Day: March 28, 2018

The Luddites Were Right!


“Is It OK to Be a Luddite?” asked novelist Thomas Pynchon all the way back in 1984, the year, according to George Orwell’s prediction, that we’d all be living in a technologically advanced dystopian hell.  At the time, the digital revolution was just taking off, the personal computer only a few years away from reality.

Pynchon questioned if the advent of the P.C. would be opposed by those who took after the Luddites of old – literary and intellectual humanists.  During the Industrial Revolution, the European intelligentsia fretted over the effect things like textile machines and the steam engine would have on manual labor.  This concern was wound into the works of Lord Byron and Mary Shelley, who warned of technological progress gone awry.

Then the electronic word processor came along and shut the snooty intellectuals up.  “Machines have already become so user-friendly that even the most unreconstructed of Luddites can be charmed into laying down the old sledgehammer and stroking a few keys instead,” Pynchon lamented.  The Luddite mindset looked defeated at the hands of a few college dropouts tinkering in their garages.

Fast-forward almost three and a half decades, and Pynchon may think differently.  Two recent events have muddled our understanding of technological innovation, clouding and confusing what we thought we knew about the promise of advancement.

The first was the implosion of every techie’s dream: the self-driving car.  An auto-piloted Uber vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian near Phoenix, Arizona.  At the time of the accident, the vehicle, a Volvo SUV, was in a state of full mechanical autonomy; the driver behind the wheel was there only for emergencies.  An emergency did occur, as Elaine Herzberg attempted to cross the road at night.  The car’s lights didn’t spot her in time.  The brakes failed to kick in. Herzberg lost her life on the darkened street.

This was no human error.  The Associated Press consulted two experts, who found that the SUV should have sensed Herzberg before the collision.  “The victim did not come out of nowhere.  She’s moving on a dark road, but it’s an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her,” explained law professor Bryant Walker Smith.

Researcher Sam Abuelsmaid concurred, pointing out that the car’s detection system “absolutely should have been able to pick her up.”  The word “absolutely” is apropos – we’ve been conditioned to expect tech to operate perfectly as planned, yet we find ourselves disappointed when the copier gets jammed for the thousandth time.

The second incident to raise our suspicion of technology’s benefits was Facebook’s admission that the data firm Cambridge Analytica had “violated” its terms of usage by accessing the private data of an estimated 50 million users.  Cambridge, a British consulting firm employed at one point by the Trump presidential campaign, mined individual data by paying Facebook users for take a personality quiz via a third-party app, then turned around and used the participants’ contacts lists as its own address book.

If the tactic sounds familiar – gathering minute details about individual voters by using Facebook’s interconnectivity – it should.  It was the near exact tactic the 2012 Obama campaign used, all to adoring fanfare.  But since the Trump people did it, it’s all of a sudden the equivalent of summoning Satan with a Ouija board.

Nevertheless, Zuckerberg made the rounds on cable news, apologizing over and over for the lapse in their oversight.  “I wish we’d taken those steps earlier,” Zuckerberg told a scolding a CNN host about Facebook’s updated standards to protect user privacy.  “That … is probably the biggest mistake that we made here.”

The company’s mea culpa didn’t prevent its stock from tanking or big industry names like Elon Musk from completely disassociating with the brand.  And just like that, Zuckerberg’s social media superstructure was struck on its Achilles heel: public perception.

The hubbub is all nonsense, of course.  Only the most mendacious critics attest that Facebook was weaponized by dark forces.  This is a center-left-driven moral panic used to excuse the communicative failings of the political class.  Zuckerberg’s a simple scapegoat, driven out for the sin of allowing his platform to be used by those without elite approval.

Modern-day Luddites should take heart over these developments.  Uber has temporarily put the kibosh on testing autonomous vehicles.  Facebook will never slough off the shame of enabling a boor like Trump to enter the White House.  And now the social giant has to contend with a Federal Trade Commission investigation.

Noah Rothman of Commentary worries that the backlash we’re seeing to technology’s failures may inhibit our want for innovation.  After Elaine Herzberg’s death, Rothman predicts that the “temptation to put the brakes on this paradigm-shifting innovation will be immense.”  But we should fear not, as “this inevitable development will produce more winners than losers, as has virtually every other technological advancement of its kind.”

Like Stalin’s apocryphal omelet, death is sometimes the cost of betterment, whether it’s mortal death, the death of privacy, the death of freedom, or the death of our attention spans.

There’s something comically all too human about how many movies and books we produce about the dangers of technology, yet we still seek to slake our unquenchable thirst to push the cyber-frontier.  One viewing of Terminator 2: Judgment Day should be enough to shear our tech fetishes, yet the technologists of Silicon Valley press forward with the development of the cybernetic endgame: self-aware artificial intelligence.

Pynchon recognized as much the year the first Terminator hit theaters.  “[T]he next great challenge to watch out for will come,” he wrote with a littérateur’s foresight, “when the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics all converge.”

What Pynchon described sounds eerily like the singularity, the epochal change when A.I. becomes self-reinforcing, awakening a new technological renaissance and changing humankind forever.  Once it hits, which some researchers believe may have already happened, there is no going back.  We’ll have said our vows to our new algorithmically designed cyber-bride, locked into marriage ’til death do us part, where we then upload our consciousness into cyberspace to “live” forever, in the loosest sense of the word.

Elaine Herzberg need not be a necessary fatality on our way to the brave new world of technological enhancement.  A little bit of that Luddite spirit could help us to distinguish between necessary technological change and our self-sacrifice before the digital gods.

“Is It OK to Be a Luddite?” asked novelist Thomas Pynchon all the way back in 1984, the year, according to George Orwell’s prediction, that we’d all be living in a technologically advanced dystopian hell.  At the time, the digital revolution was just taking off, the personal computer only a few years away from reality.

Pynchon questioned if the advent of the P.C. would be opposed by those who took after the Luddites of old – literary and intellectual humanists.  During the Industrial Revolution, the European intelligentsia fretted over the effect things like textile machines and the steam engine would have on manual labor.  This concern was wound into the works of Lord Byron and Mary Shelley, who warned of technological progress gone awry.

Then the electronic word processor came along and shut the snooty intellectuals up.  “Machines have already become so user-friendly that even the most unreconstructed of Luddites can be charmed into laying down the old sledgehammer and stroking a few keys instead,” Pynchon lamented.  The Luddite mindset looked defeated at the hands of a few college dropouts tinkering in their garages.

Fast-forward almost three and a half decades, and Pynchon may think differently.  Two recent events have muddled our understanding of technological innovation, clouding and confusing what we thought we knew about the promise of advancement.

The first was the implosion of every techie’s dream: the self-driving car.  An auto-piloted Uber vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian near Phoenix, Arizona.  At the time of the accident, the vehicle, a Volvo SUV, was in a state of full mechanical autonomy; the driver behind the wheel was there only for emergencies.  An emergency did occur, as Elaine Herzberg attempted to cross the road at night.  The car’s lights didn’t spot her in time.  The brakes failed to kick in. Herzberg lost her life on the darkened street.

