Timothy Birdnow

Here are a point to ponder; Barack Obama banned immigration from the same Muslim countries that Trump has now done - and there was no outrage as we are now witnessing. According to Townhall Trump is using the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorism Travel Prevention Act - signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama - to restrict travel from the very countries Mr. Obama designated.

Here is the pertinent language:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

(6) Not a safety threat

The alien has been determined not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States.

[...]

(11) Eligibility determination under the electronic system for travel authorization

Beginning on the date on which the electronic system for travel authorization developed under subsection (h)(3) is fully operational, each alien traveling under the program shall, before applying for admission to the United States, electronically provide to the system biographical information and such other information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine necessary to determine the eligibility of, and whether there exists a law enforcement or security risk in permitting, the alien to travel to the United States. Upon review of such biographical information, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the program.
(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
(A) In generalExcept as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—
(I)
in Iraq or Syria;
(II)
in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III)
in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—
(I)
Iraq or Syria;
(II)
a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III)
any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph

[...]

(D) Countries or areas of concern
(i) In general

Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall determine whether the requirement under subparagraph (A) shall apply to any other country or area.
(ii) CriteriaIn making a determination under clause (i), the Secretary shall consider—
(I)
whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;
(II)
whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and
(III)
whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.

[...]

(C) Law enforcement and security interestsThe Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State—
(i)
evaluates the effect that the country’s designation would have on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States and the existence and effectiveness of its agreements and procedures for extraditing to the United States individuals, including its own nationals, who commit crimes that violate United States law);
(ii)
determines that such interests would not be compromised by the designation of the country; and
(iii)
submits a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate regarding the country’s qualification for designation that includes an explanation of such determination.

[...]

(i) In general

In the case of a program country in which an emergency occurs that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately terminate the designation of the country as a program country.

[...]

(C) Suspension of designation

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may suspend the designation of a program country based on a determination that the country presents a high risk to the national security of the United States under subparagraph (A) until such time as the Secretary determines that the country no longer presents such a risk.

END EXCERPTS.

So all this fake news and fake outrage is entirely that; a Potemkin Village with no substance. Stockholm John McCain and his Mini-Me, that cracker Lindsay Graham, are full of sh, er, balogna in their faux moral outrage; they were silent when the BHO did this. This is absolutely proper and sensible and well within the legal jurisdiction of the President of these United States.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:58 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 960 words, total size 7 kb.

My brother Brian has this exchange with one of the editors at the unthinking leftist newspaper The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:


Dear Mr. Robberson,

In your editorial of last Friday entitled "Trump's Tortured Words" your newspaper opined, "Since it's well-established that this President exaggerates and lies..." and advised skepticism when listening to him. I do not recall your paper calling Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton liars. You seem to reserve such slanders for Republican Presidents like Trump, G.W. Bush and his father, and, of course Ronald Reagan.

Where was your paper's truth detector when dealing with President Obama's health care lies? You surely remember: If you like your current plan you can keep it,If you like your current doctor you can keep him, and the ACA will reduce health care costs by $2,5000 per family. During the recent campaign you never labeled Hillary Clinton a liar when she insisted that she had never sent classified information over her unsecure and unauthorized e-mail server. While we're on the subject, you never called Mrs. Clinton's estranged husband a liar when he claimed, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never asked anybody to lie..." The examples are too numerous to recount.

As I say, your newspaper never tires of bashing Republicans. That, of course, is permissible and expected for a Democratic newspaper. You slip over into character assassination and slander when you accuse one party's spokesman of being a "liar", and giving the vitriolic and unhinged spokespeople of the other side a free pass. Your readers deserve better.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Tod Robberson <TRobberson@post-dispatch.com> wrote:

Actually, we called out Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, among others, whenever their words didn't match the facts or when they did bone-headed things. It's too bad that you chose to make a blanket characterization without actually checking our record. You are flat-out wrong.


There has never been a president like Donald Trump who blatantly lies, when there is direct video and audio proof that he has lied. There is no separate standard here. Anyone in a position of power who openly lies the way Trump does will receive the same treatment. It's not a Republican or a Democrat thing. It's a truth thing.


Thanks,

Tod


Brian E. Birdnow

I'll remember this the next time Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer come up with a Pinocchio-style falsehood.


B. birdnow


Sir,
I stand by my original point which was quite straightforward. You never, to my remembrance, referred to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton et al. as "liars". Your characterization of a Democrat as such would be a sacrilege for a liberal newspaper. You will, however, slander a Republican with glee, as we see right now.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Tod Robberson <TRobberson@post-dispatch.com> wrote:

Please do. In the meantime, you might want to read Dana Milbank's column in tomorrow's paper and see if any other American leader can match the record of overt falsehoods that Trump has set. You will be hard-pressed.



Tod



Tod Robberson

Editorial page editor

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 4 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/30/trump-fires-acting-us-attorney-general-after-she-refuses-to-enfo/21703550/

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump fired the federal government's top lawyer Sally Yates on Monday after she took the extraordinarily rare step of defying the White House and saying the Justice Department would not defend his new travel restrictions targeting seven Muslim-majority nations.

The White House said on Twitter that Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, would replace Yates, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, as acting U.S. attorney general.
Yates on Monday told Justice Department lawyers in a letter that they would not defend in court Trump's directive that put a 120-day hold on allowing refugees into the country, an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria and a 90-day bar on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Jump to Toolbar

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Wil Wirtanen forwards this intereting article on global warming, er, climate change, er, climate disruption, er, clikmate flatulence....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/28/four-key-charts-for-a-climate-change-skeptic/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/freedom-center-campaign-will-oppose-sanctuary-campuses

Freedom Center Campaign Will Oppose 'Sanctuary Campuses'
Milo Yiannopoulos to Kick off Campaign at Berkeley on Feb 1
1.30.2017


The David Horowitz Freedom Center today announced a new campaign targeting so-called "sanctuary campuses” which violate federal immigration law and endanger American citizens. The campaign will kick-off with a speech by Breitbart.com editor and conservative activist Milo Yiannopoulos at UC-Berkeley on February 1st. The Center is calling on President Trump to withdraw federal grants from so-called Sanctuary schools and on the Department of Justice to prosecute university officials, beginning with former Department of Homeland Security head and UC President Janet Napolitano.

