New Book: “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism.” by Cathi Chamberlain

/in , , , /by

I recently attended a political meeting where I met the speaker for the evening, Cathi Chamberlain, who authored an interesting new book titled, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism.” This is essentially a refutation of Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals Paperback.” Alinsky, of course, is the well known Socialist community organizer who greatly affected the political schemes of President Obama, and Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Alinsky’s “13 Tried-and-True rules for Creating Meaningful Social Change” are well known among liberals and have long been an inherent part of the Democrats’ playbook. Remarkably, most Republicans are only vaguely familiar with Alinsky’s name, and most haven’t a clue about his political tactics. Enter Ms. Chamberlain who has examined these tactics and produced a handy guide to walk Republicans through them, and contest them. As such, this is intended to be an educational read; not only do you learn Alinsky’s tactics, but also how to resist them.

Interestingly, Cathi decided to copy the format and layout of Alinsky’s book, even the title and cover graphic, which is done to indicate this is a refutation of Alinsky. Frankly, I got a chuckle out of it as she used red MAGA hats on the cover.

Her TABLE OF CONTENTS are ultimately based on Alinsky’s 13 tactics, to wit:

Chapters

  1. Illusion of Power – Alinsky Tactic #1: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” Cloward-Piven Strategy in 1966 creates blueprint to transform U.S. into a socialist country. Dems join their cause.
  2. Viva La Revolución – Tactic #2: “Never go outside the experience of your people.” Millennials’ definition of socialism is flawed. Policies will turn America into the next Venezuela. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) explodes in numbers.
  3. Collusion Delusion – Tactic #3: “Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy.” “Steele” dossier is fake. Rogue FBI and DOJ Leaders. Abuse of FISA courts. Phony “Witch Hunt.” “Equal justice” dead in America?
  4. White Men Can’t Judge – Tactic #4: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” – Sham Supreme Court Justice confirmation Hearings. The left mocks due process laws and Constitution. Protests erupt nationwide.
  5. Sticks and Stones – Tactic #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Name-calling by the left is purposeful. Republicans’ moral high ground is damaging the GOP. Trump masters nicknames too.
  6. Stupid Is As Stupid Does – Tactic #6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” Dems keep constituents “dumbed down” for self-preservation. Rewriting history. Indoctrinated Millennials are destroying their own destinies.
  7. Impeach 45 – Tactic #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” No evidence for impeachment. Radicals pressure Dems to proceed. Dems’ overreach good for Republicans in 2020 elections.
  8. Trick or Tweet – Tactic #8: “Keep the pressure on.” Trump is first tweeting president. Bypasses “fake news” media. Keeps Americans updated on accomplishments and truth.
  9. Unmask the Boogeymen – Tactic #9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Obama’s final act unmasks Americans. Intel agencies use info to spy on Trump aides. Bad intel spurs special counsel to investigate Trump.
  10. Resistance – Tactic #10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.” Trump drains the “swamp.” Murkier than most thought. Academia, “fake news” media, Hollywood, never-Trumpers unite.
  11. Mobs vs. Jobs – Tactic #11: “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.” Well-organized mobs in America. Evidence points to funding by leftist billionaires. Goal is global socialism, ruled by wealthy few.
  12. Build That Wall – Tactic #12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” The left demands open borders and ICE abolished. Caravans from Central America rush border. Dems want illegals to vote.
  13. Divided, They Fall – Tactic #13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Radicals win House seats, force rational Dems further left. Moderate Dem voters uneasy. Trump works to split Democratic Party in two.
  14. United, We Stand – Never-Trumpers split Republicans. Trump succeeds despite naysayers. Republicans learn street fighting wins with only two years left.

Chamberlain’s dissertation is incredibly important as we enter the 2020 elections. Most Republicans take a John Wayne approach to politics, meaning they believe in hard work and fair play. Just remember, the Duke never shot anyone in the back. Unfortunately, the far-left does not think this way, and would stab their opponents in the back under the rationale, “All is fair in love and war.” Alinsky’s 13 tactics show them how to do it, which is why Republicans have to be forewarned.

This is an important read for Republicans, particularly as we approach the election and possible impeachment. If you are not familiar with Alinsky or his 13 tactics, BUY THIS BOOK!

Here are the details on the book:

“Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism.”
Cathi Chamberlain
Click for AMAZON.
Available from Amazon in paperback ($14.95) and Kindle eBook ($5.49).
308 pages
ISBN-13: 978-0692170984
ISBN-10: 0692170987

Cathi is also available to speak on the 13 tactics, which is how I met her. Contact her through her WEB SITE and Facebook page.

Keep the Faith!

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

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

Eric Zemmour, Who Demands – and Deserves – To Be Heard by Hugh Fitzgerald

/in , , , , , /by

The noted French writer, essayist, and broadcast journalist Eric Zemmour, the most famous public intellectual in France, was invited in late September to a meeting in Paris organized by supporters of Marion Marechal, the daughter of Marine Le Pen, and herself a former deputy in the French Assembly, routinely – and inaccurately – described as of the “far right.” Zemmour was invited to give the opening address, for he is the most important French figure among intellectual islamocritics. He is articulate, detailed, humorful, and relentless; his book The Suicide of France, has had an enormous and salutary impact on French public opinion.

Zemmour has the unsettling habit of saying what he believes to be true, and of being unfazed by those who, constantly yapping at his heels, try, through lawsuits and libel, to bring him down. He has for years been warning about the islamization of Europe, and his forthright islamocriticism has led to an endless series of attempts to punish and censor him; he’s been fined, lost jobs in journalism, and even been convicted in the past for “racism,” and more recently, for preaching “hate” (against Muslims). He was last year banned from television; fortunately, that ban was only temporary and he will soon be reappearing regularly on a news program.

What follows are rough translations, preserving the meaning without being literal, of excerpts from his address in French, including the unfriendly remarks of the writer of the article at Le Point.

“All our problems, that are made worse by immigration, are made worse still by Islam,” the polemicist Eric Zemmour claimed in his appearance on Saturday [September 28], in an impassioned speech against “colonizing” immigrants and the “Islamization of the street,” thereby espousing the conspiratorial and controversial theory of the “great replacement” of populations.

“In France, as in all of Europe, all of our problems are made worse by immigration: our [failing] schools, our [lack of] housing, our [rising] unemployment, the deficits in social spending, [the breakdown in] public order, prisons…and all of these problems are made much worse still by Islam. France is being punshed twice” insisted the essayist, who introduced the meeting organized in Paris by followers of the former deputy of the ‘extreme right’ Marion Marechal.

He [Zemmour] who was recently found guilty of provoking religious hatred castigated the “universalism of the marketplace,” as well as “Islamic universalism” which crushes our [European] nations…our ways of life, our cultures.”

The French state has become, according to Eric Zemmour, “the weapon that is destroying our nation and bringing about the subjugation of its people, the replacement of its [French] people by another people, another civilization.”

Between true living – and “living together in imposed and endlessly celebrated diversity”– a choice must be made,” he stated, citing the writer Renaud Camus, the theoretician of the “great replacement” of the white, mainly Christian population in France by Muslim immigrants.

“The question for us is the following: will young French people accept living as a minority in the land of their ancestors?” he insisted, making a plea for the notion of national identity, “the most unifying of subjects because it affects both the working and the middle class.”

“Our brilliant ‘progressives’ have led us to the brink of war among the races and war among religions,” he added.

Zemmour has been condemned for “racism” though he has never uttered a “racist” remark; he has been similarly condemned for “hate” though he has never promoted “hatred” of Muslims. His is simply a clear-eyed view of what is happening in France, where there are ever more Muslims, the result both of immigration, legal and illegal, and of the much higher birth rates of Muslims compared to that for the indigenous French. He cryptically lists the various aspects of French life that have been affected, for the worse, by the increasing Muslim presence. We can flesh them out below.

First, he mentions l’ecole, thereby alluding to the effect of Muslim immigrants on French schools, where classes are disrupted by Muslim students ill-inclined to obey Infidel teachers and rules, or to be well-disposed toward non-Muslim classmates. Muslims have also objected to parts of the required curriculum, such as the study of French history. Why should Muslims, after all, care about the kings of France, or the Crusades, or the Enlightenment, or the Resistance? And study of the Holocaust is unacceptable because it leads to sympathy for Jews, and that would never do. Why should they study Proust or Montaigne, both half-Jews? Or why should Muslims, many of them ask, study French literature at all, which has nothing to do with Islam, and indeed offends Muslims with its decadent themes? Why should Muslims have to learn about Western philosophy, art, music?

