Bill Lockwood: Why Do Christians Support Donald Trump?

by Bill Lockwood

Not presuming to speak for all Christians, I do, however, wish to offer a few observations regarding the general support of Donald J. Trump by Christians and Constitutionalists. This is timely seeing that so many on the socialistic/Democratic side of the political spectrum love to harangue Trump-supporting Christians about the past personal behavior of Trump. They seem to delight in pointing out his multiple marriages, his infidelities, his foul language, or other personal indiscretions, always with a view to shaming Christians for their support.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

First, no Christian of which I am aware excuses Trump’s personal sins. But this is a far cry from an elected official such as Bill Clinton using his powerful position as the chief executive to assault women in the oval office. On a broader scale, if an angry press would devote itself to scouring all public officials with the scrutiny they have applied to Donald Trump, I doubt there would be many officials to escape unscathed. So, what does this mean? Stop participating in the election process because those whom we elect have soiled lives? I suspect that is what the left really desires.

Second, I readily confess that the ideal is as stated by John Adams. “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries the most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”

Thomas Jefferson agreed. “For promoting the public happiness, those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue … should be able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens …” But where are we as a society?

It is needless to point out here that our entire culture for the past 75 years has been more reflective of Sodom and Gomorrah than the “shining city on a hill” that John Winthrop paraphrased from the words of our Savior. There is without question a deep-dyed wickedness in the populace that is corroding the nation’s soul. Finding a virtuous and godly person that will fill the position of a “natural aristocracy,” as Jefferson worded it, and willing to put themselves into the grinding mill of the political arena, is nearly an impossible task.

Third, with the above in mind, many Christians primarily have relied upon the simple principle of how best to secure our God-given liberties? Since the entire history of civilization is nothing but the story of suffering peoples at the hands of their own governments, which candidate will support the kinds of Constitutional principles that more positively reflect that? Or, more pointedly, do Donald Trump’s policies lessen the vice-grip of government, or do the Democratic policies? To ask the question is to answer it.

One must recognize that political power always, without fail, gravitates toward centralization and that this movement always erodes and destroys the liberty of people by removing the decision-making processes and transferring them to that central government. Christians therefore, have wisely resisted the growth of government. And it is only Donald J. Trump, even with his brass-knuckle less-than-genteel approach, who can drain the swamp that threatens to drown us all.

An Illustration

The Jews in the time of Christ did not enjoy even a modicum of the liberty that we now have as Christians in America. As a matter of fact, Israel’s sovereignty had been removed from the period of the Assyrian Empire in the Old Testament (8th century B.C.) and was never regained. The mighty Roman empire controlled Palestine during the birth of our Lord, and the Jewish people suffered beneath the local rule of one wicked Procurator after another.

So, when a Quirinius, the Legate of Syria (Luke 2:1-3), would order a census in Palestine with a view to taxation, the Jews submitted even though despising it. So also other governors of Syria such as Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, and Valerius Gratus, who followed Quirinius. Other various fiscal oppressions of a grievous sort were practiced by Romans against the Jewish people. All of these the Jews loathed, but tolerated.

This was because these governors generally respected the religious feelings of the Jews and gave wide latitude to Jewish practices and scruples. We know, for example, that they removed the image of the Emperor from the standards of Roman soldiers before marching them into Jerusalem, so as to avoid the appearance of a cultus of the Caesars (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. I, p. 242).

But all of that was far different from a Pontius Pilate who forced the hated emblem on the Jews and defied all of their most sacred feelings.

Today

This is not unlike the political scene today. A secular society continues to dominate our culture, which Christians decry. Christians tolerate, probably too much, the unconstitutional and ungodly measures in our country. But this is completely different from a Democratic leader such as Barack Obama who publicly mocks the Bible, engineers the redefinition of marriage, rubs Christian noses in the murder of the unborn, and parades to the world that we are not a Christian nation.

Added to that is the fact that in the end, not only has President Trump boldly stood for a more biblical stance in public policy, but has sought to massively de-regulate the unconstitutional super-state in which we live. A report by the Council of Economic Advisors in June, 2019 estimates that after 5-10 years of the new de-regulatory approach of the Federal Government household incomes will have been raised by $3,100 per household per year.

Casey Mulligan, the chief economist for the CEA, explained that “The deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration have … removed mandates from employers, especially smaller businesses, and have removed burdens that would have eliminated many small bank lenders from the marketplace. These deregulatory actions are raising real incomes by increasing competition, productivity, and wages.”

In the end, however, it is not merely economic prosperity that many Christians desire. It is to secure our God-given liberties by rolling back the unconstitutional government in which we live. Donald J. Trump seems to be the only person with enough back-bone to attempt this daunting task. I suspect that the radical left realizes this fact which explains their mindless hatred and opposition.

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Israeli Air Force “Mows the Lawn” in Gaza

by Hugh Fitzgerald

In Gaza, on November 11, having endured many attacks on its civilians by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Israel struck at the terror group with pinpoint accuracy, firing a missile at a particular room on the third floor of a residential building, which turned out to be the very bedroom of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander in northern Gaza, Baha Abu al-Ata, killing only him and his wife. Confirming his death, a PIJ spokesman said he was just about to undertake “a heroic jihadist action.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Abu al-Ata an “arch-terrorist” and said he was “the main instigator of terrorism from the Gaza Strip. He initiated, planned and carried out many terrorist attacks. He fired hundreds of rockets at communities in the area adjacent to the Gaza Strip, whose suffering we have seen,” he told a news conference in Tel Aviv. “He was in the midst of planning additional attacks in the immediate short term. He was a ticking bomb.”

The PIJ is the second-largest terrorist group in Gaza, and also has offices abroad  in Damascus, Tehran, and Khartoum. It is even more extreme than its rival Hamas, in that – unlike Hamas — it refuses even to consider a ceasefire, and it has recently been firing hundreds of rockets into southern Israel, always into civilian areas, in its determination to prevent a shaky ceasefire between Hamas and Israel from taking hold. Israel has previously held Hamas accountable for attacks by the PIJ, and would attack Hamas targets in retaliation for PIJ rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities. The idea was to inflict so much pain on Hamas that it would then target PIJ in Gaza itself, to prevent its attacking Israel. But now, with the killing of Baba Anu al-Ata, Israel appears to have concluded that Hamas has been not unwilling but, rather, unable to halt PIJ attacks on Israel, so the IDF will have to do the job itself. The Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Lt Gen Aviv Kochavi, said that Abu al-Ata had undermined recent efforts to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which runs Gaza and is considered a rival to PIJ.

An hour after the Israelis announced the attack on Abu al-Ata in northern Gaza, an Israeli plane fired two rockets at the house of Akram al-Ajouri, a senior member of the terror group PIJ, in the Mezzeh area of Damascus. Al-Ajouri managed to survive, but his son and Ajouri’s bodyguard were killed.

What do these attacks signify? First, that Israel wants to do its utmost to ensure that no innocents are harmed. In both cases, the rockets struck with pinpoint accuracy. In Gaza, not only did the IDF manage to limit the attack to Abu al-Ata’s apartment on the third floor, but, with even greater accuracy, to the very bedroom where he and his wife were sleeping. In Damascus, a similar surgical strike on the home of Al-Ajouri killed only his son and his bodyguard. Many hours later, the Syrians claimed that Al-Ajouri’s granddaughter had also been killed; it’s unclear if this is true, or if it was fabricated in an attempt to elicit more anger against Israel.

Compare these Israeli strikes to how the PIJ struck back. In just the six hours after the killing of Abu al-Ata, PIJ fired more than 170 rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Workplaces and schools were shut down as far north as Tel Aviv. There was no attempt by PIJ to hit a particular target, no “pinpoint accuracy” to these attacks; every Israeli in southern and central Israel was a potential target, including those in the country’s hub, Tel Aviv. Half the country closed down, including schools and workplaces from Tel Aviv south; with sirens intermittently sounding, and people taking cover on the streets or in one of the many bomb shelters that Israelis have built everywhere in their permanently imperiled country

Israel has now retaliated, in turn, for those PIJ rocket attacks. It did not do so right away, holding its fire for six hours, possibly in the hope that after the targeted killings, and having vented its anger with its volley of rockets, the PIJ might rethink its strategy. But it was not to be: and so, with 160 rockets having been fired at Israel, the IAF finally struck back, only at strictly military targets of the PIJ. The IAF hit arms warehouses, a training center for Islamic Jihad’s naval force, a shaft of a PIJ terror tunnel in northern Gaza, and a digging site of another PIJ terror tunnel in the central Strip. Only five people have been reported killed in those attacks, all of them PIJ terrorists. Here, again, in Gaza, the IAF has shown itself to be exceedingly accurate, with no civilian deaths among the Palestinians reported so far.

