Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion company. It also has a massively influential political machine that has led the Democratic Party to support taxpayer-funded abortions anytime, anywhere, for any reason. They say jump and Democrats don’t bother asking how high, as we saw with the Kavanaugh debacle where at least one Democrat said she believes uncorroborated and unproven claims of sexual assault because Kavanaugh is pro-life.
2ndVote shoppers can help stop this by forcing United Way chapters to stop funding Planned Parenthood. $2.7 million might not be a lot of money compared to Planned Parenthood’s billion-plus annual revenues, but such a drop in funding would be a strong sign that the times are changing for the abortion industry. And those dollars fund thousands of abortions.
Why target United Way over Planned Parenthood’s corporate donors? First, target them all! Second, though, United Way is clearly unnerved at the attention they are getting. They not only dodged the issue in a statement, but they also stealth-edited out of the statement the fact that “a small number” of chapters donate to Planned Parenthood.
The fact is that United Way is scared to be associated with Planned Parenthood. 2ndVote activists can take advantage of this and really put the pressure on United Way. If United Way chapters stop donating, we could see other groups — non-profit and corporate — realize that they should stop funding Planned Parenthood if they want support from grassroots Americans.
EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is from Shutterstock.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1132902488-990x556-e1538325905395.jpg3596402ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2018-09-30 12:46:542018-09-30 12:46:54United Way’s Planned Parenthood Donations Fund the Left’s Campaign against Kavanaugh — Follow the Money
As a TRUE AMERICAN, I must say that I am furious, saddened and sickened by this embarrassing and pathetic attempt by the Democrats (DC Deep State Operatives), to delay, derail and prevent a most highly honorable and qualified man, Brett Kavannaugh to the Supreme Court. These hearings were an embarrassment and quite dangerous based upon setting the precedence of presumed guilt over assumption of innocence. There is so much to write about and so much to be said about this horrific turn of events but I will take a bit of a different angle and approach to this and summarize it by simply saying, Pathetic But In The End They Lose.
Con Job
President Trump is right. This was a well planned clandestine con job by the Democrats (DC Deep State Operatives) as well as Jeff Flake (who is not to be trusted). Michael Savage released some intel connecting the dots on Dr. Blasey Ford to the CIA. Savage discusses this on his radio broadcast which can be found on YouTube.
Savage published the following: “Who is Dr. Ford? Well, besides being a “professor” at the off brand university, she also works at a major university down the street from Palo Alto. She just so happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford university. Christine Blasey’s brother, Ralph the third, used to work for the international law firm of Baker, Hostetler. The firm created fusion GPS, the company who wrote the Russian “dossier”. They later admitted it was only a collection of field interviews. Baker Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three companies called: red coats inc. Admiral security services and Datawatch they are operated by Ralph Blasey II He is the father of Christine and Ralph III. Christine and Ralph III’s grandfather was Nicholas Deak. Former CIA director William Casey acknowledged Deak’s decades of service to the CIA.” In my opinion, she was under the control and influence of some form of mind control and there are a variety of ways this can and be done. More data and links about the Deep State’s involvement in this can be viewed here. Please have a look.
F-F-F-F-F-F- Flake
Trump hater. Not up for re-election. The man cannot be trusted. We succeeded but they succeeded. Now there will be further delay with an FBI investigation. God only knows what new outrageous events will begin to be presented.This will not simply be about a standard FBI inquiry into Ford’s allegations and Kavannaugh’s actions. You wait and see. And based upon this investigation, there is now the chance for Flake to flip his vote. And the FBI? Who the hell trusts this FBI these days! This can get messy folks.
Trump’s Plan B
The attacks,rigging of elections, fake news, treasonous acts, felonies, fraud, crimes, murders and the possible deliberate collapsing of the stock market and so on will continue. They will not stop unless the control is taken away from them. This can and will be accomplished. This is discussed here by viewing this link particularly steps six and seven of which we are now embarking upon. The Deep State, its operatives and subjects which are used at many levels, are exposed, desperate and on the run. They have for the first time with President Trump and the forces behind Trump, a formidable challenge and they are about to lose it all. But I am afraid we will end up resorting to Plan B, Martial law and military tribunals as set forth by President Trump via two executive orders. There are archived articles you can find here on this website to become more familiar with Martial Law. This time spent may be wise. Read about this here. Listen to an excellent analysis by Mike Adams on video here:
What we have witnessed in the past few weeks is pathetic but in the end they lose. Vote RED. Get others to do the same. Support and pray for our President. Stay the course. Things will get worse before they get better.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on JohnMichaelChambers.com. It is reprinted, with featured image, with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/feinstein-flake-kavanaugh-e1538314029373.jpg367640John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2018-09-30 09:28:562018-09-30 17:14:07Pathetic But In The End They Lose [+Videos]
On September 29th, 2018 I attended the America – The Truth Conference. One of the speakers was Trevor Loudon. Afterwards, I attended a dinner and sat across from Mr. Loudon and his son. His insights into how our government has been taken over by radical groups bent on fundamentally changing our culture, economy, politics and Constitution are compelling.
“Several candidates in the 2018 elections reportedly have ties to radical and far-left groups. One America’s Jack Posobiec sits down with world-renowned researcher Trevor Loudon to explain what he has uncovered about candidates in four different states.”
One American News has published a video of the interview by Jack Posobiec with Trevor Loudon. Here it is:
Randall Smith: Many Catholics who decry sex-abuse cover-ups were fine with bishops who looked the other way with regard to their own sexual sins.
Some say that people are leaving the Catholic Church over the current scandals. This confuses me. In whom did you have faith? The priest? The bishop? Or God? If your faith was in a priest, a bishop, or even the pope, then what you professed was idolatry, not Christian faith.
Am I downplaying the seriousness of the scandal or the damage it has done? No, but let’s put things into perspective. If you ask, “How can I continue to have faith in the Catholic Church considering all these horrible acts?” you might put yourself in the place of the Jewish community after the Holocaust. They had to ask themselves: “How can I continue to have faith in God considering all these horrible acts?”
How can we continue to dedicate ourselves to a community so unfaithful to God? Moses asked the same question when he saw the infidelity of his fellow Jews in the desert. The prophets asked the same question when they saw the injustices of the people in the Promised Land. The early apostles must have asked themselves the same question when they saw that it was one of their own company who handed Jesus over to His enemies. And Peter himself, the “rock” on which the Church was to be built, denied he even knew the Lord in His most desperate hour of need. What could anyone do to compete with that?