The tremendous pressures on teachers in French schools, at all levels, where the duties of instructors have increased, the demands on their time ever greater, and government financing has not kept pace with the needs of immigrant children, was recently brought home by the suicide of Christine Renon, the head of a school in the Muslim area of Seine Saint-Denis, who left a long letter describing her inability any longer to cope with an ever-more-difficult task and, she lamented, ever-less support from the government.

Logement is Zemmour’s allusion to the housing crisis in France. The government believes it has a duty – but why? — to provide public housing for Muslim immigrants, with their large families (requiring larger apartments). The heads of these families, the supposed breadwinner, are often unemployed, in no hurry to find employment, and happy to have French taxpayers provide such low-cost or practically free housing and other benefits. These H.L.M., or Low-Cost Housing (Habitation a loyer modere) projects, cannot accommodate all who are in need of such housing. The more that such low-cost housing is assigned to Muslim tenants, the less will be available for the indigenous poor.

Chômage refers to the high rates of unemployment in France. Many Muslim migrants arrive with no employable skills. Many of them are not too concerned; they are happy to accept unemployment benefits offered by the generous French state, and are in no hurry to be gainfully employed. Others who do take jobs at the lowest level thereby increase unemployment among those least able to afford it, the indigenous French poor.

Deficits sociaux is a broad term that subsumes the just-discussed categories and more besides. It refers to the failure of the French state to provide adequately for all the needs – decent schools and housing, family allowances, medical care, and so on — of the indigenous poor. Even the left-leaning Le Monde has written a scathing report on the amounts being spent by the French state on refugees, including single men who pose as children, who arrive from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and other Muslim lands, with no skills, not a word of French, most often illiterate in their own language, who have to be provided at once with lodging, medical care, language training, the most basic needs of existence. It all adds up to colossal sums.

Another nightmare for French taxpayers are the large Muslim families that arrive, legally or illegally, wave after wave, in France and at once are provided with low-cost or free housing. Then the husband simply goes off somewhere, possibly to fight for ISIS or some other group, or perhaps he simply decides to return to his country of origin, having dumped his family in the lap of the French state. The wife, with five or six children in tow, has no idea how to cope, and a small army of French social workers now attends to her family’s every need. Unsurprisingly, social spending in 2019 in France has so far left a deficit of more than five billion euros. And there are no signs of budgetary relief.

The ordre public refers to the consequences of the Muslim presence in disrupting life, as when Muslims take over city streets to engage in their five daily prayers, halting traffic and making noise. It includes those who engage in street crime, attacking and robbing Unbelievers at will, or in larger demonstrations, such as those of the “Yellow Jackets” (Gilets Jaunes), taking the occasion of general unrest to smash shop windows and grab whatever they can. There is a general air of fear and lawlessness in the Muslim-populated neighborhoods of France, as in Seine Saint-Denis, where cars of non-Muslims are routinely set on fire, and even the police do not dare to enter except in groups. Muslim rates of criminality, especially for violent crimes such as rape and murder, are six or seven times as high as those for non-Muslims.

Prisons refers to the ever-increasing numbers of Muslim prisoners, whom some have claimed make up 70% of the prisoners, though Muslims are only 8-10% of the total population. Others claim the Muslim percentage of prisoners is “only” 50%. All prisoners cost a lot to house; Muslim prisoners, who must be supplied with halal meals and places for prayer, cost even more. And while in prison, Muslims have been able both to radicalize other Muslims, that is, make them even more dangerous, and to convert non-Muslims who are eager, for personal safety, to join the “largest gang,” that is, the Muslim gang. Once these converts, and these radicalized Muslims, get out of prison, they are high the list of those who need to be constantly monitored, at great cost, by the French security services.

Zemmour is a dangerous enemy of the apologists for Islam not only because he happens to believe what he says about Islam and Muslims is true, but because what he says about Islam and Muslims happens to be true. And that is why he is never answered point by point, because he cannot be; instead, his arguments are ignored and he is subject to endless personal attacks as a “racist” and a sower of “hate” whom we need not bother to refute. And so the Comédie Française continues. But as with the furious testimony against Islam and Muslims by the late Oriana Fallaci in Italy, Zemmour has become ever more impassioned about the palpable threat of Muslims colonizing France, and impossible, thank god, for anyone to ignore.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Honor killing in Texas: Muslim beats his daughter and grandson to death, says “Yes that’s fine. I did it”

Pope unveils statue celebrating migrants in Vatican, says Christians have a moral obligation to care for them

Map: Nearly four times as many jihadis around the world today than before 9/11

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

PODCAST: The Gospel of Marx: A False Religion Explained

/in , , , , /by

Karl Marx once called religion the opium of the people—an imaginary coping mechanism that makes suffering in this world more bearable. His vision was a secular, atheistic one. But my guest today argues Marx’s vision was still intensely spiritual. In fact, he says Marx hijacked key themes from Christianity to create a false religion. Bruce Ashford joins me in today’s episode.

We also cover these stories:

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., receives heart surgery after chest discomfort.
  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls for religious freedom around the world at Vatican symposium.
  • Plaintiff to appeal after federal judge sides with Harvard University in discrimination suit.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Daniel Davis: I’m joined now in the studio by Dr. Bruce Ashford. He is the dean of faculty and provost at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary down in North Carolina, where he also serves as a professor of theology and culture. He also blogs at “Christianity for the Common Good.” And as a note of personal disclosure, he is a professor of mine. I’m a part-time student at Southeastern.

Bruce, thanks for swinging by the studio.

Bruce Ashford: Yeah, it’s great to be on the podcast today. Thank you.

Davis: Bruce, you’re an interesting blogger and writer because on the one hand, you’re kind of like waist-deep in historical theology and philosophy and writing the journal articles and all of that. But you’re also writing contemporary books for your audience, which is largely Christian, and you’re also blogging about contemporary political issues.

And one of those issues that’s come up already is that socialism is a recurring theme, with [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and [Sen.] Bernie Sanders and others bringing that back to the fore.

You’ve written about not just socialism, but the Marxist underpinnings of it. You write about how Marxism as an ideology is actually a false religion. And I think that’s an interesting angle.

I think a lot of folks, even conservatives, think of Marxism as just a set of bad ideas, but you’re saying it’s actually false religion and even idolatry. Why do you frame it that way?

Ashford: Yeah. And so you know, I’m not the first person to bring this up. The great French philosopher Raymond Aron, who’s a contemporary of [Jean-Paul] Sartre, explored this in a book that he wrote called “The Opium of the Intellectuals,” which is a play off of Marx’s “opium of the masses.”

He argued that structurally and existentially, Marxism functions more like a religion than just kind of a mirror ideology that’s been picked up on by some contemporary political scientists and philosophers like David Koyzis and Peter Kreeft.

The critique is really Augustinian, and Augustine argued that any time you take some aspect of the natural order and elevate it to a level of ultimacy, absolutize it, you’ve got yourself an idol or a false religion. And I think Marx did that with material equality.

What happens is when you take any one aspect of reality and you elevate it that high, you absolutize it, it becomes a cudgel with which you beat down other good aspects of reality. And we can talk about this later, but that’s exactly what Marxism has done, is taken this drive for material equality and beat down other good aspects of reality. It induces poverty and decreases liberty.

Davis: Lay out for us the basic Marxist paradigm. We hear the word so often, but what actually is the worldview of Marxism?

Ashford: We’ll start with his philosophy of history. He was an economic determinist, or something very close to a determinist, that believed the logic of human history can be traced by tracing economic struggles, class struggles.

So he divided the world into five eras and he argued that in each of these eras, you can see that human beings are essentially laborers and that their labor conditions determine who they are and determine the happiness of their life.

First is Asiatic, the hunter-gatherer stage, and this is where human beings were at the mercy of nature. The second era is the ancient era, and this is the slave master era where the slave is oppressed by the master. Then on the heels of that, you’ve got in the medieval era, the feudal system, and this is sort of the lord-peasant era and it’s a little bit better than the ancient era.

Marx argued that owners began to realize the problem with slavery is that your property can get sick or die, and your property usually wants to run away.

In the lord-peasant era, the peasants at least had some ownership of what they did. They got to keep their crops and so forth. They were less likely to run away.

