HUMAN TRAFFICKING: “Women are significantly involved in trafficking of persons, both as victims and as offenders.” “75% of the sex traffickers were African American.”

/in , , , , , /by

We witnessed in the 1960s the feminist movement and feminist activism. More recently we have seen the rapid growth of the #MeToo movement in October, 2017. But to what end? Both movements have failed to stem the tide of human trafficking, which harms primarily underage girls and women. The #MeToo movement isn’t focused on the roles of women as both victims and perpetrators of human trafficking. Immigration and human trafficking go hand in hand. Organized crime and human trafficking go hand in hand. Businesses need for cheap labor and human trafficking go hand in hand.

Background

In preparing for this exposé we looked at four reports on human trafficking:

  1. The 2014 United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime’s Global Report on Trafficking in Persons.
  2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude website.
  3. The McCain Institutes’ A Six-Year Analysis of Sex Traffickers of Minors.
  4. and The National Criminal Justice Services’ An Empirical Analysis of the Intersection of Organized Crime and Human Trafficking In the United States.

We selected these four reports to find commonalities and insights into human trafficking globally and within the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Blue Campaign defines human trafficking as:

Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.

Homeland Security lists the following facts about human trafficking:

Human trafficking exists in every country, including the United States.  It exists nationwide—in cities, suburbs, and rural towns—and possibly in your own community.

Human trafficking victims can be any age, race, gender, or nationality.  They may come from any socioeconomic group.

Sex trafficking exists, but it is not the only type of human trafficking. Forced labor is another type of human trafficking; both involve exploitation of people.  Victims are found in legitimate and illegitimate labor industries, including sweatshops, massage parlors, agriculture, restaurants, hotels, and domestic service.

Under U.S. federal law, any minor under the age of 18 who is induced to perform commercial sex acts is a victim of human trafficking, regardless of whether he or she is forced or coerced.

Human trafficking is not the same as smuggling.  “Trafficking” is based on exploitation and does not require movement across borders.  “Smuggling” is based on movement and involves moving a person across a country’s border with that person’s consent in violation of immigration laws. Although human smuggling is very different from human trafficking, human smuggling can turn into trafficking if the smuggler uses force, fraud, or coercion to hold people against their will for the purposes of labor or sexual exploitation.  Under federal law, every minor induced to engage in commercial sex is a victim of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is often a hidden crime.  Victims may be afraid to come forward and get help; they may be forced or coerced through threats or violence; they may fear retribution from traffickers, including danger to their families; and they may not be in possession of or have control of their identification documents.

The Villainy of Human Trafficking – Key Findings

Here are some key findings taken from the the UN, FBI, McCain Institute and National Criminal Justice Services reports:

United Nations:

  • UN report detected victims of trafficking in persons, by age and gender, 2011: 49% women, 21% girls, 18% men, 12% boys.
  • Human trafficking for sexual exploitation by region: Europe and Central Asia 66%; Africa and Middle East 53%; Americas 48%; East Asia, South Asia and Pacific 26%.
  • Human trafficking for forced labour, servitude and slavery like by region: East Asia, South Asia and Pacific 64%; Americas 47%; Africa and the Middle East 37%; Europe and Central Asia 26%.

The Department of Justice Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit reports:

  • In recent months we have convicted labor traffickers who exploited victims in restaurants, bars, and cantinas on Long Island, New York, and in massage parlors in Chicago, Illinois.
  • We convicted a Seattle couple who held a young Micronesian woman in domestic servitude, and secured a 14-month sentence against a defendant who held two young Nigerian women in domestic servitude in Georgia.
  • We have indicted labor traffickers who exploited Vietnamese victims in bridal shops in Arizona, and we have dismantled organized criminal networks that held Dominican, Filipino, and Jamaican workers in forced labor on cleaning crews.

McCain Institute:

  • Three-quarters of the cases involved only minor victims.
  • The average age of the sex traffickers of minors was 28.5 years old and the average age decreased significantly from 2010 to 2015.
  • 24.4% of the sex traffickers were female and they were younger than the male sex traffickers.
  • 75% of the sex traffickers were African American.
  • Nearly one out of five arrests for sex trafficking of a minor involved a person who was gang involved.
  • 55.5% of the females arrested were identified in the report as the role of a“bottom” which is the most trusted sex trafficked person by the sex trafficker who may also be prostituted, may recruit victims, give rules and trainings, and may give out punishment.
  • 24% of the arrested sex traffickers had a previous criminal history, the most common previous crime was a violent crime. o4% had a previous arrest for sex trafficking of a minor.
  • The minor victims were transported to up to 17 states for the purpose of being prostituted with the average of 2.7 states.
  • 67.3% of the cases used technology (email, online ads, smart phones) in the sex trafficking activities. oBackpage.com was used by the sex trafficker in 592 cases (41.8%).
  • Recruitment tactics focused on runaways; friendship, romance, giving a place to stay to the victim, and promises of money and wealth.

National Criminal Justice Services:

  • 58% (1227) of all defendants in human trafficking cases operated as part of an organized criminal group.
  • Although Cartels/Mafias/Syndicates are not represented at all among the federally prosecuted human trafficking cases involving organized crime, there is evidence that they are involved in facilitating the human trafficking operations of other types of organized criminals (facilitating transportation, providing false documentation, etc.).
  • Defendants who trafficked minors for commercial sex come from 13 different countries of origin. The vast majority is from United States.
  • Primary push factors involve socio-environmental variables over which the individual has very little control. These include: childhood abuse and/or neglect, lack of education, and a destructive social network.
  • Secondary push factors are symptoms of the primary push factors. They include criminal history, drug and/or substance abuse, and financial stress. These lead to feeling a lack of control over one’s life.
  • Based on federal prosecution records, the counties in the United States with the most bases of operations of organized crime groups engaging human trafficking include: Harris County, Houston, TX; Fulton County, Atlanta, GA; and Queens County, Queens, NY.

Human trafficking for the purposes of either sexual or labor slavery is spreading across America. Congress needs to come together to address this growing problem in light of the Jeffery Epstein case.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Utah: Nigerian Man Charged in Killing of College Coed had Child Pornography in his Home

Obama’s Democrats to host a book club event. Their first book is “Ratf**ked.” 50 Shades of Baltimore?