How hard would it have been to stay in the Church when one’s friends, neighbors, and family members were being martyred, torn to shred by animals or burned alive, for refusing to deny their faith? How hard would it have been to stay in the Church when so many of one’s other friends, neighbors, and family members had given in and denied Christ in the face of the threats of the Roman authorities. Life in the Church has rarely been simple.
The Apostle Peter by Anton Raphael Mengs, c. 1775 [Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna]
What would you have done when the Arian crisis split the Church in two, with the supposedly “Christian” emperor Constantine and most of the empire siding with the Arians? How about when three men all claimed to be pope in the fourteenth century? Or when the Protestant Revolt split Christendom and much of the Church hierarchy was corrupt and moribund? The Council of Trent was a great gift of the Spirit, but it didn’t commence until 1545 (Martin Luther authored the 95 theses in 1517), and it didn’t wrap up until 1563, nearly twenty years later.
Imagine being a Catholic in the midst of these scandals. What would you have done? Would you have been one of those who stayed and fought the good fight in faith? Or would you have been one of the many who said, “That’s it. I’m out”?
But then where would you have gone? That’s the question Peter asks Christ. “Lord, where else shall we go?” Who else has the words of everlasting life?
I’m sorry, but did I miss something? Did Christ found some other Church – the Church with the good people? The Church with the perfect liturgies? The Church in which all the clergy and laity are doctrinally correct and without sin? Because I’ve never seen it. I’ve never read about it in the Scriptures, nor did the Fathers and Doctors of the Church mention it. Quite the contrary; they repeatedly talk about the human element of the Church being sinful and in need of Christ’s redemption.
Are these scandals keeping people away from the Church? Please. People are staying away from the Church because the Church makes uncomfortable moral claims and because Catholics aren’t a living witness in society to the truth of that teaching. Surveys have repeatedly shown Catholics to be little different from the general public in their opinions on fundamental moral issues. Catholics in San Francisco threatened to sue their own bishop when he tried to enforce basic moral principles on the Catholic schools. Archbishop Chaput is held at arms’ length by many Catholic universities, while Cardinal Mahoney, supposedly under penance the way ex-Cardinal McCarrick was, travels freely.
Ask priests and editors of “conservative” Catholic websites what kind of blowback they get when they try to tell the laity they should pay a living wage, be fair and honest in their business practices, or exercise a preferential option for the poor. What kind of priests and bishops would you expect to get when large portions of the laity revolt if they hear anything from the pulpit about abortion, contraception, fornication, and same-sex sexual activity?
Large proportions of American Catholics wanted bishops who would look the other way as they openly violated fundamental Catholic teaching. Why are they surprised now to discover that some of these men “bent the rules” in their personal lives as well? Was fidelity what people were looking for? Or a winning personality and the ability to raise money? Wasn’t the latter the reason why so many institutions now so self-righteously condemning McCarrick earlier lavished him with honors and praise?
C.S. Lewis once complained about a culture that produces “men without chests” and then expects of them virtue.“We laugh at honor,” wrote Lewis, “and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” An American Catholic Church that laughed at Catholic social teaching and Catholic sexual morality should not be shocked to find doctrinal and moral traitors in its midst.
What do we do now? Demand the truth? Certainly. But as the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel insisted, you demand truth by living in the truth. We should say of authentic Church teaching what St. Augustine said about the Gospel: “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”
Are you a Catholic? Then stop worrying – and act like one.
Randall Smith
Randall B. Smith is the Scanlan Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, is now available at Amazon and from Emmaus Academic Press.
‘I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true’
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the whistleblower who accused Pope Francis of elevating known homosexual predator Theodore McCarrick, is breaking his silence. Speaking on the reasons why he published his testimony, which exposed a number of high-ranking cardinals and bishops as part of the “homosexual current” in the Church, the former papal nuncio said he did so “during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed.”
Viganò notes that neither the pope nor cardinals in Rome have denied his testimony, which he asserts before God is true. He also makes a special appeal to Cdl. Marc Ouellet, whom he says has at his “complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups.”
Since publication of his original testimony on August 25, Viganò has gone into hiding, his whereabouts unknown. Sources have confirmed the Vatican is using its intelligence network to seek him out in order to haul him to Rome for canonical prosecution.
LifeSiteNews offered the official English translation, republished in full below.
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)
Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.
“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord, I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to him; For I rejoice in the Lord.” (Psalm 103:33-34)
It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.
My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.
I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Tweet
Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.
Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?
The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.
Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.
Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.
Did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? Tweet
I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.
Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.
“Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust. “Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28)
To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?'” (Mk 4:38–40).
The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.
Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?
The Lord is in full control of the boat!
May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
September 29, 2018
Feast of St. Michael, Archangel
Yesterday, I saw the most disgusting display of political gamesmanship ever, if it can be called that. A full-fledged attack on a man’s character, his past, and even his soul. The display brought to mind those videos of frenzied sharks opportunistically swiping bites at their maimed prey. And in this case, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue by a judicial nominee that, although impassioned by anger, frustration, and shear exhaustion, was at times too meek and respectful to abandon his temperament and call out the 800-pound gorilla in the room during the question and answer portion of his appearance: vile, destructive partisan politics for personal gain.
But when the smoke cleared, the Senate Judiciary Committee shed no new light upon the events from thirty-five years ago, and the only thing that lay in tatters was the reputation of the United States Senate.
Thank you, Senate Democrats.
There were a number of goals the Senate Democrats pursued today. The first was to put on display a credible witness with a credible story against a judicial nominee. That witness was Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto professor who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was 17 years old. What we saw was a meek woman with a weak voice and sheepish delivery who seemed to conveniently forget the most important and significant of details. Ford’s demeanor was simply too passive for a Ph.D professor.
And then there were the inconsistencies. First, the progression of the events had to be delayed because of Ford’s fear of flying, which she blamed on the supposed Kavanaugh attack that made her afraid to be in confined spaces. Yet we later find out that Ford actually flies all over. To Delaware to be with her family. To Polynesia for personal pursuits.To Costa Rica. To Hawaii. And she flew not for life altering important events, but for pleasure!