Then we have capitalism, which is the owner-worker relationship, where he argued that the wealthy, the owners oppressed the workers. And he lived in an era of serious crony capitalism, the industrial era where there were immoral market agents who were working young children and adults 16 hours a day, things that we would never agree with—unhealthy forms of the free market. And he just assumed that that’s what capitalism was and he was wrong.

Then finally, the fifth era that he’s pushing toward is he believed that definitely and inevitably, the working class would disappear. They’d be replaced by machines and that they would rebel and that a few wealthy people would help them to overthrow the wealthy class, and that there would be a socialist utopia.

Eventually, and this is just laughable, he believed that under the Marxist paradigm, the state would wither away. And we’ve seen something like the opposite of that happen every time Marx’s thought has been instantiated in actual society.

Davis: That’s interesting, isn’t it?

Ashford: If you take Marx’s benchmark, which is history, Marxism fails under that benchmark in the most utterly devastating way, repeatedly. So that’s his philosophy of history.

His anthropology, this is important—he believed that human beings are essentially laborers. That’s who we are. It determines who we are. And because he was a determinist and because he believed that people’s way of thinking was determined by their economic class, he believed that people couldn’t really be reasoned with.

The problem with that, and we see this in contemporary society, [is] people take Marx’s thought and translate it to gender, sex, and race theory. The problem is that if people can’t be reasoned with, the only thing that’s left is coercion. They can be bullied—and we see in Marxist societies, imprisoned, assassinated. That’s his anthropology. So that’s a brief summary of his thought.

Davis: That’s interesting. It’s really evocative of the identity politics—you’re in this group but you’re in that group. And you’ve got certain interests and that’s all you are and you can’t rise above that. You can’t think beyond that.

It makes you wonder about Marx himself. Did he see himself as somehow above all of these people and able to get to the truth?

Ashford: That’s a great critique … and that’s another one of the many ironies that you’ve got.

Davis: Because wasn’t he a traitor to his own class? He was kind of raised in what he would call the bourgeois, the wealthy.

Ashford: Yeah. His father was a lawyer and he was sent to Berlin and didn’t have to pay for any of it. [He was at the] University of Berlin studying under the greatest minds.

Just last week I spoke at a College Republicans kickoff at a university in North Carolina and had a bunch of progressive activists show up and their activism, it was a Marxist form of activism. They treated me as a worthless piece of crap who could not be reasoned with and so they used kind of verbal forms of intimidation to try to bully me.

I’m not easily bullied, but I tried to engage them in good faith and about half of them ended up responding to me as a human being, but the other half didn’t. They treated me under Marx’s view. I was determined by my gender, sex, race, and economic class, and I’m somebody to be bullied rather than talked with.

It’s a problem that so many of our college students are being taught that sort of the Alinsky method and kind of the Marxist view of one’s social and political opponents.

Davis: That’s sad to hear. Unfortunately, [it’s] more and more common.

Before we get too much into that, though, I want to ask you about Marxism as an antithesis to Christianity. You write about this in your blogs and how Marx was putting forward an alternative to Christianity, but in many ways actually mirrored it. Talk about that.

Ashford: Marx converted to Christianity or early on, he was Jewish and converted to Christianity briefly. [He] even wrote some relatively beautiful prose about Christianity before he became an atheist. And when he became an atheist, he began writing his theory, you can tell it’s almost as if he had the Bible at his elbow. So for every major Christian doctrine, he built a Marxist doctrine that was the inverse of the converse of it.

For example, in Marxism, you’ve got a god and the god is material equality. You’ve got an evil, and the foremost evil is material inequality and the class struggle that exists because of that. Then you have a salvation. Salvation is Marxist ideology and revolution. And if I can stop there for just a minute, Marxist revolution is not political revolution.

Political revolution is something limited. That’s when you replace one political arrangement with another. But the socialists, most of them, to the extent that they’re like Marx, don’t want merely a political revolution. They want a social revolution, which is an entire upending, an overthrow of the social order. And that doesn’t go well. That never goes well.

When you clear the decks and try to start over again, there’s no one person or no group of people as brilliant enough and persuasive enough to overturn an entire social order and for it to go well. And that’s what Marx wants to do with the salvation he provides.

You’ve got Marx’s version of church and that will be pockets of classless people in the midst of the capitalist world.

When I was in Russia, I lived in Russia right after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Russians told me that they would have in their communist youth group meetings … a little Bible—

Davis: They had communist youth group?

Ashford: Yeah. Their youth group meetings. And they had a little green book that looked just like a Bible called “The Atheist Table” and they sang songs about how God doesn’t exist and how Jesus wasn’t God. It’s very similar.

Davis: Do they have any atheist altar calls or something?

Ashford: Yeah, I don’t know.

Davis: Baptism?

Ashford: Yeah, catechisms and so forth. The priesthood in Marx’s system is the Communist Party and now here’s an important one, the ethic. So the Christian ethic is a principled ethic. There are certain things that are wrong in and of themselves and you never do them, ever.

Davis: Like murder, stealing, rape.

Ashford: Rape, murder, yeah. But the Marxist ethic is utilitarian and under the Marxist system, the good is whatever helps achieve the socialist utopia. The bad is whatever hinders it. And that’s why Marxist societies have been so easily able to justify assassinations.

You had 800,000 executions in the first three decades of communism in Russia and it’s why they could imprison in the Gulag, I think, 1.7 million people in the first three decades in the Soviet Union. And those are the Soviet numbers. Those aren’t American numbers. That’s a fact.

So you’ve got a utilitarian ethic that ends up undermining human dignity. You have an end times. Christians talk about … We believe that Christ will return one day, set the world to rights, install the one-world government, the one-party system and justice will roll down like the waters. Well, Marx said his version of that and that is that once his revolution had happened, there would be such material abundance.

That’s funny, isn’t it? There’d be so much material abundance, people would be so happy, they’d be frolicking, and in the midst of abundance the state would wither away. And we know, of course, that the opposite happens in the Marxist system.

The state doesn’t wither away, it becomes like a giant octopus that swells to enormous proportions and reaches its tentacles into every sector of society in every sphere of culture.

And then finally, the Christian view of history is that history is linear. It’s proceeding toward something that would be Christ’s return. And that history is not a closed system, that there’s something that transcends us as a transcendent moral framework and there’s a God who underpins that. But for Marx, history is a closed system and the meaning of life is found within history, not without.

So that’s a summary of the way that Marxism functions as a false religion. And we can, if you want to in a little while, we can talk about what happens when you build an ideology, the functions of false religion.

Davis: Well, let’s do that.

Ashford: OK.

Davis: You talked about living in the post-Soviet world in Russia. You saw, I assume, the disastrous consequences of a whole half-century of communism. But talk about how that came about and why building a system on what you call an idol is what was really problematic.

Ashford: I was born in the ’70s, all right? So I’m an old guy and I remember—

Davis: Gen X.

Ashford: Exactly.

Davis: The last good generation, as they say.

Ashford: I hope so. I hope we’re a good generation. But when I was a kid … I remember watching Ronald Reagan on television talking about the evils of communist society. And I remember my parents received a bulletin four times a year from Voice of the Martyrs, and it would have photographs of Russian pastors and Christians who had been put in the Gulag in the concentration camps and it would tell their story and they almost always died of starvation within a few months or they were assassinated or killed, executed.

It got my imagination going. So, in the ’90s, I moved to a Central Asian corner of Russia and lived there for awhile. And I saw and talked to the people who lived under that regime. And it was absolutely devastating.

So here’s how we put it: When you take an aspect of the natural world and elevate it to the level of a god and make it a god, it’s always going to go badly. It’s going to distort and warp reality. It’s going to beat down other good aspects of reality.

So let’s talk about how that happened. And we’ll just use Russia as our examples, or the communists, the Soviet Union. We could do the same thing with the People’s Republic of China. And if it’s called the People’s Republic, it’s probably not the people’s republic. We do the same thing with Cuba.

Davis: Venezuela, today.

Ashford: Yeah, Venezuela. But we’ll focus on the Soviet Union. I know those numbers the best.

Marxism fails by its own benchmark, which is history. So, historically, the abolition of private property has not led to liberation. It’s led to oppression. Think about it. If you don’t have private property, you only have one thing left, which is your own soul, right? Your own inner freedom, freedom of conscience. And that’s something that nobody can ever take away. But other than that, you have nothing.

If you don’t have private property, the government can take absolutely everything away from you. They’ve got you in an iron grip. You can’t even go home. You can’t even go home to your house and be with your family, because you don’t even have that.

