Hundreds Of Media Outlets Make Trump’s Point Today

/in , , , , /by

The media is a surprisingly self-unaware lot sometimes. And boy are they putting a fine point on that today.

A few months ago, the media went into circus hysterics when Sinclair Broadcast Group required all of the company’s television news anchors around the country to read a scripted editorial that pointed out the “troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country,” decried “fake stories” and lamented that “some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.”

The media responded theatrically about how “chilling” was this call to commit better journalism than is being done. Well, actually they were most upset at some corporate suits daring to tell journalists to commit to high standards. Sure, it may have been poor optics to recite the exact same verbiage on each station. The goal of the script, however, is something every media outlet says it aspires to and does (but doesn’t.)

Here is the dirty little secret. What Sinclair did is exactly what happens at newspapers across the country every day. An editorial board — in almost all newspapers made up entirely of leftists — determine what the opinion of the newspaper will be. Not the owner, not the suits, a group of leftists who largely all think alike. And those opinions across the country from paper to TV are as uniform as the Sinclair statement in terms of worldview, politics and agenda. And far more nefarious to America and the role of the media.

Today, in a self-unawareness zeitgeist, literally hundreds of newspapers across the nation are taking to their editorial pages — as one, a la Sinclair — to denounce and attack President Trump and his “media is the enemy” rhetoric. They pledged to all write editorials and publish them on this day, today — to recite a pro-media, anti-Trump message all at once. Just. Like. Sinclair…Self. Un. Aware.

Now frankly, they do this all the time anyway. This bit of publicity stunt was dreamt up by the relentlessly liberal Boston Globe to show the importance of journalists. Now mind you, they don’t really mean Breitbart or Fox or Daily Caller journalists. No, those aren’t real journalists. They’re the wrong kind of journalists because they have the wrong bias. Real journalists are biased from the left. Sure, they don’t see it in those terms, but it is undeniably true.

Of course, this is hyped up nonsense in pursuit of an agenda — exactly what Sinclair was rightly saying journalists shouldn’t be doing. How can I be so sure? President Trump has not lifted one finger to limit the expression of the journalists or cause them any harm while President Obama waged a veritable war against the friendly media and was arguably the most dangerous president to American media freedoms in the modern age.

Obama spied on AP reporters by seizing phone records of more than 100 journalists in a dragnet to scare off whistleblowers. It was thug intimidation of both journalists and whistleblowers. Obama also went after Fox News reporter James Rosen, and named him a “co-conspirator” to pursue criminal charges after he — get this — published leaked information. Obama also went after New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal his source of a leak. In fact, Obama used the arcane Espionage Act to pursue nine other reporters who reported leaks. Further, in one of his first acts in office, Obama dismissed AP photo so he could better control pictures of himself. And Obama’s Federal Communications Commission was actually planning to put government monitors in newsrooms to see how reporters gathered information. (They ultimately backed down.)

Now, how many reporters have been criminally pursued or monitored under President Trump for about 10 billion leaks? None that we are aware of. How many phone records seized? None. How many charged as co-conspirators for publishing leaks? None. And so on.

And yet here we are. Through all those Obama media assaults, there was never an organized editorial day to fight back against the dangerous usurpations of that administration. In fact, there was little more than perfunctory reporting. No outrage. Why? Because Obama was their guy. He represented their vision for the country and their agenda for getting there. In practice they were every bit as much his wingmen as Eric Holder. It’s what inevitably happens with a monolithically one-think media.

A few journalists saw it and still remember. They are worth highlighting because they are a rare species.

Here’s what the New York Times’ Risen wrote shortly after Trump’s election:

“If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.”

Chicago Tribune anti-Trump columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote in June:

“But what happened under Obama set an ominous tone for reporters who were trying to do their jobs of informing the public.”

This tiny handful of journalists saw the dramatic and real actions taken against reporters by Obama. But the media at large just yawned. Why? Because unlike Sinclair’s corporate statement on good journalism, the Globe, Times and all the rest hold a monolithically left to far-left and vehemently anti-Trump worldview.

The reason this is so much more telling than Sinclair’s, which was a one-time, generic statement promising good journalism, is that this reveals publicly, by the newspapers themselves, just how uniformly their worldview is anti-Trump. Trump’s statements of “enemy of the people” simply reflects him somewhat hyperbolically seeing himself as a representative of the people — which he, sort of, is electorally. Today’s antic puts in neon lights that they are certainly an enemy of Trump.

The media’s anti-Trumpism is the actual agenda Sinclair was decrying. Yet the self-unaware media only saw a chilling effect by Trump’s words while shrugging indifferently all the way through Obama’s literal attacks on the media — cheering themselves on now in pursuing their own journalistically ubiquitous, anti-elected President agenda.

So the very thing they decried as chilling when Sinclair did it in favor of good journalism, they are now doing to attack the President. They not only don’t see that, they see themselves on the side of the angels. The vast majority of America disagrees.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: Newspapers are ‘in collusion’; fake news ‘an opposition party’ as 300 editorials protest

The Media’s Double Standard on Taking Relatives’ Views Seriously

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Energy Conferees Shut Down Fuel Economy Mandates as Costly to Consumers

/in , , , , , , /by

NEW ORLEANS—Sterling Burnett doesn’t always want to sit next to someone he doesn’t know on a train, plane, or bus.

But he’s willing to fight for the freedom of those same strangers when it comes time for them to purchase a motor vehicle.

“What I care about is … your freedom to choose the vehicle of your choice,” Burnett, an environmental policy expert for the Heartland Institute, said during a panel discussion at the free-market think tank’s America First Energy Conference that took a critical look at fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

“I don’t think government should be in the business of deciding the characteristics of the vehicle you drive,” Burnett said of the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. “That’s what CAFE standards do. Automobility is a form of freedom.”

Burnett, a senior fellow on environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization based in Illinois, espoused the virtues of automotive freedom:

I take the train, I enjoy the train, and we all fly. And I take buses. But sometimes that’s not my alternative and quite frankly, I don’t always want to sit next to strangers. And maybe I want to listen to a particular kind of music or a news program, and I don’t want plugs in my ears.

When I used to commute to work, I enjoyed my time in the car because it was my time and it wasn’t dominated by work. Cars allow [you] to have the freedom to live outside of inner cities, and to visit distant relatives whenever you want. One hundred years ago, you couldn’t do this.

‘Victory for Consumer Choice’

Congress first enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards in 1975 in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973 that limited gasoline supplies and drove up prices. The idea was to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

The latest version of CAFE and emissions standards for light-duty vehicles is called SAFE, an acronym for Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.

The Trump administration has proposed a rule change that is a joint initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The two agencies are seeking public comment on regulatory options, according to a press release, “including a preferred alternative that locks in [model year] 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases.”

Nick Loris, an economist with The Heritage Foundation who focuses on energy, environmental, and regulatory issues, credits the Trump administration with moving forward with a proposal that he sees as beneficial to consumers.

“Without a doubt, the Trump administration’s recent proposal is a welcome victory for consumer choice, but also for people who are just concerned about the upfront costs of new cars and new trucks,” Loris said during the panel discussion at the Heartland Institute conference.

“It would be nice if Congress demonstrated similar fortitude and recognized that energy use mandates for vehicles, for dishwashers, and [for] clocks on microwaves are all unnecessary and repealed these standards, but I think that’s wishful thinking.”

Challenging California

The Trump administration’s preferred alternative “reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction” and is expected to reduce road fatalities and injuries, the EPA and highway safety agency say in the press release.

The rule change begins a process to create a new, 50-state standard for fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions for cars and light trucks with the model years 2021 through 2026.

The Obama administration permitted California to set its own auto emissions standards under a federal waiver, but the Trump administration could seek to eliminate the waiver as part of the change.

