Is a Virginia County Inviting Non-Citizens to Vote?

Sure looks like it.  Big League Politics posted a story yesterday with a photo that may have been taken down, but was up until the 2018 Midterm elections, they say.

Sheesh, Virginia is for crooks and cheats!

Vote Virginia

If you have not heard of Big League Politics, an on-line news site that says it is much tougher than Breitbart, you need to learn about it.

Big League Politics is responsible for breaking the news about the hypocrites and the alleged sexual aggressor leading Virginia’s present-day Democrat Party.

Read what the New York Times has to say about the site. They charge BLP with promoting “conspiracy theories”—a favorite line of attack by the mainstream media against on-line conservative media.

Truth be told, it is sites like this that could ultimately finish the big newspapers.

Now here is a story from yesterday,

EXCLUSIVE: Sign At Virginia Election Office Says, ‘Responsibility Has No Borders. Vote’

A sign at the Arlington County Department of Voter Registration and Elections office in Virginia gives immigrants a clear message: “Responsibility has no Borders. Vote.”

The sign is in a public area of the office, visible to people at the counter as they are registering to vote or voting absentee. The photo is from 2016, but it was still up in the office during the 2018 midterm election. Our tipster inquired about it and was told that it’s part of a “historical display,” whereas other authorities just ignored it and said there’s nothing that can be done about Arlington County, which describes itself as a “welcoming” but not a “sanctuary” jurisdiction for illegal immigrants.

“I’m an Arlington county election officer. Arlington County VA is essentially a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants/noncitizens. These signs are posted at the Arlington County election office. Voter fraud is more likely to take place at the time of registration rather than at the polls, in my opinion,” our tipster told Big League Politics.

More here

Then be sure to visit BLP for more information including this below.

It is rare to see a site that so prominently appeals for hot news tips.

Screenshot (870)
This screenshot is at the end of the voter fraud story.  You need to go to the site for the hotlinks

What do you do?  Go around the mainstream media and tell your friends to do the same. Read as much as you can on sites like Big League Politics!  And, don’t rely on cable news!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals with images is republished with permission. The edited featured image is by Pixabay.

AT&T’s Support for UnidosUS Undermines Border Security

Earlier this week, 2ndVote’s founder and chairman sent a letter to AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart calling for these companies to stop funding UnidosUS, a liberal organization formerly known as La Raza. Thousands of concerned consumers have signed our petition to tell these companies to stop using their money to support leftist immigration policies, and oppose needed border security measures.

AT&T scores a 1 on the immigration issue because of their direct contributions to organizations such as LULAC, National Urban League, and of course, UnidosUS. All of these organizations advocate for sanctuary cities which gives illegal immigrants a safe haven for violating immigration laws, which is why we are telling AT&T to stop funding groups that support unsafe immigration policies.

Not only does AT&T score a 1 on immigration, but they also receive a 1 on all seven issues 2ndVote scores companies on. AT&T funds numerous organizations that support abortion, sponsor groups that are against national concealed carry laws, and partner with organizations that oppose religious liberty. If you want to see exactly why AT&T scores a 1 on every issue, here is a link to their company score page. And if you would like to join the thousands who oppose AT&T funding UnidosUS and other organizations, check out this article and sign the petition!

Here at 2ndVote, we don’t like to always focus on the bad actors, but also give our readers some better alternatives. A great alternative to AT&T is Patriot Mobile, who has long been an ally to 2ndVote. Patriot Mobile scores a 5 on all 7 issues, and offers a conservative choice for consumers looking to step away from AT&T. Rather than funding liberal organizations, Patriot Mobile takes a portion of their profits and donates them to Conservative organizations that stand for traditional family values, 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and the right to life. So if you do decide to switch to Patriot Mobile, tell them that 2ndVote sent you.

Click here to see all the great products and services offered by Patriot Mobile

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Shutterstock.

House to Move Forward with Ineffective Gun Control Proposals

On Wednesday, gun owners got to see what a Nancy Pelosi controlled Congress looks like as the House Judiciary Committee held its first gun control hearing in nearly a decade. Things went as one would expect.

While the hearing was labeled “Preventing Gun Violence: A Call to Action,” it was intended to be the legislative launching pad for H.R. 8, the “universal” background check bill introduced by California Representative Mike Thompson (D). As we have pointed out, “universal” background checks will do nothing to prevent gun violence. H.R. 8 does, however, have the potential of ensnaring otherwise law-abiding gun owners unfamiliar with its proposed new restrictions on lawful activities that pose no threat to public safety.

From the beginning, it was clear how anti-gun members of the committee intended to steer the proceedings.

First, there was the panel, which consisted of two crime victims, two anti-gun representatives of law-enforcement, one trauma surgeon (who happens to sit on the Board of the anti-gun Brady Campaign), one constitutional scholar, and the Executive Director of the anti-gun Giffords Law Center. Out of the seven panelists, only two—one crime victim and constitutional scholar Joyce Lee Malcolm—spoke against H.R. 8 and other forms of gun control that were discussed.

Notably absent from the hearing was House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R). While the Louisiana Representative is a survivor of a well-known public shooting, and he asked to be given the opportunity to testify, his request was denied. He was likely denied for being unwilling to toe the gun control line, and anyone interested in seeing what he had to say on the matter can see his full statement here.

A tone that was clearly antagonistic towards the right to keep and bear arms was set early by Democrats on the committee. The panelists were each given five minutes to make an opening statement, and most used that time to make clearly emotional, political, and/or arguable points, which is expected in such a setting. But a courtesy normally extended to panelists allows them to make such statements unchallenged. If legislators wish to question something said during opening remarks, they are free to do so during their own allotted speaking time.

Anti-gun Florida Representative Ted Deutch (D) simply couldn’t wait his turn.

After Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm had made her opening remarks, Deutch decided he needed to make sure the anti-gun community knew where he stood. Abandoning common courtesy, he spoke up, misstating what Malcolm had said so that he could appear as if he was correcting her. The message was clear; support the Second Amendment in this committee hearing at your own peril.

It should come as no surprise that the committee didn’t focus on the actual effectiveness of H.R. 8 at reducing violent crime. Recent studies, even those produced by anti-gun research institutions, have found that “universal” background checks are ineffective at reducing crime.

Ultimately, the hearing went as anyone who pays attention to politics would expect. Anti-gun Democrats made sure they were able to promote anti-gun legislation, and they ignored facts, reason, and the concerns of crime victims that don’t support their agenda. What’s next for H.R. 8?

The bill will receive a “markup” as part of the committee process next Wednesday. That’s why it’s important for all gun owners to take action now to help stop this misguided and ineffective gun control from moving through Congress.

While we will keep working to derail this attack on law-abiding gun owners, you need to take action now. 

Please use this link to let your elected officials know that you won’t be blamed for the actions of violent criminals.

Ask your Representative to oppose H.R.8.

Additionally, you may call your U.S. Representative using the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Everytown Ignoring Bloomberg’s Findings

Aloha to Tax dollars: Hawaii Lawmakers Propose Public-funded Anti-gun Firearm Factoid Factory

Some Semblance of Law Returns to the Woeful Massachusetts Firearms Licensing Procedure

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.

Number of Illegal Aliens Behind Bars in U.S. Higher than Media Wants us to Believe

How many times have you heard it from the mainstream media—Americans are criminals at a higher rate than immigrants, so those new American wannabes flooding our border pose no threat!

Well, that is fake news!

In case you missed the new report at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, John Binder writing at Breitbart has the numbers.

Study: Illegal Aliens Up to 5X More Likely To Be in Prison Than Americans

Illegal aliens concentrated in ten U.S. states are up to more than five times as likely to be in prison for crimes than American citizens and legal immigrants, a new study reveals.

Research by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)analyzed states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens — including Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington — debunking claims by the big business interests and open borders lobby that the illegal alien population is generally harmless to Americans.

Screenshot (866)

For example, the FAIR study found that in New Jersey, which has a generally small prison population, illegal aliens are about 5.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than American citizens and legal immigrants.

[….]

As Breitbart News has extensively reported, criminal foreigners in federal prison cost American taxpayers about $1.4 billion every year.Likewise, mass immigration to the U.S. from primarily Central America has led to a booming foreign incarcerated population from the region.