Israel, meanwhile, has also been careful not to hit a single target belonging to Hamas. Israelis have rethought their previous strategy of holding Hamas responsible for attacks by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and attacking it after enduring attacks by PIJ. Israeli commanders have become convinced that Hamas is trying, but not succeeding, in preventing PIJ from launching its rockets. So Israel briefly decided to return – but has made clear it is doing so only temporarily — to its former policy of “targeted assassinations,” that it used to employ with such effect against Hamas. The IDF is trying to deal forcefully and quickly with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, by cutting off the “head of the snake” – that is, killing its military commander in Gaza, Baha Abu al-Ata, and, in Damascus, the head of its political wing, Akram Al-Ajouri. It wants to weaken Palestinian Jihad, perhaps enough to encourage Hamas to finish the job the IAF has begun, and to return to trying to keep alive the tentative ceasefire that Egypt has been brokering between Israel and Hamas.

As the battle goes on, and both sides have already been “urged to exercise restraint” by the U.N., note that “restraint” is exactly what Israel has always been exercising, in these surgical strikes against PIJ leaders and military targets. It is the PIJ that has never exercised “restraint” in its attacks on Israelis, consistently shooting its rockets into Israeli civilian areas. If it has not caused more civilian casualties, it’s not for want of trying.

The remaining leadership of PIJ remains defiant, and issued a statement promising that “Our inevitable retaliation will rock the Zionist entity.” So far that “inevitable retaliation” has not led to any Israeli deaths, but only to fewer than a dozen wounded. This low number testifies to the efficacy of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system, the country’s excellent warning system, and the shelters that are found  everywhere in Israel.

Hamas, the Palestinian organization that administers the Gaza Strip, said Israel “bears full responsibility for all consequences of this escalation,” and promised Abu al-Ata’s death “will not go unpunished.” This is the minimum that could be expected from Hamas, which though secretly pleased at the damage done to its rival, must pretend to be outraged by Israel’s attacks. It is noticeable that Hamas did not fire any retaliatory rockets itself, nor did it state that it would participate in “punishing” Israel. If Abu al-Ata’s death “will not go unpunished,” apparently Hamas will not be among those doing the punishing. Hamas could have said that “we will help punish Israel for its murder of Abu al-Ata,” but did not. That’s a significant public breach between Hamas and PIJ. How long Hamas will wait, until itself taking on the much-weakened PIJ, in order to assure itself that the ceasefire with Israel will hold, is anyone’s guess. The Israelis hope it is soon. They would themselves re-enter Gaza, to crush all the terrorists, what they call “mowing the lawn,” only most reluctantly. Hamas cannot afford to behave like PIJ, oblivious to the consequences of its acts, and willing to endlessly attack Israel even if the IDF’s retaliation is always more punishing than anything the PIJ can inflict. For Hamas is now more than a terrorist group; it bears all the responsibilities of rule in Gaza. And that includes trying to maintain the ceasefire with Israel, brokered by Egypt, for as long as it serves its interests.

Why do Israelis call these actions taken against the terrorists “mowing the lawn”? It’s because they know it is only a temporary solution to a permanent problem. The terrorists may be cut down, but will always reappear, like a lawn that regrows after being mowed. The Jihad, the Israelis know, is permanent. It’s been going on, somewhere in the world, for the past 1,400 years. If only the people in the chanceries of the West, so quick to round on Israel for daring to defend itself, could grasp that simple fact.

JW: https://www.jihadwatch.org/category/hugh-fitzgerald


Hugh Fitzgerald is a student of history and literature, primarily of America and Europe. He admires Jacques Barzun, J. D. Salinger, and Alan Bennett, reads dictionaries for profit and pleasure, and finds particularly appealing the words “recompense,” “quondam,” “magari,” and “degringolade.”

By far the best way to reach Hughun is through the offices at Jihad Watch. Fitzgerald has an email account, the address of which is hughfitz123@msn.com.

William F. Jasper: American Library Association Pushing Perversion Through Drag Queen Story Hour

by William F. Jasper

The ALA has partnered up with the anti-Christian bigots of the Southern Poverty Law Center to promote the latest LGBTQ agenda item: sex perverts for tots.

OK, kiddies, say so long to Dr. Seuss, Mother Goose, and Peter Rabbit. And say hello to Sparkle Boy, Jacob’s New Dress, My Princess Boy, The Dragtivity Book, and Heather Has Two Mommies.

It’s Drag Queen Story Hour time! And, as a special treat, we have some big, hairy men with beards and mustaches in sequined gowns and some girlie men in fishnet stockings and mini-skirts to read these fun, transformative stories to you. What’s more, they may sprinkle you with magic glitter, blow bubbles at you, lead you in a “gay” songfest, and even let you crawl all over them. Sounds super-fun, right?

Yes, what a short time ago would have been unthinkable, absurd, even criminal, has now become a commonplace occurrence in “woke” cities, towns, and hamlets all across America. How has it happened that Drag Queen Story Hours (DQSHs) have suddenly popped up all across the landscape like mushrooms after a rain? There’s really no mystery about it. The DQSHs are not spontaneously-grown, natural, organic mushrooms; they’re toxic toadstools intentionally planted by sexual predators and the cultural subversives who promote and assist them.

Incredibly, in an era in which all teachers, counselors, coaches, pastors, and almost all adults working with young children are required to undergo background checks, our public libraries and schools have given a free pass to some of the most obvious sex deviants to enable their free access to toddlers.

Among the foremost promoters of this toxic toadstool cult is the American Library Association (ALA), aided by “progressives” and LGBTQ activists posing as journalists in the Fake News Media. And (no surprise) the hateful millionaire LGBTQ cry-bullies at the Southern Poverty Law Center are helping provide critical cover, smearing parents who oppose this outrageous scheme as being transphobic neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens have been dumbfounded, not only by the brazenness of this latest all-out assault on decency, but even more so by the adamant defense of the indefensible by librarians, school officials, city councilmen, and local media. It’s become painfully obvious that the Drag Queen Story Hour is a well-planned, carefully-orchestrated offensive, one in which the LGBTQ Mafia has coordinated its moves with its political and media allies.

Make Them “Own It”!

However, the outraged parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens are fighting back, undaunted by the smears and name-calling. And, as more and more Drag Queen “performers” are outed as convicted sex criminals, it is now the DQSH perpetrators and promoters who are being put on the defensive.

As The New American reported in August (“Drag”ing Kids Into the LGBTQ Abyss), the coverage of the DQSH controversy in the “mainstream” media has been almost universally sympathetic to the crossdressing deviants. “Thus it was telling (though hardly surprising) that when real news broke about one of the much-hyped drag queen stars being a convicted child sex offender, the media cheerleading section went mostly mum,” we reported. “It turns out that 32-year-old registered sex offender Alberto Garza, who participated in the Houston Drag Queen Story Hour under the name Tatiana Mala Niña (Tatiana ‘Bad Girl’), was convicted in 2009 of aggravated sexual assault of an eight-year-old child. He is a ‘Bad Girl’ indeed! Now, might that possibly be of interest to parents, grandparents, and, well, anyone committed to the safety of children? One might suppose so. After all, isn’t ‘child safety’ one of the arguments put forward for the story hour by the program’s proponents?”

“So how did the truth about Garza/Mala Niña’s criminal sexcapades reach the light of day?” we asked. “Was it the library, the city government, the police department, or the local or national media that discovered and exposed this pertinent fact? The answer: None of the above.”

No, as we noted, “Bad Girl” Garza was exposed thanks to the determined efforts of the dads and moms at Houston MassResistance, a Texas affiliate of the national pro-family group MassResistance based in Massachusetts. MassResistance then exposed another Houston DQSH convicted sex offender, William Travis Dees, who, among his various pervert personas, dresses as a mock Catholic nun in the obscene and sacriligeous Drag group “Space Sisters.”

The good folks at MassResistance have continued to expose the criminal degeneracy and child endangerment inherent in the ongoing Drag Queen Story Hour travesty. The librarians and city officials in Austin, like those in Houston, have been caught red-handed. MassResistance revealed the court records of David Lee Richardson, aka “Miss Kitty Litter,” an Austin DQSH performer. Richardson had been previously arrested and convicted of offering sex for money — prostitution. What’s more, they compiled a 135-page report documenting Richardson’s incredibly vile social media postings, many of which would fit into a triple-X rating. One of his postings shows a personalized license plate that reads, “ILUV-ANL.” Another posting shows him in leather and handcuffs promoting BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sado-Masochism), with the following quote: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but Chains and Whips excite me.” As should be obvious to any reasonable adult, introducing young children to sadomasochist practitioners is not only to endanger them morally and psychologically, but physically as well.

Undoubtedly, the criminal records of DQSH kiddie “entertainers” exposed thus far by MassResistance researchers are just the tip of the iceberg. Where is the due diligence on the part of the public officials and journalists who are promoting this perverse onslaught? Many, if not all of these “performers,” have Web pages and social media accounts that are readily accessible for anyone willing to check them out.  These individuals are narcissistic exhibitionists. They flaunt their aberrant and disgusting proclivities. Some of them have literally hundreds of raunchy photos and videos of themselves in their various drag outfits. It should not be necessary to produce an actual arrest record or conviction to disqualify them as “models” for our children; their narcissistic obsession and degenerate activities should make them abhorrent to all but the most morally bankrupt. The library officials, politicians, and media mavens who support this depravity must be made to “own” the full consequences of this assault on morality.

