Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Krauthammer: The UN Spends Its Time Attacking Israel and US, Should Be Turned Into Condos By Trump

Krauthammer: The UN Spends Its Time Attacking Israel and US, Should Be Turned Into Condos By Trump

by Ian Hanchett26 Dec 201633

On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” columnist Charles Krauthammer argued the UN spends its time “trying to attack the only Jewish state on the planet,” and “undermining the United States and democracy” and the UN headquarters should be turned into condos by President-Elect Donald Trump.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Krauthammer stated, [relevant remarks begin around 7:30] “We’re paying an organization that spends half its time — more than half its time and energy and resources and bureaucracy trying to attack the only Jewish state on the planet, a tiny little spec, while genocide, mayhem, murder, terrorism is going on all over the world. It’s an obsession that to an outside a observer appears to be insane. Why are we doing this? And the rest of the time is spend undermining the United States and democracy and our allies around the world. it as an organization that exacerbates tensions, it does not assuage them. It was born in hope, the end of the Second World War. It turned out to be a disaster. Any move to minimize our support for it, any move to get it out of the US, imagine if headquarters were in Zimbabwe. The amount of weight and coverage it would get would be zero. I think that’s good real estate in downtown New York City, and Trump ought to find a way to put his name on it and turn it into condos.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett



Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Di Leo: Multiculturalism, Endangerment, and a New Nationalism

Di Leo: Multiculturalism, Endangerment, and a New Nationalism

Screen Shot 2016-12-20 at 2.58.55 PMBerlin Christmas market tragedy | Photo from Sacramento Bee

By John F. Di Leo -

On Monday, December 19, the last shopping week before Christmas, an islamofascist terrorist (most likely a recently-arrived “refugee,” as over a million such have arrived in Germany from the middle east this year alone) hijacked a truck and charged through a Berlin Christmas market, killing at least a dozen innocent shoppers, injuring some fifty more… in exactly the way that ISIS has been ordering its pretend “lone wolves” to attack innocents.

As Europeans have watched their birthrate plummet, leaving the tax base for their generous pensions in doubt, they have opened their doors to unfettered immigration.  First, we saw England’s open doors welcome in Pakistanis and Indians, and Germany’s open doors welcome Turks… then the procession became a flood, as Angela Merkel and her like have opened the floodgates to all so-called “refugees” from all over the middle east in recent years.  Europe was a Christian continent; it is difficult indeed to honestly say that today. 

This rush of third-worlders – not just third-worlders, but subscribers to the most barbaric subsets of islam - has brought a horrific crime wave to Europe.  Rape, murder, honor killings, every other imaginable abuse, as well as terrorism.  Obviously there are good people among these crowds too – statistics being what they are, there certainly must be.  But the percentage of dangerous criminals is inordinately high, by design, as so many so-called refugees are young men of military age, directed by their clerics to function as a silent invasion force.

Learning the Wrong Lesson

But this ghastly story of the Christmas week rampage in Berlin is not – in itself – the main horror of the news day.  No, the major horror is actually a statement by one of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesmen, as quoted here in every news report about the attacks:

"Our worst fears have come true with this suspected attack on the Christmas market in Berlin," said Stephan Mayer, a member of Parliament in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party. "We've got to review the security for Christmas markets across Germany, and be ready to possibly accept that they can't take place anymore."

To the rational American mind, of course, such a conclusion is inconceivable.    A centuries-old custom is threatened by a new kind of criminal?  We set to work on catching, ejecting, or eliminating the criminal.  We don’t consider closing down a cultural institution!

But these Europeans – who knows what percentage of them, but certainly, a large percentage of those in power – cannot even consider that possibility.  As easy as it is to see, they will not allow themselves to consider it.  Germans would rather shut down a German cultural tradition (and substantial commercial activity) than concentrate on ejecting the outsiders attacking their own people!

The modern islamist (something of an oxymoron, that, but it’s accurate, since the current effort to “grow the caliphate” is indeed a modern twist on this 1400-year-old “religion”) is as different from a Westerner as you can get, in every way.  The European/Western mentality is of civilized relations between man and woman, and of courteous respect for hard work and honest business; it is a culture of equality under the law, political and economic freedom, charity for the weak. 

But the islamist believes in tribalism, and in absolute patriarchy… he believes in a slavish devotion to the most warlike commands of the koran, while disregarding any exhortation to decency found in its pages.  The modern islamist is in fact set against everything that is European.

The Christmas market marauder (name and origin unknown at this writing, but either he or his ideology was clearly imported from the Islamic world) was welcomed into Germany as a charity case, but began to bite the hand that fed him as soon as he arrived.  The man was literally raised to oppose Western Civilization.  How could we be shocked when he did so?

You and I know what to make of this situation; any rational person does.  The only possible conclusion is that we must find a way to identify such people – people raised with that anti-Western culture as part of their zeitgeist – and keep them out of our countries.  Use the tools of immigration control at our borders to turn them away.  If it’s not easy, close the borders completely until we find a way.  This is obvious to a functioning mind; it should go without saying.