And then we learned that the neural receptors in Ford’s hippocampus were predisposed to her developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events that took place 35 years ago. But when asked if there had been any possible environmental stressors that could have deteriorated her condition, she said there were none. Nothing else in her life had ever caused her any stress. Quite simply an incredible assertion.
And then a little pearl. She would have been able to do the hearing earlier if the Senate had offered to go to her.
But they did. And when this was pointed out, her attorney was quick to object, cover the mic and coach her on what to say.
From before the hearing, we knew she couldn’t place the house. But during the hearing we learned that the house where the events took place was about a 15-minute drive from her home. So after establishing that she was driven there and back, she still couldn’t remember who drove her to the party and back.
Wouldn’t you think that the person who had driven her home from that party would have driven an absolutely mortified 15-year-old home? No 15-year-old can bluff so well so as to hide her emotions from the person driving her home that night, and even if she could, Ford should have been able to tell us what she did in preparation for what was likely the longest trip home of her life. How had she maintained her composure? Did she cry prior to getting in the car? How did she hide her emotions from her parents that night?
But there was none of that.
Ford also did not know who paid for the polygraph test, or who was paying for her attorneys.
When faced with a prosecuting attorney that treated her with kid gloves under five minute time constraints, none of the tough questions were asked. But even at this point, something seemed off about her testimony. For me, I just kept going back to not having ever seen a Ph.D. professor act so meekly.
Then came Judge Kavanaugh. Pardon my vernacular, but he was pissed, as upset as I have ever seen anyone at a legislative hearing. He was indignant. He was unwavering in his denial that the events described absolutely never happened. And the debacle of the Democrats’ vile scam began to unravel.
Which brings us to the Democrats’ second goal; delay the hearing at all costs through a call for another FBI investigation.
The most obnoxious individual in promoting this agenda was Sen. Dick Durbin who kept insisting that Kavanaugh turn to the White House council, right there and then, and demand than an FBI hearing take place. Despite the intense, and unprofessional display from Durbin, Kavanaugh did not take the bait, recurrently exclaiming that he would do whatever the Committee wanted, but essentially leaving it to the Committee to call for an investigation.
And that’s when a rejuvenated and impassioned Lindsey Graham spoke.
He was the first Republican Senator to break ranks with the optional protocol the caucus had set up for itself of employing the services of an Arizona prosecuting attorney to ask the questions. Instead, Graham took the microphone himself and resoundingly called the proceedings a sham. His was a performance so riveting, so emotional, so raw and filled with honesty that it made Al Pacino’s performance in And Justice For All, look like child’s play. The Democrats don’t want an investigation, Graham exclaimed. If they did, they wouldn’t have sat on Ford’s complaint for weeks.
From Graham and others we learned that by the time Kavanaugh met with Feinstein, her staff and she had already assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer, and she mentioned nothing to Kavanaugh at their private meeting! Nor did she say anything at the time of the hearing. Feinstein’s deceitful performance in her handling of this case was so despicable, that it brought the spurious call for an FBI investigation to a halt.
Additionally, in a case where there is nothing to pursue, no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no DNA, no pictures, and no iron-clad testimonies, there is absolutely nothing the FBI could add.
How about making Kavanaugh look like a raging alcoholic? Here is where Kavanaugh was at his shakiest because he drank as a minor, (“everyone did”) and he liked beer and claimed to still like beer. He seemed a little frazzled as he asked the Senators, “Don’t you like beer, Senator?” To be sure, it’s what many wished to tell these arrogant senators, but it got the judge into the mud a little bit too much.
But once again, the Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse broke one of the sacred rules of public interrogation, he asked questions of his witness to which he did not previously know the answer. Whitehouse thought he would be cute and display a huge blowup of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook page, and thinking that the cryptic entries dealt with sexual activity, sought to pursue them.
What does “Renate alumnius” mean?
No, it did not mean that Kavanaugh had claimed to have sexual relations with Renata. (Here’s where Kavanaugh could have said, “No, Senator, I have no control over what your perverted brain may be thinking, but this reference is not to sexual activity,” but he didn’t.)
What does “Ralph” in “Beach Week Ralph Club” mean, and doesn’t that mean that you were a problem drinker?
Senator, it means vomiting, and no, I was not a problem drinker.
And then Whitehouse tried to cross the bridge too far.
And what about the word “boofed”?
Senator, it means flatulence. We were 16. We thought it was funny.
Everyone laughed. And all of a sudden, the absurdity of a Senator dissecting the high school yearbook page of a judicial nominee became painfully clear. And the Democrats’ efforts at discrediting the nominee came to an end.
In the end, we finished where we started. If anything, Kavanaugh appeared stronger than before the hearing. Ford looked weaker and less credible. And the Me Too movement continued its descent into the surreal.
So what did we gain from all of this? Substantively, we gained nothing.
But we got further confirmation of the disarray we would live in if this crop of Democrats ran the show. We got a taste of what its like when procedural rules are ignored and decorum abandoned. We learned how evil the left can be if left to its own devices. And once again, we learned of the importance of maintaining a man’s innocence until and unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt.
Today, I witnessed a horrible display of incivility and disrespect to the honor and life of another. I have nothing to say about Dr. Ford, as I do not understand what she was thinking and what motivated her to go this far after 35 years without any corroborating evidence; as a matter of fact, she brought only the opposite.
But I did see the attempted destruction of the United States Senate by those who reside within it. It was a despicable display that in the end, left our Republic that much weaker.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/michael-mikey-158755-unsplash-e1538161945555.jpg453640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-28 15:13:482018-09-28 15:13:48Senate Democrats Provide Taste Of Life If They Are In Charge. It’s Horrifying!
The Christian Action Network has launched an aggressive campaign to end any public school celebration of World Hijab Day this coming February of 2019.
World Hijab Day (WHD) was launched in 2004 and began to be celebrated in some public schools in 2013.
