California’s New Governor Calls for a Tax on Drinking Water

Communities throughout the state struggle with dangerous pollutants in their supply, but opponents of the suggested tax say there is no need to tax residents in order to solve the problem.

California’s new governor has wasted little time continuing the state’s seemingly limitless expansion of government. Governor Gavin Newsom’s first budget proposal, published last week, suggests instituting a tax on drinking water in the name of cleaning up California’s water systems.

The “Environmental Protection” section of the 2019-2020 budget seeks to

establish a new special fund, with a dedicated funding source from new water, fertilizer, and dairy fees, to enable the State Water Resources Control Board to assist communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, in paying for the short-term and long-term costs of obtaining access to safe and affordable drinking water.

California’s drinking water quality is indeed poor. Communities throughout the state struggle with dangerous pollutants in their supply, but opponents of the suggested tax say there is no need to tax residents in order to solve the problem.

Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association has argued that the proposal is an example “of California’s knee-jerk reaction to default to a new tax whenever there’s a new problem,” the Sacramento Bee reported. (In another example, last year bureaucrats proposed a new tax on text messages that was ultimately shot down.) Coupal says there shouldn’t be new taxes for water system improvements when the state is sitting on a $14.2 billion surplus.

Similarly, the California Association of Water Agencies, a coalition of public water agencies throughout the state, has expressed opposition to the proposed tax, arguing that in light of the current surplus, a trust should be established to fund water clean-up efforts.  “The state should not tax something that is essential to life, such as water and food,” they said in a press release, adding that the costs of living in California are already too high and that another tax would make water less affordable.

Further, significant funding has already been allocated to help clean up water in disadvantaged communities, which experience disproportionate levels of polluted drinking water. For example, Assembly Bill 1471, passed in 2014, authorized$260 million “for grants and loans for public water system infrastructure improvements and related actions to meet safe drinking water standards, ensure affordable drinking water, or both.”

In 2015, as part of the emergency drought funding, then-Governor Jerry Brown approved an additional $19 million in funding was allocated “to meet interim emergency drinking water needs for disadvantaged communities with a contaminated water supply or suffering from drought-related water outages or threatened emergencies,” according to the state water board.

In June of last year, voters approved Proposition 68, which authorized $250 million for clean drinking water projects, as well as drought preparedness measures.

Further, in December, the EPA awarded California $187 billion in federal funds “for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.”

California already has one of the largest tax burdens in the country. Its top tier income rate is the highest at 13.3 percent, as is its sales tax rate of 7.25 percent. In 2017, the state collected $82 billion in tax revenue—nearly $4 billion more than expected.

Nevertheless, Newsom is modeling his new tax proposal on a funding bill state lawmakers rejected last year. According to his budget, “This proposal is consistent with the policy framework of SB 623, introduced in the 2017-18 legislative session.”

That bill sought to tax both homes and businesses to raise money for water cleanup and would have been capped at 95 cents per month, but it died in the Senate. (A similar attempt to tax drinking water in the state of New Jersey also languished in that state’s legislature last year.)

It appears voters could be growing apprehensive toward new fees for drinking water considering they defeated Proposition 3 in last year’s election, which would have allocated $500 million in bond funding to help the state’s water suppliers meet safe drinking water standards.

Newsom’s push has received praise from environmental groups, but the Sacramento Bee reports that while the budget has an increased chance of passing since Democrats regained their supermajority in the legislature, some Democrats are hesitant to approve new taxes on drinking water.

Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that have already been allocated to fix the water problem, it seems the bigger issue isn’t a lack of funding but an excess of bureaucracy and intervention.

COLUMN BY

Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler is a video blogger and Senior Editor for Anti-Media.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Climate modeling illusions

By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr

For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.

They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken described early in the last century: “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The dangerous human-caused climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from a threat for which there is not a shred of meaningful physical evidence that climate fluctuations and weather events we are experiencing today are different from, or worse than, what our near and distant ancestors had to deal with – or are human-caused.

Many of the statements issued to support these fear-mongering claims are presented in the U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, a 1,656-page report released in late November. But none of their claims have any basis in real world observations. All that supports them are mathematical equations presented as accurate, reliable models of Earth’s climate.

It is important to properly understand these models, since they are the only basis for the climate scare.

Before we construct buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small-scale models and test them against stresses and performance that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are largely (or entirely) beyond our control – such as climate – we try to describe them with mathematical equations. By altering the values of the variables in these equations, we can see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.

However, today’s climate models account for only a handful of the hundreds of variables that are known to affect Earth’s climate, and many of the values inserted for the variables they do use are little more than guesses. Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Laboratory lists the six most important variables in any climate model:

1) Sun-Earth orbital dynamics and their relative positions and motions with respect to other planets in the solar system;

2) Charged particles output from the Sun (solar wind) and modulation of the incoming cosmic rays from the galaxy at large;

3) How clouds influence climate, both blocking some incoming rays/heat and trapping some of the warmth;

4) Distribution of sunlight intercepted in the atmosphere and near the Earth’s surface;

5) The way in which the oceans and land masses store, affect and distribute incoming solar energy;

6) How the biosphere reacts to all these various climate drivers.

Soon concludes that, even if the equations to describe these interactive systems were known and properly included in computer models (they are not), it would still not be possible to compute future climate states in any meaningful way. This is because it would take longer for even the world’s most advanced super-computers to calculate future climate than it would take for the climate to unfold in the real world.

So we could compute the climate (or Earth’s multiple sub-climates) for 40 years from now, but it would take more than 40 years for the models to make that computation.

Although governments have funded more than one hundred efforts to model the climate for the better part of three decades, with the exception of one Russian model which was fully “tuned” to and accidentally matched observational data, not one accurately “predicted” (hindcasted) the known past. Their average prediction is now a full 1 degree F above what satellites and weather balloons actually measured.

In his February 2, 2016 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology, University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist Dr. John Christy compared the results of atmospheric temperatures as depicted by the average of 102 climate models with observations from satellites and balloon measurements. He concluded: “These models failed at the simple test of telling us ‘what’ has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to ‘what’ may happen in the future and ‘why.’ As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.”

Similarly, when Christopher Monckton tested the IPCC approach in a paper published by the Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2015, he convincingly demonstrated that official predictions of global warming had been overstated threefold. (Monckton holds several awards for his climate work.)

The paper has been downloaded 12 times more often than any other paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal. Monckton’s team of eminent climate scientists is now putting the final touches on a paper proving definitively that – instead of the officially-predicted 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.5 F) warming for every doubling of COlevels – there will be only 1.1 degrees C of warming. At a vital point in their calculations, climatologists had neglected to take account of the fact that the Sun is shining!

All problems can be viewed as having five stages: observation, modeling, prediction, verification and validation. Apollo team meteorologist Tom Wysmuller explains: “Verification involves seeing if predictions actually happen, and validation checks to see if the prediction is something other than random correlation. Recent CO2 rise correlating with industrial age warming is an example on point that came to mind.”

As Science and Environmental Policy Project president Ken Haapala notes, “the global climate models relied upon by the IPCC [the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and the USGCRP [United States Global Change Research Program] have not been verified and validated.”

An important reason to discount climate models is their lack of testing against historical data. If one enters the correct data for a 1920 Model A, automotive modeling software used to develop a 2020 Ferrari should predict the performance of a 1920 Model A with reasonable accuracy. And it will.

But no climate models relied on by the IPCC (or any other model, for that matter) has applied the initial conditions of 1900 and forecast the Dust Bowl of the 1930s – never mind an accurate prediction of the climate in 2000 or 2015. Given the complete lack of testable results, we must conclude that these models have more in common with the “Magic 8 Ball” game than with any scientifically based process.

While one of the most active areas for mathematical modeling is the stock market, no one has ever predicted it accurately. For many years, the Wall Street Journal chose five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month. The Journal then had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that day’s stock market results. A month later, they determined who preformed better at choosing winners: the analysts or the chimpanzee. The chimp usually won.

For these and other reasons, until recently, most people were never foolish enough to make decisions based on predictions derived from equations that supposedly describe how nature or the economy works.