MassResistance is doing precisely that. It is holding them accountable by exposing the true, sordid nature of the DQSH and its dissolute storytellers. In Houston, public officials who had gushed over Drag Queens were forced to publicly apologize and admit they had failed to conduct even the most elementary screening of their DQSH performers prior to unleashing them on the unsuspecting community and innocent children.

In Chula Vista, California, a MassResistance chapter and local churches went to bat against Drag Queen Story Hour at the local public library. City Councilor Steven Padilla, who is openly “gay,” attacked the Christian opponents of the perverse program as being part of a group (i.e., MassResistance) that “promotes anti-immigrant and white-supremacist beliefs.” He provided no evidence to back up the defamatory claim — because there is none. He was merely regurgitating bile spewing from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has grown obscenely wealthy by peddling the race card and demonizing Christian, conservative, patriotic, pro-life, and pro-family groups and individuals. The Center has also spread hate and violence while claiming to oppose both.

SPLC/ALA’s Putrid Pipeline

One of the most notorious examples of SPLC hate-inspired violence is the case of the near deadly shooting attack on the Washington, D.C headquarters office of the Family Research Council (FRC). The intended killer, Floyd Lee Corkins, who said he wanted to kill everyone he could at the Christian group’s offices, later told FBI agents that his attack was inspired by information he got from the SPLC that identified FRC as an anit-LGBTQ “hate group.” The FRC released a video with clips that shows Corkins shooting building manager Leo Johnson. Corkins said that “I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face … to kill as many people as I could.”

The anti-Christian extremists at the Southern Poverty Law Center also seem to have an inordinate influence at the American Library Association. The ALA website has multiple explicit references to the Center and many additional statements, resolutions, and policies that employ almost verbatim the SPLC’s malicious accusations against individuals and groups that stand against the “progressive” agenda championed by the SPLC. A division of the ALA, the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), for instance, published “Countering Hate in Schools,” in which it reports: “The ALSC Board recently voted to sign on with the Southern Poverty Law Center and 20 other education advocacy groups to counter hate in American schools. The coalition is committed to providing resources and support so schools may effectively respond to hateful acts and create learning environments where every student feels welcome.”

The ALA’s webpage, “Hate Groups and Violence in Libraries,” reads as if it were written by the SPLC’s LGBTQ activists (which it very likely was), and it specifically links to the SPLC’s notorious “Hate Map” that maliciously equates Christian conservatives with the KKK and neo-Nazis.

The ALA’s Disgusting Dragline

MassResistance has nailed the American Library Association in its recent report entitled “What you need to know about the ‘Drag Queen’ indoctrination of children in your public libraries.” The pro-family organization charges that “the American Library Association is the radical force behind the scenes across the country.”

When it comes to the very controversial Drag Queen Story Hour issue, there is little doubt as to where the ruling faction of the ALA stands; it has linked arms with the radical LGBTG lobby, regardless of the growing pushback from parents and taxpayers. In “Libraries Respond: Drag Queen Story Hour,” the ALA states: “Many libraries across the country have been hosting or participating in Drag Queen Story Hours. A few have experienced pushback from some members of their community. To support libraries facing challenges we have established this collection of resources. We will continue to add to it and welcome your contributions. ALA, through its actions and those of its members, is instrumental in creating a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive society. This includes a commitment to combating marginalization and underrepresentation within the communities served by libraries through increased understanding of the effects of historical exclusion.”


To demonstrate this commitment, the Association’s website directs readers to the “ALA Resources – Toolkits & Best Practices,” under which we find:

• Open to All: Serving the GLBT Community in Your Library – created by the Rainbow Round Table

• Defending Intellectual Freedom: LGBTQ+ Materials in School Libraries (AASL)

• Drag Queen Story Hour: Reading Fabulously – Program session from the 2018 Public Library Association (PLA) Conference

• Hateful Conduct in Libraries: Supporting Library Workers and Patrons – created in partnership with the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) and Office for Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services (ODLOS)

In addition, we have these “Blog Posts from Across ALA”:

• Drag Queen Story Hour by Kat Savage from ALSC Blog, June 15, 2017

• Drag Queen Story Hour by ALSC Early Childhood Programs and Services Committee, ALSC Blog, July 22, 2017

• #PLA2018 Drag Up Your Storytime by Erin Douglass from ALSC Blog, March 24, 2018

• Three Queens: Perspectives on Drag Queen Story Hour by Alex Falck from Intellectual Freedom Blog, July 5, 2018

• When a Protestor Interrupts Drag Queen Storytime by Kristin Pekoll from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 20, 2018

• Ain’t it a Drag? Program Challenges at the Public Library by James LaRue from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 1, 2017

• Defend Pride at Your Library by Kristin Pekoll from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 10, 2018

• Drag Queen Story Hour: Q&A with Port Jefferson Free Library, Programming Librarian, Oct. 26, 2018

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/33901-american-library-association-pushing-perversion-through-drag-queen-story-hour


William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

 

Exclusive: Bill Lockwood interviewed By the Wichita Falls ISD Community Insider Newsletter

Patriotism on the Class Schedule

An interview with Bill Lockwood – a Denver Alternative Center teacher, blogger, radio host, pastor, and debater

Denver Alternative Center teacher Bill Lockwood is an unashamed patriot – and he makes his voice heard throughout the community and around the state through a weekly radio show, a blog, and 35 years in the pulpit.

So what’s he telling students these days? Communication Specialist Ann Work Goodrich talked to him to find out.

Bill, you are very well-read and outspoken about the state of our country with your blog and radio show. What issues do you press with the students?

I do try to get the kids here to see the greatness of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other documents. I hope it helps them.

I emphasize with the class that when our Founders wrote these documents, it was the first time in the history of the world that men sat down and actually deliberated on the kind of government under which they wanted to live. And this privilege is still ours in the sense that we can vote and participate and make a difference.

My mother had me study the Constitution when I was in high school, and I have continued to pursue that. I am able to share that with students, some of it, because, sadly, they are pretty far behind the curve. I tell them that when they get to college, they are going to hear all kinds of other stuff, and they better be ready. I don’t know if it sinks in or not.

When are you able to talk about current events with students?

In the last hour of the day during Personal Management time here at Denver, I try to get some Constitutional stuff in them. I make the point that either you manage yourself with principles of right and wrong, such as those we find in The Declaration of Independence, or someone else will manage your life for you.

Sometimes I ask, “Do you think our Constitution is made only for a moral people or for everyone?” Invariably, the answer comes back, “For everyone.” Then I introduce this quote: “Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” They  may say, “Who said that?” The answer is John Adams, the second president of the United States. My point is that perhaps these Founders had insight into the nature of man and governments of the world that we have neglected.

I warn them about communism on occasion. Look at its death toll! I point out that the primary principle of communism is actually atheism. I had a great professor at Harding College named JD Bales. He traveled the world speaking about the dangers of communism and socialism.  He became friends with Chiang Kai-shek, the former president of the Republic of China. Mr. Bales tutored me in my early preaching years as I debated atheists, and he gave me a lot of material upon his death. He had written even for J. Edgar Hoover during the 1960s.

Through these kinds of studies, I have been able to be in touch with great thinkers who teach me so much all the time.

I am on Jesse Lee Peterson’s radio show on the last Tuesday of each month. His show is out of Los Angeles, Calif. He is always stirring it up. Jesse writes for me as well.

Tom DeWeese operates the American Policy Center and is the number one expert on United Nations activities, such as Agenda 21, now Agenda 30, particularly exposing such things as the New Green Deal. He was on my show recently.

Matt O’Brien from Washington, D.C., has come on the radio show to talk about immigration. He represents Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform and is a brilliant lawyer. Their website is FAIRus.org.

You are a debater, too.

I have spent 35-plus years in the pulpits of the Churches of Christ and, yes, I have had the opportunity to publicly debate atheists and Muslims. I participated in a five-night public oral debate in Marshall, Texas. It is on YouTube. My opponent was a Muslim named Hamza Abdul Malik, and it’s posted as the Malik-Lockwood debate. I took a solid year to prepare for it. Those kinds of studies put me in touch with a lot of good authors – writers upon whom I still rely to help me along the way. I interview some of them, such as author Robert Spencer or American activist Pamela Geller, on my radio show.

What do you make of all the talk about socialism now?

Socialism itself has taken over much of the thinking of the nation. Interestingly, the Founders were well acquainted with this system of government, which they called “levelling.” They did their best to keep this from occurring and purposefully constructed the Constitution to provide maximum freedom by limiting the federal government’s role in private lives. We have turned this on its head in the past 100 years. And most students indeed appreciate the allowance of freedom which, as I point out, diminishes as government grows.


The WFISD Community Insider is a publication of the WFISD Community Relations department. The newsletter is sent out every other month and includes all the latest news about the district. Stay up to date with what is happening across our district!

WFISD: https://www.wfisd.net/

Bill Lockwood: Socialism: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You

 

by Bill Lockwood

As documented by Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller there are many socialistic organizations that have bypassed around the Congress of the United States and are transforming local American communities into little Leningrads after the likeness of the old Soviet Union. This is all done using the tool of RACE, supported by the “junk science” of leftist Universities. As a matter of fact, there is an entire network of George Soros-backed activist groups that have been pushing these policies at local levels. The catch-word that they use is EQUITY. Everything must be EQUITABLE.