/in , , , /by

The title of this column is no joke. Given the recent national discussion of rats in cities like Baltimore, Maryland you would think that the word “rat” would be triggering. But not for Democrats.

In an August 14th, 2019 email titled “will you host a book club event?” American transgender rights activist and Deputy Director of All On The Line Raffi Freedman-Gurspan, wrote:

Our team here at All On The Line is really excited for our first-ever book club night — we have local events registered in communities all across the country! Can we count on you to host a book club event?

Sign up to host an AOTL book club event in your community on August 29 at 8 p.m. ET!

As I started reading the book, this quote from the introduction really stood out to me and centers the reason why we chose “Ratf**ked” as our first book:

“This is the story of the actual redrawing of the American political map and of our democracy itself. It’s the story of how Republicans turned a looming demographic disaster into legislative majorities so unbreakable, so impregnable, that none of the outcomes are in doubt until after the 2020 census… It is legal, it’s breathtaking, and much of it happened in plain sight.”

In order to address map manipulation and end gerrymandering, we need to understand how our maps became this messed up in the first place. Author David Daley spells out how one party rewrote the rules and redrew lines to maintain their power — and how those gerrymandered maps impacted policy and progress for a decade.

But we have a chance to secure fair maps in 2021, and that’s why we’re building this movement! I hope you’ll host a local book club event this month to learn more from Daley himself, and then hear from AOTL about the fight to end gerrymandering and how you can get involved.

All On The Line is the grassroots advocacy campaign supported by the National Redistricting Action Fund. According to the National Redistricting Action Fund part of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee website:

In a critically powerful step in our fight to restore fairness to our democracy, the NDRC’s 501(c)(4) affiliate, the National Redistricting Action Fund (NRAF), and Organizing for Action (OFA) are combining forces to go all-in on the fight to end  gerrymandering and to have a government that better represents the people. By incorporating OFA’s grassroots infrastructure fully into our efforts, NRAF will engage this powerful grassroots network to organize, educate, and engage supporters both in the digital space and on the ground to restore fair representation to Congress and state legislatures.

The problem is the email doesn’t mention the June 27th, 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering.  In the New York Times article “Supreme Court Bars Challenges to Partisan Gerrymandering”  Adam Liptak reported:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that federal courts are powerless to hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering, the practice in which the party that controls the state legislature draws voting maps to help elect its candidates.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. In a momentous decision, the court closed the door on such claims.

The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

So how does All On The Line, the National Redistricting Action Fund and Obama’s Organizing for Action intend to solve “map manipulation and end gerrymandering?” The only way to do that is for Democrats to retake control of state legislatures and do their own gerrymandering.

This is their goal. Make no mistake about it. Obama and Raffi Freedman-Gurspan want to end Republican gerrymandering and replace it with Democratic gerrymandering.

© All rights reserved.

Large Numbers of Prison Inmates are Muslims Costing Taxpayers Millions

/in , , , , , /by

I’m glad to see that someone has done a deep dive into the issue of the costs of incarcerating Muslims, many of whom are immigrants we have welcomed to America.

Of course, although some of the Muslim prisoners being counted are American Muslims and converts to Islam, we can still see that incarceration rates for this segment of the population is on a percentage basis extremely high.

Every time I see one of those gushing reports about how new immigrants to America are causing the economy to boom, I know that the pro-open borders bias of the researchers has kept them from reporting the costs of law enforcement, trials, and incarceration of some of those ‘new Americans.’

I wonder what the cost will be of the investigation and ultimate prison term of the alleged Somali refugee terrorists in my previous post?

Here is Daniel Greenfield at Frontpage earlier this month,

IN 5 STATES, 1 IN 5 PRISONERS ARE MUSLIM

At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

State prisons.

Take Maryland, which has an estimated 70,000 Muslims, making up over 1% of the population. But of Maryland’s 18,562 prisoners, 5,084 were Muslims.

That’s 27.4% or over 1 in 4 prisoners.

It would also mean that 1 out of 13 Muslims in Maryland may have been in a state prison.

Those are startling numbers, yet they come from Muslim Advocates, an Islamist legal advocacy group. Both MA’s numbers and the number of Muslims in different states may be miscounted, yet these figures raise serious questions about public safety and the toll that immigration is taking on our communities.

While Maryland’s numbers are some of the worst, MA lists similar figures for Washington D.C. where out of 5,219 prisoners, 1,232 were Muslims, so that once again 1 in 4 prisoners were Muslim.

D.C. does have one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, numbering between 2 and 3 percent. Even taking the highest estimate, 6.5% of the Muslim population in D.C. was in jail in 2017.

Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners.

[….]

In 5 states, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, Muslims make up 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 prisoners.

In another 4 states, Wisconsin, Missouri, Delaware, and Arkansas, they make up 1 in 10 prisoners.

[….]

Overrepresentation may be partially a product of the success of Islamic Dawah or missionary activity in prisons. Islamic prison Dawah has produced many converts and at least some terror plots. And it may serve to explain high Muslim prison numbers in some states, but not necessarily in others.

[….]

The MA report also claims that 12% of federal prisoners are Muslims. (CAIR in the past had claimed that it was only 6%.) The current federal BOP population is 177,619. That would mean over 21,000 prisoners.

And over 105,000 Muslims are prisoners in state and federal prisons.

[….]

Using Pew’s growth estimate, which projects that the Muslim settler population will reach 8.1 million by 2050 (a severe underestimation of actual growth), that would mean a quarter million Muslim prisoners.

This is not just an abstract statistic. It’s a compilation of human misery, lives lost, futures taken, a litany of abuse, loss, assault, and the accompanying taxpayer expenditures on trials, prisons and free lawyers.

The current cost of incarcerating Muslim federal prisoners is taking $670 million a year from taxpayers.

By 2050, the cost could climb to over $1.5 billion.

Continue here for much more data-crunching information.

RELATED ARTICLE: Update on the Arizona Somali Refugees Arrested for Supporting ISIS

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

VIDEO: New expose on the great evil that is Google

/in , , , , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

According to the Blacklist doc at 10:30, The Rebel.media is delisted from some google search results, as well as The Gateway Pundit, Infowars and many more.