Yet today’s computer modelers claim they can model the climate – which involves far more variables than the economy or stock market – and do so decades or even a century into the future. They then tell governments to make trillion-dollar policy decisions that will impact every aspect of our lives, based on the outputs of their models. Incredibly, the United Nations and governments around the world are complying with this demand. We are crazy to continue letting them get away with it.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column with images is republished with permission.

Cleveland Clinic Won’t Recommend Medical Marijuana to Patients

Why the Cleveland Clinic won’t recommend medical marijuana for patients 

Doctors at Ohio’s Cleveland Clinic will not recommend marijuana for medical use, according to Paul Terpeluk, DO, medical director of the clinic’s employee health services. Writing in the Kent (OH) Record-Courier, Dr. Terpeluk explains why.
 
“In the world of healthcare, a medication is a drug that has endured extensive clinical trials, public hearings and approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration,” he says. “Medications are tested for safety and efficacy. They are closely regulated, from production to distribution. They are accurately dosed, down to the milligram. 
 
“Medical marijuana is none of those things,” he points out. 
 
He says governments, regulators, medical researchers, and pharmaceutical companies should focus on isolating marijuana components to produce dose-specific medication and submit it to testing and regulatory processes.
 
He notes that in 2017, the National Institutes of Health supported 330 projects totaling almost $140 million on cannabinoid research. Marijuana contains more than 500 chemicals. Slightly more than 100 of those, called cannabinoids, are unique to the cannabis plant. Thus far, pharmaceutical companies have developed four cannabinoid medications and FDA has approved them:Marinol (dronabinol) is man-made THC in pill form,Syndros (dronabinol) is man-made THC in liquid form,Cesamet (nabilone) is a man-made product similar to THC in pill form, andEpidiolex (cannabidiol) is a purified extract of marijuana in oil form. “As a healthcare provider our goal is to help patients, to treat their conditions, to improve their quality of life, and to ease their suffering – within the bounds of scientific evidence,” Dr. Terpeluk concludes.
 
Read Cleveland Clinic statement here.
 
Effect of Marijuana Smoking on Pulmonary Disease in HIV-Infected and Uninfected Men 

Published online prior to the publication of the December-January issue of EClinicalMedicine, this longitudinal study involved 1352 HIV-seropositive and 1352 HIV-seronegative men who have sex with men.
 
Eligible participants with self-reported marijuana and tobacco smoking had biannual study visits between 1996 and 2014. Researchers obtained pulmonary diagnoses from self-reports and medical records.
 
This study finds that “Among HIV-infected participants, recent marijuana smoking was associated with increased risk of infectious pulmonary diagnoses and chronic bronchitis independent of tobacco smoking and other risk factors for lung disease; . . . these risks were additive in participants smoking both substances. There was no association between marijuana smoking and pulmonary diagnoses in HIV-uninfected participants.”
 
Read full text of this NIH-funded study here.
 
Cannabis anonymous: Steamboat Springs therapist sees rise in marijuana addiction 

A Steamboat Springs, Colorado, licensed counselor and certified addictions therapist, Gary Guerney, has been treating substance abuse problems in patients for more than 20 years. In the last year, he has been shocked by the number of people who are coming to him for help with their addiction to marijuana, a drug most thought was not addictive.
 
“In all my years, I’ve never seen this,” he says.
 
Initially, he favored legalizing marijuana for medical use, but now he’s not so sure. He worries about the drug’s impact on mental health and addiction.
 
Marijuana use has more than doubled in the past decade.
 
Read Steamboat Pilot & Today story here.
 
Colorado: Owners of Sweet Leaf dispensary chain sentenced to a year in prison for illegal marijuana distribution 

A landmark case in the land of legal marijuana is getting widespread attention across the nation. Yes, pot is legal in Colorado, but no one can violate the Colorado Organized Crime Law by illegally selling and distributing marijuana even if they own licensed dispensaries.
 
The three owners of the Sweet Leaf dispensary chain pleaded guilty to violating this law. They were sentenced to one year in prison, to be followed by one year of parole, and one year of probation.
 
The owners admitted they knew that some customers were “looping,” a practice where someone buys the maximum amount of marijuana allowed and returns to the dispensary to buy the maximum amount again and again the same day. The maximum amount in Colorado is one ounce.
 
A Denver prosecutor told the judge that a year-long investigation by Denver police and an equally long investigation by a Denver grand jury resulted in the charges. The investigations produced evidence of loopers purchasing marijuana from Sweet Leaf dispensaries 30 to 40 times a day, leading to almost 2.5 tons of illegal marijuana going into the black market.
 
Sweet Leaf’s parent companies, Dynamic Growth Partner LLC and AJS Holdings LLC, also pleaded guilty and were fined $125,000 each.
 
Read the Denver Post story here.

Chris Pratt’s Bible-inspired diet highlights a discipline from a spiritual dimension

I’m pleased to announce that I’ve been invited to serve as a FoxNews.com column contributor on matters of faith and family. My first column published yesterday highlights how the spiritual discipline of fasting has been ushered into the spotlight by one of the most unlikely places — Hollywood. Here is an excerpt from the column with a link to read the rest on FoxNews.com:

Actor Chris Pratt, a Christian, posted on Instagram that he was on a 21-day Daniel Fast. The Guardians of the Galaxy star, who recently got engaged to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s daughter Katherine, created a lot of interest in “taking his health regimen to biblical proportions.” No doubt this had some curious folks turning to the infomercial channels looking for details on this latest fad in dieting. While I won’t rule out that some creative marketer will capitalize upon the attention created over Pratt’s post, the Daniel Fast is not new, and it’s so much more than a diet.

The Daniel Fast, named for the Old Testament prophet Daniel and his meal plan described in the first chapter of Daniel, is a deliberate and disciplined effort to place a higher priority on our spiritual well-being and growth rather than our physical wants and needs. The goal is to set aside the momentary pleasures of rich food to simplify life, allowing time and mental energy to focus on what’s really important. While fasting does have tangible benefits, the focus of fasting is spiritual; it’s about setting ourselves apart for spiritual focus and nourishment.

Click here to read the rest of the column on FoxNews.com.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

A Renewed Focus on an Old Horror

Peer Pressure Gender Perils

Planned Puppyhood: What if you could abort a puppy at birth? [Video]

Stabbing an unborn baby to death is pure evil….if we did the same to puppies America would be enraged.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pixabay.

Battle Ready: 5 Innovations Most Armies Use Today

Most of us will agree that in order to achieve peace, we must make sacrifices. In today’s global scene, a lot of countries are taking immeasurable sacrifices to attain peace within their territories. Some countries like the U.S. help provide a military presence to smaller countries who have difficulties in maintaining peace inside their borders.

However, most of the world’s superpowers are catching up and are also at par with using advanced technologies for military purposes. Even small, but able countries such as Pakistan and Iraq employ advanced technologies in their arsenal. Here’s a look at five more military innovations that most countries around the world use today:

Drones

Whether it’s for reconnaissance or for more lethal purposes, drones are making their presence felt more and more. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs that are capable of flying at supersonic speeds. Much of the specifics of some drones are highly guarded secrets by most of the countries who use them.

The Predator drone is the most used today. These drones are controlled by highly qualified personnel, thousands of miles away from the battlefield. Durable and rugged computers by Combat Proven Technologies and other advanced innovations “mark” each target and display the rate of success when going through with tasks.

Satellites

Most experienced soldiers in the battlefield know that the fog of war is a reality that no one should take lightly. To combat the fog of war, military leaders use satellites. These satellites provide vital information such as terrain, weather, and structures in a certain area.

When groups of soldiers know these advantages, they can quickly turn the tide of the battle in their favor. Having a specific knowledge about the land in an area of operations minimizes the hazards and dangers that each soldier faces.

Submarines

At the height of World War II, Germany was at the forefront of submarines during wartime. German U-boats were known to strike fear to large boats and carriers around the Atlantic Ocean. Today, submarines are used by several countries such as China, Indonesia, The United States, India, etc.

