VIDEO: The Trump Effect — Deprogramming The American Mind

President Donald Trump challenge to Politically Correct ideology dominating American political discourse since the Islamic terrorist attack of 9/11/2001.

THE TRUMP EFFECT: DEPROGRAMMING THE AMERICAN MIND concludes that the President has the potential to Make America Great Again, by changing the way Americans think about ourselves and the world. Produced, directed and edited by Agustin Blazquez, featuring author and filmmaker Laurence Jarvik.

Dump the Girly Man Church and Girly Man Christianity

Wimpy churches have contributed heavily to the moral decay of the USA. The Outlaws Chapel is calling men and women of faith who are ready to dump “girly man church” to become churches that challenge the evil agendas.

VIDEO: Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?

Is it true that in the 1960s and 70s, around the time of the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party switched identities with the Democratic Party? Is it true that the Republicans abandoned their historic support of civil rights for blacks in order to get the Southern vote?

The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites?

Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain tackles the thorny subject of what has come to be known as the GOP’s “Southern Strategy.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

In West Virginia, Trump Hails Conservatism and a New GOP Governor

Governor’s Party Switch Shows ‘Momentum’ for Republicans

VIDEO: The Truth vs CNN with Bill Whittle

In his latest FIREWALL, host Bill Whittle recounts the recent CNN scandal, describes the masterful way the videos were released and shows what incredible — almost unbelievable — harm is caused by media bias.

The Vortex—Completely Duped by the ‘Dissenters’ with Michael Voris

If one were to study the landscape of the Catholic Church in America these days, one would find not two, but three distinct groups who still self-identify as Catholic in meaningful ways. First, there are the Dissenters, well situated on the political and “theological Left.” Then, we have the Traditionalists, occupying the other end of the spectrum, which is the correct end and who are certainly theologically accurate, as well as largely politically conservative. And then there are what could charitably be termed the Emotionals — a crowd typified by sharing some aspects of orthodoxy, yet having been brainwashed into a type of Protestant worship style, as well as being largely unaware of the Dissenters.

RELATED ARTICLE: Shattered faith: Nearly 100 sex abuse suits against Catholic priests rock island of Guam

TRANSCRIPT

If one were to study the landscape of the Catholic Church in America these days, one would find not two, but three distinct groups who still self-identify as Catholic in meaningful ways. First, there are the Dissenters, well situated on the political and “theological Left.” Then, we have the Traditionalists, occupying the other end of the spectrum, which is the correct end and who are certainly theologically accurate, as well as largely politically conservative. And then there are what could charitably be termed the Emotionals — a crowd typified by sharing some aspects of orthodoxy, yet having been brainwashed into a type of Protestant worship style, as well as being largely unaware of the Dissenters.

Indeed, some of what the Dissenters have preached and pushed for decades has been fully absorbed and accepted unquestioningly by the Emotionals particularly in areas of liturgy — from music, and reception of Holy Communion in the hand, to girl altar boys, to reception under both species, to the priest facing the people to name but a few.

The Emotionals crowd defines itself by, as the name implies, how they feel with regard to issues of the Faith. Attitudes about the Church are based on things they like. So, for example, they will go to such and such a Mass because they like Father or the band or the feeling of community. Issues like reverence, theological import of the sermon/homily etc. barely register with them as issues at all, much less as a determinant of importance. Small “T” traditions don’t hold anywhere near the significance they should for the Emotionals, if they are even recognized at all. What they don’t realize is that the loss of the small “T” traditions is how their children have come to lose the big “T” traditions and are falling away from the Faith.

One of the most clever tactics used by the Dissenters was to introduce “novelty” into Catholic identity — innovation that was passed off as “making things better,” ultimately, meaning relevant. Once the canard was accepted that traditional Catholic belief and practice was irrelevant and not able to be “sold” to the public, then the doors were flung open to any and all innovations and novelty anyone could think of and did. This is what is largely bandied about today as the New Evangelization.

