Day: March 19, 2018

To Students: A Lesson on the Modern Left


As a teacher of public school (17 years), private school (7.5 years), and homeschool (11 years), I have a unique perspective on education.  I’ve experienced K-12 education from just about every angle imaginable.  I’ve taught at day schools and evening schools, and I’ve privately tutored many students.  I’ve taught on sprawling 200-plus-acre campuses in buildings costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and I’ve taught in trailers that would barely keep out a strong gust of wind.

Likewise, I’ve experienced students from almost every background imaginable.  I’ve taught students who were homeless and those whose parents who could afford $25,000-plus tuition for a year of high school.  I’ve taught students who have never traveled more than 100 miles from their northeast Georgia homes and those who traveled hundreds and even thousands of miles – from Mexico, Guatemala, China, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Nigeria, Egypt, and so on – to sit in my classroom.  Safe to say, I’ve just about seen it all in K-12 education.

In my quarter-century of teaching mathematics, there’s almost nothing in education I can say all teachers, students, administrators, parents, and politicians agree upon, save this: we want our schools to be safe.  One of the great tragedies of our time has been the wanton slaughter of helpless students, faculty, and staff in what could – and should – be one of the safest places in the world.  Sadly, as we are in the shadows of another horrific school slaughter, most of what we are hearing would do virtually nothing to make our schools safer.

As about 100 of the 1,700-plus students at my high school walked out in protest on March 14 (for a moment, I thought it was merely an overzealous Pi Day party), I mentioned to a colleague that the whole episode was little more than a ploy to elect more Democrats.  I found out a short while later that others thought exactly the same.

As most of us watching well knew, several reports have revealed that the student walkouts across the U.S. last Wednesday were far from “organic.”  Sadly, liberal organizations across the U.S. have seized on the wicked act that took place at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. in order to push the agenda of the modern left.  Note that what we are currently witnessing with the left’s co-opting of American K-12 students is about much more than mere “gun control.”

As they push, prod, propagandize, and otherwise take advantage of youthful students across the U.S., taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans is only part of the end game for American leftists.  Make no mistake about it, young folks: though you are often hailed as our nation’s “greatest resource,” your safety is far from the primary concern when it comes to the American left.

If the left is so concerned with students’ safety, why for decades have they ignored or lied about science and sound morality and refused to stand up for the most innocent and defenseless among us?  For all of their lives, these kids have been deceived about the humanity of the unborn.  Could they recall in their science classes where the humanity of the unborn has been a point of emphasis?  If they take any form of sex education in a government school, are they told that once sperm fertilizes egg, the life of a human being is at stake?

When it comes to violence in our culture, abortion is something that must be honestly discussed.  No one should be surprised that a nation that has killed over 50 million of its children in the womb is a violent nation in other ways as well.  As Mother Teresa taught us:

I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself.  And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

If today’s left is so concerned with students’ safety, why have they waged a decades-long war on the oldest, most foundational institution in the history of humanity?  As is the case with life in the womb, all of their lives, these kids have been lied to about family and marriage.  Tragically, many – if not most – of them are daily experiencing the dismal consequences of these lies.  Because of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, through no fault of their own, tens of millions of American schoolchildren today are growing up in a home without a mother or a father.  It was not supposed to be this way!  They deserve better!

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, children who grow up in broken homes are much more likely to suffer a whole host of negative outcomes.  One of the most common traits of the worst murderers in the history of the United States is a broken home.  What’s more, American students are far more likely to suffer – even to the point of death – from violence and abuse in a broken home than they are from gun violence anywhere.  Again, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America is at home with his mother and her live-in boyfriend.  Many kids today know this all too well.

If modern liberals are so concerned with students’ safety, why do they continue to lie about the dangers of a hedonistic, promiscuous sexual lifestyle?  One of the most shocking statistics of the modern era is that 110 million Americans – over one third of our population – are now saddled with a sexually transmitted disease.  Tragically, many kids today know this firsthand.

Sexual promiscuity is killing far more Americans than are guns, but you almost never hear such from those who operate from a liberal worldview.  What’s more, recent studies have shown – as if we needed more studies to reveal what sound morality has always taught – that teenagers who engage in risky sexual behaviors, especially homosexuality, are much more likely to put their health and lives in danger (along with the health and lives of others) than are those who follow the moral precepts of their Creator.

Finally, if liberals are so concerned for students’ safety, why do they continue to lie about the presence of guns and the frequency of gun violence?  The data on guns and violence is clear: some of the safest places in America are littered with guns, while some of the most dangerous places in America have the lowest rates of gun ownership and our strictest gun control laws.

In addition to these dangerous lies, in order to push their godless, big-government agenda, today’s leftists – led by Hollywood; the establishment media; the Democratic Party; and yes, most of modern academia – has misled you about the role of good government, the value and purpose of education, the importance of hard work, the state of the Earth’s climate, and even what it means to be a male and to be a female.  Thus, for the sake of students’ spiritual, mental, and physical health, for the rest of their lives, I encourage them to “walk out” on the modern left.  Don’t cast a vote for them; don’t purchase their entertainment; don’t engage their news and information; don’t heed their teaching; and most of all, don’t live out their lies.

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Image: Tcodl via Wikimedia Commons.

As a teacher of public school (17 years), private school (7.5 years), and homeschool (11 years), I have a unique perspective on education.  I’ve experienced K-12 education from just about every angle imaginable.  I’ve taught at day schools and evening schools, and I’ve privately tutored many students.  I’ve taught on sprawling 200-plus-acre campuses in buildings costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and I’ve taught in trailers that would barely keep out a strong gust of wind.

Likewise, I’ve experienced students from almost every background imaginable.  I’ve taught students who were homeless and those whose parents who could afford $25,000-plus tuition for a year of high school.  I’ve taught students who have never traveled more than 100 miles from their northeast Georgia homes and those who traveled hundreds and even thousands of miles – from Mexico, Guatemala, China, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Nigeria, Egypt, and so on – to sit in my classroom.  Safe to say, I’ve just about seen it all in K-12 education.

In my quarter-century of teaching mathematics, there’s almost nothing in education I can say all teachers, students, administrators, parents, and politicians agree upon, save this: we want our schools to be safe.  One of the great tragedies of our time has been the wanton slaughter of helpless students, faculty, and staff in what could – and should – be one of the safest places in the world.  Sadly, as we are in the shadows of another horrific school slaughter, most of what we are hearing would do virtually nothing to make our schools safer.

As about 100 of the 1,700-plus students at my high school walked out in protest on March 14 (for a moment, I thought it was merely an overzealous Pi Day party), I mentioned to a colleague that the whole episode was little more than a ploy to elect more Democrats.  I found out a short while later that others thought exactly the same.

As most of us watching well knew, several reports have revealed that the student walkouts across the U.S. last Wednesday were far from “organic.”  Sadly, liberal organizations across the U.S. have seized on the wicked act that took place at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. in order to push the agenda of the modern left.  Note that what we are currently witnessing with the left’s co-opting of American K-12 students is about much more than mere “gun control.”

As they push, prod, propagandize, and otherwise take advantage of youthful students across the U.S., taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans is only part of the end game for American leftists.  Make no mistake about it, young folks: though you are often hailed as our nation’s “greatest resource,” your safety is far from the primary concern when it comes to the American left.

If the left is so concerned with students’ safety, why for decades have they ignored or lied about science and sound morality and refused to stand up for the most innocent and defenseless among us?  For all of their lives, these kids have been deceived about the humanity of the unborn.  Could they recall in their science classes where the humanity of the unborn has been a point of emphasis?  If they take any form of sex education in a government school, are they told that once sperm fertilizes egg, the life of a human being is at stake?