Most submarines use nuclear technology to power its engines. Due to its immense power core, submarines can stay afloat in the ocean for months at a time without resurfacing. These submarines are armed with sonar capabilities and torpedos that can take out unsuspecting threats.

Future Soldier

There’s a saying by George S. Patton that goes like this: “Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.”

However, when it comes to war, there is no man that’s immune to its devastating effects. Enter the Future Soldier. Every advanced military tech is poured into keeping a soldier’s safety and well being intact when out in the battlefield. Future soldiers come equipped with technologically advanced weaponry that enables them to carry out missions safely.

TAR HUDs, advanced weapons systems, innovative kevlar suits, etc. all keep our soldiers in the battlefield tactically prepared. Not even that, even our canine companions have gear designed to enhance their physical abilities. Canada, The United Kingdom, China, and The United States have advanced programs focusing on their troops.

Shock and Awe

More of a strategy than a technological innovation, most countries employ the Shock and Awe strategy in the battlefield to limit casualties from both sides. Shock and Awe mean that a country show it’s full military prowess(meaning they need to show off advanced weaponry) to terrify belligerents into submission.

Takeaway

Countries around the world such as the United States, Israel, Canada, China, the United Kingdom, India, etc. all have technological advances in their military. Even countries such as Indonesia, Qatar, and Pakistan are beginning to catch up. All these technologies are aimed at keeping soldiers safe and keeping casualties to a minimum.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image by TheDigitalArtist on Pixabay.

The Left Is Shunning Liberals With Concerns About Transgender Agenda

Recently, I heard from a woman who has a teenage daughter four years into the process of transitioning.

Throughout that time, this mom has been trying to get left-leaning media and think tanks and professional associations to take seriously the concerns coming from the left.

Instead she’s found herself and her colleagues essentially left behind by the left.

But her situation is hardly unique in today’s America.

Just last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report showing that 2 percent of American high school students now identify as transgender.

That’s a population-wide statistic. The percentage is even higher in particular communities and schools.

Girls are affected the most. In many western countries this has become an epidemic. Recently, the U.K. ordered an investigation into why the number of young girls seeking treatment at gender clinics increased by 4,000 percent.

Something is going on.

Too many of these young people feel unsafe, attacked, and they commit self-harm.

We need to find better ways to support them without damaging their bodies for life.

And so this mom, who wants to remain anonymous, wanted to know if The Heritage Foundation could host a conversation featuring liberals with concerns about the left’s embrace of the transgender agenda. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is currently pushing the Equality Act, which would have legal ramifications for those who don’t agree with the transgender agenda.

We were willing—and we did.

On Monday, I hosted at Heritage an event titled “The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left.”

Heritage’s founder, Ed Feulner, is famous for saying that it’s better to add and multiply than to divide and subtract. Undoubtedly, the people on this panel disagree about many things. I likely disagree with them about abortion, gay marriage, taxes, trade, foreign policy—just to name a few.

And that’s OK.

Just because we disagree about some things, even many things, that doesn’t mean we disagree about everything. And where we do agree, we can—and should—work together.

Because make no mistake: The current LGBT agenda is poised to affect everyone on both the left and right.

“Gender identity” refers to an individual’s inner sense of being a man or a woman or both or neither. It exists along a spectrum and can be fluid. It’s entirely arbitrary and self-disclosed. And rather incoherent, as it’s not at all clear what it means to “feel like” a woman, or how I would know if I felt like one, or why my feeling like a woman (whatever that means) would make me a woman.

As a result, if “gender identity” becomes a protected class in federal civil rights law, as Pelosi’s Equality Act would result in, there will be serious negative consequences. That’s where we agree. And that’s where we can work together.

As I spoke with that anonymous mother about the possibility of a public event, several things became clear.

First, the media wants to present the transgender cause as the next wave of civil rights and as the natural extension of the past decade of LGBT successes. If you support what the media calls gay rights, you have to support trans rights. If you support what the media calls marriage equality, you have to support trans equality.

There’s little willingness to recognize that the LGB and the T are radically dissimilar, especially as applied to children.

Second, the media wants to present this issue as one of science vs. faith. That there’s a consensus among doctors that people are born trans, that children as young as 2 or 3 can know their “true” gender identity, and that social transitioning and sex reassignment procedures—now referred to as “gender affirmation” or “gender confirmation”—are safe and effective treatment protocols. And that the only people who could think otherwise must be acting based on bigotry and blind faith.

Third, the media wants to ignore all of the costs. They don’t care about the damage being done to young people’s bodies and minds—in fact, they celebrate it as a civil right.

They don’t care about the privacy and safety and equality of girls, when boys who identify as girls can share female-only spaces—like showers and locker rooms and bathrooms—and when boys who identify as girls win female athletic competitions.

They don’t care about the ability of doctors to practice good medicine, when bad medicine becomes mandated as a civil right, and good medicine becomes outlawed as a civil wrong.

And they don’t care about the rights of parents to find the best care for their kids.

Sadly, some religious people give support to these narratives, when they agree to support “gender identity” laws, provided they get a religious exemption.

But bad public policy doesn’t become good by exemptions for oneself that do nothing for the privacy, safety, equality, and liberty of others.

“Gender identity” ideology will impact everyone. Right and left. Conservative and liberal. Religious and secular.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: @RyanTAnd.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.

What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx

Polylogism is the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos. Ludwig von Mises

The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own brand.


Image credit: Flicker-Recuerdos de Pandora | CC BY 2.0

Until the middle of the 19th century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.

Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual cooperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.

Yet, in the course of the 19th century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the “proletarian philosopher” Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker’s class position. What thinking produces is not truth but “ideologies.” This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the “bourgeois” origin of the physicists.

The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by “bourgeois” economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries’ ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.

Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only “ideological” statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that “the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple.” The proletarian logic is not “ideology” but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency. One of their champions, Professor Mannheim, tries to demonstrate that there exists a group of men, the “unattached intellectuals,” who are equipped with the gift of grasping truth without falling prey to ideological errors. Of course, Professor Mannheim is convinced that he is the foremost of these “unattached intellectuals.” You simply cannot refute him. If you disagree with him, you only prove thereby that you yourself are not one of this elite of “unattached intellectuals” and that your utterances are ideological nonsense.

The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics, and so on. But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor Tirala, his counterpart as champion of Aryan epistemology, declares that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are those of the Aryans. In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from the pollution of the Western philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. They are in search of arteigen German science, that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the Germans.

We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man’s mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result. We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.

Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British. It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of relativity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which—although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic—are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to. But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details.

Polylogism has a peculiar method of dealing with dissenting views. If its supporters fail to unmask the background of an opponent, they simply brand him a traitor. Both Marxians and Nazis know only two categories of adversaries. The aliens—whether members of a nonproletarian class or of a non-Aryan race—are wrong because they are aliens; the opponents of proletarian or Aryan origin are wrong because they are traitors. Thus they lightly dispose of the unpleasant fact that there is dissension among the members of what they call their own class or race.

The Nazis contrast German economics with Jewish and Anglo-Saxon economics. But what they call German economics differs not at all from some trends in foreign economics. It developed out of the teachings of the Genevese Sismondi and of the French and British socialists. Some of the older representatives of this alleged German economics merely imported foreign thought into Germany. Frederick List brought the ideas of Alexander Hamilton to Germany, Hildebrand and Brentano brought the ideas of early British socialism. Arteigen German economics is almost identical with contemporary trends in other countries, e.g., with American Institutionalism.

On the other hand, what the Nazis call Western economics and therefore artfremd is to a great extent an achievement of men to whom even the Nazis cannot deny the term German. Nazi economists wasted much time in searching the genealogical tree of Carl Menger for Jewish ancestors; they did not succeed. It is nonsensical to explain the conflict between economic theory, on the one hand, and Institutionalism and historical empiricism, on the other hand, as a racial or national conflict.

Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.

This article was reprinted from the Mises Institute.

COLUMN BY

Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) taught in Vienna and New York and served as a close adviser to the Foundation for Economic Education. He is considered the leading theorist of the Austrian School of the 20th century. 