Big screens came into many parishes, choirs moved from the lofts to the front of the “stage” where applause could erupt after Mass, signaling the congregation’s approval of their singing. Musical variety was accepted for just about every type of music, except sacred Catholic music. The emphasis shifted from the church building being the “door to Heaven,” to an entrance to a meeting hall where “community” needed to be shared and experienced. In short, the emphasis for the People of God shifted from God to the people.

So now, hoards of incorrectly called “Eucharistic ministers” cascade into the sanctuary in nearly every parish in America each Sunday. The list of things that have been inspired by the Dissenters and then gone on to be embraced by the Emotionals could occupy a multi-volume collection. The term “useful idiots” could be applied here, in that due to a lack of proper catechesis and formation, most who still attend Mass, which is roughly 20 percent of the entire Catholic population, simply do not know what they do not know and are, therefore, easily manipulated. The Dissenters know how to play them, and they have done so masterfully.

The goal of the Dissenters has not been to convince the Emotionals to join the Dissenters but to completely sideline and ignore the Traditionalists in belief and practice. In short, the vast majority of Catholics today who still go to Mass have been completely duped by a fifty-year campaign of propaganda by the Dissenters and believe the Faith should be viewed by how it makes them feel.

Time to strike back at the Dissenters crowd. They have played a masterful game of cunning and deceit for decades. Much of the work in the Church for at least the next 50 years will be pushing back at correcting the chaos these Churchmen have piled on the faithful. Right now, for the most part, they still hold sway from Rome to many individual dioceses. But they are aging rapidly. Soon they will be gone. And what they have left behind is not a group of young, hippie-minded Catholics like themselves but a Church that has been abandoned by and large. They did not change the Church, just emptied out the pews.

There won’t be much left to start rebuilding, but there will be enough. These next few years, which is all they have left, will be about resisting their evil and laying the groundwork for the greatest comeback in 2,000 years of our sacred history.

Game on Dissenters, you Leftists. We hope and pray you convert to the authentic faith, but until you do, your evil will not be tolerated.

To learn more please visit ChurchMilitant.com.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may sign up for a Premium Membership by CLICKING HERE.

VIDEO: If Kid Rock can run for congress, why not a timber wolf?

If Kid Rock can run for congress, why not a timber wolf?

My thoughts on electing Christians to Congress, while visiting friends up in the great state of Montana.

RELATED ARTICLE: Congress Falls Short of Achieving Goals at 200-Day Mark

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Kid Rock is courtesy of Jeff Schear Visuals.

Miller ‘smack-down’ of CNN reporter, a video for the ages

I’m sure you’ve all seen it, or at least bits of it!  White House immigration expert Stephen Miller takes down an uneducated CNN reporter—Jim Acosta.

Stephen Miller (right)—takes no prisoners!

Here is what Howie Carr saidat his website following the exchange:

It is about damn time that someone put Jim Acosta in his place.

It’s like this clown and Keith Olbermann are in a never-ending competition for the “most smug human on Earth” award. I wish we could just declare one of them the winner and send them back to their mothers’ basements.

But Jim Acosta’s smugness was cut short today by my new hero Stephen Miller.

Miller happens to be very bright, well-spoken and most importantly aggressive.

Check out this smack-down as Jim Acosta tries to claim that the White House’s immigration policies are not keeping with the “spirit” of America.

Maybe Acosta will think twice before he opens his yapper. Then again, knowing these libs–he probably won’t.

Watch the video:

Someone should start a movement to have the poem, which changes the entire historic meaning of Lady Liberty, removed from the statue!

Two things I was particularly interested in were these (besides Acosta’s incredible smugness).  First, Acosta cannot say what is the right number of immigrants America should take.

I urge all of you to use this line of reasoning when confronted with a No Borders agitator.  I saw Bill O’Reilly do it once to an advocate for not closing our southern border. He asked her what was the right number, could anyone come? no restrictions? the whole world?

She was flummoxed because even the most rabid of them know America would crash if the whole world was ‘welcomed’ to the country.  They will refuse to say what is the right number!