Since the U.S. presidential election in November, nearly 30 campuses have declared their defiance of federal immigration law as "sanctuary campuses.” More schools now are considering adopting this status as a result of an "escalation campaign” by student groups opposing the presidency of Donald Trump, and in particular his efforts to secure America’s borders and deport criminals who have entered the country illegally.

The Freedom Center’s campaign featuring Milo Yiannopoulos will bring public attention and pressure to bear on university administrators who have shown disloyalty and contempt for both federal immigration law and the rule of law itself in appeasing radical immigration activists’ demands for sanctuary campuses. The campaign will be launched at UC Berkeley on February 1, with a call to prosecute UC president Janet Napolitano and Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks.

"The so-called ‘sanctuary movement’ is a concerted effort by left-wing administrations in major cities to thwart the purposes of the Patriot Act, undermine federal immigration law, and cripple the efforts of the Department of Homeland security to protect American citizens from terrorist threats,” said David Horowitz, founder and CEO of the Freedom Center. "Thanks to the efforts of leftwing activists and administrators, this seditious movement has now spread to our colleges and universities.”

Read the rest...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

By Selwyn Duke

The irrational left, which means virtually all the left, is apoplectic over President Trump’s executive order halting immigration from terrorist-spawning countries. Its minions are complaining that the move is "un-American,” which in their world apparently involves playing Russian roulette with American lives.

The New York Times just ran a teary-eyed piece lamenting "immediate collateral damage imposed on people who, by all accounts, had no sinister intentions in trying to come to the United States,” as the paper put it. The fake news is right there — "by all accounts” — slipped in casually in the hope the reader will slide by it unthinkingly. In reality, there are many people, from intelligence experts to politicians to social commentators to Muslims themselves, warning that there’s no way to truly know these people’s "intentions.”

One of the most striking reports on this front — both because of its content and how the Fake News (mainstream) Media ignored it — was an October 2015 Glazov Gang  HYPERLINK "https://youtu.be/5OgncR6cewc"
interview with Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition now living as a refugee in Britain. While calling himself an "orthodox Muslim,” he nonetheless issued an eyebrow-raising warning:
Keep the Muslim migrants out of Europe.

What’s more, he insists that they must be returned to their native lands.
While Europe was the focus at the time (as the destination of most Mideast migrants), Zahran’s warnings absolutely apply to the US. And what he says is troubling: Many if not most of the migrants are not what they appear (video below).

[Please insert video here:  HYPERLINK "https://youtu.be/5OgncR6cewc" https://youtu.be/5OgncR6cewc]

First, we’d always been told the issue was Syrian refugees uprooted by their nation’s civil war. Yet Zahran stated that many of the Muslim newcomers aren’t even Syrian.

The proof is in the pudding, too. When we read  HYPERLINK "https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/new-york-times-claims-that-far-right-media-is-stoking-anxiety-about-muslim-refugees"
stories about migrants committing crimes — rape, murder, a terrorist act or something else — the perpetrators generally are Afghani, Moroccan, Tunisian, Iraqi, Somali or some other nationality that doesn’t happen to be Syrian. This is just casually mentioned in the reportage’s "who” aspect, and the relevant question doesn’t occur to most readers.

What the heck are these non-Syrian migrants doing in the West when the "refugee” scheme was sold to Westerners with a "help the Syrians” message?

The next part of the con, states Zahran, is that "75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe areas” because the Syrians "in disaster areas cannot … leave.” But it gets worse. He also asserts that half the Syrian male migrants "have actually held weapons and fought in the Syrian war.”

Then there are the truly malevolent fakefugees. As Zahran put it, "I can authoritively [sic] confirm — I have photos, I have images, I have pictures, I have names of terrorists who actually are already in Europe posting their photos in Europe on Facebook.”

This warning has been echoed by other Muslim figures as well. Also in 2015, Lebanese Education Minister Elias Bou Saab  HYPERLINK "http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/officials-warn-20000-isis-jihadis-6443516"
warned that 20,000 jihadis likely lurk in his country’s refugee camps, and Syrian ambassador Riad Abbas  HYPERLINK "https://sputniknews.com/europe/201511161030184464-eu-refugees-isil/"
claimed that 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe had Islamic State (IS) ties.

How these miscreants could penetrate the West brings us to the third part of the con: Despite leftist claims to the contrary, there is no way to reliably vet the Muslim migrants.
First, nations such as Syria simply don’t have comprehensive, Western-style databases containing information on their citizens. Intelligence officials have  HYPERLINK
"http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/resettlement_contractors_lie_to_protect_their_franchise.html"

acknowledged this, as has the Greek  HYPERLINK
"http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/greece_discovers_its_impossible_to_identify_isis_agents_among_refugees.html"
government and even former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. As Investor’s Business Daily  HYPERLINK "http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/no-databases-exist-to-vet-syrian-refugees/"
put it in 2015, "Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren't even kept. Agents can't vet somebody if they don't have documentation and don't even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.”

Moreover, what good would the data be, anyway? As NYC Syrian community leader Aarafat "Ralph” Succarpointed out in 2015 while warning of IS infiltration in the US, you can bribe Syrian public officials and get government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be. Said he, "You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,”  HYPERLINK "http://nypost.com/2015/11/19/syrian-community-leader-isis-is-already-in-new-york-city/"
reported the New York Post.