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission.

Should Governor Andrew Cuomo be Excommunicated?

George J. Marlin raises a question very much on the minds of many Catholics. Surely, some rebuke from New York’s bishops is necessary. 

In March 1970, the New York State Legislature repealed the anti-abortion law that had been on the books since 1830. The bill narrowly passed, due to support from several legislators from heavily Catholic districts who were subsequently defeated for their apostasy in the November elections.

Back in those days, the Catholic Church in New York possessed moral authority; and the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Terrence Cooke, was not afraid to use that power in the public square.

Cardinal Cooke led the charge to repeal the law that permitted unrestricted abortions up to 24 weeks. And in May 1972, the State Legislature did just that and reinstated the 1830 statute.

Sadly, Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the repeal of the liberalized abortion law shortly thereafter.

The New York abortion issue became moot, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.

Fast forward forty years and abortion has once again made headlines in New York thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Cuomo, a baptized Catholic and graduate of Archbishop Molly High School in Queens and Fordham University in the Bronx, has abandoned some major moral tenets of his faith.

In 2011, his first year in office, he engineered the passage of same-sex marriage legislation. “Marriage equality,” he declared, “is a question of principle and the state shouldn’t discriminate against same-sex couples who wish to get married.”

Then on January 16, 2014, Cuomo announced, on a radio show, that Catholics and others with traditional moral views were unfit citizens who were no longer welcome in New York:

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

It gets worse.

Cuomo has been off the rails on the subject of abortion. In his 2013 State of the State Address, he cast his lot with the radical pro-abortion lobby, screaming four times, “It’s her body; it’s her choice!”

Cuomo introduced legislation that would repeal the 1970 abortion law, and would codify abortion as a “fundamental right of privacy,” a classification even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected.

Cuomo’s proposal was bottled up in the Republican-Conservative-controlled State Senate for four years. But last November, the GOP lost control of that legislative chamber.

A jubilant Cuomo boasted that his so-called Reproductive Health Act would be the first order of business before the newly organized Legislature in January 2019.

And so it was.

On January 22, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Legislature passed the bill, to thundering applause and wild laughter. Minutes later, to a standing ovation, Cuomo signed it into law.


Standing (right to left in the photo), during the visit of Pope Francis to St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York (September 23, 2015), are the author, Mayor Bill DeBlasio, Sandra Lee (Andrew Cuomo’s domestic partner), and the governor.

This law goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. It removes abortion clauses from the penal code and “creates a right to the procedure under the public health law.”

Although abortions are restricted to the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, exceptions are so broad (i.e., economic, social, or emotional distress) that anyone will be able to procure an abortion up to minutes before giving birth. In other words, the lives of unborn children who have viability outside the womb can now be terminated by doctors and non-doctors.

Governor Andrew Cuomo is very different than his father, Governor Mario Cuomo. The elder Cuomo tried to be St. Thomas More and Machiavelli at one and the same time.

In his famous 1984 Notre Dame speech on “Religious Belief and Public Morality,” the More-Cuomo said “The Catholic Church is my spiritual home. My head is there and my hope. . . .[and] I accept the Church’s teaching on abortion.” But the Machiavelli-Cuomo gave himself an “out” by claiming that as a public official, he could not impose his private religious views on the rest of society.

Mario Cuomo demonstrated the absurdity of his position every time he vetoed death penalty legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature and was supported by over 60 percent of New Yorkers. Cuomo imposed his personal moral objections even though there was public opinion against him.

Andrew Cuomo is vastly different from his father. There is no duality; he prefers to be a Machiavellian and he promotes whatever works to advance his political ambitions.

In fact, it has been reported that when he was Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, one of his first acts “was to distribute the book by Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, to his key aides. . .telling them: ‘This is my leadership philosophy.’”

Cuomo uses or spurns the Church when it suits his political ends. While he discarded Church teaching on abortion, he embraced and praised Pope Francis’s message concerning the needy and the marginalized. And when the pope visited St. Patrick’s Cathedral on September 24, 2015, Cuomo made sure he was in a front pew. It was great political theater for the governor.

Since Andrew Cuomo has dismissed the fundamental Church teaching that all persons have the right to life because they are made in the image of God, maybe it’s time the Church dismissed him.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that “Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.”

So, at the very least, the bishops of New York should announce publicly that because Cuomo has caused public scandal, he must be denied Communion.

Or the bishops, if they have the mettle, might call Cuomo in and point out the canonical penalties they are prepared to impose if he does not renounce his heresy. Whether or not that includes excommunication is a matter for canon lawyers.

But something really must be done, lest New York’s bishops confirm the growing perception that the Catholic Church is a compromised paper tiger.

COLUMN BY

George J. Marlin

George J. Marlin

George J. Marlin, Chairman of the Board of Aid to the Church in Need USA, is the author of The American Catholic VoterNarcissist Nation: Reflections of a Blue-State Conservative, and Christian Persecutions in the Middle East: A 21st Century Tragedy. . His new book, Sons of St. Patrick, written with Brad Miner, was published on St. Patrick’s Day 2017.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Administration Has Sided With a Faith-Based Adoption Provider. Here’s Why That Matters.

Andrew Cuomo Defends Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth: “I’m Not Here to Represent” the Catholic Church

Planned Parenthood: Flush with Taxpayer Cash

New York and the Conscience of a Nation

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column with images 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. The featured image of
Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) is from his Facebook page.

Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

Alex Berenson
Author, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence


Alex Berenson

Alex Berenson is a graduate of Yale University with degrees in history and economics. He began his career in journalism in 1994 as a business reporter for the Denver Post, joined the financial news website TheStreet.com in 1996, and worked as an investigative reporter for The New York Timesfrom 1999 to 2010, during which time he also served two stints as an Iraq War correspondent. In 2006 he published The Faithful Spy, which won the 2007 Edgar Award for best first novel from the Mystery Writers of America. He has published ten additional novels and two nonfiction books, The Number: How the Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corporate Americaand Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 15, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

Seventy miles northwest of New York City is a hospital that looks like a prison, its drab brick buildings wrapped in layers of fencing and barbed wire. This grim facility is called the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute. It’s one of three places the state of New York sends the criminally mentally ill—defendants judged not guilty by reason of insanity.

Until recently, my wife Jackie­—Dr. Jacqueline Berenson—was a senior psychiatrist there. Many of Mid-Hudson’s 300 patients are killers and arsonists. At least one is a cannibal. Most have been diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia that provoked them to violence against family members or strangers.

A couple of years ago, Jackie was telling me about a patient. In passing, she said something like, Of course he’d been smoking pot his whole life.

Of course? I said.

Yes, they all smoke.

So marijuana causes schizophrenia?

I was surprised, to say the least. I tended to be a libertarian on drugs. Years before, I’d covered the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times. I was aware of the claims about marijuana as medicine, and I’d watched the slow spread of legalized cannabis without much interest.

Jackie would have been within her rights to say, I know what I’m talking about, unlike you. Instead she offered something neutral like, I think that’s what the big studies say. You should read them.

So I did. The big studies, the little ones, and all the rest. I read everything I could find. I talked to every psychiatrist and brain scientist who would talk to me. And I soon realized that in all my years as a journalist I had never seen a story where the gap between insider and outsider knowledge was so great, or the stakes so high.

I began to wonder why—with the stocks of cannabis companies soaring and politicians promoting legalization as a low-risk way to raise tax revenue and reduce crime—I had never heard the truth about marijuana, mental illness, and violence.

Over the last 30 years, psychiatrists and epidemiologists have turned speculation about marijuana’s dangers into science. Yet over the same period, a shrewd and expensive lobbying campaign has pushed public attitudes about marijuana the other way. And the effects are now becoming apparent.

Almost everything you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost everything advocates and the media have told you for a generation, is wrong.

They’ve told you marijuana has many different medical uses. In reality marijuana and THC, its active ingredient, have been shown to work only in a few narrow conditions. They are most commonly prescribed for pain relief. But they are rarely tested against other pain relief drugs like ibuprofen—and in July, a large four-year study of patients with chronic pain in Australia showed cannabis use was associated with greater pain over time.