Public schools participating in the event ask female students to dress up as Muslims during classroom hours by wearing the Islamic hijab. Some schools add male head garments and other Islamic garb for boys to wear.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/scott-webb-270034-unsplash-e1538160386343.jpg427640Martin Mawyerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMartin Mawyer2018-09-28 14:48:062018-10-08 06:43:18Help Get World Hijab Day out of the Public Schools
The two traced Ellison’s political journey- which started with an attraction to pro-Chinese Communists and the Nation of Islam in college- through his association with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and MPAC as a sitting Congressman. Ellison’s syncretism of Islamist and Marxist ideologies epitomizes the “Red-Green Axis” that seeks to undermine our Western and Judeo-Christian institutions. View an archive of the live stream below:
Ellison is stepping down as a Member of Congress, but remains Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee and is running for the position of Minnesota Attorney General in the 2018 midterm elections. Loudon and Gaffney specifically addressed allegations of abuse that have surfaced and how they might be related to his Islamist beliefs:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-Cut-ProScreenSnapz022-e1538148665412.png359640Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2018-09-28 11:31:122018-09-28 11:31:12VIDEO: Trevor Loudon and the Center’s Frank Gaffney launch scathing critique of Keith Ellison as his Minnesota AG race tightens
Today, I saw the most disgusting display of political gamesmanship ever, if it can be called that. A full-fledged attack on a man’s character, his past, and even his soul. The display brought to mind those videos of frenzied sharks opportunistically swiping bites at their maimed prey. And in this case, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue by a judicial nominee that, although impassioned by anger, frustration, and shear exhaustion, was too meek and respectful to abandon his temperament and call out the 800-pound gorilla in the room: cheap partisan politics
But when the smoke cleared, the Senate Judiciary Committee shed no new light upon the events from thirty-five years ago, and the only thing that lay in tatters was the reputation of the United States Senate.
Thank you, Senate Democrats.
There were a number of goals the Senate Democrats pursued today. The first was to put on display a credible witness with a credible story against a judicial nominee. That witness was Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford, a Palo Alto professor who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was 17 years old. What we saw was a meek woman with a weak voice and sheepish delivery who seemed to conveniently forget the most important and significant of details. Ford’s demeanor was simply too passive for a Ph.D professor.
And then there were the inconsistencies. First, the progression of the events had to be delayed because of Ford’s fear of flying, yet she flew into Washington for the hearing.
Then we heard Ford actually flew to all sorts of places. To Delaware to be with her family. To Polynesia for personal pursuits. To Costa Rica. To Hawaii. And she flew not for life altering important events, but for pleasure!
And then we learned that the neural receptors in Ford’s hypocampus were predisposed to her developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events that took place 35 years ago. But when asked if there had been any possible environmental stressors that could have deteriorated her condition, she said there were none. Nothing else in her life had ever caused her any stress. Quite simply a incredible assertion.
And then a little pearl. She would have been able to do the hearing earlier if the Senate had offered to go to her.
But they did! And when this was pointed out, her attorney was quick to object.
From before the hearing, we knew she couldn’t place the house. But during the heating we learned that the house where the events took place was about a 15 minute drive from her home. So after establishing that she was driven there and back, she still couldn’t remember who drove her to the party and back.
Wouldn’t you think that the person who had driven her home from that party would have driven an absolutely mortified 15-year-old home? No 15-year-old can bluff so well so as to hide her emotions from the person driving her home that night, and even if she could, Ford should have been able to tell us what she did in preparation for what was likely the longest trip home of her life. How had she maintained her composure? Did she cry prior to getting in the car? How did she hide her emotions from her parents that night?
But there was none of that.
Ford also did not know who paid for the polygraph test, or who was paying for her attorneys.
When faced with a prosecuting attorney that treated her with kid gloves under five minute time constraints, none of the tough questions were asked. But even at this point, something seemed off about her testimony. For me, I just kept going back to not having ever seen a Ph.D. professor act so meekly.
Then came Judge Kavanaugh. Pardon my vernacular, but he was pissed, as upset as I have ever seen anyoneat a legislative hearing. He was indignant. He was unwavering in his denial that the events described absolutely never happened. And the debacle of the Democrats’ cheap scam began.
Which brings us to the Democrats’ second goal; delay the hearing at all costs through a call for another FBI investigation.
The most obnoxious individual in promoting this agenda was Senator Dick Durbin who kept insisting that Kavanaugh turn to the White House council, right there and then, and demand than an FBI hearing take place. Despite the intense, and unprofessional display from Durbin, Kavanaugh did not take the bait, recurrently exclaiming that he would do whatever the Committee wanted, but essentially leaving it to the Committee to call for an investigation.
And that’s when a rejuvenated and impassioned Lindsey Graham spoke. He was the first Republican Senator to break ranks with the optional protocol the caucus had set up for itself of employing the services of an Arizona prosecuting attorney to ask the questions. Instead, Graham took the microphone himself and resoundingly called the proceedings a sham. His was a performance so riveting, so emotional, so raw and filled with honesty that it made Al Pacino’s performance in And Justice For All, look like child’s play. The Democrats don’t want an investigation, Graham exclaimed. If they did, they wouldn’t have sat on Ford’s complaint for weeks.
From Graham and others we learned that by the time Kavanaugh met with Feinstein, her staff and she had already assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer, and she mentioned nothing to Kavanaugh at their private meeting! Nor did she say anything at the time of the hearing. Feinstein’s deceitful performance in her handling of this case was so despicable, that it brought the spurious call for an FBI investigation to a halt.
Additionally, in a case where there is nothing to pursue, no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no DNA, no pictures, and no iron-clad testimonies, there is absolutely nothing the FBI could add.
How about making Kavanaugh look like a raging alcoholic? Here is where Kavanaugh was at his shakiest because he drank as a minor, (“everyone did”) and he liked beer and claimed to still like beer. He seemed a little frazzled as he asked the Senators, “Don’t you like beer, Senator?” To be sure, it’s what many wished to tell these arrogant senators, but it got the judge into the mud a little bit too much.
But once again, the Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse broke one of the sacred rules of public interrogation, he asked questions of his witness to which he did not previously know the answer. Whitehouse thought he would be cute and display a huge blowup of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook page, and thinking that the cryptic entries dealt with sexual activity sought to pursue them.
What does “Renate alumnius” mean?
No, it did not mean that Kavanaugh had claimed to have sexual relations with Renata. (Here’s where Kavanaugh could have said, “No, Senator, I have no control over what your perverted brain may be thinking, but this reference is not to sexual activity,” but he didn’t.)
What does “Ralph” in “Beach Week Ralph Club” mean, and doesn’t that mean that you were a problem drinker?