Twelve states concentrated in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest follow California’s lead with stricter emissions standards, as does the District of Columbia.

The Obama administration worked with state officials in California to set fuel efficiency standards, a key component of Barack Obama’s efforts as president to address climate change.

If the Trump administration proposal is implemented, California and the 12 other states would need to observe the new federal rules on emissions.

 ‘Relics of the Past’

Loris, the Heritage economist, described energy use mandates and CAFE standards as “relics of the past” and byproducts of “politically concocted problems” that put energy consumers at a disadvantage.

Loris said he sees a “systemic problem” in how politicians, pundits, and lobbyists view energy markets.

“The inability of the federal government and regulators to predict what’s going to happen in energy markets” often leads to counterproductive regulatory policies, he said.

For instance, Loris noted, predictions about the price of oil tend to be off the mark.

For a 2008 article, The Wall Street Journal asked “a wide range of economists, energy analysts, and other experts to predict what the price of oil would be at the end of year,” Loris recalled.

Their predictions ranged from a low of $70 per barrel to a high of $167.50. The actual price: $44.60.

Sam Kazman, a panelist who is a lawyer with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, discussed a legal victory he secured on behalf of the Washington-based free-market public policy organization.

A federal appeals court ruled that federal transportation officials illegally concealed how fuel-efficiency standards jeopardized public safety on the highways.

The court found that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration illegally tried “to paper over” the safety issue through a combination of “fudged analysis,” “statistical legerdemain,” “lame claims,” and “specious arguments.”

Keeping Costs Down

Kazman expressed disappointment that avowed consumer-safety champions such as former presidential candidate Ralph Nader didn’t support the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s position against the fuel-efficiency standards.

But to improve public safety through CAFE standards requires officials to “get rid of a government program, rather than expanding it,” he said.

With the proposed rule change, Trump administration officials say they anticipate consumers will experience reduced costs and improved safety.

“The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families,” the EPA’s release says, adding:

Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.

Officials also point to a study earlier this year by the highway safety agency that found newer vehicles are safer than older vehicles now on the road, and their wider use would result in fewer fatalities and injuries.

“What the Trump administration has done is stunning,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during another panel examining the administration’s progress on energy policy.

“They have kicked California out of setting the CAFE standard,” Ebell said. “They have done everything right, and it is great for consumer choice.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is of A woman pumping gas at a station in Falls Church, Virginia December 16, 2014. Photo by REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque.

Film about Abortionist Kermit Gosnell, America’s Biggest Serial Killer, opens on October 12, 2018 [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

In a Life News article titled “‘Gosnell; Movie Trailer Released, Horror Story of Abortionist Showing in 750 Theaters in October” Steven Ertelt reports:

The trailer for the new movie “Gosnell” has just been released and it will surely make watchers want to see the intense new film.

The feature film, “Gosnell,” which is scheduled for release in October, unmasks the shocking true story of the investigation and trial of Kermit Gosnell, a man who performed countless illegal, late-term abortions and murdered several born children as well.

He is the abortion practitioner who killed babies in live-birth abortions that were more akin to infanticide than abortion. The media virtually ignored Kermit Gosnell until the pro-life movement launched a concerned effort to call them out on their bias during the early stages of his trial for murder.

Now, Gosnell is prison, having been convicted of murder in the deaths of multiple babies,though he was accused of killing thousands of viable babies. Still, one report from Gallup showed a large percentage of Americans still have no idea who Gosnell is and what he did.

Read more.

Watch the trailer for the docudrama “Gosnell”:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chelsea Clinton Headlines ‘Rise Up for Roe’ Event, Thanks Planned Parenthood and NARAL

Chelsea Clinton is Wrong. Killing 61 Million Babies Has Caused a GDP Deficit of $62.6 Trillion

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Hillary Clinton pushing a ‘Free Kermit Gosnell’ t-shirt at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in July 2013.

Escape from New York: Big Government Is Chasing Away the Small Businesses It Doesn’t Kill

/in , , , , /by

Big government is crushing small business owners around the nation, punishing decades of hard work and job creation. Too few people speak up as the burdens of the regulatory and nanny states slam down upon them, but every now and then I hear from someone in trouble.

Most recently, I received a call from New York City businessman Eli Amsel. In 2016, he told a New York State Assembly committee that he was inspired to start his own business thanks to his grandfather—a Holocaust survivor—who impressed upon him the value of freedom and the opportunity to pursue the American dream. “And that’s why I had this inspiration, and I made it work, and I’m here 34 years later, after toiling all these years,” he said. Amsel launched his business in 1982 from the basement of his father’s Brooklyn home.

Since then, Amsel has been selling unbranded plastic and paper bags to a variety of shop owners, and he spent decades building his client base. Certainly not a “get-rich-quick” scheme, it required driving the city from one shop to another, finding the right products, and building relationships with shop owners. As the business grew, Amsel began shipping with UPS, hiring workers, and he bought a warehouse to store his products. He had something he hoped to pass on to his three children and eight grandchildren, but now he’s worried that part of that dream may never materialize.

Despite the growing economy, Amsel says his business is down by 20 percent because New York’s regulatory environment is crushing him. In particular, during the past several years, the regulatory state has delivered a triple whammy: an insanely high minimum wage hike, bag taxes, and now a possible ban on his key product—plastic bags.

Goodbye American dream; hello regulatory nightmare.

In this first of two posts about Amsel, we’ll take a look at one of his biggest challenges: minimum wage laws. Supposedly such laws are implemented to help employees, but they do more to put people out of work or reduce their hours than anything else. These laws kill small businesses that would otherwise provide jobs.

Signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2016, the state began phasing in a minimum wage hike starting in December 2017 that will ultimately increase to $15 per hour over the next year and a half. Businesses with more than 11 employees must comply by December 2018, and businesses with 10 or fewer workers have until December 2019. See the chart below from the New York Department of Labor website for details.

Other states and localities are also imposing such anti-employee, anti-business wage increases, including Seattle, Washington, and the entire state of California. The results are not good.

Minimum wage laws often force employers to make tough decisions to stay afloat, such as cutting the number of employees and/or work hours. A study conducted in the state of Washington showed that minimum wage laws in Seattle actually reduced worker income because employers reduced the number of hours employees could work. Some people dispute the findings of this study with questionable claims of their own, but it’s really only common sense. No one needs a study to understand that when labor costs are artificially increased, businesses have to find ways to offset them, and obviously that does not help workers.

New York’s law created the perverse incentive for small businesses that have just above 10 employees to cut their employee numbers down to 10 immediately to avoid the fee increase for at least one year, after which they may have to cut more or reduce hours.

That’s what Amsel had to do—eliminate four jobs to bring his total employees below 10. So while some of his employees may have gotten a “raise,” four were left without jobs. And he had to drastically cut the hours and eliminate some paid holidays for his remaining employees. And once December 2019 arrives, he may have to consider reducing hours or eliminating more employees.

Amsel is not alone. The minimum wage hike is harming lots of businesses—closing down historic mom-and-pop neighborhood eateries, and forcing other business to flee to other states.

Restaurants are being hit hard in New York as well. As the wage law is phased in, the tip-based approach for wait staff is largely being replaced by a $10-per-hour salary, plus a guaranteed $5-an-hour in tips the employer must pay if tips don’t amount to that much. This will likely change how dining establishments operate. Expect to see more at-table computerized ordering and fewer wait staff. Such automation is fine when restaurants choose to do it, but many restaurants will basically be forced into making such changes because they won’t be able to afford the labor.

It’s no wonder people are leaving New York.

Some local lawmakers have started to catch on. Although Democratic politicians have traditionally supported minimum wage laws, Washington, D.C.’s largely Democratic (eleven Democrats and two left-of-center Independents) city council is trying to repeal a voter initiative increasing the minimum wage to $15 in the nation’s capital. Apparently, they don’t want to see D.C.’s economic health go down the drain.