As for the notion these migrants can be vetted, Succar has a simple response: "[A]re you out of your mind?”
Yet even if we could weed out the fakefugees, it wouldn’t matter because vetting informs only about what migrants are, not what they will become or what their children will be. This is relevant not only because radicalization often occurs in the West itself, but because studies  HYPERLINK "http://observer.com/2017/01/muslim-population-europe-religion-growing-worldwide/"
show that younger generations of Muslims in the West are actually  HYPERLINK "http://observer.com/2017/01/muslim-population-europe-religion-growing-worldwide/"
more jihadist-minded than their elders. "Islam is the problem,” as I recently  HYPERLINK
"http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/islam_is_the_problem.html"
wrote — the gift that keeps on giving.
And the calculation is simple: If one million Muslim migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10thof one percent are or will become terrorists, that’s 1,000 dangerous jihadists.Are you willing to bet, your life, that this estimate is liberal and not conservative?

Yet as dangerous as terrorists are, there’s a bigger picture here, a deeper con being perpetrated by the Arab world via the mass migrations. As Zahran warned, "I have to be honest; you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers [and] they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

Zahran called this process "the soft Islamic conquest of the West” and noted that what Muslims "couldn’t do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free — and even [is] paying for it.”

The last part of the migration con concerns why leftists "care” so much about fakefugees. Not only is there the ego-driven ideological imperative of preserving their multiculturalist dogma, but consider: The vast majority of U.S. Muslims now vote Democrat, with Obama HYPERLINK "http://www.amperspective.com/muslim-charities/" having gotten89 and 85 percent of their votes in, respectively, 2008 and 2012.In contrast, pious, church-going Christians favor Republicans by wide margins.
Now note that while Christians are 10 percent of Syria's population and are being targeted for extermination by IS, only one half of one percent of the "Syrian” migrants  HYPERLINK

"http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/a_stain_that_would_be_on_obamas_conscienceif_he_had_one.html"
admitted under Obama were Christian. Compassion? Does the Left really care about these migrants’ lives?
Or just their future votes?

Whatever the case, the treasonous — or, as some would say, "internationalist” — alt-left often speaks about redistributing the wealth. They clearly don’t mind spreading the terrorism around, either. Why not? The West won’t long feel compelled to send soldiers to the Middle East if we  HYPERLINK "http://observer.com/2017/01/muslim-population-europe-religion-growing-worldwide/"
bring enough of the Middle East to the West.

More Muslims have arrived in the US just since 9/11 than did so during our nation’s entire history leading up to it. This, the handiwork of the left, has already resulted in hundreds more Westerners dying in jihadist attacks. How much more blood do you liberals want on your hands?

 HYPERLINK "mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to  HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1234 words, total size 10 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Stunning Win – Saudi King Salman Agrees to Support/Finance Safe Zones In Syria and Yemen…
Posted on January 29, 2017 by sundance

This is a jaw-dropping exhibition of the scope of President Trump’s strategic leverage. Remember how Secretary of State Rex Tillerson refused to take the bait from Senator Marco Rubio regarding Saudi Arabia? Put this outcome in the dividend column.

Those who have not followed the back-story of non-extremist politics in the middle-east will miss the obvious play identified more readily by those who have followed closely.
One of the major influences and advisers for King Salman of Saudi Arabia is Egyptian President Fattah Abdel el-Sisi. El-Sisi has already established a productive relationship with President Trump both before and after the election. No doubt King Salman and President Sisi debriefed the prior conversations between Trump and el-Sisi.
sisi-and-trumpel-sisi in Saudi

Today King Salman agrees to a primary expressed policy position of President Trump. Saudi Arabia will support and finance "safe zones” within Syria and Yemen. This is a big, big deal.

(Via Reuters) Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, in a phone call on Sunday with U.S. President Donald Trump, agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, a White House statement said.

Trump, during his presidential campaign last year, had called for Gulf states to pay for establishing safe zones to protect Syrian refugees.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Here is a despicable abuse of power by the judiciary. A Federal judge has issued a temporary stay on Trump's immigration order.

From Fortune:

"In an emergency hearing in a Brooklyn courthouse, Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York issued a stay of proceedings for part of Trump's executive order, which bars citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—"to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States."

Sending travelers home could cause them "irreparable harm," Donnelly said.

Signed judge's order. No refugees are going to be immediately deported pic.twitter.com/sbfaG7DBt0
- ACLU National (@ACLU) January 29, 2017

The U.S. is "enjoined and restrained from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States," according to the ruling. (Read the full text of the order here.)

The ruling does not allow detainees to enter the country. The judge did not address the constitutionality of Trump's actions, which come just one week into his presidency."

End excerpt.

Needless to say Judge Donnelly was an Obama appointee, elevated to her position in 2014.

The Immigration and Naturalization service is an Executive Branch division and clearly under the auspices of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. The court has no jurisdiction. Furthermore, these are not citizens,nor are they even legal residents of the U.S. and have no standing. Neither does the ACLU, who brought the suit.

Also, it is interesting to note that this judge failed to act when Mr. Obama opened the floodfates in violation of U.S. law.

In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893) The Supreme Court ruled that The U.S. has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner and to compel a foreigner to leave and that deportation (or refusal of admittance) is not a punishment but a right of sovereignty held by the U.S.

Then there is this:

1) Due Process does not require judicial fact-finding.
(2) Knauff: Π an alien wife of a U.S. citizen. Finding of court was that she was inadmissible and was excluded from entry. The Court classified her admission as a privilege rather than a right and characterized the exclusion of an alien as a fundamental sovereign act "inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”
(3) If entry would be prejudicial and alien is determined to be a danger then reasons can be kept secret as to why alien has been denied access.
(4) "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” (p.47)

So by what right does this judge rule that Trump cannot enforce a ban on immigration from Muslim countries? Trump has the authority of the Commerce Clause on his side.