Google Document Dump

RELATED ARTICLES:

Google “Machine Learning Fairness” Whistleblower Goes Public, says: “burden lifted off of my soul”

UPDATE: Google Engineer Who Went Public Placed on Administrative Leave

Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech is “dangerous,” “taking sides”

Conservative Teenager Banned from YouTube for Her Respectful Opposition to LGBT Movement

El Paso and Trump? And What Rhetoric Causes the Shooting of Whites?

/in , , , , /by

Ever since the El Paso shooting, talk of racism has been ratcheted up. Racism certainly is a problem, too, one accompanied by another problem: Those talking most about it appear to know least what it actually is. But try this on for size:

How about when you emphasize only the relatively rare killings committed by one particular racial group while ignoring murders in which its members are victims, in order to make it appear a unique threat?

For the uninitiated, that group would be whites. Of course, not only is the above happening with respect to them, but the El Paso shooting is also being used to demonize effective anti-illegal-migration rhetoric. The argument is that “Trump’s racist rhetoric” inspired the murderer to target Hispanics.

But bearing in mind that white-on-minority murders are quite rare and not nearly as common as the reverse, let’s ask a question: What kind of rhetoric caused the following killings?

  • On December 7, 1993, a black man, Colin Ferguson, targeted white people with a handgun on a Long Island Railroad train, killing six passengers and injuring several others.
  • One of two black snipers who killed whites in the Washington, D.C., area in 2002, John Allen Muhammad, said that he’d intended to murder six whites a day for 30 days. He believed that “the white man is the devil.”
  • In 2010, black man Omar Thornton targeted whites at his workplace in Manchester, Conn., killing eight.
  • In 2016, black man Micah Xavier Johnson shot 12 Dallas police officers, killing five; he’d told authorities that he wanted to kill white people. (Barack Obama’s anti-police rhetoric comes to mind here.)
  • Black man Fredrick Demond Scott was charged in 2017 with the killings of two white men in Missouri and is suspected in the deaths of three others. He’d said that he wanted to “kill all white people.”
  • In April 2017, black man Kori Ali Muhammad, who’d called white people “devils” on social media, murdered three Caucasian men in Fresno with a .357 revolver.

Then there was black man Oghaleoghene Atuno, who on April 5 purposely ran over two young white boys with his car.

Though not all involve murder, numerous other examples of black-on-white racial attacks can be found here, here and here.

If you’re wondering what kind of people perpetrate these incidents, watch the video below.

No, the above is not from the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Speaking of today’s anti-white party, however, will it ever have to answer for all the attacks on whites? Will people such as Tina Rutnick (a.k.a. Kirsten Gillibrand), Irish Bob O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and the rest of their fellow travelers be condemned for talking about white privilege and how America is supposedly a white-supremacist nation and their continual (whether explicit or implicit) impugning of whites?

For that matter, will academia, the media and entertainment be held accountable for pushing these prejudices? We know the answer. But let’s now delve a little deeper.

It’s unlikely there’s a cause anywhere that hasn’t had evil done in its name. There have been both “left-wing” and “right-wing” terrorists, running the gamut from environmentalists and animal rights activists to sovereign citizens and other anti-government types. For the wrong cause can be advanced in the wrong or right way (e.g., political lobbying), and the right cause can be advanced in the right or wrong way. Thus, a cause’s worst actors are not at all a gauge of its validity.

It’s also absolutely true that the rhetoric we use matters. Words are powerful, after all; hence the saying “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Moreover, even proper rhetoric used to promote a good cause can inspire the deranged to violence.

Yet what are the implications of this? Should media not report on, and should we not inveigh against, child sex abuse in the clergy or the Boy Scouts because some unhinged individual might attack an innocent clergyman or scouting troop leader?

In this vein, it’s safe to say that many (and probably most) of the attacks on whites wouldn’t have occurred were it not for the anti-white critiques prevalent in politics, the media, academia and entertainment. And though the El Paso shooter convincingly explained in his manifesto that his anti-immigration views predated President Trump’s rise, it’s likely that anti-illegal migration rhetoric has sparked some kind of attack somewhere. Yet, again, none of this tells us anything about either type of rhetoric’s validity.

But can it really be the case that a public figure is never morally complicit in violence associated with his rhetoric? Yet if the violence alone doesn’t implicate him, what does?

Answer: his words’ falsity.

In this post-Truth time, this simple reality is overlooked. Leftists are responsible for the attacks against whites because their rhetoric against them is pure demagoguery built on lies. What’s the truth? In brief (a comprehensive refutation of caucaphobia is here), whites probably weren’t the first to practice slavery or violate human rights. But they were the first to end slavery, and they birthed our modern concept of human rights in the first place. In fact, their Western Civilization can largely be credited with creating the whole modern world.

In contrast, it’s a fact that we’re subject to an “invasion,” as Trump (and many before him, including yours truly) has put it. It is a fact that Democrats are facilitating this. It is a fact that they’re doing it for political power.

It’s also a reality that immigrationist social engineers are very happy to replace European-descent Americans with Third Worlders who they know will, upon naturalization, vote for leftists, as even Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson has pointed out. That the El Paso shooter also mentioned “replacement” doesn’t make it any less true, not anymore than Ted Kaczynski’s bombings changed what he warned about: the threat that technology (e.g., artificial intelligence) could possibly pose to man.

And why is this even controversial? The demographic shift is well-known — left-wing outlet NPR has called it “the browning of America” — and is no accident: It’s the result of immigration policy the Left could change if it wanted to. It doesn’t want to.

What the Left does want to do is use the El Paso tragedy to remove any remaining stumbling blocks to its immigrationist endeavors. Liberals now want “invasion” (and even “illegal alien”) considered a racist term. This is nothing new, either, as the Left has already tried to demonize things such as “Build that wall!” chants and “MAGA” hats. The idea is that anything rhetorically effective for conservatives — anything that could possibly influence people — should be labeled racist and thus be out of bounds. (By the way, would this include anti-immigrationist remarks such as “Europe belongs to the Europeans,” uttered last year by infamous “white supremacist” the Dalai Lama?) Hey, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.