And, secondly, I was delighted to see Miller demonstrate Acosta’s ignorance of history about the damn poem on the Statue of Liberty. I know a lot about the National Park Services’ historical parks and how they badger communities (when it suits them) to maintain historic accuracy—so why has the NPS continued to foster this historic inaccuracy about the statue?  (See my post here in 2015)

If anyone really wanted to strike a blow against this ‘nation of immigrants’ mumbo-jumbo, start a campaign to remove the damn poem!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Stephen Miller is right: Lazarus’ immigration poem is not US law

Fact Check: Do You Have to Speak English to Be Naturalized?

Trump Backs Merit-Based Changes to Immigration System

Should Left-Wing Activists Like Linda Sarsour Be Allowed to Divide America Through the Census?

Raheel Raza testifies before the U.S. Congress on ‘Combating Homegrown Terrorism’

This past week, Clarion Project’s spokesperson and Advisory Board Member Raheel Raza addressed the U.S. Congress in Washington D.C. on “Combating Homegrown Terrorism,” examining what America can do to counter the threat of violent extremism within domestic communities.

Watch her opening remarks.

The session was held by the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and chaired by Rep. Ron DeSantis.

Excerpt from Raheel Raza’s later remarks on Political Correctness:

“It’s not about political correctness. There are people here in the West who are afraid to use the words “Islamist Ideology’ because they think that it is anti-Muslim.  It is actually very pro-Muslim, because it makes the ordinary masses of people understand the difference between the faith of Islam and an ideology which is political in nature – and which is evil.”

Clarion Project is informing and shaping the debate on matters of national and international importance, and our testimony is now part of the Congressional record and will help inform policy decisions moving forward.

Raheel Raza, an outspoken Muslim and native of Pakistan, is a leading global voice against radical extremism and human rights activist. She was featured in our award-winning film Honor Diaries, is President of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, and founding member of the Muslim Reform Movement.

VIDEO: We Only Resent Inequality When It’s Rigged by Daniel J. Mitchell

In addition to his exemplary work as a Senior Fellow for the Cato Institute, Johan Norberg narrates some great videos for Free to Choose Media. Here are some that caught my eye.

But my favorite video, which I shared back in January, is his concise explanation of why policy makers should focus on fighting poverty rather than reducing inequality. I’m posting it again to set the stage for a discussion on inequality and fairness.

Now let’s dig into the main topic for today.

We Want What’s Fair

study by three academics from Yale’s Department of Psychology concludes that people want fairness rather than equality.

…there is no evidence that people are bothered by economic inequality itself. Rather, they are bothered by something that is often confounded with inequality: economic unfairness. Drawing upon laboratory studies, cross-cultural research, and experiments with babies and young children, we argue that humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones, and that when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality.

My former grad school classmate Steve Horwitz wrote about the aforementioned study

…what we really care about is something other than inequality per se. We care about upward mobility, or average income overall, or how well the least well off do. …A recent study in Nature argued, with evidence, that what bothers people more than inequality per se is “unfairness.” People will accept inequality if they feel the process that produced it is fair. …when I give talks about inequality. I point out the number of Apple products visible in the room and ask them if they think the wealth Steve Jobs and other Apple founders accumulated over their lifetimes was objectionable. Is that the kind of inequality they object to? Students are usually hard-pressed to articulate why Jobs’ wealth is wrong… I also remind them that economic studies show that only about 4% of the total benefits of innovation accrue to the innovator. The rest goes to consumers.

Steve cites Nozick and Hayek to bolster his argument before then making the key point that markets produce material abundance based on genuine fairness.