Senator, it means vomiting, and no, I was not a problem drinker.
And then Whitehouse tried to cross the bridge too far.
And what about the word “boofed”?
Senator, it means flatulence. We were 16. We thought it was funny.
Everyone laughed. And all of a sudden, the absurdity of a Senator dissecting the senior page of a judicial nominee became painfully clear. And the Democrats’ efforts at discrediting the nominee came to an end.
In the end, we finished where we started. If anything, Kavanaugh appeared stronger than before the hearing. Ford looked weaker and less credible. And the Me Too movement continued its descent into the surreal.
So what did we gain from all of this?
Substantively, we gained nothing. But we got further confirmation of the disarray we would live in if this crop of Democrats ran the show. We got a taste of what its like when procedural rules are ignored and decorum abandoned. We learned how evil the left can be if left to its own devices. And once again, we learned of the importance of maintaining a man’s innocence until and unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt.
Today, I witnessed a horrible display of incivility and disrespect to the honor and life of another. I have nothing to say about Dr. Ford, as I do not understand what she was thinking and what motivated her to go this far after 35 years without any corroborating evidence; as a matter of fact, she brought only the opposite.
But I did see the attempted destruction of the United States Senate by those who reside within it. It was a despicable display that in the end, left our Republic that much weaker.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/senate-judiciary-committee.png366640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-28 04:10:342018-09-28 05:41:22Thank You, Senate Democrats.
Politics, chef Fabio Trabocchi said, are like elbows — “best left off the dining table.” Tell that to the zealots on the Left, who seem bent on taking their beef with Republicans to every restaurant in the union.
Two nights ago, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined a club no Republican wants to be a part of: the target of dining flash mobs. Unfortunately for him and his wife, Heidi, this wild new form of protest — chasing conservatives away from their meals — is becoming the norm for Trump’s opponents. Like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Neilsen, White House advisor Stephen Miller, state attorney general Pam Bondi (R-Fla.), and Governor Rick Scott (R-Fla.) before them, the Cruzes just wanted to eat in peace. Instead, they couldn’t even sit down at D.C.’s Fiola after a dozen raving Trump opponents encircled them and started yelling about his support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
“We believe survivors!” a dozen voices screamed in unison. “Fascist, racist, anti-gay!” one said. Another called him a “piece of filth.” On a video the group called “Smash Racism” proudly posted, you can see the restaurant staff looking on in shock. “We’re not trained to deal with this,” Fiola’s co-owner, Maria Trabocchi, later told the Washington Post. “How do you deal with things like this? It’s crazy times.” Employees called the police, but not before the Cruzes endured a barrage of insults. “God bless,” Cruz told the crowd. “Can you let my wife through?”
Trabocchi said the restaurant has served both parties proudly for years — and will continue to do so. But he does worry: what will happen if things turn violent? That’s a legitimate concern now after the group released this statement: “This is a message to Ted Cruz, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum… You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”
The rallying cry of Democratic leaders — “to get up in the face of some congresspeople” as Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — isn’t shaming the Right, it’s exposing the viciousness of the Left. How many conservatives disrupted former Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s dinner after she issued the HHS mandate? Or pushed around DOD Secretary Ash Carter when his social policies jeopardized the military? How many conservatives turned congressional baseball practices into gun fights — or walked into a liberal organization with enough ammunition to kill the whole staff?
If you’re looking for the real hate — it’s on your Left!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/092618_cruz_770x400-e1538044211599.jpg367640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-09-27 06:30:482018-10-03 04:36:10Mobs on the Menu for Cruz
When Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to three life terms for killing at least one mom and snipping the necks of who-knows-how-many babies, Planned Parenthood tweeted that “justice had been done.” But apparently, it’s justice they don’t want anyone talking about.
Five years ago, the case had all the makings of a riveting courtroom drama. The man on trial was charged with serially murdering children and at least one mom in a filthy, blood-splattered horror house near Philadelphia. A real-life monster, he preyed on his victims as a doctor, then stashed parts of their bodies in a basement freezer, jars, or cat-food containers. He tried grinding the pieces down garbage disposals or flushing them down toilets. It was a scene that Philadelphia’s District Attorney Seth Williams said “comprehension of the English language doesn’t and cannot adequately describe.”
Normally, the media would be tripping over themselves to report every grisly detail. But as the gruesome testimonies spilled out, the bright lights of the network cameras were nowhere to be found. And the keyboards of reporters, who race to recount the nightmarish details of every other tragedy, fell silent. It wasn’t because the story lacked jaw-dropping revelations. Sherry West, who had been with the office for years, told the court about a screaming baby that had been born in the clinic and then murdered. Steven Massof, who was also hired by Gosnell, sent shivers down people’s spines when he described the busy times: “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.” In those moments, Massof confessed, “I felt like a fireman in hell. I couldn’t put out all the fires.”
“The killings became so routine,” an employee admitted, “that no one could put an exact number on them. They were considered ‘standard procedure.'” But what’s also become standard procedure in the half-decade since Gosnell’s conviction is for the media to pretend it never happened. The Left ignored the story then – and they want to ignore now.
Hopefully, that will be a lot harder, thanks to the producers of Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer. Despite four years of roadblocks — from censorship to outright intolerance — the film has survived its share of adversity. When Kickstarter refused to let the movie raise money on its site, they took their project to Indiegogo — and broke a crowdfunding record in the process. This past August, the hurdles only got higher. Executive Producer John Sullivan approached about buying airtime, only to be told that the ad was too conservative. Calling Gosnell an “abortionist,” they said, was a violation of their “value-neutral” policy. When Sullivan offered to change it to “abortion doctor,” executives refused a second time. Gosnell had to be a “doctor” — or no deal.
Now, the same organization that insisted Gosnell got what he deserved is doing everything they can to keep his story from being told. In Austin, the local Planned Parenthood is so afraid of people learning the truth about their industry that they bullied the local Hyatt Regency Hotel into canceling a screening of the film. Why? Because it coincided with Planned Parenthood’s $400-a-plate fundraising gala. According to Sullivan, the producers had more than 250 people registered only to be told the event was viewed as a “security” risk.
