OH NOSTALGIA! Biden Times — Do You Remember These

The duplicity, the hypocrisy, the pandering, the devolution of liberals – never ceases to amaze —

But first

Flashback–Joe Biden in 2006: Border Fence, Mandatory E-Verify Necessary for Ending Illegal Immigration 

“Folks, I voted for a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats — and some of you won’t like it — I voted for 700 miles of fence. But, let me tell you, we can build a fence 40 stories high — unless you change the dynamic in Mexico and — and you will not like this, and punish American employers who knowingly violate the law when, in fact, they hire illegals. Unless you do those two things, all the rest is window dressing.”

Mr.Nuance also referred to corrupt Mexico leadership and the tons of TONS of drugs. And to use the term “illegals” to refer to God’s children.  Well you know where my vote will be.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Google’s bias no news to us

  • Confirmation OF bias

In addition to the undeniable left-wing bias in its so-called “Google’s Top Stories” box, try researching a story appearing in either the recent or long-ago past…one that many news outlets would have run.

We think you will find, that, if there is a possibility that each source might reflect its particular viewpoint…or even attempts to present the story as objectively as it’s possible to do, you will much more often than not that you will have to go through 5, 10, even 20 pages to get the story as reported by a reasonably objective outlet, much less a generally considered right-wing source. That is, if you find one at all.

Also interesting is the Daily Mail’s claim that the 20 media outlets surveyed in the “Google Top Stories” box were 62% left-leaning media sources.

But as you look for yourself through that list we think you’ll agree that maybe two or three (we are not that familiar with “The Verge” and it seems limited in scope) are not left leaning.

If one insists that Fox is right leaning (no mention as to what division they are referring to which makes such a conclusion arguable) and perhaps The Hill might be considered center right then the percentage is arguably 10% (two) not left-leaning and the rest  (90%) with the possible exception of The Verge are left leaning.

LESSON: If you want to be a researcher for conservative news and opinion media…find another line of work unless you have a lot of patience and an extraordinary tolerance for frustration.     DLH

Story by Jennifer Smith — excerpts from story below chart created by Northwestern University journalism researchers.

———————————————————————————————————-
Google’s left-leaning media bias revealed:

How CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post were promoted over their right-wing counterparts by the search engine which has more power than ever over what readers see

  • Stories from only 20 media outlets were featured in Google’s Top Stories box in November 2017
  • 62 percent of those outlets were considered to be left-leaning media sources
  • CNN accounted for 10 percent of the news promoted, The New York Times made up 6.5 percent and The Washington Post accounted for 5.6 percent
  • By contrast, Fox stories made up only three percent of the 6,302 articles
  • Google uses an algorithm to decide what goes in its Top Stories box
  • It is based largely on the popularity of a topic or of a viewpoint
  • The search engine has denied that it deliberately promotes left-leaning sites
  • It now has unprecedented power over what is promoted and how much traffic it sends to sites given Facebook’s recent scale back on news

. . .

Google’s left-leaning media bias revealed: How CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post were promoted over their right-wing counterparts by the search engine which has more power than ever over what readers see

Stories from only 20 media outlets were featured in Google’s Top Stories box in November 2017

62 percent of those outlets were considered to be left-leaning media sources
CNN accounted for 10 percent of the news promoted, The New York Times made up 6.5 percent and The Washington Post accounted for 5.6 percent

By contrast, Fox stories made up only three percent of the 6,302 articles
Google uses an algorithm to decide what goes in its Top Stories box
It is based largely on the popularity of a topic or of a viewpoint

The search engine has denied that it deliberately promotes left-leaning sites
It now has unprecedented power over what is promoted and how much traffic it sends to sites given Facebook’s recent scale back on news     . . .

Google’s bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others.

According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, the search engine promoted those sites over others repeatedly in November 2017.

Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google’s ‘top stories’ page that month after a term was searched, more than 10 percent were by CNN.

The New York Times was the second most favored and accounted for 6.5 percent of articles. The Washington Post was third with 5.6 percent.

By contrast, Fox News, the most right-wing outlet in mainstream media, was the source of just three percent of the stories which appeared.

