners are already reluctant to comply with registration laws, as such schemes are quite accurately viewed as a means to facilitate firearms confiscation. Moreover, Kirschenmann isn’t alone in his alleged failure to conform to Sacramento’s mandates. As history shows, when faced with California’s increasingly onerous and byzantine gun laws, many decent folks have unwittingly broken the law, ignored new restrictions, or opted for civil disobedience.

In 1989 California passed legislation that categorized certain semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons” and required them to be registered. Few complied. Following the deadline and a “second chance” grace period, the Los Angeles Times reported that 46,062 firearms had been registered. Revealing the scale of noncompliance, the report went on to note that “The state Department of Justice has estimated there are 200,000 to 300,000 [commonly-owned semi-autos in the state]. Others have calculated as many as 450,000 to 600,000.”

With woeful registration compliance rates, one might expect gun control’s true believers to show leniency to those who make an attempt to comply with the law. Of course, that notion assumes gun control advocates consider registration in itself to be a valuable public policy. In truth, anti-gun advocates value registration only so far as it creates an additional barrier to gun ownership and enables confiscation.

Understanding this, California’s gun control laws have worked precisely as intended in Kirschenmann’s case. California officials have utilized them to remove firearms from one more benign American citizen and in doing so have inched closer to their goal of total civilian disarmament.

Are the Dems Still Ballot-proof?

Donald Trump may not be on the ballot in November, but the future of his conservative agenda is. And three waves into this primary season, that seems to be all the motivation Republican voters need.

For the third time in as many primaries, conservatives seemed determined to change the media’s narrative about the midterm elections — turning out en masse in four southern states that will be critical to keeping the GOP’s hold on the House. At least in Republican-leaning states, the “blue wave” Democrats keep promising has been more like a blue sprinkle. That’s not to say things can’t change — they most certainly can, especially with the string of West Coast and New England races still to be decided. But for now, it is clear that conservative voters are far from disengaged.

David Wasserman, one of the analysts with an eye on these trends, says that after a rough start to the year, Republicans are getting some small doses of good news. So far, the GOP seems to be reaping the benefits of a banner spring for the White House’s international policies. After positive developments on Iran, Israel, and North Korea, the Democrats’ lead over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot is nonexistent. After being up by double digits in January, Reuters says the two parties are neck-and-neck. But, Wasserman warns, there’s still a long way to go. “Republicans still can’t point to hard election data that proves their base has suddenly closed the ‘intensity gap’ in the last few months.”

But they’re working on it! Tuesday’s showing in Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Georgia was the third strong showing for conservatives in states where liberals hoped to make some noise. Our friend Chris Wilson (@WilsonWPA), who first started seeing some positive trends for Republicans in toss-up states like Pennsylvania, says that pattern is continuing. In Texas, the Democrats’ turnout in the runoff resulted in the fewest votes case since 1920!

“D’s hopes of turning #TX even slightly violet continue to fade,” Chris tweeted. “Despite a closely contested #TXgov runoff… Dems can’t reach record low of 449k votes from 100 years ago!” And that’s not all, “In each of the open #TX [congressional districts] where *both parties* had a runoff, [Democrats] massively underperformed.” Republicans, on the other hand, continued to stream into their polling stations. In Georgia, the party cast 54,000 more votes than Democrats, which seemed like small potatoes compared to Arkansas, where they cast 96,000 more. Obviously, these are states where conservatives should be outperforming liberals. But in a year where Republicans can’t afford to take anything for granted, the outcome was a reassuring one.

Meanwhile, over at Democratic headquarters, party bosses deepened their bench of far-Left radicals on the November ballot with wins for LGBT activists, abortion extremists, and candidates who promise a return to the Obama years. In the Democrats’ words: We will impeachWe will abortWe will raise taxes. And that’s exactly the kind of agenda that failed them in 2016. Even now, a full year and change into Trump’s administration, heartland Democrats have pleaded with the national party to return to the middle. “You’re Killing Us” was the message to Washington. A message, so far, unreceived.

Over at Deep Root Analytics, experts are making a pretty solid case for a values-driven campaign. After the May 5 and 18 primaries, we mentioned just how potent social issues are proving to be in this election cycle. Well, it turns out, they’re even more compelling than most pollsters realizedIn Pennsylvania and Idaho, where we pointed out that turnout was higher than expected, social issues appeared in “more GOP ads than any other issue — nearly doubling the total number of ads as tax reform, the next highest appearing issue.” In fact, Deep Root explains, there were “nearly two-times as many ads containing a social issue message than a tax message in these primaries.”