How ironic. If anyone’s a security risk, it’s the group killing 881 babies a day! Of course, no one should be surprised at Planned Parenthood’s pathetic attempt to shut the movie down. They’re probably afraid more Americans will make the connection between Gosnell’s barbarism and their support for procedures just like it. After all, if the group really wanted to spare women from these horrors, they’d fight for tougher clinic regulations. Instead, they’ve spent the last two decades trying to stop doctors from helping born-alive babies. Obviously, like Gosnell, they only believe “wanted” children have rights.
That would certainly explain why Planned Parenthood knew about Gosnell’s slaughterhouse and did nothing. For years, women and children suffered at the hands of this monster only to find out that Planned Parenthood could have stopped it — and didn’t. And this is the kind of organization we entrust with more than a half-billion taxpayer dollars? One that’s silent on abuse — and too concerned about profits to care about patients? “If Planned Parenthood thinks what Gosnell did was ‘appalling'” — at least publicly — “what do they call their own facilities’ dangerous, unsanitary conditions and practices of infanticide?” Students for Life asked.
In the end, the only way to stop this nightmare is to expose it. The producers of Gosnell did their part. Now it’s up to us. On October 12, go see the movie that the abortion industry doesn’t want you to see! In the meantime, check out what Gosnell‘s stars — including Dean Cain — had to say at VVS about the powerful story behind the film in the panel below. And take a minute to contact the Hyatt Regency in Austin (@Hyatt) and let them know that if they really believed in choice, they’d give audiences one!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/092618_gosnell_770x400-e1538043186785.jpg362640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-09-27 06:16:322018-09-27 06:20:29The Hyatt of Hypocrisy: Banning Gosnell
On September 25, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, Chinese National Arrested for Allegedly Acting Within the United States as an Illegal Agent of the People’s Republic of China.
That Chinese national was identified as Ji Chaoqun, a 27 year old Chinese citizen who had been residing in Chicago was arrested by the FBI for allegedly acting as an illegal agent of the Chinese government.
The Criminal Complaint provided in the press release provides additional information, but this excerpt from the press release lays out the Justice Department’s allegations concerning Chaoqun:
Ji worked at the direction of a high-level intelligence officer in the Jiangsu Province Ministry of State Security, a provincial department of the Ministry of State Security for the People’s Republic of China, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Ji was tasked with providing the intelligence officer with biographical information on eight individuals for possible recruitment by the JSSD, the complaint states. The individuals included Chinese nationals who were working as engineers and scientists in the United States, some of whom were U.S. defense contractors, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, Ji was born in China and arrived in the United States in 2013 on an F1 Visa, for the purpose of studying electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. In 2016, Ji enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as an E4 Specialist under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program, which authorizes the U.S. Armed Forces to recruit certain legal aliens whose skills are considered vital to the national interest. In his application to participate in the MAVNI program, Ji specifically denied having had contact with a foreign government within the past seven years, the complaint states. In a subsequent interview with a U.S. Army officer, Ji again failed to disclose his relationship and contacts with the intelligence officer, the charge alleges.
I have written several articles and commentaries about my concerns that while China has acted as an adversary of the United States last year more than 150,000 Chinese students were admitted into the United States to study the STEM (Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics) curricula.
China is on a rampage, developing large numbers of warships and military aircraft that often bear a strong resemblance to U.S. planes, ships and other such military assets.
China has constructed and militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea and has threatened military action if ship or aircraft of the U.S. or any other county gets too close. flexing its growing military muscles.
In some instances China has been able to enhance its military capability through the acquisition of our military technology through espionage while at the same time, our best universities are providing these students with first-rate educations.
Once enrolled in school in the United States foreign students are entitled to accept employment to attain practical training. All too often this displaces American workers and also provides opportunities for those students.
The Chinese government and entities within the Chinese military hack into American computers as frequently as humming birds beat their wings. They hack into private computers, corporate computers, military compute networks. However, America trains Chinese programmers.
The growing presence of Chinese students and Chinese influence on U.S. college campuses and elsewhere in the United States was the focus of my August 21, 2018 article, China Ratchets Up Its U.S. Spying Programs.
As I noted in that article, frustration with this situation has caused some U.S. security experts to refer to this wholesale espionage by China against the United States as “Chinese Takeout.”
The next element of this unfolding case involves Mr. Chaoqun being able to enlist in the U.S. military under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program that was described above.
This gets us back to the nonsense that we frequently hear from politicians from both political parties, that somehow it makes sense to permit illegal aliens to enlist in the military to then qualify for a pathway to U.S. citizenship.
Awhile back a common quote stated that “All roads lead to Rome.” Today, where “solutions” to the immigration crisis is concerned, you might say that “All roads lead to a pathway to U.S. citizenship (or at least lawful status).”
This is as absurd and naive as it gets!
Chaoqun entered the U.S. legally as a student. His ability to join the US. military facilitated his goal of attempting to recruit spies for China. It must be presumed that he was vetted before he was able to join the MAVNI program, however the vetting process must be carefully reviewed to find out if his alleged connections with Chinese espionage could have been determined before he was able to join the U.S. military.
Military bases are among the most sensitive locations in the United States. Those bases contain weapons, highly classified materials and members of the U.S. armed forces.
It is dangerous to provide foreign nationals with access to our military bases, when we are unable to effectively vet those foreign nationals.
Our political leaders who are often clueless about the how background investigations are conducted often refer to such investigations as “Background Checks.”
A “Background Check” is superficial and often only requires that a name an fingerprints are run through databases to search for known information. This process takes just minutes and if the person assumes a false identity and his/her fingerprints are not known to that system, the system will essentially give that individual a clean “bill of health.”
Background investigations, on the other hand, are far more comprehensive and complete. They are time consuming and require investigations be conducted the old fashioned way, by interviewing many people, showing photographs and checking myriad databases. If those interviewed, for example claim that the person being investigated has use alternate identities, or other such major discrepancies are uncovered, then those new leads must be run down to gain a total picture.
Simply running names and fingerprints are nearly worthless and not likely to uncover fraud. These concerns were the predication for an extensive article and a booklet I wrote under the common title, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.
The immigration system, and the system by which visas applications are adjudicated are so overwhelmed that it is easy for a bad actor to slip through the cracks.