Amsel tells me that he would like to see Congress and the president take a similar action nationally—essentially repealing such state and local minimum wage laws by passing legislation to preempt them. He’s got a point. If the Democratic D.C. Council is willing to take a stand, why not Congress? You can learn more about his story in this YouTube video and this New York Daily News story.

Reprinted from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

SPECIAL REPORT: Episcopal Sodomy — Donald Wuerl Must Go!

/in , , , , /by

Donald Wuerl — the cardinal-archbishop of Washington, D.C. — must go.

The kingpin of the American hierarchy — a man who over the decades has carefully and meticulously cultivated an image of reformer — has now been exposed as a fraud, just as guilty as scores of other bishops in the U.S. who hid and shuffled around homosexual predator priests and concelaed them from law enforcement officials.

The long-awaited bombshell Pennsylvania Grand Jury report is out, released in dramatic fashion — live streamed by the attorney general’s office — and Donald Wuerl has now been revealed as one of the major players in the decades-long cover-up of child sex abuse during his time as bishop of Pittsburgh.

The senior American prelate’s name appears more than 160 times in the report.

Despite his carefully manufactured facade over the years as being a leader of the “zero tolerance” policy, what is now clear is that he was complicit in shuffling priests around in what he himself termed a “Circle of Secrecy.”

In one of the more than half million pages of internal Church documents the grand jury reviewed, Wuerl himself had noted in those documents that the Church’s child sex abuse cover-up was a “circle of secrecy.”

Wuerl was publicly condemned by PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro as one of the Pennsylvania bishops who had covered up abuse and was then promoted.

In the case of one notorious homosexual predator priest, in 1966, Wuerl gave his approval for the priest to transfer to California without adequately informing them of the priest’s long history of sexual assault against minors.

The diocese of San Diego, where the priest went, contacted Wuerl and said the insurance carrier wanted the following question answered: That Father has “not had any problems involving sexual abuse, any history of sexual involvement with minors or others, or any inappropriate sexual behavior.”

The grand jury charges that Wuerl did not provide the full truth to San Diego regarding the priest.

Wuerl did not suspend his faculties. And the priest continued to enjoy the support of Wuerl and the diocese. The priest Ernest Paone had been abusing children for 41 years, and yet was never removed from active ministry.

Likewise, as the reports of the initial homosexual priest sex abuse problem was exploding across the nation’s headlines from Boston, the grand jury report charges that Wuerl communicated nothing of the criminal homosexul assaults of Paone to the district attorney’s office.

The report goes on to add, “In spite of Wuerl’s statements to the Vatican, the clear and present threat that Paone posed to children was hidden and kept secret (by Wuerl) from parishioners in three states. Wuerl’s statements had been meaningless without any action.”

The grand jury also noted regarding Wuerl that it was only the “external force” of the media reports “that generated the action (by Wuerl) which should have occurred decades earlier” — referring to the removal of Fr. Paone’s faculties.

In another case directly implicating Wuerl, Fr. George Zirwas, a Pittsburgh priest found murdered in his apartment in Havana, Cuba in 2001 by a male prostitute, had been accused of sex abuse as early as 1987.

When Wuerl was first installed in 1988, he received complaints that Zirwas had fondled a 16-year-old boy’s genitals.

In the same month, Wuerl received a second complaint from a male complaining Zirwas had groped him when he was 17.

Wuerl sent Zirwas away for treatment, and then placed him back in active ministry, where he was shuffled from parish to parish for another decade.

In spite of receiving yet another complaint about Zirwas in 1991, with a male victim claiming Zirwas had groped him, Wuerl left him to continue in active ministry.

Even more disturbing, Zirwas was connected to a priest pederast ring that involved drugs, alcohol and sadomasochistic acts involving whips and chains used on two teen altar boys, this taking place partly under Wuerl’s tenure.

This is what the grand jury report says about that:

During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury uncovered a ring of predatory priests operating within the Diocese who shared intelligence or information regarding victims as well as exchanging the victims amongst themselves. This ring also manufactured child pornography on Diocesan property, including parishes and rectories. This group included: Zirwas, Francis Pucci, Robert Wolk, and Richard Zula. This group of priests used whips, violence and sadism in raping their victims.

The boys specially chosen for the priests’ abuse were given gifts of gold crosses, which allowed the priests to identify which ones had been groomed for abuse.

According to the grand jury report, the diocese under Wuerl knew about the priests’ sordid activities but volunteered none of this information to the police or prosecutor during the investigation.

In fact, Wuerl even agreed to give Zirwas a higher payout in exchange for Zirwas’ silence about other homosexual predatory priests in Pittsburgh.

The grand jury report notes that in 1996, Zirwas demanded that his monthly pay be increased in exchange for his statement disavowing all knowledge of other predator priests’ illegal sexual conduct. Zirwas signed the statement, and Wuerl gave him a bonus payout — in addition to the monthly stipend Zirwas was already receiving from the diocese.

In an interview with CBS News earlier today, before the release of the grand jury report, Donald Wuerl was asked point blank if he should resign.

Nikki Battiste: “Some people have called for your resignation. Do you have any plans to resign?”

Cdl. Wuerl: “It goes back over 70 years, so I think we have to be realistic and say, this claim goes back over decades and decades.”

Yesterday, in anticipation of the reports released today, Wuerl has the gall to issue this statement: “I was bishop during that period of time, I think that’s why I’m involved at all. I was bishop there for 18 years. There’s no charge at all that I was involved in anything.”

That statement is either delusional or a flat-out lie.

There are charges, specific charges contained directly in the grand jury report that he was involved in any number of sordid issues.

What now remains to be seen is if other American bishops will now call on the Vatican to strip Wuerl from the College of Cardinals, as Pope Francis did with Cdl. McCarrick.

The Pope himself has issued a zero tolerance policy with regard to bishops who covered up sexual abuse of minors by homosexual clergy, and Donald Wuerl is now the poster boy for this whole seedy, demonic affair.

Donald Wuerl must go. The U.S. bishops have no choice on the matter but to begin calling for his immediate resignation, followed by removal from the College of Cardinals.

The moment of truth has arrived for U.S. bishops.

Either they are serious about cleaning all this up — as their flood of statements the past few days claim they are — or they are hypocrites afraid to damage their careers by calling for the downfall of the most powerful cardinal in the American Church.

Stay tuned to Church for continuing coverage, and to see which choice the American bishops make.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Catholic Church Rocked By New Scandal: THREE HUNDRED Predator Priests Named In Grand Jury Report.

Atheist group: ‘Lock up’ USAF commander for his faith

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation

/in , , , , /by

Readers familiar with my writing know of my fondness for analogies to break down the, sometimes complex and always frustrating issues on U.S. immigration.  Today, I will use an analogy comparing the proposed border wall along the U.S./Mexican border to insulate America with the way that various forms of insulation are used in constructing buildings to save money and provide other benefits.

Properly constructed homes and buildings are weatherproofed and insulated to create barriers that keep out rain and to keep their interiors warm and cozy in the winter and cool in the summer.

Various strategies and materials are used to achieve these essential goals. Insulation is installed inside outer walls and in the spaces under the roofs of the houses while double-pane windows, storm doors, and weatherstripping are used to seal up other vulnerable areas.

These measures are costly to install, but over the life of the building, these measures more than pay for themselves.  Depending on location, home heating and cooling costs can be significantly reduced when effective insulation prevents costly warm air from escaping from the house during the frigid days of winter, and by preventing hot air from leaking into our homes during the sweltering days of summer when the air conditioners are humming and devouring expensive electricity.

Simply stated –  effective insulation improves the environment in our homes and simultaneously saves homeowners considerable amounts of money.