When it comes to violence in our culture, abortion is something that must be honestly discussed.  No one should be surprised that a nation that has killed over 50 million of its children in the womb is a violent nation in other ways as well.  As Mother Teresa taught us:

I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself.  And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

If today’s left is so concerned with students’ safety, why have they waged a decades-long war on the oldest, most foundational institution in the history of humanity?  As is the case with life in the womb, all of their lives, these kids have been lied to about family and marriage.  Tragically, many – if not most – of them are daily experiencing the dismal consequences of these lies.  Because of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, through no fault of their own, tens of millions of American schoolchildren today are growing up in a home without a mother or a father.  It was not supposed to be this way!  They deserve better!

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, children who grow up in broken homes are much more likely to suffer a whole host of negative outcomes.  One of the most common traits of the worst murderers in the history of the United States is a broken home.  What’s more, American students are far more likely to suffer – even to the point of death – from violence and abuse in a broken home than they are from gun violence anywhere.  Again, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America is at home with his mother and her live-in boyfriend.  Many kids today know this all too well.

If modern liberals are so concerned with students’ safety, why do they continue to lie about the dangers of a hedonistic, promiscuous sexual lifestyle?  One of the most shocking statistics of the modern era is that 110 million Americans – over one third of our population – are now saddled with a sexually transmitted disease.  Tragically, many kids today know this firsthand.

Sexual promiscuity is killing far more Americans than are guns, but you almost never hear such from those who operate from a liberal worldview.  What’s more, recent studies have shown – as if we needed more studies to reveal what sound morality has always taught – that teenagers who engage in risky sexual behaviors, especially homosexuality, are much more likely to put their health and lives in danger (along with the health and lives of others) than are those who follow the moral precepts of their Creator.

Finally, if liberals are so concerned for students’ safety, why do they continue to lie about the presence of guns and the frequency of gun violence?  The data on guns and violence is clear: some of the safest places in America are littered with guns, while some of the most dangerous places in America have the lowest rates of gun ownership and our strictest gun control laws.

In addition to these dangerous lies, in order to push their godless, big-government agenda, today’s leftists – led by Hollywood; the establishment media; the Democratic Party; and yes, most of modern academia – has misled you about the role of good government, the value and purpose of education, the importance of hard work, the state of the Earth’s climate, and even what it means to be a male and to be a female.  Thus, for the sake of students’ spiritual, mental, and physical health, for the rest of their lives, I encourage them to “walk out” on the modern left.  Don’t cast a vote for them; don’t purchase their entertainment; don’t engage their news and information; don’t heed their teaching; and most of all, don’t live out their lies.

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Image: Tcodl via Wikimedia Commons.



Source link

Oakland's Libby Schaaf Shows How Democrats Control Minorities


The Democratic Party of the U.S. has always had an attitude of using and exploiting minority rights.  Democrats feel that it is their party’s right to control the minority populations of the U.S.  And Oakland’s Mayor Libby Schaaf is following DNC marching orders by acting to defy federal law to achieve the same end: control of a growing minority of Americans whom the Democratic Party seeks to use to stay in political power.

Defiance of federal law is nothing new for the Democratic Party of the U.S.  Democrats have been practicing it for 200 years.  In the early 19th century, the Democrats were the party of slavery: their Southern states were the stronghold of the practice of slavery, and they did everything possible to hang onto their “right” to own other humans beings and exploit their labor.

When Western states began to say they were “free” states, and that a slave who traveled to their state was a free person, Democrats made comments similar to those of Mayor Schaaf and stated they had the “right” to own other human beings and they would fight the encroachment of federal and state laws to infringe on that right.  It’s a shameful chapter in America’s history, and the parallels between those official actions of Democrats in the South and their members of Congress are being copied and reflected in the actions of Mayor Schaaf, the governor of California, the California state Legislature, and the Democrat members of Congress.

This outburst of federal law defiance erupted in February 24, 2018, when Mayor Schaaf proudly proclaimed in an official mayoral office press release posted on Twitter: “I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to an operation in the Bay Area[.]… I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them.”  Notice she didn’t say to protect citizens.  She referenced a website that would provide residents information about their “legal rights” when they face detention.  She further noted that a California law, AB 450, signed by the California governor October 5, 2017, “prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas.”  The bill prescribes penalties for infractions: failure to provide the immigration notice the business owner received to the state would be a $2,000 fine, and later instances could be fined up to $10,000. 

The California law does give the state an out: it states, “Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law.”  In other words, the CA bill is sneaky; it bans employers from cooperating with ICE unless such cooperation is required by federal law.  So in an important sense, while it is being advertised as a defense of illegal employment, it does not specifically state that California will fine business owners who comply with federal laws.  And if the federal law says the business owner must provide information, then the business owner must. 

So it’s an exercise of double-talk.  It seeks to give the impression that California is protecting illegal alien workers while the language of the law does not clearly violate federal law.  So much for the California state law.  But Mayor Schaaf is not out of the woods: she cannot order citizens to disobey federal laws. 

The attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, has announced that he is suing the state of California for its self-proclaimed official sanctuary state status.  This is the first time the federal government has responded to any sanctuary state declarations, even though Chicago was the first city to declare itself a sanctuary in 1985 when its Mayor Harold Washington declared that the city will provide “all residents” the services and opportunities of the city of Chicago regardless of citizenship status. 

In reality most of this sanctuary grandstanding is of little more than public image value, but when illegal aliens are allowed to vote or given special legal status, or allowed to break federal and state laws that apply to everyone, it becomes a legal matter.  And A.G. Sessions has taken this action to demonstrate that the federal government has decided it is time to step in and clarify the obligations Mayor Schaaf and the state of California have to uphold federal law.

A few months ago, the city of Chicago sued Sessions when he stated that he would retaliate against the city for being a sanctuary.  He said then that the retaliation would take the form of withholding federal law enforcement funds. Chicago argues that it has a right to those funds and that it would hurt law enforcement in the city – although the city failed to clarify how its refusal to enforce immigration law doesn’t hurt citizens of the city.

While the anti-free state movement of the 1820s and afterward was the first big event in Democratic Party defiance of federal authority, the second occurred in the 1950s, when Democrat governor of Arkansas  Orval Faubus sent members of the Arkansas National Guard to a Little Rock, Arkansas school to prevent black students from entering the school.  Once again, this was an example of how a Democratic Party official insisted on controlling a minority.  Governor Faubus insisted that he had the power to segregate black students and prevent them from attending schools that were then white. 

The showdown ended when President Eisenhower ordered troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce the right of the black students to enter the public school.  All of these actions, from 1820 to the Civil War to the desegregation battles in the 1950s and ’60s to the uproar just a few weeks ago, have one thing in common: Democrats insist that they can defy federal laws to control members of minority groups. 

What is different is the strategy behind the actions.  While in the 19th century the actions of the Democratic Party were to deprive minorities of fundamental constitutional rights, today, the exact opposite is going on: Democrats insist that illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Hispanic, have constitutional rights and that the federal government cannot exercise its lawful authority to control immigration. 

These two practices seem to be completely different: after the Civil War, Democrats did not want blacks to vote, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act had to go to great lengths to prevent Southern states from having “tests and devices” such as memory tests, reading tests and other outrageous requirements for blacks, while usually letting whites off the hook from have to qualify to vote. 

Today, the new minority of interest to the DNC, Hispanics, are encouraged by Democrats to vote.  Many states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and other forms of identification to enable them to vote.  Chicago just established a controversial “CityKey” program that allows illegals to vote.  And so the literacy tests restricting the black vote have been replaced by leniency in illegal alien voter registration.   

Image via Jeremy Dalmas.

The Democratic Party of the U.S. has always had an attitude of using and exploiting minority rights.  Democrats feel that it is their party’s right to control the minority populations of the U.S.  And Oakland’s Mayor Libby Schaaf is following DNC marching orders by acting to defy federal law to achieve the same end: control of a growing minority of Americans whom the Democratic Party seeks to use to stay in political power.

Defiance of federal law is nothing new for the Democratic Party of the U.S.  Democrats have been practicing it for 200 years.  In the early 19th century, the Democrats were the party of slavery: their Southern states were the stronghold of the practice of slavery, and they did everything possible to hang onto their “right” to own other humans beings and exploit their labor.