School Redistricting

For example, in many communities across America, local politicians have begun proposing “comprehensive race-based policies such as redrawing school boundaries to dismantle schools with too many white or Asian students.” The justification for this is “Equity.”

Margaret McCreary, a Fairfax County, Virginia, parent noted that the school board members all began using “equity” language to push a proposal that could move her children out of their schools. “It seemed like they were all in cahoots to do something, but at first we didn’t know what to make of it, because we didn’t know what they were talking about,” she told The Daily Caller.

This simply meant that unelected bureaucrats of a socialistic engineering stripe would seek to make the schools more “proportionate” by racial population. Too many whites and Asians congregate together and their parents naturally gravitate toward neighborhoods of similar racial population. These local schools reflect this “racial” imbalance.

The same goes for poorer minority neighborhoods and schools. Socialists like Barack Obama think this an atrocity for the common people to mingle with people with which they have the most in common. Activist busybodies, however, tone down their rhetoric and instead of “proportionate” they now use the word “equity.” A “white middle class” neighborhood is “inequitable.” Socialists need to make it more “equitable” by mixing up the population.

Fairfax was only one of many communities where these policies are being implemented. But these policies are much broader than local school districts. In a recent article, Interrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline Through Cultural Organizing (9-12-19), radical activist group PolicyLink explained that the Equity projects actually target entire communities, principally through THREE main systems: “education, law enforcement, and juvenile justice, and it centers the perspectives of youth and families who are most impacted on transforming those systems; dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline; and making communities just, safe, and whole.”

Social engineering from the top down of which Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Entire Communities

How are entire local communities being radically transformed by these intrusive socialistic meddling policies?

First, academia has provided the so-called research. For example, a group tied to the University of Southern California (USC) called Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) functions to create the research that promises BILLIONS of dollars in economic growth to cities if they adopt certain policies. All government programs will be EQUITABLE.

Second, there are a cluster of “Community Organizing” groups, all primarily funded by George Soros and related magnates, that have set in motion to bring about these “equitable” changes. Some of these “community manipulating” groups include Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP); Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Government Alliance on Race Equity (GARE); PolicyLink; Center for American Progress (CAP); Race Forward; Haas Institute for Fair and Inclusive Society; Center for Social Inclusion (CSI); Center for Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII); Partnership for Southern Equity; W. Kellogg Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Foundation for Open Society; and California Planning Roundtable. 1

An example of how these organizations mobilize by propaganda is a recent article in PolicyLink (9/12/19) entitled Interrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline through Cultural Organizing. In it we are informed that to “reduce” the “harm of policing” in poorer neighborhoods we need to challenge the “untested assumptions about the value-add of law enforcement.” It asserts that things like “parks equity” will assist to bridge racial performance gaps.

Translated, this means that poorer neighborhoods do not have the nice parks that more affluent neighborhoods do, and that local law enforcement are too involved in minority communities. Local policies will have to shift tax dollars around to change this.

Third, a sales pitch must be activated to bribe and lure unsuspecting local communities into this hole. Here is where academia comes in to play.

Rosiak explains that Fairfax County, Virginia, a wealthy District of Columbia suburb, was sold on sweeping social changes after county employees attended a 2014 conference to a group called the Local and Regional Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE). County officials were sold on making Fairfax County more wealthy. They adopted a program called “One Fairfax.”

GARE, combining efforts with PolicyLink and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC showed Fairfax what was called an “Equitable Growth Profile.” This “profile” found that the county’s gross domestic product would have been $26.2 billion higher in 2012 IF ITS RACIAL GAPS IN INCOME WERE CLOSED. 2 “’One Fairfax’ can only be realized with an intentional racial and social equity policy at its core for all publicly delivered services. A racial and social equity policy provides both the direction and means to eliminate disparities.”

Junk Science Brought In

The promise of billions of dollars that could be the case if equitable policies were adopted is based on: (1) The assumption that if all white people continued to earn the same amount of money as they do now; and, (2) That all racial groups who earn LESS than that could earn the same amount of money as they do; (3) The city’s economy would be larger.

This is less than “Junk Science.” It is foolishness that denies common sense as well as human nature and that not everyone has the same capacity or desire to labor to earn the same amount of money as the next person. It also assumes without a shred of proof that disparity between incomes among different racial groups is due to some sort of ugly racism in the majority white population.

Listen to the same sales pitch by National Equity Atlas, and online tool created by PolicyLink, as it theorizes about Albuquerque, New Mexico. “We estimate that the Albuquerque metro economy would have been $11 Billion large in 2015 absent its racial inequities in income.” This is from PERE’s paper on the Albuquerque.

“Using data on income by race, we calculated how much higher total economic output would have been in 2014 if all racial groups who currently earn less than Whites had earned similar average incomes as their White counterparts, controlling for age.”

This is the core of it. No real science. No real examination of root causes of men’s successes and failures. No reality. Only the unsupported assumption that minority communities are poorer than white communities because of a racist mentality that exists in white America. THIS is the “racism” that socialist engineers are seeking to eliminate by hook or crook under the guise of EQUITY.


1 Luke Rosiak put this list together. See also my article on Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) published on this website.

2 Fairfax’s web-page, as reported by Rosiak.


 

Ryan T. Anderson: Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones.

by Ryan T. Anderson Ph.D.

People say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true.

We live in a postmodern age that promotes an alternative metaphysics. As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” at the heart of the transgender moment are radical ideas about the human person—in particular, that people are what they claim to be, regardless of contrary evidence. A transgender boy is a boy, not merely a girl who identifies as a boy.

It’s understandable why activists make these claims. An argument about transgender identities will be much more persuasive if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: People are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the claim.

Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause.

Thus the American Psychological Association, in a pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression,” tells us, “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”

Notice the politicized language: A person’s sex is “assigned at birth.” Back in 2005, even the Human Rights Campaign referred instead to “birth sex” and “physical sex.”

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex.

In an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2, Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015).

Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

This is a remarkable claim, not least because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Adkins doesn’t say if she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? And if medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex or gender identity?

But what exactly is this “gender identity” that is supposed to be the true medical determinant of sex? Adkins defines it as “a person’s inner sense of belonging to a particular gender, such as male or female.”

Note that little phrase “such as,” implying that the options are not necessarily limited to male or female. Other activists are more forthcoming in admitting that gender identity need not be restricted to the binary choice of male or female, but can include both or neither. The American Psychological Association, for example, defines “gender identity” as “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else.”

Adkins asserts that being transgender is not a mental disorder, but simply “a normal developmental variation.” And she claims, further, that medical and mental health professionals who specialize in the treatment of gender dysphoria are in agreement with this view.

Transgender Catechism

These notions about sex and gender are now being taught to young children. Activists have created child-friendly graphics for this purpose, such as the “Genderbread Person Graph.” The Genderbread Person teaches that when it comes to sexuality and gender, people have five different characteristics, each of them falling along a spectrum.

There’s “gender identity,” which is “how you, in your head, define your gender, based on how much you align (or don’t align) with what you understand to be the options for gender.” The graphic lists “4 (of infinite)” possibilities for gender identity: “woman-ness,” “man-ness,” “two-spirit,” or “genderqueer.”

The second characteristic is “gender expression,” which is “the way you present gender, through your actions, dress, and demeanor.” In addition to “feminine” or “masculine,” the options are “butch,” “femme,” “androgynous,” or “gender neutral.”

Third is “biological sex,” defined as “the physical sex characteristics you’re born with and develop, including genitalia, body shape, voice pitch, body hair, hormones, chromosomes, etc.”

The final two characteristics concern sexual orientation: “sexually attracted to” and “romantically attracted to.” The options include “Women/Females/Femininity” and “Men/Males/Masculinity.” Which seems rather binary.

The Genderbread Person tries to localize these five characteristics on the body: gender identity in the brain, sexual and romantic attraction in the heart, biological sex in the pelvis, and gender expression everywhere.

The Genderbread Person presented here is version 3.3, incorporating adjustments made in response to criticism of earlier versions. But even this one violates current dogma. Some activists have complained that the Genderbread Person looks overly male.

A more serious fault in the eyes of many activists is the use of the term “biological sex.” Time magazine drew criticism for the same transgression in 2014 after publishing a profile of Laverne Cox, the “first out trans person” to be featured on the cover.

At least the folks at Time got credit for trying to be “good allies, explaining what many see as a complicated issue,” wrote Mey Rude in an article titled “It’s Time for People to Stop Using the Social Construct of ‘Biological Sex’ to Defend Their Transmisogyny.” (It’s hard to keep up with the transgender moment.)

But Time was judged guilty of using “a simplistic and outdated understanding of biology to perpetuate some very dangerous ideas about trans women,” and failing to acknowledge that biological sex “isn’t something we’re actually born with, it’s something that doctors or our parents assign us at birth.”

