Moving Beyond Reason Enables The Attack On America

Moving Beyond Reason Enables The Attack On America

 

    Completely void of any semblance of justice, and fully lacking any Constitutional standing, liberals, progressives, socialists, and others of a like mind, called by whatever name throughout the ages, want and have been willing to to take the fruits of others’ labors, and/or have sought to appropriate the property and earnings of others to give to the undeserving and unwilling to work, often exempting their own assets and property obtained as blessings accessing opportunities and freedoms they would deny to those willing to work in their “pursuit of Happiness”. — The Attack on America

 

Recalling the consequences to the world when Britain pursued a policy of appeasing Hitler, the causes of the downfall of the Soviet Union, the atrocities of Maoist communism, and all the tragedies of past and present foreign and domestic policies, history warns of the repetitive failure of political action moving beyond reason ignoring the realities described by true science and unperverted uncorrupted history. Founded on science as they understood it at the time, and from studying political history to 500 years before Christ, the Framers and Founders instituted an order of government defined in the Constitution. America and all that it represents in liberty and justice for all to the world is under attack from enemies, foreign and domestic, moving beyond reason when given access to political power.

 

From the new experiment in freedom begun in 1776 in America onward, the world in emerging and changing governments has witnessed the consequences of not holding politicians and political action to any standard other than truth and justice for all. Sustained and promoted by ideologies and religions contrary to the worldview of the generations of men and women giving birth to these United States, the enemies of freedom and justice prosecute the attack on the innocent around the globe.

 

The following article, Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave Is Mind-Boggling, alludes to the fact that at the heart of the motivations resulting in the evil and crime inflicted on and infecting societies are the ideologies held by those expressing their beliefs. Veterans of conflicts in Islamic areas are all too familiar with Islamic mantra, “Women are for babies, boys are for fun.”. Never forget the Saudi female school children burned to death as people watched restrained by Sharia law, or the mutilation of women by Islamists.

Whether the rioters and criminals violently protesting the results of the 2016 presidential election, ISIS, the Taliban, Afghan rapists, any calling for tolerance of any injustice, or any denying the “unalienable Rights” described in the ideologic preamble to the Constitution, any thwarting liberty and justice for all must be defeated and destroyed. Such justice allows for charity and compassion, but “provide[s] for the common defense” of what is right, true, and just, where those three — righteousness, truth, and justice are not determined and defined by the laws of mankind, but rather by Laws, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, of “their Creator”.

 

CftC

Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave Is Mind-Boggling.

Afghans stand out among the refugees committing crimes . . . . Why?

Cheryl Benard

July 11, 2017

In 2014, when waves of refugees began flooding into western Europe, citizens and officials alike responded with generosity and openness. Exhausted refugees spilled out of trains and buses to be met by crowds bearing gifts of clothing and food, and holding up placards that read “Welcome Refugees.”

This was a honeymoon that could not last. Some of the upcoming difficulties had been anticipated: that the newcomers did not speak the local languages, might be traumatized, would probably take a long time to find their footing, and had brought their ethnic, religious and sectarian conflicts with them, causing them to get into battles with each other. All of these things happened but—as Angela Merkel promised—were manageable. “Wir schaffen das.”

But there was one development that had not been expected, and was not tolerable: the large and growing incidence of sexual assaults committed by refugees against local women. These were not of the cultural-misunderstanding-date-rape sort, but were vicious, no-preamble attacks on random girls and women, often committed by gangs or packs of young men. At first, the incidents were downplayed or hushed up—no one wanted to provide the right wing with fodder for nationalist agitation, and the hope was that these were isolated instances caused by a small problem group of outliers. As the incidents increased, and because many of them took place in public or because the public became involved either in stopping the attack or in aiding the victim afterwards, and because the courts began issuing sentences as the cases came to trial, the matter could no longer be swept under the carpet of political correctness. And with the official acknowledgment and public reporting, a weird and puzzling footnote emerged. Most of the assaults were being committed by refugees of one particular nationality: by Afghans.

Actually Afghans should not even have been part of the refugee tide, at least not in significant numbers. It was the Syrians who were expected. Afghanistan, a place of lingering and chronic conflict, is no longer on the official refugee roster—that’s reserved for acute political and military emergencies. Still, European authorities and the public were sympathetic, and could understand why Afghans would want to leave a country rife with suicide bombings and empty of opportunity. Also, Europeans held a baseline positive sentiment towards Afghanistan. Many baby-boomer Europeans had, in their hippie days of yore, traversed that country in the legendary VW buses, and retained fond memories of friendly, hospitable people. Later everyone had mourned the loss of the Bamiyan Buddhas and felt for the poor people suffering under Taliban rule. And after that, NATO had been part of the “coalition of the willing.” Europeans were predisposed to be positive towards Afghan refugees. But it quickly became obvious that something was wrong, very wrong, with these young Afghan men: they were committing sex crimes to a much greater extent than other refugees, even those from countries that were equally or more backward, just as Islamic and conservative, and arguably just as misogynist.

This is not an article that has been fun for me to write. I have worked on issues related to refugees for much of my professional life, from the Pakistani camps during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to Yemen, Sudan, Thailand, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Lebanon, Bosnia, Nicaragua and Iraq, and have deep sympathy for their plight. But nowhere had I encountered a phenomenon like this one. I had seen refugees trapped in circumstances that made them vulnerable to rape, by camp guards or soldiers. But for refugees to become perpetrators of this crime in the place that had given them asylum? That was something new. Further, my personal and professional life has endowed me with many Afghan and Afghan American friends, and there is nothing collectively psychopathic about them. They are doctors, shopkeepers, owners of Japanese restaurants, airport sedan drivers, entrepreneurs, IT experts, salesladies at Macy’s—they’re like everyone else. The parent generation tends to be a bit stiff, formal and etiquette conscious. It is impossible to imagine any of them engaging in the sort of outlandish, bizarre and primitive sexual aggression their young compatriots are becoming infamous for. Yet here we are.

A few weeks ago, the Austrian city of Tulln declared a full stop to any further refugee admissions. As the mayor made clear, that decision was aimed at Afghans, but for legal and administrative reasons it could only be promulgated in a global way. That had not been the city’s intention—to the contrary, it had just completed the construction of an expensive, brand-new facility for incoming asylum seekers, which would now, the mayor declared, be given over to another purpose. His exact words: “We’ve had it.” The tipping point, after a series of disturbing incidents all emanating from Afghans, was the brutal gang rape of a fifteen-year-old girl, snatched from the street on her way home, dragged away and serially abused by Afghan refugees.

And that was just one in a string of outrage-inducing occurrences, all of them going to the account of Afghans.

A while before, in Vienna, a young female Turkish exchange student had been pursued into a public restroom by three Afghan refugees. They jammed the door shut and proceeded to savagely attack her. Grabbing her by the neck, they struck her head repeatedly against a porcelain toilet bowl to knock her out. When that failed to break her desperate resistance, they took turns holding her down and raping her. The young woman required a hospital stay, after which—too traumatized to resume her studies—she fled home to Turkey, where she continues to be depressed and miserable, unable to process what happened and unable, in a conservative Muslim society, to talk about her experience to anybody except one best friend and confidante.

It took a while for the pattern to be recognized because, until recently, western European media deliberately refrained from identifying an assailant’s refugee or asylum status, or his country of origin. Only when the correlation became so dramatic that it was itself newsworthy did this policy change. At that point, it became clear that the authorities had known about, and for political reasons had deliberately covered up, large-scale incidences of sexual assault by migrants. For example, a gang of fifty Afghans who terrorized women in the neighborhood of the Linz train station had been brushed off by a government official with the remark that this was an unfortunate consequence of bad weather, and that once summer came the young men would disperse into the public parks and no longer move in such a large, menacing pack. The public was not amused.

I could write the same report about Sweden, Germany, or any other country of asylum in Europe, but I am focusing on examples from Austria because that’s the European country I come from and know best. So let’s take a look at the Austrian press. This from Österreich, the daily newspaper distributed for free on public transit and thus read, basically, by almost everyone. Front page: Afghan (eighteen) attacks young woman at Danube Festival. “Once again there has been an attempted rape by an Afghan. A twenty-one-year-old Slovak tourist was mobbed and groped by a group of men. She managed to get away, but was pursued by one of them, an Afghan asylum seeker who caught her and dragged her into the bushes. Nearby plainclothes policemen noticed the struggle and intervened to prevent the rape at the last moment.” Page ten: “A twenty-five-year-old Afghan attempted to rape a young woman who was sitting in the sun in the park. Four courageous passersby dragged the man off the victim and held him until the police arrived.” Page twelve: “Two Afghans have been sentenced for attempting to rape a woman on a train in Graz. The men, who live in an asylum seekers’ residence, first insulted the young woman with obscene verbal remarks before attacking her. When she screamed for help, passengers from other parts of the train rushed to her aid.”