Nearly all (86 percent) of the stories came from just 20 sources and of them, 62 percent were considered to be left-leaning.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Witchless Wray

We have remarked from time to time, that we suspected the Democrat Senators* knew what they were doing. They got just the FBI Director they wanted…since they couldn’t have “Big Jim” Comey.

 

Mr. Wray was confirmed by the Senate, 92-5, securing confirmation votes from all but 5 Democrats …a spectacular feat given the experience of every other Trump nominee to face a confirmation vote!

No surprise that the 5 Democrats voting against Wray were, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Eliabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley. Those 5 probably would not vote for any Trump nominee, regardless. They are founding members of the “cut off their noses to spite their faces” gang.

Since his ‘triumphant’ confirmation, Chris Wray has been seldom seen or heard from. Not much, it seems, has changed in the Bureau so far. Slow walking and stonewalling of requests from the then GOP-controlled House Investigating committees, continued under Wray and acting AG Rosenstein. The public revelation of the FBI’s reliance on the now discredited “Steele Dossier”, the “Strzok-Page” emails appears to not perturb him. Wray’s biggest “moment” was his appearance at a press conference at FBI headquarters in June, 2018.

Assessing the damage to the FBI under Comey, Wray ‘jumped right in there with his ‘solution ‘:

“Because change starts at the top—including right here with me—we’re going to begin by requiring all our senior executives, from around the world, to convene for in-depth training on the lessons we should learn from today’s report.

Then we’re going to train every single FBI employee—new hires and veterans alike—on what went wrong, so those mistakes will never be repeated.

“Third: We’re going to make sure we have the policies, procedures, and training needed for everyone to understand and remember what’s expected of us. “That includes:

Drilling home the importance of objectivity—and of avoiding even the appearance of personal conflicts or political bias in our work;
Ensuring that recusals are handled correctly and effectively—and are clearly communicated to the appropriate people;

Making all employees fully aware of our new policy on contacts with the news media, which I issued last November—and making clear that we will not tolerate non-compliance;

Ensuring that we follow all DOJ policies about public statements on ongoing investigations and uncharged conduct; and

Ensuring that our employees adhere strictly to all policies and procedures on the use of FBI systems, networks, and devices.

“I’ve also directed our associate deputy director to lead a review of how the FBI handles particularly sensitive investigations, and to make recommendations on how those should be staffed, structured, and supervised in the future—so that every sensitive investigation is conducted to the FBI’s highest standards.”

Aside from the keen insight on the issue he demonstrated, the Bureau under Mr. Wray has seemed to continue to function much as it had under AG’s Holder and Lynch, Acting AG Rosenstein, and FBI Director Comey, all as part of the “Deep State”.

No doubt because all this important ‘training’ was consuming Director Wray’s time, we’ve hardly heard a peep out of him since that press conference…until this past week. Here are just a few aspects of Wray’s reappearance that we would highlight:

– The Director seemed to be very anxious to assure the Democratic senators on the Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce Tuesday that he was no ‘puppet’ of his new boss, Attorney General William Barr

– “Spying”?…that’s not in Director Wray’s “colloquial wheelhouse”; General Barr may use the term, but not Chris Wray!

– No senator thought to ask Mr. Wray how he would define the term “spying”..or even if he ever heard of such a word.

– If anybody thinks that the ‘culture’ established and nurtured under the Holder, Lynch, Comey reign is going to change under the ‘leadership’ of Wray…think again, folks! DLH
—————————–

Here’s a few “highlights from Director Wray’s past that, maybe, should have been clues to the kind of FBI Director President Trump was getting. (No worries about Chris’s “loyalty” to the president!):

– Wray headed up the Justice Department’s criminal division from 2003 to 2005 under President George W. Bush (“expert” on “weird shit”)

– In 2004, Wray was among the top Justice Department officials, including Comey and then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, who threatened to resign after the Bush administration tried to bring back the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program that the organization found illegal.

– Wray also signed a 2015 letter to the Senate judiciary committee from a number of partners from his law firm endorsing Sally Yates’ nomination to become deputy attorney general. In the letter, the partners praise Yates for her “extraordinary legal skill and judgment.”

-Wray had given $53,350 to Republican candidates, committees and his law firm’s PAC since 2007, including to John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2016, FEC records show. There are no records of any contributions to Trump.