This is why all of us — President Trump, you and I — should double down. We are being invaded. The problem isn’t those of us who warn about it, but the people making it happen.

Everyone has rhetoric. And if leftists can tell their lies, can’t we at least tell the truth?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Amid Standoff And Gunfire, Philadelphia Crowd Taunts Police Officers

Tell Your U.S. Senators and Representative to Oppose Gun Control

/in , , , , , , , /by

In the wake of two recent criminal mass attacks, a number of gun control proposals have begun to circulate in our nation’s capital. None of these proposals would have prevented either of last weekend’s tragedies, but they all would restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“Universal” Background Checks Won’t Stop Mass Shootings

Every perpetrator of high-profile mass shootings has either passed a background check or acquired a firearm in a way that would be unaffected by a universal background check (either through theft or the use of a “straw purchaser”).

“Universal” Background Checks Do Not Stop Criminals

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 75 percent of criminals in state and federal prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows.

Criminals defeat the background check system by getting guns through straw purchasers. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent….”

In a 2018 study, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”

“Universal” Background Checks Are Not as Universally Popular as Advocates Claim

Despite claims of the near universal popularity of “universal” background checks, these proposals have not been nearly as popular as claimed when presented to voters. In 2016, Maine and Nevada both had “universal” background check initiatives on the ballot.

Despite being outspent by Bloomberg-backed gun control groups by $5.3 million to $1.2 million, Mainers defeated the initiative by 3.6 percentage points.

In Nevada, where Bloomberg-backed groups spent almost $19 million in support of the initiative versus less than seven million spent against, the initiative passed by less than one percentage point.

Banning “Assault Weapons” Isn’t the Answer Either

FBI data shows that four times as many individuals are killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also shows that rifles were listed as being used in fewer homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”

A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Presented with the overwhelming evidence of the ban’s inefficacy, Congress did not renew it.

In 2018, a RAND Corporation study found no conclusive evidence that such bans have an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. The immense popularity of the AR-15 has come about at a time when Americans cite self-defense as their primary reason for owning a gun.

The effectiveness of the commonly-owned semi-automatic rifle in defense of self and others was illustrated in 2017 during an attack on a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Upon learning of the attack, resident Stephen Willeford retrieved his AR-15 rifle and shot and wounded the gunman. Since 2017, other Armed Citizens have used commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to thwart an armed robbery in Texas, stop a trio of home invaders in Oklahoma, and halt a stabbing attack in Illinois.

Now Is the Time To Act

Please contact your Senators and Representative TODAY and urge them to oppose ineffective gun control measures that won’t make us any safer but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. You can use this link to send them an email or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill Clinton Touts Failed Gun Ban With Bogus Info

“Universal” Background Checks Aren’t as Universally Popular as You’ve Been Led to Believe

Kamala Harris and Her Perplexing Anti-Gun Ideas

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Humanitarian Hoax of White Supremacy: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The radical leftist hucksters in the Democrat party have repeatedly accused President Trump of being racist and a white supremacist. Is it true? Let’s find out.

Racial unity has been the subject of political speeches since before the Civil War. The United States was founded in 1776 during an era of worldwide slavery when even black men owned black slaves. Supremacy is the corollary of enslavement – you have to be a supremacist to own a slave. Slavery was outlawed in the United States in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. So, let’s be clear, slavery has been illegal in the United States of America for 154 years.

Many countries and religions in the world continue to legally practice and embrace slavery – not Judeo-Christian America. The United States has Constitutionally rejected slavery and the attitude of supremacism that supports it. Instead, our American national credo strives for racial equality that is made possible through upward mobility and a robust middle class.

Equality in America is a matter of equal opportunity, not a guarantee of equal outcome. This is a very important distinction because it is what separates President Trump’s America-first ethos of individualism, from the radical leftist Democrat party’s ethos of collectivism. We will come back to that.

President Donald Trump is an unapologetic advocate of upward mobility and wealth creation for ALL Americans. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! President Trump’s economic policies are color-blind and responsible for the lowest unemployment in the black community in history, as well as the lowest unemployment rate for Hispanics in America since records were kept.

President Trump’s color-blind America-first economic policies are bringing jobs back to America. In 2017, 171,000 manufacturing jobs were added. In 2018, 284,000 manufacturing jobs were added – it was the largest job increase in 21 years. In 2017, the President signed an Executive Order for an apprenticeship program to fill 6 million open positions. So, why do the hucksters call President Trump a racist and a white supremacist? Let’s find out.

We begin with a discussion of supremacy as a concept. A supremacist advocates the superiority of a particular group. Black supremacists believe blacks are the superior group. White supremacists believe whites are the superior group. Islamic supremacists believe Muslims are the superior group. Leftist supremacists believe that the radical left is the superior group. Male chauvinists believe men are the superior group, and radical feminists believe women are the superior group. So, being a supremacist is an arrogant attitude of exclusion, superiority, but not necessarily a racial issue.

Of all the possible divisions in society, racial divisions are the easiest to see and, therefore, the easiest to exploit. Why does this matter?

President Trump is unapologetically pro-American and demands American sovereignty, and the protection and preservation of the United States Constitution which is a document of inclusion and equality. President Trump is the existential enemy of the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis that seeks his destruction, and the destruction of the Constitution he protects. The tactical strategy of the Axis is projection. The Axis accuses the President of being what they themselves are – political, religious, and philosophical supremacists. Does this surprise you? Let’s take a look.

Arrogant Leftists seek to destroy the Constitution and replace it with the centralized government of socialism. Arrogant Islamists seek to destroy the Constitution and replace it with supremacist Islamic sharia law. Arrogant globalists seek to destroy the Constitution and internationalize the world under one world government that they themselves rule. America-first President Donald Trump opposes them all, and no Axis member can succeed in any individual objective without first succeeding in the shared objective of toppling President Trump and shattering America from within. How can they do it?

There are two separate judiciaries adjudicating cases in the United States today with two very different agendas. The first is the legitimate federal judiciary, one of three co-equal branches of government organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The federal judiciary has courthouses where cases are adjudicating according to rules of evidence designed to establish the truth with facts, and a foundational presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The second, is the illegitimate court of public opinion where the humanitarian hucksters try their cases on the Internet and in the entertainment media without regard for truth or facts, and without the Constitutional presumption of innocence. Why?

