Media Silent on Christian Massacre by Muslims

Muslims Massacre 19 Christians on Sunday, 120 in the Past Three-Weeks; Media SILENT

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

Immigrants use twice the welfare of U.S.-born citizens

A 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing the American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.

Michael F. Haverluck

Thursday, March 14, 2019

A recent study reveals that illegal aliens and other foreign non-citizen residents in the United States use nearly double the amount of welfare that native-born Americans receive from the government.

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately half of noncitizens living in America are in the country illegally, and researchers from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) explained that even though the Trump administration has taken many measures to reduce immigrants’ reliance on the U.S. welfare system, they still receive a great majority of free benefits dished out by federal and state governments – at taxpayers’ expense.

    “Sixty-three (63) percent of non-citizen households access welfare programs – compared to 35 percent of native households,” CIS reported. “Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates – often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.”

Migrants double the drain …

    Even though native-born Americans far outnumber non-citizens, the latter group funnels much more money from the federal government for welfare services.

    “Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives),” CIS’s Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler informed from the data. “Including the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare – compared to 19 percent of native households …”

Despite many new obstacles erected to curb dependence on government programs, many migrants still have a number of ways to beat the system and pull in extensive taxpayer-funded benefits.

“While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs – as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors – these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs – nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth,” Camarota and Zeigler outlined.

Regardless of how one stacks the statistics, non-citizens overwhelmingly access more government funds than American-born citizens.

“No single program explains non-citizens’ higher overall welfare use,” the CIS report explained. “For example, not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared to 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants, compared to 30 percent for natives.”

Whether migrants have been in America for months or decades, their utilization of the welfare system is high.

“Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent,” Camarota and Zeigler pointed out.

Even when migrants are working, they continue to receive government handouts.

“Welfare receipt by working households is very common,” the report added. “Of non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent have at least one worker, as do 76 percent of native households receiving welfare. In fact, non-citizen households are more likely overall to have a worker than are native households.”

Failure to attain an education and land higher paying jobs are two reasons for continued migrant dependence.

“Of all non-citizen households, 58 percent are headed by immigrants who have no more than a high school education – compared to 36 percent of native households,” Camarota and Zeigler relayed from the study. “Of households headed by non-citizens with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs. In contrast, 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate use one or more welfare programs.”

CIS researchers found that in the four states receiving the most immigrants, the use of welfare is considerably higher for non-citizens than native-born Americans.

“In California, 72 percent of non-citizen-headed households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 35 percent for native-headed households,” CIS pointed out. “In Texas, the figures are 69 percent vs. 35 percent; in New York they are 53 percent vs. 38 percent; and in Florida, 56 percent of non-citizen-headed households use at least welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native households.”

Curbing migrant welfare?

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump declared his desire to stop all welfare-dependent legal immigration to the U.S. that siphons away taxpayer funds.

“I don’t like the idea of people coming in and going on welfare for 50 years, and that’s what they want to be able to do—and it’s no good,” Trump told Breitbart News.

He shared his plan last year geared to weed out immigrants who are destined to rely on the government for survival.

“The Trump administration has long called for changes in laws so that new immigrants wouldn’t rely on welfare,” Fox News reported in December. “In a 447-page proposal posted online in September, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called for immigrants to be denied permanent residency if they’ve received or are likely to receive benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid or housing vouchers.”

Since the turn of the century, the number of immigrants living in America has increased four-fold.

“Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S – this is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000,” Breitbart’s John Binder informed. “The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year – more than 1.5 million annually – are low-skilled, poor or working-class foreign nationals.”

The tax burden on Americans would be greatly reduced if legal immigration is curbed.

“The legal immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut – the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants,” Binder added. “The majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household.”

Immigration’s annual drain on taxpayers translates to nearly as much as a an American pays for a down payment on a house.

“Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars,” Binder explained. “This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.”

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States. For the real truth about the emergency crisis at our southern border, family detention, and all the false political propaganda, their website is an invaluable resource.

CftC

 

 

 

The Attack on America – Here and Now

    The book The Attack on America describes how our enemies will try to destroy America and the original intention of the Framers and Founders. The recent Congressional election with Moslems, socialists, and others with ideologies contrary to the ‘One Nation Under God” Biblical worldview held in 1787 being elected brings home the reality that we are engaged in a great new civil war. Organizations such as the Justice Democrats that recruited Ocasio-Cortez enabled the espionage taking place in Congress. The question that needs to be answered and disseminated is: Where does the funding for organizations such as the Justice Democrats come from?.

Socialism Always Ends in the Tyranny of the Ruling Class

Socialism Is a Rigid Ideology Always Ending in the Tyranny of the Ruling Class

Lee Edwards, Ph.D.

 March 06, 2019

Local residents search for food in a pile of trash in Caracas, Venezuela, March 5. (Photo: Valery Sharifulin/TASS/Getty Images)

Q: What did socialists use before candles?     A: Electricity.

It’s an old joke, sure. But it’s no laughing matter. Just ask the people of Venezuela.