Let’s leave aside the reprehensibility of this conduct for the moment and focus instead on its logic or lack thereof. Can these men possibly expect that their attempts will be successful? Do they actually think they will be able to rape a woman on the main street of a town in the middle of the day? On a train filled with other passengers? In a frequented public park in the early afternoon? Are they incapable of logical thought—or is that not even their aim? Do they merely want to cause momentary female hysteria and touch some forbidden places of a stranger’s body? Is that so gratifying that it’s worth jeopardizing their future and being hauled off to jail by scornful and disgusted Europeans? What is going on here? And why, why, why the Afghans? According to Austrian police statistics, Syrian refugees cause fewer than 10 percent of sexual assault cases. Afghans, whose numbers are comparable, are responsible for a stunning half of all cases.

Type two words into Google—Afghane and Vergewaltigung—and a cornucopia of appalling incidents unfolds before you. The mentally retarded woman in Linz, kidnapped, dragged to an Afghan refugee’s apartment and raped until she was finally able to escape into his bathroom, lock herself in and, as he battered at the door, crank open the window and scream for help. Incidents like that one point to a cold-blooded predator, with planning and premeditation.

Others are merely baffling. Public swimming pools are confronted with epidemics of young Afghan men who think it a good idea to expose themselves, whipping off their pants and standing there until tackled by the lifeguards and removed from the premises with orders to never return. Let’s be charitable: let’s assume that at some point, one or two of these young men might have heard stories of nudist beaches and thought to join in. But that’s hardly an explanation. Seriously; in a foreign country where your legal standing is tenuous, wouldn’t you cast a quick glance around to ensure that you are not the first and only man thus flaunting his ornamentation, before engaging in conduct that your entire upbringing has taught you to consider unthinkable? Come on!

Plus, within hours or days of their arrival, the Afghan-refugee grapevine educates newcomers as to the ins and outs of navigating the country: what offices to go to and what to say when you get there, where to apply for additional aid, where to find free housing and so on. If they can learn all of that, they can figure out the dress code.

So again: what’s going on? Why is this happening? And why the Afghans? A few competing theories are in circulation.

First: “They get drunk.” One of my interlocutors, a diaspora Afghan who has lived in Vienna for decades and works as a certified court translator and advisor, and thus is intimately familiar with these cases and the persons involved, dismisses this explanation out of hand. Rather, he says, word has gotten out that claiming to have been mentally incapacitated during the commission of a crime—including from alcohol or drugs—counts as an extenuating circumstance. Often, he relates, the defendants will have been inadequately briefed and will put this excuse forward ineptly. For example, they will say that they drank two beers and from these blacked out, remembering nothing of their subsequent actions. This theory also does not explain why Afghans should be more prone to alcohol-induced sexual aggression than other young refugee men from comparable backgrounds.

A second theory hypothesizes confusion caused by a clash in cultural values. These young men, the theory holds, come from a country where women are mere dark silhouettes completely hidden under pleated burqas. Confronted with girls in tank tops and short shorts, they lose their grip on sanity and their hormones run away with them. This theory, in addition to being borderline blame-the-victim offensive, does not hold water. Again, the same reaction should then also be shown by other young men from strict Islamic societies where gender segregation is the norm; why would only the Afghans react this way? And how does it explain cases such as that of the seventy-two-year-old pensioner, out walking her dog when attacked, beaten and raped by a young Afghan? Or the schoolboy, kidnapped and gang-raped in Sweden by a group of Afghans?

Indeed, if we review the pattern of the attacks, we can soon dismiss this theory. Typically, the preferred targets are not what stereotype might imagine, provocatively dressed young women that a confused Muslim from the ultraconservative hinterland misinterprets as promiscuous. No; often, the victims are mothers with small children. I am guessing that to a predator, they appear to be easier targets, because it is assumed they will be handicapped in their ability to fight back, but there may also be some more Freudian dimension that I am missing.

In one recent case that raised a huge public outcry, a woman was out for a walk in a park on an elevation above the Danube. With her she had her two children, a toddler plus her infant in a baby carriage. Out of the blue, an Afghan refugee leapt at her, threw her down, bit her, strangled her and attempted to rape her. In the struggle, the baby carriage went careening towards the embankment and the infant almost plunged into the river below. With her second child looking on aghast, the woman valiantly fought off her assailant, ripping the hood off his jacket, which later made it possible for an Austrian police dog to track him down.

In another incident, two young women were on a midday stroll in the pedestrian zone of a small Austrian town, pushing their babies in prams before them, when they were abruptly attacked by several Afghan refugees, who lunged at them and ripped off their clothing but were apprehended before they could do further damage. It’s clear that such events antagonize the general public. It’s also clear that we can dismiss the “they were drunk and didn’t know what they were doing” theory, as well as “they thought the women were asking for it.”

This brings us to a third, more compelling and quite disturbing theory—the one that my Afghan friend, the court translator, puts forward. On the basis of his hundreds of interactions with these young men in his professional capacity over the past several years, he believes to have discovered that they are motivated by a deep and abiding contempt for Western civilization. To them, Europeans are the enemy, and their women are legitimate spoils, as are all the other things one can take from them: housing, money, passports. Their laws don’t matter, their culture is uninteresting and, ultimately, their civilization is going to fall anyway to the horde of which one is the spearhead. No need to assimilate, or work hard, or try to build a decent life here for yourself—these Europeans are too soft to seriously punish you for a transgression, and their days are numbered.

And it’s not just the sex crimes, my friend notes. Those may agitate public sentiment the most, but the deliberate, insidious abuse of the welfare system is just as consequential. Afghan refugees, he says, have a particular proclivity to play the system: to lie about their age, to lie about their circumstances, to pretend to be younger, to be handicapped, to belong to an ethnic minority when even the tired eye of an Austrian judge can distinguish the delicate features of a Hazara from those of a Pashtun.

I see his point. In the course of my research, I encountered thirty-year-olds with family in Austria who were passing themselves off as “unaccompanied minors.” I met people misrepresenting an old traffic injury as proof that they had been tortured. I learned of an Afghan family that had emigrated to Hungary two decades ago. The children were born there and attended Hungarian schools. When the refugee crisis erupted, enticed by news of all the associated benefits, this family decided to take on a new identity and make their way to Sweden on the pretense of being brand-new refugees. Claiming to have lost their papers during their “flight,” they registered under new assumed names and reduced the ages of their children; the mother declared herself a widow. Now ensconced in comfortable free housing along with their hale, hearty and very much alive father—whom they pass off as an uncle—with a monthly welfare check, they are smug parasites leeching off the gullibility of Sweden’s taxpayers.

Western legal systems are meticulous and procedural, operate on the basis of rules and rights and forms and documents, and consider you innocent until proven guilty. It didn’t take the refugees long to figure out how to leverage this to their advantage. “They’ll stand right there, balding, grey at the temples, and insist that they’re eighteen,” an exasperated Austrian prosecutor told me. Having “lost” their documents, the only way to refute even the most patently absurd such claim is through expensive lab tests. If you have no documents and no shame, you can assert just about anything and then lean back and wait for the system to try and prove otherwise. If you are rejected, no problem: you can launch multiple appeals. Once you have set foot in Europe, it will be almost impossible to get rid of you; indeed, you can literally commit murder. If a court finds you guilty of rape, you need only argue that if you are sent home, your conservative society will kill you for the dishonorable act—then you can’t be shipped out, because EU law forbids extradition if doing so puts the individual’s life at risk. And murderers cannot be sent back to countries that have the death penalty or a judicial system known to be harsh.