But the modern European mind cannot allow itself to think so rationally.  The modern European mind has been conditioned as well: to believe that charity trumps security, that multiculturalism trumps our own culture, to believe, in fact, that no culture is better or worse than another, that such “rational thinking” as we have described above, countering such modern openness, must be identified as unacceptable bigotry!

As we are rapidly learning – at Nice, at Paris, at London, at Wuerzburg, at Madrid, and now at Berlin – the openness of modern Europe to modern islamism is utterly suicidal.

Nationalism – Good and Bad

The Twentieth Century was a century of massive government growth.  From the tax-and-spend mentality of leftist economists to the daily drudgery of the job-killing regulations written by petty bureaucrats, it was a century in which government’s size and destructiveness were swollen to mammoth proportions.  Communism and fascism are identical in this, but they are often wrongly painted as being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

So it was that Nazism and Fascism, born with the claim of being nationalist movements, became painted as the right wing authoritarians, while Communism and Socialism, boasting a claim of internationalism, were freed from the Nazis’ taint.

Study their respective positions on the issues, and there can be no doubt: the only true difference between Nazis, Fascists, Communists and Socialists is their accents.  But as long as their puppets in the media, and their pawns in the educational system, continue to follow orders, we will continue to be told that Nazis and Fascists are nationalists, and their evil is rooted in that description… however little nationalism actually has to do with their big government philosophy.

The fact is, the basic idea of nationalism – a pride in one’s culture – is only a problem if one’s culture is a bad one. 

Western civilization – which boils down to a respect for equality under the law, for limited government and the Judeo-Christian traditions and religious outlook, honest efforts at universal literacy, universal employment and a fair shot at real, earned prosperity for all who are willing to work hard – is in fact something to be proud of.  Western civilization truly is, objectively, a good culture; so to be nationalistic about it makes perfect sense!

And since the United States was founded to be the culmination of all that – the absolute pinnacle of limited government, economic opportunity, religious freedom and political liberty in the Judeo-Christian tradition – it makes sense for the people of the United States to be the most nationalist of all.

We Americans are – or at least, certainly used to be – proud patriots.  And with good reason.

The Europeans have forgotten what they have to be proud of. They have accepted the lies of the political philosophers who poisoned the term of “nationalism” by linking it with Hitler and Mussolini. 

For Europe to protect itself from its current enemies, it must rediscover honorable nationalism, and understand again that pride in Western Civilization is not bigotry, but civilization itself.

A Time for Kach

When I was a boy, growing up in south Evanston and Rogers Park, we spoke with respect of a visionary political leader named Meir Kahane. He made his Aliyah in 1971, moving from the United States to Israel and soon running for office in the Knesset, the leader of the new Kach Party.  He was a flawed leader, and it was a flawed party; do not mistake my compliments for an endorsement of their errors.  But the Kach Party stood alone in certain areas, and it is for these that it deserves our attention today.

When the Kach Party was born in Israel in the 1970s, it stood up to state certain truths that “you just don’t say out loud:” that Israel is a great country, based on both a great religion and a great culture… that the leaders of the arab world are committed to Israel’s destruction… and that demographics are such that the Jews will lose control of their country to the islamist bigots who are committed to annihilation of Judaism, unless Israel takes rational measures such as more carefully defining and limiting Israeli citizenship and republican participation.

In those days, there were many moderate islamic countries (remember the days of a moderate Lebanon and a moderate Turkey?), and it seemed reasonable for kind westerners to believe that this might be a trend; that moderate islam would eventually come around and join the rest of us in peace.   In those days, the declarations of Kach that Israel must recognize islamist extremists as an existential threat were viewed as bigotry by the nation’s leaders.  The political elites got the Kach Party decertified as a political organization, banned it from participation in elections, branded its leaders and members forever as bigots.

Now, the worst they said about some members of Kach may in fact have been true… but branding the party this way also served to discredit the party’s key points, and those key points were in fact correct.

Fifty years along now, we can see that everything the Kach Party said in the 1970s was true; that islamic opposition to a free Israel would grow, not diminish, that the islamists would never be satisfied until the Jewish state was emptied of Jews and completely taken over by the caliphate.  The opponents of Israel no longer call themselves the PLO; now they go by ISIS or Taliban or Boko Haram, but they are the same haters, the same killers, the same extremists bent on wiping out the Judeo-Christian world.

We can see that Kach was right in the core issue, the worldview itself: Israel needed to be reminded that the Jewish culture is in fact something of which to be proud.  Israelis needed to be reminded that they have something to defend, something worth defending, a culture that is in fact objectively better than the bankrupt barbarism that surrounds them on all sides.

Israel learned that lesson the hard way, through the Intifada, a period of almost constant attacks by the so-called Palestinian refugee neighbors whom the Israelis have tried to help for decades, since their fellow arabs find the refugees too useful as political pawns to help them themselves.

The time has come for the West to learn what Israel is only now beginning to acknowledge:  That multiculturalism is a lie, that the Judeo-Christian worldview, and Western Civilization itself, is indeed objectively superior to that of the arab world.  And we must act accordingly... which means defending our culture against those who seek to weaken, and eventually destroy, this superior culture.

