Bill Lockwood: Freedom v. Force

by Bill Lockwood

Freedom irritates the left. Not their own freedom—but yours. Democrats live with a hatred; a despising of the very principle of liberty. This is the essential difference between the left and the right—not merely how spend money and upon what—but whether or not to curtail your freedom.

Consider free speech. The free and open exchange of ideas has been the hallmark of American society for over two centuries. The First Amendment has served as a prohibition against the Federal Government from managing any kind of speech. Alarmingly, however, more than one-half of Americans today favor a “re-writing” of the First Amendment whereby “hate speech” would be illegal. The survey was taken by the nonpartisan Campaign for Free Speech (CFS).

As everyone knows, the determination of what constitutes “hate speech” is the crux. Who will determine what type of speech is hateful enough to be illegal? (see First Liberty Institute article, 11-15-19).

College campuses lead the nation in showing contempt for free speech. Most college students, according to surveys, want restrictions on what they call “offensive” speech. Marxist professors have instilled a pure hatred for free speech in the student bodies. Witness the hostile reception conservative speakers have had at various Universities around the country.

Even the liberal American Bar Association (ABA) documents in a recent article the silencing of various speakers at college campuses. The authors, Stephen J. Wermiel & Josh Blackman, try to explain that it comes from “both sides”, left and right, but conclude that the “incidents” of disruption to speakers on the liberal side are “less common.” Indeed! And it is more than a stretch to say that “hecklers” wearing “Make America Great Again” hats equate with the violence of shutting down speakers and forcing college campuses to withdraw conservative invitations to speak. Silencing by force is the leftist method.

Force has been used so much by the left that some Republican-led state legislatures have felt the need to impose policies on their state university campuses to allow free speech.

Under the rubric of “hate speech” the big tech giants Facebook and YouTube have already shut down Alex Jones’ voice on InfoWars.  Some Christian voices, like Julio Severo, are put in “Facebook jail” for posting Bible verses such as about homosexuality. Google suppressed Prager University and Twitter temporarily banned Candace Owens. So prevalent has this forcible silencing of speech been on the left that Bill Maher was compelled to ask, “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech that you hate.”

Consider Climate Change. The Paris Climate Accord from which Trump withdrew in 2017 is all about force. Those who preach the Green Gospel of saving the planet cannot garner enough support for their message by normal debate and means of persuasion. Therefore, these globalists wish to sign American taxpayers on to a globalist “Carbon Pricing Panel” whereby the dictators of the United Nations will force reparations from the United States to pay for our environmental sins. These payments will be distributed to Third World and developing nations.

All of us have pulpits. Some of us preach the gospel of Christ and by reasons addressed to the mind ask worshippers to contribute in collection trays. Leftists and socialists of the Democrat Party cannot garner enough support for their doomsday message that the Sky is Falling, consequently they must save us all—by forcing us to pay contributions to their collection baskets. They cannot rely on freedom or the free-flow of ideas, so proponents of the Green Gospel use force.

Fred Singer, prominent scientist at the Heartland summit, a University of Virginia environmental science Professor Emeritus, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, observed, “This is about money and power. Science plays a small role, and mostly it’s being misused….It’s a matter of really trying to control things.”

Consider attacks on private property. So essential is this to freedom that John Adams commented that this was the single foundation stone undergirding all human freedom and liberty. “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”

The left knows this as well. The all-out attack on private property by the program Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), fostered by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development program and flourishing under HUD funding, has become common-place in American cities.

Big government planners do not like that you have the “freedom of association.” Liberty to live where you like and with those whom you are most comfortable is anathema. We must pare down your liberty branches! Cities are bribed with the endless access to federal money to “re-distribute” the racial mixes of their populations. Cities such as Baltimore, MD are placing minority families in white suburbia. No freedom here.