But we are still left with a mystery. Welfare fraud is one thing: it makes a certain kind of sense, if you have no regard for rule of law or fairness and you are lazy. But why is this current cohort of Afghans making its mark as sexual predators . . . and inept, stupid ones at that? In search of an answer, perhaps we should take a closer look at the victims. We have eliminated improper attire and an unwittingly seductive manner, but might they have any other traits in common to shed light on why they became the targets of such madness? Reviewing them, one word comes to mind: fulfillment. A Turkish exchange student, happy to be advancing her education in industrial design at a good university in Vienna. A girl in a park, enjoying the sunshine. Two friends, taking their babies for a walk. A mother, enjoying a summer stroll with her two children. A contented old lady, out with her pet. Attractive, accomplished, happy, normal people . . . an unbearable sight, perhaps, to—and here I must agree with President Trump—losers. That is what he proposed we should call terrorists, and he is right. These young men, even minus a suicide vest, are losers, which has inspired them to become social terrorists.

The young Afghan attackers are saying, yes, that they have no impulse control, that their hormones are raging, and that they hate themselves and the world—but most especially, that they will not tolerate women who are happy, confident and feeling safe in public spaces. They are saying that they have no intention of respecting law, custom, public opinion, local values or common decency, all of which they hate so much that they are ready to put their own lives, their constructive futures and their freedom on the line for the satisfaction of inflicting damage.

Established middle-class diaspora Afghans are understandably upset and embarrassed to see their nationality thus disgraced by these uncouth newcomers. And yet they are part of the problem. Many of their actions and reactions, however natural or unintended, amount to complicity. They cover up, make excuses for, advise on best ways to wriggle out of consequences, and even directly abet the deceptions, illegal acts and disgraceful manners of friends, relatives and random unknown fellow Afghans.

The reasons for this are many-layered. There is the perceived obligation to be loyal to friends and relatives and countrymen. I think there is also a certain lack of true identification with Western notions of bureaucratic and biographic fact; many, if not most, Afghans currently living in the West have some lies of necessity in their past. Whichever of them arrived first—a father, an older brother—generally had to make up a supposed family name and a birthdate on the fly, because back home, until one generation ago most people did not have a last name and birth dates were not recorded. I know respectable, law-abiding Afghan families where everyone’s birthdays are implausibly sequential—June 1, June 2, June 3 and so forth, because the family member who filled out the immigration paperwork had to make up birth dates and thought it would be easier to remember them this way.

It is also possible that this diaspora community, given the weakness of state institutions in their country of origin, the arbitrariness of its corruption-riddled administrations for centuries, and a certain lack of rootedness that comes from being dropped into someone else’s culture and way of doing things, is fine with a bit of finagling of welfare benefits. They don’t, of course, endorse rape, but here embarrassment kicks in and inspires them to make excuses. “They’re young.” “They’re confused.” “They grew up in Iran, where one learns bad behavior.” Others just disavow them altogether and want nothing to do with them. That’s regrettable, because Afghans who have already made respected lives for themselves abroad are in the best position to discipline and teach the delinquent newcomers, to know what combination of sanctions, pressures and encouragement will be effective.

Complicated problems, to be sure, but why should they concern us here in the United States, beyond mere anthropological curiosity? Well, first of all, these young men are “ours.” They grew up during the years in which we were the dominant influence and paymaster in Afghan society. Since 2001, we have spent billions on an Afghan school system that we like to cite as one of our greatest accomplishments. These young men either attended these schools, in which case the investment in their education has been worse than useless, or did not have access to a school, in which case the money must have been fraudulently diverted. We have also invested many, many millions of dollars on gender programs and rule-of-law programs to convey notions of female equality and human value, and regard for law and order. We have funded radio programs and entire TV stations devoted to this goal, launched poster campaigns and sponsored at enormous cost a large number of civil-society groups purporting to disseminate these values. And here, now, are our “graduates,” rampaging across Europe like the worst sort of feral beasts.

Secondly, the relevance to U.S. refugee policy is sadly obvious. It will require rigorous vetting indeed to weed out such deeply disturbed, degenerate young males whose willingness to be deceptive is so pronounced and whose motives are so irrational.

Which brings me to a final theory being vented in Austria: that these destructive, crazed young men are being intentionally infiltrated into western Europe to wreak havoc: to take away the freedom and security of women; change patterns of behavior; deepen the rifts between liberals, who continue to defend and find excuses, and a right wing that calls for harsh measures and violent responses; to inflict high costs and aggravation on courts and judicial systems and generally make a mess of things.

For the record, I am not convinced that there is a deliberate plan behind this, but I do agree that angry and unstable young men are susceptible to destructive paths. Those paths can lead to ideological extremism and terrorism, or to the formation of gangs and packs that attack, harm and destroy. As we have seen, presently many of their attacks are inept and easily blocked by random civilian passersby. But they will get more skillful over time, and Europe had best develop a defense against them.

What to do? The necessary measures, I think, are obvious.

Anyone convicted of a felony or any kind of sexual crime should be immediately deported, and that consequence should be made known to new arrivals as part of their initial orientation. This is the only way to stop the accelerating problem. (Doing so will, of course, require changes to European law.)

Every arriving refugee and asylum seeker must be subjected to rigorous fact-checking of their story, including validation of their asserted age by lab testing if there is any doubt. Yes, it’s troublesome and costly, but not nearly as troublesome and costly as letting the wrong people in, or putting hundreds of thousands of foreigners permanently or semipermanently on the dole with benefits they are not entitled to. And European countries must share the resultant data with each other, and identities must be linked to fingerprints, not to documents of dubious authenticity or no documents at all.

Members of the relevant diaspora communities must make very clear to the refugees that they do not approve of and will not assist them with their false claims, cheating, bad behavior or crime. They should instead emphasize by their own example, as well as by direct outreach, that a good and fulfilling life is possible in their new homes with hard work, a sincere effort to fit in and a cooperative attitude.

Finally, the Left has to do a bit of hard thinking. It’s fine to be warm, fuzzy and sentimental about strangers arriving on your shores, but let’s also spare some warm, fuzzy and sentimental thoughts for our own values, freedoms and lifestyle. Girls and women should continue to feel safe in public spaces, be able to attend festivals, wear clothing appropriate to the weather and their own liking, travel on trains, go to the park, walk their dogs and live their lives. This is a wonderful Western achievement, and one that is worth defending.

Dr. Cheryl Benard was program director of the Initiative for Middle Eastern Youth and the Alternative Strategies Initiative within the RAND Corporation’s National Security Research Division. Her publications include Civil Democratic Islam, Building Moderate Muslim Networks, The Muslim World After 9-11, The Battle Behind the Wire – US Prisoner and Detainee Operations, and Eurojihad – Patterns of Islamist Radicalization and Terrorism in Europe. Civil Democratic Islam was one of the books found in Osama Bin Laden’s library during the raid on his compound.

Divinely Inspired Wisdom

Divinely Inspired Wisdom

 

Historians unanimously agree that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have their ideological roots in Christian Biblical worldview of the Framers and Founders. Detractors of the Christian foundation of America point to the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution coupled with their reliance on their First Amendment rights and the separation of church and state discourses to ignore the fact that this “one Nation under God” was established on truth and reality. It so happens that science and history, as the generations of men and women who gave birth to these United States understood them, confirmed the ideology/religion of their Christian Biblical worldview. This is simply a statement of fact evinced in the abundant, readily accessible public record of the times. What liberals and all who move beyond reason attacking America do is call to the lies, distortions, deceptions, and perversions of truth, both scientific and historical, in pursuit of their political agendas.

 

Concluding the Declaration of Independence are the words “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”. With some losing all in fulfilling that pledge, they engaged the mightiest army and navy of their time with no standing army or navy and no coordinated military organization. After the miraculous military success of the Revolution, the “father of our Country”, General and President George Washington summarized the reality and Truth embedded in the founding of these United States of America in his Farewell Address.

 

Now ignoring these same “self-evident” “truths”, America is under attack by “enemies, foreign and domestic” whose ideologies arise from false religions. Crippling American industry are those suggesting that humanity has any control over global warming. Politicians violate their oath of office by failing to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” saddling us with debt, and remain unaccountable. Foreign policies with alliances warned of in the Farewell Address are in place. A healthcare system driven by money ignoring the reality of human behavior goes unremedied by politicians focused on reelection. The unconstitutional enslavement by the bureaucracy of the administrative state consumes the earnings of working Americans, and enslaves us with injustice. Knowingly and willfully, the tyranny of judicial activism violates the Constitution unchecked by Congress. Our borders are permeated by drug dealers, terrorists, and criminals. Unbounded capitalism denies equal opportunity, just fair competition, and free enterprise. Socialist agendas of liberals, progressives, Democrats, and all choosing to believe what they choose to believe rather than the unblemished uncorrupted truths of science and history, rob and steal from working righteous Americans and give the fruits of their “pursuit of Happiness” to the undeserving. Terrorism joins the assault on the traditional nuclear family in removing truth and reality as the prime requisite for successful political structure.