The socialist regime there nationalized the electricity sector a dozen years ago. Today, blackouts in the once-prosperous Latin American nation have become routine.

Electricity isn’t all that’s in short supply. Gasoline is scarce in the oil-rich nation, as are food and medicine.

Meanwhile, the regime concentrates on violently repressing protests and burning humanitarian aid as it approaches its borders.

After 20 years of socialism, Venezuela is a failed state.

And that should surprise no one. Socialism is a rigid ideology that always ends in tyranny.

The prime example is the Soviet Union. Lenin and Stalin’s iron rule brought death to 20-25 million victims. “Enemies of the state” were executed by firing squads, sent to forced labor camps in the Gulag, perished in country-wide forced famines, experimented on in “psychiatric” hospitals, and summarily deported from their homes to the distant steppes of Russia.

No less totalitarian in their practices were the Castro brothers, who promised freedom and democracy when they came to power in Cuba. Six decades later, the Cuban people are still waiting for the first free election.

Socialism always promises progress, but it inevitably delivers scarcity, corruption, and decay.

Eastern Europe under communism became a monument to bureaucratic inefficiency and waste. Throughout the Soviet bloc, life expectancy declined dramatically and infant mortality soared.

Upon gaining independence, India trod a socialist path for 40 years. It led to a never-ending cycle of poverty and economic deterioration. Finally, Indian leaders began looking to Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx to guide their economy. Today, it boasts the largest middle class in the free world.

Socialism has little regard for the middle class. It’s all about securing and maintaining power for the ruling class.

Consider the People’s Republic of China. Mired in Maoist revolutionary rhetoric, it was one of the world’s poorest countries for its first three decades. Then, Deng Xiaoping introduced “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Forty years later, the People’s Republic of China boasts the world’s second-largest economy, but its citizens remain deprived of basic human rights and civil liberties.

The Communist Party does not allow a free press or free speech, competitive elections, an independent judiciary, free travel, or a representative parliament. Instead, President Xi Jinping has instituted a cult of personality that rivals the one-time worship of the so-called Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong.

Nicaragua’s Marxist leader Daniel Ortega is another example of the lust for power and control that characterizes socialism. His underreported reign of terror has resulted in the deaths of more than 300 dissidents in just the last few years.

All of these horrors are inevitable because socialism is built on a fatal conceit.

Modern socialists believe that the world has become so complicated, so complex, so globalized, that regular citizens just can’t manage things. We, and only we (say the socialists), are equipped to run things.

Hence, for example, it’s imperative to nationalize health care, since “the little people” can’t be trusted to make intelligent, informed decisions about their health care.

Rather than empower the common man, socialists believe in empowering bureaucracy. In their minds, bureaucrats will always make decisions based on science and dispassionate reason—and make sure those decisions are implemented and enforced efficiently.

It’s an elitist, intellectually arrogant belief, and it’s dangerous.

As Ronald Reagan noted in a long-ago campaign speech for Barry Goldwater: “Either we accept the responsibility for our own destiny, or we abandon the American Revolution and confess that an intellectual [elite] in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

In “The Road to Serfdom,” the Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek dismissed the utopian dream of “democratic socialism” as “unachievable.” Why? Because it is based on the fatal conceit that a galaxy of bureaucrats can collect, analyze, and direct the individual actions of 300 million Americans.

“America will never be a socialist country!” So President Donald Trump declared last month in his rousing State of the Union speech. That should be the fervent prayer of all Americans who prize liberty and wish to live our lives our way.

    Lee Edwards is the Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, and chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty”.

 

 

 

Situation and Statistical Ethics Never Negate Immutable Law

Kamala Harris Is Wrong. Keep the World’s Oldest Profession Illegal.

Scott Yenor

March 02, 2019

Photo: Mason Trinca/Stringer/Getty Images

    Sen. Kamala Harris thinks that prostitution should be legal.

    Prostitution, the California Democrat said in a recent interview with The Root, are relations based on consent, and “when you are talking about consenting adults, I think that … we can’t criminalize consensual behavior, as long as no one is being harmed.”

    A grocer willingly sells bubble gum to willing customers, just as a car dealer willingly sells a car to a willing customer. Prostitution is no different, at least according to Harris, a former California attorney general.

    Should a willing woman be able to sell access to her body for sex to a willing man?

    What if the woman is not willing—for example, if she has been bought or sold through sex trafficking? Harris says such women haven’t consented. Nobody “who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be … free of criminal prosecution,” the senator said.

    But this distinction between the legal and illegal would be difficult in practice to police. With more prostitution, one gets more exploitation.

    A young girl, shunned in her hometown, may come to the big city, friendless, and have few places to turn for good work. She finds an “adult entertainment consultant”—what we used to call a pimp—and he “hires” her on.

    Is the exploitation of this lonely, vulnerable young girl criminal? Would the exploitation be OK if the “consultant” didn’t profit too much?

    Harris’ position appeals to a deeply held principle; namely, that all relationships are permissible so long as they are founded on consent and do not harm others. Through appeal to this principle (and a particular notion of harm), American judges have decriminalized pornography and rendered constitutional same-sex marriage.