This was no human error.  The Associated Press consulted two experts, who found that the SUV should have sensed Herzberg before the collision.  “The victim did not come out of nowhere.  She’s moving on a dark road, but it’s an open road, so Lidar (laser) and radar should have detected and classified her,” explained law professor Bryant Walker Smith.

Researcher Sam Abuelsmaid concurred, pointing out that the car’s detection system “absolutely should have been able to pick her up.”  The word “absolutely” is apropos – we’ve been conditioned to expect tech to operate perfectly as planned, yet we find ourselves disappointed when the copier gets jammed for the thousandth time.

The second incident to raise our suspicion of technology’s benefits was Facebook’s admission that the data firm Cambridge Analytica had “violated” its terms of usage by accessing the private data of an estimated 50 million users.  Cambridge, a British consulting firm employed at one point by the Trump presidential campaign, mined individual data by paying Facebook users for take a personality quiz via a third-party app, then turned around and used the participants’ contacts lists as its own address book.

If the tactic sounds familiar – gathering minute details about individual voters by using Facebook’s interconnectivity – it should.  It was the near exact tactic the 2012 Obama campaign used, all to adoring fanfare.  But since the Trump people did it, it’s all of a sudden the equivalent of summoning Satan with a Ouija board.

Nevertheless, Zuckerberg made the rounds on cable news, apologizing over and over for the lapse in their oversight.  “I wish we’d taken those steps earlier,” Zuckerberg told a scolding a CNN host about Facebook’s updated standards to protect user privacy.  “That … is probably the biggest mistake that we made here.”

The company’s mea culpa didn’t prevent its stock from tanking or big industry names like Elon Musk from completely disassociating with the brand.  And just like that, Zuckerberg’s social media superstructure was struck on its Achilles heel: public perception.

The hubbub is all nonsense, of course.  Only the most mendacious critics attest that Facebook was weaponized by dark forces.  This is a center-left-driven moral panic used to excuse the communicative failings of the political class.  Zuckerberg’s a simple scapegoat, driven out for the sin of allowing his platform to be used by those without elite approval.

Modern-day Luddites should take heart over these developments.  Uber has temporarily put the kibosh on testing autonomous vehicles.  Facebook will never slough off the shame of enabling a boor like Trump to enter the White House.  And now the social giant has to contend with a Federal Trade Commission investigation.

Noah Rothman of Commentary worries that the backlash we’re seeing to technology’s failures may inhibit our want for innovation.  After Elaine Herzberg’s death, Rothman predicts that the “temptation to put the brakes on this paradigm-shifting innovation will be immense.”  But we should fear not, as “this inevitable development will produce more winners than losers, as has virtually every other technological advancement of its kind.”

Like Stalin’s apocryphal omelet, death is sometimes the cost of betterment, whether it’s mortal death, the death of privacy, the death of freedom, or the death of our attention spans.

There’s something comically all too human about how many movies and books we produce about the dangers of technology, yet we still seek to slake our unquenchable thirst to push the cyber-frontier.  One viewing of Terminator 2: Judgment Day should be enough to shear our tech fetishes, yet the technologists of Silicon Valley press forward with the development of the cybernetic endgame: self-aware artificial intelligence.

Pynchon recognized as much the year the first Terminator hit theaters.  “[T]he next great challenge to watch out for will come,” he wrote with a littérateur’s foresight, “when the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics all converge.”

What Pynchon described sounds eerily like the singularity, the epochal change when A.I. becomes self-reinforcing, awakening a new technological renaissance and changing humankind forever.  Once it hits, which some researchers believe may have already happened, there is no going back.  We’ll have said our vows to our new algorithmically designed cyber-bride, locked into marriage ’til death do us part, where we then upload our consciousness into cyberspace to “live” forever, in the loosest sense of the word.

Elaine Herzberg need not be a necessary fatality on our way to the brave new world of technological enhancement.  A little bit of that Luddite spirit could help us to distinguish between necessary technological change and our self-sacrifice before the digital gods.



Source link

Discrimination and Segregation: How Trump Can Fix Canada


More than just a poster boy for liberal folly and excess, Justin Trudeau is a segregationist.  So was his father.  Indeed, Pierre Trudeau is responsible for entrenching in Canada’s Constitution provisions of segregation that discriminate against, among others, Americans who come to live in the Province of Quebec, including their descendants.

The repeal of these provisions should, I believe, be included as part of current NAFTA negotiations and be a condition upon which the United States consents to any future deal.  The New York Times has seen fit to publish an op-ed by a former Mexican cabinet minister calling on human rights provisions to be added to the accord, and there is no reason why this same standard should not be applied to Canada.  President Trump should demand that this discrimination against Americans stop.

Trudeau believes in two sets of rights for residents of Canada, segregated by race.  Not by skin color – that would be too obvious.  But it’s a form of racial discrimination acknowledged and recognized not only by the United Nations, but also by the governments of Canada and the United States.  And it’s a discrimination procedure that lies at the foundation of the now defunct Apartheid system of South Africa, which, in places, is word for word equivalent to the Canadian statute.

Where is this law found?  The Province of Quebec segregates the rights of all of its residents through the language of education provisions of The Charter of the French Language, commonly referred to as Bill 101 (see, specifically, ss. 72-73).  This results in two separate and distinct civil rights categories:

a) those with the freedom of choice to send their children to either French-language or English-language publicly funded schools and

b) those who can send their children only to French-language publicly funded schools.

Unless married to a category (a) Canadian, Americans residing in Quebec fall under category (b) above.  The discrimination procedure used to determine placement in either of these two civil rights categories is based upon descent:

1) who one’s parents are and

2) what the parents’ classification is (i.e., eligibility certificate).

This classification is handed down, generation after generation.

“Descent” is one of the listed definitions of racial discrimination in article 1 of the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of which both Canada and the U.S. have been signatories since 1966.

Visual inspection of skin color is the commonly understood means of racial discrimination.  But descent, in both jurisprudence and codified law, has long held a more stringent standard than mere inspection of skin color – at least under Apartheid.  In South Africa, in Moller v. Keimoes School Committee and Another (South Africa Law Reports, A.D., 1911 635), the parents of a child who was accused of not being “white” had three hurdles to overcome in order to maintain their child in a school designated for whites only: (1) visual inspection, (2) associations, and (3) descent.  The child easily passed the first two hurdles: he was completely white in appearance, and all his social interactions and associations were with whites.  However, one grandparent classified as “colored” was enough, through descent, to hand down this classification to the grandchild, and the grandchild was denied entry into the school.