The first steps have been taken, in both Europe and the United States. The self-destructive multicultural socialism of Europe is being rejected, as Britain voted to Brexit, and as other EU member states are calling for exits of their own.  Angela Merkel is being mercilessly blamed – and rightly so – for her single-minded, suicidal insistence on inviting a million-strong invasion force into the very country that foolishly elected her as its head of state.  And the United States of America have rejected the Obama years with the election of Donald Trump, a man who – flawed as he may be – never let the term ‘political correctness’ stop him from stating a truth.

Western Civilization is better than barbarism. Governments have an obligation to protect their own people from external attackers. The Judeo-Christian worldview is better than the islamic worldview.  And we must take measures – in our education systems, our welfare states, our border controls, and our popular cultures – to again champion these facts.

We can no longer allow compassion to outrank good sense, or to allow substandard cultures to overrule our own.  If others prefer their cultures, that’s fine… let them stay in their own countries, with people who think as they do.

The United States Constitution, and the Founding Fathers who established it for us, represent the peak of human civilization. For a century now, we have allowed these icons to slip away from the respect they deserve. 

It is time we speak the truth, and defend our civilization again… peacefully whenever possible, but in any case, resolute in the recognition that Western Civilization is worth defending.

Copyright 2016 John F. Di Leo 

John F. Di Leo is a Customs broker, actor, and writer.  Active in his youth as president of the Northwestern University College Republicans, then president of the Ethnic American Council, vice chairman of the Chicagoland chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, and County Chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he has now been a recovering politician for nineteen years.

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included.



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality

The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality

shutterstock_110328875

As a psychologist treating homosexually oriented men, I’ve watched with dismay as the LGBT movement has convinced the world that “gay” requires a revised understanding of the human person.

The psychological profession is much to blame for this shift. Once, it was generally agreed that normality is “that which functions in accordance with its design.” There was no such thing as a “gay person,” for humanity was recognized as naturally and fundamentally heterosexual. In my 30-plus years of clinical practice, I have seen the truth of that original anthropological understanding.

Homosexuality is, in my view, primarily a symptom of gender trauma. Although some people may have been born with biological conditions (prenatal hormonal influences, inborn emotional sensitivity) that make them especially vulnerable to such trauma, what distinguishes the male homosexual condition is that there was an interruption in the normal masculine identification process.

Homosexual behavior is a symptomatic attempt to “repair” the original wound that left the boy alienated from the innate masculinity that he has failed to claim. This differentiates it from heterosexuality, which arises naturally from undisturbed gender-identity development.

The basic conflict in most homosexuality is this: the boy—usually a sensitive child, more prone than average to emotional injury—desires love and acceptance from the same-sex parent, yet feels frustration and rage against him because the parent is experienced by this particular child as unresponsive or abusive. (Note that this child may have siblings who experienced the same parent differently).

Homosexual activity will be the erotic reenactment of this love-hate relationship. Like all the “perversions”—and I use that term not to be unkind, but in the sense that homosexual development “perverts,” or “turns a person away from,” the biologically appropriate object of erotic attachment—same-sex eroticism contains an intrinsic dimension of hostility.

Thus, homosexuality is inherently rooted in conflict: conflict about the acceptance of one’s natural gender, conflict in the parent-child relationship, and usually, conflict regarding ostracism by same-sex peers. This means we will see the emergence of dominance-submission themes contaminating gay relationships.

For the homosexually oriented man, sexuality is an attempt to incorporate, “take in,” and “master” another male. It functions as a symbolic “possession” of the other person that is often more aggressive than loving. One client described his sexualization of fear-provoking men as “the victory of the orgasm.” Another, as the “orgasmic painkiller.”

There are some exceptions to the trauma model of homosexual development. We have found at our clinic another form of homosexuality that is characterized by a mutual, affectional attachment, most often seen in our adolescent clients and in some immature adults. In this type of homosexual attraction, there are no hostile-dependent features, but rather, a romantic adolescent quality—an infatuation that has a sexual manifestation. Such liaisons may occur for a period of months or years and then be abandoned, never to be resumed, as this phase of attraction passes.

Still, the general rule remains: If a child is traumatized in a particular way that affects gender, he will become homosexual, and if you do not traumatize a child in that particular way, the natural process of heterosexual development will unfold.

Many gay men report sexual abuse by a same-sexed person during their boyhood. Sexual molestation is abuse, because it comes disguised as love. Here is one client’s account of an older teen who molested him:

I wanted love and attention, and it got all mixed up with sex. It happened during a time when I really had no sexual interest in other boys… I thought he [the abuser] was cool. He never gave me any attention unless he wanted to fool around. When we did get sexual, it felt special… It felt exciting and intense, something between us, a shared secret. I had no other friends and my lousy relationship with my father didn’t help. I was looking for friendship…[but] the intensity of the memory… I hate it. The whole thing is just disgusting, disturbing…. This is the root cause of my same-sex attraction.