 

The following article by John Bolton focuses on one aspect political involvement warned of by President Washington that remains a threat to freedom and justice – foreign policy and foreign alliances.

 

CftC

 

 

Putin Looked Trump in the Eye and Lied to Him

John R. Bolton

10 July, 2017

    Before Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin at the G20, media speculation approached hysterical levels. Would it be like the Reagan-Gorbachev get-together at Reykjavik in 1986, or Chamberlain meeting Hitler in Munich in 1938?

Of course, it was like neither. Instead, the encounter was primarily for the leaders to take each other’s measure. This was especially important for Trump, given his opponents’ charges, with no evidence to date, that his campaign colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, reported afterwards that Trump opened the meeting by expressing “the concerns of Americans” about Russian election interference. Tillerson emphasized that the discussion was “robust and lengthy”, with Trump returning several times to Russia’s meddling.

Although we do not have Trump’s exact words, US critics immediately attacked him for not referring to his concerns about the intrusions. If Trump did speak broadly about Americans’ worries, he struck the right note. The US is essentially unanimous that no foreign intervention in our constitutional process is acceptable.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) meets with U.S. President Donald Trump (right in Hamburg, Germany on July 7, 2017. (Image source: kremlin.ru)

But there was an even more important outcome: Trump got to experience Putin looking him in the eyes and lying to him, denying Russian interference in the election. It was predictable Putin would say just that, as he has before (offering the gratuitous, nearly insulting suggestion that individual hackers might have been responsible). Commentators were quick to observe that governments almost never straightforwardly acknowledge their intelligence activities.

But attempting to undermine America’s constitution is far more than just a quotidian covert operation. It is in fact a casus belli, a true act of war, and one Washington will never tolerate. For Trump, it should be a highly salutary lesson about the character of Russia’s leadership to watch Putin lie to him. And it should be a fire-bell-in-the-night warning about the value Moscow places on honesty, whether regarding election interference, nuclear proliferation, arms control or the Middle East: negotiate with today’s Russia at your peril.

On specific issues, the meeting’s outcome was also problematic. A ceasefire agreement in southwestern Syria is a clear victory for Russia, Assad’s regime, Hizbollah terrorists and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Although humanitarian in intention, this deal substantially legitimizes Russia’s participation in the Syrian struggle, thereby keeping Assad’s dictatorship alive.

Any ceasefire necessarily relieves pressure on Assad on one front, which he can exploit on another. Even more troubling were Tillerson’s references to the regime’s future, implying discussions with Russia about a post-Assad Syria. If so, this would simply be a continuation of the Obama administration’s delusion that Moscow shared our interest in removing Assad. Russia would acquiesce only if another Russian stooge were to fill his shoes.

Moreover, on North Korea, Tillerson said that Washington wanted to return Pyongyang to the table to discuss rolling back its nuclear weapons program. This too is a continuation of Obama policies, which brought us to the point where the North is dangerously close to delivering nuclear weapons on targets in the US.

For both Syria and North Korea, such comments reflect the influence of America’s permanent bureaucracy, which has been implementing Obama policies for eight years, and which Trump has yet to redirect.

There was undoubtedly much more to the Trump-Putin meeting. But its major consequence – what Trump learnt from observing Putin in action, lying with the benefit of the best KGB training – will be important for years to come.

    John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”.

    This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.

The left’s (liberal’s) war on Christianity and why they hate Trump

The left’s (liberal’s) war on Christianity and why they hate Trump

July 9, 2017

    Do you remember the video that was played at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, “Government is the Only Thing We All Belong To”?  The title of that video is the crux of the beliefs of the left, not just in the U.S., but everywhere.   In contemporary America, Democrats have become congruent with the left, and the belief that the government owns us is a pervasive sentiment.

    Why is this?  Democrats, as a political party, have literally denounced religion, particularly Christianity.  At that same Convention in 2012, the delegates filled the arena with loud booing during the attempt to reinstate the word “God” into the Democratic Party platform.

    Persecution of Christians was practically Obama administration policy, including lawsuits of Christians refusing to subordinate their beliefs to government mandates.  Even the Little Sisters of the Poor were made to suffer for refusing to be a party to forced distribution of contraceptives .

    In her book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” Ann Coulter writes:

    Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul.  Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness.  It’s just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs.  They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God’s image.

    In the absence of belief in a higher power, government naturally becomes the almighty deity.  Without God, humans are soulless creatures no better than wild animals, and it stands to reason that they should not be trusted with personal freedoms.  We must therefore belong to the government.

    Then along came Donald Trump.  He does not believe in big government.  He dislikes politicians, regulations, and bureaucracy.  The people he has hired in his administration have similar beliefs.  The Republicans, who hold majorities in both houses of Congress, also believe in smaller government (for the most part).

    Imagine, if you will, that your religion has been usurped by priests or ministers that do not share your beliefs.  Imagine that Satan has been elected Pope.  (No, I’m not comparing Pope Francis to Satan.  But there are a lot of strange things happening at the Vatican lately).  This is the gut-wrenching horror that the left is currently experiencing.  Their god is slowly dying, trampled on by heretics and blasphemers.

    President Trump is not your typical politician.  His penchant for prolific Tweeting is decidedly not presidential, at least to the true believers in government.  Trump is a heretic in the Church of State.  He does not take his role as secular Pope of the nation with the proper solemnity.

    Trump says that he is “modern day presidential”.  As such, the modern day president has set up his own rules.  If these new rules failed him, it would be painfully obvious to him and his administration.  But they haven’t, at least not to this point.

    His Tweets have successfully driven his sworn enemies, the left and the leftist media, absolutely crazy to the point of making them lose focus on their mission to “resist” and sabotage his agenda.  Instead they have become obsessed with his impropriety as the leader of their government religion.  As a consequence, he deserves secular excommunication, aka impeachment.

    Trump’s strategy is winning.  He needs to continue to use social media to isolate and completely cut the leftist media out of the loop.

    The American left has shown itself to be dangerously unstable.  For them, politics is not a trivial pursuit, it is a deadly serious bloodsport, and they play to win.  On the other side, Trump is playing political “rope-a-dope”.  Like Muhammad Ali bouncing against the ropes to dodge George Foreman’s powerful roundhouse blows in the “Rumble in the Jungle,” he is fending off the relentless attacks of the left with stealth and cleverness.

    American politics can be distilled down to whether or not you believe in a higher power than government.  “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”  Thus wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

    Are human rights endowed by our Creator, or bestowed by government?  That is the basic question and conflict in America. In order to resurrect their government god, the libs and Dems must destroy our Creator.   But first, they must destroy our President.

What Really Happened on July 4th — Stephen McDowell

What Really Happened on July 4th

Stephen McDowell

    During the first days of July in 1776 the Continental Congress was considering one of the most significant events of all time — the declaration by thirteen colonies to become the new nation of the United States of America.

    On the issue of independence all the colonies were agreed, but a few of the most cautious delegates still were not sure about the timing. Rev. John Witherspoon, a delegate from New Jersey, answered their concerns as he said:

    “There is a tide in the affairs of men. We perceive it now before us. To hesitate is to consent to our own slavery. That noble instrument should be subscribed to this very morning by every pen in this house. Though these gray hairs must soon descend to the sepulchre, I would infinitely rather that they descend thither by the hand of the executioner than desert at the crisis the sacred cause of my country!”[1]

    The delegates went on to approve the Declaration of Independence. After the announcement of the vote, silence moved over the Congress as the men contemplated the magnitude of what they had just done. Some wept openly, while others bowed in prayer. After signing the Declaration with unusually large writing, the President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, broke the silence as he declared, “His majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can also double the price on my head.”[2]

Adding to the solemnity of the tense moment, Hancock said, “We must be unanimous; there must be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together.” Benjamin Franklin responded in his characteristic wit, “Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately!”[3]

On August 1, the day before an engrossed copy of the Declaration was signed (the copy now displayed in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.), Samuel Adams, whom men of that day ascribed “the greatest part in the greatest revolution of the world,”[4] delivered an address in which he proclaimed regarding the day of Independence: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and… from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.”[5] The men who helped give birth to America understood what was taking place. They saw in the establishment of America the first truly Christian nation in history.