And what is very pertinent here is Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei. In Shaughnessy the Courts ruled that THEY do not have authority on allowing a resident alien back into the country - only the Attorney General can make the determination.

Held: the Attorney General's continued exclusion of the alien without a hearing does not amount to an unlawful detention, and courts may not temporarily admit him to the United States pending arrangements for his departure abroad. Pp. 345 U. S. 207-216.

(a) In exclusion cases, the courts cannot retry the Attorney General's statutory determination that an alien's entry would be prejudicial to the public interest. Pp. 345 U. S. 210-212.

(b) Neither an alien's harborage on Ellis Island nor his prior residence in this country transforms the administrative proceeding against him into something other than an exclusion proceeding, and he may be excluded if unqualified for admission under existing immigration laws. P. 345 U. S. 213.

(c) Although a lawfully resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to due process, the alien in this case is an entrant alien or "assimilated to that status" for constitutional purposes. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, distinguished. Pp. 345 U. S. 213-214.

(d) The Attorney General therefore may exclude this alien without a hearing, as authorized by the emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Passport Act, and need not disclose the evidence upon which that determination rests. Pp. 345 U. S. 214-215.

End excerpt.

This is a clear, unequivocal example of judicial overreach by an Obama appointee. Sadly, given the 4/4 split on the Supreme Court, the case will be decided at the lower court level and this power grab will likely stand.

And of course the mainstream media will portray Trump as the lawbreaker and not the judge. Despicable.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Democrats insist their mandate with their voters is to NOT work with the president.

http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/schism-in-the-democratic-party-as-anti-trump-element-resists-working-with-trump/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%20Jan-27-2017&utm_medium=email

Well, IIRC, in terms of doing what he wanted done, eight years ago they didn't work all that well with Obama either, did they?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

The word "shocking" is thrown around these days like beads at the Mardi Gras. However, in this article it's justified. Read it and weep! https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170127/federal-appeals-court-s-shocking-pronouncement-lawful-gun-carriers-must-forfeit-other-rights

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

In case you haven't seen this, it contains handy things to know about how to talk to a liberal (when you must). By John Hawkins.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/01/28/the-liberal-translation-guide-part-two-20-more-translations-of-things-that-liberals-say-n2277855?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Stupid?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/29/prime-minister-justin-trudeau-says-canada-welcomes-refugees.html

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Saturday that Canada will welcome refugees rejected by President Donald Trump.

A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP

A few years ago, the Canadians stopped a plot to kill politicians at their Parliament building. Perhaps Trudeau forgot about this...

From Wikipedia:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 5 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Friend and contributor Daren Jonescu has an essay over at his website in which he makes the point we all seek to hide from ourselves; Obama did not lead the red revolution in America, but rode the wave. Hard as it is for us to face, he is right; America in fact wants what the BHO has been peddling. Obama didn't start the fire.

And while Trump beat the Democrats one must look at what that really means. Trump did not do it by appealing to actual conservatism but rather by courting the 'forgotten man" in the rust belt. His victory came from his appeal to FDR's natural constituency. In fact, a number of conservatives stayed home, upset by Trump's vulgarity and lack of conservative bonafides.

Trump is essentially a Truman Democrat in a socialist America. He won by winning over other New Dealers. He has promised to make America great again, but his program is largely about government action. He just isn't about government coddling.

And this could easily have gone the other way. Hillary was perhaps the worst candidate to ever run for President, and that she actually won the popular vote (well, maybe stole it) is horrifying. America should have rejected the Norn by a huge margin.

Yes, the Democrats took a beating across the country. But that is as much a function of their trying to go to far too fast, and of their happy corruption and internationalism. Americans are afraid of the rising tide of Islamism, and didn't want to play footsie with a bunch of potential terrorists. And they want their jobs back. Nobody wants to live on the government dole, barely scratching out a living, while a bunch of illegal aliens come in and take their jobs.

In short, kitchen table issued prevailed, not conservative principles. We need to remember that.

In the end the Conservative Esstablishment failed us. They are the ones who strategized, who came up with the political, social, and media tactics. They are the ones who chose to maintain this patrician air, to play ball with the enemy, to go along to get along. That strategy failed for precisely the reasons many of us "mongrel conservatives" knew it would; you can't win by saying "mee too". Trump refused to play this game that we have been losing at for so long, and he won.

If you are not advancing you are retreating. Our leaders have been happy to retreat for a long time now.

We have an opportunity to perhaps stop the slide into the abyss, but it will require we launch a bold campaign, a counter-attack. Too often we have allowed openings to slip by us. There are many economic conservatives who do not understand that economics is a function of the health of society, and the social conservatives are ultimately right. They will point out that Trump won not on the social issues but economic, and they will have a point, but the two go hand in hand and we cannot allow the issue to slip from us. Every time we win we start the economic program to fix the damage done by the liberals and let them advance the social issues. Then we lose again, because they are able to get society to move to the Left. In fact, we end up victims of our own success as the public forgets what the Democrats did to the economy. We must advance on all fronts, like Eisenhower did with the American army during WWII.

And we absolutely must stop playing footsie with the media. There has been our most critical mistake; we give them power over us by kowtowing to them. The media is like Satan, whose power comes entirely from our own surrender to him. The media likewise has no power except that which we give it. Trump found a way around them, and we need to press this home. We should take steps to marginalize the media at every turn.

How? Stop quoting them, stop using them as the authorities. I grow disgusted at the way conservatives are always linking up Politico or some other MSM outfit when they don't have to do so. I find it repulsive that we adopt their language, their style, their use of words. They present "facts" and we often accept them. Move on! That was the thinking of Karl Rove, for instance, and it ended with his client George W. Bush having some of the lowest approval ratings of any President. You can't move on. Trump is right; you have to fight at every turn.