This client had made the following association: “In order to receive the good: i.e. ‘love’ and ‘attention,’ I must accept myself as shameful and bad: engaging in activity which is ‘frightening,’ ‘forbidden,’ ‘dirty,’ and ‘disgusting.’ ”

In therapy, as this client attended to the feelings in his body during an unwanted homo-arousing moment, he discovered that before he felt a homosexual feeling, he would invariably experience the sense of having been shamed by another man. In a reenactment of his childhood abuse, the “shamed self” proved to be a necessary prerequisite to his homosexual arousal.

The relationship between this client’s past abuse and his present-day homosexual enactment is an example of a repetition compulsion. In the search to find love and acceptance, he becomes entangled in repeating a self-defeating and self-punishing behavior, through which he unconsciously seeks to gain final victory and resolve his core injury. Repetition compulsion contains three elements: (1) attempt at self-mastery, (2) a form of self-punishment, (3) avoidance of the underlying conflict.

For such men, the pursuit of fulfillment through same-sex eroticism is spurred by the fearful anticipation that their masculine self-assertion will inevitably fail and result in humiliation. They opt for a ritualized reenactment with the hope that, unlike all other past occasions, “This time, I will finally get what I want; with this man, I will find masculine power for myself,” and “this time, the nagging sense of internal emptiness will finally disappear.” Instead he has given one more person the power to reject him, shame him, and make him feel worthless. When the shame-producing scenario is played out over and over again, this only reinforces his conviction that he really is a hopeless victim and ultimately unworthy of love.

Gay men often report craving an “adrenalin zap” which is heightened by an element of raw fear. There is an entire gay subculture of public sex that revels in the thrill of acting out in places like parks, public bathrooms and truck stops, and is erotically driven by the fear of discovery and exposure.

The act of sodomy itself is intrinsically masochistic. Anal intercourse, as a violation of our bodily design, is unhealthy and anatomically destructive, damaging the rectum and spreading disease because the rectal tissues are fragile and porous. Psychologically, the act humiliates and demeans a man’s dignity and masculinity.

Compulsive sexual acting-out—with its high drama and its promise of gratification—masks the deeper, healthier underlying drive to gain authentic attachment.

The dysfunction of the gay male world is undeniable. Scientific studies offer us evidence for the following sad comparisons:

Sexual Compulsivity is more than six times greater among gay men.

Gay men engage in partner interpersonal violence three times more often than do heterosexual men.

Gay men engage in the sadistic practices at much higher rates than do heterosexual men.

The incidence of mood disorders and anxiety disorders is almost three times greater among gay men.

Panic Disorder is more than four times greater than for heterosexual men.

 Bipolar Disorder is more than five times greater than heterosexual men.

Conduct Disorder is almost four times greater (3.8) than heterosexual men.

Agoraphobia (fear of being in public places) is more than six and a half times greater than among heterosexual men.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is more than seven times greater (7.18) than heterosexual men.

Deliberate Self Harm, (suicidality) is more than twice (2.58) to over ten times (10.23) greater than among heterosexual men

Nicotine Dependence is five times greater than heterosexual men

Alcohol Dependence is close to three times greater than among heterosexual men

Other Drug Dependence is more that four times greater than heterosexual men.

Promiscuity is well-illustrated in the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, two gay men who reported in their book The Male Couple (1984), that of 165 relationships they studied, not a single pair was able to maintain fidelity for more than five years. The authors—a gay couple themselves—were surprised to discover that outside affairs were not only not damaging to the relationship’s endurance, but were in fact essential to its very survival. They conclude: “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel” (p. 256).

By recognizing the love-hate dimension in homoerotic activity we can empathize with the homosexual man’s reparative attempt at resolution of his childhood trauma. This offers us a window of understanding as to why there continues to be deep dissatisfaction in the gay community in spite of unprecedented gains in gay social acceptability.

Homosexuality has no significance in the natural world other than as a symptom, a consequence of tragic events. Otherwise it is otherworldly, a figment made of fantasy and desire. But through the help of social media, Hollywood and political force (most recently, the Obama administration), a new definition of the human person has been invented. This linguistic sleight-of-hand has created a figment of the imagination; an erotic illusion has hijacked reality. Classical anthropology has been turned on its head and a new man has been contrived. When a person labels himself “gay,” he moves himself out of the natural realm and disqualifies himself from fully participating in human destiny.

From father to son to grandson to great-grandson, a man’s seed is his link to the generations. Through his DNA, he lives on in other lives. When implanted into the woman’s womb, his seed produces human life. But in homosexual sex, the seed of life can only result in decay and death.

In the natural sex act, the human race is preserved, and the man lives on through future generations. But in the trauma-driven sex act that violates our bodily design, his generative power engenders death and annihilation. And so the wisdom of the body presents this contrast: new life vs. decay and death.

No wonder we see so much dissatisfaction in the gay world; not just because of society’s disapproval, but because the man who lives in that world, senses the futility of a gay identity. It represents the termination of that long line of his ancestors who were once linked together, through the ages, in natural marriage.

In the real world, a gay identity makes no sense. Only as a symptom, as an eroticized reparation for attachment loss, does homosexuality have meaning.

(Photo credit: Shutterstock)



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, December 18, 2016

The Electoral College Meets Monday. Here’s What to Expect.

The Electoral College Meets Monday. Here’s What to Expect.

WASHINGTON — On Monday, 538 people will meet to determine who will be the next president.