Historically, … the state has not withered away. It’s actually become enormous and oppressive. So to give some numbers in the USSR—the Communist Party used systematic terror, because remember, you can’t reason with people, right? People are historically determined.

If somebody is an opponent of the government and they can’t be reasoned with, and if you have utilitarian ethic, then the good thing to do is to get rid of those people.

Just from 1921 to 1953, 1.7 million Soviet citizens died in the Gulag, 800,000 were executed, 400,000 died from forced resettlement and the starvation and so forth that occurred from that kind of a resettlement.

Anthropology, Marx did believe in human dignity, not in the same way that I do, but his system undermined human dignity. …

For those of you listening, you really ought to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago.” There’s an abridged edition. That’s a very good edition. And in that, he talked about how the Soviet leaders viewed the Soviet citizens as swarming lice, that they didn’t have any inherent value or dignity. They only had instrumental value. And if you were for the revolution, they were good with you. If you are against the revolution, you could be eliminated.

Human beings also were essentially robots or animals in this theory, and I think that’s a negative. I think another problem with Marxism, and we see this in contemporary forms of Marxism, is that it misunderstands human nature and … it misunderstands evil and it locates evil either exclusively or primarily in systems.

Christianity doesn’t do that. Christianity recognizes that evil is, on the one hand, located in the human heart and rooted in the human heart, and that’s why we believe in bringing justice to individuals who have flouted the law. We do believe in what people call today systemic evil, that institutions, if you have enough individuals who are unjust, then their sin coalesces at the social level to warp institutions. But if you get rid of systemic injustice, you don’t get rid of evil.

The problem with Marxists is that they aim almost exclusively at institutions and don’t realize that you can get rid of the institutions and evil will still be there, rooted in the human heart.

A couple of other negative consequences is that a Marxist historic determinism led to moral relativism. We’ve touched on that a little bit, but that’s part of the corruption of society in the Soviet era, is moral relativism from stem to stern.

Then the last thing is … when I hear somebody like AOC or some of the socialists today talking about the 1%, sometimes I’ll laugh, sometimes I get upset about it because it’s so false.

We look at what Marx did in the USSR. The Communist Party, the KGB bosses were enormously wealthy and everyone else in the country was poor. Everyone else was poor. There wasn’t a 1%, there was a 1000th of 1% who was enormously wealthy and everybody else was poor. So if you’d like to help the U.S., let’s embrace a reality-based politic like you’ve got here at [The Heritage Foundation]. Socialism is not a reality-based politic. It’s grand utopian promises that can’t be backed up.

Davis: Given all that history you just laid out, economic Marxism has been devastating for country after country after country. Why do you think [socialism is] making this resurgence in American politics if it’s got such a bad track record? Is it just because we’re not educated or do you think there’s something more?

Ashford: Good question. I’ll give it my best shot at answering it. I think on the one hand, with younger Americans—millennials and Generation Z—there is a lack of awareness, historical awareness. They didn’t grow up exposed to the utter horrors of the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, the atrocities in Cuba. There’s not a kind of existential and historical awareness, so that’s part of it. But you’ve got older people, you’ve got Bernie, you know, crazy Bernie up there …

Davis: Who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

Ashford: And that woman stayed with him. And I don’t understand that, but I think people are drawn to utopia. I think we all are. We want, especially idealistic people, people are idealistic and are drawn to utopia. And there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but we can’t usher into utopia. And the reason is, their evil is rooted in the human heart, not in systems.

So no amount of clearing the deck socially and starting over with new institutions will ever bring that utopia. So we’re going to have to settle for something more realistic. And for me, I think the realistic thing is to have as minimal of a government as possible. Government’s going to have to expand a little bit sometimes and step in and fix some things. But the government should set the conditions where human beings can flourish.

When there’s immoral market agents, then we can step in and correct those immoral market agents. But we can’t do this sort of grand utopian revolutionary politics, it’s just not going to work out well.

Davis: Marxism, in its economic form, as you were talking about, is clearly devastating and a lot of folks on the left have said, “Yeah, maybe that doesn’t work. We’ll adopt like a softer capitalism, but we’re going to apply Marxism and all these other areas in sex, gender, race.”

Talk about that transition and how Marxism lives on even in countries that are capitalist.

Ashford: If you’d asked me 20 years ago, 15 years ago even, I would’ve said, “Marxism is dead. It is absolutely dead. It will never make a comeback.” But it has made a comeback. And you’re right, not just in the economic dimension.

Marx’s historic determinism has been taken and applied not just to economics, but to gender, race, and sex. You as a person, Daniel, are a white male, middle class, upper-middle class, I don’t know what you are, but you’re determined—

Davis: Definitely lower-middle class.

Ashford: … You’re determined by that and you’re not a person who can be reasoned with. Right? You are a person who should be shouted down, mocked, insulted, kind of intimidated, bullied a little bit.

Davis: Just incapable of an original thought.

Ashford: Yeah, that’s right. So you have identity politics based on identities. And I do think that identity politics defined as seeking the good of your own tribe at the expense of the common good is the death of democracy. It is a way to burn down the house that our Founding Fathers built.

So we want to promote a view where people are independent agents, that we’re not completely independent, we’re interdependent on other people, but we are able to think freely.

People can change their way of thinking like Marx did—[he] went from being a Jew to a Christian to an atheist, right? He changed his thought. He wasn’t so determined historically. And we want to treat other people with that kind of respect. I want to ascribe human dignity to them, and reason with them or persuade them instead of engaging in coercive forms of activism.

Davis: When you’re engaging with people, say they’re college students or someone else who thinks that you’re just part of your identity group and not to be reasoned with, to be shunned, are you ever able to succeed in breaking through to them?

I know you mentioned some college students earlier where you did, but how do you do that and how do you meet them at a mental level where you can actually have a conversation so that they’re not so tied to their ideology that they keep shunning you?

Ashford: It’s a great question. I started as an opinion writer about four years ago and mostly for Fox, but I’ve written some for The Daily Signal, The Daily Caller. When I would link to those articles on my Facebook author page, I would get all sorts of comments, as you can imagine, from activists.

I started an experiment then that I’ve continued, not just electronically, but sort of in-person engagement with progressive activists. And the good thing is that these people are human, they’re human. And that means that there’s a good chance that if you enter into a good faith conversation with them, they’re going to respond decently.

On average I would say about half of the folks do, if you work at it, end up responding decently and you have a good conversation … You don’t usually come away agreeing. You’re not going to win them over on the spot. But you come away with it having been a good engagement. And the other half of the folks I think on average have been so … so overwhelmed by ideology that their humanness doesn’t come out. But I think we need to be careful not to respond in kind.

Davis: Right, because I would imagine … it is easy for some on the right to also fall into that identity politics mindset where it’s like, “OK, you’re just going to hate me for who I am, then I’m just going to hate you for who you are.”

Ashford: Yeah. It’s a temptation. I’ve fallen into that trap plenty of times in my life. When you’re being kind of mocked and insulted and treated like a worthless piece of trash, you want to give it back to them. And I think it is OK to sometimes poke some fun at it or to push back really hard.

But we’ve got to remember not to respond in kind. And if we can do that, I think we’ll be able to win the day.

Davis: Well, Bruce, this is a fascinating discussion. I hope our listeners have enjoyed it. I understand you have some books on the market. What should our listeners check out on Amazon?

Ashford: If you’re out there and you’d like some reading, I’ve got a couple books recently you might like. I published a book called “One Nation Under God: A Christian Hope for American Politics,” it is a gift-size book, very small.

And then I published one recently called “Letters to an American Christian.” It was a fun book. I wrote it as a series of hypothetical letters, 27 brief letters to a hypothetical college student at an elite university, encouraging him not to be seduced by his secular progressive professors.

It’s a fun read. It’s kind of a book meant to be read at the beach or in an easy chair, if you’d like. It addresses all the hot-button issues, every hot and button issue that I can imagine that book addresses. So if you’d like to read it or buy one for a friend of yours who’s headed to college or who wants to think through political issues, I think that would be one that’s easy to read and gives some good talking points.

Davis: Fantastic. Bruce, thanks for your time today.

Ashford: Thanks. It’s been great to be on the show with you.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. Send an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hong Kong’s ‘Shot Heard Around the World’ Will Continue to Reverberate

Trump Decries ‘Scandal’ That Democrat Foe Involved in Whistleblower Complaint

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast and column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

A great new leader for our Armed Forces

/in , , /by

Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump participated in an Armed Forces Welcoming Ceremony to honor Gen. Mark A. Milley, who became America’s 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley takes over for Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, who is retiring after years of exceptional service to our country.