Compare South Africa’s descent-based Apartheid statutes with those of Bill 101’s descent-based language of education provisions:

Statutes of the Union of South Africa; Act No. 18 of 1936 …


“Native” means –


  1. any member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa … ; and
  2. any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (a); and
  3. any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (b); and
  4. any other person, one or more than one of whose ancestors is or was a native[.] [Emphasis added.]

Quebec’s Charter of the French Language


72. Instruction in the kindergarten classes and in the elementary and secondary schools shall be in French, except where this chapter allows otherwise. …


73. The following children, at the request of one of their parents, may receive instruction in English:


(1)  a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received elementary instruction in English in Canada, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Canada;


(2)  a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada[.] [Emphasis added.]

Quebec discriminates against Americans in a second significant way: Americans falling under category (b), above, cannot transfer to category (a) even if they become Canadian citizens.  This is because the Quebec government has, for the past 37 years, refused to implement section 23.1.A of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Section 23.1.A is in force in every province in Canada except Quebec.

This means that immigrants from French-speaking countries, such as France, whose first language learned and still understood is French, can come to any of the nine predominantly English-speaking provinces outside Quebec, become Canadian citizens, and have the constitutional right to send their children to French publicly funded schools.  However, immigrants from English-speaking countries, such as the United States, whose first language learned and still understood is English, who come to Quebec and become Canadian citizens, do not have the constitutional right to send their children to English publicly funded schools.  The category (b) imprint is, like DNA, as immutable as skin color, and the designation remains for life and beyond.  Americans’ children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren maintain the classification ad infinitum.

Race-based discrimination has no place in free and democratic societies.  American citizens residing in Quebec must be assured that they will be treated, at most, equal to Canadian-born English-speakers residing in Quebec and, at least, equal to French-speaking immigrants residing in any of the other nine provinces.

I urge the Americans to include this important issue as part of NAFTA renegotiations.  For their part, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Quebec counterpart, Liberal premier Phillipe Couillard, can, forthwith, demonstrate to our American friends the openness and tolerance of the Canadian and Quebec governments and the nation’s people by advocating for equality for Americans residing in Quebec.  With Justin Trudeau’s endorsement, Quebec must invoke its constitutional right and opt into S. 23.1.A.

Tony Kondaks is a self-employed businessman currently living in Vancouver, B.C.

Image: Alex Gulbord via Flickr.

More than just a poster boy for liberal folly and excess, Justin Trudeau is a segregationist.  So was his father.  Indeed, Pierre Trudeau is responsible for entrenching in Canada’s Constitution provisions of segregation that discriminate against, among others, Americans who come to live in the Province of Quebec, including their descendants.

The repeal of these provisions should, I believe, be included as part of current NAFTA negotiations and be a condition upon which the United States consents to any future deal.  The New York Times has seen fit to publish an op-ed by a former Mexican cabinet minister calling on human rights provisions to be added to the accord, and there is no reason why this same standard should not be applied to Canada.  President Trump should demand that this discrimination against Americans stop.

Trudeau believes in two sets of rights for residents of Canada, segregated by race.  Not by skin color – that would be too obvious.  But it’s a form of racial discrimination acknowledged and recognized not only by the United Nations, but also by the governments of Canada and the United States.  And it’s a discrimination procedure that lies at the foundation of the now defunct Apartheid system of South Africa, which, in places, is word for word equivalent to the Canadian statute.

Where is this law found?  The Province of Quebec segregates the rights of all of its residents through the language of education provisions of The Charter of the French Language, commonly referred to as Bill 101 (see, specifically, ss. 72-73).  This results in two separate and distinct civil rights categories:

a) those with the freedom of choice to send their children to either French-language or English-language publicly funded schools and

b) those who can send their children only to French-language publicly funded schools.

Unless married to a category (a) Canadian, Americans residing in Quebec fall under category (b) above.  The discrimination procedure used to determine placement in either of these two civil rights categories is based upon descent:

1) who one’s parents are and

2) what the parents’ classification is (i.e., eligibility certificate).

This classification is handed down, generation after generation.

“Descent” is one of the listed definitions of racial discrimination in article 1 of the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of which both Canada and the U.S. have been signatories since 1966.

Visual inspection of skin color is the commonly understood means of racial discrimination.  But descent, in both jurisprudence and codified law, has long held a more stringent standard than mere inspection of skin color – at least under Apartheid.  In South Africa, in Moller v. Keimoes School Committee and Another (South Africa Law Reports, A.D., 1911 635), the parents of a child who was accused of not being “white” had three hurdles to overcome in order to maintain their child in a school designated for whites only: (1) visual inspection, (2) associations, and (3) descent.  The child easily passed the first two hurdles: he was completely white in appearance, and all his social interactions and associations were with whites.  However, one grandparent classified as “colored” was enough, through descent, to hand down this classification to the grandchild, and the grandchild was denied entry into the school.

Compare South Africa’s descent-based Apartheid statutes with those of Bill 101’s descent-based language of education provisions:

Statutes of the Union of South Africa; Act No. 18 of 1936 …


“Native” means –


  1. any member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa … ; and
  2. any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (a); and
  3. any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (b); and
  4. any other person, one or more than one of whose ancestors is or was a native[.] [Emphasis added.]

Quebec’s Charter of the French Language


72. Instruction in the kindergarten classes and in the elementary and secondary schools shall be in French, except where this chapter allows otherwise. …


73. The following children, at the request of one of their parents, may receive instruction in English:


(1)  a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received elementary instruction in English in Canada, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Canada;


(2)  a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada[.] [Emphasis added.]

Quebec discriminates against Americans in a second significant way: Americans falling under category (b), above, cannot transfer to category (a) even if they become Canadian citizens.  This is because the Quebec government has, for the past 37 years, refused to implement section 23.1.A of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Section 23.1.A is in force in every province in Canada except Quebec.

This means that immigrants from French-speaking countries, such as France, whose first language learned and still understood is French, can come to any of the nine predominantly English-speaking provinces outside Quebec, become Canadian citizens, and have the constitutional right to send their children to French publicly funded schools.  However, immigrants from English-speaking countries, such as the United States, whose first language learned and still understood is English, who come to Quebec and become Canadian citizens, do not have the constitutional right to send their children to English publicly funded schools.  The category (b) imprint is, like DNA, as immutable as skin color, and the designation remains for life and beyond.  Americans’ children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren maintain the classification ad infinitum.

Race-based discrimination has no place in free and democratic societies.  American citizens residing in Quebec must be assured that they will be treated, at most, equal to Canadian-born English-speakers residing in Quebec and, at least, equal to French-speaking immigrants residing in any of the other nine provinces.

I urge the Americans to include this important issue as part of NAFTA renegotiations.  For their part, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Quebec counterpart, Liberal premier Phillipe Couillard, can, forthwith, demonstrate to our American friends the openness and tolerance of the Canadian and Quebec governments and the nation’s people by advocating for equality for Americans residing in Quebec.  With Justin Trudeau’s endorsement, Quebec must invoke its constitutional right and opt into S. 23.1.A.