As Robert Nozick argued in Anarchy, State, and Utopia: if each step in the evolution of the market is fair by itself, how can the pattern of income that emerges be unfair? …Hayek…observed in The Constitution of Liberty that if we want equality of outcomes, we will have to treat people unequally. If, however, we treat people equally, we will get unequal outcomes. Hayek’s argument was premised on the fact that human beings are not equal in our native intelligence, strength, skills, and abilities. …If people really care about fairness, then supporters of the market should be insisting on the importance of equality before the law. …Equality of outcomes requires that we treat people differently, and this will likely be perceived as unfair by many. Equality before the law corresponds better with notions of fairness even if the outcomes it produces are unequal. …If what appear to be concerns about inequality are, in fact, concerns about unfairness, we have ways of addressing them that demonstrate the power of exchange and competitive markets. Markets are more fair because they require that governments treat us all equally and that none of us have the ability to use political power to protect ourselves from the competition of the marketplace and the choices of consumers. In addition, market-based societies have been the best cure for poverty humans have ever known.

How Much Equality Do We Want?

Writing for CapX, Oliver Wiseman analyzes other scholarly research on equality and fairness.

A 2012 study by behavioural economists Dan Ariely and Mike Norton generated some attention for demonstrating that Americans wanted to live in a more equal country. But more equal is not the same thing as fully equal. …if you let people choose between equal and unequal societies – and then tell them that they themselves will be assigned a level of wealth within it completely at random – most people choose inequality. And that preference is observable across the political spectrum, in different countries and at a range of ages.

But people don’t want undeserved inequality since that is the result of unfair interventions (i.e., cronyism).

This paper’s conclusions help explain much of the outcry over economic inequality in recent years. Occupy Wall Street and the very idea of the “one per cent” emerged just after the financial crisis plunged much of the world into recession, and US and British banks were handed billion-dollar bailouts to steady the ship. The anger didn’t come from the fact that bankers were so well paid. It came from the perception that they’d made that money by piling up risk rather than being particularly clever or hard-working – risk that was now being underwritten by the taxpayer. The wealth wasn’t just distributed unequally, but unfairly. The market mechanisms that most people accepted as the rules of the economic game suddenly seemed rigged. …Voters, in other words, don’t want equality – they want fairness. …As the Soviets found, true economic equality cannot be accommodated within a system that allows people tolerable levels of economic and political freedom. But fairness, by contrast, is something capitalism can – and should – deliver.

Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University cites some additional academic research buttressing the conclusion people don’t object to fair types of inequality.

…most Americans don’t mind inequality nearly as much as pundits and academics suggest. A recent research paper, by Graham Wright of Brandeis University, found that polled attitudes about economic inequality don’t correlate very well with the desire for government to address it. There is even partial evidence, once controls are introduced into the statistics, that talk of inequality reduces the support for doing something about it. …It’s not obvious why such counterintuitive results might be the case. One possibility is that…talk about economic inequality increases political polarization, which lowers the chance of effective action. Or that criticizing American society may cause us to feel less virtuous, which in turn may cause us to act with less virtue. …A variety of other research papers have been showing that inequality is not a major concern per se. One recent study by Matthew Weinzierl of Harvard Business School shows that most Americans are quite willing to accept economic inequality that stems from brute luck, and that they are inclined to assume that inequality is justified unless proved otherwise.

Living in an Unequal Society

Last but not least, Anne Bradley of the Institute for Humane Studies augments this analysis by explaining the difference between ethical market-driven inequality versus unfair cronyist-caused inequality.

The question of whether income inequality is bad hinges on the institutions within that society and whether they support entrepreneurship and creativity or thuggery and exploitation. Income inequality is good when people earn their money by discovering new and better ways of doing things and, through the profit mechanism, are encouraged to bring those discoveries to ordinary people. …Rising incomes across all income groups (even if at different rates) is most often the sign of a vibrant economy where strangers are encouraged to serve each other and solve problems. Stagnant incomes suggest something else: either a rigged economy where only insiders can play, or an economy where the government controls a large portion of social resources, stalling incomes, wealth, and wellbeing.

She includes a very powerful example of why it can be much better to live in a society with high levels of (fair) inequality.