Liberal bastion Minneapolis, Minnesota became the first city to end single-family zoning. The Mayor of the city called such housing a mark of racism and “self-segregation” that must be halted at once. The white population is in his cross-hairs. Other cities are beginning to follow suit. 1

There are also a large number of organizations, such as Center for Study of Social Policy, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Center for American Progress (CAP); W. Kellogg Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and others, that are in the business of bribing cities with large amounts of George Soros money to forcibly re-zone various neighborhoods or re-draw school boundaries to dismantle schools that have “too large a white or Asian population.” 2

Another group, PolicyLink, a radical activist group, pushes policies such as “parks equity” which states that lack of access to city parks are partly responsible for “racial performance gaps” in school and on the job. The manifesto therefore is for middle-class tax-payers, once again by force, to begin funding more parks in slum areas of the country.

The common denominator in all of this is lack of freedom. Force replaces it. This is the tool of the left.

Kathleen Marquardt: WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING AND WATER IS FOR FIGHTING

by Kathleen Marquardt

If whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting, as Mark Twain famously said, then the 2015 Montana Legislature affirmed the truismTristan Scott, Flathead Beacon

In the mid-90s, before the Internet, the U.S. government held a meeting via satellite link between Washington, D.C., and cities and towns across western Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Oregon. The subject was the Columbia River Basin.

I was living in Helena, Montana. The meeting was held in a school or some building like a school on a Saturday morning. The room had about a dozen round tables with six chairs each, and we all watched the presentation on a screen. In attendance were the press, people from farming and Ag organizations, local officials and others like me – wanting to know what was afoot.  After the viewing, we had one of those infamous consensus meetings.

The major point of that meeting was that the Columbia River Basin needed to be returned to the state it was before Columbus. In unspoken words, NO WHITE MAN. But a lot more was presented to drown that in political gobbledygook.

Understandably, the global elite want that area to be re-wilded, to be part of the Wildlands Project. But at this meeting/Charrette, they let us know that they would start by removing only the non-indigenous peoples. Plus dams – dams gotta go.

Now, some 25 years later, we are seeing exactly how this is being accomplished via the western Montana portion of the Columbia River Basin Project – the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Montana water compact.

The fact is, the CSKT Compact has nothing to do with water rights, Indians, culture, fish, or the environment.  It is all about money for a small group of tribal elite and state officials who covet more power, political positions, and power over others. It seeks revenge for spiteCatherine Vandemoer, Ph.D., Sovereign Nation

I have been trying  to put together a short-ish synopsis of the machinations over the CSKT compact. But the backstory is that the feds are using the treaty to bring about the unlawful expansion of the tribal government authority over Non-Indians. “This compact proposes that the State of Montana expand the authority and jurisdiction of tribal governments over non-members and non-Indians where federal law has specifically prohibited it. People, the Montana legislature does not have the authority to remove constitutional provisions and statutory protections from its citizens,  . . .” [1] ,  On top of this, the CSKT Compact, is an attempt to create a new type of federal water right “ . . .using the wording from the Hellgate Treaty that states that the tribes have a right to take fish. And from those simple words that even a horse trainer can understand, the proponents of this compact would like us to believe that the right to take fish, equates to an aboriginal, time immemorial, tribal reserved, federal water right. Again, they are asking the Montana State legislature to conjure up…and I do mean conjure up… a federal water right where currently one does not exist. We simply do not have that authority.” [2]

The compact between Montana, the federal government, and the tribes is so complicated that the fur has been flying for well over a hundred years, and recently, another 1,000+-page compact has been written. I suggest you go to Western Water Rights and watch the video of the Perfect Storm for the full story from the first tribal agreement. It is extremely well laid out.

But here is the dirty, rotten, nasty underbelly of this whole Machiavellian plot. Remember how Agenda 21 was signed in Rio by President George H.W. Bush, but never ratified by Congress? Actually, never even brought up in Congress. Yet, instead, President Clinton put V.P. Al Gore in charge of using the President’s Commission on Sustainable Development to embed all the aspects of Sustainable Development into every department of the federal government.