They’ve told you cannabis can stem opioid use—“Two new studies show how marijuana can help fight the opioid epidemic,” according to Wonkblog, a Washington Post website, in April 2018— and that marijuana’s effects as a painkiller make it a potential substitute for opiates. In reality, like alcohol, marijuana is too weak as a painkiller to work for most people who truly needopiates, such as terminal cancer patients. Even cannabis advocates, like Rob Kampia, the co-founder of the Marijuana Policy Project, acknowledge that they have always viewed medical marijuana laws primarily as a way to protect recreational users.

As for the marijuana-reduces-opiate-use theory, it is based largely on a single paper comparing overdose deaths by state before 2010 to the spread of medical marijuana laws— and the paper’s finding is probably a result of simple geographic coincidence. The opiate epidemic began in Appalachia, while the first states to legalize medical marijuana were in the West. Since 2010, as both the epidemic and medical marijuana laws have spread nationally, the finding has vanished. And the United States, the Western country with the most cannabis use, also has by far the worst problem with opioids.

Research on individual users—a better way to trace cause and effect than looking at aggregate state-level data—consistently shows that marijuana use leads to other drug use. For example, a January 2018 paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry showed that people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as likely to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other potential risks.

Most of all, advocates have told you that marijuana is not just safe for people with psychiatric problems like depression, but that it is a potential treatment for those patients. On its website, the cannabis delivery service Eaze offers the “Best Marijuana Strains and Products for Treating Anxiety.” “How Does Cannabis Help Depression?” is the topic of an article on Leafly, the largest cannabis website. But a mountain of peer-reviewed research in top medical journals shows that marijuana can cause or worsen severe mental illness, especially psychosis, the medical term for a break from reality. Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder.

After an exhaustive review, the National Academy of Medicine found in 2017 that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.”

Over the past decade, as legalization has spread, patterns of marijuana use—and the drug itself—have changed in dangerous ways.

Legalization has not led to a huge increase in people using the drug casually. About 15 percent of Americans used cannabis at least once in 2017, up from ten percent in 2006, according to a large federal study called the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (By contrast, about 65 percent of Americans had a drink in the last year.) But the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about three million Americans reported using cannabis at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had nearly tripled, to eight million, approaching the twelve million Americans who drank alcohol every day. Put another way, one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often.

Cannabis users today are also consuming a drug that is far more potent than ever before, as measured by the amount of THC—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical in cannabis responsible for its psychoactive effects—it contains. In the 1970s, the last time this many Americans used cannabis, most marijuana contained less than two percent THC. Today, marijuana routinely contains 20 to 25 percent THC, thanks to sophisticated farming and cloning techniques—as well as to a demand by users for cannabis that produces a stronger high more quickly. In states where cannabis is legal, many users prefer extracts that are nearly pure THC. Think of the difference between near-beer and a martini, or even grain alcohol, to understand the difference.

These new patterns of use have caused problems with the drug to soar. In 2014, people who had diagnosable cannabis use disorder, the medical term for marijuana abuse or addiction, made up about 1.5 percent of Americans. But they accounted for eleven percent of all the psychosis cases in emergency rooms—90,000 cases, 250 a day, triple the number in 2006. In states like Colorado, emergency room physicians have become experts on dealing with cannabis-induced psychosis.

Cannabis advocates often argue that the drug can’t be as neurotoxic as studies suggest, because otherwise Western countries would have seen population-wide increases in psychosis alongside rising use. In reality, accurately tracking psychosis cases is impossible in the United States. The government carefully tracks diseases like cancer with central registries, but no such registry exists for schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses.

On the other hand, research from Finland and Denmark, two countries that track mental illness more comprehensively, shows a significant increase in psychosis since 2000, following an increase in cannabis use. And in September of last year, a large federal survey found a rise in serious mental illness in the United States as well, especially among young adults, the heaviest users of cannabis.

According to this latter study, 7.5 percent of adults age 18-25 met the criteria for serious mental illness in 2017, double the rate in 2008. What’s especially striking is that adolescents age 12-17 don’t show these increases in cannabis use and severe mental illness.

A caveat: this federal survey doesn’t count individual cases, and it lumps psychosis with other severe mental illness. So it isn’t as accurate as the Finnish or Danish studies. Nor do any of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness. The most that can be said is that they offer intriguing evidence of a link.

Advocates for people with mental illness do not like discussing the link between schizophrenia and crime. They fear it will stigmatize people with the disease. “Most people with mental illness are not violent,” the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) explains on its website. But wishing away the link can’t make it disappear. In truth, psychosis is a shockingly high risk factor for violence. The best analysis came in a 2009 paper in PLOS Medicine by Dr. Seena Fazel, an Oxford University psychiatrist and epidemiologist. Drawing on earlier studies, the paper found that people with schizophrenia are five times as likely to commit violent crimes as healthy people, and almost 20 times as likely to commit homicide.

NAMI’s statement that most people with mental illness are not violent is of course accurate, given that “most” simply means “more than half”; but it is deeply misleading. Schizophrenia is rare. But people with the disorder commit an appreciable fraction of all murders, in the range of six to nine percent.

“The best way to deal with the stigma is to reduce the violence,” says Dr. Sheilagh Hodgins, a professor at the University of Montreal who has studied mental illness and violence for more than 30 years.

The marijuana-psychosis-violence connection is even stronger than those figures suggest. People with schizophrenia are only moderately more likely to become violent than healthy people when they are taking antipsychotic medicine and avoiding recreational drugs. But when they use drugs, their risk of violence skyrockets. “You don’t just have an increased risk of one thing—these things occur in clusters,” Dr. Fazel told me.

Along with alcohol, the drug that psychotic patients use more than any other is cannabis: a 2010 review of earlier studies in Schizophrenia Bulletin found that 27 percent of people with schizophrenia had been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder in their lives. And unfortunately—despite its reputation for making users relaxed and calm—cannabis appears to provoke many of them to violence.

A Swiss study of 265 psychotic patients published in Frontiers of Forensic Psychiatry last June found that over a three-year period, young men with psychosis who used cannabis had a 50 percent chance of becoming violent. That risk was four times higher than for those with psychosis who didn’t use, even after adjusting for factors such as alcohol use. Other researchers have produced similar findings. A 2013 paper in an Italian psychiatric journal examined almost 1,600 psychiatric patients in southern Italy and found that cannabis use was associated with a ten-fold increase in violence.

The most obvious way that cannabis fuels violence in psychotic people is through its tendency to cause paranoia—something even cannabis advocates acknowledge the drug can cause. The risk is so obvious that users joke about it and dispensaries advertise certain strains as less likely to induce paranoia. And for people with psychotic disorders, paranoia can fuel extreme violence. A 2007 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia on 88 defendants who had committed homicide during psychotic episodes found that most believed they were in danger from the victim, and almost two-thirds reported misusing cannabis—more than alcohol and amphetamines combined.

Yet the link between marijuana and violence doesn’t appear limited to people with preexisting psychosis. Researchers have studied alcohol and violence for generations, proving that alcohol is a risk factor for domestic abuse, assault, and even murder. Far less work has been done on marijuana, in part because advocates have stigmatized anyone who raises the issue. But studies showing that marijuana use is a significant risk factor for violence have quietly piled up. Many of them weren’t even designed to catch the link, but they did. Dozens of such studies exist, covering everything from bullying by high school students to fighting among vacationers in Spain.

In most cases, studies find that the risk is at least as significant as with alcohol. A 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined a federal survey of more than 9,000 adolescents and found that marijuana use was associated with a doubling of domestic violence; a 2017 paper in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology examined drivers of violence among 6,000 British and Chinese men and found that drug use—the drug nearly always being cannabis—translated into a five-fold increase in violence.

Today that risk is translating into real-world impacts. Before states legalized recreational cannabis, advocates said that legalization would let police focus on hardened criminals rather than marijuana smokers and thus reduce violent crime. Some advocates go so far as to claim that legalization has reduced violent crime. In a 2017 speech calling for federal legalization, U.S. Senator Cory Booker said that “states [that have legalized marijuana] are seeing decreases in violent crime.” He was wrong.