Today, transgender “allies” in good standing don’t use the Genderbread Person in their classrooms, but opt for the “Gender Unicorn Graph,” which was created by Trans Student Educational Resources. It has a body shape that doesn’t appear either male or female, and instead of a “biological sex” it has a “sex assigned at birth.”

Those are the significant changes to the Genderbread Person, and they were made so that the new graphic would “more accurately portray the distinction between gender, sex assigned at birth, and sexuality.”

According to Trans Student Education Resources, “Biological sex is an ambiguous word that has no scale and no meaning besides that it is related to some sex characteristics. It is also harmful to trans people. Instead, we prefer ‘sex assigned at birth’ which provides a more accurate description of what biological sex may be trying to communicate.”

The Gender Unicorn is the graphic that children are likely to encounter in school. These are the dogmas they are likely to be catechized to profess.

While activists claim that the possibilities for gender identity are rather expansive—man, woman, both, neither—they also insist that gender identity is innate, or established at a very young age, and thereafter immutable.

Dr. George Brown, a professor of psychiatry and a three-time board member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, stated in his declaration to the federal court in North Carolina that gender identity “is usually established early in life, by the age of 2 to 3 years old.”

Addressing the same court, Adkins asserted that “evidence strongly suggests that gender identity is innate or fixed at a young age and that gender identity has a strong biological basis.” (At no point in her expert declaration did she cite any sources for any of her claims.)

Transgender Contradictions

If the claims presented in this essay strike you as confusing, you’re not alone. The thinking of transgender activists is inherently confused and filled with internal contradictions. Activists never acknowledge those contradictions. Instead, they opportunistically rely on whichever claim is useful at any given moment.

Here I’m talking about transgender activists. Most people who suffer from gender dysphoria are not activists, and many of them reject the activists’ claims. Many of them may be regarded as victims of the activists, as I show in my book.

Many of those who feel distress over their bodily sex know that they aren’t really the opposite sex, and do not wish to “transition.” They wish to receive help in coming to identify with and accept their bodily self. They don’t think their feelings of gender dysphoria define reality.

But transgender activists do. Regardless of whether they identify as “cisgender” or “transgender,” the activists promote a highly subjective and incoherent worldview.

On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender.

They say there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person.

They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology.

It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose:

If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”?

The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex.

Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and bemen and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?

What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?

Apart from having a male body, what does it “feel like” to be a man? Apart from having a female body, what does it “feel like” to be a woman? What does it feel like to be both a man and a woman, or to be neither?

The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both.

Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not.

If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not?

And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality?

The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity.

Of course, a transgender activist could reply that an “identity” is, by definition, just an inner sense of self. But if that’s the case, gender identity is merely a disclosure of how one feels. Saying that someone is transgender, then, says only that the person has feelings that he or she is the opposite sex.

Gender identity, so understood, has no bearing at all on the meaning of “sex” or anything else. But transgender activists claim that a person’s self-professed “gender identity” is that person’s “sex.”

The challenge for activists is to explain why the mere feeling of being male or female (or both or neither) makes someone male or female (or both or neither).

Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the final prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the final prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe.

So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. The challenge for transgender activists is to present an argument for why transgender beliefs determine reality.

Determining reality is the heart of the matter, and here too we find contradictions.

On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.

Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable? If the former, how do we account for people whose gender identity changes over time? Do these people have the wrong sense of gender at some time or other?

And if gender identity is self-created, why must other people accept it as reality? If we should be free to choose our own gender reality, why can some people impose their idea of reality on others just because they identify as transgender?

The challenge for the transgender activist is to articulate some conception of truth as the basis for how we understand the common good and how society should be ordered.

As I document in depth in “When Harry Became Sally,” the claims of transgender activists are confusing because they are philosophically incoherent. Activists rely on contradictory claims as needed to advance their position, but their ideology keeps evolving, so that even allies and LGBT organizations can get left behind as “progress” marches on.

At the core of the ideology is the radical claim that feelings determine reality. From this idea come extreme demands for society to play along with subjective reality claims. Trans ideologues ignore contrary evidence and competing interests, they disparage alternative practices, and they aim to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement.

The movement has to keep patching and shoring up its beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing the heretics, and punishing apostates, because as soon as its furious efforts flag for a moment or someone successfully stands up to it, the whole charade is exposed. That’s what happens when your dogmas are so contrary to obvious, basic, everyday truths.

A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. While the claims they make are manifestly false, it will take real work to prevent the spread of these harmful ideas.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

THF: https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones


Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Bill Lockwood: Why Should Christians be Interested in Opposing Socialism?

by Bill Lockwood

Modern America has been trained to compartmentalize their lives by placing “religion” and worshipping in the church-house or privacy of the home as separate and distinct from “politics.” “Politics” is thought to be what one does when going to the ballot box. Never should these two ideas meet. So is the conventional wisdom.

It is further supposed that ideas such as socialism, communism, statism, collectivism or their variants are merely “political theories” that have no bearing on religious teaching, or more than that—that biblical teaching does not touch such ideas.

This is all very shallow and without any serious thought into what the biblical view of the world includes. Let’s begin with the Bible. Christian truth is one organism. It has a unity and coherence the parts of which cannot be arbitrarily removed without doing violence to the whole. In the words of the great Christian writer James Orr,

“He who with his whole heart believes in Jesus as the Son of God is thereby committed to much else besides. He is committed to a view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of Redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, found only in Christianity. This forms a Weltanschauung, or “Christian view of the world” which stands in marked contrast with theories wrought out from purely philosophical or scientific viewpoint.” 1

This is why there is deep antagonism between Bible believers and scientific theories of the origin of the world and mankind. The schism cannot be papered over by simply saying, “I believe in God and the general theory of evolution.” The naturalistic view of the world begins with this sign: “NO MIRACLES ALLOWED.” The Christian view of the world begins with this: “In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth.” There is no middle ground.

Socialism

The same is true regarding socialism. Oscar Jaszi was a noted Hungarian social scientist, historian, and politician of the 19th century. Jaszi found himself in the middle of socialist revolutions in Europe during the formative years of communism/socialism, labor parties, and liberal democratic movements. Later, teaching at Oberlin College in Ohio, he authored works published by the University of Chicago Press. He wrote the entry under Socialism in 1934 for the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, a multi-volume scholarly work. In his lengthy article on “Socialism” for the Encyclopedia, Jaszi summarizes six points which are characteristic of all collectivist movements. They are as follows:

  1. A condemnation of the existing political and social order as unjust
  2. An advocacy of a new order consistent with moral values
  3. A belief that this ideal is realizable
  4. A conviction that the immorality of the established order is traceable not to a fixed world order or to the unchanging nature of man but to corrupt institutions
  5. A program of action leading to the ideal through fundamental remolding of human nature or of institutions or both
  6. A revolutionary will to carry out this program.

Jaszi then issues this warning. “The fact can scarcely be overemphasized that no true socialist is satisfied with merely economic reforms but advocates also a distinct educational, ethical, and aesthetic policy.”

At the heart of all socialistic ideas, including communism, Nazism, statism, and fascism, is an atheistic view of man. That is, mankind is solely determined by physical, social, and/or economic factors. This is directly at variance with the biblical view of man, which teaches that the problem with mankind is sin, a rebellion against God (Rom. 3:10-12).

To teach that God Exists sets one at war with atheism which says there is no God. To teach that there is One God (Deut. 6:4) is to oppose polytheism which says there are many gods. It is also to oppose the pagan worldview which believes that deity is somehow embodied in the earth. And to teach that God created man in his own image—a freewill being whose problem is SIN, is to be at variance with the socialistic creed that preaches the problems of mankind arise from the environment and that by reforming social institutions problems will be solved.

It is simple. Belief in the biblical view of God opposes atheism and the biblical view of man opposes socialism. Further, since politics is defined as the principles by which society should be governed, should not Christians be engaged in combatting socialistic ideas that engraft themselves into a culture—even if they are in the political arena?

1 The Christian View of God and the World, p. 4.

Tom DeWeese: STAND FOR SOVEREIGNTY – RON PAUL AND TOM DEWEESE

by Tom DeWeese

In September of 2000 the UN held its Millennium Summit in New York City to announce its 8 goals to impose the transformation of the world under Sustainable Development.

In response, on September 7, 2000, as nearly every head of state and world leader gathered at the United Nations headquarters, the American Policy Center (APC) held a news conference on Capital Hill calling for an end to the United States membership in the UN. To back up its demands, APC delivered more than 500,000 petitions in support of Rep. Ron Paul’s National Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 1146).

The petitions, weighing more than 1.5 tons, served as the backdrop for the news conference as Rep. Paul and the late Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage spoke to reporters about the threat of the UN to the United States. More leaders who spoke at the event, Hosted by APC president Tom DeWeese, included the late Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International, Constitutional expert Herb Titus, the late Kent Snyder of the Liberty Study Committee and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival.

The News Conference was aired to millions over the CSPAN cable network and helped APC launch a renewed war against the UN’s relentless drive for global governance.

This video of that 2000 news conference is especially significant as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala) has now introduced his bill, called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), to again call for the United States to Exit the United Nations. It’s time to renew the fight to stop the UN’s drive for global governance.


