• Media Blackout: Trump Rescinded "Delegation Of Authority" To VA Under Secretaries, Asst. Secretaries & Other Key Officials

    Media Blackout: Trump Rescinded “Delegation Of Authority” To VA Under Secretaries, Asst. Secretaries & Other Key Officials

    (The Washington Standard) As is the case with many things that take place, the media was virtually MIA (Missing in Action) when it came to a President Donald Trump’s rescission of the delegation of authority to the Veterans Administration.  However, The Washington Standard have obtained a copy of the memorandum signed by United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert L. Wilkie.

    My colleague, Lauren Price from Veteran Warriors, provided me with the documentation, which took her weeks if not month to obtain. READ MORE...

  • Most Expensive Midterm Ever: Special Interests Paid Billions for a Shot at Ruling Over You

    Most Expensive Midterm Ever: Special Interests Paid Billions for a Shot at Ruling Over You

    When I first started out as an independent journalist in 2007, I remember interviewing a congressional candidate who put his law career on hold to seek public office. Through my naive and hopeful eyes, before the interview, I looked from afar and wondered what may have inspired him to serve the public. Was it to reform corruption, stop the wholesale fleecing of the citizens of Louisiana by their criminal government, or was he standing up for a noble cause?

    Turns out, I was wrong on all fronts. When I asked him why he chose to run for Congress his answer back to me—knowing that this was going to go on record—was “I thought I could win.” READ MORE...

  • Deconstructing the Postmodern Thinkers

    Deconstructing the Postmodern Thinkers

    Not long ago, a friend of mine—an Air Force veteran now serving elsewhere in the public sector—interviewed a young, well-spoken, female applicant with a strong academic portfolio from a respected public university. A few questions into the interview, she started talking about “power structures” and their influence on every part of society. My friend, a bit bewildered, asked her to explain. He got a mouthful of pedantic jargonese about race and power that implied that he, a white male, was perpetuating a system that exploited and oppressed all manner of disenfranchised peoples, including the applicant, an Asian American. My friend patiently reminded the applicant that insinuating that he was racist might not be the most advised means of acquiring a job. READ MORE...

  • Trump Has a Chance for a History-Making Deal With North Korea

    Trump Has a Chance for a History-Making Deal With North Korea

    President Trump and North Korean President Kim Jong Un shake hands in summit room, June 12, 2018. (Office of the President of the United States/Public Domain)

    President Donald Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un can truly make history during their talks in Vietnam come late February. But transforming an adversarial relationship built on tough talk, nuclear threats, and the danger of a Second Korean War that could kill millions won’t be easy. It can only be done with ingenuity, outside-the-box thinking, and that X factor that only Trump brings to the table. READ MORE...

  • Media Outlets Slime Teens for Wearing 'MAGA' Hats

    Media Outlets Slime Teens for Wearing ‘MAGA’ Hats

    Editor’s note: Media distortion of the recent encounter between Catholic schoolboys and a Native American activist near the Lincoln Memorial, and The Daily Signal’s coverage of that, prompted an outpouring from our audience. That’s the topic today. Write us at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre

    Dear Daily Signal: “Tribal elder” Nathan Phillips speaks with a forked tongue, is my take on Katrina Trinko’s commentary (“The Left’s Use of Intimidation to Silence Christians“). Video of the entire incident shows Phillips is lying. READ MORE...

  • Veteran Formally Accuses Obama & Mueller Of Treason

    Veteran Formally Accuses Obama & Mueller Of Treason

  • Partisan Gridlock Remains Despite President's Worthy Calls for Unity

    Partisan Gridlock Remains Despite President’s Worthy Calls for Unity

    Eloquence is not a characteristic associated with President Donald Trump, but in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, the president not only rose to the occasion, he also delivered a message that was beautifully crafted by his speechwriters, a speech devoid of much of the divisive and combative language that has characterized his first two years in office.

    It was also well-delivered and well-received, if not by every member of Congress, then by 76 percent of those who watched it, according to a CBS News instant poll. READ MORE...

  • South Carolina Man Converts To Islam - Plants Explosives All Over Anderson County

    South Carolina Man Converts To Islam – Plants Explosives All Over Anderson County

    Yet another convert to Islam gets the idea that his new religion commands him to commit treason and mass murder. Despite the fact that this is a frequently occurring phenomenon, authorities have nowhere shown the slightest degree of interest in studying it.