The first four states to legalize marijuana for recreational use were Colorado and Washington in 2014 and Alaska and Oregon in 2015. Combined, those four states had about 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013. Last year, they had almost 620 murders and 38,000 aggravated assaults—an increase of 37 percent for murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults, far greater than the national increase, even after accounting for differences in population growth.

Knowing exactly how much of the increase is related to cannabis is impossible without researching every crime. But police reports, news stories, and arrest warrants suggest a close link in many cases. For example, last September, police in Longmont, Colorado, arrested Daniel Lopez for stabbing his brother Thomas to death as a neighbor watched. Daniel Lopez had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was “self-medicating” with marijuana, according to an arrest affidavit.

In every state, not just those where marijuana is legal, cases like Lopez’s are far more common than either cannabis or mental illness advocates acknowledge. Cannabis is also associated with a disturbing number of child deaths from abuse and neglect—many more than alcohol, and more than cocaine, methamphetamines, and opioids combined—according to reports from Texas, one of the few states to provide detailed information on drug use by perpetrators.

These crimes rarely receive more than local attention. Psychosis-induced violence takes particularly ugly forms and is frequently directed at helpless family members. The elite national media prefers to ignore the crimes as tabloid fodder. Even police departments, which see this violence up close, have been slow to recognize the trend, in part because the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths has overwhelmed them.

So the black tide of psychosis and the red tide of violence are rising steadily, almost unnoticed, on a slow green wave.

For centuries, people worldwide have understood that cannabis causes mental illness and violence—just as they’ve known that opiates cause addiction and overdose. Hard data on the relationship between marijuana and madness dates back 150 years, to British asylum registers in India. Yet 20 years ago, the United States moved to encourage wider use of cannabis and opiates.

In both cases, we decided we could outsmart these drugs—that we could have their benefits without their costs. And in both cases we were wrong. Opiates are riskier, and the overdose deaths they cause a more imminent crisis, so we have focused on those. But soon enough the mental illness and violence that follow cannabis use will also be too widespread to ignore.

Whether to use cannabis, or any drug, is a personal decision. Whether cannabis should be legal is a political issue. But its precise legal status is far less important than making sure that anyone who uses it is aware of its risks. Most cigarette smokers don’t die of lung cancer. But we have made it widely known that cigarettes cause cancer, full stop. Most people who drink and drive don’t have fatal accidents. But we have highlighted the cases of those who do.

We need equally unambiguous and well-funded advertising campaigns on the risks of cannabis. Instead, we are now in the worst of all worlds. Marijuana is legal in some states, illegal in others, dangerously potent, and sold without warnings everywhere.

But before we can do anything, we—especially cannabis advocates and those in the elite media who have for too long credulously accepted their claims—need to come to terms with the truth about the science on marijuana. That adjustment may be painful. But the alternative is far worse, as the patients at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute—and their victims—know.

EDITORS NOTE: This Imprimis column is republished with permission The featured photo is by Smoke & Vibe on Unsplash

The Left Observes Martin Luther King Jr. Weekend With A Vicious, Racially-Charged Assault on Catholic Students. [+Video]

A most unpredictable series of events were set into motion on Friday in Washington, D.C., when a group of young men from Covington Catholic High School proceeded to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus.  The youngsters, high school students all, had been just engaged in peaceful activity, one that all of us should at least consider doing.  They were there to stand up for the lives of the most innocent and silent among us.  They were there representing the dignity and value of the lives of the unborn.  And they were there in the name of Christ.

That something would go dreadfully wrong, I’m sure, was never contemplated.  Of course, the students, faculty, and parents of Covington Catholic High School planned for all sorts of unexpected, but foreseeable, situations.  They, I’m sure, discussed what to do if one of them got lost or separated from the group. They planned for the unlikely event that one or more would get arrested, I’m sure.  And they likely spoke about handling medical emergencies.  

But what to do when you’re minding your business and an American Indian Marine Veteran comes face to face with you while a radical, self-proclaimed Hebrew group is harassing you, I’m equally sure, was never addressed, nor were there instructions on how to handle the death threats that would follow.

I wondered if Covington Catholic High School was anything like my alma matter, Belen Jesuit Preparatory High School in Miami.  My school, also an all-boy institution, makes it its mission to create “men for others.”  My high school instills in each of us the realization that we are all created in God’s image and that it is, therefore, our duty to spend our lives devoted to the betterment of the human condition.  

But tragically, I am unable to find Covington’s mission at this time because I can’t access its server; surely a result of precautionary actions taken by the school.

What could have happened that was so terrible?  What could have served as such a detriment to the school?  

The answer is chilling: the mainstream media happened.

As the story goes and videos seem to confirm, the kids from Covington had finished participating in the March For Life Friday and had made their way to the Lincoln Memorial to await the arrival of their bus.  The wait was protracted so the kids began chanting school cheers.  

Across from them stood another group called the Black Hebrew Israelites.  This group has a long history of problems, having earned the reputation of being black supremacists and racists.  Its conduct has been so hateful that even the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing protectionist group, has called it out for its bigotry and scorn.  

RELATED VIDEO:

As is now clear, the Black Hebrew Israelites began harassing the Covington students, likely because of their MAGA hats and other pro-Trump gear.  During the exchange, an American Indian Marine Veteran named Nathan Phillip accompanied by a small group of Native Americans slowly made his way between the two groups while rhythmically beating his drum.  Phillips approached one of the students, who did nothing but stand still in front of him, at one point coming “within centimeters of his face.”  Initially, the student smiled back at Phillips, a smile that has been called everything from authentic to smug and racist.  

By all accounts, it appears that the students were confused by Phillip’s intention prompting one student to later recount, “We initially thought this was a cultural display since he was beating along to our cheers and so we clapped to the beat. (sic)

“He came to stand in front of one of my classmates who stood where he was, smiling and enjoying the experience.  However, after multiple minutes of Mr. Phillips beating his drum directly in the face of my friend (mere centimeters from his nose), we became confused and started wondering what was happening.

“It was not until later that we discovered they would incriminate us as a publicity stunt. As a result, my friend faces expulsion for simply standing still.”

Much later indeed.

Noticing that this was not a positive exchange, the chaperones cleared the approximately 200 students from the area.  A review of the videos seems to indicate that the kids never insulted Phillips and his group, nor were there any racial slurs launched at the members of the Black Hebrew Israelites.  Indeed, it appeared that the confrontation ended well and that the chaperones had successfully handled a situation that could have been much worse.  

That is until the media got involved. 

Hours later, in fact, as they were in the bus on their way back to Kentucky, the teachers began getting word of the full-fledged attack being launched against the kids.  CNN, of course, claimed the kids were racists and that they had physically prevented the passage of an American Indian Marine who was peacefully attending the Mall. The kids were falsely depicted as having affirmatively accosted the man and that they were slinging racial epithets at him.  Soon thereafter, the death threats flew.  National Reviewwrote a defamatory piece about the school where it was said the students “might as well have spit on the cross.”  The comment was so defamatory and inaccurate that it was later deleted.  

And Bill Kristol, one who is never hesitant to demonstrate his ability to engage in buffoonery tweeted, “The contrast between the calm dignity and quiet strength of Mr. Phillips and the behavior of #MAGA brats who have absorbed the spirit of ———this spectacle is a lesson which all Americans can learn,” and ” If some kid wearing a McCain 2008 cap had been filmed behaving this way, McCain would have already called Mr. Phillips to express regret. And he would have used the occasion to remind his supporters they should treat others with respect. Will Trump do anything like this?”

Of course, about all we were reminded about is that Bill Krystol is an idiot.

Of course, this rancid behavior of gang violence against unsuspecting conservatives has come to be expected from the press and is yet another example of why Americans have lost all faith in that formerly indispensable institution. 