Between Fiscal Year 2011 and 2016, about 91 percent of all criminal illegal and legal immigrants in federal U.S. prisons were nationals from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Guatemala, Breitbart News reported.

More here.

What can you do?  You should bookmark the FAIR report or Binder’s piece and the next time you see news from, for instance, some Leftwing politician, that Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than “new Americans,” take time to let the media outlet or the elected official know that they are wrong.

Better still don’t wait and write a letter to the editor for your local paper with the statistics!

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats Winning Nearly 90% of Districts with Large Foreign Populations

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Claudio_Scott on Pixabay.

Florida Gov. DeSantis Issues 1-Year Deadline to Eliminate All ‘Vestiges’ of Common Core

The day before Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced his $91.3 billion budget request for fiscal year 2020, which includes $21.7 billion for education programs, he issued an executive order to do away with “vestiges” of Common Core standards, “streamline” standardized testing, and revise the state’s educational curriculum.

In a Jan. 31 press conference at a Cape Coral High School in Lee County, DeSantis said he had instructed newly appointed Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran—the former House speaker and longtime Common Core critic—to develop new standards for presentation to the Legislature in 2020.

He said among the most frequent issues voters asked him to address during the gubernatorial campaign was their frustration with Common Core academic standards—especially its “confusing” math requirements—and its standardized testing program.

“I’m here to say when you complained about Common Core, I hear you, I told you I’d do something about it, and today we are acting to bring those promises into a reality,” DeSantis said.

The 2010 Common Core State Standards Initiative spells out what K–12 students throughout the U.S. should know in English and mathematics at the conclusion of each school grade.

The initiative was sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers and was an attempt to establish consistent educational standards across all 50 states and territories.

The standards were developed by officials in 48 states and have been adopted by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

From its beginning, Common Core has been vigorously criticized and challenged, especially by Republican voters and elected officials, and especially in Florida.

In 2014, at the direction of then-Gov. Rick Scott, the Florida Board of Education adopted the Florida Standards, which changed some components of Common Core but left “vestiges” intact.

Those “vestiges” mostly relate to Common Core’s rigorous schedule of standardized testing that have drawn widespread criticism not only from lawmakers of both parties, but by educators.

DeSantis said his executive order also calls for Corcoran to “streamline some of the testing” and “identify ways to really make civics education a priority in Florida.”

Corcoran, who also spoke at the press conference, eagerly accepted DeSantis’ directive, claiming Florida has been “stuck with Common Core,” which “needs to be scrutinized.”

In a later tweet, Corcoran called DeSantis “the boldest, #1 education Governor in the nation” and vowed that Florida “will have the best standards, best civics education, and be the most literate state in the nation!”

DeSantis’ plan was lauded by Fedrick Ingram, president of the Florida Education Association, the statewide teachers union, which has rarely agreed with the state’s Republican leaders on educational matters.

“A deliberate look at what students must know is always appropriate, and it’s very encouraging to hear that Gov. DeSantis and Commissioner Corcoran plan to bring teachers and parents to the table as they go about reshaping Florida’s standards,” Ingram said in a statement. “We’re also pleased to hear that the administration will look at streamlining testing. Parents and our members cite time spent on testing—as versus on genuine teaching and learning—as one of their top concerns. If all stakeholders are heard, we have confidence that this effort can improve public education in Florida.”

“What an amazing victory for Florida’s children!” tweeted Chris Quackenbush of Stop Common Core FL.

Florida Stop Common Core Coalition Executive Director Karen Effrem said her group was “thrilled with Governor DeSantis’ great efforts to keep his campaign promise and finally listen to the frustrations of parents.”

But getting rid of Common Core will be easier said than done.

“We also know that he will be up against a very entrenched corporate and political establishment that is very much in favor of keeping these standards. So we look forward to helping him fight that battle,” she wrote.

This article was originally published on Watchdog.org

COLUMN BY

Portrait of John Haughey

John Haughey

John Haughey is a contributor to Watchdog.org. Twitter: @JFHaughey58.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Governor Ron DeSantis and his family is from Facebook.

Why Many Americans Are Praying For President Trump

Extremely respectful and supportive of Islam, Obama was more hostile to Christianity than any other U.S. president. 

With the election of president Trump, prayer has made a striking comeback in the political arena. Everywhere I turn, I hear people asking fellow Americans to pray for our president. During a conference call, VP Mike Pence asked religious leaders to pray for president Trump. President Trump humbly asked for our prayers. “Trump Prayer Warriors” is one of several Facebook groups advocating praying for our president. Christian leaders contributed prayers to a book titled, “Prayers for the President”. Why are so many Americans feeling an urgent need to pray for our president and country?

Mainstream media seek to convince us that a majority of Americans embrace their anti-Christian anything-goes-sexually agenda. The truth is, millions of Americans are disturbed by our nation’s cultural and moral decline. A growing number of TV commercials selling everything from milk to phone services interject homosexuality. I told my wife, “Next they will have men kissing.” Thirty minutes later, a Diet Coke TV commercial featured two men kissing in a cab.

With every new TV drama and sitcom, the question is, in which episode will the show promote homosexuality? LGBTQ are only 3% of the population. Why is there such an intense, relentless push to shove homosexuality into our faces?

While babysitting, my brother overheard the kid video his grandson was watching talk about having two daddies. The video promoted homosexual parents. My brother discarded the DVD.

Some say, Lloyd, get over it. The LGBTQ agenda is the new normal. Why don’t you accept it and move on? Every time we allow ourselves to become desensitized to a deviance, Democrats introduce another more evil. Who could imagine Democrats would seek to legalize pedophilia and murdering babies even after they are born?

Our nation was shocked when Democrats in New York responded with a standing ovation to passing a bill to kill babies even on the date of birth. Virginia’s Democrat governor, Ralph Northam, kicked Democrats’ evil up to a new extreme by defending a bill to murder babies after birth

Rather than backing away from this demonic idea, other Democrat states are pushing to pass laws to murder babies on their birth date. 

In a sane world, how could these evil people get elected? Rush Limbaugh theorizes that because Democrats fear the overturn of Roe v Wade, they seek to kill as many babies as possible.

For years, Planned Parenthood claimed abortion was okay because they were only removing an unviable tissue mass, not a baby. Technology confirms that it is a baby. “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.” Jeremiah 1:5

Planned Parenthood now says it does not matter that it’s a baby. A mother has a moral right to abort her baby for any reason she deems necessary before or after birth. Here is a link to a brief video of an abortion doctor explaining to congress, in graphic detail, the procedure he used to perform second trimester D&E abortions. Anyone not extremely disturbed by this video is spiritually ill.

Democrats desiring to murder born alive babies is a whole new level of satanic evil.

Speaking of Democrats rising to new levels of evil, Democrats are pushing to legalize pedophilia. Tom Delay exposed an Obama DOJ secret memo which included pedophilia on a list of 12 perversions it planned to legalize.

“Big Mouth” on Netflix is an insidiously evil animated cartoon to sexualize teens going through puberty. The show features boys and girls masturbating and talking to their genitalia. One scene has a boy’s father telling him it is okay to kiss another man’s penis. Despite public outrage over the show’s pedophilia, Netflix has signed on for season 3 of “Big Mouth”.

A film on Netflix titled, “Desire” features play between two girls under 10 years old that becomes sexual. Again, public outrage availed nothing.

Leftists (Democrats) claim pedophilia is a sexual orientation that society should accept. They will argue that opposing pedophilia is bigotry. They plan to keep forcing pedophilia upon us until we become desensitized or give up pushing back against it. Their narrative is pedophilia is simply another form of love. Who can argue against love? How many Christians will be deceived into embracing pedophilia believing it is what Jesus would do?

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to fall away–it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

The LGBTQ agenda has progressed from supposedly only seeking tolerance to destroying and jailing anyone who does not bow down in worship to their lifestyle.

Americans are beginning to comprehend mainstream media’s unprecedented intense hatred for Trump and his voters. They see fake news media’s 24/7 lies to stop Trump’s America first agenda and to remove him from office. Even some in Trump’s own party are colluding with his enemies.

Americans realize Trump is the only wall between We the People and leftists’ anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-morality tyranny.

Only almighty God can protect Trump. This is why so many Americans feel divinely led to pray for president Trump. Please keep our president in your prayers.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Samuel Martins on Unsplash.