When Western states began to say they were “free” states, and that a slave who traveled to their state was a free person, Democrats made comments similar to those of Mayor Schaaf and stated they had the “right” to own other human beings and they would fight the encroachment of federal and state laws to infringe on that right.  It’s a shameful chapter in America’s history, and the parallels between those official actions of Democrats in the South and their members of Congress are being copied and reflected in the actions of Mayor Schaaf, the governor of California, the California state Legislature, and the Democrat members of Congress.

This outburst of federal law defiance erupted in February 24, 2018, when Mayor Schaaf proudly proclaimed in an official mayoral office press release posted on Twitter: “I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to an operation in the Bay Area[.]… I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them.”  Notice she didn’t say to protect citizens.  She referenced a website that would provide residents information about their “legal rights” when they face detention.  She further noted that a California law, AB 450, signed by the California governor October 5, 2017, “prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas.”  The bill prescribes penalties for infractions: failure to provide the immigration notice the business owner received to the state would be a $2,000 fine, and later instances could be fined up to $10,000. 

The California law does give the state an out: it states, “Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law.”  In other words, the CA bill is sneaky; it bans employers from cooperating with ICE unless such cooperation is required by federal law.  So in an important sense, while it is being advertised as a defense of illegal employment, it does not specifically state that California will fine business owners who comply with federal laws.  And if the federal law says the business owner must provide information, then the business owner must. 

So it’s an exercise of double-talk.  It seeks to give the impression that California is protecting illegal alien workers while the language of the law does not clearly violate federal law.  So much for the California state law.  But Mayor Schaaf is not out of the woods: she cannot order citizens to disobey federal laws. 

The attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, has announced that he is suing the state of California for its self-proclaimed official sanctuary state status.  This is the first time the federal government has responded to any sanctuary state declarations, even though Chicago was the first city to declare itself a sanctuary in 1985 when its Mayor Harold Washington declared that the city will provide “all residents” the services and opportunities of the city of Chicago regardless of citizenship status. 

In reality most of this sanctuary grandstanding is of little more than public image value, but when illegal aliens are allowed to vote or given special legal status, or allowed to break federal and state laws that apply to everyone, it becomes a legal matter.  And A.G. Sessions has taken this action to demonstrate that the federal government has decided it is time to step in and clarify the obligations Mayor Schaaf and the state of California have to uphold federal law.

A few months ago, the city of Chicago sued Sessions when he stated that he would retaliate against the city for being a sanctuary.  He said then that the retaliation would take the form of withholding federal law enforcement funds. Chicago argues that it has a right to those funds and that it would hurt law enforcement in the city – although the city failed to clarify how its refusal to enforce immigration law doesn’t hurt citizens of the city.

While the anti-free state movement of the 1820s and afterward was the first big event in Democratic Party defiance of federal authority, the second occurred in the 1950s, when Democrat governor of Arkansas  Orval Faubus sent members of the Arkansas National Guard to a Little Rock, Arkansas school to prevent black students from entering the school.  Once again, this was an example of how a Democratic Party official insisted on controlling a minority.  Governor Faubus insisted that he had the power to segregate black students and prevent them from attending schools that were then white. 

The showdown ended when President Eisenhower ordered troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce the right of the black students to enter the public school.  All of these actions, from 1820 to the Civil War to the desegregation battles in the 1950s and ’60s to the uproar just a few weeks ago, have one thing in common: Democrats insist that they can defy federal laws to control members of minority groups. 

What is different is the strategy behind the actions.  While in the 19th century the actions of the Democratic Party were to deprive minorities of fundamental constitutional rights, today, the exact opposite is going on: Democrats insist that illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Hispanic, have constitutional rights and that the federal government cannot exercise its lawful authority to control immigration. 

These two practices seem to be completely different: after the Civil War, Democrats did not want blacks to vote, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act had to go to great lengths to prevent Southern states from having “tests and devices” such as memory tests, reading tests and other outrageous requirements for blacks, while usually letting whites off the hook from have to qualify to vote. 

Today, the new minority of interest to the DNC, Hispanics, are encouraged by Democrats to vote.  Many states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and other forms of identification to enable them to vote.  Chicago just established a controversial “CityKey” program that allows illegals to vote.  And so the literacy tests restricting the black vote have been replaced by leniency in illegal alien voter registration.   

Image via Jeremy Dalmas.



Source link

Education and Child Care: Get the Government Out


Maryland lawmakers are following the lead of hysterical California kooks and are proposing new guidelines for Maryland homeschoolers.  Proposals include intrusive monitoring requirements, compelling homeschoolers to submit to in-home visits by school bureaucrats, according to the Free Thought Project.

The anti-homeschooler legislators’ rationale is the recent case of child abuse and torture allegedly inflicted by a California couple on their 13 kids.  Did you hear about that case?  The one in which the parents kept the kids chained to beds, kept them malnourished, and so on.  So just because those parents happen to homeschool their kids, the apparatchiks are slamming their iron fists down on all homeschoolers.

The rulers are hardcore control freaks, and education is an important means to control the people.  So is the “child protection” racket.

The State compels kids to attend unsafe government schools and creates draconian restrictions if parents want an alternative.  There are the State’s abusive “child welfare” agencies.  And the schools are not safe either because they are an Orwellian police state or because teachers and staff are disarmed by law and unable to protect kids from intruders.

There are now many examples of the various government child care agencies such as CPS (Child Protection Services) and DCF (Department of Children and Families) that demonstrate the viciousness and indecency of the State.

To begin, according to Jenifer McKim of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, between 2001 and 2011, at least “95 Massachusetts children whose cases were overseen by state social workers have died directly or indirectly because of abuse or neglect.”

In 2014, this Boston Globe article disclosed that “hundreds of children in the Massachusetts welfare system” had gone missing.

More recently, as reported by Masslive.com, “there were 76 deaths of children under state care or supervision” in fiscal 2017.

This is happening not only in Massachusetts. As of December of 2017, more than 70 foster care children were missing in Kansas.

This 2013 article discussed the Oklahoma state Department of Human Services and the 78 missing children from its CPS who may very well have been taken into sex-trafficking.  The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer worked to expose (PDF) CPS and its alleged child sex-trafficking connection.

Why would government child “protection” involve sexual misconduct of any kind?

The Boston Herald has covered several disturbing cases in Massachusetts, including an 11-year-old foster boy who alleged that he was sexually assaulted [only after eleven paragraphs does the Globe reveal that the case involves two males – ed.] in that foster home.  DCF dismissed it as “consensual sex [sic].”  There are many other cases, including one in Worcester, as reported by the Herald, in which DCF degenerates worked feverishly to get three kids in foster care back to their parents, even though the kids made “allegations against the parents of rape, molestation and being ‘taught’ sexual acts they performed on each other and the parents, physical beatings, and a lack of food in the home[.]”

According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a policy known as “viewing bodies” involved strip-searching the foster children on each visit, without probable cause.  They continued the strip searches even though that procedure was determined illegal.

Why is child “protection” becoming so sexualized and invasive?  One conclusion by the American Dream Blog is that the government schools seem to be playing a major role.

I think that intrusiveness toward others in a most private way is something that now pervades the left, from government child “welfare” to the radical LGBT extremists.  When the activists infiltrate the schools with sex-related matters that little boys and girls are too young to be exposed to, then I view that as extreme intrusiveness, and it becomes “abuse.”  It is just immoral to treat a child in that kind of invasive way, or to invasively expose a child to “alternative” adult lifestyles.

The State is intimately enmeshed in these intrusions because the State controls the education of most kids.

Moreover, the Massachusetts child “welfare” departments openly promote sickos to be foster parents.  In 2014, the Boston Herald reported that a Massachusetts DCF handbook stated that people with criminal records and who have been convicted of “inducing sex from a minor … violent offenses, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed burglary and involuntary manslaughter” are suitable to be foster parents.

In 2013, a five-year-old foster child, Jeremiah Oliver, had been missing and was later found dead in a suitcase.  Apparently, the children in that foster home had been abused by the mother and her gang-member boyfriend.