“We’re gathered together for a truly historic occasion,” the President said at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall in Virginia.

Gen. Milley, now the President’s top military advisor, brings an impeccable record to this crucial role. Throughout his 39 years of service, he has held multiple command and staff positions in eight divisions and Special Forces teams. Most recently, Gen. Milley served as the 39th chief of staff of the U.S. Army.

President Trump also delivered a touching farewell tribute to the deeply admired, outgoing Chairman, Gen. Dunford.

“Joe solidified America’s competitive advantage through global integration of the Joint Force. He also provided critical leadership during the complete rebuilding of our military,” the President said. A big part of that legacy is providing the crucial, strategic direction to the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It was Gen. Dunford’s brilliant leadership that guided our courageous service members to a resounding victory over the Islamic State territorial caliphate, now 100 percent obliterated.

“General, your life exemplifies those words that beat in the heart of every Marine: Semper Fi. America salutes your incredible legacy of noble service.”

As one exceptional leader departs, America gains another. Gen. Milley takes over as the highest-ranking member of the most skilled and powerful military in human history. And thanks to the public service of heroes like him, the best is yet to come.

President Trump: We will keep America safe, strong, and proud

Watch: President Trump embraces wounded veteran who sang ‘God Bless America’

‘The speech they’re trying to hide’

While the Beltway media wasted another week letting Congressional Democrats dictate their news cycle, President Trump was at the United Nations General Assembly last week fighting for the working Americans who sent him to Washington.

Here’s just a small sample of what he accomplished there:

  • President Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan reached two major agreements to rebalance our trade relationship. Japan will now open their markets to approximately $7 billion in American agricultural exports.
  • President Trump became the first leader of the United States to host a meeting at the U.N. on religious freedom, where he called on the international community and business leaders to stand up for religious liberty across the globe.
  • The Administration signed an agreement with Honduras on asylum that will help stem the surge of illegal immigrants at our border. A similar agreement was reached with El Salvador just a few days before the U.N. session.
  • The Administration announced more than $50 million in new funding to support Interim President Juan Guaido and the people of Venezuela in their crusade against the violent, socialist Maduro dictatorship.

At the United Nations, Trump Enrages the Left by Calling for Patriotism

More: The speech they’re trying to hide—President Trump’s stellar UN speech

Anonymous Group Condemns Errors in Amazon Synod’s Working Document

/in , , , /by
by Stephen Wynne  •  ChurchMilitant.com

‘International Group of Fathers’ denounces four ‘unacceptable’ teachings

VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) – An anonymous group of clerics and laity is denouncing “unacceptable” teachings put forth in the Amazon Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris (working document).

Calling itself the Coetus Internationalis Patrum Working Group (the “International Group of Fathers,” a reference to an influential traditionalist faction during Vatican II), the collection of “bishops, priests, and Catholic faithful from all over the world” explains that its members have chosen to conceal their identities owing to a “growing climate of intimidation and purges present in the Roman Curia and in the Church in general.”

Addressing Pope Francis and the synod fathers, the group begins by affirming that the Instrumentum Laboris “raises serious questions and very grave reservations, because of its contradiction of individual points of Catholic doctrine which have always been taught by the Church, as well as its contradiction of faith in Jesus Christ, the One Savior of all mankind.”

It goes on to summarize and refute four key “theses,” or errors, contained in the working document, declaring: “In conscience and with great frankness, we affirm that the teaching of these theses is unacceptable.”

First, drawing from paragraphs 30, 39 and 138 of the Instrumentum Laboris, Coetus Internationalis Patrum explains that according to synod architects, the religious diversity of Amazonian peoples “evokes a new Pentecost.”

Additionally, the group observes that according to the synod fathers, “respect for this diversity means to recognize that there are other paths to salvation, without reserving salvation exclusively to the Catholic faith,” and that the Catholic Church must integrate “other modalities of being Church, without censures, without dogmatism, without ritual and ecclesial forms.”

In its rebuttal, the group references the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ):

It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

Second, Coetus Internationalis Patrum notes that according to the Instrumentum Laboris, “The teaching of Pan-Amazonian theology, which takes special account of myths, rituals, and celebrations of indigenous cultures, is required in all educational institutions” and that Catholics are asked to “adapt the Eucharistic rite” to these cultures.

The group answers these contentions by again referencing Dominus Iesus:

It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. One cannot attribute to [prayers and rituals of other religions] a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors, constitute an obstacle to salvation.

Third, Coetus Internationalis Patrum notes that Instrumentum Laboris characterizes “the territory” of the Amazon and “the cry of its peoples” as a source of revealed religion, alongside theological sources such as Sacred Scripture, Church Councils and the Fathers of the Church.

The group responds by quoting from the Vatican’s 1965 document Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation):

Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.

Finally, Coetus Internationalis Patrum spotlights the Instrumentum Laboris’ attack on the priesthood: “It is suggested that ordination be conferred on older persons who have families and to confer ‘official ministries’ on women. There is thus proposed a new vision of Holy Orders which does not come from Revelation, but from the cultural usages of the Amazonian people.”

In its refutation, the group points to half a dozen Vatican documents, including Presbyterorum Ordinis, the Second Vatican Council’s 1965 decree on the ministry and life of priests; Pastores Dabo Vobis, Pope John Paul II’s 1992 apostolic exhortation on the formation of priests; Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical on priestly celibacy; and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter on reserving priestly ordination to men alone.

In denouncing multiple errors in the Instrumentum Laboris, Coetus Internationalis Patrum joins a growing chorus of critics, including Cdl. Raymond Burke, Cdl. Gerhard Müller, Cdl. Walter Brandmüller, Cdl. Jorge Urosa and Bp. Athanasius Schneider.

Antifa Blocks, Berates Elderly Woman Using Walker

/in , , , , , /by

Masked members of Antifa blocked the way of an elderly woman using a walker, berating her by yelling, “Nazi Scum, off our streets!” (See video below)

The woman was trying to attend a fundraising event featuring Maxime Bernier, founder of the People’s Party of Canada, considered by the protesters as right-wing and, thus, unacceptable.

The video shows the woman’s husband coming to her aid as they attempt to cross a street to enter Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Her husband can be seen trying to reason with a female protester, who can be heard screaming at him, “Don’t you f***ing touch me!”

He eventually got help from police officers who intervened and escorted the couple into the building, where Bernier was – ironically – holding a discussion with U.S. political commentator Dave Rubin on free speech and censorship.

The woman’s son, David Turkoski, later posted his mother’s response on Twitter.

Bernier supports stricter immigration laws and opposes the “extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity” of current Canadian Prime Justin Trudeau.

Before he founded the People’s Party, Bernier was a member of the Conservative party where he served as a member of parliament as well as Minister of Industry, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism. In 2017, he nearly won the leadership of the party.

Counter-protesters showed up to oppose Antifa, who unsuccessfully put maximum pressure on Mohawk College to cancel the event. Four arrests were made (two from each side) for breaching the peace.

Police are currently reviewing the video of the event before deciding to arrest the specific individuals involved in the incident.

Antifa has a history of violent protests, most recently when they targeted journalist Andy Ngo, among others, at a protest in Portland. Ngo ended up in the hospital with a brain bleed from the injuries he sustained. Others ended up with bleeding heads as well.

Antifa was also responsible for the 2017 violent demonstration and subsequent riots in Berkeley. Its members were reacting to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos being invited to speak on campus. During the riots, Antifa members smashed the windows of a Marine Corps recruiting office after sucker-punching someone who voiced opposition to them.

RELATED STORIES

CAIR Joins Antifa Supporters in Mocking Beaten Journalist 

Conservative Journalist Andy Ngo Suffers Brain Bleed After Attack

More Heads Bashed by Antifa in Portland

ADL, Antifa And Koch: Toxic Anti-Trump League

VIDEO: Amazing Polly on the control totalitarian leftists wield in Canada — Names are named

/in , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

This is both excellent and important

Thank you EB.

It should be noted, that Polly names Richard Warman several times in her video, which is an act of real courage in Canada. Warman occupies the same legendary space as Bloody Mary, the child’s superstition where if you say her name three times while facing a mirror, a ghost comes and possesses you or otherwise does some supernatural horror.