I hope we learn the lessons of this last election, but fear we may not. We are NOT in the ascendency, but rather have won an important tactical battle. Do not become drunk on a stopgap victory. The war is just heating up.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 819 words, total size 5 kb.

JTimothy Birdnow

It's as inevitable as the sun rising. Every year our friends at NOAA and NASA tabulate the data gleaned from an ever-decreasing number of weather stations to determine the planetary temperature. Many stations have been closed due to obsolesence or budget constraints and their data is produced based on an average of the two closest stations, which may be as much as fifty or a hundred miles away. Other stations find themselves surrounded by mushrooming cities and the Urban Heat Island Effect - a situation where waste heat from many sources - air conditioners, furnaces, automobiles, rotting garbage, sewage, etc. as well as heat retained by blacktop parking lots - artificially increases the temperature being recorded. Anthony Watts made his name surveying these stations, and showed how ridiculous it was to rely on them. See www.surfacestations.org.

But it matters not to the government agencies entrusted with the record keeping; they live on government budgets and need the "crisis" to remain relevant. In fact, Noaa has been fudging the historical record to claim a warming trend, one that disappears when the data is not "corrected" by them.

In fact, using NASA's own data it is obvious that there has been no warming for at least 18 yeears. Satellite data never showed any, although last year NASA tried to "correct" the satellite record to show warming. But Roy Spencer absolutely demolished the new technique, showing it was seriously biased in favor of a warming trend.

In point of fact, all metrics are up; polar ice - both arctic and antarctic - are up, with sea ice increasing at both poles and land ice rebounding even in Greenland. And there has never been a rise in tropospheric temperatures, something that all models say must happen.

So we are left to the temperature data. What is the argument? Over a fraction of a degree, and that based on surface station data sets.

So naturally we are forever treated to "hottest on record" when it is obvious to everyone - or should be - that we haven't seen the dramatic temperature rise we have been warned about. We were told that by now planetary temperatures would be at least five degrees above 1979 levels, and yet we are still arguing over whether we have ANY.

Which brings us to the point of this essay; our good global warming chums have announced what they announce very year, that this last year was the "warmest on record". While this was a massive El Nino year (and el nino sucks heat from the oceans, thus increasing temperatures on the surface) it is not

In point of fact, the argument is over hundredths of a degree, and we are using proxy data - tree rings, ice cores, etc. - to provide much of the data from before the satellite era (and even during when we did not have full coverage or good equipment.) It is nonsense. .

In fact, planetary temperatures plummeted a full degree C last year as the el nino ended.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, and one not especially powerful in terms of greenhouse gases. There are only four molecules of co2 in every ten thousand molecules of air. And it has a logarithmic warming, so once the wavelength it traps is saturated it stops warming. That is why Mars is so blasted cold, despite having an atmosphere of 95% carbon dioxide; the small amount of air isn't adequate to hold heat, no matter the composition. If co2 were as powerful as the media would have us believe it would make Mars another Earth. Sadly, Mars is a frozen wasteland, and not likely to change in the near future.

The whole point of this "warmest ever" nonsense is not even to succeed in getting it permanently in the record; it is to get it before the public. The governmental entitites that seek to expand their money and power push this every year with the intentiion of convincing those who do not keep up with this sort of thing. If it is retracted it won't matter; the big news is in the announcement, not the final word. They know this, which is why they do it. And the media is all too happy to promote the end of the world scare.

Global waarming is the equivalent of Orson Well's War of the Worlds scare, only it has lasted an entire generation. And sadly, too many young people really believe it. They don't bother to dig beyond page one of Google, or go past the Yahoo Aews, and buy all this. They believe the "97% of climage scientists agree" mantra without bothering to learn what that means (two studies - both by non-scientists - took small samplings of scientists and asked them if climate was changing and if humans had anything to do with it - well duh! That doesn't mean they believe the doomsday scenario presented to the public. Tjeu a;sp ogmpre tje fact tjat ,amu are afraod tp s[eal i[ = kist asl Joanna Simpson, former NASA climatologist, who ripped her former employer after she retired.)

Global warming has all the earmarks of of a sales con. There is the clear and present danger (yes we've got trouble, right here!), there is the manipulation of facts to present a distorted view of the problem, then the urgency (act now! Time is running out!). The solution to this grave crisis is then provided, one guaranteed to part the mark from his money and whatever else he may have. Global Warming works this same way.

Only the public has been slow to buy it, so there is a need to maintain an air of emergency. What the purveyors of this are trying to do is wait for a normal temperature upswing, then use this to "prove" their theory was correct and we must turn over our money (via carbon taxes and whatnot) as well as our authority to the governmental agencies that will benefit. The EPA is a prime example; they have used this to create all manner of new regulations and fines. It's a wonderful scam from the sales side.

They will keep this up as long as Nature does not cooperate. I never dreamed they would keep this going this long, but they have. Of course the money has been coming in, and George W. Bush never stopped it. Perhaps if Mr. Trump cuts off the funding they will eventually give up? We can only hope.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1092 words, total size 7 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/protecting_america_from_illintended_refugees.html

January 28, 2017
Protecting America from ill intended refugees
By Rachel Ehrenfeld

President Donald Trump’s draft executive order on "Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” which was leaked on Wednesday, has been met, as anticipated, with alarm by opponents at home and abroad who resent the new American president and his actions to protect the country, as he promised to do.

His Executive Order proclaims: "The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism. In order to protect Americans, we must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes towards our country and its founding principles. Section 2 of the active order states that the policy of the U.S. is "(a) protect our citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and b) prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” (emphasis added).