Sadly, there is irony all over this story, from the attacks upon good by the forces of evil to the oppressive consequences upon those daring to support the unborn to the reverberations of the words of Jesus Christ himself who said in the beatitudes, “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me”

But to me, there is greater sadness that these racially charged events, events of vile and hatred launched against white males, took place on the same weekend we have designated to remember the acts of peace and love between the races undertaken by one Martin Luther King, Jr.

Clearly, King’s dream has not yet been realized.

CLICK HERE: to send an email showing support for the students to Covington High School officials and ask that such support be communicated to Diocese officials.

RELATED PODCAST: Update on the Covington Catholic High School story.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The High School Deplorables: MAGA hats, the March for Life, Covington Catholic—and the mob. – WSJ

Covington Catholic Forced to Close After Students and Staff Receive Death Threats

Trump Says Covington Catholic Students ‘Making Big Comeback’

The Smearing of Teens in MAGA Hats Shows Identity Politics’ Danger

The Full Story About the Kentucky Boys in MAGA Hats Emerges

Senate Adopts Resolution Saying Judicial Nominees Can Be in Knights of Columbus

It’s Been Over 24 Hours Since Kathy Griffin Wanted Covington Catholic School Boys Doxxed. Twitter Hasn’t Taken Down Her Tweets

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured image is courtesy of Covington Catholic High School, the video by Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News via YouTube.

Why Are Leftists Thrilled by Abortion?

Hillary Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced their satanic bill to allow abortions through all nine months up to birth. The intense jubilant faces of these two Democrats in the photo while launching their baby killing campaign was bone-chillingly evil. Clinton and Cuomo held their joined hands high in the air like an enthusiastic victorious battle-cry as they grinned ear to ear. Why were they so happy? Why were these leftist politicians barely able to contain their excitement over the thought of killing more babies?

During her presidential campaign, Hillary vowed to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. And yet, Hillary is elated over her bill to allow abortion doctors to deliver a nine-month-old baby except for the head; then shove scissors into its brain to kill it. This barbaric, shameful and evil procedure is called partial birth abortion

Hillary cosponsored the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act to end the slaughter of horses for their meat. Meanwhile, Hillary passionately defends Planned Parenthood which kills babies for their meat; selling dead baby body parts – intact heads sell for premium prices. Planned Parenthood has made over $100 million selling aborted baby parts

Abortion zealots fear a conservative majority on the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade the unconstitutional law which made abortion legal. Here’s how abortion activist Sarah Silverman expressed the urgency of keeping constitutional judge Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. “This is a position for life, y’all”. In her sad perverted thinking, Silverman infers that women will die if they cannot for whatever reason kill the horrible thing (baby) growing inside them even on the birth date

Eighty-five year old pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health is failing. If she dies or retires, leftists fear Trump’s replacement will be a conservative. Panicked female abortion zealots are offering their body parts to keep Ginsberg alive. Abortion zealot Alyssa Milano offered her ribs, kidneys and a lung to Justice Ginsberg. Notice the intense passion to do whatever necessary to freely kill babies in the womb.

“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you…” (Jeremiah 1:5)

Alyssa Milano through The Fuzzy Pet Foundation compassionately rescued a dog in South Korea being raised for slaughter. It appears that Milano has zero compassion for innocent babies. She is insanely committed to murdering them before birth. Also, Milano has not complained about Planned Parenthood profiting from the sales of slaughtered baby body parts.

In 2018, abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide; over 41 million children killed before birth. Again I ask, why is this horrifying stat cause for leftists to celebrate?

In a landslide, Ireland voters repealed their anti-abortion laws. Many observers were uncomfortable with the eerie jubilation of thousands of women in the streets hugging while crying tears of sheer joy

Co-director of the abortion campaign, Orla O’Connor said, “This is a monumental day for women in Ireland. This is about women taking their rightful place in Irish society, finally.”

Another Irish women thrilled about killing babies said, “ It’s such a great victory for women, for men, for our future generation. It’s just – I’m so emotional.”

“And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” (Genesis 1:28) Despite God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”, many youths vow not to have children because leftists have convinced them that childbirth is extremely destructive to the environment. Leftists foolishly believe they are smarter than God.

Unquestionably, abortion is the holy sacrament of the demonic religion of liberalism. Shockingly, over 20 religious leaders gathered to bless the opening of a new Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Washington DC. President and CEO, Dr Laura Meyers said, “In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work.” https://bit.ly/2RsMSaj What is wrong with these people? How can they claim moral and spiritual high ground killing babies and selling their body parts?

Insanely, a majority of the religious leaders who blessed the new dead-baby-chop-shop are black. A disproportionate high number of aborted babies are blacks. Right thinking black ministers have been sounding the alarm for years how blacks are aborting themselves in extinction.

Leftists are in constant rebellion against God’s natural order. Leftist women act like pregnancy is God’s cursed disease as devastating as cancer and abortion is the life-saving cure.

Abortion zealots do not view abortion as a necessary evil. They are actually thrilled when a mother murders her baby. There is something strange and disturbingly evil about leftists having all the sympathy in the world for animals and not an ounce of sympathy (even disdain) for innocent unborn babies – jubilant when a mother kills her baby.

RELATED ARTICLES:

We Had an Abortion. It Wasn’t My Body, but It Was My Baby.

She Got Pregnant at 18 and Did Something That Today, Few Teens Do

Podcast: The Price Children Pay for the Sexual Revolution

Young Students Explain Why They’re Pro-Life

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is by the National Right to Life Committee.

Yale students can now select from THREE gender options

  • Yale University will now allow students to select from three gender options.
  • Students can identify as male, female, or non-binary.

Students at Yale University can now change their registered gender status to “non-binary” through the school’s Student Information System.

Yale University announced through an email that students can now register to identify their gender as “non-binary,” as a result of policy changes for the school regarding transgender individuals on campus, according to the Yale Daily News. Students can log on to the school’s Student Information System and choose from three gender choices: “M” for male, “F” for female, or “N” for nonbinary.

The new policy is in response to a petition, launched in November, from Yale’s LGBT community to President Peter Salovey. The petition called on the university to offer more rights for transgender students at Yale. The petition came in the wake of the Department of Health and Human Services’ plans to change the rules of Title IX to refer to gender as an unchangeable trait. 

Including the nonbinary gender option, according to Dean of Yale College Marvin Chun, is being utilized for Yale and the technology at the school “catch up with current understanding and practice of gender,” according to the Yale Daily News. But some  students voiced concerns about not removing any reference to the gender binary. 

“If Yale cared to support [gender nonbinary]/[gender nonconforming] students, they might consider materially divesting from the gender binary, rather than providing an additional category to an already essentialized construction,” student Casey Odesser told the Yale Daily News.

Campus Reform reached out to Yale University for additional comment regarding the new policy, as well as the Yale College Republicans, for their take on the new policy, but did not receive responses in time for publication.

COLUMN BY

Jesse Stiller

Jesse Stiller

New Jersey Campus Correspondent. Follow the author of this article: Jesse Stiller.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trans Females in Men’s Spaces

‘Clown world’? WSU now allows student ID name changes

Stanford hosts open house for all-gender locker room

EDITORS NOTE: This Campus Reform column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Paul Green on Unsplash.

Dr. Martin Luther King then, President Donald J. Trump now fighting to free the oppressed

If anyone is interested in the stories of two men who struggled to make dramatic social changes look no further than Dr. Martin Luther King and President Donald J. Trump.

This came to my mind after re-reading Dr. King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail.

Dr. King was arrested for violating segregation laws. His nemesis in Birmingham was Democrat Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor who was the President of the Alabama Public Service Commission. Conner controlled the police department and wanted to stop the Southern Christian Leadership Conference‘s Birmingham campaign of 1963.

Dr. Martin Luther King in the Birmingham jail.

Hence the arrest of Dr. King and his brief internment in the Birmingham, Alabama jail.

The letter was written to eight prominent Alabama pastors who, while agreeing that segregation was wrong, did not agree with Dr. King’s methods. Reading Dr. King’s letter several similarities appear that brought to mind what President Trump is facing today.