That same tactic is being used here. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D.  Chair, Montana Land and Water Alliance, out of Polson, Montana, wrote me that, “ . . . the state is implementing the CSKT Compact without Congressional approval both on and off the reservation by:

On Reservation—State, BIA, and Tribes implementing CSKT Compact in a federal irrigation project without Congressional approval

State and BIA participating in planning, possible design, funding of projects associated with compact water management plans, including measuring devices, headgate operations,

Tribes aggressively implementing and directing a compliant BIA  how to manage storage and reservoir levels, instream flows, and canal deliveries  according to plans specified in the CSKT Compact appendices which affects water delivery to irrigation and stock,  and violates US-irrigation district contracts.

There is an existing federal operations plan that has not been followed since 2014 because they have been implementing

Off-reservation—State implementing Milltown Dam water right

The compact calls for CSKT “co-ownership” of the water flow from the Milltown Dam water right on the Clark Fork River, and thus “splits” the water right between two tributaries to protect instream flow.

The state had planned to implement this with or without the Compact, but with the Compact they didn’t have to go through their regular permitting process to achieve that transfer of use and point of diversion.

Congress has not approved the compact yet the state water right abstract for Milltown dam listed the co-ownership and compact-related conditions

In 2017 our organization wrote to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) to point out that the compact hadn’t been approved and the abstract was in error, and to inquire as to whether the state was going to go through its regular process

After getting a nasty response, the state changed the abstract to list them as full owner, but indicated as soon as compact passed would be co-ownership.

However, they are implementing that right now without having completed the state process for a change in the use and place of use of the water, which was required without the compact.

You don’t have to understand all those terms, you just need to understand that this project is be embedded into state, tribal, and local governments without Congressional approval, and probably without Congress knowing it is being done. Plus, this is not just about Montana waters, it will have a most destructive affect on all western waters.

The furthest west hatched lines designate the Flathead Indian Reservation Article II Treaty of Hellgate. The green area is what this new compact is turning over to that small reservation to have full control over the waters.

The compact begins with an incorrect definition of the reservation that paves the way for the expansive taking of water within reservation boundaries:  all land within the exterior boundaries of the Indian Reservation established under the July 16, 1855 Treaty of Hellgate, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the Reservation.”   

This flawed premise is used to rationalize giving all water running through and under the reservation to the CSKT.

Additionally the compact gives the federal government time immemorial water rights for every drop of water in Flathead Lake, and concedes significant instream flows with various priority dates throughout 11 counties in western Montana in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins.

This is a water grab (which becomes a land grab, because you can’t use land that doesn’t have water) the size no one has seen before outside the USSR. Those Americans who think that this has no relevance to them, better think twice – at least. This is not the beginning of the taking of water rights in this country; it is happening all over in various tactics and schemes. But it is the biggest. And it has been in the works for at least 30 years.

You can think, oh well, that’s in Montana; it won’t bother me. I am in Ohio, or Arizona. Understand, this is just the first place – sort of a testing ground. And, no, they don’t need Indian reservations to stage the take-over of water rights. We cannot survive without water so, if you haven’t stood up for your rights before, start now. Whiskey may be for drinking, but let’s see you survive long without water.

[1] Theresa Manzella, member of Montana State House of Representatives, “My testimony to the Montana House on the CSKT Water Compact.

[2] Ibid.


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/11/25/whiskey-is-for-drinking-and-water-is-for-fighting/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

William F. Jasper: Exposed: Media Collusion for Greta Thunberg and UN Climate Hysteria

by William F. Jasper

The Fake News Media has been caught again with pants down. The Daily Callerbroke the story on November 18, revealing that more than 250 U.S. news outlets and journalists had colluded in an effort to promote the idea that the planet faces a “climate crisis,” and to build support for the United Nations Climate Action Summit of world leaders held in New York City, September 15-23. Not that there was any paucity of lurid global warming propaganda; anyone who hasn’t assumed room temperature knows that we have been marinated in “news” stories proclaiming climate apocalypse for decades now.