To prevent such individuals from entering the U.S., the executive order requests the development of a uniform screening program, which in fact would reinforce requirements that have been deliberately ignored by the Obama administration. But even if the screening is done by the book, and all necessary documentation has been obtained and verified, and the applicant declares he holds no ill intentions towards America and Americans, nothing available to the screeners today would easily reveal that he is lying.

An effective way to find out the applicant’s intentions would be screening through an efficient, unbiased and non-intrusive system. Such a system was developed by an Israeli company with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, which the Obama administration refused to utilize.

The Suspect Detection System (SDS) has developed counter-terrorist and insider threat detection technology named COGITO. This technology enables law enforcement agencies to rapidly investigate U.S. visa applicants (and other travelers) entering the country, insider threat among employees, etc.

COGITO technology is an automated interrogation system which can determine in 5- 7 minutes if an individual is harboring hostile intent. The system interviews the examinee with up to 36 questions while measuring the psychophysical signals of the human body. The system has 95% accuracy and has helped security agencies globally to catch terrorists and solve crimes.

According to the company’s website, the SDS allows the screening of a large number of people in a short time. It "does not require operator training. One operator can handle simultaneously ten stations. It has a central management and database system that allows storing all tests results, analysis, and data mining, and is deployed and integrated with governmental agencies.” Using this system would eliminate the need to use often biased U.S. Consulate employees. Moreover, the SDS uses an automated decision-making system, which is "adaptable to a variety of different questioning contexts, different cultures, and languages. The examination lasts 5 minutes when there are no indications of harmful intent, and 7 minutes to ascertain it (with only 4% false positive, and 10% false negative).”
The COGITO is used in 15 countries including Israel, Singapore, China, India, Mexico, and others. U.S. airlines operating in Latin America are using COGITO to check their employees.
But last year DHS refused to use the SDS, claiming it "would constitute an intrusion on the privacy of those screened by the system” and "It may reflect on VISA applicants or Immigrant's civil rights.” However, foreigners applying for U.S. visa are not protected by American laws.

SDS capability to detect intent seems to fit President Trump’s promise of "extreme vetting” of Muslim refugees from high-risk regions. This or other similarly objective systems would not only assist in making America safer, but also in keeping its policy and tradition of accepting refugees who do not wish us harm.
Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of New York based American Center for Democracy

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 5 kb.

Jack Kemp

This is what happens when we have a President who doesn't slip up and tell a tv reporter about "my Muslim faith."

Jack

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/trump-says-syrian-christian-refugees-will-given-priority/

Trump says Syrian Christian
refugees will be given
priority for entering U.S.
Gateway Pundit, by Ryan Saavedra


1/27/2017 9:58:43 PM

After years of being intentionally ignored and left out to be slaughtered by ISIS by Barack Obama, Syrian Christians can breathe a sigh of relief. President Donald Trump is going to give them priority status for coming to the United States. The move is likely to receive high praise from the majority of Americans after Obama prioritized Syrian Muslims coming into the U.S. and seeing the results of letting in a group of people that hold belief systems that are incompatible with American values. From Reuters: President Donald Trump said on Friday that Syrian Christians will be given priority

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A new study shows at least 800,000 illegal votes were cast in the last election, bolstering Donald Trump's claims that much of the Hillary popular vote "victory" was illigitimate.

According to the Washington Times:"

"Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes."

End excerpt.

Just Wednesday i heard a media anchor say Trump made "false claims" about this, despite not having evidence that he was wrong. Well, turns out that his claim has some merit.

Look, there are at least 12 million illegal aliens in America. If 10% voted illegally - and why wouldn't they, considering there is no danger of suffering any consequences but there was danger of not getting Hillary elected - we are talking about 1.2 million illegal votes. And that is just the illegal aliens, not the resident aliens, not those who have been disenfranchised (like felons) or who are improperly registered. I do not think 3 to 5 million is at all unreasonable, no matter what Fox News thinks.

J. Christian Adams told Judge Jeanine Piero how this was going to work back in 2015:

"They’re also affecting the pipeline of people here illegally. The Supreme Court just this week received briefs in a case where the federal government is stopping states like Kansas and Arizona from checking to make sure that people are actually citizens when they register to vote, and the Obama administration justice department, the Election Assistance Commission, which is a federal agency, has tried to block states from making sure that only citizens are registering to vote.

JUDGE JEANNINE: I’m going to stop you right there. You mean if you go to vote and they ask for proof that you’re a citizen, you can say I’m an illegal and the justice department is saying you don’t have a right to ask that question?

ADAMS: That’s exactly right. The Election Assistance Commission produces what’s called a federal registration form. It’s used all over the country in the motor voter law, and Kansas and Arizona asked the federal government to please let us put our state requirements in this form that let people prove they’re citizens, and the Obama/Holder Justice Department fought them every step of the way through the federal district court and the tenth district court of appeal."

End excerpt.

And President Barack Hussein Obama, chief law enforcement officer of these United States, actually encouraged illegals to vote in the last election. See the video here.

Obama, speaking to Gina Roderiguez on Mitu, said:

"Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens – and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country – are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?”

Obama responded: "Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”

It is unquestionably clear that an effort was made to steal this election from Mr. Trump, and that he has every reason to seek an investigation. Democrats have real reason to fear this.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A new study shows at least 800,000 illegal votes were cast in the last election, bolstering Donald Trump's claims that much of the Hillary popular vote "victory" was illigitimate.

According to the Washington Times:"

"Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes."

End excerpt.

Just Wednesday i heard a media anchor say Trump made "false claims" about this, despite not having evidence that he was wrong. Well, turns out that his claim has some merit.