These meetings of the Electoral College, convened in every state and the District of Columbia just shy of six weeks after Election Day, have long been little more than a formality.

But the victory of President-elect Donald J. Trump, who lost the popular vote but is projected to win the most electoral votes, has thrust the Electoral College into the spotlight once more. The conclusion of American intelligence agencies that Russia tried to intervene in the election to harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign has only intensified the focus in recent days.

The Run-Up

The podcast that makes sense of the most delirious stretch of the 2016 campaign.

President Obama on Friday described the Electoral College — originally a compromise between those who wanted Congress to choose the president and those who favored a popular vote — as a “ vestige.” As electors gather in state capitols across the country, here is a rundown of what comes next.

Who are the electors?

In short, the electors are people chosen by their state political parties to cast votes for president and vice president. Electors can be state party leaders or elected officials; sometimes they are individuals with a personal connection to a presidential candidate. Bill Clinton, for instance, is a New York elector this year.

The number of electors each state has is equal to its number of representatives and senators in Congress — 538 in total, with those extra three electors coming from the District of Columbia.

What happens on Monday?

Electors will meet in their states, typically at the capitol, where they will cast two votes: one for president and one for vice president.

They will then prepare what is called a “certificate of vote” with the results, which is then mailed or delivered via courier to the National Archives, where it becomes part of the nation’s official records, and to Congress.

Do electors have to vote according to popular vote results in their states?

Not necessarily. At least one elector has said he will buck his party and not vote for Mr. Trump. Nothing in the Constitution, or in federal law, binds electors to vote a particular way. There are some state laws that bind them to vote according to the popular vote outcome in that state; others are bound by more informal pledges to their party.

Under some state laws, so-called faithless electors who vote against their state’s results may be fined or even disqualified and replaced. No elector has been prosecuted for doing so, but then again, almost every elector has voted with his or her state’s results in the past. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether pledges and the related penalties are constitutional.

Who counts the electoral votes?

On Friday, Jan. 6, at 1 p.m., members of the House and Senate will meet in the House chamber to count those votes. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as the departing president of the Senate, is expected to preside over the count, during which every state’s vote is opened and announced in alphabetical order.

Mr. Biden will then declare the winner based on who has the majority of votes — at least 270. (That has led, three times, to an awkward moment when the sitting vice president has announced his own defeat, according to the House historian’s office. That happened most recently in 2001, to Al Gore.)

And that’s it?

Not quite. At that point, Mr. Biden will ask if there are any objections, and lawmakers can then challenge either individual electoral votes or state results as a whole. If an elector has chosen to vote against state results, that is the moment when lawmakers can petition to throw that vote out.

Objections must be in writing and signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. If there are any objections, the House and Senate then immediately split up to consider them and have just two hours to decide whether they support the objection or not.

Both chambers will then reconvene and share their decisions; if both the House and the Senate agree with the objection, then they will throw out the votes in question. But Congress has never sustained an objection to an electoral vote.

After any and all objections have been resolved, the results are considered final. The next step is to swear in the winner on Jan. 20.



Sent from my iPhone

Political Reform for America

Political Reform for America

As I travel the state to speak with civic organizations, churches, and black leadership groups about the Republican Party, the most prevalent question is this: What have Republicans done to better the lives of African Americans in Georgia? It’s a fair question and one that I don’t shy away from answering. In fact, I welcome the question with hopes that they will in turn ask the Democrats the same.  If black American citizens are not asking this crucial question of both political parties, how can voters be adequately informed to cast a ballot for state, local, and national leaders? In many ways, progress towards political parity, however slight, was made in the 2016 Presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary.  The Black American vote for President dropped from 94% in 2012 for President Obama to 88% for Hillary Clinton.  The real story here is Trump’s methods to appeal to white American voters succeeded while Hillary Clinton’s appeal as kryptonite for race issues not only fell flat but digressed considerably.  More and more, black Americans are willing to look at key performance indicators before walking lock step with the status quo.

Hillary’s campaign failed to convince on issues still important to black American progress including; 

Job Creation
Crime Prevention
Education Reform and Access to Quality Options
Strengthening Family Life and Structure
Unfair Competition from Undocumented Workers
National Interests before Globalism (taking care of home first)
Strengthening Local Lending Institutions and the Small Business Administration, and
Criminal Justice Reform

We should expect Democrats to create a real agenda and to engage with more than just the black elite gatekeepers in 2020 or they are once again doomed for failure. Trump’s election brings new opportunity to be influencers on the inside and not just complainers on the outside.  Football legend and community activist Jim Brown is on board quoted as saying I fell love him today on CNN.  What kind of love is this of which Jim Brown speaks?  Is it a deep love of his people he is putting before politics?  Is Jim Brown and other black activists like Ray Lewis visiting with Trump to put an urban reform agenda before democrat party loyalty?