However, there are still too many skeptical Americans who haven’t bought the over-heated hype and are not quite ready to accept the draconian government controls and pay the trillions of dollars we are told will be necessary to save the planet from man-made global warming. So “the good and the great” of the Fourth Estate decided they need to kick it up a few notches and really saturate the American public with intense fright peddling to drive home the new meme that we are facing a truly dire “climate emergency.”

Thus was launched Covering Climate Now, a massive effort to shape and coordinate an advocacy campaign camouflaged as news.  According to the organization’s own website, “Covering Climate Now is a joint initiative of The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review.” The Nation prides itself in being the oldest socialist magazine in America, and Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), flagship publication of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, postures as a model of professionalism and journalistic ethics.

The Covering Climate Now website boasts: “Our initiative includes more than 350 outlets worldwide, and dozens of institutional and independent partners, with a combined audience of more than 1 billion people. We’re growing every day.”

“Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September,” the Daily Caller reported. “The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.”

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR stated in May. ”Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

“Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit,” notes the Daily Caller, “focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.”

That the tsunami of Thunberg stories was a completely orchestrated affair comes as no surprise to anyone who glimpsed even a fraction of the staged “news” events for the bratty, self-righteous teen, who delivered her venomous “How dare you!” speech to world leaders at the UN. Her apotheosis from pigtailed schoolgirl to beyond-rock-star, messiah status was obviously a contrived, concerted effort that went beyond the usual “Leftward Ho!” herd mentality of the “mainstream” media pack.

Among the media “partners” listed on the Covering Climate Now website are: BuzzFeed News, Bloomberg, Scientific American, Slate, Vanity Fair, Variety, VICE Media, Vox, The Weather Channel Digital, The Weather Channel, Al Jazeera, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, Huffington Post, The New Republic, Newsweek, and Harvard Business Review. In addition to these liberal-left/globalist organs, the climate propaganda cabal also includes such extreme-left Marxist outfits as Mother Jones, In These Times, Democracy Now!, The Intercept, and The Young Turks.

Collectively, the cabal succeeded wildly in drenching the planet with a suffocating blanket of global warming hype. As one example, take BuzzFeed. The Daily Caller reports: “BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.”

This not the first time the media mavens have been caught in flagrante delicto. Remember the JournoList scandal of 2008, the scheme by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein that recruited hundreds of reporters and news organizations to promote and defend then-candidate Barack Obama?

Then there was the Gamechanger Salon scandal, in which lesbian “community organizer,” CNN commentator and Obama/Clinton crony Sally Kohn was ringleader to more than 1,000 activists from Planned Parenthood, Big Media, Big Labor, and other “progressive” centers of power.

Then, last year there was the very open collusion scandal of more than 100 newspapers agreeing to simultaneously run anti-Trump editorials.

The media collusion exposed in the Covering Climate Now scandal is but the latest revelation proving that most of the “legacy media,” as well as much of the newer “alternative media” are indeed Fake News, as President Trump has charged.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34107-exposed-media-collusion-for-greta-thunberg-and-un-climate-hysteria


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.

 

Bill Lockwood: The Name of God

by Bill Lockwood

Alfred Edersheim, the Jewish commentator who became a Christian, explains why Matthew’s gospel (3:2) will use the phraseology ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ while ‘Kingdom of God,’ appears elsewhere (e.g. Mark 1:4).

According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms ‘Kingdom of heaven,’ and ‘Kingdom of God’ … were equivalent. In fact, the word ‘heaven’ was very often used instead of ‘God,’ so as to avoid unduly familiarizing the ear with the Sacred Name. This probably accounts for the exclusive use of the expression ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ in the Gospel by Matthew.

I was raised by a godly Christian mother who explained to me when very young that the Jews took such care when even writing the name of God in copies of the Scriptures that they washed their hands before putting pen to parchment to write it. I never heard her speak of God except in sober tones.