Look, there are at least 12 million illegal aliens in America. If 10% voted illegally - and why wouldn't they, considering there is no danger of suffering any consequences but there was danger of not getting Hillary elected - we are talking about 1.2 million illegal votes. And that is just the illegal aliens, not the resident aliens, not those who have been disenfranchised (like felons) or who are improperly registered. I do not think 3 to 5 million is at all unreasonable, no matter what Fox News thinks.

J. Christian Adams told Judge Jeanine Piero how this was going to work back in 2015:

"They’re also affecting the pipeline of people here illegally. The Supreme Court just this week received briefs in a case where the federal government is stopping states like Kansas and Arizona from checking to make sure that people are actually citizens when they register to vote, and the Obama administration justice department, the Election Assistance Commission, which is a federal agency, has tried to block states from making sure that only citizens are registering to vote.

JUDGE JEANNINE: I’m going to stop you right there. You mean if you go to vote and they ask for proof that you’re a citizen, you can say I’m an illegal and the justice department is saying you don’t have a right to ask that question?

ADAMS: That’s exactly right. The Election Assistance Commission produces what’s called a federal registration form. It’s used all over the country in the motor voter law, and Kansas and Arizona asked the federal government to please let us put our state requirements in this form that let people prove they’re citizens, and the Obama/Holder Justice Department fought them every step of the way through the federal district court and the tenth district court of appeal."

End excerpt.

And President Barack Hussein Obama, chief law enforcement officer of these United States, actually encouraged illegals to vote in the last election. See the video here.

Obama, speaking to Gina Roderiguez on Mitu, said:

"Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens – and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country – are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?”

Obama responded: "Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”

It is unquestionably clear that an effort was made to steal this election from Mr. Trump, and that he has every reason to seek an investigation. Democrats have real reason to fear this.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

Fay Voshell

Of all the photos taken of the Million Women March, one that stood out is of a cute little girl barely out of toddlerhood. She is holding of a sign that said, "F**k your fascist bulls**t.” Her mother stands behind her beaming proudly.

Just what goal the mom has in mind is a little unclear, but her anger is palpable, and she is teaching her daughter to follow in her footsteps. We can assume mom thinks of herself as righteously indignant.

But the radical feminist movement separated righteousness from indignation a long time ago.

All that is left now is the indignation. All that is left is one long howl of rage; anger for anger’s sake. "I am Woman. Hear me roar.” Well, we have heard your Ginsbergian Howl. And we have seen you "waving genitals;” and believe you to be "destroyed by madness; starving hysterical naked.”

Just what are injustices are you roaring about?

Because from here it looks like you are roaring for the right to be everything misogynists have measured you by -- having worth only if you expose and flaunt private parts and express yourself only by mindless emotions. You are defining yourself by your sex organs and by type casting women as they have often been typecast by misogynists -- emotional basket cases incapable of intelligent reasoning. How ironic is it that the anti-woman philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is vindicated when in his essay "On Women,” he accused the female sex of being incapable of reasoning and being ruled by emotions, the result of which is that "One must say that the fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice.”

Congratulations. It must be gratifying to prove the miserable misogynist Schopenhauer correct.

But this is how all revolutions based on unreasoning, mindless rage divorced from justice end: in incoherence, destruction, and even death. Incoherent rage burns up everything in its path, then turns to immolate those who began the fire. It devours everyone who will not join in the endless burning wrath and destruction. One need think only of Germaine Greer, who has been accused of transphobia and blacklisted for noting that men and women are inherently different and for implying that equal rights for men and women are based on the differentiation of the sexes, not by obliterating the distinction between the two. She has been effectively guillotined as an example to those who would disagree with the Madame Defarges of academia.

What opportunities have the viragos who marched supporting the right to be vulgar, the right to be mindlessly angry, and the right to kill their unborn have missed! If only they had kept the righteous in righteous indignation!

What are some of those righteous causes the last wave feminists are ignoring?

There are one hundred million fewer little girls in this world because of sex-select abortions. Gendercide is a worldwide problem that is happening even in Western countries like Britain.

How many of you Million Women were marching to protest gendercide?

As Human Rights Watch notes, Children and women are enslaved and trafficked for all purposes, some 50,000-100,000 to the United States.

Raise your hand if you were marching on January 21st to protest human trafficking.

There is more, of course.

The list of atrocities directed at girls and women is long. Yazidi and Christian women are being raped, killed, and sold as slaves by ISIS. Female circumcision mutilates hundreds of thousands of little girls.

None of these injustices appear to matter to the radical feminists who appeared in Washington because their indignation is severed from righteousness. Feminism as expressed in the Million Women March is in the end stage of the sexual revolution, a revolution in which the higher concepts of the rights of women have been burned up by a sere reductionism in which they are viewed only by their personal parts.

What we saw on Saturday, January 21st was the end of the radical feminist revolution, not the beginning of something new. The impetus for reform has moved elsewhere. On the Left, the radical transgender movement seeks to obliterate the distinctions between men and women, thus making women’s rights moot. On the Right, the focus is or at least should be on actual injustices perpetrated against women here and around the world. Foremost among these injustices is gendercide, as death is the final depriver of rights.

Perhaps a review of the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions" (1848) might be helpful to the marchers who think women’s rights is about wearing pink pussy hats, dressing up as vaginas and giving the middle finger to everyone in sight.

The men and women who drew up the Declaration of 1848 based their ideas about women’s rights on one main consideration; namely that men and women were created equal in the sight of their Creator and thus entitled to equal rights under the law:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness...”

A long list of grievances followed, among them barriers to women’s rights which have been overthrown after protracted struggles for the vote, the right to own property, the right to have a voice in the formation of laws -- all based on the firm belief that no man had the right to usurp "the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.”

The document ends with the signers of the Seneca Falls Declaration recognition that their then radical statements would be subject to "no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule.”

The signers were prophetic. The resistance was and sometimes still is ferocious, particularly against religious conservative women who hold views similar to the men and women who drew up the Declaration.