Tony Kondaks is a self-employed businessman currently living in Vancouver, B.C.

Image: Alex Gulbord via Flickr.



Source link

Note to GOP: Enough with the Betrayals


Remember the famous garden scene in The Godfather when Marlon Brando’s character, Don Vito Corleone, warns his son, Michael, played by Al Pacino, that someone close to the family will arrange a meeting where Michael will be assassinated?

The real-life political equivalent of that landmark cinematic moment is playing out before our eyes, with the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans.  On the omnibus, on the Second Amendment, on border safety – almost every issue – the GOP continues to betray the family.  Who is the family?  The American people.

In fairness, yes, Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation, the president’s constitutionally bona fide federal judges, and tax reform were big wins in the last year.

But we didn’t elect the biggest GOP majority in the modern era to take baby steps, did we?  We colored the map red to take giant leaps, especially after eight years of mostly impotent GOP opposition to President Obama.  And let’s be honest about this: 90 percent of the reason our map was red is because of President Trump.

Is the Republican Party trying to lose?

After the 2016 election, I wondered if the Republican Party would be the Super Bowl LI Atlanta Falcons of American politics – hold a record lead, blow the lead, and lose the game.

Now, however, I’m beginning to think the GOP is the 1919 Chicago White Sox.  Eight players from that team, whom we refer to as “Black Sox,” were banned from baseball for life after they stood trial for conspiracy to throw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.

After 14 months of observing the GOP under President Trump, I cannot come to a conclusion other than that they are losing on purpose – or are trying so meekly that their wins are accidental.

We know that being in touch with small business-owners and working families isn’t politicians’ strong suit.  But are Tessio Republicans such as Paul Ryan; Mitch McConnell; and my senator, Marco Rubio, among others, really so in GOP la-la land that they still haven’t figured out why Donald Trump was elected?  Trump received the most votes in the history of his party’s primary.  Rather than ride that unprecedented wave, the GOP keeps wiping out like a three-year old on a boogie board for the first time.

The well of the lesser of two evils has run dry for the Republican Party, I fear.  We elected Republicans not to live under Democrat policies, such as catch and release, Planned Parenthood funding, Obamacare status quo, and sanctuary city funding – all of which were included in the $1.3-trillion omnibus the President signed last week.  No, signing it doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll get some or all of those policies, and yes, I agree that the president should have vetoed it (and used an executive order, which I’m not always a fan of, to fund the military).  But what really happened is that the McConnell-Ryan “leadership” gave the president a Democrat lite bill, knowing he’d sign it.

The GOP is afraid to fight

In 2009, President Obama lectured helpless Republicans with his “elections have consequences” remark.  Translation: I won, you lost, and I don’t need to work with you; you need to work with me.  He was correct.

In 2013, Obama said to Republicans, “Go out there and win an election.”

Well, we won…and won…and won…over 1,000 congressional and state wins since 2008.  So with all these victories, why do so many faithful Republican voters feel as though we’re losing?

The Republican Party is afraid to fight and erroneously continues to believe that record amounts of money raised will miraculously convince Democrats to vote Republican.  Record amounts of money will not turn a mediocre candidate into a dynamic and exciting candidate.  Republicans are losing elections they shouldn’t even have to get out of bed to win; how will we entice viable candidates to step out of their families and work lives to run for national, state, and local elections?  The RNC outspent the DNC 11-1 in the Pennsylvania Lamb-Saccone congressional race a few weeks ago and still lost.  So much for fiscal conservatism and minding the store.

Every time the Republican Party gives the Democrats what they want, it slaps us all in the face.  It slaps in the face those who contributed their hard-earned money, those who volunteered their time, those who advocated candidacies, those who knocked on doors in hot and cold, those who licked the distasteful glue of envelope mailers, and those who elected Republicans.

This is why I am organizing a Demand to Be Heard trip to the RNC’s Spring meeting May 4.  Those interested in attending can contact me through the means listed in my bio at the conclusion of this article.

I want someone to find me one instance under Obama when Democrats in Congress, or anywhere, for that matter, asked what Republican voters wanted.  No one can, because none exists.

Elections have consequences.  So why is it that the consequences of our win have been acquiescing to the openly bigoted Democratic Party?

In The Godfather, Tessio knew exactly what he was doing.  He gambled, thought he would get away with it, but eventually met his fate of sleeping with the fishes.  There are too many Tessios within the GOP, and my warning to them is this:

Don’t ever take sides against the family again.  Ever.

Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.

Remember the famous garden scene in The Godfather when Marlon Brando’s character, Don Vito Corleone, warns his son, Michael, played by Al Pacino, that someone close to the family will arrange a meeting where Michael will be assassinated?

The real-life political equivalent of that landmark cinematic moment is playing out before our eyes, with the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans.  On the omnibus, on the Second Amendment, on border safety – almost every issue – the GOP continues to betray the family.  Who is the family?  The American people.

In fairness, yes, Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation, the president’s constitutionally bona fide federal judges, and tax reform were big wins in the last year.

But we didn’t elect the biggest GOP majority in the modern era to take baby steps, did we?  We colored the map red to take giant leaps, especially after eight years of mostly impotent GOP opposition to President Obama.  And let’s be honest about this: 90 percent of the reason our map was red is because of President Trump.

Is the Republican Party trying to lose?

After the 2016 election, I wondered if the Republican Party would be the Super Bowl LI Atlanta Falcons of American politics – hold a record lead, blow the lead, and lose the game.

Now, however, I’m beginning to think the GOP is the 1919 Chicago White Sox.  Eight players from that team, whom we refer to as “Black Sox,” were banned from baseball for life after they stood trial for conspiracy to throw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.

After 14 months of observing the GOP under President Trump, I cannot come to a conclusion other than that they are losing on purpose – or are trying so meekly that their wins are accidental.

We know that being in touch with small business-owners and working families isn’t politicians’ strong suit.  But are Tessio Republicans such as Paul Ryan; Mitch McConnell; and my senator, Marco Rubio, among others, really so in GOP la-la land that they still haven’t figured out why Donald Trump was elected?  Trump received the most votes in the history of his party’s primary.  Rather than ride that unprecedented wave, the GOP keeps wiping out like a three-year old on a boogie board for the first time.

The well of the lesser of two evils has run dry for the Republican Party, I fear.  We elected Republicans not to live under Democrat policies, such as catch and release, Planned Parenthood funding, Obamacare status quo, and sanctuary city funding – all of which were included in the $1.3-trillion omnibus the President signed last week.  No, signing it doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll get some or all of those policies, and yes, I agree that the president should have vetoed it (and used an executive order, which I’m not always a fan of, to fund the military).  But what really happened is that the McConnell-Ryan “leadership” gave the president a Democrat lite bill, knowing he’d sign it.