With Warman, if you name him, you find yourself in a court where all the officials seem unusually sympathetic to his point of view, and no matter what the facts are or what the laws on freedom of speech used to be, Warman walks away with a ton of your cash and you sign some kind of order agreeing never to speak of it. (Watch the interview with the Canadian comedian who had to sign an NDA with the Human Rights Commission when he lost a suit against two lesbians who heckled him, and he had the temerity to answer back)

Why Even Liberals Should Be “Climate Change Skeptics”

/in , , , , , , , /by

Given the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

When you’re several decades older than Greta Thunberg, her impassioned warning of impending doom hits you differently than it may college students or early twenty somethings. In a word, it sounded “familiar.”

I’m not just talking about the climate change movement, nor exclusively about the left side of the political spectrum. I’ve been hearing about impending doom that can only be averted by massive increases in the size and scope of government my whole life, from both the right and the left.

The earliest example I remember came from the right. During the 1980s, the airwaves were flooded with reports on the military superiority of the Soviet Union. I don’t mean their nuclear weapons capabilities, which were and remain a valid cause for concern, as are those of every nuclear-armed government. No, the American public was saturated with reports of the Soviet Union’s superiority in waging conventional war, with planes, tanks, ground troops, etc.

The only solution, said the Reagan administration, was massive increases in military spending, which not only doubled the size of the federal government overall during Reagan’s two terms but started a trend of massive military spending that continues to this day. The conventional wisdom of the right says it was this spending that caused the Soviet Union to collapse because they tried to keep up and couldn’t. It wasn’t. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its communist economic system, which former KGB agent Vladimir Putin admitted in 2009 when he said,

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

The truth is, the Soviets were never a military threat, outside their nukes, which Reagan’s spending did nothing to deter. Poor countries generally don’t win conventional wars against much richer ones. Knowing that now, would you like to have those trillions in unnecessary military spending back?

The 1980s also saw a massive increase in the so-called “War on Drugs.” Capitalizing on the tragic death of basketball player Len Bias, drug warriors succeeded in convincing the American public that only draconian drug laws and sentencing guidelines could save their children from certain death due to an imminent, nationwide epidemic of drug addiction. The legislation pushed through on the heels of this fear-mongering resulted in the mass incarceration of generations of disproportionately black and brown people, many for as little as possessing too much marijuana, which is now legal in more than half of US states.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have those millions of destroyed lives and families back?

In 2003, with the American public still shell shocked from the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration embarked upon a fear campaign similar to the Reagan administration’s Soviet scare featuring an even less plausible boogeyman: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a ruthless dictator and a generally bad guy, but he was never a threat to US national security. The Bush administration evoked images of massive chemical weapons attacks and even “a mushroom cloud” in a major US city. It was all baloney.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have the Iraq War back?

So, what does all this have to do with climate change? Environmentalists are using the same tactics, only for different ends. Right-wingers often revere the military and law enforcement. For all their talk about “small government,” no increase in either would be too much for many of them.

They’ve generally got what they’ve wanted in those areas by employing a thus far foolproof tactic that goes something like this: Oh my God! I’ve discovered a dire threat to all our lives and civilization as we know it. And believe it or not, the only solution is for you to give me everything I’ve ever wanted politically.

Shouldn’t any thinking person be suspicious of this? Would it not have benefitted Americans, left, right or otherwise, to have been more skeptical of claims like this before the War on Drugs or the Iraq War?

I’m not trying to convince liberals there is nothing to the anthropogenic climate change theory. But I am calling attention to the fact that the very same tactic that gave us the Iraq War, the largest prison population in the history of the world, and an out-of-control national debt due largely to unnecessary military spending is now being used to achieve a political result to address climate change.

Let’s not forget that before the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s dramatic turn away from communism and towards a market economy, the hard left’s chief argument against free markets had nothing to do with the environment. For most of the 20th century, they claimed that full-on communism or socialism was a better economic system. It was only when its failure in so many places became impossible to deny that the focus shifted to the environment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) didn’t form until 1992, the year after the Soviet Union disappeared and just after China’s market reforms got underway.

Coincidence? Maybe, but shouldn’t it at least raise an eyebrow? How can anyone be blamed for skepticism when the very same people who wanted a centrally planned economy based on its economic merits suddenly discover it’s the only way to “save the planet”? Shouldn’t that give pause to even a true believer in climate change?

This is before even asking the question of whether giving the government these sweeping new powers (not to mention trillions more of our dollars) would actually solve the stated problem. Past experience should make us skeptical of this, too. Did the War on Drugs result in fewer drugs on the street? Did the Iraq War result in less terrorism? Believing the government is suddenly going to be wildly successful based purely on its doing the bidding of the other political tribe seems more like religious faith than reason.

One thing Greta Thunberg’s speech is honest about, at least indirectly, is that adopting the drastic environmental measures called for by the hard left will make us poorer. She derisively asks how any of us can even talk about “economic growth.” That’s easy for Thunberg and other First-Worlders to say, given what this will cost them vs. what it will cost truly poor people, of which there are very few in the United States or Sweden.

The truth is eliminating fossil fuels at the rate the hard left suggests could cost billions of poor people their lives, not merely their hamburgers. Given that grim reality and the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward the hard left’s claims and demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where Will Climate Change Solutions Be Found?

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

The religion of climate change & the new doomsday scenario

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

VIDEO: The Inconvenient Truth About the Republican Party

/in , , , , /by

When you think of the Republican Party, what comes to mind? If you’re like many Americans, you may associate the GOP with racism, sexism, and general inequality. It’s a commonly pushed narrative by left-leaning media and academia, but as former Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science Carol Swain explains, the Republican Party was actually responsible for nearly every advancement for minorities and women in U.S. history—and remains the champion of equality to this day.

EDITORS NOTE: This PragerU video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Please donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

PODCAST: Parents Fight Back: Sex and Kindergarten in America

/in , , , , , , , /by

“I dare you… Hold up the textbook in front of the camera and show them a picture of what 10-year-olds are going to be asked to see.” That was Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers’s (R) challenge to reporters, when they asked him about his fierce response to the radical Left’s sex ed. He pointed to a book, called It’s Perfectly Normal, that isn’t normal at all — unless you’re one of those rare individuals who think teaching anal sex to five-year-olds is a good idea.

Arizona State Superintendent Kathy Hoffman’s (D), Twitter profile shows a picture of the new officeholder carrying a sign that says, “#IAmPublicEducation.” And after hearing her vision for sexualizing kids, that’s exactly what parents are afraid of. “I couldn’t even read the manual to you over the radio,” State Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Ariz.) told me on “Washington Watch” Monday. “When [they] talk about comprehensive sex education,” she warned, “that’s exactly what they mean. It’s very comprehensive, very detailed—they leave nothing out. And when you read the material, you can only come to the conclusion that if they’re going to give [kindergarteners] on up different types of information, the only reason for that is because you are… giving them information to help sexualize them.”Bowers, who is fighting alongside Allen, agreed. The dad of seven has been on a one-man mission to keep the curriculum changes the state derailed in June off track. “I don’t need to sexualize children and tell them how to masturbate,” he said. “It’s way beyond where we need to be.” Hoffman’s office fired back that his fears had no basis in reality.

Bowers is not alone in his concern.

When activists tried to overturn 40 years of conservative sex ed messaging and replace it with graphic, pro-LGBT propaganda, the crowd was so large at the state board of education that officials had to open three overflow rooms! Outside groups like Planned Parenthood and GLSEN were trying to strip the state’s ban on “abnormal, deviate, or unusual sexual acts and practices” — and parents on both sides were furious. “Instead of creating more Planned Parenthood customers, let’s put our energy into improving the reading ability of our children,” one mom railed. Another held up the same book Bowers did and pointed to the nude pictures. It’s completely unnecessary, Bowers argues. The board agreed, deciding to table the changes — for now.

But the battle isn’t over. Not by a long shot. Extremists are still finding ways to slip the indoctrination into districts where parents aren’t watching. At an event in September, Bowers took his warning on the road, asking people to think about these consequences. When we sexualize kids, he argued, what are the results? “Sexually transmitted diseases, which we treat for money. Abortion, which we do for money. Even the heinous selling of body parts, which we do for money. And the treatment of AIDS across the world, which we do for money.”

These activists, including the ones at the highest levels of state government, are counting on parents’ ignorance to push this agenda through. “That’s my reason for being very involved in this,” Sylvia told me, “because I believe that these programs are going against the vast majority of parents—and what parents want taught to their children about this subject… In Arizona, we have local control over curriculum. So that means parents have got to be active in their school district to see what their school district might want to propose on this subject.”