National Day of Mourning & Repentance — February 23rd, 2019

IMG_7016.JPG
Poster for Business and Supporters to Display.

President Donald J. Trump at the State of the Union said the following:

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

 Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.  And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth:  all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

There will be a National Day of Mourning in silent protest of the state of New York’s infanticide law.

Saturday, February 23, 2019
1:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12210

According to the National Day of Mourning website:

The state of New York just voted to expand abortion access right up to the birth of the baby! To celebrate this unbelieveable depravity they lit the One World Trade Center in pink! Women used to celebrate motherhood and find joy in their children. Today, in places like New York City, they are taking joy in destroying their children. N.Y. State has crossed a line of inhumanity that should drive us to our knees. 46 years of the state sanctioned killing of our most helpless and defenseless children should cause us to weep, to mourn, and to take action. What is to be thought of a society that kills her own children? What will the future be of such a hearltess society that celebrates such barbaric inhumanity?

“If the foundations be destroyed what shall the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) We are calling for a National Day of Mourning and repentance. We are in desperate need for God to move upon the hearts of young and old in our nation. If our hearts do not break over the killing of these little image bearers of God in the womb, then how can we expect those growing up in this lost, confused and decadent culture to take our message seriously? Join us February 23rd for “A National Day of Mourning.”

WEAR BLACK

DON’T SHOP

CLOSE BUSINESSES

REPENT FOR ABORTION

Please CLICK HERE to sign the National Day of Morning petition.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Short Is the Road That Leads From Abortion to Infanticide, Euthanasia

House Democrats Block Request to Vote on Bill to Stop Infanticide For a Third Time

Attacker Kills Woman 5 Months Pregnant, New York’s New Abortion Law Says Her Baby Isn’t a Human Being

One Democrat Stood When Trump Called for Banning Late-Term Abortions: Because They’re “Horrific”

EDITORS NOTE: All images and information for this column is from the National Day of Mourning website.

Killer Party: Dems Stand Alone on Infanticide

Years from now, when history looks back on the Democratic Party, one date will almost certainly stand out: July 25, 2016. That was the Tuesday, in the capital of the Revolution, when everything changed. For the first time in America’s 240 years, a major political party threw its full support behind one of the most savage and violent practices of the modern age: full-term, no-apologies abortion.

It’s just a party platform, some said. It doesn’t mean anything. Try telling that to Americans today, who watched in stunned silence last night as a leader of the U.S. Senate walked to the same floor where giants of freedom have stood and defended the killing of a perfect, fully-born child. It was not just a party platform when another senator, Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.), looked at the other side of the aisle and saw a group of men and women willing to “betray the universal truth of human dignity and [turn] the stomachs of civilized people… in every country on earth.” And it wasn’t just a party platform when, the only other time this issue came up for a vote, every Senate Democrat agreed: infanticide is wrong.

The moment Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) rose to her feet and objected to protecting the survivors of abortion will be a defining one for Democrats. It should have signified to everyone that the radicalization of the party that started in 2016 is now complete. And like so many others, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) could only look on in horror. “This is the world’s greatest deliberative body,” she said. But “there is nothing great, there is nothing moral or even humane, about the discussion that we have before us today.”

New Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) stood in disbelief. “Is this really the extremism of the Democratic party?” After decades of proving that there was still some scrap of moderation in their abortion agenda, liberals have thrown off any pretense of solemnity or restraint. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh debate, they’ve significantly overplayed their hand. “I can’t imagine a vision less just or less consistent with the goodness and compassion of the American people,” Hawley argued.

He’s right. “Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions ‘generally’ legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position,” Alexandra Desanctis warns. Less than a quarter of their own party is willing to follow them into the most radical terrain on abortion ever broached. “Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed.”

With almost an eerie detachment to the issue at hand, Murray tried to frame the bill as unnecessary. “We have laws against infanticide in this country,” she claimed in her brief justification for stopping its passage. But, as so many have pointed out, only 26 states have “affirmative protections” for born-alive babies. Even if all 50 did, what’s the harm in reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to protecting these innocent survivors? Surely a party that can eat up hours of the legislative clock with a passionate plea to save the Delta Smelt can spare some sympathy for endangered children.

Even after yesterday’s disgrace, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no intentions of walking away from survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, who wouldn’t be alive today if Democrats got their way. Before the vote, McConnell cautioned that if the other side stopped the bill, it “would make quite a disturbing statement.” If they do, he vowed, “I can assure them that this will not be the last time we try to ensure that all newborns are afforded this fundamental legal protection.”

To almost every American, “health care” does not include the killing of innocent newborns. “But in defending bills that expand the right to abort [living children], Democrats are giving away the game,” Desanctis predicts. “Most people, even those who favor some abortion access, instinctively recoil from what they see. These late-term abortion bills do more than reveal Democratic radicalism. They draw back the veil of euphemism to expose abortion for what it is: At every stage of pregnancy, it is the taking of a human life. For the anti-abortion movement, it is a pivotal moment to insist upon that truth.”

That’s where you come in. If you haven’t contacted your senators about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, make sure you do today. Let them know that extremists like Patty Murray stand alone!


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Cory Booker Defends Voting for Infanticide: Bill to Care for Babies Born Alive Just “Creates Schisms”

WATCH: Bernie Sanders Supports Abortions Up to Birth, Okay to Kill Babies Up to Birth Because “It’s Rare”

Slaughter of Innocents Shows Our Culture’s Moral Rot

The Rediscovery of the Born-Alive Act

SOTU 2019: What to Watch For

Pope and Change

Chinese Aggression Against the U.S.A.

Far more than trade is involved.

My previous article for FrontPage Magazine focused on specific threats to the United States that were linked to border security issues raised in the January 29, 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Worldwide Threats that was itself predicated on the Intelligence Community’s just-released World-Wide Threat Assessment.

I used the information disclosed at the hearing and contained in that threat assessment report about the dangers to America created by transnational criminal organizations and translational gangs such as MS-13 and the drug cartels in Mexico, as well as the crimes and activities of human traffickers that support the Trump administration’s demands for a border wall, a wall that unbelievably, the leaders of the Democratic Party adamantly oppose.

However, the report included much more material about other global threats that confront the United States and its interests. Simply stated, the world is a dangerous place.

Among the other threats addressed in the report were those posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Today we will take a hard look at China and how its aggressive and relentless pursuit of global dominance threatens America.

Before we go any further, we must remember that China is led by a totalitarian Communist regime that is not an ally but rather a serious adversary of the United States.

President Trump is the first American President in decades to take a strong position against Chinese transgressions against the United States where trade, currency manipulation and espionage are concerned.

China has moved swiftly to consolidate its stranglehold on its own citizens by politically eliminating presidential term limits and exploiting ever more sophisticated technological tools such as social media, facial recognition technology, and other such hi-tech means.

On January 13, 2019 CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a report on the developments in artificial intelligence (AI) brought about by venture capitalist Kai-Fu Lee’s investments and China’s effort to dominate the AI field.

There is no shortage of specific examples of Chinese espionage committed against the United States and U.S. companies. Such espionage has become so routine and commonplace that the U.S intelligence services have come to refer to this as “Chinese Take-Out”!

Frequently Chinese citizens who acquire lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship use that status to facilitate espionage against America and American companies.

To cite a recent example, on December 21, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, Chinese National Charged with Committing Theft of Trade Secrets that began with the following statement:

Hongjin Tan, a 35 year old Chinese national and U.S. legal permanent resident, was arrested on Dec. 20 and charged with theft of trade secrets. Tan is alleged to have stolen the trade secrets from his employer, a U.S. petroleum company.

The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Trent Shores for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Special Agent in Charge Kathryn Peterson of the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office.

“Hongjin Tan allegedly stole trade secrets related to a product worth more than $1 billion from his U.S.-based petroleum company employer, to use for the benefit of a Chinese company where he was offered employment,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers. “The theft of intellectual property harms American companies and American workers. As our recent cases show, all too often these thefts involve the Chinese government or Chinese companies. The Department recently launched an initiative to protect our economy from such illegal practices emanating from China, and we continue to make this a top priority.” 

On January 28, 2019 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a press releaseChinese telecommunications conglomerate Huawei and Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng charged with financial fraud.