What does that mean? A lot if you’re a conservative campaign manager. “While the data we currently have access to does not allow us to comprehensively connect social issues advertising to higher-than-expected turnout, it does indicate something clearly: GOP advertisers relied on social issue messaging as their closing argument…” Obviously, David Seawright wrote, “advertisers believed that messaging on social issues was critical to their goal of both motivating and persuading GOP primary voters during the final stages of each campaign.”

It’s certainly worked in the primaries we’ve seen so far. Of course, the important part is not to get comfortable. I don’t mention these positive developments so that people can get complacent. On the contrary, we want people to know just how important and influential their voice can be. Making America great again starts by making America good again. And that’s not government’s mission, but ours.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Trumping Expectations: Pro-lifers Celebrate a Year of Wins

The Long Harm of the Law

Republicans Are More Eager to Vote This Year Than Democrats.

What We Can Learn About Welfare Reform from Europe

Daniel J. Mitchell Some European countries have made big changes to their welfare systems that are getting more people back to work.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

America has a major dependency problem. In recent decades, there’s been a significant increase in the number of working-age adults relying on handouts.

This is bad news for poor people and bad news for taxpayers. But it’s also bad news for the nation since it reflects an erosion of societal capital.

For all intents and purposes, people are being paid not to be productive.

Guided by the spirit of Calvin Coolidge, we need to reform the welfare state.

Professor Dorfman of the University of Georgia, in a column for Forbes, pinpoints the core problem.

The first failure of government welfare programs is to favor help with current consumption while placing almost no emphasis on job training or anything else that might allow today’s poor people to become self-sufficient in the future. …It is the classic story of giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish. Government welfare programs hand out lots of fish, but never seem to teach people how to fish for themselves. The problem is not a lack of job training programs, but rather the fact that the job training programs fail to help people. In a study for ProPublica, Amy Goldstein documents that people who lost their jobs and participated in a federal job training program were less likely to be employed afterward than those who lost their jobs and did not receive any job training. That is, the job training made people worse off instead of better. …Right now, the government cannot teach anyone how to find a fish, let alone catch one.

And Peter Cove opines on the issue for the Wall Street Journal.

…the labor-force participation rate for men 25 to 54 is lower now than it was at the end of the Great Depression. The welfare state is largely to blame. More than a fifth of American men of prime working age are on Medicaid. According to the Census Bureau, nearly three-fifths of nonworking men receive federal disability benefits. The good news is that the 1996 welfare reform taught us how to reduce government dependency and get idle Americans back to work. …Within 10 years of the 1996 reform, the number of Americans in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program fell 60%.

Interestingly, European nations seem to be more interested in fixing the problem, perhaps because they’ve reached the point where reform is a fiscal necessity.

Let’s look at what happened when the Dutch tightened benefit rules.

fascinating new study from economists in California and the Netherlands sheds light on how welfare dependency is passed from one generation to the next—and how to save children from lives of idleness.

A snowball effect across generations could arise if welfare dependency is transmitted from parents to their children, with potentially serious consequences for the future economic situation of children. …there is little evidence on whether this relationship is causal. Testing for the existence of a behavioural response, where children become benefit recipients because their parents were, is difficult… Our work overcomes these identification challenges by exploiting a 1993 reform in the Dutch Disability Insurance (DI) programme… The 1993 reform tightened DI eligibility for existing and future claimants, but exempted older cohorts currently on DI (age 45+) from the new rules. This reform generates quasi-experimental variation in DI use… Intuitively, the idea is to compare the children of parents who are just over 45 years of age to children whose parents are just under 45. .

Here’s the methodology of their research.

The first step is to understand the impact of the 1993 reform on parents. Figure 1 shows that parents who were just under the age 45 cut-off, and therefore subject to the harsher DI rules, are 5.5 percentage points more likely to exit DI by the year 1999 compared to parents just over the age 45 cut-off. These treated parents saw a 1,300 euro drop in payments on average. …the reform changed other outcomes as well. There is a strong rebound in labour earnings.

This chart from their research captures the discontinuity.

Here are the main results.