Those homes are not hermetically sealed. However, their doors and windows can still open, just as America’s ports of entry permit easy access to lawful foreign visitors and commerce.

America’s sovereign borders are essential to protect Americans from a different sort of intrusion – the intrusion of international terrorists and transnational criminals and fugitives.  Our borders are also crucial in preventing the entry of foreign workers who would take jobs Americans need to support themselves and their families.

Finally, our borders are supposed to prevent contraband from being brought into the country.  That contraband includes unfathomable quantities of illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine, meth, and others.  It includes counterfeit prescription drugs and counterfeit parts for cars, airplanes and other devices that may endanger lives.  The contraband may also include weapons and, indeed, among them weapons of mass destruction.

But our borders can only function as effective barriers if they are more than mere “lines in the sand.”

The preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this clear and unequivocal statement:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.​

Today I focus on the U.S./Mexican border, but it is essential to understand that our nation has 50 “border states” (any state that lies along our northern, as well as our southern borders, are border states as are those states that lie along America’s 95,000 miles of coastline.  Finally, any state that has an international airport is also a “border state”).

While the porous and dangerous U.S./Mexican border must be made secure and is my focus today, many other measures must be taken in this particularly dangerous era.  I have come to compare a border wall along that problematic border with a wing on an airplane.  Without its wings and airplane most certainly will not fly, however, a wing by itself won’t fly either!

This was the premise behind an article I wrote some time ago, Border Security and the Immigration Colander.

The lack of security on that approximately 2,000 mile border represents a vast, gaping hole in the immigration colander, yet the leadership of neither party appears to be genuinely determined to finally build a secure wall even though more than ten years ago Congress voted for the construction of a “border fence” that was never constructed.

In point of fact, a significant contingent of anarchist extremists in the Democratic Party has created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” and have called for dismantling our borders and ending immigration law enforcement altogether throughout the United States.

New York’s Governor Cuomo, in spite of the clear warnings of the 9/11 Commission, has now threatened to prosecute ICE agents for enforcing our nation’s immigration laws even though alien terrorists have repeatedly targeted new York in repeated deadly terror attacks.

President Trump has made it clear that he will take whatever measure(s) he must to finally have that wall constructed and has not ruled out shutting down the government because this issue is just that important.

In a July 31, 2018, Chicago Tribune report, Trump doubles-down on a government shutdown threat to build the wall:

“I don’t care what the political ramifications are, our immigration laws and border security have been a complete and total disaster for decades, and there is no way that the Democrats will allow it to be fixed without a Government Shutdown,” Trump said in a tweet Tuesday afternoon.​

“Border Security is National Security, and National Security is the long-term viability of our Country,” he added. “A Government Shutdown is a very small price to pay for a safe and Prosperous America!”​

Opponents of that wall have raised various objections to the wall including lamest of excuses, the cost of building it.

Candidate Donald Trump proclaimed that as President he would build the wall and that Mexico would pay for that wall.  It was no surprise when the current and previous Mexican presidents ridiculed President Trump and his assertions about forcing Mexico to pay for our wall.

The globalist media and globalist politicians refuse to acknowledge that Mexico would pay for the entire wall and its maintenance, without having to send a single dollar to the United States.

On July 3, 2018, Mexico News Daily reported on the flow of money from the United States to Mexico in the form of money wire transfers known as remittances as noted in the article’s title:

Remittance numbers took a big jump.

May’s record-high remittances clear US $3-billion mark

The figure is 17% higher than the previous record, set last October​

Remittances, massive as they are, do not account for all of the money that flows from the United States to Mexico and because they are legal and transparent are easy to quantify.

Money is often smuggled covertly out of the U.S. to other countries around the world. by illegal and hence opaque means. Sometimes the money is concealed in furniture, appliances or vehicles.  Sometimes the money is converted to gold or other precious metals to make it more portable. However, no matter how money leaves the United States, a wall would create a barrier against illegal alien workers who send their ill-gotten wages back to Mexico.

That wall could help stem the flow of dangerous narcotics into America – an act that destroys the lives of children and fuels the violence that plays out in towns and cities across the country.

Indeed, a secure southern border could help to insulate America from terrorists operating in Latin America, an issue of grave concern that I wrote about in my recent article, Congresional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S.that included the testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who said, in part:

In recent years, Hezbollah’s Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites. Cooperation includes laundering of drug money; arranging multi-ton shipments of cocaine to the United States and Europe, and directly distributing and selling illicit substances to distant markets. Proceeds from these activities finance Hezbollah’s arms procurement; its terror activities overseas; its hold on Lebanon’s political system; and its efforts, both in Lebanon and overseas, to keep Shi’a communities loyal to its cause and complicit in its endeavors.

This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into America. It is sustaining Hezbollah’s growing financial needs. It helps Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.

Trump’s proposed wall would be a “win-win,” saving innocent American lives, reducing violent crime and protecting national security while bolstering the U.S. economy.

Opponents of the wall are true opponents of America and Americans.

We honestly cannot afford to not finally “build the wall.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

The Flames of Envy

/in , , , , , /by

The achievements of others can either inspire us to excel or foster envy that brings destruction.  The choice is ours and the Islamic world has chosen the latter.

The so-called Palestinians have devised a new form of terrorism to wage against their highly achieving neighbors.  Motivated by envy that springs from insecurity and bitterness, their youth are launching combustible kites and helium-filled balloons over the Gaza border that explode into an inferno in Israel.  Today, a huge incendiary kite from Gaza landed on kibbutz power lines, causing loss of power for several hours.  The raging fires reflect the Palestinians’ own rage that fills their illiterate, unproductive, empty lives.

During this fire jihad, they have thus far destroyed more than 82,000 acres of forest and agricultural land, with its produce and wheat fields devastated, avocado groves scorched, the bee industry and wild life burned alive.  The 7,000 acres of nature reserves, which also contains the 75-acre Karmiya Reserve, an animal and reptile habitat, are turned to cinders.  The estimate of loss is in the billions of dollars.  The Israelis are dealing with the loss of homes, their every possession, their livelihoods, while also suffering from respiratory illnesses from the fouled air and stench and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from the constant barrage of rockets.  Eighteen hundred acres of food are demolished.  The desert and swampland that the Jewish pioneers of almost a century ago rescued and restored from Arab neglect are now in complete ruin.

Who are these despoilers and what motivates them?

Islamic jihadis are raised in a loveless household, forced marriages where the man may have four young wives with severely limited rights, bearing and treating their numerous offspring as objects, and eagerly declaring their willingness to martyr their children for the cause.  From early childhood, Palestinians are taught to hate the miniscule landmass they covet for Allah and learn to detest the citizens for the happiness and innovations enjoyed in Israel.  As youths, they are intentionally deprived of every creative outlet (music, dance, art), forbidden from socializing and celebrating birthdays, and commanded to pray five times a day, so that participation in riots can provide them with a welcomed, albeit perilous, excitement beyond the harsh restrictions of the culture.  This upbringing prepares them for the malignant influence of Mahmoud Abbas, who keeps them distraught, agitated and provoked by announcing the next Days of Rage, rallies to explode into violence, when their lives have little else to occupy them. These are the despoilers and these are their motives.

There’s a psychological reason for their use of kites.  In her book, The Jihadi Dictionary, Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin explains, the “jihadis do not live in an empathic world or in reality, so they misuse just about everything. In their interior world, everyone is a mere object rattling around in their minds.”  They’ll make bombs in the kitchen, a room for nurturing and bonding, stuff them in toys, designed for imaginative play, and weaponize small children, because the Koran says, “slaughter not of the animal but of the infidel.” They misuse knives for cutting food as hard weapons in the Palestinian Knife Intifada, and playthings (dolls and kites) to deliver destruction and death.  Other perversions include sexual distortions, their Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), the prevalent homosexuality with Bacha bazi boys, their confusion of good with bad, right with wrong.  Their use of symbolism is a cognitive deficit, a result of their emotional deprivation as children.