The goal of the court of public opinion is mass social engineering. What this means is that the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis is cooperating in their shared effort to topple President Trump by smearing him with false accusations of racism and white supremacy. The accusations are patently absurd but the directors of the Axis powers don’t care. Their “ends justifies the means” tactic is the foundation of every dictatorship in the world.

The once independent informational World Wide Web has been co-opted by the radical Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis for political purposes. This is how it works.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis falsely and hypocritically claim that open borders are humanitarian, and that President Trump’s attempts to secure the border are racist and a function of his white supremacy. Axis members do not accuse Iran of being too Islamic. Axis members do not accuse Nigeria of being too black. Axis members do not accuse Indonesia of slavery. Why not?

Because the Axis powers are not interested in facts, truth, and a presumption of innocence – the court of public opinion is only interested in destroying President Donald Trump. They are deceitfully using the court of public opinion to smear President Trump in preparation for the 2020 election.

Now let’s continue our discussion of individualism and collectivism to see how it fits into this deception. Socialism, communism, globalism, and Islamism are collectivist systems of centralized government where the group takes precedence over the individual. Capitalism is a system that prioritizes the individual and the opportunity for upward mobility and free enterprise. In capitalism there is private property and the individual rights that support it. In capitalism, individual property rights insure upward mobility. Upward mobility is the foundation of the American dream that has taken the United States from an era of worldwide slavery to the election of a black president.

In collectivism there is no private property and no individual rights – the government owns and distributes the fruits of your labor. The disingenuous accusations of racism and white supremacy lodged against President Donald Trump completely disguise the racism and supremacist ideals of the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis accusers. What?

The black supremacist Black Panthers do not represent the greater black community, the white supremacist KKK does not represent the greater white community, the sharia-compliant Islamic supremacists do not represent the Muslim community who embrace our Constitution. One must be able to distinguish between groups in order to foment discord and divisiveness between them. The court of public opinion makes no such distinction. They insist that since President Trump is white he is a racist and a white supremacist. Their argument has no rational basis, no truth, and no facts, but that does not matter in the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion does not respect Constitutional law and the presumption of innocence. The court of public opinion follows the 12 rules for social revolution articulated in Saul Alinsky’s infamous manual Rules for Radicals. According to Alinsky, “Before men can act, an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil. . . This includes lying a hundred thousand times over, if necessary, and always with a straight face.”

The Axis liars are non-sectarian supremacists following the rules of revolution where the ends justify the means. The Leftists and Globalists liars are endorsed by Alinsky. The Islamist liars are endorsed by taqiyya (lying in the service of Islam). If we are to avoid violent revolution we must turn off the noise of the divisive false accusations made by the illegitimate court of public opinion. We must examine the facts of President Trump’s color-blind policies and accomplishments according to the rules of evidence defined by the Constitution. Unity has a purpose and so does disunity.

The disunity that is facilitated by the false accusations of racism and white supremacy made in the court of public opinion are designed to create the social chaos necessary to make the supremacist Axis Dreams come true. Personally, I prefer ordered liberty and the equality of the American Dream. I reject the supremacism of Leftism, Islamism, and Globalism entirely.

Do not be fooled by the illegitimate court of public opinion – it is deliberately facilitating the humanitarian hoax of white supremacy designed to kill America with kindness. President Donald J. Trump represents equality, ordered liberty, and the color-blind upward mobility of the American Dream. In the legitimate federal judiciary the facts prove that POTUS is not a racist or a supremacist – his enemies are.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Blacks Should Ignore the Liberal Agenda

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

Move Over Russia: Google Takes Lead in Election Interference [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

In a recent congressional testimony on “Google and Censorship through Search Engines, liberal professor Dr. Robert Epstein warned of Google interference in the upcoming presidential elections.

Speaking to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Epstein states that his “research over the past six years shows that Google, via various deliberate manipulations, moved between 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race.”

Cruz pointed out that in 2016, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign’s number one financial supporter was the parent company of Google, Alphabet.

Adding further significance to the conversation on election interference, Epstein warned that the figure of 2.6 million was “rock bottom minimum” in terms of votes influenced. More accurately, he said, the range for Google’s election interference was between 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive Google was in their  techniques.

Those techniques included search engine result manipulation, search suggestion manipulation and affecting answers.

The exchange between Senator Cruz and Epstein also warned that none of these Google interference tactics are competitive.

Instead, Silicon Valley giants like Google have these tools exclusively at their disposal, which raises the question of whether a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires can be trusted with that much influence.

The testimony came at the same time that presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard initiated a lawsuit against Google for $50 million. According to Vice News, the legal complaint centers on the allegation that,

“Google unfairly barred the Hawaii congresswoman from buying ads… [Google] has been criticized by many on the Right for censoring content that favors conservative viewpoints. However, Google’s favoritism of political and policy ideas is more nuanced and self-serving. Simply put, Google supports viewpoints, political causes, and candidates that favors its policy positions over those that do not.”

Gabbard’s campaign was looking to buy ad space in a six-hour window following the first Democratic presidential debate — a debate which she gave an outstanding statement on the “War on Terror.”

While the televised speech was watched by millions of followers, Gabbard understood that it would be critical to her campaign to ride that wave by marketing the event through digital media.

In a report by The New York Times, the lawsuit also outlines the Gabbard campaign’s belief that “its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at ‘a disproportionately high rate’ when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.”

The recent accusations against Google aren’t raised in a vacuum.

As Clarion Project has previously reported, Google has been caught teaming up with Chinese authorities in surveillance and prosecution measures over China’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Google has been called out for supporting a tracking app that allows Saudi men to control their wives’ and daughters’ movements.

RELATED STORIES:

The Curse of Silicon Valley’s Community Standards

Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History?

Peer Policing: The Next Dangerous Step Silencing Our Voices

VIDEO: The Vortex — The Pope’s New World Order

/in , , , , , , /by

Careful what you wish for, Holy Father.

TRANSCRIPT

It’s a little hard to believe actually, but faithful Catholics are growing more and more concerned that Pope Francis’ Vatican is on some kind of tear to advance globalism, and there’s not only a lot of evidence to support the notion, there is, at the same time, not a lot of evidence to dispute the idea.