Kimberly Burnham, in the website ReformJudaism.org, posted an article entitled “Writing the Torah and Honoring the Name of God.” In it she interviewed Rabbi Kevin Hale who “talked about going to the river near his house to wash himself in a mikveh (ritual bath) before writing the name of God in the Torah scroll he worked on.

The reason there are very few errors is the intentionality that goes into the writing of the name of God …‘Every letter is sung out as you write, and there is an acute awareness of begin in the presence of something great,’ Hale said, noting that the name of God is written with a unique quill using special ink, a 2,000-year-old recipe.

The third commandment of the Decalogue forbids “taking the name of the Lord in vain.” Vain means empty, nothing, worthless. Writer Kevin DeYoung, senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, asks this pointed question: “How did ‘watch your mouth’ make the top ten?” The answer is simple: God wants us to revere His name.

That being said, how has it come to pass that Christians, who ought of all people, to honor the name of God, have allowed a hedonistic godless blasphemous culture to influence our manner of speaking and thinking in that “O my G_____ ”, or equivalent expressions have become the norm?

DeYoung reflects on light-hearted “nicknames” that people use to refer to one another. Then he comments,

“But funny nicknames given to us is one thing; irreverent use of God’s name is another. Everywhere in Scripture the name of the Lord is exalted in the highest possible terms. ‘O Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!’ (Psa. 8:1). ‘Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name’ (Psa. 29:2). The first petition of the Lord’s prayer is ‘Hallowed be your name’ (Matt. 6:9). The apostles proclaim that ‘there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12). Paul assured the Romans that ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’ (Rom. 10:13). And the culminating event in all of creation is when, ‘at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of god the Father’ (Phil. 2:10-11). The Bible does not want us to forget the holy importance of the divine name.

Nothing marks the godlessness of a culture as much as dishonoring the name of God.

Alex Newman: Democrats Propose Keeping Kids at School Until 6pm

by Alex Newman

Parents should be able to hand the government even more responsibility for raising their children, Democrat U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California believes. To help make that a reality, she introduced an unconstitutional bill that would keep school doors open until 6 PM or later, as well as during the summer months.

Dubbed the “Family Friendly Schools Act,” Harris’ bill would help further obliterate the family, replacing parents with government school officials for almost the entire life of a child. Under the plan, American taxpayers would be forced to provide even more tax money to government “education” so that parents could spend even less time with their children.

If approved, the legislation would start by bribing 500 government schools across America into creating “activities” for children from 8 AM or before until 6 PM or later. The schools, part of a pilot program, would be required to provide “high-quality, culturally relevant, linguistically accessible, developmentally appropriate academic, athletic, or enrichment opportunities” during that time.

That means millions of children would be eating three government-provided meals per day at their government schools, further cementing the government’s role as provider in the child’s mind. Next up: Bed-time stories and goodnight hugs for children from government bureaucrats, so that parents do not have to worry about those parental duties, either.

The Orwellian scheme would also plow over $1 billion — to start with — into creating “21st Century Community Learning Centers” at public schools across America. These institutions would subject some 2 million American children to what Harris’ press release described as “summer programming,” thereby eliminating summer vacation.

While parents typically spend an hour or two with their children on an average day, government has them captive for about eight hours per day, five days a week, for at least 14 years. In total, children who start school in Kindergarten will spend over 20,000 waking hours in government care, compared to around one fourth that much time with their parents.

Harris pointed to her mother working “long hours” as a reason why America needs children to be in government schools for more hours. Apparently “juggling” school schedules and work is a “common cause of stress and financial hardship,” said Harris, who is descended from slave owners and whose own father has lambasted her disgusting “identity politics.”

“But, this does not have to be the case,” Harris continued, because apparently Uncle Sam is going to make it all better by taking even more money from people to somehow help them deal with their “financial hardship.” Proving that she would destroy a proper understanding of justice if elected in her long-shot bid for the presidency, Harris added: “Justice for students and working families is on the ballot.”

Of course, totalitarians have long believed that government ought to play a much larger role in the raising of children. Indeed, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and countless other socialist and communist tyrants throughout the 20th century sought to usurp the role of parents in raising the next generation, always with horrific results.