I can’t remember Barack Obama having activists and black business leaders in high profile visits to discuss issues impacting the black community in 2008. Trump’s awkward but pertinent “What have you got to lose” question, should have been phrased by Clinton as the statement Here’s an agenda that you will gain! But she didn't.  At least not in terms that people like comedian Dave Chappelle believed. Three days before he voted for her, he admitted that she wasn’t right for black America.  What political reforms are right for black Americans?  How do we influence the agenda of President Elect Donald Trump? Georgia offers an example of what our influence on a leader can do.  Since Republican Governor Nathan Deal took office in 2010, over 275,000 new private sector jobs have been created in Georgia, and our state rose to number one in CNBC’s America’s Top States For Business. Ranging from technology to manufacturing, film and entertainment to retail, our state is the hub of economic growth and expansion. Now a proposed tax credit for the music industry and small business-friendly regulations, black American entrepreneurs will be a part of this record job growth. Governor Nathan Deal, (R-GA) and his colleagues in the Georgia General Assembly have passed new criminal justice reforms that have reduced costs while enhancing outcomes. Breaking out of partisan rhetoric, Republican leaders in Georgia have listened to the justice concerns of black Georgians and went to work.  This is a newly created table of influence for reform and Georgia leads the way for Trump to move nationally.  Georgia has literally reduced the prison industrial complex turning some prisons slated for operation into community centers. According to recent reports, prison sentences imposed on African Americans have dropped by 20 percent. This unmistakable downward trend is a direct result of the expansion of accountability courts throughout the state. In the first quarter of 2014, more than four thousand people were enrolled in accountability courts throughout the state, and many of these Georgians would likely be in prison today if it weren’t for the bold leadership of Republicans like Gov. Deal.  Instead of being locked in a cell, they are home with family. Not only are we seeing improvements with the adult Criminal Justice system, we have also seen ample funding to correct the juvenile justice system too. Republicans reinvested more than $7 million in incentive grant funding to the juvenile justice system. This financial support gives communities more opportunities to offer more non-confinement sentencing options. Because of these efforts, Georgia expects to see more of our nonviolent youth who have made mistakes return society with the skills they need to make a positive impact in their communities. From job creation and criminal justice reform to enhancing educational opportunities for children through school choice, Republican leaders like Governor Nathan Deal are working tirelessly to make life better for all of us. While it may seem counter culture to support conservatives at the ballot box, it’s difficult to deny the amazing progress made by Republican leaders at various levels of government. As we move beyond the politics of skin color, and the limiting box of cultural social pressures, let us remember that good policymaking uplifts us all. It’s clear that Georgians want what’s best for our children and grandchildren.  We want political reform leaders who are responding today to secure a better tomorrow.   Uplifting and empowering policy is to be expected if not demanded from our new President. .



Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Neighbors concerned about Tallassee Forest plans

Neighbors concerned about Tallassee Forest plans

An Athens-Clarke County government proposal to turn an undeveloped 310-acre tract in the western end of the county into a public park accentuating the area’s ecological diversity and other natural attributes raised concerns among residents of the two subdivisions immediately adjacent to either side of the land.

Neighbors of the proposed Tallassee Forest park off Tallassee Road are worried the plan to leave the area largely undeveloped, but with water and restroom facilities available, and plenty of acreage where people might be able to camp undetected, could turn the park into a haven for homeless people and other vagrants — “urban outdoorsmen” was a term used by one resident — who might in turn wander into their neighborhoods.

Another nearby resident, Joan Rhoden, said including restroom facilities and water fountains in plans for Tallassee Forest will almost certainly make it attractive to the homeless. With those two things available, she said, “you’ve got living spaces.”

Subdivision residents point to Ben Burton Park, a county-operated park a few miles away on Mitchell Bridge Road, as an example of their concerns. Ben Burton Park, where the parking area and other parts of the facility are out of public view, routinely has been a site for illicit sexual activity and other crime.

Residents of the area near the proposed Tallassee Forest were among the dozens of people who attended a public input session Tuesday night in downtown Athens where representatives of the county’s Leisure Services Department presented a draft master plan for the park.

Broadly, that plans calls for the front of the tract, immediately off Tallassee Road near Burney-Harris-Lyons Middle School, to be the most heavily developed part of the acreage. That area will include vehicle parking, restroom facilities, a picnic pavilion, a children’s play area and wide walking trails.

The interior of the tract, on the other hand, will remain largely undeveloped, featuring only a network of interlocking trails with overlook areas where visitors can learn about the various ecological features of the park.

At Tuesday’s public input session, Leisure Services staff members acknowledged neighbors’ concerns about security, and pointed out one way to reduce the possibility that the facility is used by vagrants is, just as the plan proposes, to concentrate the public presence in the park. Having parking and other intensive activities at the front of the park will ensure members of the public can pay attention to who is using the facility, Leisure Services personnel indicated Tuesday.

Additionally, a Leisure Services survey on planning for Tallassee Forest asks respondents to indicate whether they would favor staffing the park with “rangers” who would be “dedicated to ensuring the safety of the visitors and resources in woodland parks, greenways, and water trails.” That survey, along with the proposed master plan for Tallassee Forest, is available online at http://bit.ly/2gJqK9o.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the county’s survey was counterbalanced by a petition being circulated by nearby residents opposed to the Tallassee Forest plan. The petition contends there will be “no way to adequately monitor the activities of those who will frequent this park.”