Muslims, as a whole, are known for creating little for mankind’s benefit.   Mohammed’s followers were usually acquired at the end of the sword and their supposed inventions were purloined from the conquered non-Muslim world.  Islamic arches were adapted from Roman arches,  Arabic numerals from Hindu symbols (glyphs), and their cryptography from ancient Egypt.  Their physicians were primarily captured Jews who practiced medicine and their astronomers and cartographers were traced to Jewish astronomers and cartographers.  Their calligraphy, although ornamental, is exacting, with no room for imaginative originality.  Their art is geometric and precise. A warring nation encourages conquest, not creativity.

As Sir Winston Churchill astutely declared, “Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”  The destruction through the centuries was wrought by the Mohammedans, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Arabs, Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Islamic State (IS), Muslims, Muslim Brotherhood, Moors, Palestinians, Sunni, Shi’a, Wahhabi, all who follow the laws of the militant, proselytizing Islamic faith.  The Arab dons the terrorist’s hat when he prepares to murder but assumes the Palestinian hat when he seeks world sympathy.   

Why does the world continue to send foodstuffs and provisions to those who persist in destroying Israel’s food source and provisions, and where will they send them when the Muslim migrants conduct the same destruction by fire in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, England, the United States?  The Islamic tide is rising worldwide.  They have created nothing that benefits the world and, therefore, have no veneration or will to save it from destruction. Their motivation is misery and resentment; their goal, the destruction of what is not theirs.  Those who choose martyrdom admit their unhappiness in this life and seek escape to 72 virgins in heaven.  If their home environment is not changed, there can be no psychological changes.  They will not plant and care for fruit trees or tend innocent animals; they will not mature into compassionate human beings.  They will have no compunction about their criminality and destruction as long as they are consumed by impotent jealousy and vengeance.

But their non-Muslim neighbors, Israel, will continue to plant new orchards on the ashes of the old.

NOTE:  On the evening of submitting this essay for publication, one of several headlines reads: Sweden is Burning: Migrant Gangs Unleash Coordinated Fire-Bomb Rampage Across Multiple Cities.

DNCC Co-Chair Ellison has ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ according to ex-girlfriend

/in , , , , /by

Ms. Karen Monahan has accused DNCC Co-Chair, current Representative Keith Ellison, who is running for Attorney General in Minnesota, of suffering from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

According to the Mayo Clinic:

Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they’re not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.

Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder centers around talk therapy (psychotherapy).

On August 12, 2018 Ms. Karen Monahan released the following statement:

After a several years of being in a relationship with Keith Ellison, It became clear, I had survived narcissist abuse. Unless you have been through narcissist abuse, it is the most difficult form of abuse to articulate. It leaves survivors (if they survive) with serious health impacts, complex ptsd, depression and so many other devastating impacts. It is a slow insidious form of abuse. You don’t realize it is happening until it’s too late. Now that I understand it and have done so much healing, I can look back at certain moments and experiences in this relationship and they now make perfect sense. I or nobody else can diagnose a person with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). But I am well aware of the traits and I witnessed each one of them.

The complex PTSD started around 2014, I knew something wasn’t right but couldn’t put my finger on it. Every part of me began to change, including my health. I couldn’t remember things as well, my mind was slow at times and then it would race. By time I left the relationship in the middle of January 2017, my hair was falling out, I had severe pain in my neck, back and legs. My social life was suffering due to isolation, my work was slipping and it was all becoming noticeable. I became someone I didn’t recognize, on the inside or out.

I went to the Dr.. as soon as I left the relationship. I was told I was anemic, my red blood cells were very low. My magnesium was low, central nervous system was out of balance and much more. Part of dealing with the aftermath of narcissist abuse is dealing with healing your brain as well. Due to sleeping around with more than one person at the same time as me, I was scared of the possible health impacts. My time, financial cost, lost days just living life daily, my work, family, friendships, mental and physical health and much more, took a toll for a very long time. But I survived and now I am a stronger person than I ever was, even before the abuse.

Throughout the relationship he would say and do things and then gaslight me when I would ask what was going on.. He would make me think I was crazy for suspecting things I had heard or had seen. Come to find out, everything that I would bring up was actually true. The more I would see and hear things, the more I would bring it up. The anger and rage were ramping up. He would say and do things to manipulate me, so I wouldn’t bring certain issue up. A few examples of using power and control, cancel trips, tell me to move on a regular basis and would tell me I made him do it because I wouldn’t stop arguing. Basically, the things I would hear and suspect, which were true, I wasn’t allowed to mention or I would deal with some ramification It got worse as time went on.. The pathological lying, cheating, smearing my name and seeking validation and sympathy from the various females he was preying on, kept getting more and more frequent. He would word certain text where he there was plausible deniability but with everything else, it was so clear. After the relationship, others confirmed various things I was suspect to. That is part of the crazy making with narcissist abuse. One night I confronted him very calm about a lie he had just told me straight to my face. What happened next was a rage that I had never witnessed to that magnitude. He was becoming a person I had never seen before. The next morning, he came into the room I was sleeping in. I was laying across the bed with my headphones on, listening to podcast on my phone. He said he was about to leave town for the weekend and told me to take the trash out. Given the explosive outrage that occurred the night before, I just should shook my head yes. I didn’t look up at him or saying anything. That is when he tried to drag me off the bed by my legs and feet, screaming “bitch you answer when I am talking to you. I said take out the trash, your a bad guest (even though we were living in the same place). He kept trying to drag me off the bed, telling me to get the fuck out of his house, over and over. I froze. He had to leave and get on the plane. He knocked the shoe off my foot and told me I better be gone when he gets back (which was in two days). This happened in 2016. The gaslighting, manipulation, name calling and cheating started in 2014. By time the physical abuse occurred, I was dealing with the PTSD full blown. I secured an apartment within those two days. I borrowed the money I needed and spent that whole weekend searching for an apartment until I found one. I couldn’t move in until a couple months. During the waiting period he asked me several times to please not move out, he would reimburse me for the deposit. In my gut, I knew it was the right thing to do and said “no”.

I saw him morph into a totally different person and was still worried about him. I told him I would go with him if he wanted to get help. There were statements he made that had me afraid for him. We discussed working on our issues and just living in separate spaces. At that moment I was open to that. Things were happening so fast and I still didn’t realize I was dealing with PTSD and had no idea what narcissist abuse was.

He would ask me to stay at his house (most of my stuff was still there) he would come home. The behavior became more irrational and I was truly worried. We were suppose to work on the issues that were occurring in the relationship but more and more odd behavior and texting to various women continued.

Toward the end, I discovered he would have me stay the night and the next night have one of the females he had been cheating on me withal, stay the night.

I needed answers (I am dealing with complex PTSD so nothing seems clear). The last night I stayed the night, ever, I got up in the middle of the night, found one of the ladies scarf and a grocery bag with her name on it. I looked at his text and saw a mountain of lies after lies. Not just to me, but to each of the females. He would send us all the same text in a row. He would lie to one of the women about why he couldn’t see her or go to a movie, etc. but invited me over to go to a movie. That is one example of several. There is much more that I could share but I Won’t at this time. I couldn’t believe this was the person I had been involved with. I was in shock. It was a totally different person. I told him he was lying to not only me but these other women. He wasn’t allowing any of to make a choice with the most sacred parts of who we are. After I found out, there was no remorse. In fact, he continued the lies. He victim shamed me, said I had responsibility in his choices. This is still what he says to this day. About a few days later, the sent me a message stating that if I missed him, we could work it out. That blew me away. For a year and half after I left the relationship for good, he would send text telling me he missed me, he loved me and regretted me leaving. He told me, I would probably regret losing you for the rest of my life. I knew I would never go back. When I would mention what he did or refuse to take him back, I would receive heartless, mean messages or long periods of silence. It took me six months to finally get all my belongings from his place. The silent periods, changing plans, his schedule, needs, etc. left me connected to the trauma for six more months.