On that same day, January 28th, the Justice Department issued a press release about the same investigation, Chinese Telecommunications Device Manufacturer and its U.S. Affiliate Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets, Wire Fraud, and Obstruction Of Justice /Huawei Corporate Entities Conspired to Steal Trade Secret Technology and Offered Bonus to Workers who Stole Confidential Information from Companies Around the World.

The DOJ press release also included a link to the ten count indictment.

Besides imposing tariffs against Chinese imports, President Trump has also imposed restrictions on Chinese students who are studying in the United States. This was the focus of my article, “Trump Administration Restricts Chinese Students – Finally, America confronts a massive espionage operation.”

This is a welcome change by the administration to protect America and Americans. I have written several articles about Chinese espionage and belligerence and how, for decades, our universities have been training foreign students who seek to exploit our educational system to further the goals and agendas of America’s adversaries, including hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students who, as they acquire first-rate education in the United States, have been able to work for American companies under the auspices of Optional Practical Training that enables foreign students to apply their training and education in real world jobs for American companies in the United States. This program has facilitated Chinese espionage against American companies including ones that have military contracts.

These long-overdue efforts of the Trump administration should be cheered and supported by all Americans and even American allies around the world who should take similar actions.

Three of my relatively recent articles highlight China’s massive espionage campaign against the United States:

Chinese Citizen Arrested By FBI For Spying On U.S. – A case that highlights the nexus between immigration and espionage.

China Ratchets Up Its U.S. Spying Programs:  American Universities and financial institutions are at risk.

Educating America’s Adversaries:  China’s engineers are building China’s military. Who taught them?

When American companies, in a quest for cheap labor and reduced regulation, have set up factories in China, China has seized the opportunity to engage in industrial espionage against those companies proving that sometimes short-term savings cost more, often much more, in the end.

In some instances, American companies have voluntarily cooperated with China’s totalitarian regime. For example, Google has been enlisted by the Chinese government to help crack down on civil liberties in China against its own citizens even as Google actively and aggressively opposes any efforts by the U.S. government to protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorists.

My recent article “Google vs Border Security” referenced an article published by The Intercept, titled, “Google Plans To Launch Censored Search Engine In China, Leaked Documents Reveal.”

Eager to do lucrative business in China, Google was willing to “go along to get along” while its dealing with the U.S. government went in precisely the opposite direction.

A September 21, 2018, Newsweek article, “Google Brainstormed Ways To Combat Trump’s Travel Ban By Leveraging Search Results For Pro-Immigration Causes,” included the following excerpt: “Google, along with Apple, Facebook and other technology companies, filed a joint amicus brief challenging the travel ban, stating that it “inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.

Now let’s turn to the Threat Assessment. Consider this excerpt that is found on pages 24 and 25:

China

The Chinese Communist Party’s Concentration of Power

China is deepening its authoritarian turn under President Xi Jinping, and the resulting hardening of Chinese politics and governance probably will make it more difficult for the leadership to recognize and correct policy errors, including in relations with the United States and our allies and partners.

President Xi removed one of the few remaining checks on his authority when he eliminated presidential term limits in March 2018, and the Chinese Communist Party has reasserted control over the economy and society, tightened legal and media controls, marginalized independent voices, and intensified repression of Chinese Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities.

The Chinese Government also is harnessing technology, including facial recognition, biometrics, and vehicle GPS tracking, to bolster its apparatus of domestic monitoring and control.

Beijing’s increasing restrictions on scholars’ and researchers’ freedom of movement and communication with US counterparts may increase the prospects for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of US policies.

Universities in the United States have been willing to accept Chinese demands for changes in curricula in exchange for funding from China. On January 17, 2018 Politico published a report, How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms that begins with this passage:

Last year, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte made an announcement to great fanfare: The university would soon open a branch of the Confucius Institute, the Chinese government-funded educational institutions that teach Chinese language, culture and history. The Confucius Institute would “help students be better equipped to succeed in an increasingly globalized world,” says Nancy Gutierrez, UNC Charlotte’s dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and “broaden the University’s outreach and support for language instruction and cultural opportunities in the Charlotte community,” according to a press release.

But the Confucius Institutes’ goals are a little less wholesome and edifying than they sound—and this is by the Chinese government’s own account. A 2011 speech by a standing member of the Politburo in Beijing laid out the case: “The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding our culture abroad,” Li Changchun said. “It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”

Li, it now seems, was right to exult. More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.

Yet along with their growth have come consistent questions about whether the institutes belong on campuses that profess to promote free inquiry. Confucius Institutes teach a very particular, Beijing-approved version of Chinese culture and history: one that ignores concerns over human rights, for example, and teaches that Taiwan and Tibet indisputably belong to Mainland China. Take it from the aforementioned Li, who also said in 2009 that Confucius Institutes are an “important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” Critics also charge that the centers have led to a climate of self-censorship on campuses that play host to them.

Remarkably, even as Antifa thugs and university administrations seek to block American conservatives from providing their perspectives on college campuses across the United States, Communist China’s outrageous propaganda is embraced and welcomed on American college campuses.

Lenin has been quoted as saying, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Today there is a fire sale on rope in America and it must end. The sooner the better!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

Minimum Wage Memes: What They Miss and How They Mislead

Sifting through the internet’s conjecture and extracting the economic truth.

f you have spent much time on Facebook the last few days, you may have seen this meme being passed around from a user named Thomas Corbett:

It has already been shared over 109,000 times, and it is just one of a number of similar viral claims regarding minimum wage and housing from people engaged in the #FightFor15 (or I suppose #FightFor33 if you’re the New York Times).

Others include this one from @pookleblinkie on Twitter with over 60,200 retweets:

Or perhaps you’ve seen this infographic created by the National Low Income Housing Coalition:

They each make the case that housing is unaffordable for people working minimum wage jobs, largely in service of the overall case to raise the federally mandated wage floor.

So what’s wrong with these memes?

As it turns out… quite a bit.

One major red flag that should be immediately apparent is that the numbers for all three viral images are completely different. The first claims that the average rent is $1,418, the second claims $1,234, and the third is presented more circuitously but implicitly claims $1,018.

So who’s right? According to the US Census, nobody.

The NLIHC graphic comes close, but the latest numbers show that as of 2017, the real median rent in the United States was $1,012 per month. This makes Thomas Corbett’s rental price claim 40 percent higher than reality and it makes the one from “pookleblinkie” about 22 percent higher, so we can dismiss both of those as factually off-base from the start.

NLIHC’s website states that their source for housing prices is HUD’s “Fair Market Rents” database, so for the sake of argument, I’m happy to overlook any minor discrepancies there. To their credit, they also show a state-by-state comparison, which is important because the average cost of living varies significantly depending on what part of the country you’re in.

That said, even state-by-state data is probably insufficient as the significant cost of living differences are found between urban, suburban, and rural areas. Not merely based on what state you happen to live in.

Still, the idea that low-income earners have absolutely no way to afford housing is a popular belief, and even if the median rent for the United States is $1,012 a month, that would still be well out of range for someone earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour. In fact, even if 100 percent of the minimum wage earner’s income went into housing—which is clearly impossible—they still would not be able to afford a home at all.

But here’s where we see another serious flaw in the argument.

We’re not comparing apples to apples.

It makes no sense to compare median rental prices to the lowest possible wages. It would only make sense to compare the bottom of the wage distribution to the bottom of the rent distribution. Making a more accurate comparison reveals a completely different picture. For instance, when we compare median rental prices to the median household income in the United States for 2017, we find that the annual cost of renting would be $12,144 on a salary of $60,336/year.

That means that the median rental price is only 20 percent of the median household income.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe there’s any way to break down rental home price data by quintile, but anyone familiar with the concept of a “median” knows that it is the number that falls in the middle of the data distribution.

This means that just as there are an immense number of rental homes that cost significantly higher than $1,012/mo. throughout America, there are an equal number of rental homes that cost less than $1,012/mo. There are also a number of housing options that make a lot more sense than trying to rent a place by yourself as someone working a single minimum wage job.

As someone who has spent his entire adult life post-bachelor’s degree living in expensive major cities (New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Atlanta), I had roommates in every apartment I lived in long after my wages exceeded minimum wage. This is perfectly normal, and sharing costs is hardly something to see as a hardship or a social justice issue. As an added bonus, some of my former roommates are still close friends.