Coming into the Director’s job, Mr. Wray immediately identified the Bureau’s problems, as suggested by his “training agenda”, noted above:

– In his judgment, the 35,000 FBI employees did not realize the “importance of objectivity” in performing their vital duties ! Wow! Now there is an indictment!

– He strongly advocated that recusals be handled “correctly and effectively”. Again, Wow! Good thing Chris showed up when he did. You gotta wonder how those “recusals” had been handled !

– Director Wray also thought it a good idea that “all employees be aware of his new policy on ‘contacts with the news media’…and, that they should comply with that policy”! (Pretty groundbreaking concept, Chris.)

– The new boss also let it be known that he expected FBI employees to strictly adhere to “all policies and procedures on the use of FBI systems, nertworks, and devices”.

(DON’T YOU HAVE TO WONDER HOW THE FBI OPERATED BEFORE CHRISTOPHER WRAY ARRIVED?)      DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Trump is pursuing freer fairer trade policies

  • China reneged on trade– so pansies in the economic press and Wall Street crap their drawers and cry
  • China has a weak hand
  • Stay the course

Why China left Trump with little choice but to slap on the 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion of goods 

By Robert Romano

Just when it appeared that a new trade agreement with China was being finalized last week, Beijing abruptly attempted to change all the terms of the deal and walk back prior concessions that had been made to head off President Donald Trump’s threat to increase tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion of goods.

The changes had arrived on May 3 late in the evening and blew up months’ worth of negotiations.

According to Reuters’ David Lawder, Jeff Mason and Michael Martina, “In each of the seven chapters of the draft trade deal, China had deleted its commitments to change laws to resolve core complaints that caused the United States to launch a trade war: Theft of U.S. intellectual property and trade secrets; forced technology transfers; competition policy; access to financial services; and currency manipulation.”

It was an unacceptable situation. China was reneging on the deal. Trump had already delayed the 25 percent tariffs in January to give negotiations a chance to make a breakthrough. Then, on the eve of concluding the agreement, Beijing wanted to do a complete 180 on everything that had already been discussed.

Instantaneously, and in response, on May 5, President Trump said that the new tariffs were going into effect, giving May 10 as a hard deadline, which has now passed. The tariffs went up at midnight.

China’s erratic behavior in the past week necessitated Trump’s tariff threat, if for no other reason than to get the negotiations back on track. It could be argued that the only reason for the negotiations in the first place was because of the imminent tariffs.

Now, we can only surmise the apparent concessions by China were merely a delaying tactic, intended to test out how committed Trump was to the tariffs. And now China knows President Trump means business.

Which, it’s time to get tough. Since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, U.S. manufacturing market share has dropped from 13.4 percent to 7.5 percent in 2017, according to World Bank data. China has risen from 5.3 percent to 16.6 percent in 2017, although their percent of global manufacturing market share has peaked in 2015 at 18.8 percent.

During that time, the U.S. economy has not grown above 4 percent since 2000, and not above 3 percent in 2005 on an annual basis.

The trade in goods deficit with China hit a record high in 2018 at $419.1 billion according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And that was with President Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods that came atop a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of hi-tech goods.

Fueling the shift in production has been a competitive devaluation of China’s currency, the yuan. From 2014 alone after a period of revaluation, Beijing shifted from being worth 6.05 per dollar to about 6.8 today, a 12.6 percent devaluation.

China has a lot more to lose in a trade war than the U.S., too, according to data by the U.S. Trade Representative. China’s $539.5 billion of goods exports to the U.S. comprised almost 4.1 percent of its $13.28 trillion Gross Domestic Product in 2018 and about 22.5 percent of its $2.4 trillion of goods exports. In contrast, American goods exports to China were $120.3 billion, comprising 0.58 percent of the 2018 annual GDP of $20.5 trillion, and comparatively 7.2 percent of its $1.66 trillion of goods exports.

From 2000 to 2016, the U.S. lost nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs. There was some recovery after the financial crisis, and in addition, 470,000 manufacturing jobs have been created since President Trump came into office in 2017.

Labor participation among working age adults has dropped significantly through 2016, accounting for about 9 million people who would have been participating in the economy had labor participation remained the same. Since President Trump took office, that number is down to about 6 million or so as working age labor participation has increased, thanks in part to Trump’s new trade policies but also tax cuts and deregulation to make the U.S. more competitive globally.