When I confronted him about all the lies and texts I saw, he first said I was crazy. I hung up the phone after he made that statement and began sending the screen shots to him. I was met with a cold response, he had no remorse. That was the day I ended it for good . In fact, Given everything that happened, he had the nerve to blame for invading his privacy because I was looking at his text. Invading his privacy and invading his secrecy are two different things in my book. These secrets have serious implications for a person’s health and overall life.

The blaming, taking no responsibility, victim shaming, cruel behavior each time I confronted him, with several attempts to get me to come back to the relationship, lasted this past year and half..

When I mentioned writing about this experience in my memoir, he tried to intimidate and threaten me. After those threats, I would call a couple friends, for about a month after he made them, everytime I left my place, just in case something were to happen to me. I was still dealing with the trauma and aftermath at this time.

I couldn’t silence my gut, in spite of what was happening to me as a result of the gaslighting, constant ups and downs with his moods (which began my ups and downs), the possibility of actually finding something that would end the relationship, I couldn’t ignore the voice inside, telling me something isn’t right. When things were slowly being revealed, he asked me why I wouldn’t stop asking him for the truth. I was met with pushback, circular conversation, manipulation or the silent treatment, each time I would bring it up, then blame me for bringing things up.

I was not the only person impacted by this situation. My kids were also impacted. I tried to hide it from them for several months. They knew something wasn’t right with me when they came to visit but were not quite sure. I told them I was just dealing with depression, that I would be ok. That is until they were using my computer and found substantial evidence showing that I was in an abusive relationship. Imagine how your own children would feel if they found out someone abused their mother. I could barely care for myself much less deal with their pain. They wanted to confront him and ask him why, they wanted to make it public and I had to plead with them and tell them it wouldn’t be good for me, if they did that. They did sent him a text stating they knew what he did to their mom and few other words. I couldn’t stop them from doing that. They also were in shock to watch friends and people who they knew who were part of the political world, sit back and be silent. They watched people who were aware, never reach out, ask if it was true, there were even people willing to find dirt and smear me, all to protect him. That is cruel to do to anu human. Regardless of what a person has or has not done, doesn’t mean they deserve abuse. We see this happen in our criminal justice system everyday. Watching all this, was a wake up call for them, as far as politics and the real world. When things like this happen to a person and family, the last thing they are thinking about is a political party or who is using their pain for political points.

I have offered him restorative justice and for him to seek some sort of help for over a year and half. He would not take me up on it. I told him I have not lost sight of his humanity and he deserved to take that time for himself to heal. I told him time and time again, I didn’t want to share my story publicly, it was more important for healing and restoration to occur with this situation. I told him not only he deserved it, but his family and constituents deserve it as well. For me, that alone would have been justice as far as my situation. But no matter how many times I offered, he wouldnt take me up on it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

SECOND WOMAN Accuses Democrat Keith Ellison of Abuse — Police 911 Report Confirms Incident!

Record of Keith Ellison 911 Assault Call Released

Ellison wins Minnesota AG primary amid late domestic violence allegations

Hypocrites: #MeToo Dems Silent as Vice Chair Ellison Accused of Brutal Sex Assault

More than half of refugees in U.S. receive food stamps

/in , , /by

Screenshot (620)

Click on the image to read the full report.

That is from a recent Center for Immigration Studies report by Jason Richwine who analyzed the most recent Office of Refugee Resettlement Annual Report to Congress.

More than half of the annual inflow of foreign refugees arriving in the United States are on food stamps, a government report reveals.

Since 2008, as Breitbart News reported, the U.S. has permanently resettled more than 1.7 million foreign nationals and refugees through a variety of humanitarian programs like the Special Immigrant Juveniles and the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. This is a foreign population larger than Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — a city with more than 1.5 million residents.

An annual report by the Office of Refugee Resettlement was analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies’ Jason Richwine, in which the analyst revealed that about 56 percent of households headed by foreign refugees who arrived in the U.S. between 2011 and 2015 are using taxpayer-funded food stamps.

Nearly 30 percent of refugees received cash welfare of some sort, while 34 percent of refugees 18-years-old or older said they had no health insurance. Of the refugees who said they did have health insurance, about 50 percent said they were either on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance, both of which are taxpayer-funded.

More here.

Frankly I suspect the numbers are much worse.

The sampling used by the Office of Refugee Resettlement is tiny and dependent on how many of the refugees they can find via phone calls and how many will even participate by answering questions if they are found.

A large number are not even participating in the survey because of language barriers.

We have told you about the Annual Reports for years. Here is just one post in 2013 where we reported that food stamp use was 70% in Obama’s first year in office—2009!

Even in spite of the possible under counting in the welfare use sections, the reports are treasure troves of information for those of you trying to better understand how the refugee program works and what it might be doing to your towns and cities.

One of the things you will see in the reports is information on how many other grants and goodies the contractors receive over and above their per refugee head payment.

The US is no doubt importing poverty, something that the designers of the original Refugee Act of 1980 promised would not happen.

And, if you are saying to yourselves that new immigrants aren’t supposed to be eligible for welfare, remember that prohibition does not apply to refugees!

Below is the table from the 2016 Annual Report:

Screenshot (621)

SNAP is of course food stamps. Note that nearly 20% receive Social Security disability benefits—yikes!

Screenshot (622)

Next after food stamps, taxpayers fund medical care for a very large percentage of refugees.

Just so you know we admitted 69,933 refugees to the US in FY2015 and for the whole accounting period above (FY11 through FY15) the total was 324,508 according to data at Wrapsnet.

Cutting numbers is a good start and we applaud the President, but the whole program must be reformed.

Do it now!

Contact the White House and tell the President what you think! See contact link in right hand sidebar here at RRW.

LA Shopping Mall Bans Billboard Because It Has a Preacher Holding a Bible

/in , , , , , /by

MovieGuide.org in a column titled “Christian Crusade Has Billboard Banished from LA Shopping Mall” written by contributing writer Tess Farrand reports:

Each year, Harvest Christian Fellowship Church puts on a series of special events called the Harvest Crusades. The crusades are a multi-faceted event that takes place around the country where thousands of people searching for a deeper spiritual connection hear the word of God. The crusades include, worship, testimonials and a call to the altar where new believers profess their faith in Jesus.

Harvest is gearing up for their SoCal Harvest crusade which will take place at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, California August 17-19. SoCal Harvest will feature MercyMe (the band who inspired I CAN ONLY IMAGINE), Christian rapper Andy Mineo and Phil Wickman, who serves as a staff worship leader, along with many others.

As per usual advertisement strategies, Harvest paid for many billboards detailing the crusade at the Fashion Island Mall in Newport Beach, California. If you’ve visited the Movieguide® website recently, you’ve most likely seen our banners advertising for the crusade. This same image, of Pastor Greg holding a bible – an homage to Billy Graham – was taken down by the mall.

A formal statement by Greg Laurie reads, “It’s disappointing that billboards advertising the SoCal Harvest – an event that positively impacts people throughout our community each year has done so now for 29 years and running- were removed from the Fashion Island Mall and the Irvine Spectrum Center this past week, all because the ads contained an image of the Bible. Countless people throughout the ages have been transformed by the Bible, and its impact around the world is literally impossible to quantify. Instead of being offended by it, people ought to pick it up, read it and see for themselves what it has to say. I believe our communities, our cities, our nation, and the world will be immeasurably better off the more famous the Bible become.”

Read more.