And I have covered the case of now-19-year-old Justina Pelletier, who had been treated for a mitochondrial disease.  At one point when she was taken to see a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital, her case was seized by psychiatrists who changed her diagnosis to “somatoform disorder” and immediately withdrew her from her treatment.  Custody of her was seized by the state of Massachusetts, and she was then involuntarily placed into a mental health facility for troubled teens, even though she was clearly not “troubled.”  Her physical condition deteriorated, and she then had to use a wheelchair.

Justina then found herself in captivity and under the constraints of “behavior modification” ideology-driven and research-driven psychiatrists, according to her father, Lou Pelletier.  The Pelletier family is suing Boston Children’s Hospital and the doctors, and the lawsuit trial is still pending.

That hospital and the doctors are clearly private-sector workers.  However, in this case, doctors relied on the state’s DCF seizing custody of Justina.  The doctors’ receiving government research grants also plays a large role here.  Some people refer to this case as “medical kidnapping” by the doctors and their government partners.

Now, this is not to suggest that all these problems occur solely because “child protection” has been monopolized by the State.  There actually are some decent government social workers who rebuked their agencies.

In the private sector, however, workers are made to be accountable under the law, while the agents of government-monopolized services have shown themselves time and again to be above the law.

The invasive sexual deviancy and the “child welfare” racket and CPS abuses are bad enough.  Add to that the crazy police state in the schools, as discussed by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, and terrifying terrorism drills in the schools.  And now Donald Trump wants to impose an escalated police state in the government schools?

In my view, the police state inflicted on kids for no good reason is a form of child abuse – along with its imposing gun-free zones, mandating that no one may be armed in the schools, and therefore that no one may be able to defend the kids from a psychopathic shooter.  With civilian disarmament and mandated gun-free zones, the government schools turn kids into sitting ducks.

No wonder people want to homeschool their kids.  Imagine the government’s local homeschool “supervisors,” as threatened by Maryland and California bureaucrats.  Could they be just as bad as the government “child protective” social workers?

It is time to finally take control over education away from the government, as well as remove its monopoly over “child protection.”

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator.  Please visit his blog.

Maryland lawmakers are following the lead of hysterical California kooks and are proposing new guidelines for Maryland homeschoolers.  Proposals include intrusive monitoring requirements, compelling homeschoolers to submit to in-home visits by school bureaucrats, according to the Free Thought Project.

The anti-homeschooler legislators’ rationale is the recent case of child abuse and torture allegedly inflicted by a California couple on their 13 kids.  Did you hear about that case?  The one in which the parents kept the kids chained to beds, kept them malnourished, and so on.  So just because those parents happen to homeschool their kids, the apparatchiks are slamming their iron fists down on all homeschoolers.

The rulers are hardcore control freaks, and education is an important means to control the people.  So is the “child protection” racket.

The State compels kids to attend unsafe government schools and creates draconian restrictions if parents want an alternative.  There are the State’s abusive “child welfare” agencies.  And the schools are not safe either because they are an Orwellian police state or because teachers and staff are disarmed by law and unable to protect kids from intruders.

There are now many examples of the various government child care agencies such as CPS (Child Protection Services) and DCF (Department of Children and Families) that demonstrate the viciousness and indecency of the State.

To begin, according to Jenifer McKim of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, between 2001 and 2011, at least “95 Massachusetts children whose cases were overseen by state social workers have died directly or indirectly because of abuse or neglect.”

In 2014, this Boston Globe article disclosed that “hundreds of children in the Massachusetts welfare system” had gone missing.

More recently, as reported by Masslive.com, “there were 76 deaths of children under state care or supervision” in fiscal 2017.

This is happening not only in Massachusetts. As of December of 2017, more than 70 foster care children were missing in Kansas.

This 2013 article discussed the Oklahoma state Department of Human Services and the 78 missing children from its CPS who may very well have been taken into sex-trafficking.  The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer worked to expose (PDF) CPS and its alleged child sex-trafficking connection.

Why would government child “protection” involve sexual misconduct of any kind?

The Boston Herald has covered several disturbing cases in Massachusetts, including an 11-year-old foster boy who alleged that he was sexually assaulted [only after eleven paragraphs does the Globe reveal that the case involves two males – ed.] in that foster home.  DCF dismissed it as “consensual sex [sic].”  There are many other cases, including one in Worcester, as reported by the Herald, in which DCF degenerates worked feverishly to get three kids in foster care back to their parents, even though the kids made “allegations against the parents of rape, molestation and being ‘taught’ sexual acts they performed on each other and the parents, physical beatings, and a lack of food in the home[.]”

According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a policy known as “viewing bodies” involved strip-searching the foster children on each visit, without probable cause.  They continued the strip searches even though that procedure was determined illegal.

Why is child “protection” becoming so sexualized and invasive?  One conclusion by the American Dream Blog is that the government schools seem to be playing a major role.

I think that intrusiveness toward others in a most private way is something that now pervades the left, from government child “welfare” to the radical LGBT extremists.  When the activists infiltrate the schools with sex-related matters that little boys and girls are too young to be exposed to, then I view that as extreme intrusiveness, and it becomes “abuse.”  It is just immoral to treat a child in that kind of invasive way, or to invasively expose a child to “alternative” adult lifestyles.

The State is intimately enmeshed in these intrusions because the State controls the education of most kids.

Moreover, the Massachusetts child “welfare” departments openly promote sickos to be foster parents.  In 2014, the Boston Herald reported that a Massachusetts DCF handbook stated that people with criminal records and who have been convicted of “inducing sex from a minor … violent offenses, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed burglary and involuntary manslaughter” are suitable to be foster parents.

In 2013, a five-year-old foster child, Jeremiah Oliver, had been missing and was later found dead in a suitcase.  Apparently, the children in that foster home had been abused by the mother and her gang-member boyfriend.

And I have covered the case of now-19-year-old Justina Pelletier, who had been treated for a mitochondrial disease.  At one point when she was taken to see a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital, her case was seized by psychiatrists who changed her diagnosis to “somatoform disorder” and immediately withdrew her from her treatment.  Custody of her was seized by the state of Massachusetts, and she was then involuntarily placed into a mental health facility for troubled teens, even though she was clearly not “troubled.”  Her physical condition deteriorated, and she then had to use a wheelchair.

Justina then found herself in captivity and under the constraints of “behavior modification” ideology-driven and research-driven psychiatrists, according to her father, Lou Pelletier.  The Pelletier family is suing Boston Children’s Hospital and the doctors, and the lawsuit trial is still pending.

That hospital and the doctors are clearly private-sector workers.  However, in this case, doctors relied on the state’s DCF seizing custody of Justina.  The doctors’ receiving government research grants also plays a large role here.  Some people refer to this case as “medical kidnapping” by the doctors and their government partners.

Now, this is not to suggest that all these problems occur solely because “child protection” has been monopolized by the State.  There actually are some decent government social workers who rebuked their agencies.

In the private sector, however, workers are made to be accountable under the law, while the agents of government-monopolized services have shown themselves time and again to be above the law.

The invasive sexual deviancy and the “child welfare” racket and CPS abuses are bad enough.  Add to that the crazy police state in the schools, as discussed by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, and terrifying terrorism drills in the schools.  And now Donald Trump wants to impose an escalated police state in the government schools?

In my view, the police state inflicted on kids for no good reason is a form of child abuse – along with its imposing gun-free zones, mandating that no one may be armed in the schools, and therefore that no one may be able to defend the kids from a psychopathic shooter.  With civilian disarmament and mandated gun-free zones, the government schools turn kids into sitting ducks.

No wonder people want to homeschool their kids.  Imagine the government’s local homeschool “supervisors,” as threatened by Maryland and California bureaucrats.  Could they be just as bad as the government “child protective” social workers?

It is time to finally take control over education away from the government, as well as remove its monopoly over “child protection.”

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator.  Please visit his blog.