    Some states have similarly decriminalized marijuana through appeal to this principle recently. A more complete acceptance of this principle could bring bigamy, polygamy, public nudity, and adult incest to America.

    Americans cannot abandon the principle of consent, and yet, at the same time, we need a serious consideration of what makes a practice harmful.

    Liberals like Harris are notoriously selective in applying notions of what constitutes harm.

    The widespread availability of pornography affects the minds, affections, and sensibilities of many Americans and compromises their ability to form lasting, affectionate relations. Liberals insist that’s not a harm.

    People who use marijuana on a daily basis are more prone to commit acts of violence and are more subject to mental illness. Liberals insist that’s not a harm.

    However, suggesting that men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports is “hate speech” that harms the dignity of a transgender athlete. That is a harm to liberals.

    “Harm” must not be a weapon wielded for political convenience. The public must worry about harms done to the broader moral atmosphere, in which people can form marital bonds and maintain them.

    Part of what makes a country livable and decent over the long term are laws that support public morality, like laws against prostitution.

    Legalizing prostitution would destigmatize men paying for sex. Yet, our notions of honor and shame are partly shaped by our laws. When more people do something, it’s less likely to be seen as shameful, and it becomes acceptable.

    This destigmatizing would make it easier for people to engage in such transactions, and more would do it. More women might do it for a living, especially “on the side,” when they are young and need the money. More men would avail themselves of prostitutes for a variety of reasons—fraternity parties or even Super Bowl parties, for example.

    Contrary to conventional wisdom, what happens between consenting adults doesn’t only affect them. It reverberates throughout the culture.

    Sexual desire is partly shaped by society’s images of what is good. Prostitution, if seen as a good, would lead men to be less faithful and compromise the place of fidelity in marriage—one of the attributes of marriage Americans continue to see as central to it.

    Legalizing prostitution also would further detach sex from enduring relations in the minds and affections of the populace.

    Perhaps neither the prostitute nor her customer is harmed, in the narrow sense, by a sexual transaction. Men and women are harmed, however, when sex is seen as something to be bought and sold, rather than something connected to intimate, affectionate, and possibly enduring relations.

    So many innovations—from the college hook-up culture to easily accessed pornography—have disrupted the effort to maintain the connection of sex and enduring relations.

    Legalizing prostitution would complicate efforts for restoring that and only accelerate family decline.

    Harris should take a longer, deeper view on what makes for a harm.

   Scott Yenor is a professor of political science at Boise State University. He was the visiting fellow in American Political Thought in the Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation (2015-2016).

 

 

 

 

 

Shall We Defend Our Common History?

Shall We Defend Our Common History?

February 2019 • Volume 48, Number 2

Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

    The recent news that the University of Notre Dame, responding to complaints by some students, would “shroud” its twelve 134-year-old murals depicting Christopher Columbus was disappointing. It was not surprising, however, to anyone who has been paying attention to the widespread attack on America’s past wherever social justice warriors congregate.

    Notre Dame may not be particularly friendly to its Catholic heritage, but its president, the Rev. John Jenkins, demonstrated that it remains true to its jesuitical (if not, quite, its Jesuit) inheritance. Queried about the censorship, he said, apparently without irony, that his decision to cover the murals was not intended to conceal anything, but rather to tell “the full story” of Columbus’s activities.

Welcome to the new Orwellian world where censorship is free speech and we respect the past by attempting to elide it.

Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.

In the background is the conviction that we, blessed members of the most enlightened cohort ever to grace the earth with its presence, occupy a moral plane superior to all who came before us. Consequently, the defacement of murals of Christopher Columbus—and statues of later historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt—is perfectly virtuous and above criticism since human beings in the past were by definition so much less enlightened than we.

The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer. “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.

    The psychopathology behind these occurrences is a subject unto itself. What has happened in our culture and educational institutions that so many students jump from their feelings of being offended—and how delicate they are, how quick to take offense!—to self-righteous demands to repudiate the thing that offends them? The more expensive education becomes the more it seems to lead, not to broader understanding, but to narrower horizons.

***

    Although there is something thuggish and intolerant about the monument controversy, it is not quite the same as the thuggishness of the Roman emperor Caracalla, who murdered his brother and co-emperor Geta and had statues of Geta toppled and his image chiseled off coins. Nor is it quite the same as what happened when Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin exiled Leon Trotsky, had him airbrushed out of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and sent assassins to Mexico to finish the job.

Iconoclasm takes different forms. The disgusting attacks on the past and other religious cultures carried out by the Taliban, for example, are quite different from the toppling of statues of Saddam Hussein by liberated Iraqis after the Iraq War. Different again was the action of America’s own Sons of Liberty in 1776, who toppled a statue of the hated George III and melted down its lead to make 40,000 musket balls. It is easy to sympathize with that pragmatic response to what the Declaration of Independence called “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” It is worth noting, however, that George Washington censured even this action for “having much the appearance of a riot and a want of discipline.”