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/10/24/stand-for-sovereignty-ron-paul-and-tom-deweese/

Alex Newman: Buddhist Indoctrination Invades Public Schools Across America  

by Alex Newman

Buddhist indoctrination and meditation techniques are being forced on government-school children across America under the harmless-sounding term “mindfulness,” sparking a growing wave of opposition and legal challenges. Critics said imposing it in public education is not just wrong, but illegal as well. Children as young as 5 are being ordered to participate.

While the controversial program claims to be a “secularized” version of Buddhist practices that have traditionally been viewed as occult and dangerous by Christians, critics are nevertheless sounding the alarm. And despite claims of being “secular,” it does not take much digging beneath the surface to detect the obvious anti-Christian nature of the “mindfulness education” schemes.

In America, the ideas were pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn, who established a “Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction” program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in the late 1970s. Since then, “mindfulness” educators boast of reaching hundreds of thousands of American school children. Millions in taxpayer funding from local, state, and even federal governments have been spent on “mindfulness” education, too.

But the religious and spiritual overtones are hard to ignore. In a video on “Mindfulness in Education” by expert Amy Burke, the very first quote comes from an Indian guru and so-called “World Teacher” by the name of “Jiddu Krishnamurti,” from his book “Education and the Significance of Life.” The decision to quote this particular character guru offers significant insight into what this is all about.

This guru, who was adopted and trained by the head of a Luciferian cult known as the “Theosophical Society,” was blunt about his pagan agenda. “You want to have your own gods – new gods instead of the old, new religions instead of the old, new forms instead of the old – all equally valueless, all barriers, all limitations, all crutches,” Krishnamurti explained.

“Instead of old spiritual distinctions you have new spiritual distinctions; instead of the old worships you have new worships,” the guru said. “You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for enlightenment on someone else; … you must put them all away and look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self.”

Burke, a “mindfulness” advocate and educator, also promoted the idea that children must be taught to listen to their “heart.” But for Christians, that is more than a little problematic. In Jeremiah 17:9, the Bible warns that the heart is “deceitful above all things” and “desperately wicked.” In the New Testament, Mark 7:21 warns that “out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders.”

But Burke insists it is needed. “The fact is that listening to our heart … is the key to living a fulfilled life,” she claimed, completely disregarding the biblical view on the issue. “It’s what helps, makes us, more authentically ourselves. And it’s hard to do. But mindfulness is a practical tool that can help students cultivate this inner understanding.”

Alarmed by all this occult indoctrination at odds with Christianity, a coalition of teachers and students is working with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) to fight a legal battle against it. According to the group, government schools are not allowed to mandate participation in these “mindfulness” curricula without violating the law.

The ACLJ noted that Buddhist principles are “clearly” embedded in the mindfulness programs being imposed on school children — principles such as the “observance of all thoughts and feelings without judgment; the belief that life is cyclical and humans are inherently good; and the idea that we are magnificent and all happiness can be achieved through self-discovery and self-reliance.”

Critics lashed out. “Whatever happened to the separation of church and state that liberals scream about when the mere mention of God is made in schools?” wondered author and commentator Dr. Ileana Johnson. “Why are we allowing Far East mystical practices to come into our public schools under the guise of stress management? Why are our children being constantly experimented on by the latest fad pushed by liberals/progressives who view the classroom and our children’s minds and future as their laboratory?”

Another prominent critic, education researcher Debbie DeGroff, exposed the “mindfulness” program in 2014. “These practices are harmful to our children,” she warned. “What other programs, curriculums, and practices are you unaware of?… The time is now to get your children out of these government experimental laboratories.”

The Takeaway

As The Newman Report has documented for years, it seems every religion in the world is not only welcomed in American government schools, but encouraged with tax money — every religion, that is, except Christianity, the foundation upon which America and Western civilization were built. Unless Americans put an end to this tax-funded anti-Christian indoctrination of children, it will eventually put an end to America.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

 

Alex Newman: CFR: U.S. Needs More Mass Migration, Bigger Welfare State

by Alex Newman

Under the guise of keeping America “competitive” in the looming high-tech future, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations is urging policymakers at all levels to dramatically expand the size and scope of government. The bloated welfare states in Sweden and Denmark are cited as examples of the “advantages” of massive government programs to take care for people. Without the sort of fundamental transformation of America envisioned by the CFR, the nation will supposedly be left behind in the emerging new paradigm, the organization claimed. Critics, though, blasted that idea.

In its new report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” the CFR Task Force offered a broad array of policy recommendations for federal, state, and local officials. These range from ever more immigration and a greater role for government in various facets of the economy, to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state modeled on Big Government schemes from Northern Europe. The CFR’s demands regarding education, which are a key component of the report, will be covered in an upcoming article.

Some of the leaders involved in creating the CFR report told The New American that without implementing the sought-after changes, America would be left behind as the world moves toward a globalized future of fast-moving technological progress. But experts and legislators invited to participate in the scheme who spoke to The New American sounded the alarm about the CFR’s vision. Among other concerns, they warned that the controversial CFR report and outreach efforts selling it to policymakers reveal a hidden plan to push a dangerous agenda and bring state and local officials into the establishment’s globalist orbit.

One reason why the CFR’s pronouncements are so important is because of the key role they play setting policy. Indeed, looking at its membership and influence, many analysts consider the CFR to be a key Deep State hub in America. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained that this enormous power is used for neferious purposes. In fact, Ward said, the main objective of the organization is to undermine U.S. sovereignty and facilitate the merger of the United States into what he described as an “all-powerful one-world government.”

The way it advances its objectives was explained by Admiral Ward, too. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he said. “The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.”

“By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” the respected admiral warned after ditching his membership at the CFR. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”

While that may not be true in the Trump era, when voters and their president have openly rejected globalism, it certainly has been true for decades, if not generations, regardless of the party formally in power. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted publicly that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking about the future. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, joked that he worked for CFR boss Richard Haass. Even many top “Republicans” are involved.

Of course, the latest CFR agenda starts with a kernel of truth. As anybody with common sense can see, the economy is changing and will be undergoing further changes in the years ahead. As a result of technological developments, the future of work will look very different in 30 or 40 years than it does today. Many Americans will lose their jobs. All that is true. Of course, it would be difficult to sell enormous policy changes if the entire premise behind them was nothing but fiction, obviously.

But the agenda being pushed is another matter. Under the pretext of responding to the obvious changes coming in the years ahead, the CFR — a leading Deep State institution in America that has dominated foreign policy for generations — is pushing what critics warned was a dangerous scheme to expand the power of government. The plan also advances globalism at every level of society, a key goal of the CFR dating back to its founding. In short, it is a massive and dangerous power grab that should be resisted, critics told The New American.

Policy Proposals

Globalist notions of “free trade” and mass migration are at the heart of the agenda. “Openness to trade and immigration are vital for maintaining U.S. technological leadership,” the CFR report says. Indeed, there are over 60 references to “trade” and more than 60 mentions of immigration, especially the alleged need to expand the already-massive immigration numbers coming to America.

As readers of this magazine know well, though, when the CFR advocates “trade,” it is generally referring not to genuine free trade, but to sovereignty-shredding “free trade” agreements that strip nations and peoples of the right to govern themselves. Mass migration, meanwhile, also helps smash national identities, culture, and eventually, the nation-state itself, as Europe is learning the hard way right now.

On the government’s role in the economy and the welfare state, the CFR report also seeks major changes. “U.S. efforts to help displaced workers are inadequate,” the report says, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal power and insinuating that it is the federal government’s role to train and help workers. “Unemployment insurance is too rigid and covers too few workers, and retraining programs are not based on the best global models,” the report continued, without giving many details on what these “global models” demand of America.

The report also includes seven specific recommendations for policymakers at all levels. These mostly revolve around the supposed need for much larger and more intrusive government across the board. Among other recommendations, the CFR claims:

• Government should be involved in “creating better jobs and career paths for Americans,” as if the real problem facing America was a lack of central planning, government-created “jobs,” and government-directed careers.

• Another recommendation calls for more immigration, including “highly skilled” migrants who would help drive down wages for America’s embattled middle class even as the CFR warns that countless people will lose jobs due to automation.

• Also supposedly needed is more government funding for “research,” as if the state, rather than the private sector, knows better what ought to be researched and what projects would be worthwhile to fund.

• Putting college and university “education” within “reach” of all Americans is important, too, the report said, implicitly advocating even more tax funding for bloated “educational” institutions that are churning out ignorant socialists with worthless “degrees” literally by the millions.

• America should also adopt the “best features” of what the CFR report describes as the European “flexicurity” models. As examples of the supposed “advantages” of these models, the Task Force pointed to the bloated welfare states of Sweden and Denmark, where tax rates (including VAT, income taxes, energy taxes, and more) can consume three-fourths of individuals’ earnings, and where individual freedom is severely limited.

• Finally, the report calls for the U.S. government to “create portable systems of employment benefits tied to individual employees rather than to jobs themselves.” This government-created system should be “universal,” as the report puts it — or in other words, mandatory for everyone.