Source link

McCabe's Domino Is Only the First to Fall


Oh, what a tangled web the unindicted co-conspirators in the Deep State coup to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House have woven.  When you tell the truth, the adage goes, you never have to remember anything.  But when you lie, you have to remember the lies you told to cover the earlier lies, and you certainly have to keep your story in line with your other co-conspirators.

That Andrew McCabe, in his response to his firing, failed miserably on this score, implicating former FBI Director James Comey, is the conclusion of George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley:

In an op-ed run Saturday by The Hill, Turley pointed to a line in McCabe’s statement criticizing his termination “that could be viewed as incriminating fired FBI director James Comey, not just in leaking sensitive information but also in lying to Congress.”


McCabe commented on leaking information to a former Wall Street Journal reporter about the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, saying he was authorized to “share” the information and did so with the knowledge of “the director,” which would have been Comey at the time.


Turley explained why this is “problematic”:


If the “interaction” means leaking the information, then McCabe’s statement would seem to directly contradict statements Comey made in a May 2017 congressional hearing.  Asked if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” or whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” Comey replied “never” and “no.”

Oops.  Comey is already in legal jeopardy for leaking at least one memo written on government time and a government laptop regarding a private conversation with President Trump in the Oval Office:

Comey, who was fired by Trump in May, was open about at least one leak in testimony last Thursday.


He admitted to using an ex-U.S. attorney, later identified as Columbia University Prof. Daniel Richman, to leak to The Times the contents of alleged memos Comey wrote about his one-on-one interactions with Trump.  He was not asked if he had ever used Richman on other occasions; however, Richman is mentioned in 151 results in a New York Times search dating back to 1993, with 11 of those articles also featuring Comey and six of them being authored by Michael S. Schmidt – who later wrote the “Comey memos” story which Comey told Congress he directed Richman to leak.

Comey may have lied to the FISA court as well in order to obtain surveillance warrants on the Trump campaign, warrants that allowed the surveillance of Carter Page as a prelude to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s witch hunt into phantom Russia-Trump collusion:

A four-page House Intelligence Committee memo alleging abuse of surveillance authority raises immediate questions about former FBI Director James Comey’s role in utilizing the infamous, largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier to obtain a FISA court warrant to monitor an individual associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.


One glaring possible inconsistency centers on Comey’s June 8, 2017 prepared remarks for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he referred to the anti-Trump dossier as containing “salacious and unverified” material.


Yet, according to the memo crafted by House Republicans, Comey personally signed three FISA court applications utilizing that same dossier that he labeled “salacious and unverified” eight months later to obtain FISA court warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.


The memo documents that on October 21, 2016, the FBI and Justice Department sought and received the FISA order against Page, and that the agencies sought the renewal of the order every 90 days in accordance with court requirements.  Renewals require separate finding of probable cause each time, the memo relates.


According to the memo, Comey “signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one.”  Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein signed one or more of the applications on behalf of the Justice Department.

They were all in on the fraud.  They all knew the truth and hid it from the FISA court.  The fake dossier was key to their plan to keep Trump out of the White House, their “insurance policy,” as lead investigator Peter Strzok once put it, a plan once discussed in “Andy’s office.”

McCabe, Strzok, and Comey, of course, were all connected to the editing of Comey’s pre-exonerating Alice-in-Wonderland memo – verdict first, investigation later.  Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, in a letter to current FBI director Christopher Wray, reveals how edits to Comey’s exoneration memo went beyond changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” but edited out content that shows that the FBI knew that Hillary was intentionally in violation of the Espionage Act but that, since the decision to exonerate her had already been made, the FBI had to submit to the annals of history a lie already agreed upon.

Coupled with the text messages of lead investigator, FBI agent Peter Strzok, who has become known as the Zelig of the FBI who mysteriously appeared at every controversial moment, expressing clear intent to prevent the election of Donald Trump, we have before us a criminal conspiracy in which the most powerful law enforcement agency on this planet conspired with one political party to defeat the candidate of the other:

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation.  Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Imagine what was at stake here.  If the FBI had just followed the evidence where it led and drew the obvious conclusions, Hillary Clinton would have been indicted, and the Democratic Party would have been irreparably shattered, with Donald Trump winning in a popular vote as well as electoral vote landslide.  This, in the view of a corrupted and politicized FBI, had to be prevented at all costs, and the Comey memo had to be sanitized before its release:

In addition to Strzok’s “gross negligence” – “extremely careless” edit, McCabe’s damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton’s actions to the standard of “gross negligence” – that being the “sheer volume” of classified material on Clinton’s server.  In the original draft, the “sheer volume” of material “supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.” …


Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey’s statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton’s server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from “reasonably likely” to “possible” – an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase “Gross negligence.”  To put it another way, “reasonably likely” means the probability of a hack due to Clinton’s negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being “possible” is any probability above zero.

McCabe’s response to his totally justified firing is the string that, if pulled upon, would unravel the entire criminal conspiracy to deny Donald Trump the White House.  McCabe deserves the inevitable criminal indictment for his lies, and his revelation of yet another Comey lie seals his fate as well.  Why should McCabe be denied his pension for his lies while serial liar Comey is allowed to cash in on a book and book tour?

As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett tweets about this whole affair:

As for Comey, he appears to have stolen government documents, a crime under 18 USC 641.  If any were classified (as Grassley seems to believe), it’s a crime under 18 USC 1924 (and probably 793).  Deceiving the FISA court and concealing evidence?  That’s 6 different felonies.

James Comey perjured himself before Congress, before the FISA court, and before the American people.  Indict McCabe, then Comey, then just go down the list.  McCabe promised to take people down with him if he was fired.  Time to make some popcorn.

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

Oh, what a tangled web the unindicted co-conspirators in the Deep State coup to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House have woven.  When you tell the truth, the adage goes, you never have to remember anything.  But when you lie, you have to remember the lies you told to cover the earlier lies, and you certainly have to keep your story in line with your other co-conspirators.

That Andrew McCabe, in his response to his firing, failed miserably on this score, implicating former FBI Director James Comey, is the conclusion of George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley:

In an op-ed run Saturday by The Hill, Turley pointed to a line in McCabe’s statement criticizing his termination “that could be viewed as incriminating fired FBI director James Comey, not just in leaking sensitive information but also in lying to Congress.”


McCabe commented on leaking information to a former Wall Street Journal reporter about the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, saying he was authorized to “share” the information and did so with the knowledge of “the director,” which would have been Comey at the time.


Turley explained why this is “problematic”:


If the “interaction” means leaking the information, then McCabe’s statement would seem to directly contradict statements Comey made in a May 2017 congressional hearing.  Asked if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” or whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” Comey replied “never” and “no.”

Oops.  Comey is already in legal jeopardy for leaking at least one memo written on government time and a government laptop regarding a private conversation with President Trump in the Oval Office:

Comey, who was fired by Trump in May, was open about at least one leak in testimony last Thursday.


He admitted to using an ex-U.S. attorney, later identified as Columbia University Prof. Daniel Richman, to leak to The Times the contents of alleged memos Comey wrote about his one-on-one interactions with Trump.  He was not asked if he had ever used Richman on other occasions; however, Richman is mentioned in 151 results in a New York Times search dating back to 1993, with 11 of those articles also featuring Comey and six of them being authored by Michael S. Schmidt – who later wrote the “Comey memos” story which Comey told Congress he directed Richman to leak.

Comey may have lied to the FISA court as well in order to obtain surveillance warrants on the Trump campaign, warrants that allowed the surveillance of Carter Page as a prelude to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s witch hunt into phantom Russia-Trump collusion:

A four-page House Intelligence Committee memo alleging abuse of surveillance authority raises immediate questions about former FBI Director James Comey’s role in utilizing the infamous, largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier to obtain a FISA court warrant to monitor an individual associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.


One glaring possible inconsistency centers on Comey’s June 8, 2017 prepared remarks for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he referred to the anti-Trump dossier as containing “salacious and unverified” material.


Yet, according to the memo crafted by House Republicans, Comey personally signed three FISA court applications utilizing that same dossier that he labeled “salacious and unverified” eight months later to obtain FISA court warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.