While the monument controversy does depend upon a reservoir of iconoclastic feeling, it represents not the blunt expression of power or destructiveness but rather the rancorous, self-despising triumph of political correctness. The exhibition of wounded virtue, of what we now call “virtue-signaling,” is key.

Consider some recent events at Yale University, an institution where preening self-infatuation is always on parade. Yale recently formed a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming and a Committee on Art in Public Spaces. Members of the former prowl the campus looking for buildings, colleges, faculty chairs, lecture programs, and awards that have politically incorrect names. The latter police works of art and other images on campus, making sure that anything offensive to favored groups is covered or removed.

At the residential college formerly known as Calhoun College, for example—it’s now called Grace Hopper College—the Committee ordered the removal of stained glass windows depicting slaves and other historical scenes of Southern life. Statues and other representations of John C. Calhoun have likewise been slotted for removal. Calhoun, an 1804 Yale graduate, was a leading statesman and political thinker of his day. But he was also an apologist for slavery, so he has to be erased from the record.

Of course, impermissible attitudes and images are never in short supply once the itch to stamp out history gets going. Two years ago it was Calhoun and representations of the Antebellum South. More recently it was a carving at an entrance to Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library depicting an Indian and a Puritan. The Puritan, if you can believe it, was holding a musket—a gun! Who knows, perhaps he was a member of the NRA or at least could give inspiration to other members of that very un-Yale-like organization. According to Susan Gibbons, one of Yale’s librarian-censors, the presence of an armed Puritan “at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate.” Solution? Cover over the musket with a cowpat of stone—but leave the Indian’s bow and arrow alone!

Actually, it turns out that the removable cowpat of stone was only a stopgap. The outcry against the decision struck a chord with Peter Salovey, Yale’s president. “Such alteration,” he noted, “represents an erasure of history, which is entirely inappropriate at a university.” He’s right about that. But if anyone has mastered the art of saying one thing while doing the opposite it is President Salovey. He spoke against “the erasure of history.” But then, instead of merely altering the image, he announced that Yale would go full Taliban, removing the offending stonework altogether.

In the bad old days, librarians and college presidents were people who sought to protect the past, that vast storehouse of offensive attitudes and behavior that also just so happens to define our common inheritance. In our own more enlightened times, many librarians and college presidents collude in its effacement.

Someone might ask, “Who cares what violence a super-rich bastion of privilege and unaccountability like Yale perpetrates on its patrimony?” Well, we should all care. Institutions like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford are among the chief drivers of the “progressive” hostility to free expression and other politically correct attitudes that have insinuated themselves like a fever-causing virus into the bloodstream of public life. Instead of helping to preserve our common inheritance, they work to subvert it.

Spiriting away stonework in the Ivy League may seem mostly comical. But there is a straight line from those acts of morally righteous intolerance to far less comical examples of puritanical censure.

Consider the case of James Damore, the now former Google engineer who wrote an internal memo describing the company’s cult-like “echo chamber” of political correctness and ham-handed efforts to nurture “diversity” in hiring and promotion. When the memo was publicized, it first precipitated controversy—then it provided Google CEO Sundar Pichai a high horse upon which to perch, declare Damore’s memo “offensive and not OK,” and then fire him. For what? For expressing his opinion in a company discussion forum designed to encourage free expression!

    In one way, there was nothing new about Google’s actions. Large companies have always tended to be bastions of conformity. Decades ago, everyone at IBM had to wear a white shirt and was strongly encouraged to espouse conservative social values. Today, everyone in Silicon Valley has to subscribe to the ninety-five theses of the social justice warrior’s creed, beginning with certain dogmas about race, fossil fuels, sexuality, and the essential lovableness of jihadist Muslims. If you are at Google and dissent from this orthodoxy, you will soon find yourself not at Google.

***

    The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was a godsend to the self-appointed hate police. In its immediate aftermath, companies around the country took pains to declare their rejection of “hate,” and ProPublica, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other leftish thugs expanded their witch hunts beyond such targets as the “Daily Stormer”—a vile anti-Semitic website. After Charlottesville, for example, “Jihad Watch”—hardly a hate group website—was dropped by PayPal until a public outcry induced PayPal to reverse its decision. There have been other such casualties, and there will be many more.

Let’s step back and ask ourselves what motivates the left-wing virtuecrats attempting to enforce their new regime of political correctness. Christian theologians tell us that the visio beatifica—the beatific vision of God—is the highest pleasure known to man. Alas, that communion is granted to very few in this life. For the common run of mankind, I suspect, the highest earthly pleasure is self-righteous moral infatuation.

Like a heartbeat, moral infatuation has a systolic and diastolic phase. In the systolic phase, there is an abrupt contraction of sputtering indignation: fury, outrage, high horses everywhere. Then there is the gratifying period of recovery: the warm bath of self-satisfaction, set like a jelly in a communal ecstasy of unanchored virtue signaling.

The communal element is key. While individuals may experience and enjoy moral infatuation, the overall effect is greatly magnified when shared. Consider the mass ecstasy that at first accompanied Maximilien Robespierre’s effort to establish a Republic of Virtue during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror in 1793.