Another way to reduce living expenses is to rent a single room in an existing house—something I have also done at various points in my life. That can bring rental expenses down to the low hundreds of dollars per month even in city centers.

And speaking of city centers, the closer you live to the hub of urban activity, the more expensive rental prices are going to be, so expanding your apartment search to homes that are farther away and commuting in can also save hundreds of dollars a month on rent.

Like many adults, I’ve used each of these approaches to pay less than the median rental price in multiple cities, and I don’t think anyone should regard any of these experiences as humiliating or cruel. To the contrary, they are all frugal ways to make the most of your income.

This is also to say nothing of policy changes that would make new home construction more affordable and less time-consuming by streamlining the permitting processes, reducing zoning restrictions, reducing the number of aspects of the process that require city approval, and just generally lowering the barriers to building. Those kinds of policies would pave the way (pun intended) for an increase in the supply of new homes, which would reduce the cost of existing properties.

Tragically, the inaccurate cost claims are not the only major errors embedded in these images. They’re also more subtly deceptive regarding the demographics of minimum wage earners themselves.

Each of these memes suggests or implies that minimum wage workers are primarily adults with families who have only one income-earner. They also imply that a significant number of people are stuck in minimum wage jobs for their entire lives. And from the way our society frequently talks about minimum wage earners, you’d think that they were a massive group of people.

None of these implications are accurate.

In fact, just 2.6 percent of all wage and salary workers in the United States are working at minimum wage occupations. The overwhelming majority of our workforce earns more than minimum wage. What’s more, 50.4 percent of people working minimum wage jobs are under 25 years old, and 24 percent are still teenagers (16-19). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.

Furthermore, people who work minimum wage jobs are far more likely to be unmarried/never-married, to lack a high school diploma (hardly a surprise when a large portion are still in high school), and most—64 percent—are working part-time. If when you picture minimum wage workers, you think of the high school or college-aged kid working at a grocery store or a quick-service food restaurant, your picture is pretty accurate.

That’s not to say that there aren’t older people with children trying to support themselves on minimum wage jobs. There are, but they are comparatively rare. Only about 15 percent of all minimum wage workers are the primary provider for a family with one or more children. That’s just 0.39 percent of the total workforce, which is around 600,000 people in the entire United States.

And of course, that group certainly qualifies for numerous forms of public assistance, including EBT and housing subsidies—which has not been factored into any of these memes either.

I know this has been a lot of statistics and math, but my goal is to arm the valiant readers who have made it to the end of this article with some better information and some logic so that when you’re browsing Facebook and come across misleading memes, you’re better able to spot the errors.

COLUMN BY

Sean Malone

Sean Malone

Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.

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

Freedom of Choice—Not Competition—Is What Sets Capitalism Apart

Capitalism is not “a system of competition” any more than any other system.

Capitalism has often been described as “a system of competition” by its adversaries, or a system “based on competition.” Naturally, this assertion is usually coupled with a spirited oration on how this “tooth ‘n’ nail” competition psychologically corrupts us—pitting man against man in a “race to the bottom.”

Many of capitalism’s most vocal advocates have themselves imbibed this premise uncritically. They leap to a fervent defense of competition, extolling its virtues—real or perceived. In my view, this is a mistake. To accept without evaluation the presupposition that capitalism is a system of competition—in contrast to other hypothetical systems of cooperation (namely socialism and communism)—is to frame the very debate itself in leftist terms and play the game on an unfairly tilted gameboard.

This is not to say that those who defend competition do not raise some worthy points. For example: If not competition, then what is the alternative? Is there to be one central provider of each good and service available who gets to decide on our behalf how it is best to be produced and then allocated?

Adding to that, if competition is wrong in the market, then why not in the political sphere? Surely democracy is out of the question if competition is a corrupting factor—because what do political candidates do if not compete for office? Think of the competition this generates between political parties, not to mention the ensuing competition between firms and individuals for preferential treatment from politicians and legislators and competition between lobbyists, think-tanks, and voters to receive benefits out of the public purse.

If the free and voluntary section of society is a system of competition, how much more so is government? Surely democracy is a “system of competition.” Politicians are competing for the very machinations of control in our society. For the right to pass and enforce laws that apply to everyone (whether they agree with them or not) and to force them to pay for their enforcement. They are not simply competing for market share where the winner of the competition is the one that satisfies the most demand.

We can sidestep the more mundane economic arguments in favor of competition for the moment, such as the case that it increases efficiency and cheapens goods while driving innovation, as we are all familiar with them already.

This is not to say that competition is necessarily an evil, either. The problem lies in defining capitalism as “a system of competition”—in comparison to other systems that are supposedly “cooperative”—is a rhetorical ploy. Those who profess it may honestly believe it to be so, but it’s not true. Capitalism is not “a system of competition” any more than any other system. Capitalism (at least in its free-market, laissez-faire ideal) is a system of the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the absence of physical coercion, theft, compulsion or fraud, predicated upon the fundamental right to own and accumulate property.

Or, for brevity: Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange predicated upon the right to own property.

One might even venture, therefore, that it is capitalism that is the system most characterized by cooperation.

Granted, upon seeing this definition, many would still debate us over the morality of accumulating property. Or perhaps whether the “negative” right to ownership when it comes to the rich should take precedence over the “positive” right to healthcare or education at their expense when it comes to the poor. We can even debate whether the relationship between capitalists and their employees is really free of coercion given the power disparity between the two groups. Indeed, these are debates I delight in exploring further. However, none of this is a justification for defining capitalism as a system that is more competition-based than others.

After all, it is not the presence of private property or the free exchange of goods that creates the presence of competition in a capitalist system. Scarcity causes that. In any situation of scarcity of resources, there is bound to be some form of competition over those resources (as well as over how those resources are allocated).

If we have a system that allows voluntary exchange, some competition is bound to arise out of that, but that would happen under any system. Even if you had a completely communistic society that was centrally planned and involved no exchange of money whatsoever, people’s time would still be limited. If you were a filmmaker in this society, you would probably want as many people to see your films as possible, as would every other filmmaker. This would put you at least somewhat in competition with them. Does this mean that communism, too, is a system of competition?

Certainly, you would be competing for the only customer—the sponsorship of the state. Corruption and cronyism would surely be the result. Who gets their film made and who doesn’t? Who allocates the highly desirable job of being a filmmaker over the undesirable job of being a street-sweeper or refuse collector, and how can their favor be courted? The competition will commence, but instead of being decided by the free and voluntary exchange of filmgoers, investors, and filmmakers, it will be decided by someone else, I would argue, in a rather more authoritarian fashion. (For a particularly vivid and chilling illustration of how communism substitutes market competition over customers —which is at least tied to the provision of desirable services—for the completely unmeritocratic competition over gaining favor from the corrupt power structure of the state, I refer the reader to Ayn Rand’s first novel, We The Living.)

Competition is just a feature of living in a world of scarcity, and it would exist in any system. Socialism cannot do away with competition—nor can any other system.

The implications of these facts reach into any circumstances of scarcity beyond the economy. For example, suppose two friends each invite me over to dinner for an evening. I might have to make a choice between their invitations, which will result in one of them losing out on my company. Does this then mean that friendship is a system of competition?

We can’t see all of our friends all of the time, or even all of them at the same time. Even if we do, we are bound to have to split our attention among them. In addition to that, we can only maintain so many close friendships at once, and we definitely can’t be friends with everyone. All of this means that, inevitably, we have to make choices.

We each make decisions on who to make and maintain friendships with based upon our value judgments, conscious or unconscious. Perhaps based on how happy we feel around them, how long we have known one another, how much we have in common, how much we trust someone or how loyal they have shown themselves to be, how much they educate, enrich, or enlighten us, or perhaps based upon what roles they allow us to fulfill in their lives. There can be countless other reasons. The fact is we decide.

People who feel that they will benefit from our company, for whatever reason, will make attempts to spend time with us. We will invariably begin to make choices about who to spend time with based upon our values, schedule, and what other activities we are willing to sacrifice to see them. These are basic facts of life, but they hardly make friendship a system of competition.