The second step is to see how children’s DI use changed based on whether the reform affected their parents. We measure a child’s cumulative use of DI as of 2014, by which time they are 37 years old on average. Figure 2 reveals a noticeable jump in child DI participation at the parental age cut-off of 45. There is an economically significant 1.1 percentage point drop for children if their parent was exposed to the reform, which translates into an 11% effect relative to the mean child participation rate of 10%. …welfare cultures, defined as a causal intergenerational link, exist.

This second chart illustrates the positive impact.

But here’s the most important part of the research.

Reducing access to redistribution to parents is a good way of boosting income and education for children.

…we examine whether a child’s taxable earnings and participation in other social support programmes change. Cumulative earnings up to 2014 rise by approximately €7,200 euros, or a little less than 2%, for children of parents subject to the less generous DI rules. In contrast, we find no detectable change in cumulative unemployment insurance receipt, general assistance (i.e. traditional cash welfare), or other miscellaneous safety net programs. Looking at a child’s educational attainment, there is intriguing evidence for anticipatory investments. When a parent is subject to the reform which tightened DI benefits, their child invests in 0.12 extra years of education relative to an overall mean of 11.5 years. …these findings provide suggestive evidence that children of treated parents plan for a future with less reliance on DI in part by investing in their labour market skills.

And it’s also worth noting that taxpayers benefit when welfare eligibility is restricted.

These strong intergenerational links between parents and children have sizable fiscal consequences for the government’s long term budget. Cumulative DI payments to children of the targeted parents are 16% lower. This is a substantial additional saving for the government’s budget, especially since there is no evidence that children substitute these reductions in DI income for additional income from other social assistance programmes. Furthermore, there is a fiscal gain resulting from the increased taxes these children pay due to their increased labour market earnings. Overall, we calculate that through the year 2013, children account for 21% of the net fiscal savings of the 1993 Dutch reform in present discounted value terms. This share is projected to increase to 40% over time.

Ryan Streeter of American Enterprise Institute explains that other European nations also are reforming.

Welfare reformers might draw some lessons from unlikely places, such as Scandinavia. While progressives like to uphold Nordic democratic socialism as a model for America, the Scandinavian welfare systems are arguably more pro-work than ours… For instance, to deal with declining labor force participation, Denmark eliminated permanent disability benefits for people under 40 and refashioned its system to make employment central. Sweden reformed its welfare system to focus on rapid transitions from unemployment to work. Their program lowers jobless assistance the longer one is on welfare. The Nordic model is more focused on eliminating reasons not to work such as caregiving or lack of proper training than providing income replacement. Similarly, the British government combined six welfare programs with varying requirements into a single “universal credit.” The benefit is based on a sliding scale and decreases as a recipient’s earnings increase, replacing several differing formulas for phasing out of welfare programs with one. An evaluation of the new program, which encourages work, found that 86 percent of claimants were trying to increase their work hours and 77 percent were trying to earn more, compared to 38 percent and 55 percent, respectively, under the previous system. …Scandinavia and Britain learned a while ago that successful welfare reform is not just about how much money a country spends on people who earn too little. It’s really about how to help them find and keep a good job. It’s time for America to catch up.

Amen.

For what it’s worth, I think we’ll be most likely to get good results if we get Washington out of the redistribution business.

In effect, block grant all means-tested programs to the states and then phase out the federal funding. That would give states the ability to experiment and they could learn from each other about the best way of helping the truly needy while minimizing incentives for idleness.

P.S. This Wizard-of-Id parody is a very good explanation of why handouts discourage productive work.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

Chicago: The Real Story

What makes Chicago one of the best cities in the world for some, but one of the most violent in the world for others? Colion Noir goes to Chicago—walks the streets the politicians avoid, and talks to the people the media will never feature—to get the real story.

Media perceptions and influences. Politics. Identity. Pop-culture. Instagram. Backgrounds. The glorification of gangs. Economics. Modern segregation. History. Jobs. Education. These are the chapters that make up Chicago: The Real Story. And Colion Noir reads them without fear, finding truth through interviews with Karim Shakir, owner of Hyde Park Barber Studio; Dave Jeff of PHLI, Inc.; Leonard “GLC” Harris, Hip-Hop artist and community organizer; and Chip Eberhart, Master Instructor of Top Shot Academy.