Franklin suggested, they did “hang together,” but even so, many of these signers as well as tens of thousands of colonists lost their lives, families, reputations, and property in order to purchase liberty for themselves and their posterity.[6]

What was it that motivated these people to risk everything in order that they might have freedom? What was it that brought about the events leading to the colonists declaring their independence? John Adams, our second President and a leader in the cause of independence, revealed what he and many others thought as he wrote at the time that the colonies declared their independence:

    “It is the Will of Heaven, that the two Countries should be sundered forever. It may be the Will of Heaven that America shall suffer Calamities still more wasting and Distresses yet more dreadful. If this is to be the Case, it will have this good Effect, at least: it will inspire Us with many Virtues, which We have not, and correct many Errors, and Vices, which threaten to disturb, dishonor, and destroy Us. – The Furnace of Affliction produces Refinement, in States as well as Individuals…. But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe.”[7]

    John Hancock echoed the reliance upon God and the belief that the destiny of nations is in the hand of God as he said:

    “Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe…. Let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him who raises up and puts down the empires and kingdoms of the earth as He pleases.”[8]

    Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a recognition of God, in particular: the laws of nature’s God, the existence of a Creator, the equality of all men before God, Creator-endowed rights,[9] and the purpose of government to protect the God-given rights of God-made man. However, the reliance upon God was so universally adhered to among those in America that the Continental Congress insisted it be made clear in this seminal document. When the draft of the Declaration was debated before Congress, they added the phrase, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, for the rectitude of our intentions,” as well as the words “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”[10] Thus, we see the Continental Congress declaring to the entire world their Christian convictions.

Not only does the Declaration of Independence reflect our Founders’ faith in God, but this document only came into being as a result of Biblical ideas that had been sown in the hearts of the colonists for over one hundred and fifty years. The American Revolution was a revolution of ideas long before it was a revolution of war. As the clergy and other leaders taught the colonists their God-given rights as men, Christians, and subjects, the inevitable result was a nation birthed in liberty.

Samuel Adams recognized the importance of educating everyone throughout the colonies so that they could reason out their rights and political convictions based upon Biblical principles. For this reason he began establishing “Committees of Correspondence” in 1772.[11] His desire was for the colonists to be united “not by external bonds, but by the vital force of distinctive ideas and principles.”

This unity of ideas and principles helped to promote union among the colonists. The common ideas sown within the colonists’ hearts by Samuel Adams and many other Christian thinking men of that and earlier generations, resulted in the Declaration of Independence and the external union of the colonies into the United States of America.

Our celebration of the birth of the nation on July 4th must surely place God at the center, for without His guiding hand our nation would have never come into being. As did the Founders of this nation, so should we recognize this fact. John Adams wrote that the day of independence “will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. — I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty … from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”[12]

 

[1] Samuel Davies Alexander, Princeton College During the Eighteenth Century (New York: Anson D.F. Randolph & Co.), p. ix.

[2] This is an anecdotal story reported by many sources using varying terminology. This quote is in Robert Flood, Men Who Shaped America, Chicago, 1968, p. 276. Another records Hancock said: “There, I guess King George will be able to read that” (The Annals of America, Vol. 2, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, p. 449). This and the other comments could have been made on July 4 or perhaps on August 2 when the engrossed copy was signed by most of the delegates.

Jefferson records that on July 4 the Declaration was “signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson” (The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson in The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Adrienne Koch and William Peden, New York: The Modern Library, 1944, p. 21). Historian Benson Lossing concurs, writing that after approving the Declaration all the delegates signed their names on a paper that was attached to a copy of the Declaration (Benson J. Lossing, Our Country, A Household History of the United States, New York: James A. Bailey, 1895, Vol. 3, p. 871). However, some people do not think that the delegates signed on this day (citing various indirect remarks from delegates, in addition to the fact that such an original copy of the signees is not known to exist), but rather that all would not sign until an engrossed copy was made. Soon after approval of the Declaration on July 4, with the oversight of the committee, printer John Dunlap prepared and printed copies, perhaps during the night of July 4, which were sent to the governors of several states and to the commanding officers. These broadsides were authenticated by the signatures of John Hancock, the President, and Charles Thomson, the Secretary. On July 19 the Congress ordered the Declaration engrossed on parchment (Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence, The Library of Congress, 1999, p. 36). This engrossed copy was signed by 54 delegates on August 2 and two others afterward, one in September and the other later in the autumn (Lossing, Our Country, A Household History of the United States, Vol. 3, p. 871).

[3] The Annals of America, Vol. 2, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, p. 276.

[4] George Bancroft, History of the United States, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1878, Vol. VI, p. 355.

[5] Samuel Adams, An Oration Delivered at the State-House, in Philadelphia, to a Very Numerous Audience; on Thursday the 1st of August, 1776; London, reprinted for E. Johnson, No. 4, Ludgate-Hill, 1776. See also Frank Moore, American Eloquence: A Collection of Speeches and Addresses, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1858, Vol. 1, p. 324. (Some historians do not think Adams made these remarks, but even if this is so, the content is consistent with his beliefs and writings.)

[6] These men were prepared to give their lives for the cause of liberty, and thought this was a very real possibility. Signer Benjamin Rush would later write to signer John Adams: “Do you recollect your memorable speech upon the day on which the vote was taken? Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?” (Letter of Benjamin Rush to John Adams, July 20, 1811, Letters of Benjamin Rush, edited by L.H. Butterfield, Vol. 2: 1793-1813, Princeton University Press, 1951, pp. 1089-1090.)

[7] The Book of Abigail and John, Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, ed. L.H. Butterfield, March Friedlaender and Mary-Jo Kline, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975, p. 140. Letter from John to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776.

[8] John Hancock, “Oration, Delivered at Boston, March 5, 1774,” in Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America, New York: A.S. Barnes & Co., 1876, p. 42.

[9] Jefferson’s original wording for this point was, “that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal Creation they derive Rights inherent and unalienable.” The committee assigned to oversee the drafting of the Declaration changed it to, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” See Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence, Washington: The Library of Congress, 1999, pp. 31, 60.

[10] See Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence, p. 35.

[11] See William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865, Vol. 1.

[12] Letter from John to Abigail, July 3d. 1776, in The Book of Abigail and John, Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, p. 142. The Congress voted on July 2 for independence, while they approved the Declaration of Independence (which states the reasons for their action) on July 4. Adams was referring to the July 2 vote in this letter to Abigail.

Tragedy Magnified – On Escaped Convicts, Dangerous Criminals, and Armed Citizens

Tragedy Magnified

 

    Following the shooting of the Republican congressman in Alexandria, the malevolent and hating evil of those choosing to believe what they choose to believe rather than the truth escalated their injustice and crimes indiscriminately against citizens including the innocent and righteous wanting America to reclaim the heritage intended by the Framers and Founders. As always, after any incident involving guns, the irrationality of the liberals began spewing forth their groundless diatribes advocating gun control as a solution to the evil arising from the ideologies or religions contrary to the worldview enacted as the “supreme law of the land” in 1787. An analogy calling to the same bankrupt reasoning must blame the fork for the obesity affecting the health of nearly a third of Americans. Somehow, the cry of the liberal media to ban forks from Americans satiated by the blessings paid for by the sacrifices we should celebrate this coming 4th of July is conspicuously absent.

 

America is at war against enemies, foreign and domestic, who advocate the violent overthrow of this republic whose government is intended to “secure the blessings of liberty” — “justice for all” in “Life,  Liberty, and the the pursuit of Happiness”. Whether the arsonists and looters in Ferguson, the protestors blocking I-94 in St. Paul, Hodgkinson, or ISIS, evil and injustice must be confronted and defeated. “[D]omestic tranquility” accompanies “justice for all”.

 

The following article describes the conflict between reason and reality versus lies and deceptions.

 

CftC

 

On Escaped Convicts, Dangerous Criminals, and Armed Citizens

Miguel A. Faria, M.D

17 June, 2017

 

    The story of the leftwing hatred-spewing activist, James Hodgkinson, who shot three people — including the third highest ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Steve Scalise, at a Republican baseball practice for a charity event in Alexandria, Virginia  — has understandably overshadowed another tragic incident that began close to home in Baldwin County, Georgia. The episode is worth recounting because there are many lessons to be learned about the misuse of guns in the hands of criminals and the defensive use of guns in the heads of law-abiding citizens.