The memo documents that on October 21, 2016, the FBI and Justice Department sought and received the FISA order against Page, and that the agencies sought the renewal of the order every 90 days in accordance with court requirements.  Renewals require separate finding of probable cause each time, the memo relates.


According to the memo, Comey “signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one.”  Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein signed one or more of the applications on behalf of the Justice Department.

They were all in on the fraud.  They all knew the truth and hid it from the FISA court.  The fake dossier was key to their plan to keep Trump out of the White House, their “insurance policy,” as lead investigator Peter Strzok once put it, a plan once discussed in “Andy’s office.”

McCabe, Strzok, and Comey, of course, were all connected to the editing of Comey’s pre-exonerating Alice-in-Wonderland memo – verdict first, investigation later.  Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, in a letter to current FBI director Christopher Wray, reveals how edits to Comey’s exoneration memo went beyond changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” but edited out content that shows that the FBI knew that Hillary was intentionally in violation of the Espionage Act but that, since the decision to exonerate her had already been made, the FBI had to submit to the annals of history a lie already agreed upon.

Coupled with the text messages of lead investigator, FBI agent Peter Strzok, who has become known as the Zelig of the FBI who mysteriously appeared at every controversial moment, expressing clear intent to prevent the election of Donald Trump, we have before us a criminal conspiracy in which the most powerful law enforcement agency on this planet conspired with one political party to defeat the candidate of the other:

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation.  Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Imagine what was at stake here.  If the FBI had just followed the evidence where it led and drew the obvious conclusions, Hillary Clinton would have been indicted, and the Democratic Party would have been irreparably shattered, with Donald Trump winning in a popular vote as well as electoral vote landslide.  This, in the view of a corrupted and politicized FBI, had to be prevented at all costs, and the Comey memo had to be sanitized before its release:

In addition to Strzok’s “gross negligence” – “extremely careless” edit, McCabe’s damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton’s actions to the standard of “gross negligence” – that being the “sheer volume” of classified material on Clinton’s server.  In the original draft, the “sheer volume” of material “supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.” …


Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey’s statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton’s server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from “reasonably likely” to “possible” – an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase “Gross negligence.”  To put it another way, “reasonably likely” means the probability of a hack due to Clinton’s negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being “possible” is any probability above zero.

McCabe’s response to his totally justified firing is the string that, if pulled upon, would unravel the entire criminal conspiracy to deny Donald Trump the White House.  McCabe deserves the inevitable criminal indictment for his lies, and his revelation of yet another Comey lie seals his fate as well.  Why should McCabe be denied his pension for his lies while serial liar Comey is allowed to cash in on a book and book tour?

As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett tweets about this whole affair:

As for Comey, he appears to have stolen government documents, a crime under 18 USC 641.  If any were classified (as Grassley seems to believe), it’s a crime under 18 USC 1924 (and probably 793).  Deceiving the FISA court and concealing evidence?  That’s 6 different felonies.

James Comey perjured himself before Congress, before the FISA court, and before the American people.  Indict McCabe, then Comey, then just go down the list.  McCabe promised to take people down with him if he was fired.  Time to make some popcorn.

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



Source link

The Trump-Kim Summit Is Not a Negotiation; It's a Surrender


North Korea’s nuclear WMD program was achieved not accidentally, but through systematic deception over the last quarter-century, using peace talks, denuclearization commitments, and diplomatic overtures for one purpose: to buy time to research, gain the resources necessary, and then deploy a formidable and unstoppable nuclear weapons administration capable of finishing the Korean War in “Final Victory” by reuniting with South Korea on the North’s terms.  These terms, of course, include removing the “imperialist” U.S. from the Korean peninsula.  (It should be noted that their view, the Korean War was only postponed according to the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement but is now back on, as Kim declared the agreement invalid in March 2013.)

The letter Kim Jong-un sent to Donald Trump is not the first time North Korea has committed itself to denuclearization.  Over the decades, the Juche communists have made such overtures no fewer than nine times since Clinton sat in the oval office: the 1992 Joint Declaration with South Korea; the 1994 Agreed Framework to dismantle all nuclear reactors and allow inspections, then after a long period of research and advancement in nuclear technology; and then again in August 2003, February 2004, July 2005, September 2005, October 2007, February 2009, and February 2012.

Each and every time, North Korea violated, nullified, cheated on, or reneged on these agreements or declarations of intent to denuclearize, always blaming others for its backtracking.  So egregious and brazen has been the deception by the Kim dynasty that by October 2016, Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, could only wring his hands over the last quarter-century of failed attempts to tame the North Korean tiger and conclude that “the notion of getting the North Koreans to denuclearize is probably a lost cause.”

Trump was elected specifically because he doesn’t wiring his hands only to kick the can down the road, but because he knows how to get things done and then does it.

He is now facing what may be his greatest geopolitical challenge – “a very, very hard game of poker,” as he put it in January.  Trump must make a crucial choice: how should he and his administration approach the “talks” he has in principle agreed to have with Kim?

Trump understands he must be extremely careful and not allow this meeting – if it occurs – to be another deceptive maneuver that will give Kim the time needed to move to the next phase of his WMD development: completing ICBM re-entry technology.

In this regard, Senate homeland security chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) advised President Trump, “Let’s not be snookered again.  Let’s not be Charlie Brown to North Korea’s Lucy.”  Naval War College professor Tom Nichols’s caution was even more blunt: “This trap is so obvious even Wile E. Coyote wouldn’t walk into it.”

Trump has given his assurance that “maximum pressure” will be kept on North Korea via sanctions and continued military exercises while preparing for the meeting.  And while he has also indicated he “will not have the meeting without seeing concrete steps and concrete action” toward denuclearization starting now, there are also concrete steps that Trump should take to ensure that Kim can’t stack the deck or switch the cards in this high-stakes no-limit contest.

The first critical step is for Trump to frame the nature of the talks for what they really are: a discussion of the terms of Kim’s surrender.  The letter Kim sent agreeing to halt missile tests and denuclearize is Kim’s capitulation to the military pressure, sanctions, and world scorn toward his regime’s outlaw behavior.  In essence, Kim is suing for peace and should be treated accordingly.  Any other approach is giving Kim a set of four aces when all he would have had otherwise is a pair of twos.

The North Korean anti-theist dictator is a murderous criminal who has continued his father’s and grandfather’s enslavement and brutally inhumane treatment of the nation’s 25 million inhabitants, incessant defying and breaking the laws of nations, regular torturing and executing Christians for having Bibles, and government-enforced robbing of the North Korea people of their God-given rights of liberty and property.  This is why the civilized world has agreed to prosecute an economic war against North Korea via sanctions.

For there to be success in the upcoming meeting, Gang Leader Kim must be fully aware that the sit-down is not a summit or negotiation between world leaders, but a determination of terms for his regime’s surrender and the penalties that will ensue (denuclearization, ending ballistic missile production, etc.).

Former CIA director and now nominated secretary of state Mike Pompeo emphasized on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday that there must be three essential components of the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear enterprise.  Denuclearization must be 1) complete 2) verifiable, and 3) irreversible.  This is the only way to ensure an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons production and delivery program.  Yet as Ambassador John Bolton has pointed out, to ensure that these three objectives are accomplished, the inspections “would have to be so intrusive, so large, so pervasive across the country that it would threaten the stability of the dictatorship itself.”

In other words, unless Trump wants to get trapped in an Obama-style Iran nuclear deal – “the worst deal ever negotiated,” according to Trump – where inspections are conducted on North Korea’s terms, where military sites are off limits, where nuclear power is continued to be allowed “for energy purposes,” leaving reactors intact – he will have to impose the most pervasive and extensive inspection regime in history.  Only under an inspection regime that has full, open, transparent, anywhere-anytime access to all nuclear, military, and research facilities can there be any possibility of complete, verifiable, and permanent denuclearization.