Consider the following thought experiment: knowing nothing other than the Gini index scores, would you rather live in a world with a Gini of .296 (closer to equality) or .537 (farther from equality)? Many people when asked this question choose the world of .296. These are the real Gini scores of Pakistan (.296) and Hong Kong (.537). If given the choice, I would live in Hong Kong without thinking twice. Hong Kong has a thriving economy and high incomes, and it is the world leader in economic freedom. The difference between these two countries could not be more striking. In Pakistan, there might be more income equality, but everyone is poorer. It is difficult to emerge out of poverty in Pakistan. Hong Kong provides a much richer environment where people are encouraged to start businesses, and this is the best hope for rising incomes, or income mobility.

Her example of Hong Kong and Pakistan is probably the most important takeaway from today’s column.

Simply stated, it’s better to be poor in a jurisdiction such as Hong Kong where there is strong growth and high levels of upward mobility. Indeed, I often use a similar example when giving speeches, asking audiences whether poor people are better off in Hong Kong, which has only a tiny welfare state, or better off in nations such as France and Greece, which have bloated welfare states but very little economic dynamism.

The answer is obvious. Or should be obvious, at least to everyone who wants to help the poor more than they want to punish the rich.

(and there are plenty in the latter camp, as Margaret Thatcher explained).

And I’m now going to add my China example to my speeches since inequality dramatically increased at the same time that there was a stupendous reduction in poverty.

Once again, the moral of the story should be obvious. Focus on growth. Yes, some rich people will get richer, but the really great news is that the poor will get richer as well. And so long as everyone is earning money through voluntary exchange rather than government coercion, that also happens to be how a fair economy operates.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

VIDEO: ‘Dangerous’ Author Milo Yiannopoulos tells all on i24NEWS

Conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos sits down with i24NEWS for an in-depth interview with Michelle Makori, discussing, among others, his “sloppily phrased” remarks on age-gap relationships and Simon & Schuster’s “caving in to mob mentality” by dropping his book, which has since gone on to top the Amazon best-sellers chart.

RELATED ARTICLES AND VIDEOS: 

Ex-Professor: ‘Cadre of Militant LGBT Students’ Pushed Me Out

Social Engineering Gets Literal

VIDEO: Milo Yiannopoulos Crushing the ‘False Idols’ of Political Correctness

Pamela Geller, Milo Yiannopoulos, Geert Wilders to Headline Historic “WAKE UP” LGBT RNC Event

Twitter bans Breitbart bad boy Milo, but not Islamic State-linked London imam

VIDEO: Gay Conservative Milo Yiannnopoulos speaks at the site of the Orlando Terror Attack

VIDEO: An American Christian in Poland — The Mission

Christians in Poland and the USA must stand together against the evil of liberalism.

I’ve been invited to speak at a national event in Poland and is inviting his friends to join that mission.

On Watch Live: The DC Swamp and How to Drain It

In this episode of On Watch, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell discusses the investigation into the alleged Trump/Russia collusion, the missing Clinton emails, the DNC email hacking scandal, and the Awan Brothers controversy.

Keep up with Judicial Watch:

Sign up for the JWTV Club ► http://subscribe.judicialwatch.org/su…

Check out our website ► http://www.judicialwatch.org

“Like” us on Facebook ► http://www.facebook.com/JudicialWatch

Follow us on Twitter ► http://twitter.com/JudicialWatch

Subscribe to our YouTube channel ►https://www.youtube.com/user/Judicial…

Creepy Canadian App Gives Citizens Points for Making Government-Approved Choices by Josie Wales

Ontario announced earlier this month that it will become the fourth Canadian government to fund a behavioral modification application that rewards users for making “good choices” in regards to health, finance, and the environment. The Carrot Rewards smartphone app, which will receive $1.5 million from the Ontario government, credits users’ accounts with points toward the reward program of their choice in exchange for reaching step goals, taking quizzes and surveys, and engaging in government-approved messages.

The app, funded by the Canadian federal government and developed by Toronto-based company CARROT Insights in 2015, is sponsored by a number of companies offering reward points for their services as an incentive to “learn” how to improve wellness and budget finances. According to CARROT Insights,“All offers are designed by sources you can trust like the BC Ministry of Health, Newfoundland and Labrador Government, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Diabetes Association, and YMCA.”  Users can choose to receive rewards for companies including SCENEAeroplanPetro-Canada, or More Rewards, a loyalty program that partners with other businesses.