It is extremely fortunate that in the case that predicates my article today, that Chaoqun’s alleged nefarious actions were discovered. However, he is hardly the only foreign national who is engaged in such activities. Just as only a tiny percentage of motorists who speed ever get caught, it must be presumed that while some spies are caught, others are not caught and they can do truly irreparable damage to U.S. national security.
In point of fact, because this is apparently such a common practice that China refers to its efforts to spy on the United States as employing the principle of “A thousand grains of sand.” Under this principle there are so many individuals who engage in this sort of espionage that all that each one needs to do is send back to China a very few parts to the puzzle where military aircraft, ships, weaponry or other sensitive information is concerned. Once all of the pieces of the puzzles are in China it is relatively easy for them to create a mosaic to gain the entire picture by connecting each “grain of sand.”
As we can clearly see, the policies of the Trump administration to finally address the economic conflict between the United States and China represents the tip of a huge iceberg. This economic conflict served as the predication for my article, Fears About Chinese “Trade War” Are Late And Dumb. As I noted in that article, China has been waging economic war against the U.S. for decades.
Hope is not a strategy. The United States must move swiftly to protect its security and the security of its citizens from all threats.
America’s borders are its first line of defense and last line of defense.
President Trump’s welcome calls for national sovereignty sum up that which would be in the best interests of America and Americans in this dangerous and turbulent era.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. Reprinted with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/spies-e1538040881531.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2018-09-27 05:34:492018-09-27 05:38:13CHINESE CITIZEN ARRESTED BY FBI FOR SPYING ON U.S.: A case that highlights the nexus between immigration and espionage.
ontrary to statements from the former president of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who alleges that sanctions issued by the United States are to blame for the current exodus from Venezuela, exiles affirm that the fault for the current exodus actually lies with Havana, not the United States.
Cuba’s Communist Oligarchy
“In Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua there are three different governments, and they are the same regime: a Communist regime controlled by Castro’s intelligence services, which is using these countries to keep the Communist oligarchy in power,” said Orlando Gutiérrez Boronat of the Cuban Democratic Directorate.
“That is why the Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans who are in struggle, who are in open resistance, against Sandinismo, have the support of the Cuban people, of the Assembly of the Cuban Resistance, in these key moments to free Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela,” he says.
For his part, Juan José López-Díaz, an exiled Cuban lawyer and activist, argues that “the common enemy is Communism, this socialism of the 21st century, which has plundered Venezuela, which is destroying Nicaragua, and which has destroyed Cuba.”
“I feel very honored that the people who maintain an uncompromising position against this Latin American Communism that is damaging the freedom and prosperity of our peoples, come together to fight against it,” he concludes.
However, Zapatero, who presided over the motherland (from which Cuba was the last Latin American colony to gain independence), now argues that the United States is to blame for the current Venezuelan exodus. It should be noted that Zapatero was an observer of the widely criticized Venezuelan elections and did not notice any irregularities— even though key sectors of the opposition could not participate.
Communism Depends on Free Markets
It is curious that the defenders of socialism blame the misery in Cuba on the United States because of the embargo (which, of course, is not a blockade). Today they apply the same reasoning to Venezuela. Confessing that the solution is to turn to free markets, the irony is lost on them entirely.
“As always happens with the economic sanctions that produce a financial blockade, who ultimately pays the price is not the government, but the citizens, the people. This should lead to some reflection and consideration,” Zapatero said during a forum in Sao Paulo.
It was precisely in that city that, together with the union leader who later became president and is now imprisoned for corruption, Lula Da Silva, Fidel Castro set up the Sao Paulo Forum, which reorganized internationalist socialism after the fall of the Berlin Wall and served to rally the socialist bloc in Latin America, giving voice to their Marxist ambitions.
Brazil’s role was key because its geographic location (bordering all South American countries except Ecuador) was useful for logistics. Venezuela’s role would be to provide resources, thanks to oil.
Amid Chavez’s triumph in Venezuela, he gave Cuba more money than the Soviet Union did in almost 30 years. That is, Cuba went from feeding off of one socialist state to plundering another.
From January to May of 2018, Venezuela’s state-run oil company (PDVSA) delivered 11.74 million barrels (about 49,000 per day) of oil to Cuba. PDVSA has sent the regime an additional 4.19 million barrels since June.
Although the company is in such a crisis that it sells its oil to the United States and buys gasoline with the proceeds, they are still more than happy to give oil away to Cuba. At the same time, this shows that the blockade alleged by Zapatero and the defenders of socialism still allows for business between the two countries and does not prevent Venezuela from collaborating with its allies who are, in turn, historical enemies of the United States.
The Resistance Continues
Recently, exiles from Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua met to repudiate the same regime and system that oppresses their respective countries: the Castros and socialism.
On September 15, in Little Havana, the exiles paid tribute to Nestor Izquierdo, who fought in a Cuban anti-communist brigade and later died in Nicaragua fighting against the Sandinista dictatorship, a satellite state of Cuban communists.
That same date marks the independence of Nicaragua and the birth of the Consejo Nueva Nicaragua, a coalition of opposition groups whose objective is “to strengthen the struggle for the liberation of Nicaragua from the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship and the Sandinista National Liberation Front.” The regime’s paramilitary forces have killed 448 Nicaraguans (according to human rights organizations; according to the Ortega government the figure is less than half that) for demonstrating against the government in the streets.
“We are not going to stop until we reach victory. And the victory is nothing other than the freedom of Nicaragua,” Nicaraguan activist Muñeca Fuentes assured the others.
“Long live Cuba! Long live America without Communism!” everyone shouted in unison.
Mamela Fiallo Flor is a translator for the PanAm Post. She is a university professor, translator, interpreter, and the co-founder of the Cuban Libertarian Party.
EDITORS NOTE: This column and featured image is reprinted with permission from FEE.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/venezuela1-e1537967387555.jpg428640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2018-09-26 09:11:022018-09-26 09:11:02Blame Cuba for the Mass Exodus from Nicaragua and Venezuela, not the U.S.
We’ve covered the issues at length at FEE, and quite effectively, if I do say so myself. But I have to admit that one of the greatest takedowns of the minimum wage you’ll ever find comes from an unlikely place: The New York Times.
There are many reasons people and politicians find the minimum wage attractive, of course. But the Times, in an editorial entitled “The Right Minimum Wage: 0.00,” skillfully rebuts each of these reasons in turn.