None of the bad things that were supposed to happen because of the tariffs have come to pass. The economy grew at 2.9 percent in 2018. It has accelerated to 3.2 percent in the first quarter.

Unemployment is at a 49-year low at 3.6 in April.

Inflation is normal at about 1.9 percent the past 12 months as of this writing.

The negotiations are still ongoing, and a deal may still be had, but even if that does not happen, the world is not ending. The sun still rose today.

The point is, there is most certainly a case to be made for the President’s tariff stance. If anything, the question about the new tariff is not whether it is justified, but whether it is big enough?

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

Related reading:

How the US Can Solve the Current Trade Tariff Impasse With China

(spoiler alert: stay the course)

And oh by the way farmer friends — where is China getting what it needs? And those other suppliers – where are they unable to sell that you can’t supply?  No one can invent crop land so quick. The market is fungible and China can’t cut back and not have that be an incentive on them to get back to the table.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

MAKE MAXINE WATERS’ TAX RETURNS PUBLIC…NOW!

  • And the Speaker of the House she shares a brain with
  • How do they get away with this hypocrisy? Oh, we forgot . . .
  • AP touting ‘heroic’ Maxine

– WATERS’ ROLE’ AS A ‘MODEL’ FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY DOES A TERRIBLE DISSERVICE TO THAT COMMUNITY

– IF TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS CAN BE MADE PUBLIC, WHY NOT EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS’S (We’re betting Maxine’s would really be ‘revealing’!)

Maxine Waters a model for many outspoken freshman Democrats
By LAURIE KELLMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — She’s been called “Kerosene Maxine” and gaveled off the House floor for accusing Republican men of badgering women. She dismissed President Donald Trump and his allies as thugs and predicted his impeachment before he was sworn into office.

No one, Maxine Waters once observed, should be surprised by her. But after nearly three decades in Congress, the 80-year-old California lawmaker is in an eye-opening role as the highest-ranking African American woman in the country. She’s wielding the gavel of the bank-regulating Financial Services Committee with the power to investigate Trump where some say it counts most: his business dealings.

 

 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

What P T Barnum meant to say . . .

THE NINTH “WONDER OF THE WORLD” SEE IT NOW!

6 FOOT TALL MAN-EATING CHICKEN*

Only $10, Proceeds Go To Democratic National Committee

And here it is:

This is why P.T. Barnum meant to say “There’s a Democrat Voter Born Every Minute!”

—————————-

One more reason Steve Cohen is a runner-up to Maxine Waters and “Pencil-Neck” Schiff every year in the “Dumbest Clown in Congress”!

During a 2018 open congressional hearing of FBI agent Peter Strzok, Cohen said, “If I could give you a Purple Heart, I would… This has been an attack on you and a way to attack Mr. Mueller and the investigation that is to get at Russian collusion involved in our election.” (Veteran groups criticized his comment, as the Purple Heart is reserved of recognizing soldiers wounded in combat! Cohen apologized for his comments, saying “I regret mentioning the Purple Heart medal at yesterday’s hearing. My intent was to speak metaphorically to make a broader point about attacks against the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into a Russian attack on our country.” )

*One of the most incredible shows the world has ever seen was at the American Museum in New York in 1856. This museum contained a vast array of curiosities and freaks, but the most amazing highlight was the 6-Foot-Tall Man Eating Chicken.

Such a creature sounds impossible and horrific, but it was one of the key attractions of the museum. People would stand in line for a brief glimpse of such a beast. And who can blame them? After paying a few pennies for admission, they’d be ushered into a room, the curtains would be pulled back, and the stunning attraction would appear before them, just as described …

A tall man, seated at a table, gnawing on some chicken wings.
The greatest show on earth

Whatever else you say about P.T. Barnum, the mind behind the Man Eating Chicken, the fellow knew how to woo a crowd. While people didn’t always get exactly what they expected, they’d certainly be entertained.       DLH

Related reading here

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

The chaplain of one-world government is at it again

  • Proposes/endorses The InterState Highway to Serfdom
  • The Pope’s pathetic blandishments about nations; the demurral that this does not imply portend one-world government notwithstanding
  • This is about loss of freedoms contra Christian ethics
  • Cooperation does not require one-world government

Via Lifesitenews.com  (excerpt)

Pope Francis calls for new ‘supranational’ authorities to enforce UN goals

Featured Image
Pope Francis addresses the General Assembly during his visit to the United Nations headquarters in New York, U.S., Sept. 25, 2015. Luiz Rampelotto/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

ROME, May 2, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis made a strong new push for globalism on Thursday, calling for a supranational, legally constituted body to enforce United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and implement “climate change” policies. 