There are many other recommendations woven throughout the 162-page report. Some make sense, such as scaling back the enormous growth in state licensing schemes that inhibit consumer choice and do nothing to protect the health and safety of consumers. But the overwhelming majority call for larger and more intrusive government: Creating a “National Commission on the U.S. Workforce,” offering more tax-funded subsidies for “affordable” housing, spending more money on government-controlled “public transportation” systems, and more.

As part of the initiative, CFR Vice President for National Programs and Outreach Irina Faskianos organized a conference call for state and local officials to promote the policy recommendations. On that call, CFR term member Chike Aguh, a member of the CFR Task Force behind the report and a former teacher who now works at the McChrystal Group, condensed the subject matter into four “buckets,” as he described it. Phrased as questions, he put it this way: “What is the work of the future? How do we make sure that we have the workers who have the skills to do that work? How do we make sure that those workers can find that work, and vice-versa? And lastly, how do we make sure that there’s a safety net to support them the entire way?”

Among other topics, Aguh argued that new systems were needed to help people who need work to find work that needs to be done. Using an example of a casino that could not find enough workers, he claimed there was “a lack of matching between people who could do the work and the work that needed to be done.” “And the question is,” he continued, “how do we solve that?” In a free-market system, those problems generally work themselves out. If there are not enough workers to fill job openings, then the employers may need to pay higher wages, or offer more benefits, or advertise better. But in the CFR’s view, it seems more bureaucracy and government programs are the answer.

Another topic on the call was establishing a “social safety net” that will “support the worker through this whole process.” According to Aguh, the existing welfare state is not enough. Complaining that the current regime was established in the 1950s and has not changed much since then, Aguh argued that the government should play a much more active role in providing economic “security” for people. For instance, he said some people might stay in their job simply because of the benefits it provides, whereas if the government created programs for health and welfare, that worker could move to another job more easily.

In a phone interview with The New American, Aguh noted that there were major changes when the economy went from primarily an agricultural system to a more industrial system. “As we look at this new economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we argue that we need a change,” he explained, adding that the system would have to change to keep pace with the changes happening in the economy such as automation, job losses, and so on. But in the end, there is “no silver bullet,” he said. “There’s a myriad of things that have to happen.”

Separately, CFR Task Force Project Director Ted Alden acknowledged to The New American in a phone interview that the report seeks to tackle an enormous range of issues. “The danger of this is that it becomes a report about everything,” he said, chuckling. Then he provided an overview of some of the many areas where the CFR group believes policymakers should make changes.

Asked about “global models” for unemployment insurance, Alden said there were two big pieces. One is to make the system more “effective.” “Europeans do better than we do here; Denmark and Sweden do this better than we do,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we necessarily need to follow them — they have different systems — but they do a lot right. For example, their unemployment systems. The U.S. is an enormous laggard in re-training and in spending.”

In America, the unemployment system was designed for cyclical downturns as people were laid off in bad times. “We argue for a move toward more of an affordable benefits program, recognizing the emergence of the gig economy,” he said, citing issues such as California’s recent scheme to force Uber and other similar companies to treat all their drivers as actual employees. “We have to have a social-benefit system that makes this kind of model work.”

While saying that did not necessarily mean a government takeover of health insurance, retirement, and other benefits people often obtain from their jobs, Alden and the Task Force report made clear that the federal government has a significant role to play. “What we’re talking about is allowing people to move more easily between jobs and retain benefits,” said Alden, who described his role as “working to try to fashion a consensus from the smart and visionary people” involved in the Task Force. “We need greater flexibility. The gap in economic security between full-time workers and part-time workers is enormous.” The Task Force did not get down to the “very granular level,” but there are many different models worth looking at, he said.

On immigration, Alden said he did not want to speak for the group on how to design an immigration system. “What I can say with confidence about the position of the group is we were trying to deal with a conundrum,” he said. “How does U.S. remain most competitive and innovative economy in the world? Our prosperity depends on us maintaining a technological lead. We don’t want to see government throwing wrenches that slow down technological progress. But if you look at evidence on high-skilled immigration to U.S., it’s a tremendous benefit to the U.S. economy and innovation.”

When pressed about the views of critics, Alden said the “notion of immigrants as competition for American workers” was actually “short sighted.” But of course, it is an established fact that an increased supply of labor will have the immediate effect of driving down wages, compounding the looming job losses and relocation that purport to justify the entire CFR Task Force’s agenda.

In the end, Alden portrayed the CFR’s efforts as a benevolent plan to help America succeed in a complex and globalized world. “Americans feel very uncertain right now,” he said. “They don’t know their place. If we don’t help Americans succeed, the future of the country is going to be very much in question. The U.S. is pulling back in global leadership, but we believe U.S. leadership has been an important force in the world. So there is a very important duality: How do we remain competitive and innovate, while making sure the benefits spread out to all of America, so they can embrace the future rather than be scared of it?”

Different Agenda

Lawmakers who spoke with The New American, though, had a different take on it all. Senator Regina Bayer, an Idaho Republican who was invited to join the CFR’s conference call for state officials, warned of a nefarious agenda hidden just below the surface. “My take on this conference call and task force is the CFR is attempting to establish a new, direct form of communication; new ways to disseminate information,” she explained. “They need to establish themselves as dedicated and honorable so that their information will be accepted as good and truthful.”

Part of the agenda, Senator Bayer continued, was to establish a sort of “open door” communication between the CFR and state and local officials, as the “federal and international approaches are not as successful as they would like to see.” She cited the implementation of the totalitarian United Nations Agenda 2030 as an example. “It is working better now as it is being implemented at the local and state levels rather than just a power push from the top,” she explained. Part of the strategy seems to be to “wow” state and local politicians into feeling important because a well-known organization like the CFR is interested in connecting with them. Interestingly, before Trump’s election, a CFR member was calling for abolishing U.S. state governments entirely.

But the underlying goals are clear. “Both the conference call and the Independent Task Force report are full of global-government ideologies,” she explained. “Most of it reads like Keynesian mumble-jumble. The true remedy would be a return to Austrian economics.” Keynesian economists typically believe government ought to intervene in the economy to deal with all manner of real and imagined “market failures.” Austrian-school economists, by contrast, generally believe the free market without unnecessary government intervention is the best system in terms of creating and distributing wealth.

“There seems to be the same old pitch that government can solve all problems from higher wages to lower home prices,” continued Senator Bayer, warning that government cannot do better than markets and freedom at solving problems. Plus, the CFR’s internationalist agenda is not difficult to discern. “When looking at information discussing the dangers of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the global goals of the CFR become obvious,” the senator warned, citing the “free trade” scheme negotiated by CFR member Robert Lighthizer and strongly endorsed by CFR boss Richard Haass.

Especially among Republicans and grassroots conservatives, thanks largely to the efforts of Americanist organizations such as The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum, even establishment types have long recognized that a public association with the CFR can be politically toxic among voters. That is why, for instance, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as a director of CFR, boasted in a speech at the CFR of concealing his ties to the globalist organization while campaigning for reelection in Wyoming. But the CFR appears to be working to create ties with lawmakers and policymakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless.

The CFR is a powerful organization with a well-documented track-record of promoting globalism, undeclared war, unconstitutional Big Government policies, and more. This report will perpetuate that history. So far, the Task Force and “The Work Ahead” report have received very little attention by the establishment press, much of which is openly in bed with the CFR — including many outlets that are corporate members of the group. However, a push to advance the CFR Task Force’s agenda is almost certainly coming, after the groundwork has been properly laid.

As Admiral Ward explained, when the CFR’s leadership decides to pursue a policy, the incredibly powerful propaganda and lobbying apparatus at its disposal represents a force to be reckoned with. That day is likely coming on this agenda, too. For right now, globalism is on defense. But over the long term, only an educated and informed electorate will be able to defend freedom and resist these growing assaults.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/33828-cfr-u-s-needs-more-mass-migration-bigger-welfare-state


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

 

Robert Spencer: Loyola Marymount University: It’s “Islamophobic” to be “Counter-Jihad”

by Robert Spencer

The Los Angeles Loyolan tells us that it is Loyola Marymount University’s “award-winning, student-run news organization,” and it is not surprising that it would have won awards from the people who give out awards these days, because like all campus papers, it is a reliable guide to how deeply the far-Left indoctrination that most professors are conducting is taking root in their unwitting students. One of those students is the Assistant Opinion Editor for the Los Angeles Loyolan, a young man (I know that because he helpfully informs us that his pronouns are “He/Him/His”) named Cristobal Spielmann, who is, like all well-informed, duly woke students today, horrified at the prospect that someone would be so “racist” as to oppose jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women and others.

Inside Higher Ed may weep bitter crocodile tears over my noting the ominous assumptions behind Spielmann’s words, as the young fellow is only a child, but he is a child putting his views out in the public forum, and consequently must deal with public dissent from his views – at least until he and his fellow fascists secure power.

And Spielmann’s views are indeed ominous. I am an “anti-Muslim extremist,” he claims in an extended complaint against Loyola Marymount’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter, and offers this as his explanation of why: a pamphlet I wrote “takes every opportunity to paint the near entirety of Islam and the Quran as violent while creating a paranoid ‘us vs. them’ narrative of the West in a moral struggle with Islam.”