The response to Donald Trump’s comments about the murderous violence that erupted in Charlottesville provides another vivid example. Trump’s chief crime was to have suggested that there was “blame on both sides” as well as “good people” on both sides of the protest. I am not sure there was an abundance of “good people” on either side of the divide that day, although Trump’s main point was to distinguish between lawful protest and hate-fueled violence. But forget about distinctions. The paroxysms of rage that greeted Trump were a marvel to behold, as infectious as they were unbounded. One prominent commentator spoke for the multitude when he described Trump’s response as a “moral disgrace.”

I didn’t think so, but then I thought that the President was correct when he suggested that the alt-Left is just as much a problem as the alt-Right. Indeed, if we needed to compare the degree of iniquity of the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners, on the one hand, and Antifa and its fellow travelers on the other, I am not at all sure which would come out the worse. Real Nazis—the kind that popped up like mushrooms in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s—are scary. But American neo-Nazis? They are a tiny bunch of pathetic losers. The Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group with millions of members in its earlier incarnations. Now it too is a tiny bunch—5,000 or 6,000 by most estimates—of impotent malcontents.

Antifa, on the other hand, has brought its racialist brand of violent protest to campuses and demonstrations around the country: smashing heads as well as property. I suspect that paid-up, full-time members of the group are few, but the ideology of identity politics that they feed upon is a gruesome specialty of the higher education establishment today.

I also thought that the President was right to ask where the erasure of history would end. At Charlottesville it was a statue of Robert E. Lee. But why stop there? Why not erase the entire history of the Confederacy? There are apparently some 1,500 monuments and memorials to the Confederacy in public spaces across the United States. According to one study, most of them were commissioned by Southern women, “in the hope of preserving a positive vision of antebellum life.” A noble aspiration, inasmuch as the country had recently fought a civil war that devastated the South and left more than 700,000 Americans dead. These memorials were part of an effort to knit the broken country back together. Obliterating them would also be an attack on the effort of reconciliation.

And what about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? They both owned slaves, as did 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. What about them? To listen to many race peddlers these days, you would think they regarded George Orwell’s warning in 1984 as a how-to manual: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified,” Orwell wrote,

every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.

    Plato was right when he said that politicians are essentially rhetoricians. Rhetoric succeeds or fails not because of its logic or intellectual substance, but on the question of its emotional appeal. By that standard, I’d say that Donald Trump, though often rhetorically effective, missed an important rhetorical opportunity at Charlottesville. He didn’t understand that the politically correct dispensation that rules academia, the media, the Democratic Party, and large swathes of the corporate world requires a certain ritual homage to be paid to its reigning pieties about “racism” in America.

Doubtless there are things to criticize about Donald Trump. But being racist isn’t among them. What infuriates his critics—but at the same time affords them so many opportunities to bathe in the gratifying fluid of their putative moral superiority—is that Trump refuses to collude in the destructive, politically correct charade according to which “racism” is the nearly ubiquitous cardinal sin of white America. He is having none of that, and his refusal to go along with the attempted moral blackmail is driving his critics to a fever pitch. They scream “racism” but, unlike other politicians, Trump refuses to cower in the corner whimpering. That he goes against their script infuriates them.

Back in 1965, the Frankfurt School Marxist Herbert Marcuse wrote an essay called “Repressive Tolerance.” It is a totalitarian classic. Marcuse distinguished between two kinds of tolerance. First, there is what he called “bad” or “false” tolerance. This is the sort of tolerance that most of us would call “true” tolerance, the sort of thing your parents taught you and that undergirds liberal democracy. Second, there is what Marcuse calls “liberating tolerance,” which he defined as “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

So here we are. The old idea of tolerance was summed up in such chestnuts as, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The new dispensation is: “I disapprove of what you say, therefore you may not say it.”

The Marxist-tinged ideology of the 1960s has had a few decades to marinate the beneficiaries of our free-market society, steeping them in the toxic nostrums that masquerade as moral imperatives in our colleges and universities. Today we find the graduates of those institutions manipulating the fundamental levers of political and corporate power.

The monument controversy shows the susceptibility of “liberating tolerance” to fanaticism. And it reminds us that in the great battle between the partisans of freedom and the inebriates of virtue, freedom is ultimately negotiable—until it rouses itself to fight back. At stake is nothing less than the survival of our common history.

The previous was adapted from a talk delivered on board the Crystal Symphony by Roger Kimball on July 19, 2018, during a Hillsdale College educational cruise to Hawaii.

    Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator USA, American Greatness, and PJ Media. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

Global Warming, Sanctuary Cities, Marijuana, Abortion, and the “Wall”

Global Warming, Sanctuary Cities, Marijuana, Abortion, and the “Wall”
    In the summer heat of 1787, fearing the public majority — windows and doors closed for secrecy, the Framers studied history before drafting “the supreme law of the land”. The Constitution was framed based on the truths of science and history as they understood them at the time. Later, “the father of our country”, President Washington in his Farewell Address to Congress declared “. . . religion and morality are indispensable supports” for our form of government. Truth was intended to be the foundational binding on all our law. We have failed, and thus our governments must fail, because we elect those to represent us who choose to ignore and reject Truth. It is, indeed, Truth which shall set us free! “True freedom is found within the bounds of God’s intention. — . . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    The absolute lie presuming to give humanity any control over global warming has been used by corrupt politicians to attack our economy. Driven by greed and other unjust motives, they limit access to the energy required by our industry, while aiding and abetting our competitors. Coal miners are unemployed while natural gas is lost. Acknowledging cyclical climatic changes beyond control, this Committee has published definitive articles describing the realities concerning our atmosphere.
    Sanctuary cities are political entities choosing to violate the Constitution, while fomenting the evil and crime that infects their innocent neighbors. Whether illegal aliens raping, robbing, looting, vandalizing, murdering, etc. or just undeservedly availing themselves of benefits paid for by working Americans; drug dealers disseminating their poison from their sanctuary; socially dysfunctionals attacking the traditional nuclear family; or those the Framers were so fearful of electing — the morally and intellectually bankrupt disrupting and obstructing legislatures; sanctuary cities harbor no less enemies to our Union than the forces confronted in our great Civil War.
    A campaign of lies and deceptions emanating from the special interests seeking to reap the economic gains accompanying the legalization of marijuana has wrongly altered the public perception of the harm and unwanted costs associated with its use. Errant politicians violating their oath of office subject the misguided betrayed public to its addictive character.
    The Declaration of Independence, the ideologic preamble to the Constitution defines one of the “unalienable Rights . . . . endowed by our Creator” as “Life”. Moving far beyond reason, while exceeding and mimicking the horrendous atrocities perpetrated in the Nazi Holocaust’s medical experiments, vile and morally void politicians celebrate advocating murdering a child even minutes before birth. Calling to Lenin’s statement that  “Socialized medicine is a keystone to the establishment of a socialist state.”, Hitler implemented universal healthcare, without regard for conscience. Some Democrat politicians recently advocated violating the Constitution just as surely as killing a slave. The next move in disregarding the constitutionally imposed sanctity of life is to, like Hitler, “authorize physicians to end the sufferings of the incurable patient … in the interest of true humanity …”. Interestingly, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda wrote in The Goebbels Diaries 1939-41, that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.” Further, Albert Speer, the Third Reich’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, quoted Hitler as saying “The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity … with its meekness and flabbiness.”.
    The current platform of the Democratic Party openly promoting the violation of the original intention of the Constitution is so foreign to any common sense definition of right and decency that prior to the recent toleration of the lies and deceptions demanded by the false and destructive political correctness movements, its former leaders spoke against their evil and criminal agendas. Former President Jimmy Carter speaking on his book, Our Enduring Values-America’s Moral Crisis, 3 November, 2005, in Washington, D.C., said “I never have felt that any abortion should be committed — I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors. I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the American public to be extremely liberal on many issues. I think our party’s leaders … are overemphasizing the abortion issue. I’ve never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.”
    Alveda King, niece of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., founder of the National Black Pro-Life Coalition said “Abortion is … designed for population control … The numbers are higher in the African American community, so that’s certainly black genocide. . . . . We also discovered that once black people are made aware of the genocidal eugenics by abortion that the community will speak out.”
    All Americans of African descent ignoring the current Democratic platform when they vote as Democrats should also recall the evil words of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, when they vote for those seeking to enslave them. “. . . .elimination of ‘human weeds’ … overrunning the human garden … and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies … and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. Feeble minded persons … and others found biologically unfit by authorities … should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child … without a permit.” Also, don’t forget that the Republican Party was founded to end slavery.
    No constitutional mandate is so universally accepted as the Framers’ intention to “provide for the common defense”. With our southern border open to terrorists, drug traffickers, sex slavers, human traffickers, rapists, murders, thieves, and on and on, and all the while the current barriers and resources fail or are inadequate in aiding in enforcing and upholding our immigration laws; “the common defense” border protection deficit stands in blatant violation of the original intention of the Constitution. All those charged with our border security, speaking openly and for the public record, support the need for a 237 mile interrupted wall and other major security improvements along our 1954 mile southern border. The Democrats’ obstructionism is de facto evidence that these politicians are our enemies willing to sacrifice the safety and security of American citizens to their unconstitutional agendas.
    All that said, the expressed intention of the Fourteenth Amendment was to insure and bring the protections and rights originally intended by the Framers to all citizens. Justice for all was not a choice be left to political maneuvering, interference, and denial. Sanctuary cities, those restricting free and just competition in American industry and business, drug peddlers addicting Americans, murderers killing babies capable of life outside the womb, and those aiding and abetting those seeking to harm America and its citizens need to be federally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — 1987 actions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Politicians voting to violate and complicit in violating the Constitution in those jurisdictions violating the Constitution need to be similarly prosecuted and removed from office. The word treason seems applicable and appropriate.

More Lies and Deceptions Exposed

Star Parker

January 30, 2019

     The media is having another field day at the alleged expense of President Donald Trump.