Speaking to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace, the Pope said: “When a supranational common good is clearly identified, there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.” 

“Think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new slavery and peace,” he told members of the Pontifical Academy, who are meeting this week at the Vatican for a plenary session themed: “Nation, State, Nation-State.” 

Featured speakers at the May 1-3 plenary include German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who spoke on: “Peace Stemming from Justice. Theological Reflections Between Men, Communities and Nations”; Archbishop Roland Minnerath of Dijon, France, who delivered the opening talk on day two, themed: “Nation, State, Nation-State and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church”; and German climatologist and founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who addressed the Pontifical Academy on “The State of the World.”

In his address to the academy, the Pope said that while “the principle of subsidiarity” requires that “individual nations must be given the power to operate as far as they can reach,” nonetheless “groups of neighboring nations — as is already the case — can strengthen their cooperation by attributing the exercise of certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests.” 

The thrust of the Pope’s remarks, however, focused on growing trends toward nationalism which he said threatens migrants, the “universal common good” and the power of the United Nations and other transnational bodies to implement the Sustainable Development Goal agenda. 

The Church “has always exhorted men to love their own people and homeland,” he said. “At the same time,” he added, “the Church has warned persons, peoples and governments about deviations from this attachment when it is about excluding and hating others, when it becomes conflictual nationalism that builds walls, indeed even racism or anti-Semitism.”

“The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism which neglects the common good,” Pope Francis continued.

“There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015,” he told members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

SDGs: eliminating poverty or children?

Many are concerned that some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while billed as aimed at eliminating poverty, are really about eliminating children. “Reproductive health services” for example, which are referred to in the SDGs, are often a euphemism frequently employed to mean abortion in UN debates. 

As Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute, explains:

Developing nations who adopt the SDGs will be pressured to legalize abortion, even though the word abortion never appears in the document. They will be told, falsely, that there is an “international consensus” that reproductive rights includes a right to abortion. They will be instructed that laws protecting the unborn violate this consensus and must be replaced with new laws permitting abortion on demand. And they will be threatened with the withholding of international aid unless they comply.

Pope Francis did give some recognition to concerns about “ideological colonization” of socially and morally conservative countries in the developing world in his remarks:

Multilateral bodies were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home. Of course, these bodies must ensure that States are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disregarding the identity, customs and traditions, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of such tendencies is weakening the multilateral system, with the result of a lack of credibility in international politics and a progressive marginalization of the most vulnerable members of the family of nations.

Pope Benedict XVI, affirming his predecessor John XIII, also called in Caritas et Veritate for a “true world political authority” to “manage the global economy,” “guarantee the protection of the environment,” “regulate migration,” and “bring about integral and timely disarmament” and work for the “common good.” 

In the same encyclical, however, Benedict XVI denounced “practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.” He also openly condemned ecomonic bodies for their lending policies which tie aid to “family planning,” writing: “There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures.”

‘Supranational common good’

LifeSite spoke with Dr. Alan Fimister, an internationally renowned authority on Catholic social teaching and Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Union. 

Dr. Fimister explained that, according to traditional Catholic social teaching, the temporal community or “State” is created by man’s natural needs and search for perfection in this world, and is the community that contains within itself everything required to attain that temporal perfection and security. 

But if it can no longer do so, then the logical result would be the creation of a larger unity, he said. “Obviously national states are held together by history and culture and not just economics and military necessity, so such amalgamations can be very delicate and sensitive, giving rise to potentially explosive tensions.” 

Fimister went on to say that the most obvious way in which the imperfection or inadequacy of a temporal community is manifested is defeat in war, such as the nations of Europe experienced between 1939 and 1945 “with the obvious exception of Britain,” he added.

“On the other hand,” he continued, “the heavenly destiny given to man on the Cross is the cause of the universal assembly or Catholic Church, so that new needs and priorities of the natural order are only accidentally supranational, whereas the common good of the Church is essentially supranational and universal.”