Of course, when we talk about sex ed, there’s probably a tendency for a lot of moms and dads to think back to when they were in school and the lessons were a lot more subdued. This is not your grandmother’s sex education. This isn’t even your mom’s. This is explicit. But the Left is overreaching — and in school after school, we’re seeing a monumental pushback from parents of both parties. As Sylvia said, this isn’t a partisan issue. No one wants to leave this crucial part of a child’s development to the activists in their district. They don’t want to be in a race to beat their schools to this conversation. In Arizona, leaders like Allen are trying to overhaul the system to create an opt-in type permission system where the schools will have to obtain the parents’ consent before teaching these subjects.

Right now, they’re hoping other states are paying attention to what’s happening in their districts and learning from it. Do you know if your local sex ed is an opt-in or opt-out program? Have you looked at the curriculum? If they update the materials, do they tell you? These are the questions our friends at the Center for Arizona Policy are asking their parents. Take a look at their post, “What is the state teaching your kids about sex?” and apply it to your community. The best parent is an informed parent. Join the movement to Take Back Our Schools!

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Woke History Is Making Big Inroads in America’s High Schools

HHS: With E-Cigs, Life Is Not a Vapor

Judge: Christian Group Can Be Led by Christians

What? Democrats celebrating ‘Bisexual Visibility Day?’ Who’s idea is this?

Supreme Court to Decide High-Stakes ‘LGBT’ Cases Amid Partisan Scrutiny

Sound of Silence: Teacher Fired over Trans Pronouns Sues School

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

PODCAST: Whats Next in Ukraine-gate, Iran already has nuclear weapons, 10 Reasons Medicare-For-All Is A Bad Idea . . .

/in , , , , /by

GUESTS:

Tracy Beanz is an investigative journalist who places a strong focus on politics. While writing for UncoverDC, she has brought the intricate details of several major stories to light, including corruption between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe, who threatened the NY Office of the FBI during the Clinton Email investigation. Tracy has also worked at a high level on several grassroots political campaigns, including Ron Paul’s 2012 run for the presidency, Rand Paul’s first Kentucky senate run, and most recently, the campaign for Donald Trump for President in 2016.

TOPIC: What to Expect Next in Ukraine-gate.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, both Congressional Advisory Boards, and served on the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA. He is author of Black Out Wars and EMP Manhattan Project, all are available from CreateSpace.com and Amazon.com.

TOPIC: Iran probably already has nuclear weapons.

Hadley Heath Manning is the director of health policy and a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum specializing in health care, entitlements, economics, and fiscal policy. She also manages IWF’s health policy projects, including HealthReformQuestions.com and HealthCareLawsuits.org.

TOPIC: 10 Reasons Medicare-For-All Is A Bad Idea.

© All rights reserved.

Trump Jilts Google in Copyright Dispute at Supreme Court

/in , , , , /by

The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a long-running copyright dispute between Google and Oracle Corp., dealing a considerable blow to Google’s efforts to avoid an $8 billion damages award.

At issue in the dispute, billed as the copyright fight of the decade, are software interfaces called API declarations, which are shorthand commands that facilitate prewritten, complex computer functions. Google used a trove of Oracle-owned Java API declarations when building its Android smartphone operating system.

dailycallerlogo

“[Google] copied 11,500 lines of computer code verbatim, as well as the complex structure and organization inherent in that code, in order to help its competing commercial product,” the Trump administration’s legal brief reads. “The record demonstrates, moreover, that [Google’s] unauthorized copying harmed the market for [Oracle’s] Java platform.”

Sun Microsystems originally developed the contested API declarations. Oracle acquired Sun in 2010. Shortly thereafter, Oracle sued Google in federal court for patent and copyright infringement, saying Google impermissibly copied the API declarations. Years of litigation followed.

Now before the Supreme Court, Google questions whether APIs are copyrightable in the first place. The federal Copyright Act provides that protection does not extend to “methods of operation.” In Google’s view, APIs are a method of operation because they help developers access prewritten, complex functions.

“The Java API declarations simply tell developers how to access the prewritten methods to perform tasks carried out by the implementing code,” Google’s petition reads. “In that respect, the declarations are analogous to a set of rules developers are trained to follow when writing programs in the Java language. If the rules were changed, the prewritten methods would not work. For that reason, the declarations are necessarily part of the method of operating the libraries of prewritten code.”

The Trump administration disagreed, saying APIs do not count as a method of operation simply because they perform a function.

“Although there is a sense in which all computer code could be described as a method of operating a computer, the Copyright Act as a whole makes clear that computer programs can be protected by copyright, refuting any suggestion that the functional character of computer code suffices to bring it within [the Copyright Act],” the government’s brief reads.

The Supreme Court gives the federal government’s views great credence when, as here, the justices ask for its guidance about whether to take a case.

However, Google contends the federal appeals courts are split as to whether copyright protections reach software interfaces like APIs. The Supreme Court justices are much more likely to take a case featuring a question of law over which multiple courts disagree.

Google prevailed at the case’s first trial in 2012. A jury deadlocked over Oracle’s claims, prompting the judge to sign with Google. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court for patent appeals, reversed that decision and ordered a new trial in 2014.

Google appealed the Federal Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, but the justices turned the request down in 2015.

A second trial followed in 2016. A jury sided with Google, finding fair use protected its reliance on the API declarations. The Federal Circuit overturned that verdict, ruling Google had not engaged in fair use. It returned the case to a lower court for a trial on damages.

That decision is now pending before the Supreme Court. On April 29, the justices asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the petition.

The case is No. 18-956 Google v. Oracle America.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Daley

Kevin Daley is a legal affairs reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @kevindaleydc.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. 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 of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

No, Mattel: Kids Don’t Want Your Gender-Neutral Dolls

/in , , , , , /by

Fox Business Network reported some news last week that may surprise business strategists as well as kids and parents alike: Toymaker Mattel has announced a new line of gender-neutral dolls.

The company cites new “research” finding that kids “don’t want their toys dictated by gender norms.”

So, for $30, children will now be able to outfit dolls with long or short hair, clothing that includes pants, skirts, or both—whatever the kids decide. The dolls are also available in six skin tones.

“Toys are a reflection of culture and as the world continues to celebrate the positive impact of inclusivity, we felt it was time to create a doll line free of labels,” explained the company’s senior vice president, Kim Culmone.

“This line allows all kids to express themselves freely, which is why it resonates so strongly with them. We’re hopeful Creatable World will encourage people to think more broadly about how all kids can benefit from doll play.”

It’s hard to know what to find more shocking: that Mattel has created a “gender-neutral doll,” or that the market—primarily made up of kids—is supposedly demanding one.

Somehow, it’s difficult to believe that young kids who don’t yet know the meaning of “gender neutral” would be demanding a gender-neutral doll.

A much more likely possibility is that Mattel is caving to progressive political forces that want “gender-neutral dolls.” In that respect, the new line of dolls tells us more about the politics of the present moment than the desires of kids.

Some might push back and say, “Calm down, they’re just dolls. Dolls aren’t meant to imitate real life.” And that’s true, to an extent.

Many toys are unrealistic—consider Batman, Spider-Man, Paw Patrol figures, and others. But the companies that manufacture those toys don’t pretend they are mimicking reality. They aren’t. They’re based on fiction and intended to ignite imaginative play, an important part of a healthy childhood.

But dress-up dolls are much more realistic than action figures, and they have often been used to promote gender stereotypes—for better or for worse.

With these gender-neutral dolls, Mattel is deconstructing the notion of sex in the minds of young children and teaching them an ideology that says there is no relationship between biological sex and reality.

This same radical gender ideology has proved disastrous when taken to its ultimate conclusion: pushing young people down the path of sex-reassignment with life-altering drugs and harmful surgeries

This ideology claims that since gender is simply a social construct with no basis in biological reality, it can therefore be fluid—hence the term “gender fluid.” However, a study published in 2017 in the Infant and Child Development journal suggests there is a biological basis for human behavior.

The study observed 1,600 boys and girls at play and found that when offered a variety of toys to choose from, under various conditions, boys and girls consistently preferred toys typed to their own sex, indicating biology’s persistent role in behavior.

Of course, kids shouldn’t be forced to conform to rigid sex stereotypes that dictate, for instance, that girls can’t play with trucks and boys shouldn’t play with dolls.