    “Anderson man, who warned of jihad, sentenced to 30 years for using homemade explosives,” by Daniel J. Gross, Anderson Independent Mail, February 8, 2019:

    An Anderson man who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State has been sentenced for using weapons of mass destruction after authorities found several homemade explosive devices around Anderson County.

    Wesley Dallas Ayers, 27, was sentenced to more than 30 years in federal prison and five years of supervised release after previously pleading guilty, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced Friday.

    Ayers admitted that he constructed and placed three explosive devices in various parts of Anderson County between Jan. 24, 2018 and Feb. 24, 2018, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

    Ayers pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in letters and warned of a jihad, according to investigators’ testimony in a federal court hearing before he pleaded guilty.

    One of the devices, placed at the intersection of Travis and Martin roads in Anderson County, detonated and injured one person, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

    The other two devices were located and intercepted by law enforcement before they caused any harm.

    Three hoax devices were also placed around Anderson County that resembled explosives but were not. In some devices, Ayers left notes indicating that more powerful devices were to come, according to the statement.

    His arrest came after a month-long investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office and various other law enforcement agencies.

    Authorities searched Ayers’ property that showed items consistent with the manufacturing of explosive devices. READ MORE...

  • Montesquieu: Biggest influence (besides God) on Constitution

    Montesquieu: Biggest influence (besides God) on Constitution

    “Society … must repose on principles that do not change” – wrote Montesquieu in Book 24 of “The Spirit of the Laws.”

    Montesquieu was a French political philosopher whose books were read by Catherine the Great of Russia, praised in England, and banned by Louis XV of France. He greatly influenced America’s founders, with Thomas Jefferson even translating Destutt de Tracy’s Commentary on Montesquieu, Aug. 12, 1810.

    In 1984, the American Political Review published “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th-Century American Political Thought,” written by Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston, and Charles S. Hyneman. After reviewing nearly 15,000 items written between 1760 and 1805, Lutz and Hyneman discovered that the writers of the Constitution quoted Montesquieu more than any other source except the Bible.

    Montesquieu divided governments into three categories, describing what motivating force, or “spring,” as in a wind-up clock, each relied upon:

    • Republics, most prevalent in northern European Protestant countries, relied on Virtue
    • Monarchs, most prevalent in southern and western European Catholic countries, relied on Honor
    • Despots, most prevalent in Islamic countries, relied on Fear

    “Republic” is a “popular government” where the people rule themselves, being conscious that each citizen will be held accountable to a God who wants them to be fair.

    “Monarch” is a king with strings attached, having a conscience and being limited by laws, traditions, Judeo-Christian beliefs, and a class of powerful noblemen.

    “Despot” is a king with no strings attached, who rules without a conscience, according to his whims and caprices, exercising absolute and arbitrary power:

    • absolute, meaning the moment he says something it is the law
    • arbitrary, meaning no one can predict what he will say next

    Montesquieu understood that man’s nature was inherently selfish and, opportunity provided, any person could be tempted to accumulate power and become a despot. St. Augustine called this “libido dominandi” – the lust to dominate.

    Montesquieu explained that once virtue is gone, a republic will become lawless. Power will gravitate from the many to the few, “popular” government will be replaced by a despot, who will usurp power and rule through fear: “It is the nature of a Republican government that … the collective body of the People … should be … the Supreme Power. … In a Popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, Virtue. … The politic Greeks, who lived under a Popular government, knew no other support than Virtue. … When Virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice (greed) possesses the whole community. … When, in a Popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone.”

    Montesquieu continued: “As Virtue is necessary in a Republic … so Fear is necessary in a Despotic government: with regard to Virtue, there is no occasion for it. … Fear must therefore depress their spirits, and extinguish even the least sense of ambition. … Of a Despotic government, that a single person … rule according to his own will and caprice. … He who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of Virtue than in a popular government. …”

    Montesquieu added: “Such are the principles … of government … in a particular Republic they actually are … Virtuous … in a particular Despotic government by Fear.”