    In the early morning hours of Tuesday, June 13, 2017, two convicts, Donnie Rowe and Ricky Dubose, escaped after subduing, disarming, and then allegedly shooting in cold blood two guards who were transporting them along with 31 other prisoners in a Baldwin State Prison system bus. The convicts shot dead correctional officers Sgt. Christopher Monica and Sgt. Curtis Billue. Escaping with the guards’ 9 mm pistols, the two convicts carjacked a series of vehicles until they reached Madison, Georgia, where they ransacked a home, stole food and clothes, and abandoned their prison uniforms.

According to an AP report, on Tuesday night the convicts seized a Ford pickup truck from a rock quarry a few miles away from the burglarized home and fled. State police, and later the FBI, provided photos of the convicts and implemented a tip line, promising a reward that rapidly climbed to $160,000. According to the Georgia Department of Corrections, “Both escapees were serving sentences for armed robbery and other crimes. The Department of Corrections said Rowe, 43, had been serving life without parole since 2002, and Dubose, 24, began a 20-year sentence in 2015.”

After the seizure of the Ford pickup truck, the authorities lost track of the escapees and we heard nothing for nearly 48 hours. Judging the uncertain situation in the neighborhood by the conversations my wife and I had with our postal delivery lady and a landscaping crew next door — citizens in Georgia and later those of surrounding states as well, remained apprehensive but also alert and vigilant. In the South, most of us are familiar with guns and the need for self and family protection.

Then, on Friday morning the police near Shelbyville, Tennessee, “responded to a call about a home invasion, where a couple had been held captive.” The AP report went on to say that the convicts fled in the couple’s vehicle and fired on sheriff deputies chasing them about 50 miles southeast of Nashville, Tennessee. The deputies did not return fire. Rowe and Dubose crashed the stolen vehicle and ran into the woods. The stolen guns were later found there. The convicts then approached a house at the end of a long driveway. And here comes the most interesting part:

“The [Tennessee State] trooper said the homeowner looked outside and saw the two allegedly trying to steal his car. The man held the two at gunpoint with a neighbor he called for help until the sheriff’s department could get there to arrest the fugitives.” The names of the hero and his neighbor (who called police) have not been released, but the fugitives are now in custody.

This Associated Press reporting is highly unusual from the standpoint of the media acknowledging what many of us have known for years — that law-abiding citizens use guns successfully to protect themselves, their families, and their property much more frequently than cited by the press.

Much can be learned from this tragic but illustrative incident: The fact that two dangerous convicts ended up being apprehended by an armed citizen underscores several facts about guns, criminals, and law-abiding citizens:

Hundreds of law enforcement and correctional officers die serving the public each year. Those officers, such as Sgt. Christopher Monica and Sgt. Curtis Billue, who are killed by criminals in the line of duty, should be especially honored, and it is their names that should be remembered, not the murderers. I extend my sincerest condolences to their families, as did Governor Nathan Deal soon after the tragedy.

Criminals, including prison escapees, obtain their guns illegally. By definition criminals do not obey the laws, but they are (and should be) fearful of armed citizens. In a survey of 1,800 prison inmates, “81% agreed that a smart criminal tried to find out if his potential victim is armed; 74% said that burglars avoid houses when people are home because they fear being shot; and 34% admit to having been scared off, shot at, wounded, or even captured by armed citizens.”

Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University has noted, “Citizens acting in self-defense kill about three times more assailants and robbers than do the police.” In the United States, the defensive uses of firearms by citizens surpass their criminal uses because many Americans own guns for self and family protection. And contrary to what you are led to believe by mainstream media reporting, firearms are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to repel crime than by criminals to perpetrate a crime. The majority of murderers are career criminals. The typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least 6 years with 4 felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder. 75% of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by 6% of hardened criminals.

These two convicts were serving sentences for violent crimes and armed robbery. Rowe was serving life without parole and Dubose a 20-year sentence — before they killed the two officers while escaping justice. But as the lawful Tennessee rural homeowner showed, the gun is the great equalizer for citizens when encountering hardened criminals and protecting lives and property. And it should not be left unsaid that less than 2% of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed law-abiding citizens.

We should also reiterate that the often-cited study claiming that “persons who keep guns in their home are themselves more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don’t,” and that “rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance” — has been thoroughly discredited.

Instead, criminologists have concluded:  “The defensive uses of firearms by lawful citizens, at up to 2.5 million per year, dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25 and 75 lives are saved by a gun for every one life lost to a gun, whether by an unintentional shooting, homicide or suicide. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Gun safety programs for children, particularly the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program, have resulted in a steady decline in unintentional injuries over the last several decades.”

So then why have firearms become so demonized that some citizens are now subject to a new psychosomatic ailment — namely hoplophobia? Because common crimes with firearms and rampage shootings are sensationalized, and thoroughly and repeatedly reported, while the beneficial aspects and defensive uses of firearms by citizens are seldom if ever reported in the mainstream media. As this tragic but illustrative case shows, criminals do not obey the laws, but they do obey determined and armed citizens, who are protecting their lives and property.

Science fights back against the global warming fraud

Science fights back against the global warming fraud
Thomas Lifson

June 11, 2017

 

    It has taken far too long, but the self-correcting mechanisms of science finally are contradicting the global warming fraud. Despite billions of dollars of grants for those who support the so-called “consensus” (itself, a lie), and the fear of retaliation, scholars interested in the truth are publishing a wave of scientific papers contradicting the orthodoxy.

    Best of all: President Trump’s EPA chief has signaled that he sees that questioning of scientific hypotheses (and all scientific knowledge ultimately is a hypothesis, awaiting a possible correction based on new information) is legitimate.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.

In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

The team that will question the orthodoxy is seeing a wave of evidence come its way.

Kenneth Richards writes: Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.

Since solar activity does vary, it kind of makes more intuitive sense that this might affect climate more than the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Occam’s Razor favors this explanation. Check out this graph that Richards highlights:

It’s at least as convincing as the phony, uncorrected Hockey Stick that had to “hide the decline.” Sure, it is one study, and it is Finland (very far north), but there are 58 papers this year, already. I am guessing that it might be easier to make the case that the sun has the major influence on climate than to make the case for CO2.

The No Tricks Zone has catalogued 650 skeptic scientific papers already, and as we see, the wave is growing larger.

The huge problem for the Warmists is that “cutting edge research” now works against them.

Integrity — The Inseparable Corollary To Truth

INTEGRITY — DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU WILL DO!!!!

The Inseparable Corollary To Truth

House Turns over a New Relief

Tony Perkins, FRC

June 07, 2017

    The thousands of Middle East families living in tattered refugee tents barely have food — let alone televisions — but you can bet they were cheering the news of Donald Trump’s election.

    Driven out of their villages if they were lucky (and hunted if they weren’t), local Christians have been hanging on for survival by a thread. As ISIS marches across the dusty roads of biblical times, believers of our ancient faith are desperate for help from the United States. For seven years, Barack Obama wouldn’t even acknowledge the crisis, let alone do anything about it. But that only meant that Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.) worked harder. After seeing the conditions of these camps, he was absolutely determined to get the U.S. government to act.

And three years, nine hearings, and one new president later, he may finally get his wish. Yesterday, after one of the longest paths to passage, New Jersey’s longtime human rights advocate watched as the House passed his Iraq and Syrian Genocide Accountability Act, giving fresh hope to the suffering Christians in filthy, dangerous, and starving camps in the heart of ISIS country. Rep. Smith is hoping to right the wrong of the Obama administration, which intentionally withheld government aid from faith-based aid groups. Powered exclusively by private donations, a lot of these organizations still managed to meet the need of the 12,000 families in Iraq and Syria. But their bank accounts are almost empty — along with the camps’ cupboards. As Rep. Smith told me on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch,” the relief groups are almost completely out of meals because the American government bypassed them for funding.

    “I’ve [spent so much time on the] issue of genocide and the fact that so many Christians have not gotten assistance. This ensures that they get it. And I went there right before Christmas, and I went to the displaced persons camp, one of them in Erbil, Iraq, and I was shocked to see all of these kids and all of these families and no U.S. assistance. Private charities stepped up to the plate, but we know that church leaders have been triaging the money over the last several years, including right now in terms of food, aid, and medicines because the U.S. government has refused to assist them.”