The GOP is afraid to fight

In 2009, President Obama lectured helpless Republicans with his “elections have consequences” remark.  Translation: I won, you lost, and I don’t need to work with you; you need to work with me.  He was correct.

In 2013, Obama said to Republicans, “Go out there and win an election.”

Well, we won…and won…and won…over 1,000 congressional and state wins since 2008.  So with all these victories, why do so many faithful Republican voters feel as though we’re losing?

The Republican Party is afraid to fight and erroneously continues to believe that record amounts of money raised will miraculously convince Democrats to vote Republican.  Record amounts of money will not turn a mediocre candidate into a dynamic and exciting candidate.  Republicans are losing elections they shouldn’t even have to get out of bed to win; how will we entice viable candidates to step out of their families and work lives to run for national, state, and local elections?  The RNC outspent the DNC 11-1 in the Pennsylvania Lamb-Saccone congressional race a few weeks ago and still lost.  So much for fiscal conservatism and minding the store.

Every time the Republican Party gives the Democrats what they want, it slaps us all in the face.  It slaps in the face those who contributed their hard-earned money, those who volunteered their time, those who advocated candidacies, those who knocked on doors in hot and cold, those who licked the distasteful glue of envelope mailers, and those who elected Republicans.

This is why I am organizing a Demand to Be Heard trip to the RNC’s Spring meeting May 4.  Those interested in attending can contact me through the means listed in my bio at the conclusion of this article.

I want someone to find me one instance under Obama when Democrats in Congress, or anywhere, for that matter, asked what Republican voters wanted.  No one can, because none exists.

Elections have consequences.  So why is it that the consequences of our win have been acquiescing to the openly bigoted Democratic Party?

In The Godfather, Tessio knew exactly what he was doing.  He gambled, thought he would get away with it, but eventually met his fate of sleeping with the fishes.  There are too many Tessios within the GOP, and my warning to them is this:

Don’t ever take sides against the family again.  Ever.

Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.



Source link

Why the Environmental Left Is Secretly Petrified by Truly Renewable Energy


The hypocrisy of the environmental left is well documented: Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the other Hollywood eco-saints travel far and wide in their gas-guzzling limos and private jets to preach the importance of riding bicycles and to spread the gospel of wind and solar power.  However, perhaps more astounding than their “green life for thee, but not for me” lifestyle is the reality that environmental radicals, despite all their hollering to the contrary, don’t actually want truly cheap and renewable energy.  In fact, the creation of affordable, clean, widely available energy is one of their greatest fears.

On March 9, a team from MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced in the academic journal Nature that they are closer than ever to making nuclear fusion a reality.  If successful, nuclear fusion would provide incredibly cheap, environmentally friendly energy to the world – and the researchers believe that the technology could be ready for a commercial rollout in as few as fifteen years.

As Fox News noted in a recent report on the potential discovery, “[n]uclear fusion is the be-all and end-all source of energy because, in theory, it’s practically unlimited and has almost no downside.  It doesn’t put carbon into the atmosphere like the burning of fossil fuels or generate radioactive waste like nuclear fission, which is the technology in current nuclear power plants.”

If nuclear fusion is achieved, it will in relatively short order render much of the existing energy market useless.  Many traditional power plants would close.  Carbon dioxide emissions would be cut dramatically in countries with enough wealth to build nuclear fusion plants.  Billions of people would have access to affordable energy that they never had before.

This scenario might sound as though it’s every environmentalist’s paradise, but there’s more to leftist environmentalism than obsessing about global warming.  For many on the left, growing human population sizes and their effect on the environmental is also a very serious concern.  For instance, in his population control book Ten Billion, environmentalist Stephen Emmott wrote, “Only an idiot would deny that there is a limit to how many people our Earth can support.  The question is, is it seven billion (our current population), 10 billion or 28 billion?  I think we’ve already gone past it.  Well past it.”

University of Hawaii at Manoa professor Camilo Mora wrote in a 2014 paper in the journal Ecology and Society, “What caught my interest on this whole issue is how humans are causing the destruction of ecosystems.  At the end of the day … we cannot stop hurting biodiversity if we don’t stop reproducing so quickly.”

Liberal environmentalists believe that more people means more problems, and history has repeatedly proven that when electric power and technological advancements become readily available, population growth inevitably follows.  During the twentieth century, Earth’s population expanded by 400 percent, largely thanks to fossil fuel-powered societal improvements.

If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, billions of people who now live in extreme poverty (and thus don’t consume many resources) would likely gain access to affordable energy, helping people living in communities plagued by disease and famine live longer, healthier lives.

From the leftist environmentalist’s perspective, this effectively means that cheap energy is dangerous.  This is precisely why environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin said, “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet” when the possibility of nuclear fusion was discussed in 1989.  Similarly, biologist Paul Ehrlich said it would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

If environmentalists are so concerned about population growth, why do they seem to unanimously support the use of wind and solar power?  The answer is because these forms of energy are more expensive than fossil fuels, which means it’s unlikely they could soon catalyze population growth in the same way nuclear fusion could.  For example, the Institute for Energy Research found that solar power is three times more expensive than power generated from existing natural gas or nuclear plants.

If nuclear fusion becomes the world’s most important power source in the twenty-first century, you can expect the climate change crisis to quickly evaporate.  In its place, the “Population Bomb” fear-mongering of the 1970s will once again rear its horrifying head.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute.

The hypocrisy of the environmental left is well documented: Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the other Hollywood eco-saints travel far and wide in their gas-guzzling limos and private jets to preach the importance of riding bicycles and to spread the gospel of wind and solar power.  However, perhaps more astounding than their “green life for thee, but not for me” lifestyle is the reality that environmental radicals, despite all their hollering to the contrary, don’t actually want truly cheap and renewable energy.  In fact, the creation of affordable, clean, widely available energy is one of their greatest fears.

On March 9, a team from MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced in the academic journal Nature that they are closer than ever to making nuclear fusion a reality.  If successful, nuclear fusion would provide incredibly cheap, environmentally friendly energy to the world – and the researchers believe that the technology could be ready for a commercial rollout in as few as fifteen years.

As Fox News noted in a recent report on the potential discovery, “[n]uclear fusion is the be-all and end-all source of energy because, in theory, it’s practically unlimited and has almost no downside.  It doesn’t put carbon into the atmosphere like the burning of fossil fuels or generate radioactive waste like nuclear fission, which is the technology in current nuclear power plants.”

If nuclear fusion is achieved, it will in relatively short order render much of the existing energy market useless.  Many traditional power plants would close.  Carbon dioxide emissions would be cut dramatically in countries with enough wealth to build nuclear fusion plants.  Billions of people would have access to affordable energy that they never had before.

This scenario might sound as though it’s every environmentalist’s paradise, but there’s more to leftist environmentalism than obsessing about global warming.  For many on the left, growing human population sizes and their effect on the environmental is also a very serious concern.  For instance, in his population control book Ten Billion, environmentalist Stephen Emmott wrote, “Only an idiot would deny that there is a limit to how many people our Earth can support.  The question is, is it seven billion (our current population), 10 billion or 28 billion?  I think we’ve already gone past it.  Well past it.”