I didn’t leave the Catholic Church, but Pope Francis has left us Catholics

In a review of Wim Wenders’ documentary Pope Francis: A Man of His Word  titled “Social Justice Warrior: A Review of ‘Pope Francis’  writes,

But what makes Pope Francis: A Man of His Word an utter failure is its refusal to engage the whole story of this papacy. Only a single, unspecific mention (at film’s end) is made concerning controversy, despite the fact that this is objectively the most divisive papacy since at least the last Medici (to be sure, for different reasons). [Emphasis added]

Why is Pope Francis the most divisive papacy since the last Medici?

Perhaps the most recent interview with Pope Francis in La Croix magazine by Guillaume Goubert and Sébastien Maillard sheds some light on his “divisiveness.” Here are excerpts from that interview with the Holy See [read the full interview by clicking here]:

QUESTION: In your speeches in Europe, you refer to the “roots” of the continent without ever describing them as Christian. Rather, you define “European identity” as “dynamic and multicultural.” In your view, is the expression “Christian roots” inappropriate for Europe?

POPE FRANCIS: We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many. In this sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on colonialist overtones. John Paul II, however, spoke about it in a tranquil manner.

QUESTION: On April 16, you made a powerful gesture by bringing back the refugees from Lesbos to Rome. However, does Europe have the capacity to accept so many migrants?

POPE FRANCIS: That is a fair and responsible question because one cannot open the gates wide unreasonably. However, the deeper question is why there are so many migrants now.

[ … ]

More generally, this raises the question of a world economic system that has descended into the idolatry of money. The great majority of humanity’s wealth has fallen into the hands of a minority of the population.

A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy. [Emphasis added]

QUESTION: The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?

POPE FRANCIS: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.

In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would therefore be better to question ourselves about the way in an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq, where a strong government [under Saddam Hussein] previously existed. Or in Libya, where a tribal structure exists. We cannot advance without taking these cultures into account. As a Libyan said recently, “We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have fifty.”

Ultimately, co-existence between Christians and Muslims is still possible. I come from a country where they co-habit on good terms.

QUESTION: The significance of Islam in France today, like the nation’s Christian historical foundation, raises recurring questions concerning the place of religion in the public arena. How would you characterize a positive form of laicity (Editor: ‘laicity’ refers to the French system of separation of Church and state)?

POPE FRANCIS: States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of History. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward. We are all equal as sons (and daughters) of God and with our personal dignity. However, everyone must have the freedom to externalize his or her own faith. If a Muslim woman wishes to wear a veil, she must be able to do so. Similarly, if a Catholic wishes to wear a cross. People must be free to profess their faith at the heart of their own culture not merely at its margins.

The modest critique that I would address to France in this regard is that it exaggerates laicity. This arises from a way of considering religions as sub-cultures rather than as fully-fledged cultures in their own right. I fear that this approach, which is understandable as part of the heritage of the Enlightenment, continues to exist. France needs to take a step forward on this issue in order to accept that openness to transcendence is a right for everyone.

QUESTION: In a secular setting, how should Catholics defend their concerns on societal issues such as euthanasia or same-sex marriage?

POPE FRANCIS: It is up to Parliament to discuss, argue, explain, reason [these issues]. That is how a society grows.

However, once a law has been adopted, the state must also respect [people’s] consciences. The right to conscientious objection must be recognized within each legal structure because it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is a human person. The state must also take criticism into account. That would be a genuine form of laicity.

You cannot sweep aside the arguments of Catholics by simply telling them that they “speak like a priest.” No, they base themselves on the kind of Christian thinking that France has so remarkably developed. [Emphasis added]

QUESTION: The Church in France, particularly in Lyon, has been shattered recently by historical pedophilia scandals. What should be done about this situation?

POPE FRANCIS: It is true that it is not easy to judge the facts decades later in a different context. Reality is not always so clear. Nevertheless, there can be no statute of limitations for the Church in this field. As a result of these abuses, a priest, whose vocation is to lead a child to God, destroys him. He disseminates evil, resentment, distress. As Benedict XVI said, there must be zero tolerance.

Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under control. He is courageous, creative, a missionary. We now need to await the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings (Editor: As opposed to canon law proceedings).

What do these questions and answers say about Pope Francis?