In reality, of course, the West is not in the least engaged in a moral struggle with Islam. Many Muslims, however, are in a moral struggle with the West and other non-Muslim entities. Apparently it is “Islamophobic” to take any notice of that. It is objectionable enough just to note that the Qur’an has passages calling for violence against non-Muslims. Did I misquote the Qur’an, or state its contents inaccurately? Spielmann had the residual honesty not to go so far as to say that, and of course he would not have been able to say it if he meant to tell the truth at all, since I don’t misquote or misrepresent the Qur’an. He just doesn’t like what I said about it, because it doesn’t fit the way he wants to pretend that the world is.

Even worse, “This isn’t even the first time that the LMU chapter of YAF has engaged in Islamophobia. Last fall semester, YAF posted a counter-jihad poster…”

So now it’s “Islamophobic,” at least at Loyola Marymount University, even to oppose jihad and to post a “counter-jihad poster.” Apparently now even opposing jihad, the imperative that led Mohamed Atta and his comrades to murder 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, and that has been the driving force behind over 36,000 terror attacks worldwide since that date, is “Islamophobic.”

This has been a long time coming. The seeds of it were planted the first time the establishment media labeled opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression “anti-Muslim.” If it’s anti-Muslim to oppose those things, then the establishment media narrative that such violence and oppression is perpetrated only by a tiny minority of extremists that misunderstands its own religion is false – but of course no establishment counterterror analyst has ever taken notice of that.

I have for years pointed out that when foes of jihad terror are smeared as “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobic,” without any attempt whatsoever to delineate a proper and respectable response to that terror, then all resistance to the advancing jihad is stigmatized, and ultimately becomes impossible. That is exactly where we are now, in the thoroughly indoctrinated mind of young Cristobal Spielmann and millions of others like him. Leftist professors all over the country are turning out people like Cristobal on a daily basis. Before too long they will likely make it altogether impossible to say the slightest negative word about jihad mass murder, and when they do so, they will think they are doing something righteous. By that time even the most happily blinkered Leftist may wake up to what is happening. But it will be too late.

FPM: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/loyola-marymount-university-its-islamophobic-be-robert-spencer/


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS

Alex Newman: Trump Tells Bankrupt UN to Find Money Elsewhere

by Alex Newman

Facing a massive hole in its budget, the United Nations is implementing “emergency measures” to avoid missing payroll and other obligations before the end of the year. Unsurprisingly, UN bosses are demanding that taxpayers in America and other nations hand over more money now or face global catastrophe. Even UN officials and apologists, though, have blasted the “bloated” organization for squandering massive amounts of money on everything from luxurious air travel and fancy hotels to globalist propaganda promoting its own agenda. Trump reacted to the whining by calling on the UN to go look for money elsewhere.

According to the UN, one third of all “member states” are delinquent in paying their “dues” to the UN this year. That includes the United States, which funds between a fourth and a third of the UN’s overall budget, compared to Communist China’s meager 8 percent. In exchange, the regime in Beijing runs almost one third of all UN specialized agencies, while an American runs just one out of 15. State Department officials said the U.S. government would pay up at some point in the fall.

While the exact numbers are hard to pin down because so many federal agencies provide so many funding streams to the UN and its maze of bureaucracies — not to mention the “peacekeeping” — official estimates suggest the U.S. government sends well over $10 billion per year. American taxpayers pay more than 185 other UN member states, combined. And in return for all that money, the UN constantly attacks Americans’ liberties while praising and aiding mass-murdering regimes.

The official UN deficit is about a quarter of a billion dollars. In a letter addressed to the almost 40,000 bureaucrats based at the UN Secretariat, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a radical socialist, sounded the alarm about the numbers. “Member states have paid only 70 percent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019,” he complained. “This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September. We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month.” If the situation does not improve, the UN could default on salaries to employees and payments to vendors very soon.

But Trump was unmoved by the whining. “So make all Member Countries pay, not just the United States!” he fumed on Twitter in his typical style. Prior to that, speaking at the UN in New York City, Trump told “world leaders” last month that the UN needed to ensure that “no member state shoulders a disproportionate share of the burden.” As of right now, the General Assembly, which UN bosses such as then-Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon have dangerously characterized as the “Parliament of Humanity,” decides how much each government is expected to hand over from their citizens.

But Americans and their elected president are getting tired of shouldering an outlandish portion of the burden. On the campaign trail, for instance, Trump noted that the UN was not a friend to freedom or the United States. He has also repeatedly blasted globalism, most recently telling the UN General Assembly that the future did not belong to globalists, but to patriots. And the UN’sraison d’etre at the moment — the man-made global-warming hypothesis — was described by Trump as a “hoax” to benefit the dictatorship enslaving mainland China. And he won the election in an electoral college landslide.

Since his victory, Trump has dealt several major blows to the UN, even before this budget impasse. For instance, in 2017, the administration managed to get the UN budget slashed by a quarter of a billion dollars. That same year, Trump announced that the U.S. government was withdrawing from the UN Paris Agreement on “climate change.” He also withdrew from several key UN organs including UNESCO, the UN’s totalitarian-controlled “education” bureaucracy; and from the dictator-controlled UN “Human Rights Council,” which specializes in praising mass-murdering regimes while constantly attacking America and other nations that still enjoy some freedoms. Trump defunded a number of UN programs, agencies, and schemes, too.

As might be expected, the U.S. State Department used a more diplomatic tone to emphasize American reluctance to continue paying so much for the UN. “Overall the United States, as the largest contributor to the UN, contributes roughly $10 billion annually in assessed and voluntary contributions across the United Nations system,” a spokesman for the department was quoted as saying in media report. The Trump administration “has been very clear on its position that no one member state should pay more than one-quarter of the Organization’s budget,” the spokesman added.

Even before Trump was president, though, it was clear that there was growing bi-partisan outrage about the UN. In 2016, following a UN Security Council vote attacking Israel, leaders of both parties in Congress blasted the UN and threatened to withhold funding. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), for instance, blasted the global outfit for being “fervently anti-Israel.” And in previous Congresses, lawmakers have come very close to nixing funding for the globalist body.

Just the UN Secretariat alone has over 44,000 overpaid bureaucrats working for it, not including the tens of thousands of additional bureaucrats working at the 15 UN specialized agencies or the dizzying array of auxiliary UN outfits. Adding insult to injury, UN bureaucrats make enormous amounts of money, too, including $400 per day per diem while in New York. According to a 2012 report, there were 637 employees of the UN Development Program (UNDP) with over $1 million in their accounts. There were over 1,000 who had homes worth more than $1 million, too. Leaders at the UN pull down salaries and benefits that would boggle the mind.

Even UN officials see it. Former First Vice-President of the UN Staff Union Guy Candusso, who worked for the UN until retiring recently, slammed the global body. “Over the last 10 years, the UN has become a bloated organization, especially at the top,” he argued, adding that financial shortages in the 1990s were even worse but had somehow been solved. “If the cash crunch is considered so serious now, there should be a complete hiring freeze along with the other measures announced.”

Among the measures being taken by the UN to deal with the problem is an end to all “non-essential” travel. Why UN bureaucrats were flying around the world in luxury on “non-essential” travel paid for by taxpayer money was not made clear. Ironically, thanks partly to air travel, the UN’s carbon-dioxide footprint was larger than the entire population of some of its own member states, ranging from Malta to Liberia. Even UN officials have lambasted the globalist organization for using tax money so they can fly around the world in business class or even first class, while the people who pay their salaries sit in much smaller economy-class seats or struggle to even survive.

UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric urged member states to immediately pay up “to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally.” But this has been a long time coming. UN boss Guterres, a socialist politician who has lived all his life feasting on the fruit of taxpayers’ labor, warned back in June that the UN was facing big money problems. “The solution lies not only in ensuring that all Member States pay in full and on time, but also in putting certain tools in place,” he warned the budget bosses at the UN’s Fifth Committee. “We are at a tipping point and what we do next will matter for years to come.” Apparently nobody listened, since the press is now acting surprised.

Calls for the UN to cut spending, or scale back its commitments, or quit paying exorbitant salaries to corrupt UN officials, are not wrong — but they seriously miss the point. Yes, the UN is bloated. Yes, it wastes outlandish amounts of the public’s money. But that is not the real problem. “The best thing that you can say about the United Nations is it’s mostly ineffective and a waste of money,” Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has a bill to get the United States out of the UN, told The New American magazine. “That’s the best thing you can say about it. So I’m glad that they are somewhat ineffective, but I don’t like that we waste the money.”

But rather than making it more efficient, or less corrupt, Massie and other liberty-minded lawmakers say the time has come for the U.S. government to completely ditch the UN and remove its headquarters from U.S. soil. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” Massie explained. The bill, known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), would sever all U.S. ties and funding to the UN while evicting it from New York. The legislation is currently in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where Democrats hope to keep it bottled up. But if they lose control of the House at the next election, an “Amexit” from the UN may well end up on the agenda.

TNA:https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/33652-trump-tells-bankrupt-un-to-find-money-elsewhere


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

« Older Entries