     When Rep. Smith landed in Iraq last December, he was shocked to learn that U.S. officials were so disinterested in the plight of these families that they hadn’t made the 10-minute drive to visit the closest camp. Unfortunately, the only thing President Obama seemed passionate about was letting other Syrians stream into the country unchecked, slamming the door in the face of the thousands of Christians desperate for a safe place to start over.

Like us, Congressman Smith is anxious to seize the moment and shrug off the indifference of the last eight years. The bill, he explains, “is a blueprint for how to assist Christians and other genocide survivors and hold perpetrators accountable.” Among other things, it would jump start the asylum process for religious minorities — but not in a way that would leave the U.S. vulnerable. “Everyone will have to go through a vetting process,” the congressman reassured people. But in a big departure from the past, the U.S. would cut through the red tape of the U.N. and actually conduct the first interview for refugees overseas. Not only would H.R. 390 speed up the application process, but it would also prosecute those committing war crimes against Christians and fund relief efforts for survivors of Middle East genocide.

Despite the horrors they’ve seen, Rep. Smith is amazed by their perseverance. “We heard repeatedly from Christians themselves… how their faith is undiminished. They are strong, they’re resilient. They love the Lord. They’ve been traumatized by beheadings and rapes, loss of loved ones. Their churches [have] been firebombed, exploded, even booby trapped if they try to go back and yet their faith like persecuted Christians in the First Century [is] stronger than ever.” Let’s hope the United States Senate puts feet to those prayers and sends a bill to the president that helps who his predecessor would not. Contact your senators here and urge them to move quickly on the Iraq and Syrian Genocide Accountability Act.

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

Hold politicians accountable!!!

    Vote on election according to their voting record, their platform, and what they stand for!!! Not what they say, but what they do!!!

  • Not lies and deceptions, but truth validated by real science and uncorrupted history!!!
  • Not the false propaganda of the liberal media, but reality!!!
  • Not guided by false religions, but the original intention of the Constitution!!!
  • Not by human standards and invention, but the Framers’ and Founders’ political worldview!!!

    ” I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State . . . . Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

     This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

— President George Washington’s, the “father of our country”, Farewell Address, American Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1796

CftC

Media and Political Hypocrisy Magnified

 

     In reacting to accusations that President Trump leaked classified information to the Russians in a White House meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lazrov, former defense secretary Leon Panetta suggested Trump needed some adults around him to reign him in. As Yahoo News reported:

     Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta branded President Trump a “loose cannon” Tuesday and slammed the “yes people” surrounding him, saying, “This president needs to have some grownups around him.”…

     Panetta praised the White House national security team, but said Trump’s unpredictable nature requires them to “make very clear to the president what he can and cannot do.”

    “He’s got to have some lines here,” Panetta said. “He’s got to have some guardrails. The president of the United States cannot just do or say or speak whatever the hell he wants.”

     As National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster pointed out Tuesday, nothing President Trump told Lazrov was classified or endangered sources and methods. Of course, this matters not to those who thinks it wrong to share information with the Russians but okay to share that same information to the Washington Post.

    It was the kind of general information and concerns that the Russians tried to share with President Obama about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon bombings. If President Obama had “colluded” with the Russians the way Trump is said to have done, the Boston Marathon bombing would never have happened. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

     It boggles the mind that we didn’t listen to the Russians when they warned about the Tsarnaev brothers in part because, well, they’re the Russians. But we want to preserve the records of every housewife in Des Moines because data mining that arguably invades the privacy rights of innocent Americans might reveal something.

     One person whose privacy was not invaded by U.S. intelligence was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, as he repeatedly visited the al-Qaida online magazine Inspire for its recipe “Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.”

     The NSA’s blanket surveillance did not detect Tsarnaev’s interest in building the pressure cooker bombs he would use to devastating effect at the Boston Marathon. The massive databases that we are building a massive facility in Utah to store also failed to uncover the online communications that Tsarnaev had with a known Muslim extremist in Dagestan.

    Collusion with the Russians in this case would have saved American lives, but Obama refused Russian assistance in fighting these terrorists. Is Trump “colluding” with the Russians to save lives from ISIS terrorists a bad thing? Did we forget that the Russians had a plane blown out of the sky over the Sinai by terrorists?

    Panetta himself, it would seem, is the one who needs to be surrounded by adults to keep his loose lips in check, having put the lives of those who took out Osama bin Laden at risk. As Breitbart reported:

    Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, for example, told CNN on Tuesday that Trump “cannot just say whatever the hell he wants and expect it doesn’t carry consequences.”

     Panetta should know, because it was his loose talk after the Osama bin Laden raid that exposed a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, who helped locate the Al Qaeda leader.  As a result, Afridi was imprisoned on fabricated charges and will live under fear of assassination for the rest of his life.

    As Breitbart News noted in 2013, a Pakistani report on Dr. Afridi reportedly concluded “Dr. Afridi was implicated by a ‘statement by the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was the CIA Director when May 2 happened, confirming the role of Dr. Afridi in making the U.S. assassination mission a success.’”

     Panetta did not reveal that critical intelligence in a private meeting with a foreign emissary, but to the entire world, on CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

     Then there is Joe Biden, whose loose lips got members of Seal Team 6 targeted for revenge in an Afghan mission known as Extortion 17. As Investor’s Business Daily recounted on May 28, 2013:

   Extortion 17 was the call sign of a special operations mission in Afghanistan on Aug. 6, 2011, that responded to an Army Ranger unit engaged in a firefight with the Taliban and in need of backup.

    The Chinook helicopter carrying the rescue team was shot down by a Taliban-owned rocket-propelled grenade over the Wardak Province on Aug. 6, 2011, killing 38, including 30 Americans and 15 members of Navy SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden just three months prior.

     The shoot-down was described at the time as a “lucky shot,” but the families of the dead SEALs believe that, like Benghazi, it was a pre-planned operation of revenge facilitated by a government that put them in harm’s way without adequate support and with a bull’s-eye painted on their backs.

    At a Pentagon briefing on Monday, May 2, 2011, a senior defense official was asked if it was a Navy SEAL team that found and killed the world’s most wanted man. The terse and proper response was: “Not going to comment on units or numbers.”

    Then on May 3, Vice President Joe Biden got up to speak at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel marking the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council to spill the beans about Adm. James Stavridis and “the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.”

    From that moment, the families believe, the Taliban looked for an opportunity for revenge, and a government more concerned with politically correct rules of engagement than victory helped them get it.

     Biden skated on the leak that got SEAL Team 6 targeted for revenge. Those who now condemn Trump for trying to save American and, yes, Russia lives, were silent, especially Leon “loose lips” Panetta. Panetta and Biden, like Hillary Clinton at Benghazi, put lives in jeopardy and got men killed.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.   

Restoring 1st Amendment Executive Order

Trump’s  1st Amendment Executive Order

Congratulations Are in (Executive) Order!

Another Campaign Promise Kept, Restoring 1st Amendment

May 04, 2017

    It’s not just the National Day of Prayer. It’s the national day of answered prayer for many conservative Christians! After an eight-year war on faith, President Trump finally called a ceasefire on the conflict started by Barack Obama with an executive order on religious freedom. The measure, which was celebrated in a signing ceremony at the White House, was the fulfillment of one of the most significant promises made by the long shot candidate: “to preserve and protect our religious liberty.”

    For evangelicals, whose support propelled Trump to a historic win last November, this was one of the most meaningful returns on that investment. Although the order didn’t make it in under the 100-day wire, the quickness of it showed just how committed this administration is to bringing the government back in line with the First Amendment.

Among other things, the directive checks another big box on the White House’s to-do list — lifting the gag order on churches and other nonprofits under the Johnson Amendment. Since the first days of his candidacy, Donald Trump has railed against the 60-year-old piece of tax code that liberals have turned into a club to punish pastors with. For too long, the Left has used the IRS to threaten the charitable status of churches who dared to speak out on the moral issues of the day.

Of course, the irony of this whole debate is that pulpits are free to do exactly that under the U.S. Constitution. It was only when liberals seized on this twisted interpretation of the Johnson Amendment that pastors came under fire for exercising their God-given rights. To the phony claim that churches would somehow turn into mini-PACs, the White House was clear: “Nobody is suggesting that churches are allowed, or it’s legal, for tax-exempt organizations to take out ads endorsing candidates. That’s illegal now,” said an administration spokesman. “We’re not changing what’s legal, we’re not changing what’s illegal…” Instead, the nation’s tax agency is directed to use “discretion” in enforcing the language named after JFK’s successor.