University of Hawaii at Manoa professor Camilo Mora wrote in a 2014 paper in the journal Ecology and Society, “What caught my interest on this whole issue is how humans are causing the destruction of ecosystems.  At the end of the day … we cannot stop hurting biodiversity if we don’t stop reproducing so quickly.”

Liberal environmentalists believe that more people means more problems, and history has repeatedly proven that when electric power and technological advancements become readily available, population growth inevitably follows.  During the twentieth century, Earth’s population expanded by 400 percent, largely thanks to fossil fuel-powered societal improvements.

If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, billions of people who now live in extreme poverty (and thus don’t consume many resources) would likely gain access to affordable energy, helping people living in communities plagued by disease and famine live longer, healthier lives.

From the leftist environmentalist’s perspective, this effectively means that cheap energy is dangerous.  This is precisely why environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin said, “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet” when the possibility of nuclear fusion was discussed in 1989.  Similarly, biologist Paul Ehrlich said it would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

If environmentalists are so concerned about population growth, why do they seem to unanimously support the use of wind and solar power?  The answer is because these forms of energy are more expensive than fossil fuels, which means it’s unlikely they could soon catalyze population growth in the same way nuclear fusion could.  For example, the Institute for Energy Research found that solar power is three times more expensive than power generated from existing natural gas or nuclear plants.

If nuclear fusion becomes the world’s most important power source in the twenty-first century, you can expect the climate change crisis to quickly evaporate.  In its place, the “Population Bomb” fear-mongering of the 1970s will once again rear its horrifying head.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute.



Source link

Bigshot Catholic Cardinal May Be Signaling Catholics' Drift from Democrats


Last Thursday Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal.  The title of the essay, and its subtitle, tells you pretty much all you need to know if you don’t subscribe: “The Democrats Abandon Catholics: If you value religious education or life’s sanctity, you’re not welcome in the party.”

This is a far more political statement, in an overtly partisan way, than we’re used to seeing from the U.S. Catholic bishops, so what’s going on here?

For starters, it’s helpful to ask: who would have been pleased by this essay, and who would have been…well, let’s say displeased?

Let’s see…displeased?  The Democratic Party – that’s a no-brainer.  They just lost a presidential election because they lost the heavily Catholic Reagan Democrats in the Midwest.  This won’t help – not in 2018, not in 2020.

How about the Bergoglio Vatican?  Displeased?  You’d better believe it.  It’s a given that Bergoglio personally has no use for the USA, and all you have to do to remind yourself just how virulent that dislike is is reprise the article by Antonio Spadaro, the Jesuit editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, a journal reported to be personally vetted by Bergoglio himself.  The article is titled “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism</a>, and you can find an analysis of it by Sam Gregg.  The long and the short of it is that Spadaro – and presumably Bergoglio – are disturbed by the ecumenical cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals. Why?  Because they fear the rise of a “theocracy.”

Here’s how Gregg puts it:

Father Spadaro and Rev. Figueroa correctly observe that many Catholics and Evangelicals have found common cause in recent decades around issues such as “abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values.”  They then add that “Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

And that’s more or less just for starters.  Take it from me: Spadaro doesn’t like Trump.  The dislike begins with the nefarious Norman Vincent Peale officiating at Trump’s first marriage and just goes on.

So, we can take it as given that the Vatican 1) wasn’t informed in advance that Dolan was writing this essay and 2) is mightily displeased about it.  In a sense, Dolan’s essay is a follow-on to an earlier snub that the U.S. bishops delivered to Bergoglio at their annual meeting. Back in November 2017, the US bishops rejected Cardinal Cupich – known as “the pope’s bishop” – for the leadership of their important and politically sensitive pro-life committee.  If Cupich had been elected, that would have been a signal to the Democrats that they could expect a more accommodating line from the Catholic Church.  Instead, Cupich was soundly defeated – a poke in the eye for Bergoglio – and a steadfast pro-life bishop was elected instead.

Who is likely to be pleased by all this?  Naturally, the Republicans, in a general way.  They’ve tended to benefit strongly from the pro-life vote, but they’ve never received this pointed an assist from the Catholic bishops in the past.  To the contrary, the bishops have tended to maintain an arm’s length relationship with the GOP.  I say this despite the fact that the GOP is mentioned only once in the essay, and that to point out that in the past Catholics have distrusted Republicans. Nevertheless, the US has a two party system, and if the Catholic Church pointedly states that one of those two parties has abandoned Catholics, well, the implications aren’t hard to figure out.

What about Trump?  Yeah, he’s gotta be pretty pleased by this.  With the help of Kellyanne Conway, Trump has courted Catholics from the start of his campaign, and he has followed through with policy accomplishments and appointments in ways that no other president has – no matter their rhetoric.  Even though Trump is not mentioned once in Dolan’s essay, it’s hard to see this as much less than an endorsement.  Nuanced it may be, but this initiative could only have been made with the knowledge that it would help Trump.  And perhaps with the hint that continued good behavior could lead to more overt support.

Now, I’ve been referring to Dolan and the Catholic Church as if Dolan were the head of the Church in America, but he’s not.  Does that change any of the preceding calculations?  Does it render his essay a mere expression of personal opinion?  I think not.  While Dolan is no longer president of the USCCB, he has regularly assumed the position of a spokesman – a natural role for the Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  I think this momentous step – and it was, I believe, momentous – was taken only after thorough consultation with other like0minded bishops.

My take is that the calculations that went into this decision are something like this.  The Catholic bishops, having studied the politics of this new Trump era, have come to the conclusion that, as shepherds, they need to be with their flocks.  And they now know that thir flock is no longer a Democrat flock, and not likely to return to that fold in any definitive way.  As a further calculation, I believe that the bishops have recognized that if they lose the moral high ground – in the eyes of their flocks – on the all important social issues, the consequences could be dire.  They’ve already seen how Trump was able to speak over their heads to the faithful.  They can’t afford to allow that to become a pattern.

The final calculation is that offending Bergoglio is the least of the worries that the American bishops need be concerned about.  From this standpoint, Dolan’s essay may be a gauntlet thrown in the direction of the Vatican – a warning that the Church needs to take the populist wave sweeping the Western world seriously.

Mark Wauck blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/.

Last Thursday Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal.  The title of the essay, and its subtitle, tells you pretty much all you need to know if you don’t subscribe: “The Democrats Abandon Catholics: If you value religious education or life’s sanctity, you’re not welcome in the party.”

This is a far more political statement, in an overtly partisan way, than we’re used to seeing from the U.S. Catholic bishops, so what’s going on here?

For starters, it’s helpful to ask: who would have been pleased by this essay, and who would have been…well, let’s say displeased?