Further, the inspection team formation will have to be on U.S.’s and its partners’ terms, with the verifications being conducted by U.S.-led inspection teams under control of the U.S.  Historically, the IAEA and United Nations inspection teams or teams including allies of the criminal enterprise, such as China and Russia, provide too great an opportunity for more cheating, obfuscation, manipulation, and deception by the rebel Juche socialists.

Beyond imposing these incredibly elaborate, strict, and intrusive inspections to verify the initial denuclearization, the inspections and verification regime would have to be permanent to guarantee that denuclearization isn’t abandoned.  And to ensure their perpetuity, a permanent force must be ready to immediately act if Little Rocket Man and his regime decide – as they have in the past – to expel the inspectors or start to rebuild a thoroughly dismantled and removed nuclear program, whether at home or abroad (like in Syria).

But is it rational to think that this gang whose national objective since the Korean War has been to defeat the U.S. in order to reunite the peninsula under its rule will allow a permanent inspections regime to penetrate and be permanently observing every corner of its kingdom?

This could possibly occur only if Kim is finally serious and sees his position as one of surrender, where he and his regime get to live instead of being annihilated by war.  Trump has brought this reality to the final hand in this 25-year World Series of Poker with North Korea.  But unless the DPRK despot understands that the U.S. is holding a royal flush, it’s unlikely he will voluntarily fold to the overwhelming yet absolutely necessary inspections and verifications that will keep the nuclear tin can from being kicked down the road again.  For the civilized world to win this life-and-death clash of civilizations, it’s time for Trump to go all in.

Mark Hanna holds an M.A. in international studies and has provided briefings to government officials on immigration, radical Islam, and other national security issues.  His works have also been published in Real Clear Politics, PJMedia, ZeroHedge, and The Investigative Project.  He can be reached at mhanna@protonmail.com.

North Korea’s nuclear WMD program was achieved not accidentally, but through systematic deception over the last quarter-century, using peace talks, denuclearization commitments, and diplomatic overtures for one purpose: to buy time to research, gain the resources necessary, and then deploy a formidable and unstoppable nuclear weapons administration capable of finishing the Korean War in “Final Victory” by reuniting with South Korea on the North’s terms.  These terms, of course, include removing the “imperialist” U.S. from the Korean peninsula.  (It should be noted that their view, the Korean War was only postponed according to the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement but is now back on, as Kim declared the agreement invalid in March 2013.)

The letter Kim Jong-un sent to Donald Trump is not the first time North Korea has committed itself to denuclearization.  Over the decades, the Juche communists have made such overtures no fewer than nine times since Clinton sat in the oval office: the 1992 Joint Declaration with South Korea; the 1994 Agreed Framework to dismantle all nuclear reactors and allow inspections, then after a long period of research and advancement in nuclear technology; and then again in August 2003, February 2004, July 2005, September 2005, October 2007, February 2009, and February 2012.

Each and every time, North Korea violated, nullified, cheated on, or reneged on these agreements or declarations of intent to denuclearize, always blaming others for its backtracking.  So egregious and brazen has been the deception by the Kim dynasty that by October 2016, Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, could only wring his hands over the last quarter-century of failed attempts to tame the North Korean tiger and conclude that “the notion of getting the North Koreans to denuclearize is probably a lost cause.”

Trump was elected specifically because he doesn’t wiring his hands only to kick the can down the road, but because he knows how to get things done and then does it.

He is now facing what may be his greatest geopolitical challenge – “a very, very hard game of poker,” as he put it in January.  Trump must make a crucial choice: how should he and his administration approach the “talks” he has in principle agreed to have with Kim?

Trump understands he must be extremely careful and not allow this meeting – if it occurs – to be another deceptive maneuver that will give Kim the time needed to move to the next phase of his WMD development: completing ICBM re-entry technology.

In this regard, Senate homeland security chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) advised President Trump, “Let’s not be snookered again.  Let’s not be Charlie Brown to North Korea’s Lucy.”  Naval War College professor Tom Nichols’s caution was even more blunt: “This trap is so obvious even Wile E. Coyote wouldn’t walk into it.”

Trump has given his assurance that “maximum pressure” will be kept on North Korea via sanctions and continued military exercises while preparing for the meeting.  And while he has also indicated he “will not have the meeting without seeing concrete steps and concrete action” toward denuclearization starting now, there are also concrete steps that Trump should take to ensure that Kim can’t stack the deck or switch the cards in this high-stakes no-limit contest.

The first critical step is for Trump to frame the nature of the talks for what they really are: a discussion of the terms of Kim’s surrender.  The letter Kim sent agreeing to halt missile tests and denuclearize is Kim’s capitulation to the military pressure, sanctions, and world scorn toward his regime’s outlaw behavior.  In essence, Kim is suing for peace and should be treated accordingly.  Any other approach is giving Kim a set of four aces when all he would have had otherwise is a pair of twos.

The North Korean anti-theist dictator is a murderous criminal who has continued his father’s and grandfather’s enslavement and brutally inhumane treatment of the nation’s 25 million inhabitants, incessant defying and breaking the laws of nations, regular torturing and executing Christians for having Bibles, and government-enforced robbing of the North Korea people of their God-given rights of liberty and property.  This is why the civilized world has agreed to prosecute an economic war against North Korea via sanctions.

For there to be success in the upcoming meeting, Gang Leader Kim must be fully aware that the sit-down is not a summit or negotiation between world leaders, but a determination of terms for his regime’s surrender and the penalties that will ensue (denuclearization, ending ballistic missile production, etc.).

Former CIA director and now nominated secretary of state Mike Pompeo emphasized on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday that there must be three essential components of the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear enterprise.  Denuclearization must be 1) complete 2) verifiable, and 3) irreversible.  This is the only way to ensure an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons production and delivery program.  Yet as Ambassador John Bolton has pointed out, to ensure that these three objectives are accomplished, the inspections “would have to be so intrusive, so large, so pervasive across the country that it would threaten the stability of the dictatorship itself.”

In other words, unless Trump wants to get trapped in an Obama-style Iran nuclear deal – “the worst deal ever negotiated,” according to Trump – where inspections are conducted on North Korea’s terms, where military sites are off limits, where nuclear power is continued to be allowed “for energy purposes,” leaving reactors intact – he will have to impose the most pervasive and extensive inspection regime in history.  Only under an inspection regime that has full, open, transparent, anywhere-anytime access to all nuclear, military, and research facilities can there be any possibility of complete, verifiable, and permanent denuclearization.

Further, the inspection team formation will have to be on U.S.’s and its partners’ terms, with the verifications being conducted by U.S.-led inspection teams under control of the U.S.  Historically, the IAEA and United Nations inspection teams or teams including allies of the criminal enterprise, such as China and Russia, provide too great an opportunity for more cheating, obfuscation, manipulation, and deception by the rebel Juche socialists.

Beyond imposing these incredibly elaborate, strict, and intrusive inspections to verify the initial denuclearization, the inspections and verification regime would have to be permanent to guarantee that denuclearization isn’t abandoned.  And to ensure their perpetuity, a permanent force must be ready to immediately act if Little Rocket Man and his regime decide – as they have in the past – to expel the inspectors or start to rebuild a thoroughly dismantled and removed nuclear program, whether at home or abroad (like in Syria).

But is it rational to think that this gang whose national objective since the Korean War has been to defeat the U.S. in order to reunite the peninsula under its rule will allow a permanent inspections regime to penetrate and be permanently observing every corner of its kingdom?

This could possibly occur only if Kim is finally serious and sees his position as one of surrender, where he and his regime get to live instead of being annihilated by war.  Trump has brought this reality to the final hand in this 25-year World Series of Poker with North Korea.  But unless the DPRK despot understands that the U.S. is holding a royal flush, it’s unlikely he will voluntarily fold to the overwhelming yet absolutely necessary inspections and verifications that will keep the nuclear tin can from being kicked down the road again.  For the civilized world to win this life-and-death clash of civilizations, it’s time for Trump to go all in.