Medical professionals, charities, businesses, and even nuns who’ve suffered under the outrageous mandate of Obamacare will finally have the relief they need to say no to insurance coverage that violates their conscience. After years of court battles, they’ll be free from regulatory harassment of including contraception and abortifacients in their health care plans. But that’s not all the order does. It sets in place a multi-step process that will provide some long-overdue protections by directing the Attorney General Jeff Sessions to develop guidelines for every federal agency to ensure they protect and promote religious freedom. This includes members of our military, who, under the Obama administration, have been systematically silenced and even purged. Men and women like Chaplain Wes Modder (U.S. Navy-Ret.) and Monifa Sterling, who stared down the ends of their careers for their deeply-held beliefs, can finally come out of hiding and live out their faith openly.

Finally, for our friends like Barronelle Stutzman and Don Vander Boon, who’ve suffered for their biblical views on marriage, there’s hope. As President Trump said, “No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith,” President Trump told those of us gathered in the Rose Garden for today’s ceremony. “We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore,” the president said. “We will never ever stand for religious discrimination.”

Thanks to this White House, the open season on Christians and other people of faith is coming to an end. And Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) looks forward to building on White House’s progress. “On this National Day of Prayer, I commend the Trump administration for taking action and will continue to make fighting for religious liberty a top priority of my speakership.” As we work with the Trump administration to address the problems created by Obama, it’s that they understand the dangers of the anti-freedom policies of the last administration. But, more than that, they’re committed to undoing those policies and restoring true religious freedom for everyone.

This step today starts the process of reversing the devastating trends of the last decade to punish charities, pastors, family-owned businesses, and honest, hard-working people simply for living out their faith. On behalf of FRC and the hundreds of thousands of families we represent, we offer our deepest thanks to the president and look forward to assisting him in returning America to the land of the free.

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

Gorsuch Confirmed By Scalia and the Constitution In His First Criminal Cases

Gorsuch Confirmed By Scalia and the Constitution In His First Criminal Cases

John-Michael Seibler

3 May, 2017

    It is only Neil M. Gorsuch’s first month as an associate justice on the Supreme Court, but he is already showing just how similar his judicial philosophy is to that of his predecessor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    In several difficult criminal law cases, Gorsuch has asked sharp questions from the bench and cast one of his first votes to deny a stay of execution—moves that echo Scalia’s approach to the law.

The Death Penalty in Arkansas

First, in McGehee et al. v. Hutchinson, Gorsuch voted to deny several Arkansas death row inmates’ requests to halt their executions.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor would have granted their request. Breyer wrote a two-page dissent questioning “whether the death penalty is consistent with the Constitution” (he clearly believes it isn’t).

While the majority did not state their reasons for denying the inmates’ request, it seems clear that they relied, at least in part, on the reasoning set out by Scalia in his concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross (2015), in which he wrote that “not once in the history of the American republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible.”

“The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates.”

Scalia continued, “The Fifth Amendment provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital … crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,’ and that no person shall be ‘deprived of life … without due process of law.’”

The Washington Post describes votes on stays of execution as “a time when the responsibility of the role crystallizes.” In McGehee, Gorsuch held firm, silently adopting Scalia’s constitutionalist reasoning.

No ‘Linguistic Somersaults’

Second, Gorsuch demonstrated his adherence to textualism through some of the questions he posed to the advocates during oral argument in Maslenjak v. U.S.

At issue in the case is whether the government was justified in removing the U.S. citizenship of Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb from modern Bosnia. Maslenjak, who came to the United States in 2000 and was subsequently naturalized as a citizen, was convicted of lying to a U.S. immigration official. During an interview in 1998, she told the immigration officer that she and her husband were seeking asylum because they feared persecution in Bosnia because her husband had evaded conscription into the Serbian army.

In reality, he had served as an officer in a Serbian militia unit which was subsequently accused of war crimes.

In 2006, Maslenjak falsely stated on an immigration form that she had never lied to an immigration officer, and was subsequently convicted of making false statements on a government document.

A key issue before the Court is whether that lie was “material” enough to affect the original immigration decision, which would, in turn, be sufficient to uphold her conviction and her subsequent denaturalization.

As Amy Howe writes at SCOTUSblog, “ruling for the government” in this case “would give U.S. officials boundless discretion to take away citizenship based on even very minor lies.”

In the midst of this high stakes argument, Gorsuch’s questions focused on one issue in particular: The text of the law itself.

The statute, Gorsuch noted, “doesn’t contain an express materiality provision,” and Gorsuch was concerned about having to do “a lot of linguistic somersaults to add” such a provision into the law.

That harkens back to Scalia’s dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell (2015). There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s “tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange.”

In signature prose, Scalia wrote that “[t]he somersaults of statutory interpretation” that the majority “performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the state’ means not established by the state) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

The late Justice Antonin Scalia was known for his combination of colorful prose and staunch originalism. (Photo: Gary Fabiano/Pool via CNP/Newscom)

    Gorsuch appears sympathetic to Scalia’s disapproval of “linguistic somersaults” and the idea that judges are empowered to rewrite laws that they may disagree with.

The Big Picture

Third, Gorsuch showed a keen awareness of how the Supreme Court’s rulings carry far-reaching implications for future cases in Weaver v. Massachusetts.

That case involved a man named Kentel Weaver, who in 2006 was convicted of unlicensed possession of a firearm and premeditated murder of 15-year-old Germaine Rucker. Weaver was 16 at the time of the murder. In 2011, he sought a new trial, claiming that his counsel was ineffective because they did not object to the courtroom being closed during jury empanelment, when the defendant, judge, and jury first meet. Weaver argued that this was a procedural irregularity that violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

But as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out at oral argument, the reason the courtroom was closed was that it was full. Ninety members of the public were in attendance as prospective jurors, and they all needed seats.

Weaver objected to this reasoning, saying that while prospective jurors were seated, his mother and his other supporters weren’t able to enter the courtroom during the early stage of the proceedings.

At this point, Gorsuch entered the fray with a big picture question.

He asked whether a “triviality exception” might apply here, or whether the Court should consider the potential unintended consequences that can arise when it tries to prevent every injustice—no matter how small—by imposing new procedural requirements across the entire criminal justice system.

Gorsuch asked whether ruling for Weaver would create a “Professor Stuntz” problem, whereby in “perfecting procedure, we actually result in its denial…”

This reference was to the late Harvard criminal law professor, William J. Stuntz, who argued that by following the Warren Court’s “fetishization of so many formalistic procedures,” the criminal justice system is now overburdened by an excess of procedural technicalities at play.

Berkeley law professor Andrea Roth summed up Stuntz’s argument, saying that these rules “at best indirectly ensure fairness of trial and sentencing outcomes” but have “rendered trials too expensive” and complex for anyone but elite lawyers to tackle.

In turn, writes Roth, this “has driven prosecutors and lawmakers to seek ways to avoid trial and force pleas through draconian sentencing schemes, a skewed focus on easily detected urban drug crimes mostly committed by racial minorities, and ever-expanding substantive criminal law.”

Scalia worked to constrain some of the Warren Court’s excesses in this regard during his time on the Court.

In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), for example, Scalia, writing for the majority, refused to extend the “exclusionary rule” (which requires the suppression of incriminating evidence, notwithstanding the fact that a defendant may be guilty) to technical violations of “the knock-and-announce rule,” which establishes that, absent extenuating circumstances, police officers must knock on the door and announce their presence before entering a suspect’s home.

He also asserted, in a noteworthy University of Chicago Law Review article, that there is a “dichotomy between ‘general rule of law’ and ‘personal discretion to do justice’”—that is, to rule as a judge personally desires rather than as the law instructs—and that the latter may lead to “unfortunate practical consequences.”

So far, Gorsuch is modeling this Scalia-esque approach and honoring the rule of law.

This is the exact approach he espoused in a dissent in A.M. v. Holmes (2016) while sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. There, he wrote, “[a] judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

A Fitting Successor to Scalia

Throughout his nomination and confirmation process, Heritage Foundation legal scholars noted Gorsuch’s striking similarities to Scalia, which include a shared sensitivity to over criminalization, textualism, and the separation of powers.

In these first few cases, Gorsuch is showing just how well he fits the Scalia mold of being a committed constitutionalist and textualist on the High Court.