Let’s see…displeased?  The Democratic Party – that’s a no-brainer.  They just lost a presidential election because they lost the heavily Catholic Reagan Democrats in the Midwest.  This won’t help – not in 2018, not in 2020.

How about the Bergoglio Vatican?  Displeased?  You’d better believe it.  It’s a given that Bergoglio personally has no use for the USA, and all you have to do to remind yourself just how virulent that dislike is is reprise the article by Antonio Spadaro, the Jesuit editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, a journal reported to be personally vetted by Bergoglio himself.  The article is titled “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism</a>, and you can find an analysis of it by Sam Gregg.  The long and the short of it is that Spadaro – and presumably Bergoglio – are disturbed by the ecumenical cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals. Why?  Because they fear the rise of a “theocracy.”

Here’s how Gregg puts it:

Father Spadaro and Rev. Figueroa correctly observe that many Catholics and Evangelicals have found common cause in recent decades around issues such as “abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values.”  They then add that “Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

And that’s more or less just for starters.  Take it from me: Spadaro doesn’t like Trump.  The dislike begins with the nefarious Norman Vincent Peale officiating at Trump’s first marriage and just goes on.

So, we can take it as given that the Vatican 1) wasn’t informed in advance that Dolan was writing this essay and 2) is mightily displeased about it.  In a sense, Dolan’s essay is a follow-on to an earlier snub that the U.S. bishops delivered to Bergoglio at their annual meeting. Back in November 2017, the US bishops rejected Cardinal Cupich – known as “the pope’s bishop” – for the leadership of their important and politically sensitive pro-life committee.  If Cupich had been elected, that would have been a signal to the Democrats that they could expect a more accommodating line from the Catholic Church.  Instead, Cupich was soundly defeated – a poke in the eye for Bergoglio – and a steadfast pro-life bishop was elected instead.

Who is likely to be pleased by all this?  Naturally, the Republicans, in a general way.  They’ve tended to benefit strongly from the pro-life vote, but they’ve never received this pointed an assist from the Catholic bishops in the past.  To the contrary, the bishops have tended to maintain an arm’s length relationship with the GOP.  I say this despite the fact that the GOP is mentioned only once in the essay, and that to point out that in the past Catholics have distrusted Republicans. Nevertheless, the US has a two party system, and if the Catholic Church pointedly states that one of those two parties has abandoned Catholics, well, the implications aren’t hard to figure out.

What about Trump?  Yeah, he’s gotta be pretty pleased by this.  With the help of Kellyanne Conway, Trump has courted Catholics from the start of his campaign, and he has followed through with policy accomplishments and appointments in ways that no other president has – no matter their rhetoric.  Even though Trump is not mentioned once in Dolan’s essay, it’s hard to see this as much less than an endorsement.  Nuanced it may be, but this initiative could only have been made with the knowledge that it would help Trump.  And perhaps with the hint that continued good behavior could lead to more overt support.

Now, I’ve been referring to Dolan and the Catholic Church as if Dolan were the head of the Church in America, but he’s not.  Does that change any of the preceding calculations?  Does it render his essay a mere expression of personal opinion?  I think not.  While Dolan is no longer president of the USCCB, he has regularly assumed the position of a spokesman – a natural role for the Cardinal Archbishop of New York.  I think this momentous step – and it was, I believe, momentous – was taken only after thorough consultation with other like0minded bishops.

My take is that the calculations that went into this decision are something like this.  The Catholic bishops, having studied the politics of this new Trump era, have come to the conclusion that, as shepherds, they need to be with their flocks.  And they now know that thir flock is no longer a Democrat flock, and not likely to return to that fold in any definitive way.  As a further calculation, I believe that the bishops have recognized that if they lose the moral high ground – in the eyes of their flocks – on the all important social issues, the consequences could be dire.  They’ve already seen how Trump was able to speak over their heads to the faithful.  They can’t afford to allow that to become a pattern.

The final calculation is that offending Bergoglio is the least of the worries that the American bishops need be concerned about.  From this standpoint, Dolan’s essay may be a gauntlet thrown in the direction of the Vatican – a warning that the Church needs to take the populist wave sweeping the Western world seriously.

Mark Wauck blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/.



Source link

Leftists Are the Attackers, Not the Victims


Duped family members, friends, and fellow Christians have fallen for leftists’ lie that all they are tearfully asking for is fairness and tolerance on various issues.  The truth is, leftists are rabid, relentless attackers, using government, deception, and guilt-tripping to silence all opposition to their extreme anti-God, anti-traditional family, and anti-freedom agendas.  Indoctrinated by leftists from kindergarten through college, youths actually believe that our First Amendment right of free speech should be repealed because conservative speech and ideas are offensive to them.  Youths also believe they have a right to physically beat you up to shut you up.  Outrageously, leftists are making tremendous gains on making speaking the truth about various issues illegal.

Take abortion for example.  Leftists say they are pro-choice.  The truth is, leftists are at war with innocent unborn babies, wanting as many murdered as possible.  Why?  Because leftists believe that humanity is bad for the planet.  Leftists write countless articles infecting youths with their lie that childbirth is environmentally irresponsible.  Leftists say screw God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).  Leftists, in their prideful arrogance, believe they are smarter than God.

If leftists are truly about “choice,” why do they angrily oppose counseling mothers who are considering abortion?  Why do leftists seek to make it illegal to show moms a sonogram of their unborn children?  Leftists desire that government ban mothers from hearing their babies’ heartbeats, seeing their babies’ heads and fingers.  Stats prove that most women change their minds about killing their babies after seeing a sonogram.  Focus on the Family says that since the ultrasound program began in 2004, over 201,000 babies’ lives have been saved.

If leftists are truly on a saintly mission to provide women with a choice, as they claim, why are leftists infuriated when a woman chooses life for her baby?

Leftists seek to make it illegal to speak the truth about abortion.  As freedom-loving Americans, this should make you angry, folks. Not violent, but angry – a righteous anger.

Leftists seek to make it illegal to speak the truth about LGBT issues.  The California LGBT Caucus has introduced a bill to ban counseling to adults who seek to correct their same-sex attractions, behavior, and sex confusion. 

Again I ask: if leftists are truly about tolerance and allowing people to be who they desire to be, why are leftists infuriated and trying to use government to block homosexuals who want to become heterosexual?  Why should leftists even care?  What do they fear, especially after claiming that homosexuals are born that way?  If homosexuality is in their genes and DNA, then counseling will not change them.  Right?  So why are leftist homosexual activists threatened by counseling?

The word “liberal” implies a live-and-let-live attitude.  The truth is that liberals (leftists) are laser-focused on using Big Brother government to force their far-out minority ideas on mainstream Americans.  The leftist media mafia publicly shames mainstream Americans into silence, banning publicly speaking the truth about leftists’ sacred-cow issues.  Homosexuals are 1-2% of the population.  Transgenders are 0.3%.  It is un-American to allow a handful of LGBT activists to bully us into silence and submission.