But it is a huge mistake to treat our sexed bodies as secondary to a subjective self-perception of gender. That is misleading at best, and damaging at worst.

The truth is that there are only two sexes, and toy companies should not mislead children to believe otherwise.

Gender dysphoria is a real condition, but the transgender community’s recommendations for medical treatment have been shown to be not only ineffective at resolving a person’s underlying distress, but actually harmful—especially to children.

Studies show this isn’t a safe process. Brand new data from the Food and Drug Administration shows that over 6,000 adults have died from the effects of a drug that is being used to block puberty in children who struggle to feel comfortable with their sexed bodies.

Progressive gender ideology isn’t helping Americans; it’s hurting them. It is not only nonsensical, but irresponsible for Mattel to create a line of gender-neutral dolls aimed at indoctrinating kids with this harmful ideology.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicole Russell

Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Victim Trap That Keeps People Down

Supreme Court to Decide High-Stakes ‘LGBT’ Cases Amid Partisan Scrutiny

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

Rashida Tlaib and Her BFFs by Hugh Fitzgerald

/in , , , /by

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) has received a lot of criticism for the surpassing crudity of her declaration about the President — “We’re going to impeach the motherf***er”– and in the last few days for offering the phrase for sale on a t-shirt — but less attention has been given to the company she keeps. As far back as her swearing-in, and at a private dinner she held that same day, many unsavory “Palestinian” activists were in attendance.

It should be remembered that at her victory party, Tlaib wrapped herself not in the American, but in the “Palestinian” flag, and repeatedly intoned “Palestine…Palestine.” Sounds like her loyalties are clear. She’s not even a case of “dual loyalty” but, rather, of a single loyalty — to Palestine. But when two senators sponsored legislation to limit the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) campaign, Tlaib had the chutzpah to attack them in a tweet, using the antisemitic dual-loyalty canard: “They forgot what country they represent.” She, on the other hand, hasn’t forgotten: she represents Palestine.

Among them was Abbas  Hamideh, who tweeted a photo of himself with Ms. Tlaib along with the caption, “I was honored to be at Congresswoman @RashidaTlaib swearing in ceremony in #Detroit and private dinner afterward with the entire family, friends and activists across the country.”

Hamideh, a co-founder of the pro-Palestinian group Al-Awda, has a history of praising Hezbollah leaders such as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, whom he called “the most honorable man on earth.” That “most honorable man on earth” was responsible for the murder of many Americans, including the October 23, 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, in which 220 Marines and 21 other American personnel were killed. Nasrallah has been responsible for numerous other attacks on American, Israeli, and Jewish targets, including cross-border raids from Lebanon into Israel in which Israelis were kidnapped and killed. Until September 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization. Among other deadly attacks by Hezbollah, in addition to the 1983 attack on U.S. Marine barracks that killed 241, are the 1992 suicide bombing at the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 and injured 242; the 1994 suicide bombing of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association in Buenos Aires, killing 85 and injuring hundreds; and the 2012 bombing of an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria, killing five and injuring 32. Hezbollah is also suspected of involvement in the February 2005 Beirut suicide bombing that killed 23 people, including former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. It has served Iranian interests in Lebanon.

This staunch supporter of Rashida Tlaib was invited by her not only to attend her swearing-in, but also the private dinner afterward, to which only those closest to her were invited. He has tweeted that “Israel has no right to exist,” a sentiment which elicited no comment, much less a rebuff, from Tlaib. Since taking office, she has been peddling hatred for Israel and employing anti-Semitic tropes. She defended Marc Lamont Hill after CNN fired him for comments in which he called for the elimination of Israel and endorsed violent “resistance” against Jews.

Abbas Hamideh has expressed particular admiration for Samir Kuntar, whom he called a “legendary Hezbollah martyr,” days after Kuntar was killed in an explosion in Damascus. Kuntar had been convicted of murder and terrorism for his role in the gruesome 1979 murder of four Israelis, but was released in a 2008 Israeli-Hezbollah prisoner exchange.

Under the cover of darkness on April 22, 1979, Kuntar, then 16, led a Palestinian Liberation Front attack in Nahariya, in which he brutally murdered several members of one family, and was responsible for the death of a third member of the family. He and his accomplices snuck into Israel from the sea, and then broke into a family’s apartment. There, they kidnapped a young father, Danny Haran, and his 4-year-old daughter Einat. Kuntar took the father and his young daughter to the nearby beach. There, he shot the father, and had the daughter, Einat, watch as he drowned her father underwater to ensure he was completely dead. Then, he smashed the little girl’s head against a nearby rock with the butt of his gun.

As Kuntar was kidnapping the father and daughter, the mother, Smadar, grabbed their 2-year old baby, Yael, and hid from the men who breached her home. As Smadar tried to keep her baby quiet to keep them from being found, her daughter suffocated in her arms. This is the man whom Rashida Tlaib’s friend Abbas Hamideh praises as “a legendary Hezbollah martyr.” Tlaib apparently believes that his praise of such a diabolical murderer does not disqualify Hamideh from being a guest at her swearing-in and private dinner.

Many others of note showed up on Tlaib’s first day, as part of her inner circle. There was Huwaida Arraf, a co-founder of ISM, the International Solidarity Movement, a group with a long history of supporting “Palestinian” terror groups. In 2004, at a Palestine Solidarity Movement conference, Arraf proudly acknowledged that ISM cooperates with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. And in 2013, ISM expressed support for Samer Issawi, a terrorist affiliated with yet another group, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Other supporters in Tlaib’s inner circle include the “comedian” Amer Zehr, best known for his thigh-slapping act of covering up Israel on a world map — eliminating the “Zionist entity” — with a post-it note.

When running for office, Tlaib was careful not to appear as hard on Israel as she has since revealed herself to be. Her first political patron, to whom she owes a great deal, was Steve Tobocman, a descendant of Holocaust survivors, who was certain Tlaib supported a “two-state solution” until, it turned out, she didn’t. Even J Street couldn’t stomach her mendacity and, in an unprecedented move, withdrew its support from Tlaib.

Her dishonesty and her vicious hatred are now manifest for the world to see, just as it is completely clear where her loyalty lies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Head of Terror Cell that Murdered Rina Shnerb was Active in BDS Group

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

Jacksonville, FL: Citizen of Nepal Arrested for Soliciting Underage Girl for Sex

/in , , , , , /by

I suppose there is nothing unusual about this case.  It likely goes on across America on a daily basis, but I thought it might be instructive for a couple of reasons.

First, although the FBI makes it clear that the arrested man is not a US citizen, we are never told (as usual!) how he came to be living in America.

Did he come illegally or did he come as a refugee, a diversity visa lottery winner, or on some other visa for work or school?  If law enforcement never tells us that information how can we make a judgement about which legal programs are failing us?

The news is very brief (below), but more interesting and worth a few minutes of your time is the criminal complaint which shows how the feds got this alleged sexual predator, Sanjay Lama (aka Awesome_Jack) talking via phone and internet discussions that were being taped.

From the US Justice Department (at least the feds are telling us the man is not a US citizen right in the headline for a change).

LOL! the headline doesn’t begin with “Jacksonville man.”

Nepalese Citizen Arrested And Charged With Attempting To Entice And Meet A 12-Year-Old Child To Engage In Sexual Activity

Jacksonville, Florida – Sanjay Lama (29, Jacksonville) has been arrested and charged with using the internet to attempt to entice a 12-year-old child to engage in sexual activity. Lama is a citizen of Nepal who is legally residing in Jacksonville. If convicted, he faces a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years, and up to life, in federal prison and a potential life term of supervised release. Lama has been detained pending a detention hearing scheduled for October 1, 2019.

According to court documents, on September 25, 2019, an undercover FBI agent, who was posing online as a 12-year-old child, was contacted by the user “Awesome_Jack,” who was later identified as Lama. On that day, during an online conversation between Lama and the undercover agent, Lama expressed his desire to meet the “child” to engage in sexual activity. Lama further provided the undercover agent with details about the sexual acts that he wished to perform on the “child.” Later that day, Lama rode his motorcycle to a prearranged location in Jacksonville to meet the “child” and was arrested by FBI agents.

[….]

It is another case brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Cases like this should be widely distributed, but it won’t be because once again the PC media isn’t eager to report on immigrant criminal activity. It doesn’t fit the meme that they are all here working hard and seeking a better life.

A wide distribution of news like this might just save some young girls from exploitation as well!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.