Carrot Rewards is free to download, and users receive 200 points just by downloading the app and answering a few questions (the answers don’t have to be correct). Sending an invitation code to friends will also gain users points, as the government is happy to track the daily activity of as many citizens as possible — which, by the way, the app can do even when it is not “active.” In order to use the app, users are giving Carrot Insights and the federal government permission to “access and collect information from your mobile device, including but not limited to, geo-location data, accelerometer/gyroscope data, your mobile device’s camera, microphone, contacts, calendar and Bluetooth connectivity in order to operate additional functionalities of the Services.”

Founder and CEO of CARROT Insights Andreas Souvaliotis launched the app in 2015 “with a focus on health but the company and its partner governments quickly realized it was effective at modifying behavior in other areas as well,” according to CTV News.

The Canadian government is asking citizens to track their activity and modify their behavior by dangling a carrot on a stick, and it’s working. While still voluntary, the Carrot app is eerily similar to social credit systems in China, which not only offer rewards for compliance but also punishments for “trust-breakers,” who may face “penalties on subsidies, career progression, asset ownership and the ability to receive honorary titles from the Chinese government.” Though current applications of the social credit systems are unconnected, there has been a push in the country to combine them into one government-run program.

As Creemers, a researcher specializing in Chinese law and governance at the Van Vollenhoven Institute at Leiden University told CNBC:

“China has huge problems with legal compliance so the regime conclusion was that since existing methods of generating compliance were not sufficient, they would step up their game with extra punishment. The system merely uses information the government already has on its citizens in a more coercive way.”

Currently, the Carrot Rewards app is limited to citizens in Ontario, Newfoundland, and Labrador, and British Columbia, but according to the website, it will soon be harvesting personal data and modifying the behavior of Canadians across the entire country.

Josie Wales

Josie Wales

Josie Wales, journalist for the Anti-Media, is a writer, public speaker, YouTube personality, and activist from Philadelphia. She is also a tech writer for d10e.co, and formerly worked as an editor and contributing writer at The Free Thought Project. Josie covers disruptive technology, artificial intelligence, innovation, tech solutions, and digital privacy issues for Anti-Media.

VIDEO: Background of the Clinton email scandal — it all started with Benghazi

In the first installment of “Inside Judicial Watch”, JW Director of Communications Carter Clews sits down with JW Senior Attorney Ramona Cotca to discuss the background of the Clinton email scandal from Judicial Watch’s perspective.

Keep up with Judicial Watch:

Sign up for the JWTV Club ► http://subscribe.judicialwatch.org/su…

Check out our website ► http://www.judicialwatch.org

“Like” us on Facebook ► http://www.facebook.com/JudicialWatch

Follow us on Twitter ► http://twitter.com/JudicialWatch

Subscribe to our YouTube channel ►https://www.youtube.com/user/Judicial…

Winning with Precise Words: A guide to understanding Islam

It is very difficult to have the right thoughts if you don’t have the right words. Almost all of the words used in talking about Islam are subjective. What do words like moderate Islam and radical Islam actually mean? They are subjective terms. We need to use the objective names that are found in the doctrine of Islam.

The logic and correct naming must come from Allah and Mohammed, the Koran and the Sunna, the Trilogy. Just as there are two Korans, Meccan and Medinan, there are two kinds of Islam and Muslim. Instead of moderate Islam/Muslim, it is Meccan Islam/Meccan Islam. Instead of radical Islam/Muslim, the correct name is Medinan Islam. Don’t say terrorist, say jihadist.

Don’t get involved with Islam, the religion, only deal with political Islam, the Islam for Kafirs.

RELATED ARTICLES AND VIDEOS:

The Threat of Political Islam: An Interview with Dr Bill Warner

Is political Islam a threat to Western Civilization?

Political Islam