    In contrasting which religion supports a moderate Monarch or Republic, and which supports a Despot, Montesquieu wrote in “The Spirit of the Laws,” 1748: “A moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. … The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. As this religion forbids the plurality of wives, its princes are less confined, less concealed from their subjects, and consequently have more humanity: they are more disposed to be directed by laws, and more capable of perceiving that they cannot do whatever they please. While the Mahometan princes incessantly give or receive death, the religion of the Christians renders their princes … less cruel. The prince confides in his subjects, and the subjects in the prince. How admirable the religion which, while it only seems to have in view the felicity of the other life, continues the happiness of this! … It is the Christian religion that … has hindered despotic power.”

    Montesquieu continued: “From the characters of the Christian and Mahometan religions, we ought, without any further examination, to embrace the one and reject the other: for it is much easier to prove that religion ought to humanize the manners of men than that any particular religion is true. It is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.”

    Of the Christian religion, Montesquieu examined: “When the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south adhered still to the Catholic. The reason is plain: the people of the north have, and will forever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not; and therefore a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independence of the climate than that which has one. … When a religion is introduced and fixed in a state, it is commonly such as is most suitable to the plan of government there established.”

    Montesquieu compared Lutheran and Calvinist countries: “In the countries themselves where the Protestant religion became established, the revolutions were made pursuant to the several plans of political government. Luther having great princes on his side … an ecclesiastical authority … while Calvin, having to do with people who lived under republican governments. … Each of these two religions was believed to be perfect; the Calvinist judging his most conformable to what Christ had said, and the Lutheran to what the Apostles had practiced.”

    Warning of the abuse of power when concentrated, Montesquieu introduced the revolutionary concept of separating the powers of ruling into three branches:

    • legislative
    • executive
    • judicial

    These three branches would selfishly pull against each other to prevent one from overpowering the others – thus using selfish power to selfish check power.

    The brilliance of this is equivalent to a Sunday school teacher giving an assignment – “Design a system of government where sinners keep other sinners from sinning.”

    Montesquieu wrote: “Nor is there liberty if the power of Judging is not separated from Legislative power and from Executive power. If it were joined to Legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the Judge would be the Legislator. If it were joined to Executive power, the Judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers.”

    James Madison echoed this in “The Federalist No. 51”: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. … If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary.”

    In “The Spirit of the Laws,” 1748, Montesquieu wrote: “I have always respected religion; the morality of the Gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man. We shall see that we owe to Christianity, in government, a certain political law, and in war a certain law of nations – benefits which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge. The principles of Christianity, deeply engraved on the heart, would be infinitely more powerful than the false Honor of Monarchies, than the humane Virtues of Republics, or the servile Fear of Despotic states.”

    In his “Considerations on the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans,” 1734, Montesquieu wrote: “It is not chance that rules the world. Ask the Romans. … There are general causes, moral and physical … elevating it, maintaining it, or hurling it to the ground. … If the chance of one battle – that is, a particular cause – has brought a state to ruin, some general cause made it necessary for that state to perish from a single battle. In a word, the main trend draws with it all particular accidents.”

    In the beginning of “The Spirit of the Laws,” 1748, Montesquieu wrote: “God is related to the universe as Creator and Preserver; the laws by which He created all things are those by which He preserves them. … But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical. … Man, as a physical being, is like other bodies governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error … hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion.”

    Baron Montesquieu died on Feb. 10, 1755.

    Montesquieu wrote in “The Spirit of the Laws,” 1748: “The Christian religion, which orders men to love one another, no doubt wants the best political laws and the best civil laws for each people, because those laws are, after (religion), the greatest good that men can give and receive.”

    Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com.

    Source link

  • The Truth About Border Walls' Effectiveness

    The Truth About Border Walls’ Effectiveness

    “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts.”

    That pithy observation is attributed to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served in the Senate from 1977 to 2001.

    The final two years of Moynihan’s stint in the Senate overlapped the first two years of that of his fellow New York Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer.

    President Donald Trump, at a rally set for Monday night on the border in El Paso, Texas, should remind Schumer of Moynihan’s maxim in their fight over the need for more walls and fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border to help stem the flood tide of illegal immigration.

    Schumer and his House counterpart, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are entitled to their opinions about Trump’s proposed border wall, but they aren’t entitled to their own facts.

    In their rebuttal to the president’s Jan. 9 nationally televised address outlining the need for a border barrier and his request for $5.7 billion in funding for them, both described the proposed wall as “ineffective”—Pelosi once and Schumer twice.