Similarly, in the market, our time and resources are limited. We make value-based judgments about choices of products and services to consume based upon what utility we think they will bring to us, sacrificing some options for others. Maybe we will choose a coffee shop based on which has the best-tasting coffee, or maybe based on which provides the nicest atmosphere, or maybe based on which is closest, or where the customer service is best, or which is the cheapest, or which we have gone to the longest and therefore find familiar, or perhaps even based on which we think has the best ethos—for example, because they are a social enterprise that only sells fair trade produce and deliberately seeks to employ and train disadvantaged people. The fact is we decide.

Each service provider believes they will benefit from our custom and will make attempts to attract us, placing an upward pressure on the quality of services and a downward pressure on price, which we may correctly identify as a form of competition. Since human beings are not infallible, sometimes someone might buy a coffee that they don’t end up liking, but over the long-term, the competition is likely to be won by the satisfaction of customers.

The miraculous wonder we miss when we focus our attention upon the competition, which derives from choice, is the ability to choose, itself. For example, suppose two commercial events are being held on the same evening. Each prospective patron will want to choose whichever event appeals to them the most, and for whatever reasons they choose based upon what they value in an event. Now, to simply mention that these events are “in competition” would be to completely miss the crucial point that event-goers (who are in the majority compared to event organizers) have a choice of two events which they may prefer to go to one of rather than one alone.

In fact, there is actually far more cooperationinvolved in providing people with goods and services than there is competition. To accomplish anything in the marketplace, one must cooperate with buyers, sellers, managers, employees, suppliers, customers, advertisers, promoters, marketers, collective buyers, and so on.

Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, illustrated this in his most famous essay, “I, Pencil,” first published in 1958. In it, he notes that not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make a pencil. He goes onto explain that the cedarwood is sourced from Oregon and the logs milled in California. The graphite is mined in Ceylon, mixed with clay from Mississippi, and then treated with a hot mixture that includes candelilla wax from Mexico to increase its strength and smoothness. The six coats of lacquer come separately from the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil. In fact, when you include those who manufacture and transport the equipment involved in these processes, you cannot help but marvel at the fact that millions of people have a hand in its creation. They are working in concert, in cooperation, and as a result, you can get a pencil for pennies.

Because people make choices with scarce resources and limited time, competition will be an inherent part of any economic system so long as there is scarcity. The primary feature of free-market capitalism is not competition, but choice. Rather than moderate the amount of competition in an economy, state intervention will replace competition to serve customers and convince them to voluntarily spend their money on a wide array of ever-expanding goods and services. We can contrast this with other systems in which competition rages over who can gain the favor of those who control the levers of government. That is where the real “tooth and nail” begins.

This article was reprinted from the Mises Institute.

COLUMN BY

Antony Sammeroff

Antony Sammeroff co-hosts the Scottish Liberty Podcast and has featured prominently on other libertarian-themed shows, including The Tom Woods Show, Lions of Liberty, the School Sucks Podcast, and many more.

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

Trump Invites Boy To SOTU — He Was Bullied For Sharing His Last Name


Joshua Trump

Joshua Trump, a 6th grade Delaware student bullied by his fellow students for sharing a last name with President Donald Trump, has been invited by the White House to attend the State of the Union address.

“Unfortunately, Joshua has been bullied in school due to his last name,” read a statement from the office of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. “He is thankful to the First Lady and the Trump family for their support.”

First lady Melania Trump’s “Be Best” initiative focuses on the physical and mental health of children, including reducing bullying.

The 11-year-old made news in December when he reportedly started going by Joshua Berto, his father’s surname, in an attempt to stave off bullying from classmates.

“They curse at him, they call him an idiot, they call him stupid,” his mother, Megan Trump, told ABC.

At one point, Joshua’s father, Bobby Berto, homeschooled his son for a year because of the bullying.

The Pennsylvania-based group Teach Anti-Bullying awarded Joshua the “Medal of Courage” in December and encouraged him to keep his name.

Joshua Trump will join other notable guests of the president and first lady, including holocaust survivor Judah Samet, freed prisoners Alice Johnson and Matthew Charles, and child cancer survivor Grace Eline.

COLUMN BY

Scott Morefield

Scott Morefield

Scott Morefield is a freelance reporter at The Daily Caller and a weekly columnist at Townhall. Additionally, Scott’s editorial columns have been featured on National Review, The Federalist, TheBlaze, Breitbart, WND, The Hill, and many other sites. Follow Scott on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

6 of the Notable Guests Invited to the State of the Union Address

Melania Opens Up About Raising Barron, Anti-Bullying Campaign: ‘Sometimes You Have To Fight Back’

Progressive Nonprofit Refuses To Say If It Fired DC Antifa Leader Joseph Alcoff

Sarah Sanders Previews Trump’s State Of The Union Address

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.

Manhood and Biblical Christianity are Poisoned by “The Handmaid’s Tale”

In the wake of the 2016 election which justifiably trashed the hopes of Hillary Clinton and radical feminists, the progressive Democrat juggernaut is firing up an even bigger hate machine for 2020.  In desperation, they went all the way back to 1985 to get the parts for this machine.

The HULU Network, with a reported 23 million subscribers, has produced a TV series named “The Handmaid’s Tale,” depicting a male-dominated fundamentalist version of Christianity which subjugates women.  Based upon the 1985 novel by the wealthy Canadian feminist Margaret Atwood, which sold 8 million copies in English, the series premiered in 2017, and is now in the third season.  YouTube features countless clips of the episodes.

Biblical Christianity is grossly perverted in the narrative, and is deceptively associated with the same kind of barbaric tactics used to control women in Islamic countries.  Men are portrayed as using women for surrogate sexual slavery in a misogynistic repressive patriarchy, with painful and violent penalties for non-compliance.

“The Handmaid’s Tale” is disguised as a story about women being victimized by brutal men practicing a Puritanical hierarchical model of Old Testament-inspired social and religious fanaticism, supposedly based on the biblical story of Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah.  In reality, the entire production is a satanically-crafted dialectic of nightmarish visceral propaganda aimed at undermining men and discrediting religion.  A dialectic is the portrayal of two opposing forces or ideas.  Dialectics is concerned with or acting through conflict.  Thus a dialectician is one skilled at pitting two groups against each other in order in order to act through them to bring about “change” or “progress.”  This is how Marxist class warfare operates, and it is clearly and abundantly evident in this deeply troubling TV series.

Set in the near-term future, this fictional narrative depicts a feminist dystopian America in which a Christian fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship rules America after a nuclear civil war which kills the President and most of Congress.  The new regime, a militant groupnamed “The Sons of Jacob,” reorganizes America into a fascist form of police-state government known as the Republic of Gilead, and institutes a caste system for women with color-coded dress, based upon whether they are fertile to bear children.  In the series, the birthrate has collapsed due to infertility caused by pollution and disease.  The fertile women are subjugated as “handmaids” for child-bearing servitude by government officials, and forced to wear blood-red capes and white bonnets.   Infertile women are enslaved to perform menial tasks and hazardous work.  The “handmaids” are also forced to commit ritualized group murder of certain individuals which the government considers undesirable.  Lesbians, homosexuals, and transgender individuals are brutally executed.  Dead bodies are left to rot, hanging in public as a stark warning to anyone daring to oppose The Sons of Jacob and the Republic of Gilead.

The highly graphic scenes (WARNING: not for viewing by children) portray women being beaten, burned, raped, or hanged and drowned for insubordination or disobedience.  A single message permeates the series: men are superior and women are to be subservient, or face violent consequences.  The film-making style is diabolically designed to evoke dialectic emotions of hate between men and women.  The target audience is women, with the subliminal intent of compelling them to revile men and religion.

The timing of this TV series, and remarks made by author Margaret Atwood confirm that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is intended to get women to rise up to reverse the results of the 2016 election in 2020.  The author, Margaret Atwood, speaks of the TV series as a form ofpushing back against Donald Trump and conservatives.  She claims that America under Donald Trump is trending toward the fictional Republic of Gilead portrayed in the story, so this is a rallying call for women to rise up in 2020.  The fake news network CNN says that the “Handmaid’s Tale” is Trump’s America.  The TV series even cleverly attempts to convince conservative women that by prioritizing religious faith and homemaking over feminist equality, they are denying themselves any stake in their own future.