Perhaps, because I grew up in the Baltimore projects surrounded by bullies, being controlled by bullies is repulsive to me.  One thing I learned as a kid is that if you allow a bully to demand and take your lunch money today, he will take it and more tomorrow.

Here’s another example of leftists arrogantly banning speaking the truth.  Leftists are hell-bent on disarming law-abiding citizens.  While relentlessly preaching to us about tolerance, leftists refuse to tolerate a student speaking the truth about guns and criminals.  Leftists organized an anti-gun rally using students as pawns and cover.  One kid showed up with a sign that read, “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People.”  A leftist school principal immediately ordered the student to leave the rally.  Notice how the leftist operative refused to tolerant truth, publicly humiliating the student for daring to defend our constitutional right to bear arms.

Do you see the pattern, folks?  Left-wing activist thugs are dictating that we dare not speak the truth about their sacred-cow issues or our derrières are in big trouble.  We’ll face public humiliation and even jail.

While leftists are bludgeoning us into silence and submission, my family members, friends, and fellow Christians continue falling for the leftist lie that the left is passively seeking fairness and tolerance.

Leftists insidiously throw WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) in our faces.  In other words, leftists are saying that to be loving like Jesus, Christians must “in love” abandon biblical teachings, allowing godless liberalism to infect our morals, principles, values, and culture.

Leftists using WWJD to further their depravity are particularly repulsive, considering that most of the left despises Jesus and His followers.  Sadly, some Christians have fallen for leftists’ WWJD scheme, rolling out the red carpet to welcome the left’s anti-Christ agenda into their churches.

I heard this not so nice joke.  It makes an interesting point.  A woman was cursing out a man at the beach.  The angry man threatened to drown her if she did not stop cursing at him.  The strong-willed woman continued her rant.  As the man held her head and body under water, her hand emerged out of the water, giving him her middle finger – her final act of defiance.  Though admittedly unwise, I loved the fact that the woman refused to be bullied.

I would love to see more Americans refusing to be bullied by leftists and banned from speaking the truth about issues crucial to God, family, and country.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com

Duped family members, friends, and fellow Christians have fallen for leftists’ lie that all they are tearfully asking for is fairness and tolerance on various issues.  The truth is, leftists are rabid, relentless attackers, using government, deception, and guilt-tripping to silence all opposition to their extreme anti-God, anti-traditional family, and anti-freedom agendas.  Indoctrinated by leftists from kindergarten through college, youths actually believe that our First Amendment right of free speech should be repealed because conservative speech and ideas are offensive to them.  Youths also believe they have a right to physically beat you up to shut you up.  Outrageously, leftists are making tremendous gains on making speaking the truth about various issues illegal.

Take abortion for example.  Leftists say they are pro-choice.  The truth is, leftists are at war with innocent unborn babies, wanting as many murdered as possible.  Why?  Because leftists believe that humanity is bad for the planet.  Leftists write countless articles infecting youths with their lie that childbirth is environmentally irresponsible.  Leftists say screw God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).  Leftists, in their prideful arrogance, believe they are smarter than God.

If leftists are truly about “choice,” why do they angrily oppose counseling mothers who are considering abortion?  Why do leftists seek to make it illegal to show moms a sonogram of their unborn children?  Leftists desire that government ban mothers from hearing their babies’ heartbeats, seeing their babies’ heads and fingers.  Stats prove that most women change their minds about killing their babies after seeing a sonogram.  Focus on the Family says that since the ultrasound program began in 2004, over 201,000 babies’ lives have been saved.

If leftists are truly on a saintly mission to provide women with a choice, as they claim, why are leftists infuriated when a woman chooses life for her baby?

Leftists seek to make it illegal to speak the truth about abortion.  As freedom-loving Americans, this should make you angry, folks. Not violent, but angry – a righteous anger.

Leftists seek to make it illegal to speak the truth about LGBT issues.  The California LGBT Caucus has introduced a bill to ban counseling to adults who seek to correct their same-sex attractions, behavior, and sex confusion. 

Again I ask: if leftists are truly about tolerance and allowing people to be who they desire to be, why are leftists infuriated and trying to use government to block homosexuals who want to become heterosexual?  Why should leftists even care?  What do they fear, especially after claiming that homosexuals are born that way?  If homosexuality is in their genes and DNA, then counseling will not change them.  Right?  So why are leftist homosexual activists threatened by counseling?

The word “liberal” implies a live-and-let-live attitude.  The truth is that liberals (leftists) are laser-focused on using Big Brother government to force their far-out minority ideas on mainstream Americans.  The leftist media mafia publicly shames mainstream Americans into silence, banning publicly speaking the truth about leftists’ sacred-cow issues.  Homosexuals are 1-2% of the population.  Transgenders are 0.3%.  It is un-American to allow a handful of LGBT activists to bully us into silence and submission.

Perhaps, because I grew up in the Baltimore projects surrounded by bullies, being controlled by bullies is repulsive to me.  One thing I learned as a kid is that if you allow a bully to demand and take your lunch money today, he will take it and more tomorrow.

Here’s another example of leftists arrogantly banning speaking the truth.  Leftists are hell-bent on disarming law-abiding citizens.  While relentlessly preaching to us about tolerance, leftists refuse to tolerate a student speaking the truth about guns and criminals.  Leftists organized an anti-gun rally using students as pawns and cover.  One kid showed up with a sign that read, “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People.”  A leftist school principal immediately ordered the student to leave the rally.  Notice how the leftist operative refused to tolerant truth, publicly humiliating the student for daring to defend our constitutional right to bear arms.

Do you see the pattern, folks?  Left-wing activist thugs are dictating that we dare not speak the truth about their sacred-cow issues or our derrières are in big trouble.  We’ll face public humiliation and even jail.

While leftists are bludgeoning us into silence and submission, my family members, friends, and fellow Christians continue falling for the leftist lie that the left is passively seeking fairness and tolerance.

Leftists insidiously throw WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) in our faces.  In other words, leftists are saying that to be loving like Jesus, Christians must “in love” abandon biblical teachings, allowing godless liberalism to infect our morals, principles, values, and culture.

Leftists using WWJD to further their depravity are particularly repulsive, considering that most of the left despises Jesus and His followers.  Sadly, some Christians have fallen for leftists’ WWJD scheme, rolling out the red carpet to welcome the left’s anti-Christ agenda into their churches.

I heard this not so nice joke.  It makes an interesting point.  A woman was cursing out a man at the beach.  The angry man threatened to drown her if she did not stop cursing at him.  The strong-willed woman continued her rant.  As the man held her head and body under water, her hand emerged out of the water, giving him her middle finger – her final act of defiance.  Though admittedly unwise, I loved the fact that the woman refused to be bullied.

I would love to see more Americans refusing to be bullied by leftists and banned from speaking the truth about issues crucial to God, family, and country.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link