    In her rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, 2018 Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams didn’t echo Schumer and Pelosi’s “ineffective” claim, but she advanced an argument that was equally fallacious.

    “America is made stronger by the presence of immigrants, not walls,” Abrams said, disingenuously omitting the key adjective in this debate, “illegal.”

    Insisting that walls are “ineffective” over and over again doesn’t make it true. The facts on the ground—both in the U.S. and around the world—not only don’t support that opinion, they decisively refute it.

    Walls along four Customs and Border Protection sectors—El Paso; San Diego, Calif.; and Tucson and Yuma, Ariz.—have reduced illegal immigration “by at least 90 percent,” according to the Republican National Committee’s Borderfacts.com page.

    Byron York of the Washington Examiner recently cited figures from the Center for Immigration Studies showing that before construction of border barriers in Yuma, the Border Patrol apprehended 138,438 illegals in 2005, compared with 26,244 last year. While not 90 percent, that’s still a dramatic drop.

    The comparable before-and-after figures for the San Diego sector, according to the Border Patrol, were more than 565,581 in 1992 and 26,086 in 2017—a 95 percent reduction.

    Meanwhile, USA Today reported last May that “[s]ince the start of Europe’s migrant crisis in 2015, at least 800 miles of fences have been erected by Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Slovenia, and others.”

    Do Schumer and Pelosi know something all these other countries don’t? Not according to Hungary, which said that fencing on its border with Serbia helped reduce illegal immigration by nearly 100 percent since 2015, according to the USA Today report.

    Israel’s fencing along its borders with the Gaza Strip and West Bank, as well as with Egypt and Jordan, has likewise all but eliminated illegal immigration and terrorist attacks. (The Jewish state announced Feb. 3 that it was beginning construction of an additional 40 miles of 20-foot-high, state of-the-art fencing.)

    “Walls should not be controversial,” Trump said Jan. 25, when he called Pelosi’s bluff and agreed to reopen the government for three weeks so bipartisan negotiations on border security could proceed. “Every Border Patrol agent I’ve talked to has told me that walls work. It’s just common sense.”

    But for Schumer and Pelosi, a crass political calculus trumps (pun intended) common sense.

    Their only real reason now for opposing a wall that both previously supported—and with far more funding for it then than what’s on the table today—is to deny the president a win on border security.

    “We’ve seen that walls can and will be tunneled under, cut through, or scaled,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar, another California Democrat, echoing the Pelosi-Schumer line, referring to walls as “archaic solutions” to a “modern problem.”

    But as one of Trump’s presidential predecessors, John Adams, observed, “Facts are stubborn things,” and Aguilar isn’t entitled to his own facts, either, because in the absence of a wall, it isn’t necessary for illegal immigrants to tunnel under or scale it.

    More walls and fences of the sort Trump envisions would discourage many would-be illegal immigrants—especially women and children, who would be unable to scale them—from even attempting to migrate here from Central America in the first place.

    At a bare minimum, walls significantly slow down would-be illegal immigrants who attempt to climb over or tunnel under them, making it much easier for the Border Patrol to catch them than if there were no such obstacles.

    The concept of the path of least resistance suggests that additional walls would funnel would-be border crossers to areas where there are none. The need for fewer Border Patrol agents in walled areas would then enable the agents to be redeployed to where they are more urgently needed.

    “Our Border Patrol tells us they need physical barriers to help them do their job … strategically placed where traffic is highest,” said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

    That’s a keen grasp of what should by now be obvious, but even if Schumer and Pelosi don’t want to believe Trump that walls are effective, they should heed the Border Patrol agents who are the boots on the ground.

    Those agents know better than either Schumer or Pelosi what works and what’s needed for them to do their jobs, and they have said repeatedly that walls are a must.

    Even the head of the Border Patrol during the Obama administration has said that walls “absolutely work.”

    “I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of a multilayered border-security issue,” Mark Morgan said on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News Channel program on Jan. 7.

    “Why aren’t we listening to the experts and the people who do it every day?” he asked. “I don’t understand that.”

    The president should have had a group of uniformed Border Patrol agents as his guests in the House gallery during Tuesday night’s address.

    He could have turned around to Pelosi, sitting behind him, and pointed them out when he said of the wall: “It will be deployed in the areas identified by border agents as having the greatest need, and as these agents will tell you, where walls go up, illegal crossings go way down.

    It really is no more complicated than that.

    Source link