    Supposedly, per what we read, the president “caved,” “folded,” or “lost” in the government-shutdown showdown with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Except it’s not true.

Our elites spend so much time inside the Washington, D.C., bubble that they’re sealed off from any sense of, connection to, or interest in what this nation is about.

Ours is a democracy. Remember? In the end, the people decide. Trump, who these same pundits love to call a “dictator,” has not forgotten.

It’s a president’s job to lead, to put on the line what he believes is best for the nation. But ultimately, the people decide.

As our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, noted: “In this age, and in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.

Sometimes at the first try, the message doesn’t get through. It means you try again a different way. This is exactly what Trump is doing.

In the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur: “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

The president must negotiate through the fog of a hostile media and now with a Democratic Congress more interested in inflicting political damage on the president than in implementing policy that serves our nation.

Trump tried to move negotiations forward after the shutdown by offering to extend DACA protections—protection against deportation of those who arrived illegally as children—and also for immigrants with temporary protected status.

What was the response from Democrats? No response. Counteroffer? None.

Why? Because the Democratic objective is inflicting damage, not advancing solutions for the American people.

Democrats sat back, actually enjoying the shutdown, while headlines like this from NBC ran: “The behavior of this administration while denying 800,000 people paychecks was as imperious as Marie Antoinette’s apocryphal offer of cake.”

Of course, no federal worker is being denied a paycheck. All pay will be made up. But it’s also important to keep in mind that federal worker compensation is on average higher than that of the private sector.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal employees earn on average 17 percent more in salary and benefits than their private-sector counterparts. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, private-sector employees are three times more likely to be fired and five times more likely to quit.

All in all, federal workers have a pretty cushy situation. One of the risks is a periodic shutdown disruption. But again, they receive back pay and overall receive good compensation to cover these rare inconveniences.

Now, rather than “caving,” Trump is making a new effort—advancing in another direction—to get the nation’s business done. He’s signed an order to re-open the government for three weeks to open the door for negotiation.

In his remarks, the president noted, “In the last two years, ICE officers arrested a total of 226,000 criminal aliens inside the United States.” In each of the past three months, he said, there were “60,000 apprehensions at our southern border.”

As of 2016, there were 10.7 million illegal immigrants in our nation, 7.8 million of which are in our workforce. Of the 10.7 million, two-thirds have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years.

A just released Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows Trump’s approval at 43 percent and disapproval at 54 percent—exactly where he was last month. Pelosi’s approval stands at 28 percent and disapproval at 47 percent, up from 41 percent last month.

Trump deserves credit for courageous leadership regarding the need for a wall on our southern border to serve our security interests.

If he had a good-faith negotiating partner in congressional Democrats, we might be able to get somewhere.

     Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org

Record Cold Forces Rethink on Global Warming

                                      Getty Images

     Headlines around the world are reporting exceptionally frigid conditions and unusually high levels of snowfall in recent weeks. They tout these events as records, but few people understand how short the record actually is — usually less than 50 years, a mere instant in Earth’s 4.6-billion year history. The reality is that, when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.

    Despite this fact, the media — directly, indirectly, or by inference — often attribute the current weather to global warming. Yes, they now call it climate change. But that is because activists realized, around 2004, that the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing. So, the evidence no longer fit the theory. English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this dilemma over a century ago:

    “The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

    Yet, the recent weather is a stark reminder that a colder world is a much greater threat than a warmer one. While governments plan for warming, all the indications are that the world is cooling. And, contrary to the proclamations of climate activists, every single year more people die from the cold than from the heat.

    A study in British medical journal The Lancet reached the following conclusion:

     Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

    How did this bizarre situation develop? It was a deliberate, orchestrated deception. The results of the investigation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were deliberately premeditated to focus on the negative impacts of warming. In their original 1988 mandate from the UN, global warming is mentioned three times, while cooling is not mentioned even once. The UN notes that:

      [C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.

     This narrow focus was reinforced when the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a body the IPCC is required to support, defined climate change as being caused by human activity.

 

     IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) produced the evidence that human-created CO2 was causing global warming. That finding became the premise for Working Group 2 (WG2), which examined the negative impact, and Working Group 3 (WG3), which proposed mitigation policies and actions to stop the warming. The IPCC did not follow the mandatory scientific method of allowing for the null hypothesis; namely, what to do if evidence shows CO2 is not causing warming.

     As MIT professor emeritus of atmospheric meteorology Richard Lindzen said, they reached a consensus before the research even began. The consensus “proved” the hypothesis was correct, regardless of the evidence. To reinforce the point, the UK government hired Lord Nicholas Stern, a British economist, to produce an economic review of the impact of warming. Instead of doing a normal cost/benefit analysis as any non-political economist would do, he produced what became known as the 2006 Stern Review — which only examined the cost.

     If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans. Anthropologists tell us two great advances in human evolution gave us more control of the cold. Fire and clothing both created microclimates that allowed us to live in regions normally inaccessible. Consider the city of Winnipeg, with three technological umbilical cords: the electricity from the north, the gas from the west, and the water pipeline from the east. Three grenades set off at 2:00 a.m. on a January morning with temperatures of -30°C would render the city frozen solid within hours.