In America, Big Government mongers have similar dreams. Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan, for instance, openly called for government boarding schools that would have some children 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Hillary Clinton argued two decades ago that it takes a (government) “village” to raise a child. And the Obama administration released a policy document seeking home visits that referred to parents as “equal partners” in the raising of children.

THE TAKEAWAY

As American children get dumber and dumber — not to mention more immoral — with each passing year in public school, it is incredible that somebody could seriously propose increasing  the amount of time spent there. What U.S. children need is more time with their parents and less time as inmates in the government’s indoctrination centers. Harris should be ashamed of herself.


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

Matt O’Brien: ProPublica’s “Big Story” Is More Than a Little Wrong

by Matt O’Brien

Radical news outlet ProPublica is currently running a scare piece claiming, “Border agents can now get classified intelligence information. Experts call that dangerous.” According to ProPublica, “…the Trump administration is creating a new center in suburban Virginia that will allow immigration agents to access, for the first time, the sprawling array of information scooped up by America’s intelligence agencies….”

The article, part of the organization’s “Big Story” newsletter, further claims, “Migrants and others denied entry will be unable to see the evidence against them because it is classified.” It also asserts that, “It could also be nearly impossible for those denied entry to challenge faulty information if wrongly accused, they say, since most of it is classified.”

But, there are so many factual errors in ProPublica’s overwrought monument to pointless, fake news hyperbole that it is difficult to know where to begin debunking it.

Immigration officers throughout The United States Department of Homeland Security already have access to classified information. They have, for decades. In Jay v. Boyd, decided in 1956, the Supreme Court explicitly held that, when determining an alien’s admissibility to the United States, the government may rely on “confidential information not disclosed to the alien.”

In fact, over 20 years ago, in 1998, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel Paul Virtue appeared before Congress to discuss the government’s need to consider classified information in connection with immigration applications in order to protect America’s national security. And that was under the Democrat, left-leaning Clinton administration.

And the Trump administration isn’t setting up any shadowy new intelligence center in the capital city’s suburbs. There are already a number of information-collection-and-sharing facilities all around the Washington, D.C., area. They range from the National Counterterrorism Center, operated by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) National Targeting Center (whose motto is “Catching smugglers, terrorists and lawbreakers works better through partnership.”). Many other agencies also run information-sharing centers in the area. Their collective purpose is to protect the United States from foreign national security threats, particularly terrorism.

The suburban Virginia facility referenced by ProPublica is called the National Vetting Center (NVC). And it serves one simple purpose that its parent agency, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has loudly and publicly proclaimed:

Over time, the U.S. Government has developed multiple, unconnected processes to bring together threat information already lawfully held by the government about individuals seeking to enter the United States or obtain benefits under our immigration laws.  The NVC is centralizing and improving these processes to more efficiently and effectively inform department and agency vetting.  Relevant, appropriate information will be accessible in a consolidated and timely manner to the departments and agencies leveraging the NVC’s process and technology.

As for those “civil rights concerns” that ProPublica is crowing about: There aren’t any. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out, requests by foreign nationals for admission to the United States don’t give rise to constitutional civil rights claims, because “the admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes” – Ekiu v. United States (1892), Fong Yue Ting v. United States(1893), Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), Kliendienst v. Mandel (1972).

Finally, ProPublica’s claim that individuals denied entry to the United States on the basis of classified information will be denied an opportunity to review and contest such information is utterly specious. Foreign nationals can’t even challenge a denial of admission made on the basis of unclassified information. Under existing statutes and case precedent, the Department of State can summarily deny a visa to a foreign national and CBP personnel at the border may deny admission to anyone who fails to establish his/her admissibility – and the law provides absolutely no legal mechanism  for challenging a denial of admission.

In reality, it turns out that this “Big Story” is actually much ado about nothing.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2019/11/04/pro-publica-bias-reporting-fake-news-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

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.

« Older Entries