Mark Hanna holds an M.A. in international studies and has provided briefings to government officials on immigration, radical Islam, and other national security issues.  His works have also been published in Real Clear Politics, PJMedia, ZeroHedge, and The Investigative Project.  He can be reached at mhanna@protonmail.com.



Source link

The Media, the NRA, and Islam


It’s too bad the American left doesn’t treat the NRA even half as fairly as it treats Islam.

  • NRA members haven’t committed any mass shootings.
  • NRA members haven’t hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings.
  • Thirteen percent of NRA members don’t support mass murder as a legitimate way to defend the NRA or advance its ideological agenda.

That would refer to American Muslims, 13 percent of whom, according to the Pew Research Center, say they support suicide bombings and other violence against civilians in defense of Islam.  (According to Pew, the percentage is considerably higher among foreign Muslims.)

Yet every time a jihadist goes on a killing spree, the American left, through its propaganda arm – otherwise known as the mainstream media – is quick to remind us that Islamic terrorism is an aberration and in no way reflective of the “religion of peace.”

In fact, jihadist terror is so aberrant that countless talking heads, including the one who used to occupy the White House, have declared it un-Islamic, going so far as to claim that a vast terrorist army known by various names, but most conventionally as the Islamic State, has nothing to do with Islam.

That would actually be laughable – sort of like claiming that the National Rifle Association had nothing to do with guns – if thousands of people weren’t being slaughtered.

Yet countless Islamic scholars, learned men (they’re all men) who have done little other than study the Koran their entire lives, boldly contradict the leftist cadre of pundits and professional apologists, most of whom are not Muslim and have no expertise in the field of Quranic study (sort of like Dianne Feinstein defining an “assault rifle”), by saying that in their learned opinion, what terror networks like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are doing – visiting violent jihad upon the infidel – is exactly the duty of every true Muslim and that anyone who says differently is either an infidel or a heretic and should be killed.  (How’s that for the religion of peace and tolerance?)

So whom are you going to believe, Anderson Cooper, who knows as much about Islam as he knows about picking up girls in singles bars, or ten thousand imams who have literally memorized every verse in the Quran?

But does it even matter?  Because regardless of who’s right about the true tenets of Islam, millions of Muslims believe that killing innocent, unarmed civilians is their ticket to paradise.

How do I know?  Because most of the time, they announce it by shouting “Allahu akbar!” right before they slaughter everyone in sight.  Still, the American left and its lapdog media claim to have a hard time figuring out the motives behind such attacks.

Let us suppose that a card-carrying member of the NRA walked onto a U.S. military base, or into a gay nightclub, or a Christmas party with an AR-15 and shouted, “This is for the NRA!” and then proceeded to shoot everyone.

How long do you think it would take for the media to blame the NRA?

This situation isn’t purely hypothetical, because the NRA has come under relentless attack since the Valentine’s Day school shooting in Parkland, Florida.  No less an authority on firearms and the NRA than documentary filmmaker Michael Moore labeled the entire NRA a “terrorist organization.” ­­ Daniel Malloy, the Democratic governor of Connecticut, said the same thing.  Ditto TV pundit Keith Olbermann and columnist Jessica Valenti, along with dozens of others.

This week, we witnessed a national school walkout to protest firearm violence, which is left-speak for protest the NRA.  The signs on display were typical: “Abolish the NRA,” “NRA = Terrorists,” and “NRA blood on your hands.”

Except, of course, the NRA had nothing to do with the school shooting in Parkland, or any other school or mass shooting or terrorist attack.

But just imagine if a group of conservatives – the Tea Party, for instance – took to the streets in cities all over the country after the next jihadist terror attack and waved around the exact same signs as the anti-gun left but replaced the initials “NRA” with the word “Islam,” so that the signs read “Abolish Islam,” “Islam = Terrorists,” and “Islam blood on your hands.”

Can you hear the left’s screams of rage and its hysterical accusations of.. (take your pick, but “racism” is their favorite, despite the fact that Islam comprises members of all races and nationalities)?

If the left was even close to treating the NRA the way it treats Islam, millions of honest, law-abiding Americans, many of whom are military and law enforcement veterans, who are members of the NRA wouldn’t be condemned as domestic terrorists and child-murderers.  But then again, that’s exactly what the left wants.

It’s too bad the American left doesn’t treat the NRA even half as fairly as it treats Islam.

  • NRA members haven’t committed any mass shootings.
  • NRA members haven’t hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings.
  • Thirteen percent of NRA members don’t support mass murder as a legitimate way to defend the NRA or advance its ideological agenda.

That would refer to American Muslims, 13 percent of whom, according to the Pew Research Center, say they support suicide bombings and other violence against civilians in defense of Islam.  (According to Pew, the percentage is considerably higher among foreign Muslims.)

Yet every time a jihadist goes on a killing spree, the American left, through its propaganda arm – otherwise known as the mainstream media – is quick to remind us that Islamic terrorism is an aberration and in no way reflective of the “religion of peace.”

In fact, jihadist terror is so aberrant that countless talking heads, including the one who used to occupy the White House, have declared it un-Islamic, going so far as to claim that a vast terrorist army known by various names, but most conventionally as the Islamic State, has nothing to do with Islam.

That would actually be laughable – sort of like claiming that the National Rifle Association had nothing to do with guns – if thousands of people weren’t being slaughtered.

Yet countless Islamic scholars, learned men (they’re all men) who have done little other than study the Koran their entire lives, boldly contradict the leftist cadre of pundits and professional apologists, most of whom are not Muslim and have no expertise in the field of Quranic study (sort of like Dianne Feinstein defining an “assault rifle”), by saying that in their learned opinion, what terror networks like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are doing – visiting violent jihad upon the infidel – is exactly the duty of every true Muslim and that anyone who says differently is either an infidel or a heretic and should be killed.  (How’s that for the religion of peace and tolerance?)

So whom are you going to believe, Anderson Cooper, who knows as much about Islam as he knows about picking up girls in singles bars, or ten thousand imams who have literally memorized every verse in the Quran?

But does it even matter?  Because regardless of who’s right about the true tenets of Islam, millions of Muslims believe that killing innocent, unarmed civilians is their ticket to paradise.

How do I know?  Because most of the time, they announce it by shouting “Allahu akbar!” right before they slaughter everyone in sight.  Still, the American left and its lapdog media claim to have a hard time figuring out the motives behind such attacks.

Let us suppose that a card-carrying member of the NRA walked onto a U.S. military base, or into a gay nightclub, or a Christmas party with an AR-15 and shouted, “This is for the NRA!” and then proceeded to shoot everyone.

How long do you think it would take for the media to blame the NRA?

This situation isn’t purely hypothetical, because the NRA has come under relentless attack since the Valentine’s Day school shooting in Parkland, Florida.  No less an authority on firearms and the NRA than documentary filmmaker Michael Moore labeled the entire NRA a “terrorist organization.” ­­ Daniel Malloy, the Democratic governor of Connecticut, said the same thing.  Ditto TV pundit Keith Olbermann and columnist Jessica Valenti, along with dozens of others.

This week, we witnessed a national school walkout to protest firearm violence, which is left-speak for protest the NRA.  The signs on display were typical: “Abolish the NRA,” “NRA = Terrorists,” and “NRA blood on your hands.”

Except, of course, the NRA had nothing to do with the school shooting in Parkland, or any other school or mass shooting or terrorist attack.

But just imagine if a group of conservatives – the Tea Party, for instance – took to the streets in cities all over the country after the next jihadist terror attack and waved around the exact same signs as the anti-gun left but replaced the initials “NRA” with the word “Islam,” so that the signs read “Abolish Islam,” “Islam = Terrorists,” and “Islam blood on your hands.”

Can you hear the left’s screams of rage and its hysterical accusations of.. (take your pick, but “racism” is their favorite, despite the fact that Islam comprises members of all races and nationalities)?

If the left was even close to treating the NRA the way it treats Islam, millions of honest, law-abiding Americans, many of whom are military and law enforcement veterans, who are members of the NRA wouldn’t be condemned as domestic terrorists and child-murderers.  But then again, that’s exactly what the left wants.



Source link