     Between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures went down. The consensus by 1970 was that global cooling was underway and would continue. Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling typified the alarmism:

     It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

    Change the seventh word to warming, and it is the same threat heard today. The big difference is that cooling is a much greater threat. To support that claim, the CIA produced at least two reports examining the social and political unrest aggravated mainly by crop failure due to cooling conditions. The World Meteorological Organization also did several studies on the historical impact of cooling on selected agricultural regions, and projected further global cooling.

     The sad part about all this is that there was a strategy that governments could, and should, have adopted. It is called game theory, and it allows you to make the best decision in uncertain circumstances. It requires accurate information and the exclusion of a biased political agenda. The first accurate information is that cold is a greater threat and a more difficult adaptation than to warming. After all, if you prepare for warming, as most governments are now doing, and it cools, the problems are made ten times worse. However, if you prepare for cold and it warms, the adjustment is much easier.

    The current cold weather across much of the world should prompt us to re-examine climate realities — not the false, deceptive, and biased views created and promoted by deep state bureaucrats through their respective governments.

Border Security Versus Democrat Hypocrisy

In border security debate, policy should trump rhetoric

James Jay Carafano

    Politicians often clothe outrageous policies in reasonable rhetoric. Donald Trump sometimes does the opposite, wrapping reasonable policy in careless rhetoric.

    Remember his earlier call for a “Muslim travel ban?” The policy itself – temporary restrictions on travel from a half-dozen countries – was perfectly reasonable. As the ISIS Caliphate collapsed, its fighters began fleeing to those nations, and Trump wanted to have measures in place to make sure they did not then come here.

Yet the President’s rhetoric helped fuel a bitter, partisan debate which kept the policy in abeyance until a Supreme Court ruling restored common sense by upholding the ban.

AMERICA’S PROGRESSIVES ARE SO BUSY EXTOLLING VIRTUES OF SOCIALISM THAT THEY WANT YOU TO IGNORE THIS

    His call for more border wall, only 237 miles out of the 1954 mile border, has sparked a similar dynamic. The political rhetoric on both sides of the debate frequently flies over the top, obscuring the practical rationale for the policy.

    Border security needs have changed since Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Then, Homeland Security’s focus was to catch illegal border crossers and remove them before they “melted” into the interior.

    Fences were erected in high-trafficked areas to deter or slow crossings, helping the border patrol to catch illegal immigrants within 100 miles of the border. (Deportation of those apprehended after being in the country more than two weekends or beyond 100 miles of the border is a much more laborious and costly process.)

The fencing was both an effective deterrent and a helpful enforcement tool, increasing the likelihood of expedited removal. As a result, illegal crossings declined.

But the threat to the border has evolved. Those crossing the border with children and claiming to be related as well as those claiming refugee status are not put in expedited removal. Both have become popular tactics to “beat” the system.

The only way to prevent abuse of the asylum process is to keep would-be immigrants on the other side of the border until 1) they submit formal asylum claims at official points of entry and 2) those claims have been evaluated.

Making that happen requires more and improved walls. Indeed, Trump’s wall policy reflects the advice of government’s border security professionals.

A similar request from any other president would be considered unremarkable. It’s controversial only because of the hyper-partisan, emotional political atmosphere that has characterized the Trump era.

Conversely, other arguments against the request don’t pass the common sense test.

One argument is that the border is not a problem. The real problem, they say, is visa overstays – people entering legally and then just not leaving.

Overstays have always been a huge problem and do, in fact, account for a large percentage of people here illegally. But part of the reason overstays are a larger share of the population is because border security is working better than it used to. And we should continue to make it work better.

One reason to worry more about border crossers than overstayers is because the latter at least got a visa to come here to begin with. That means they were screened for security, public safety, health, criminal and public charge risks. Those crossing illegally haven’t been screened at all – making them a potentially higher-risk population.

At the end of the day, illegal border crossings and overstays are both problems. It’s not an either/or issue; good policy must address both.

Another weak argument suggests walls aren’t needed because drugs and other bad stuff are mostly smuggled through the ports of entry. There is truth in that, but smuggling also occurs elsewhere along the border. Again, good policy must address both dangers.

We actually need more border security to channel more smuggling attempt to ports of entry, because that is where we are best equipped to screen for bad things.

Perhaps the weakest argument against border walls is that they create a humanitarian crisis. Right now, legitimate refugees suffer their cases are delayed due to the avalanche of false claims now clogging the system. Moreover, to take advantage of the “family” loophole, more and more children are being dragged to the border – often by a non-family member. This has created an epidemic of child endangerment.

Finally, wall opponents argue there are other things we should do to crack down on illegal immigration – from closing catch-and-release loopholes in the wall, to working with Latin American countries to stem the causes of illegal migration and combat criminal cartels.

Here, they are right. The administration should take all those steps. And it’s trying to do so. But the package proposed by the president compliments these efforts. It is not one or the other.

    James Jay Carafano is vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. He is a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Follow him on Twitter @JJCarafano.