Noting that the federal minimum wage has been frozen for some six years, the Times admits that it’s no wonder that organized labor is pressuring politicians to increase the federal minimum wage to raise the standard of living for poorer working Americans.
“No wonder. But still a mistake,” the Times explains. “There’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed.”
But why has the idea “passed”? Why would raising the minimum wage not help the working poor?
“Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market,” the editors explain.
But wouldn’t the minimum wage increase the purchasing power of low-income Americans? Wouldn’t a meaningful increase allow a single breadwinner to support a family of three and actually be above the official U.S. poverty line?
Ideally, yes. But there are unseen problems, as the editors point out:
There are catches…[A higher minimum wage] would increase employers’ incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.
But if that’s true, why would progressives support such a law? What’s their rationale for supporting a minimum wage if it does more harm than good? Is it sheer political opportunism?
Not necessarily. The Times explains:
A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable.
There’s just one problem with this logic, the editors say:
The argument isn’t convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs. The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable – and fundamentally flawed. It’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.
Times Have Changed
It’s a compelling, reasoned, and erudite argument. But it’s not exactly what one expects to see in The New York Times these days. (A naughty person might say the same about reason and erudition in general in the paper.)
So what gives? Alas, the editorial is a relic. It was written way, way back in 1987. A lot has changed since then.
We’ve had a couple wars. The internet was introduced to the masses. There was 9-11. We elected the nation’s first black president. The Cubs and Red Sox won the World Series. There was even a female reboot of Ghostbusters.
At least one thing, however, did not change. That would be the laws of economics. They hold as fast and true in 2018 as they did in 1987.
The Times’ editorial board might have changed. The perception of the minimum wage certainly changed. Relatively recent polls show seven out of ten Americans support raising the federal minimum wage. Several cities—Seattle, New York, and Minneapolis, among them—have passed laws that raised (or will soon raise) the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
So it’s safe to say the minimum wage laws have become more popular, no doubt in part from campaigns promoting them and an education system sympathetic to them. Still, economic laws do not change based on how popular humans find them. They remain true and constant whether they are popular or not.
In fact, some have observed that economic laws are inherently unpopular.
“In economics, the majority is always wrong,” John Kenneth Galbraith once allegedly quipped.
Now, there have been a lot of complaints directed at corporate media in recent years, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So let’s give the Times a hand.
The paper was right in 1987. And if politicians are genuinely interested in helping the poor, they’ll stick a stake in the heart of the minimum wage once and for all.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. Serving previously as Director of Digital Media at Intellectual Takeout, Jon was responsible for daily editorial content, web strategy, and social media operations. Before that, he was the Senior Editor of The History Channel Magazine, Managing Editor at Scout.com, and general assignment reporter for the Panama City News Herald. Jon also served as an intern in the speechwriting department under George W. Bush.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is provided by FEE and is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/living-wage-e1537966470170.jpeg384640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2018-09-26 08:55:502018-09-26 08:55:50The New York Times Explains Why the Minimum Wage Should Be $0.00
Candidate Donald Trump said he wanted to “Make America Great Again.” Twenty-one months into his first term, it’s obvious that President Trump wants to make every nation great. And while some members of the U.N. General Assembly may find that funny, I assure you that people in the darkest corners of the world do not.
“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished almost more than any other administration in the history of our country,” the president said to unexpected laughter in the room. He paused for a minute and then went on. “I didn’t expect that reaction,” he told them, “but that’s okay… We are standing up for America and the American people, and we are also standing up for the world. This is great news for our citizens and for peace-loving people everywhere.” For the millions of Christians trapped in hopeless situations around the globe, the Trump administration has been the answer to their desperate prayers. Trapped in torture factories in Iran or tied up with ropes and beaten in India, believers don’t have to worry about being forgotten anymore. After eight years of Barack Obama, they finally have an American leader who cares.
That’s good news for Pastor Andrew Brunson, who’s two weeks away from another trial in Turkey that could decide his fate. No one has been a bigger advocate of his release than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told reporters in New York yesterday that the drumbeat for his freedom goes on. “He could be released this month,” he explained. “He should have been released last month. And he should be released today, in fact. We have talked to the Turks. They know the expectations.”
Pastor Brunson’s daughter, Jacqueline Furnari, can only hope the nation holding her father captive is finally listening. At this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, she talked about what a strain the ordeal has been on her dad — and the entire family.
“It’s a sham trial and my dad is being used as a bargaining chip and suffering for Jesus Christ… Throughout this entire time, my dad has been unable to be with his family,” she said. “It’s what has hurt him the most, is having that time stolen from him — watching his children grow up, helping my brothers make their decisions as they go on in life. It’s been a painful time and we’re just ready for it all to be over.”
Through it all, though, she couldn’t be more inspired by his courage. “It is an incredible testimony and I cannot be more grateful for his example,” she said to overwhelming applause. “And at this point, all that we can do is just continue praying. I ask that all of you pray for my dad’s release and pray for others who are persecuted for their faith.”
Minutes before, Pompeo had waited through deafening applause when he said the greatest highlight of his job so far was “bringing home three Americans from captivity in North Korea.” “On the day Pastor Brunson returns, just like the men I spoke of…” he promised, “they also will be able to say that the Lord has done great things for us, and again, our hearts will be filled with joy.”
But it isn’t just what the administration is saying that’s giving people hope. It’s what they’re doing. When you see men and women like President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Sam Brownback, and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley taking these stories so seriously, it gives Christians everywhere the boldness to speak up. That’s why pastors in China are taking such an unprecedented stand against the communist party. They know that when it comes to religious liberty, America has their back. Even ChinaAid’s Bob Fu is astounded at the number of Chinese pastors — 344 — who’ve signed a public statement defying the government’s order on faith. In all of his years fighting the Chinese regime, he’s never seen anything like it. It seems the tougher the crackdown gets, the more resolved Christians are to risk everything. “For the sake of the gospel,” they vow, “we are prepared to bear all losses — even the loss of our freedom and our lives.”
This is just another example of how the administration’s support for religious liberty gives hope and help to believers around the globe. It’s also another reminder of what’s at stake this November — not just for America, but the world.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/092518_persecution_770x400-e1537964698756.jpg369640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-09-26 08:25:562018-09-26 08:26:51U.N. Bears the Blunt of Trump
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