Dr. King wrote, “I think I should give the reason for my being in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the argument of ‘outsiders coming in.'” Dr. King was labeled an “outsider” by members of his own Southern Christian Leadership Conference, of which he was a past President. So too is Donald J. Trump by members of his own Republican party.

Dr. King wrote, “I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So too was it that Donald J. Trump could not sit idly by in New York City while injustice was met out against the American people by Washington, D.C. politicians and bureaucrats.

As President Trump said during his inaugural address, “Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.”

Injustice anywhere is truly a threat to justice everywhere.

Dr. King wrote, ” IN ANY nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action.”

It very much appears that President Donald J. Trump uses the same sequence to deal with social injustice. The President’s speech on the humanitarian and national security crisis on America’s Southern border follows Dr. King’s steps. President Trump first collected the facts from his cabinet, then worked to negotiate a solution, and he has taken direct action. President Trump uses self purification in all that he does, from wanting to help DACA recipients to vowing to veto any bill that funds the killing of the unborn.

Dr. King in Birmingham focused on the economy and how blacks were shut out writing, “Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants, such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises, Reverend Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstration. As the weeks and months unfolded, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise.”

President Trump has focused on the economy to provide equal opportunity for success and prosperity for all. For too long, President Trump understands, that blacks “were the victims of a broken promise.”

Finally, Dr. King directly attacked the Democratic leadership of Birmingham writing, ” One of the basic points in your statement is that our acts are untimely. Some have asked, ‘Why didn’t you give the new administration time to act?’ The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Conner, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo.”

Candidate and now President Trump understood the power of the “status quo.” Candidate Trump called those who defend the status quo as “the swamp.”

President Donald J. Trump understands, as he visited the Martin Luther King memorial, what Dr. King understood in 1963 that, ” We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Dr. King and now President Trump are both dedicated to freeing the oppressed.

As President Trump said in his inaugural speech:

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

This is why “the oppressors” put Dr. King in the Birmingham jail. It is why the oppressors want to impeach President Donald J. Trump. Because Trump, like King, is fighting the oppressors.

RELATED VIDEO: Martin Luther King’s Dream for Peace in Israel.

EDITOR NOTE: The featured photo is by Giulia Pugliese on Unsplash.

Karen Pence: The Teacher and the Religious Test

It was supposed to be a day celebrating religious freedom in America. Instead, liberals decided to show everyone just how much our First Freedom is at risk. For Christians, who’ve tried to warn people that these last several years were about a lot more than marriage, the attacks on Second Lady Karen Pence certainly seem to prove their point. Three years after Obergefell, all of the lies about “love” and “tolerance” have been eclipsed by the court cases, articles, and editorial demonizing people of faith. What Americans see now is the truth: the Left is coming for our freedom. And they have no intention of letting up.

Like Joe Biden’s wife, Karen Pence spent years in the classroom. When Mike was in Congress, she taught art at Immanuel Christian School in Virginia — and no one batted an eye. Of course, that was back in the early 2000s, when the Left’s charm offensive on same-sex marriage was still in full swing. We’ll be accommodating, they said. We just want to co-exist, they said. Our relationships won’t affect you, they said. A handful of years later, “affected” doesn’t begin to describe to what happens to conservatives who think differently than the totalitarian Left.

Of course, the Pences are not strangers to the other side’s viciousness. Every time the media is reminded about the family’s faith, they become hysterical all over again — a scene that played out this week when Karen announced she’d be volunteering at Immanuel Christian this spring. “I am excited to be back in the classroom and doing what I love to do,” she said in a statement. “I have missed teaching art, and it’s great to return to the school where I taught art for 12 years.”

She can’t go back there, LGBT activists raged! They reject homosexuality! Yes, well, that’s what orthodox Christian schools do. (Not to mention Jewish and Muslim ones too.) Would it have been headline news if Jill Biden taught at a Roman Catholic school? Probably not. Yet, the Left and their media chums are hurling profanity at the Pences for something that, even five years ago, wouldn’t have been controversial. Frankly, the only thing that would have been shocking is if Karen worked at a Christian school that didn’t act like a Christian school.

CNN’s Kate Bennett was just one of the talking heads who doesn’t get it. “So, lemme get this straight,” she tweeted, “the second lady of the United States has chosen to work at a school that openly discriminates against LGBT adults and children?” “So, lemme get this straight,” Ben Shapiro fired back. “You’re a reporter but you’ve never heard of religious people before? ‘BREAKING: Pence’s wife is working for a Christian school that requires that Christian students pledge to abide by Christian standards of sin that have not changed in 2,000 years.'”

To be honest, the Left’s real problem isn’t that Mike Pence’s wife is working at an evangelical school — but that evangelical schools exist at all. Since they do, the last thing liberals want is for anyone in public office to be associated with them. And despite what you’ve heard from the forces of intolerance, Immanuel Christian doesn’t “ban” anyone from their school. What they do, Chad Greene, points out, “is require a specific set of behavioral and religious belief standards equally applied to everyone. Many in the Christian world make a distinction regarding LGBT people that the left typically refuses to consider, between a person and his actions.” As Christians, our behavior doesn’t define us — we define our behavior.

Immanuel is in the business of teaching Christianity. What would be the point of a religious school if it didn’t? This “immediate, visceral reaction” shows just how far the Left will go to shame people of faith into silence. Worse, it proves the day they told us was coming is finally here. Back in 2015, during the Obergefell arguments, President Obama’s top lawyer, Donald Verrilli pulled back the curtain on the Left’s real goal in one surprisingly candid moment. When Justice Samuel Alito pressed the solicitor general on whether same-sex marriage would give the government a weapon to threaten Christian schools, Verrilli seemed uncomfortable but admitted, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

We haven’t seen the Left fully implement their plans, because they haven’t had the benefit of another radical president in the White House to build on the liberal legacy of Barack Obama. But we don’t have to guess what they’ll do if they get one. It’s all spelled out in the most recent Democratic National Platform. Religious freedom, as Americans have known it for 233 years, will not be safe in the hands of a movement that is surgically targeting people of faith.

When I talked to the vice president on “Washington Watch” earlier today, he didn’t mince words. “Karen and I have been in and around public life for almost two decades, and so — to be honest — we’re used to the criticism. But the attacks on Christian education by the mainstream media have got to stop. We cherish the freedom of religion in this country. This administration stands four-square for the freedom of religion of people of all faiths. And to see the mainstream media to criticize my wife because she’s choosing to return to the classroom of an elementary Christian school is wrong.”

There used to be a consensus in this country that religious liberty was for everyone. When the Religious Freedom Restoration Act came before Congress, only three members voted against it. Over time, some liberals tried to isolate faith — to churches, Christian schools, or family rooms. You’ve heard me say before that the Left’s hope is to quarantine religion within the four walls of the church. Now, it’s becoming clear — even that won’t satisfy them.

“I have always had a problem with the idea that religion is something we must keep to ourselves,” Matt Walsh writes in the Daily Wire. “Indeed, the Christian faith requires exactly the opposite. But in the case of Karen Pence and her new employer, they are doing exactly what the Left demanded. This school is merely trying to operate by biblical principles within its own walls and on its own property. It is a Christian school simply being a Christian school. It isn’t bothering anyone. It isn’t invading anyone’s home and lecturing them about their sexual behavior. It isn’t preventing anyone from working or living or enjoying their lives. It is just saying, very reasonably, very unobtrusively, ‘We are going to conduct ourselves according to Christian moral tradition. If you don’t want to accept that moral tradition, then by all means go somewhere else.'”

“This is exactly, precisely, the approach that the Left for years endorsed and insisted upon. But suddenly it’s a problem. Suddenly, even Christianity behind closed doors, on private property, in a private school, is a target of outrage and scorn. It was a lie all along. They were never planning to stop outside the walls of our homes and our churches and our schools. That’s just what they said to lull us to sleep.”

“Now the next phase begins.”

Sign the pledge to pray for Karen Pence openly lives her faith by biblical truth.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Pelosi’s #SOTU Shutdown Showdown

‘The Light Doesn’t Stop Shining When It Gets Darker