The petition goes on to assert the park will bring additional traffic to the area, could adversely affect residential property values, and could also disturb the ecology of the now-undeveloped tract, possibly forcing animals now living there into the surrounding neighborhoods.

The draft master plan now being circulated marks the second time within the last couple of years that the county has advanced a proposal for the tract. The land was acquired by the county a few years ago with $525,000 in local sales tax revenue and a grant from the Chattanooga-based Riverview Foundation.

Athens-Clarke County Commissioner Jerry NeSmith, whose district includes Tallassee Forest, was at Tuesday’s public input meeting, and told people attending the session that the current proposal “is much more sensitive” than the previous plan in recognizing the ecological importance of the area.

In addition to hosting dozens of species of butterflies, the tract also hosts 65 bird species, 43 species of trees, vines and shrubs, 137 different kinds of spring wildflowers and plants and 13 species of aquatic invertebrate creatures.

On Wednesday, NeSmith said that even with the first proposal for developing the park, neighbors were concerned about security issues, and shared those concerns with him. Area residents plan to do the same in connection with the latest plan, and are working to schedule a January neighborhood meeting with NeSmith.

Regarding residents’ worries about people bringing unwelcome activity into the proposed park, NeSmith said, “I share those concerns. I think they are real.” But, he countered, the mere fact that the area will be open to the public, meaning there will be numerous eyes on activities in Tallassee Forest, offer some assurance that problematic behavior and issues can be addressed.

NeSmith also pointed out that much of the front of the park will be visible from Tallassee Road, meaning law enforcement officers patrolling the area will be able to see what is happening in the facility.

But, NeSmith acknowledged, “we do have to make it a good environment.”



Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Tillerson: Trump's First Clunker

Tillerson: Trump's First Clunker

The values that made America what she became do not include dismembering babies in the womb and celebrating sexually deviant behavior. 

On cabinet appointments, Donald Trump was doing great until yesterday when he laid the proverbial egg by nominating ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State. 

The Secretary of State represents the United States and its values and interests to the rest of the world. As the one who speaks for the president on matters of international affairs, it is absolutely crucial that the man who holds this office will be fronting the principles on which America was founded and which have made America the most powerful, prosperous, and free nation in world history. 

The values that made America what she became do not include dismembering babies in the womb and celebrating sexually deviant behavior. 

As George Washington observed in his Farewell Address: 

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." 

By “Religion,” Washington meant Christianity, and by “Morality” he meant the Ten Commandments. These are “indispensable supports,” which means you cannot do without them. They are not elective courses in public policy but required ones. It’s not possible, Washington said, to have a politically prosperous nation without a vibrant, robust Christian faith and a shared conviction that the standards of morality enshrined in the Ten Commandments represent a guide for conduct superior to any other. 

Simply put, a Christian nation will be a moral nation, and a moral nation will be prosperous. You cannot have the third of these without the first two. This is the ultimate lesson of the American political experiment for the nations around the globe: If you want to have what America has had, we say to the world, this is where you have to start. 

And who doesn’t want to have what America has had? That’s why people are trying by the millions to sneak into this country while we are not trying to sneak into theirs. 

Further, Washington said, a man cannot call himself a patriot unless he affirms and upholds Christianity and the Ten Commandments as the two “great pillars of human happiness.” Whatever else we may want a Secretary of State to be, surely we want a man who is a true patriot. 

Two of the ten values etched in stone in the Decalogue are the sanctity of all human life (“Thou shalt not murder”) and the sanctity of natural marriage (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”). 

Unfortunately, Rex Tillerson fails the test on both counts. As FRC’s Tony Perkins said, TIllerson may be “the greatest ally liberals have in the Cabinet for their abortion and LGBT agendas.” 

ExxonMobil, under Tillerson’s leadership, gives boatloads of money directly to Planned Parenthood, which destroys over 330,000 innocent helpless babies every year and was exposed last year as an organization which shamelessly profits from its butchery by selling body parts of dead babies to the highest bidder. 

Further, Tillerson led the charge to pressure the Boy Scouts of America to allow open homosexuals to serve as scout masters. According to the Dallas Morning News, “Tillerson was instrumental in lobbying the Scouts’ board to accept openly gay youths.” The BSA says, “"He was instrumental in leading the organization through an important period of growth and development.” This was the period which culminated in allowing adult homosexuals - who are predisposed to pedophilia in alarming numbers - to serve as scout leaders for impressionable (and vulnerable) teenage boys. 

We have endured eight years of an administration that has promoted and protected abortion and sexually deviant behavior not only in America but around the world. There is no way on earth we should accept another four to eight years of the same kind of irresponsible and reckless moral leadership on the international stage. 

To this point, I have been quite happy with Trump’s cabinet picks. But this choice is a clunker. Bottom line: Rex Tillerson is not qualified to serve this nation as Secretary of State.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio. Likewise no comments directed at the moderator(s) will be approved.)


Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Pentagon Classifies Evangelical Christians, Catholics as “Extremists”

Pentagon Classifies Evangelical Christians, Catholics as “Extremists”

By Todd Starnes

The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!