Globalism is, in short, a governing system whereby individual nations cede, or hand over, some of their national sovereignty to a kind of collective government.

So by definition, globalism and nationalism are pretty much in opposition. And faithful Catholics should not let their eyes glaze over on this, but remain, at least for the time being, up at the 60,000-foot level.

This whole issue is being played out in U.S. politics right now among the Democrats, and so naturally, the U.S. bishops have gotten involved in all this as well.

Here is the extremely critical gigantic point to remember: Globalism would usher in one supranational governing authority that would have complete control as though every current nation were just a single state in the worldwide nation.

If any Catholic — orthodox, or even dissenting — can’t see the immediate theological, political and cultural problems with that, then they have no pulse, brain or both.

The globalists have been running wild for the past few decades, extolling what they say are the “advantages” of globalism. Indeed, the very concept of the European Union is a regionalized stab at globalism, despite its difficulties.

Pope Francis and his globalist cheerleader crowd in Rome are posturing that the very foundational concept of individual nations are now little else than nostalgic entities which have become overrun by giant transnational corporations.

To carry the thought further, these corporations are all greedy, exploit the poor of the earth, poison the environment and are able to get away with all of it because they get to hide behind and operate through the laws of individual nations.

So for the Pope, there is only one solution to all this: abolish nations, make one-world government and reign in these greedy businesses with fines, penalties and jail time if necessary.

So, some problems:

First, this is little else than high-minded-sounding wealth redistribution, a favorite dream of political liberals — remember the encounter between Obama and Joe the Plumber on the 2008 campaign trail.

Obama and liberals are all about taking the money of industrious hard workers and giving it to people who don’t work hard or aren’t as industrious — they call that “spreading the wealth.”

Of course, Obama, Hillary and the 240,000 other Democrats running for president this year never include their own wealth in that equation; it’s just your wealth that needs to be spread around.

Second, the entire notion of such a one-world government is the ideal of Marxist communism. Even though Obama said spread the wealth, he was not the first guy with the idea. Karl Marx was.

Third, the key question: Exactly who would be the ruling class making the new laws to impose on the entire human race, and, more to the point, what if the “people” wanted to throw off this one-world government down the road, what mechanism would be in place?

Fourth, what laws precisely would be imposed, say, for example, about abortion, sodomite marriage, taxation, private property and so on?

Fifth, and when it comes to the specific area of religion, if there is one world governing body, then it stands to reason that there would have to, eventually, be one world religion — or no world religion.

Sixth, the Vatican City state is its own national sovereignty. What would happen to it as it would be absorbed into the great universal governmental bureaucratic collective?

Seventh, these liberal ideas are all the rage and have been in the West for decades, and political, theological and social atheists have sought furiously to destroy Catholic-established Western civilization. But can anyone seriously think that the Chinese Communists are going to just hand over their power to “the people”? The Chinese Commies kill people who propose those ideas.

A few days ago, in his bid to dress up one-world government, Pope Francis suggested that the very concept of nationalism had within itself “echoes of Hitler.” Them there are fightin’ words.

Their purpose is to re-awaken in Europeans the fear of National Socialism and that we should run away from that as fast as our little liberal, right-thinking feet can carry us. It’s practically a scare tactic.

So the supranational question for the supranational proposal. Hitler and company of the Third Reich were all about world domination.

That they were able to use an immoral appeal to the concept of nationalism as a springboard to world domination should be thought of.

The goal was world domination — period. So to make an appeal to the concept of nationalism as a kind of emotional blackmail to usher in what would, in the end, be world domination, is either massively uninformed or incredibly disingenuous.

And for the record, it was American nationalism during World War II — all our wealth and resources and industrial might — that proved to be the decisive factor in crushing the Nazis and then the Japanese warlords; so nationalism isn’t a bad thing after all.

Throughout history, nations have oftentimes worked as a kind of counter-balance to each other. Whether in warfare or trade or politics — whatever arena — the friction between individual national interests does oftentimes resort in overall good, even if people do tend to dwell on friction more than the good — thoughts of the space race of the 1960s between the United States and the Soviet Union come to mind.

But the discerning Catholic should keep this in mind: None of this is happening in a vacuum. It has invaded and seized control of an entire political party in the United States — guess which one.

Every major candidate for that party’s upcoming nomination has touted this concept either explicitly or in their foundational principles.

To wit, open borders; canceling all — yep, every single private health insurance plan; using U.S. tax dollars to pay for health care for illegal immigrants; using U.S. tax dollars to pay for education for illegal immigrants.

And mind you, much of that is already in place as we speak, they just want to formalize it.

Ignoring borders and border security isn’t really about economics and helping the poor, immigrants and asylum seekers. It’s really about destroying national sovereignty — which is why Pope Francis keeps bashing the idea of a wall and slamming any politically conservative American he can.

However, something the Holy Father should stop and consider as he makes these ideological pronouncements from behind the safety of his own Vatican walls, a one-world government, once installed, would very likely have high on its list the pulling down of those same walls surrounding the city-state of the Vatican.

Limousine liberals might have in mind some Marxist utopia, but the true author behind such a notion only has one goal in mind: the obliteration of the Catholic Church.

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

Maine Homeless Question Why Asylum Seekers Will Get Housing Before They do!

/in , , , , , , /by

“How do they have a place for them but not for us?”  – (A homeless woman in Maine)

I can’t believe my eyes.  A local media outlet has dared to publish this news and it comes at a time when the national media is dumping on the President who says Americans should come first when it comes to public assistance!

150 African asylum seekers have jumped ahead of 18,000 Mainers who have been on a waiting list for years for Section 8 housing!

From WGME-13 (hat tip: Jeannine):

I-Team: Homeless Mainers feel left behind as asylum seekers get housing

PORTLAND (WGME) – Nearly 200 asylum seekers have to be out of an emergency shelter at the Portland Expo by this Thursday as the Red Claws move back in.

While state and city leaders scramble to find them housing, some homeless Mainers say they feel left behind.

The I-Team found more than 18,000 Mainers are on a waiting list for Section 8 and that’s just one program to help low-income families get affordable housing.