Recently the blood-red capes and white bonnets inspired by “The Handmaid’s Tale,” have become the defacto uniform of feminists who protest everything from conservative Supreme Court nominees, limitations on abortion, and in support of Planned Parenthood.  Washington DC has been inundated with them.  The Women’s March has become the poster event for this symbolic feminist protest uniform.

Various conservative sources are exposing the blatant deceit of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”  A few links are cited here:

The Handmaid’s Tale: A Leftist Blueprint in Disguise

The ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ liberal feminists created

‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is ugly and anti-Christian

Hating Men in a Real Life Handmaid’s Tale

A careful analysis of “The Handmaid’s Tale” requires us to reflect very purposefully on the malevolent agenda behind this narrative.  The program content and subliminal message is of course, total propaganda, but nonetheless expertly crafted.  Women are not truly abused by Biblical Christianity nor generally subjugated by men in our society.  But our mortal adversaries, the Cultural Marxists, are experts at crafting effective propaganda to achieve their agenda.  That’s how we got feminism in the first place, and with it contraception and abortion on demand.  Likewise, homosexual marriage and transgenderism have been imposed on America using the same tactics of misinformation driven home by the media and Hollywood.  

The ultimate Progressive goal is to lay the foundation for a so-called “utopian” future when the Marxists (not the Christians) will be the authoritarians in positions of power, and everyone else will be subjugated and deprived of liberty.  One means to this end is the propaganda trick of Dialectics, as employed in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” if we remain sufficiently comatose to fall for the clever deception.

TAKE-AWAY LESSON: 

If we underestimate our adversaries, we are destined to be dominated and enslaved by them.  In a most ironic twist, the dystopian message of “The Handmaid’s Tale” applies to all Americans today, but not in the sense depicted by author Margaret Atwood.  This fictional narrative is a grim warning to anyone wanting to preserve liberty and our way of life, not from fictional threats by Christians, but from the real and relentless Cultural Marxists whose tactic has always been “the end justifies the means.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Restore American Liberty column with images is republished with permission.

Encourage Cardinal Dolan to excommunicate Governor Cuomo for signing legislation that allows infanticide.

Click here to send your email to encourage Cardinal Timothy Dolan to excommunicate New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for his egregious and boldly immoral support for partial birth abortion, infanticide.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that allows partial birth abortion, infanticide.  Governor Cuomo was so proud of the legislation that he “directed One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink to celebrate signing the Reproductive Health Act.”

Breitbart published an article titled:  “Franklin Graham to Cardinal Dolan: ‘take a moral stand’ against Gov. Cuomo.”  The article reports in part:

“The Catholic Church is discussing as to whether New York Governor Cuomo should be excommunicated from the church for signing the state’s new abortion bill,” he explained to his nearly two million followers. “This law allows for the murder of unborn children up until the day of their birth.”

“I call on my friend Cardinal Dolan to take a moral stand,” continued Graham. “Whether it moves the governor’s calloused heart or not, it will have a great impact on not only the church in New York, but on the church worldwide.”  

“It’s about standing for right over wrong, good over evil,” he added.

Graham then quoted Albany Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, “I don’t see it as something to celebrate … the kind of procedures that now are possible in New York state, we wouldn’t even do to a dog or a cat. … It’s torture.”

Cardinal Dolan offered four reasons why he was not in favor of excommunicating Andrew Cuomo from the Catholic Church.

First, Cardinal Dolan states that “excommunication should not be used as a weapon.”  However, most people are calling for excommunication because Governor Cuomo has committed a highly visible immoral offense and celebrates it.  

Second, Cardinal Dolan states “the cannon does not support excommunication for pro-abortion politicians.”  However, some cannon lawyers disagree.  C. 1364 provides the same penalty for heresy—“the obstinate denial or doubt after baptism of some truth which is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”  

Third, Cardinal Dolan states “clergy should address the situation with the parishioner privately.”  However, Cardinal Dolan has done that but Governor Cuomo continues to push back publicly. 

Fourth, Cardinal Dolan states “excommunication would not be effective as many politicians would welcome it as a sign of their refusal to be ‘bullied by the Church,’ thinking it would therefore give them a political advantage.”  However, enforcing church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life and celebration of immorality should be the priority over concern about how politicians may use excommunication to their advantage.  

Vatican Catechism of the Catholic Faith states:  

Article 5:   The Fifth Commandment  You shall not kill. 54

I. Respect for Human Life

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. 72

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. 73

    My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. 74

Governor Cuomo’s public enthusiasm for this legislation is extreme, in the Catholic Church’s face, and far from the average pro-abortion politician.  Cuomo went well beyond approving the legislation by celebrating its depravity.  Now other states are considering similar heinous legislation as progressives see how far left they can push their agenda against Judeo-Christian values. 

The National Catholic Register published an article by Monsignor Charles Pope titled:  “Catholic Abortion Supporters Like Cuomo Must Face Penalties.”  The article states in part:  “There comes a time when something is so egregious and boldly sinful that it must be met with strong ecclesial and canonical penalties and remedies.  It is time to end the charade, even the lie, that Andrew Cuomo and others like him are Catholics in good standing. They are not, and this must be made plain to them and to others.”

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to encourage Cardinal Timothy Dolan to excommunicate New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for his egregious and boldly immoral support for partial birth abortion, infanticide..

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to encourage Cardinal Timothy Dolan to excommunicate New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for his egregious and boldly immoral support for partial birth abortion, infanticide..

Archdiocese of New York
1011 First Avenue    
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-371-1000
Fax: 212-759-8077

Cardinal Timothy Dolan
Cardinal.Dolan@archny.org

Fran Davies
Director of Communication & Marketing
Tel: 212.371.1000 Ext. 2889
E-mail: Fran.Davies@archny.org

dsc@archny.org

communications@archny.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York’s Abortion Law Fails By Every Measure.

Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Vote on Legislation to Stop Infanticide

Democrats’ Radical Push on Abortion Will Backfire

Two on Abortion: Roe’s Immanent Demise & So Cardinal Dolan, What’s the Plan?

Note: There’s so much happening in the Church and the nation on abortion that we thought it right to run two columns today. Michael Pakaluk argues that the brazenness of the New York State law may actually make overturning Roe v. Wade more likely as people come to see how extreme abortion supporters have become. Anthony Francois, who has worked on related issues on the state and national level, explains that Cardinal Dolan’s refusal to excommunicate Andrew Cuomo may make sense – IF it’s part of a larger strategy (so far not in sight) that will actually build up Catholic resistance. There’s much food for thought here on the key human rights issue of our time. – Robert Royal

Roe’s Imminent Demise

By Michael Pakaluk

When I teach about abortion, I start with a poll. “How many of you believe that abortion is legal only for the first three months of pregnancy?” All the students raise their hands – naturally enough, because this is what the media has repeatedly told them.

I then go to my computer, connected to an overhead projector, and search on “late-term abortion near me.” The search comes up with clinics in one’s own neighborhood offering abortions up to 24 or even 36 weeks.

For example, in Washington, DC, Capital Women’s Services explains under its pull-down tab for Late Term Abortions that it “offers late-term abortion care up to 36 weeks under certain circumstances, such as for fetal or maternal indications.”

That’s a devilishly obscure phrase, “Maternal indications.” The clinic explains, “The U.S. Supreme Court, in its classic Roe v. Wade Decision, ruled that abortions are legal at any gestation to preserve the life or the health of the woman.” (Note the finesse of language: “at any gestation,” not “at any gestational age,” as the latter raises the awkward question, whose age?)

Well, they at least get Roe v. Wade. And “health” as defined in Roe’s companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, brought in psychological and socioeconomic considerations as included under “health.”

The website goes on: “Maternal health problems can be very distressing in themselves, and doubly upsetting because they can sometimes mean that a pregnancy cannot be continued. These are tragic situations, and we will always respect the right of a woman to make her own medical decisions regarding her own life, her own body, and her own family.”

Sure, humanity dictates that women will not usually abort their babies at eight months because of a runny nose. And there are undeniably tragic cases, not to be minimized. But suppose the mother wants an abortion at 32-weeks “gestation” because her boyfriend has just abandoned her, and getting up three times a night to go to the bathroom now seems completely unbearable?

“We will always respect your decision,” the clinic says flatly. They will insist on a consultation, of course, and charge extra money, but the abortion will be available.