Ayn Rand in her monograph “Textbook of Americanism” notes:

What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

God is the enemy of the state and must be silenced. Socialist forms of government work to silence religion and fundamentally transform believers into non-believers.

As Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Removing this billboard because some find a Christian preacher holding up a Bible offensive has become one of the greatest uncontested absurdities of the 21st Century.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may learn more about SoCal Harvest here.

Is Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Planning to Blame the Russians When He Loses in November 2018? Looks like it!

/in , , , , , , /by

Florida Senator Bill Nelson unequivocally stated to the Tampa Bay Times,

“They [the Russians] have already penetrated certain counties in the state [of Florida] and they now have free rein to move about.”

Senator Nelson is up for reelection. Making such a statement demands proof in order to protect Florida’s voting systems. Attempts by various news outlets to get the proof have been fruitless.

Miami’s WPLG Local 10 released the following report on YouTube:

Senator Nelson, by his own admission, is vulnerable in Florida. Why would Nelson make such a statement then not at least provide information to Governor Scott and local election officials? Doesn’t Senator Nelson want Florida’s election systems to be safe from hacks by any foreign or domestic entity?

Is Senator Nelson planning to blame the Russians for the loss of his U.S. Senate seat, like the Democrats did in November 2016?

It sure looks like it.

RELATED ARTICLE: TRAPPED: Democrat Senator Bill Nelson Lied Or Released Classified Intel, Reports Suggest

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Senate Aging Committee Chairman Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. listening on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014, during the committee’s hearing to examine older Americans and student loan debt. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

COLLUSION: 100 Newspapers Declare War Against The President of The United States

/in , , , , /by

100 Newspapers have declare war against the President of The United States — while at the same time saying they are not the enemies of the American people!

The Boston Globe has been contacting newspaper editorial boards and proposing a “coordinated response” to President Trump’s description of fake news as the “enemy of the people.”

In a Pew Research Center study by Michel Barthel and Amy Mitchell found that “Democrats are 47 points more likely than Republicans to support news media’s watchdog role.”

Pew did not ask those surveyed if they fully support the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution does not protect the presses’ watchdog role. It protects freedom of the press. How the press conducts itself determines if it is printing the truth and not opinion. Given the way the question was asked different people have different views.

The faulty Pew Research report titled “Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines” found:

Democrats and Republicans, who already tend to place their trust in different news sources and rely on different outlets for political news, now disagree more than ever on a fundamental issue of the news media’s role in society: whether news organizations’ criticism of political leaders primarily keeps them from doing things they shouldn’t – or keeps them from doing their job.

Today, in the early days of the Trump administration, roughly nine-in-ten Democrats (89%) say news media criticism keeps leaders in line (sometimes called the news media’s “watchdog role”), while only about four-in-ten Republicans (42%) say the same. That is a 47-percentage-point gap, according to a new online survey conducted March 13-27, 2017, among 4,151 U.S. adults who are members of Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel. The gap stands in sharp contrast to January-February 2016, when Americans were asked the same question. Then, in the midst of the presidential primary season, nearly the same share of Democrats (74%) and Republicans (77%) supported the watchdog role. [Emphasis added]

It appears, lead by the Boston Globe, that Newspapers are now colluding to keep political leaders from doing their jobs. The President of the United States, members of Congress and the Supreme Court each have a role to play, a job to do.

When any newspaper, social media site, radio or television station engages in keeping America’s elected officials from doing their jobs then it’s not being a watchdog, rather they are now lapdogs.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newspaper Industry Seeks Character Assassination of President As Antifa Wants to Kill Him

On News Reports

Trust: U.S. bishops appear to await their November annual meeting to craft a new sex-abuse policy.

/in , , , , /by

Robert Royal writes that most U.S. bishops appear to await their November annual meeting to craft a new sex-abuse policy. But we can’t wait months. 

I came across an advertisement for a financial institution recently that, sad to say, displayed more wisdom than we usually find today among many people, including many Catholics: “Trust is binary. Either you have it or you don’t.”

A bold statement these days, by anyone. For the politically correct, “binary” distinctions are not only stupid and simplistic but hate-filled – most notably as in “male and female He created them.”  There are even “Catholic” theologians who argue that such binaries are a mere glitch in our brains.

Forget that itinerant Palestinian preacher who said, “let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no.” We’re much taken just now with gray areas, our superior moral awareness to previous ages, recent changes in public understanding, stylish deliverances of “conscience.”

But that is going to change now, if only because it must. Revelations about the Church leadership in several countries and in the Vatican itself have led us to the point that we wonder whether we can still trust what our own religious leaders say and do. To judge by what I hear from Catholic leaders and lay people, our bishops need to wake up to the sheer magnitude and intensity of the anger out there. Fast.

With few exceptions, they don’t seem to recognize that we may be close to an “inflexion point.” For years, the Catholic Church in America had many and great advantages, not least that ordinary believers – unlike their counterparts in Europe – looked to Church leaders as bulwarks of the true and the good. We admired them for what they did inside the church building, but also outside in the community.

Trust is binary. Our bishops can no longer assume that they have it. Bishops here may be teetering very close to the point at which the Irish hierarchy lost its credibility, to the immense detriment of marriage, family, and the unborn.

It didn’t have to be this way, and doesn’t have to be going forward. We’ve had sixteen years of what has sometimes been quite harsh treatment of priests accused of sexual abuse. That’s almost two decades, and any bishop who covered up misbehavior by priests under his authority over that period is not only incompetent and culpable, but – with all due respect for the Lord’s anointed – a fool.

When the John Jay Report came out in 2004, it estimated that the number of priest abusers was a little over 4,000 out of more than 100,000 men who had been priests over the relevant period. So about 4 percent.

Was/is the proportion of bishops who mishandled abusers or were themselves malefactors higher? Even so, there’s no way back to basic trust without dealing – sharply, if necessary – with something that will otherwise wreck the innocent along with the guilty.

Part of the reckoning has to speak frankly of the homosexual component of the abuse. Eighty percent of the priestly abuse involved young men, not children. Gay abuse, not pedophilia. Former Cardinal McCarrick engaged in both – and there are good reasons to look at both in future investigations. Pope Francis has rightly urged the Italian bishops not to admit to seminary anyone even suspected of same-sex tendencies.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley

Cardinal O’Malley: serious about restoring trust

There are, to be sure, theological questions about how bishops can be disciplined or removed. But once the bishops accept that no one believes they can investigate themselves – and that Catholics and others will be watching – it’s not all that hard to set up truly independent investigators. And stipulate that those who don’t co-operate will be publicly putting themselves under suspicion.

Priests who have been responsible for handling cases of priest abusers tell me that the yearly visits by representatives of the USCCB’s National Review Board can be quite intrusive – and effective. Nothing less will be needed now to handle wayward bishops. It worked with priests; it can be done with bishops.

To date, only three bishops have stepped forward with effective, concrete proposals for holding themselves and their fellows responsible. Many more have expressed penitence and shame – needed, of course, but for most of us that is only talk.

Late last Friday, Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley released a statement about two allegations concerning behavior at St. John’s Seminary that were just brought to his attention. Without knowing yet if the charges are true or not, he said:

I am committed to immediate action. . . .First, I have asked Msgr. James P. Moroney, Rector of St. John’s, to go on sabbatical leave for the Fall Semester, beginning immediately, in order that there can be a fully independent inquiry regarding these matters. Second, I have appointed Rev. Stephen E. Salocks, Professor of Sacred Scripture, to serve as Interim Rector. . .

And among further steps: “The faculty, staff and students at the seminary will be advised of my expectation that they will fully cooperate with the inquiry.”

That’s seriousness about doing what it takes to retain trust. Can we ask for less from our bishops?