Many of those people are homeless and hungry and have already been waiting years for their number to be called. [Am I dreaming? I can’t believe any media in America would report this news!—-ed]

Zanetta Smith said she’s thankful for a storage shack in the woods where a friend is letting her live.

She said it’s not much, but it’s better than living in her car where she’s been for the last 5 years.

“It was pretty tough in the winter,” Smith said.

She lost her apartment after she got sick and couldn’t work anymore.

“You fall into bad times, and sometimes it’s hard to get out of it,” she said.

She’s trying to get a place of her own with a toilet, shower, and running water, which her temporary housing doesn’t have.

She said she’s been on the waiting list for a Section 8 voucher for years.

According to Maine Housing, the statewide Maine Centralized Section 8 waiting list is now up to 18,316.

“It’s years, unfortunately. We just don’t have the supply and stock,” said Dan Brennan, director of the Maine State Housing Authority.

Brennan said it could be five years to get a voucher to help pay for rent, and even if you get one, there’s no guarantee you’ll find a place.

“There simply is not enough supply of units available for people who need them,” Brennan said.
Local housing authorities also have waiting lists for public housing.

In Portland, for example, we found nearly 1,400 people waiting for a unit to open up, which could take as long as three years.

“Of course when the asylum seekers come up here they offered them free housing. How do they have a place for them but not for us?” Smith wants to know.

At last check, more than 150 asylum seekers who arrived in Portland since June have moved out of a makeshift shelter at the Portland Expo and into units in Bath, Brunswick, Lewiston, Portland, and Scarborough.

There is more!  Continue reading here.

See all of my previous posts on the DR Congolese migration to Maine, here.

BTW, yesterday I told you that over 11,000 DR Congolese were legally admitted as refugees to the US in the first ten months of this fiscal year.  This bunch in Maine came illegally and are now jumping the line for taxpayer supported housing!

RELATED ARTICLE: 167 Jewish Groups Urge President to Admit “at least 95,000 refugees” in FY2020

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

President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous

/in , , , /by

President Trump tweeted the following on August 13th, 2019:

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!

With this one tweet every American can see the great danger of red flag laws.

QUESTION: Did President Trump send out this tweet to kill any chance of a federal red flag law passing?

President Trump may be thinking 20 steps ahead of both the Republicans who support red flag laws and Democrats who support universal background checks. Republicans have no stomach to pass any universal background check laws. Republicans also are not in favor of banning “assault rifles” either.

Has Trump shown Republicans and Democrats alike what they can expect when he’s re-elected? Is the President showing how a red flag law can be used to go after the many “crazies” in the Democratic and even in the RepublicanParty?

Here’s The President’s Strategy

The President of the United States just called an American citizen and journalist “nuts.” Merriam-Webster defines the adjective nuts as follows: 2: INSANE, CRAZY.

No matter what you think about Chris Cuomo’s rant, his use of foul language and loss of control, it doesn’t rise to the level of taking away a fundamental Constitutional right.

Does this tweet rise to the level of taking away Cuomo’s 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? I, and my guess is that President Trump, think not.

When any President of the United States calls another person “nuts” (crazy) and implies that that person shouldn’t be allowed to “have any weapon” law enforcement takes notice.

We are moving down a very slippery slope indeed. And perhaps President Trump is putting on the brakes?

As I warned before, “Red flag laws will inevitably lead to innocent people caught up in the feeding frenzy to keep guns out of the hands of ‘crazy people’.”

Trump’s tweet makes my point perfectly.

Be warned. Red flag laws and universal background checks are very very dangerous. They can be used to disarm law abiding citizens, political opponents, and even journalists. We will wait and see what happens when Congress reconvenes. Hopefully the panic to do something will have subsided. And the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will prevail.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hawkins: Universal Background Checks Unenforceable Without Gun Registry

The Argument Beneath the Surface of Gun Control

PODCAST: Dissecting the consequences of the “red flag” laws

RELATED VIDEO: NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Stands Strong for Law-Abiding Citizens.

Who is Creating the Culture of Hatred?

/in , , , , /by

Following the mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso last week, President Trump came under fire by both the Democrats and Media for encouraging the incidents which, of course, is baseless. There was no consideration for the wackos who actually shot the people. In the minds of the Left, the President pulled the trigger, or at least that is what they want us to believe.

Campaigning at the Iowa State Fair last week, former Vice President Joe Biden claimed, “We have a problem with this rising tide of supremacy, white supremacy in America and we have a president who encourages and emboldens it.”

Biden went on to say the president “has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation,” in both “language” and “code.”

Other Democrat presidential hopefuls made similar accusations. The Main Stream Media also made similar assertions:

New York Times – “Trump Has Dragged Us Into the Gutter”

Politico – “Trump’s his own worst political enemy after tragedy”

The Hill – “Congress can’t combat mass shootings due to McConnell and Trump being ‘in bed with the gun lobby’”

New York Daily News – “Trump tries to comfort America, sorta”

There was no interest in the rationale of the shooters, they just used it as a political opportunity to blame President Trump for anything going wrong, everything from tragedy to hemorrhoids. I still insist the Democrats and Media would do this to any other Republican elected president in 2016, had it been Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, et al. They would have been smeared and vilified as much as Donald Trump. To illustrate, consider how they disparaged the character of President George W. Bush. By the end of his term, he was one of the most despised presidents, which opened the door to Barrack Obama.

The big difference though, President Trump is willing to push back, unlike other Republican presidents and much to the surprise of his opposition. Whenever they attack him, which is now a daily occurrence, he counter punches on Twitter or on camera. Whereas other Presidents accepted the abuse, President Trump does not.

The Democrats and Media are fully cognizant the president is not a racist, xenophobe, white supremacist, or whatever the adjective du jour happens to be. For example, Andrew Stein, a long term Democrat from Manhattan who has known the president since 1973, insists he is no racist. Far from it.

The Democrats and Media would have us believe the president’s rhetoric “emboldens” people to become white supremacists. In reality, it is the rhetoric emanating from the Democrats, with their lies and deception, that is angering them and causing people to form allegiance with Mr. Trump. There are simply a lot of people today who have had enough of these shenanigans and are forming ranks behind the president. The Left may like the accusations, but moderates and conservatives have had enough.