After that, I show my class pictures of unborn children at 32 or 36 weeks. Then I go to a website which gives the description, from an abortion textbook, of a D&X abortion (“dilation and extraction”), or a “partial birth” abortion. Invariably the response from my students is the same: shock and utter disbelief. “How can they allow that?” “ How can this be legal?”


Cheers for New York’s abortion bill

The correct answer is not so much that it is legal as that it is not illegal. It once was illegal, but the Supreme Court held that no authority of law could deem it illegal.

My students naturally elide “allowed” to “legal.” The old legal philosophers said that there were three acts of law: to forbid, to require, or to permit. Anything under law had to be deemed one of these three. We are “one nation, under law,” after all. So, in the face of the grisly reality of late-term abortion – my students implicitly infer – some authority must have decided that these acts belonged in the “permitted” category, not the “forbidden” category. But, strictly, no: what Roe did was declare null the laws which made such things forbidden. It did not replace these laws with a new law, which said what was permitted and on what grounds. Strictly, it created zones of lawlessness.

This is why I am actually heartened by the recent law in New York and the prospect of similar laws in Vermont and Virginia. I believe such laws make it more likely that Roe will be overturned, and they will hasten the passage of laws that will outlaw abortion.

There was something safely popular about Roe’s merely striking down a hindrance. Roe had always shared the appeal of the nonsensical mantra, “it is forbidden to forbid.” No one likes saying no per se; saying nos imply to no, then, looks like an easy win. And one could also always feign a surprise at the consequences, a lack of responsibility for what followed. (“I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices. . . . Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” as Chief Justice Burger put it with astounding simplicity in his concurring opinion to Roe.)

But saying yes, in contrast, is unsafe. It reveals plainly what you love, and what you fail to love. Now you have actually declared abortion to be in the category of the permitted under law – and therefore you have been shown additionally to have a twisted concept of lawfulness. What you call law we call power employed to protect your interests. We know that type.

Abortion rights rhetoric has shifted back-and-forth over the years, between an apologetic approach, claiming weakness, and a brazen approach, boasting strength, though these are not found in equal proportion: it is as if after a hundred of the apologetic pieces (“no one likes abortion, it is a regrettable necessity”), someone has to come along with a brazen piece to clear the air (“every woman who gets an abortion knows it is killing, but sometimes one must kill to get by”).

These attitudes exist uncomfortably together. But legislation like New York’s resolves the tension in favor of the brazen, from which many will recoil in horror: Do we really think this? Do we hold this?

Likewise, by creating jurisdictions where Roe is now affirmed in state law, it will look as though, politically, Roe can be overturned by the Supreme Court. It can be overturned without being overturned, fully. (And who cares about flyover states clinging to their guns, religion, and heartbeat bills?)

The abortion debate has, fatiguingly, raged long enough that its resolution into separate settlements will seem long overdue – a peace of Westphalia, indeed, but still something like a peace.

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is acting dean of the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is coming out from Regnery Gateway in March 2019.

So Cardinal Dolan, What’s the Plan?

By Anthony Francois

Enough of whether New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan should excommunicate Governor Andrew Cuomo, and what the media or Cuomo’s political supporters or Planned Parenthood or anyone else of ill will would make of such a move. I have no particular quarrel with those calling for it, other than to observe that it is, in fact, the province of the bishop to decide. It just isn’t really the most important point.

Excommunication, the Cardinal says, would be politically counterproductive. That is not an ecclesiastical judgment but a secular one. In that order of things, Cardinal Dolan is by definition – and Church teaching – no more an authority than any member of his flock.

So, how can we assess the wisdom of Dolan’s call on the politics of the matter?

We would need to know what “productive” would mean in order to assess whether excommunicating the Governor aids or hinders it. We would need to know what strategy is being implemented to know whether any particular act was within or without the plan. But nothing remotely like a Catholic political strategy to change the trajectory of New York state’s final descent into child killing madness is on offer.

One strategy might be: build up the moral formation of New York’s Roman Catholics to the point that Andrew Cuomo and his ilk will someday have to give a damn about what they think on this matter.

What is Cardinal Dolan’s strategy for catechizing (or perhaps evangelizing is the right word) New York City’s Catholics to the point where they, as voters, won’t stand for this sort of thing anymore? Is there one?

Dolan’s diocese has almost 3 million Catholics, a third of all residents. New York City is said to be one of America’s most Catholic cities, and New York is one of the nation’s most Catholic states by population. Roman Catholicism is the Empire State’s largest religious grouping.

But if you look at those claims by how many New York Catholics will vote to re-elect Cuomo, or any legislator who voted for this monstrosity, the number that currently matters to any Catholic pro-life political strategy is very, very much smaller.

Governor Cuomo just won re-election with 59 percent of the statewide vote. Dolan’s archdiocese provided Cuomo with over a third of his total votes, and voted for him at roughly the same rate as the rest of the state. Looking at Dolan’s counties that Cuomo won, the effect is more dramatic: just under a third of Cuomo’s total statewide vote came from these counties, which he carried by 66 percent. Zooming in on New York City alone, Cuomo won the heart of Dolan’s archdiocese by 86 percent in Manhattan and 90 percent in the Bronx.

These facts demonstrate two things. First: making a rapid and significant difference in New York’s political landscape on abortion is probably an unrealistic short-term goal for the Cardinal. So why should anyone care about excommunicating Cuomo, which is marginal to such a goal? You might as well ask what effect canceling a Netflix subscription has on colonizing Mars.


This is an actual screenshot from an online story about New York’s recent abortion law with the unplanned, serendipitous juxtaposition of an ad.

Second: Cardinal Dolan urgently needs to do something more effective to evangelize his whole flock on whether they should ever vote for zealous legal enablers of child killing. As it stands now, in any one-on-one contest between Cuomo and Dolan, almost all of the Cardinal’s people are rooting for the Governor. He needs to change that.

Reasonable minds will differ on what would be productive to that effort. But who in the chancery cares what the Church’s enemies think about a bishop’s effort to help Catholics understand that you shouldn’t vote for those who make a top priority of liquidating the unborn?

Catechetical, liturgical, and disciplinary reform are not easy. But these are the only “resources” that the Archbishop of New York has to form his flock to the point that they will rally as Catholic voters to stand athwart barbarism. None of Cardinal Dolan’s other responsibilities contribute anything significant to that effort. They may have ancillary value to some of the Church’s enterprises, but they aren’t making Big Apple Catholics more pro-life.

Whatever other good they do, none of the Archdiocese of New York’s public contracts or philanthropic collections to provide social services provide substantial moral formation or courage to broad swaths of voting Catholics on this issue. None of Cardinal Dolan’s otherwise appropriate and arguably useful relationships with politicians, as such, teaches the faithful how to deal with those pols at the ballot box on this issue.

Grand Marshalling the St. Patrick’s Day Parade isn’t, without more, giving Catholic New Yorkers the zeal of the Patron of Ireland, or anything more conducive than a pub crawl to virtue or spiritual wellbeing. The Al Smith Dinner may raise a pile for the Church, but it doesn’t form consciences, no matter how many viewers C-SPAN reaches with it.

If the Cardinal wants to face down Andrew Cuomo over abortion with a crowd at his back, he is going to need to do something “productive” to get his people back.

None of which is to say that Cardinal Dolan doesn’t care about the most important of his responsibilities, or put an honest or capable effort into them. But it is to say that if he thinks that political considerations dictate that “those who oppose the Church” are a more important audience at this time than “those who adhere to the Church,” he doesn’t understand what are and are not his political opportunities.

The only way he is going to improve his political opportunities is by prioritizing the formation of his flock over trying to manage optics or manipulate what the enemies of the Church will say about him.

So fine, if excommunicating Cuomo will undermine some plan to make the faithful of New York a more effective bulwark in defense of the unborn, then by all means, forget it.

But please, if not, enough about how not disciplining him is good politics.

Tony Francois is a Senior Attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, where he specializes in constitutional and environmental law. He and his family reside in Sacramento, California. The views expressed are solely his own.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-Abortion Senate Democrats Block Vote on Legislation to Stop Infanticide

Slaughter of the Innocents Reaches New Depths 

‘Choice’ Words for Infanticide

RELATED VIDEO: “It’s barbaric” – Watch their minds change on abortion.

EDITORS NOTE: These Catholic Thing columns 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 is by Pixabay.