But were those men and women alive today, they would doubtless feel completely justified in ridiculing the fatuity and vulgarity of women who by their beliefs and behavior completely repudiated everything the original women’s movement in America stood for.

Doubtless, they would be righteously indignant because they actually would be fighting for real justice for the women of the world.

On January 27th, their spiritual descendants will be marching for the right of little girls and boys to be born.

What a different march that will be from the travesty we saw on January 21st..

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she was awarded the seminary’s prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including RealClearReligion, CNS, Fox News, National Review and Russia Insider. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Of all the photos taken of the Million Women March, one that stood out is of a cute little girl barely out of toddlerhood. She is holding of a sign that said, "F**k your fascist bulls**t.” Her mother stands behind her beaming proudly.

Just what goal the mom has in mind is a little unclear, but her anger is palpable, and she is teaching her daughter to follow in her footsteps. We can assume mom thinks of herself as righteously indignant.

But the radical feminist movement separated righteousness from indignation a long time ago.

All that is left now is the indignation. All that is left is one long howl of rage; anger for anger’s sake. "I am Woman. Hear me roar.” Well, we have heard your Ginsbergian Howl. And we have seen you "waving genitals;” and believe you to be "destroyed by madness; starving hysterical naked.”

Just what are injustices are you roaring about?

Because from here it looks like you are roaring for the right to be everything misogynists have measured you by -- having worth only if you expose and flaunt private parts and express yourself only by mindless emotions. You are defining yourself by your sex organs and by type casting women as they have often been typecast by misogynists -- emotional basket cases incapable of intelligent reasoning. How ironic is it that the anti-woman philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is vindicated when in his essay "On Women,” he accused the female sex of being incapable of reasoning and being ruled by emotions, the result of which is that "One must say that the fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice.”

Congratulations. It must be gratifying to prove the miserable misogynist Schopenhauer correct.

But this is how all revolutions based on unreasoning, mindless rage divorced from justice end: in incoherence, destruction, and even death. Incoherent rage burns up everything in its path, then turns to immolate those who began the fire. It devours everyone who will not join in the endless burning wrath and destruction. One need think only of Germaine Greer, who has been accused of transphobia and blacklisted for noting that men and women are inherently different and for implying that equal rights for men and women are based on the differentiation of the sexes, not by obliterating the distinction between the two. She has been effectively guillotined as an example to those who would disagree with the Madame Defarges of academia.

What opportunities have the viragos who marched supporting the right to be vulgar, the right to be mindlessly angry, and the right to kill their unborn have missed! If only they had kept the righteous in righteous indignation!

What are some of those righteous causes the last wave feminists are ignoring?

There are one hundred million fewer little girls in this world because of sex-select abortions. Gendercide is a worldwide problem that is happening even in Western countries like Britain.

How many of you Million Women were marching to protest gendercide?

As Human Rights Watch notes, Children and women are enslaved and trafficked for all purposes, some 50,000-100,000 to the United States.

Raise your hand if you were marching on January 21st to protest human trafficking.

There is more, of course.

The list of atrocities directed at girls and women is long. Yazidi and Christian women are being raped, killed, and sold as slaves by ISIS. Female circumcision mutilates hundreds of thousands of little girls.

None of these injustices appear to matter to the radical feminists who appeared in Washington because their indignation is severed from righteousness. Feminism as expressed in the Million Women March is in the end stage of the sexual revolution, a revolution in which the higher concepts of the rights of women have been burned up by a sere reductionism in which they are viewed only by their personal parts.

What we saw on Saturday, January 21st was the end of the radical feminist revolution, not the beginning of something new. The impetus for reform has moved elsewhere. On the Left, the radical transgender movement seeks to obliterate the distinctions between men and women, thus making women’s rights moot. On the Right, the focus is or at least should be on actual injustices perpetrated against women here and around the world. Foremost among these injustices is gendercide, as death is the final depriver of rights.

Perhaps a review of the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions" (1848) might be helpful to the marchers who think women’s rights is about wearing pink pussy hats, dressing up as vaginas and giving the middle finger to everyone in sight.

The men and women who drew up the Declaration of 1848 based their ideas about women’s rights on one main consideration; namely that men and women were created equal in the sight of their Creator and thus entitled to equal rights under the law:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness...”

A long list of grievances followed, among them barriers to women’s rights which have been overthrown after protracted struggles for the vote, the right to own property, the right to have a voice in the formation of laws -- all based on the firm belief that no man had the right to usurp "the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.”

The document ends with the signers of the Seneca Falls Declaration recognition that their then radical statements would be subject to "no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule.”

The signers were prophetic. The resistance was and sometimes still is ferocious, particularly against religious conservative women who hold views similar to the men and women who drew up the Declaration.

But were those men and women alive today, they would doubtless feel completely justified in ridiculing the fatuity and vulgarity of women who by their beliefs and behavior completely repudiated everything the original women’s movement in America stood for.

Doubtless, they would be righteously indignant because they actually would be fighting for real justice for the women of the world.

On January 27th, their spiritual descendants will be marching for the right of little girls and boys to be born.

What a different march that will be from the travesty we saw on January 21st..

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2544 words, total size 16 kb.

Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/314326-trumps-surprise-va-pick-known-as-turnaround-artist

Trump’s surprise VA pick known as turnaround artist

President-elect Donald Trump surprised many when he chose one of President Obama’s appointees to run the Department of Veterans Affairs after pledging to overhaul the department during the campaign.

But the nominee, current under secretary of health David Shulkin, has a long history in the private sector turning around struggling hospitals.

Veterans groups called the choice a pleasant surprise, as they say Shulkin has overseen a turnaround in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and resisted calls for privatizing the federal system.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:31 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.