The Pentagon also considered the Southern Poverty law Center’s “hate group” list a “reliable source” for determining extremism and labeled “Islamophobia” as a form of religious extremism.

The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.extreme

The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.

PENTAGON CALLS FOUNDING FATHERS EXTREMISTS

CHECK OUT THE ARMY’S LIST OF DOMESTIC HATE GROUPS

“The materials we obtained establish that the U.S. military violated its appropriate apolitical stance and engaged in a dishonorable mischaracterization of multiple faith groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, an organization that represents thousands of military chaplains.

The documents show an unknown number of equal opportunity officers were trained at Fort Jackson, SC, using information obtained from the SPLC.

The training material was made public after a soldier who attended the briefing alerted Chaplain Alliance.

“He considers himself an Evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews said. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”

The soldier “produced the slides based on EO Leader’s Course Program of Instruction obtained from the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,” the document reads.

In addition to the slide presentation, the Reserve unit was also shown a video provided by the SPLC and Teaching Tolerance. The trainer told her superior officers she showed the video because it was part of the “EO Advisor course curriculum.”

Crews is calling on the Pentagon to stop relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center or any other group that considers mainline religious organizations to be extremist or terrorist groups.

“Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” Crews said. “The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings.”

The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment. Last April, spokesman George Wright told Fox News the training briefing in Pennsylvania was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”

“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”

The Army said the slide was removed, the presenter apologized and they considered the matter closed.

“Mr. Wright’s response is accurate but incomplete,” Crews told Fox News. “Yes, the one offensive slide was deleted, but how many other EO officers continue to use the SPLC as a source for training materials?”

SARAH PALIN SAYS YOU NEED TODD’S LATEST BOOK – DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA. CLICK HERE TO GET YOUR COPY!



Sent from my iPhone

Trump's Secretary of State pick: What every American should know about Rex Tillerson By Robert Charles

Trump's Secretary of State pick: What every American should know about Rex Tillerson

Rex Tillerson

Rex Tillerson  (AP)

Trump has done it again.  Bang.   Another fascinating, deep, insightful choice – Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State.  What should every American know about this selection?  A few things they may not have heard yet. 

Exxon’s Chairman and CEO, Rex Tillerson is another novel choice, as edgy in diplomacy as he is proven in business.  What do we know about Tillerson?  What does what we know tell us about Tillerson’s prospects for diplomatic success?  Much and much.  First, an engineer by trade, he is an accomplished manager.  That is two legs up on most of the State Department. 

Tillerson has managed Exxon’s holdings in Russia and the Caspian Sea for almost two decades.  That alone suggests potential negotiating depth needed to resolve the Ukraine/Crimea problem with Russia, emphasis on economic variables and mutually agreed geopolitical and sovereignty considerations.  The wider world would celebrate it – as Americans should. 

What else is knowable and what might it mean for American diplomacy?  Tillerson’s age and depth in global “big picture” and “big power” sensitivities may, in fact, dovetail exceptionally well with former General Officers likely to lead Defense, Homeland Security, and the National Security Council.  Those who have been around the block, albeit in different directions, tend to know the block.

Tillerson’s ties include time with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Business Roundtable and Business Council, which augur in favor of balance when it comes to preserving pro-American international trade relationships – and avoiding any sudden tips toward runaway protectionism.  He is obviously close to Russia, but in an age where strains and miscommunication have been the hallmark of American diplomacy, with Russia and the world, there is room for improvement in that relationship, as there is with others globally.

And here is another unheralded bonus.  Anyone who has spent time on the 7th floor of the U.S. State Department (and I have), knows that being Secretary of State is about one-on-ones, personal and unblinking, detailed and bilateral connectivity.  That is how you get results in diplomacy, whether on that floor or flying around the world. 

John Foster Dulles used to command attention – and get significant results – with presence and wit, focus on person and detail.  Colin Powell did the same thing.  One-on-one is where proverbial rubber meets road, where trust forges agreements, and the agreements do not get broken. 

Said Dulles, “A man’s accomplishments in life are the cumulative effect of his attention to detail.”  Said Powell, “Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.”  Tillerson is cut from that same cloth, combining those exact qualities – verified by his life’s work.  More to the point, where he has served other shareholders to now, we are all about to become the shareholders – all Americans – that he serves.  How about that?  

The downside, if any, is that he will not know the knotty, peculiarly intractable and unavoidably political world of the State Department – or the way in which that ungainly department interacts – and must – with Congress.  That said, anyone who can lead an enterprise the size of Exxon, can recruit the necessary leadership to run State. 

Perhaps most splashy, his salary will drop to 1/145th of the Exxon salary, if he accepts any government compensation.  It will plummet from $27.2 million dollars annually (without other package elements) to $186,600 annually.  Odds are, he will leave that drop unnegotiated – signaling a new era in government service and diplomacy.

What is the take-away from this savvy appointment?  A new professionalism is in the air – and it’s about time.  Whatever friction he may encounter in the wind tunnel of change, he is likely to do well, and bring a perspective not often seen in the Capitol.  

Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State for George W. Bush, former Naval Intelligence Officer and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.  He writes widely on national security and law. 



Sent from my iPhone