Most American bishops, however, seem quite placid, content to wait until their annual November meeting in Baltimore. They will have to develop a coordinated and well-crafted response – eventually. But to think you can wait months – or for guidance from Rome – may be fatal. Boston is likely to be only the first of many more revelations in coming days and weeks – not months.

The role of Rome in all this is going to be tricky. Pope Francis has said many of the right things. Whether he and the very mixed crew around him will move swiftly to head off disaster remains to be seen.

No financial institution would wait three months to act on questions about credibility. Even the children of this world know you have to act faster than that, even when it’s only a matter of money.

Much more is at stake in the Church. And this is a binary moment, no avoiding it. There are only two choices: to start to rebuild trust – immediately – or to risk letting the opportunity slip away.

Robert Royal

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Michigan Police Raid Catholic Church Properties In Child Sex Abuse Scandal

San Diego’s Bishop Robert McElroy knew about McCarrick

Cardinal O’Malley Launches Inquiry into Gay Misconduct at Seminary

EDITORS NOTE: © 2018 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.

5 of the Worst Economic Predictions in History

/in , , , , /by

Uncertainty makes human beings uncomfortable. Not knowing what’s going to happen in the future creates a sense of unrest in many people. That’s why we sometimes draw on predictions made by leading experts in their respective fields to make decisions in our daily lives. Unfortunately, history has shown that experts aren’t often much better than the average person when it comes to forecasting the future. And economists aren’t an exception. Here are five economic predictions that never came true.

Irving Fisher was one of the great economists of the first half of the 20th century. His contributions to economic science are varied: the relationship between inflation and interest rates, the use of price indexes or the restatement of the quantity theory of money are some of them. Yet he is sometimes remembered by an unfortunate statement he made in the days prior to the Crash of 1929. Fisher said that “stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau (…) I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.” A few days later, the stock market crashed with devastating consequences. After all, even geniuses aren’t exempt from making mistakes.

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich published a book where he argued that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the following decades as a result of overpopulation. He went as far as far as to say that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over (…) nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” Of course, Ehrlich’s predictions never came true. Since the publication of the book, the death rate has moved from 12.44 permille in 1968 to 7.65 permille in 2016, and undernourishment has declined dramatically even though the population has doubled since 1950. Seldom in history has someone been so wrong about the future of humankind.

Economist Ravi Batra reached the number one on The New York Times Best Seller List in 1987 thanks to his book The Great Depression of 1990. From the title, one can easily infer what was the main thesis of the book, namely: An economic crisis is imminent, and it will be a tough one. Fortunately, his prediction failed to come true. In fact, the 1990s was a period of relative stability and strong economic growth, with the US stock market growing at an 18 percent annualized rate. Not so bad for an economic depression, right?

In September 2007, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan released a memoir called The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. In the book, he claimed that the economy was heading towards two-digit interest rates due to expected inflationary pressures. According to Greenspan, the Fed would be compelled to drastically raise its target interest rate to fulfill the 2 percent inflation mandate. One year later, the Fed Funds rate was at historical lows, reaching the zero-lower bound shortly after.

Financial commentator Peter Schiff became famous in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis for having foreseen the housing crash back in 2006 (even a broken clock is right twice a day). Since then, he has been predicting economic catastrophes every other day, with very limited success. There are many examples of failed predictions from which to draw upon. For instance, in a 2010 video (see below), Schiff foretold that Quantitative Easing (the unconventional monetary policy undertaken by the Fed between 2008 and 2014) would result in hyperinflation and the eventual destruction of the Dollar. Unfortunately for Schiff, the average inflation rate per year since the onset of QE has been 1.68%, slightly below the 2% target of the Fed.

Reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.

COLUMN BY

Luis Pablo de la Horra

Luis Pablo de la Horra

Luis Pablo De La Horra holds a Bachelor’s in English and a Master’s in Finance. He writes for FEE, the Institute of Economic Affairs and Speakfreely.today.

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

Son Accuses DNCC Co-Chairman Keith Ellison of Assaulting his Mother

/in , , , , , /by

Austin Aslim Monahan on Saturday, August 11, 2018, posted the following on Facebook:

Austin Aslim Monahan with his mother Karen.

Please read, if you care about my mother please share.
I love you momma, you wont have to stand alone
#ibelieveher
#wearemanenough
#timesup
Keith Ellison Keith Ellison for Attorney General Jason Sole Shvonne L Johnson Will Moore @Shiranthi Goonathilaka Stephen Davis Kiree Jamar Robinson Kendra Weiland Deanna Casablanca Valentine F Ndi Justin Monahan StarTribune.com Pioneer Press Lindsey Port Erin Maye QuadeDebra Hilstrom Matt Pelikan Hosie Thurmond III

My name is Austin Monahan and I am writing this letter on behalf of me and my brother. My brother and I watched our mom come out of pure hell after getting out of her relationship with Keith Ellison. For several months we knew something wasn’t right and couldn’t figure it out. When we asked our mom if everything was ok, she told us she was dealing with some stress and would be ok.
In the middle of 2017, I was using my moms computer trying to download something and I clicked on a file, I found over 100 text and twitters messages and video almost 2 min long that showed Keith Ellison dragging my mama off the bed by her feet, screaming and calling her a “fucking bitch” and telling her to get the fuck out of his house. The messages I found, were mixed with him consistently telling my mom he wanted her back, he missed her, he knew he fucked up and we wished he could do things different, he would victim shaming, bully her, and threaten her if she went public. I text him and told him I know what you did to my mama and a few other things.
I met up with my mom that night and asked her what happened. She said nothing happened until I told her I saw a video and hell of a lot of messages saying something different. She finally talked. My brother and I were so angry and hurt for our mom. We were ready to go public but our mom begged us not to and she along with others convinced us it wasn’t in our moms best interest.

I saw message after message through out all that time, where my mom was telling him she wasn’t going back to him but still saw his humanity and offered restorative justice. I honestly don’t see how she would offer him that, but thats her choice.

Sitting all this time, watching what our mom went through and not being able to say or do anything was hard as hell. None of you know the hell our family has gone through. I don’t think half of you would even care. We watched her so called political friends stand by say or do nothing. People had an idea what happened and never reached out to my mom. The same people who are posting about social justice are ready to smear my mom, protect a person who abused her and broke the law. You think we give a shit about a politics when we saw what our mom went through? She may not matter to none of you, but she is our mom, our kids grandmother and she is actually someone. There is a lot more he has done to my mom and others that we saw in the text but our mom can decide if and when she wants to tell the world that part.

Whether we saw the video or read all those messages, we still would have believed her if she had told us. #Ibelieveher

My mom has always tried to protect me and my brother. She doesn’t have to protect us anymore and we aren’t letting her stand alone. When we found out our mom was planning on sharing her story, that is all we needed to hear for us to share ours and stand with our mom. You want to smear someone, try to lie about a person who didn’t do shit to deserve the ongoing emotional, physical abuse, smear me and my brother.

I use to believe the Democrats were the ones who would stand by a person who went through this kind of abuse, now I know both Democrats and Republicans could care less when it comes to violence toward women and girls.

I have learned a lot about how patriarchy has shaped me as a 25 year old through all this. I just became a father and I am working on how patriarchy influenced thoughts ad decisions I have made as a young man so I can teach my son better. I am starting today by standing with my mom, my sons grandma. It is not just on women and girls to speak out, it is on men to do some of the emotional work. I’m not here to prove shit to anyone, I’m just stating facts. You can take it or leave it.
#Iammanenough

Mom, I am sure you are getting contacted about this post. Just know we love you and we are standing by you.

Austin Monahan
#Ibelieveher #wearemanenough #Timesup

RELATED ARTICLES:

Keith Ellison Facing Violent Domestic Abuse Allegations Less Than a Week Before Minnesota Primaries

Democratic Congressman and DNC Chair Keith Ellison (Hakim Muhammad) violently BEAT girlfriend