Fundamentally they say he is more a politician and less and less a Pope. His answers go against the teachings of the Holy Bible. Let’s look at each of his answers above:

  1. “Christian roots” takes on “colonialist overtones.” Mark 16:15 NKJV, “And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.’” It is the duty of all Catholics, Christians and the Pope to preach the gospel to every creature. The Pope appears to believe that the success of France’s christian roots is something to denigrate rather than to preserve. Christianity has done much more for France and Europe than not.
  2. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy. Government controlled economies create crisis that cause people to flee.Migrants are coming to Europe to flee government controlled socialist market systems. The same is true in South America, specifically Venezuela.
  3. Iraq, where a strong government [under Saddam Hussein] previously existed. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who murdered his own people using poison gas and started an extended war with Iran that led to the death of millions. Strong government is Communist/Islamic today. Pope Francis appears to be giving this form of government a green light.
  4. It is up to Parliament to discuss, argue, explain, reason [these societal issues i.e. euthanasia or same-sex marriage]. That is how a society grows. Society grows by following the word of the Bible on these issues. When euthanasia and same-sex marriage become the laws of the land society degenerates. Read Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed.
  5. Church pedophiles “reality is not always so clear.” To clear the Catholic church of pedophiles the Church much defrock and excommunicate those accused of pedophilia. Not to do so gives succor to the sodomites.

Pope Francis is clearly working to change the Church to become more like the secular world. He is not up to the task of changing the world to be more like the Church. In this way alone is is much more dangerous that the Medici’s.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Non-Catholic’s Disappointment at Notre Dame

Majority of Democrats find Pornography ‘Morally Acceptable’

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – Recent Gallup polls are showing the moral divide between political parties is widening.

“For the first time on record, a majority of Democrats (53 percent) say pornography is morally acceptable,” Gallup writes. Published Tuesday, their annual poll on Morals and Values found 43 percent of Americans overall find porn “morally acceptable.” This is a jump of seven percent over 2017 and the highest level of acceptance since 2011 — the first year the question was asked.

Gallup also found that Republicans are increasingly accepting of pornography, although at roughly half the rate of Democrats. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans now think pornography is morally acceptable, a two percent increase over 2017. In that same time span, acceptance by Democrats jumped 11 percent. The poll also tracked Independent voters, whose acceptance rates climbed from 40 to 45 percent.

“From 2011 onward, notable shifts in opinion are apparent for actions such as doctor-assisted suicide, gay/lesbian relations, sex between unmarried people and having a baby out of wedlock,” Gallup reports, noting views on pornography have changed more than any of the other in the poll.

Gallup also found that America is the most liberal it has ever been. The results show record high acceptance for birth control, divorce, pre-marital sex, gay relations, doctor-assisted suicide and polygamy, while a record number of people find testing on animals and the death penalty morally wrong.

“Across a number of issues related to sexuality and sex, Americans have … been adopting a more permissive viewpoint, including such behaviors as sex between unmarried people and gay/lesbian relations.” Gallup notes. “Even behaviors that most Americans still consider beyond the pale, such as polygamy, have seen a notable increase in acceptability. In this context, it is hardly surprising that a similar change would be observed with respect to perceptions of pornography.”

Image

Gallup Morals and Values Survey

Gallup did not pinpoint a reason for Americans accepting pornography as normal, although they suppose the public scandal involving Stormy Daniels and Trump may have influenced public opinion.

“The cause of the single year shift on this item, though, is less clear,” according to Gallup.

In line with the increasing acceptance of sexual permissiveness is the increasing number of transgender or openly gay political candidates elected since Trump took office. The Victory Fund, “the only national organization dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ people,” has listed over 120 openly LGBTQ candidates.

Their website notes that they have helped to get thousands of pro-LGBT politicians elected, saying, “These LGBTQ voices have made significant contributions to advancing equality … from passing non-discrimination laws to defeating amendments to ban marriage equality.”

Gallup also found that 83 percent of Democrats favor same-sex “marriage” — nearly twice the rate of Republicans. Only 44 percent of Republicans favor it, a three percent drop from 2017.

Seventy-one percent of independent voters support same-sex “marriage.”

“The trend toward increased public support for same-sex marriage could very well continue, given that there is still room for increased support among Democrats and independents,” Gallup predicts. “Reaching a national consensus on the issue would depend more on greater acceptance among Republicans, who remain mostly opposed to legally recognized same-sex marriages.”

Gallup also found 71 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the moral and ethical climate and 77 percent feel it is getting worse.

Overall, 49 percent of Americans rate the country’s values are poor.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Open Pedophile Running for Office in Virginia by Anita Carey 

Podcast: Trump’s Record on Pro-Life Issues