These false accusations spread by the Democrats, of course, is an old trick from the Saul Alinsky playbook, the legendary radical community organizer. Under his approach, all is fair in politics, regardless if it is ethical or not. In fact, he openly supported dirty tricks to mislead the public and elect his candidates.

In all likelihood, this approach will backfire on the Democrats in 2020. For every false assertion they make, they drive another nail into their own coffin. Should the Democrats in the House vote to impeach the president, this will not be met with enthusiasm by the public, thereby causing the president to clinch the election.

This is what happens when you do not have a bona fide party platform with positive ideas and programs to improve the country. Instead, they resort to dirty tricks. Make no mistake, it is not President Trump who is causing hate in the country, it is the Democrats, the same people who embraced slavery and Jim Crow laws, not the Republicans.

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.

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

Joe Biden’s Adventures in the Natural Law

/in , , , , , , /by

Hadley Arkes on a fair trade: The Church will not instruct a Biden or a Cuomo about politics, if they’ll stop misleading Catholics about Church teaching.

William Blackstone, that venerable commentator on the English law, remarked that it was a contradiction in terms to suggest that the law may recognize a principle of revolution.  And yet, James Wilson, one of the premier minds among the American Founders, insisted that the law in America could indeed encompass a principle of revolution.

For the law in America began with the recognition that there could be an unjust law – a measure passed with all of the trappings of legality and yet wanting in the very substance of justice.  Americans could readily grasp that point because they began with an understanding of moral truths and natural rights quite apart from the laws that were “posited” or enacted in any place. And that body of natural law would supply the standards for judging the rightness or justice of the things enacted as law.

But by the end of the 19th century, the natural law had become an object of derision among lawyers.  In our own time, conservatives sharpened the reaction against natural law as they recoiled from liberal judges, moving outside the text of the Constitution, inventing new rights to contraception and abortion.  They were false constructions of natural right, but they had to be met by showing what was false in the reasoning.

The conservatives, however, were losing their confidence in moral reasoning, and so their ingenious strategy was to avoid any hint of moral reasoning altogether.

When Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he had shaped a remarkable record as a professor and a wise jurist, but with a deep dubiety about the natural law.   At the infamous hearings over his confirmation, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, was the redoubtable Joseph Biden.  Faced with a legal “positivist,” Biden thought he would embarrass Bork by staking out a strong position in natural law:

As a child of God, I believe my rights are not derived from the Constitution.  My rights are not derived from any government. My rights are not derived from any majority.  My rights are because I exist.  They were given to me and each of my fellow citizens by our creator and they represent the essence of human dignity.

Biden was striking this posture because Bork would have been a likely vote in overturning Roe v. Wade.   That right to abortion was being treated now by the Left as a species of “natural right.”  And yet, James Wilson had raised the question: If we have natural rights as human beings, when do they begin? The answer: as soon as we begin to be.  Which was why, as Wilson said, the common law cast its protection over human beings “when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.”

Despite his Catholic background Joe Biden was, and remains today, a firm defender of a right to abortion.  And yet, if I have those rights, “as a child of God . . . because I exist,” the child in the womb must be the bearer of those rights.   How could a pregnant woman have a right then to sweep away the natural rights of the child by the simple expedient of removing, in a stroke, the bearer of those rights?

Biden’s position might have been salvaged, I guess, if he just didn’t consider the child in the womb a human being on the same plane as any other human. But if our rights do not depend on the votes of majorities, could it be that our very standing as human beings could be left in the hands of majorities, in legislatures or courts?  Or worse: that the decision could be left to the woman and man who have already found an interest in killing the child?

But four years later Biden found himself delivered from his problem. He now had before his Committee, for hearings, Clarence Thomas, who was charged with the offense of taking natural law seriously at times.  That new threat to Roe v. Wade marked a change of 180 degrees.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Biden warned that if we had judges again who took natural law seriously, we would have a throwback to those reactionary judges who resisted the New Deal in the 1930s, with its regulation of business.  We would go back, he said, to the kinds of teachings offered by this Professor Arkes in this preposterous book, First Things.

The years would roll on and Joe Biden would settle in with the clichés offered by the Cuomos and Pelosis: He would not impose, through the laws, the “personal” “beliefs” he had absorbed through his religion. But the Church, on abortion, has never appealed to “beliefs.”  The teaching has drawn on the facts of embryology, woven with principled reasoning.

Since they were moral teachings, made communal, they had never been merely “personal.”  We’ve come to see the deep reluctance of bishops to challenge the leading Catholic politicians who have offered this oh-so-familiar evasion, for they don’t want those politicians charged with the offense of taking orders from their Church.

And yet, one wonders why something as simple as this may not be said: The Church would not tell the Bidens and Cuomos what to say as they make their careers in politics, but they surely would have no moral right to mislead a wide audience of Catholics about the teachings of their own Church.

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

PODCAST: Voter ID. Rep. Bob Barr: Speech Trump Needs to Make. Red Flag bills.

/in , , , , , , , /by

GUESTS:

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform — as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. His analysis and commentary have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Politico, Human Events, National Review Online and Townhall. Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department

TOPIC…Voter ID Opponents Lose Again!!

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPIC…The Follow-up Speech Trump Needs to Make

Rob Natelson has divided his professional life between the private for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and state and local government. A former law professor and nationally known constitutional scholar, he is currently a self-employed consultant who serves as senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver.

TOPIC…Red Flag bills: Attack on the Bill of Rights!!

WARNING: Thanos is Still Alive… And Everywhere.

/in , , , , /by

When we last talked about Thanos, we focused on the nature of resources, the value of humanity, and the history of failed overpopulation doomsday proclamations.

This time, we’re following up on some of those themes with a deeper discussion of environmentalism and the role wealth creation plays in generating better standards of living for both people *and* the environment around us, then we shift gears to the concept of “central planning” and explain why Thanos’ is no different than countless historical and modern tyrants who believe they can easily plan out the future for billions (or trillions) of people… and what inevitably happens when things don’t go their way.

CREDITS: Written & Produced by Sean W. Malone. Edited by Arash Ayrom & Sean W. Malone.

EDITORS NOTE: This Foundation for Economic Education video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.