“In other words, the Gospel is for every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev 7:9). But the material needs of South America or Europe or the Far East will differ from each other quite naturally.” 

Fimister said the danger is that an accidentally supranational body created to deal with temporal problems which transcend the resources of traditional nation-states will correspond to no common political culture or language, no “demos.”

“Without the ‘demos’ there is only the ‘kratos’ — or power answerable to no one and serving its own private good as an oligarchic bureaucracy, a sort of FIFA (International Federation of Football) on steroids,” he argued.

Fimister expressed sympathy with some of Pope Francis’s aims but raised a note of caution:

Pope Francis is commending and defending the kind of regionalized supranational entities exemplified by the EU which was indeed established under Catholic inspiration in the nineteen fifties. Robert Schuman the founder of the EU wanted to create a “generalized democracy in the Christian sense of the word” and warned that an anti-Christian democracy would end in “tyranny or anarchy.” Schuman thought the only force capable of truly transcending national egotism was supernatural charity. Without this, these institutions would become monsters of “supranational egotism” worse than the nation states that preceded them because not even rooted in nature there would arise “a new supranational Leviathan superimposing itself upon the little national monsters.” 

Fimister added that secularizing eugenicists like the International Planned Parenthood Federation “greatly favor a supranational bureaucracy” because it “allows them to advance their agenda without doing so under the scrutiny of national political culture with shared language and history, which is far more likely to expose and scrutinize their objectives than a distant bureaucracy that is answerable to no one in particular.”

In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Pope Francis appeals to the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas in his conception of the national state and its role. However, his predecessor Pius XI, in the 1920s — unimpressed with the League of Nations — the predecessor of the United Nations, pointed out that only the Gospel has the resources necessary to unite the nations of the world. 

In his 1923 encyclical on St. Thomas Aquinas, Studiorum ducem n. 20, Pius XI wrote:

[St. Thomas Aquinas] also composed a substantial moral theology, capable of directing all human acts in accordance with the supernatural last end of man. And as he is, as We have said, the perfect theologian, so he gives infallible rules and precepts of life not only for individuals, but also for civil and domestic society which is the object also of moral science, both economic and politic. Hence those superb chapters in the second part of the Summa Theologica on paternal or domestic government, the lawful power of the State or the nation, natural and international law, peace and war, justice and property, laws and the obedience they command, the duty of helping individual citizens in their need and co-operating with all to secure the prosperity of the State, both in the natural and the supernatural order. If these precepts were religiously and inviolably observed in private life and public affairs, and in the duties of mutual obligation between nations, nothing else would be required to secure mankind that “peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” which the world so ardently longs for. It is therefore to be wished that the teachings of Aquinas, more particularly his exposition of international law and the laws governing the mutual relations of peoples, became more and more studied, for it contains the foundations of a genuine “League of Nations.”

The issues raised by Pope Francis’s remarks to Pontifical Academy of Sciences reflect the controversy that has raged throughout his pontificate as to whether he is substituting secular rationalistic goals for the supernatural ideals of the Church.

Here below is a LifeSite translation of Pope Francis’s address to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which was delivered in Italian.

***

Dear brothers and sisters,

I welcome you and thank your President, Prof. Stefano Zamagni, for his kind words and for accepting to preside over the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Also this year you have chosen to discuss an issue of permanent relevance. Unfortunately, we have before our eyes situations in which some nation-states implement their relations in a spirit more of opposition than of cooperation. Moreover, it must be noted that the borders of States do not always coincide with the demarcations of homogeneous populations and that many tensions come from an excessive claim to sovereignty by States, often precisely in areas where they are no longer able to act effectively to protect the common good.

In both the Encyclical Laudato si’ and in the Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps this year, I drew attention to the global challenges facing humanity, such as integral development, peace, care of our common home, climate change, poverty, war, migration, human trafficking, organ trafficking, the protection of the common good, and new forms of slavery.

St. Thomas has a beautiful notion of what a people is: “The Seine river is not ‘this particular river’ because of ‘this flowing water,’ but because of ‘this source’ and ‘this bed,’ and hence is always called the same river, although there may be other water flowing down it; likewise a people is the same, not because of a sameness of soul or of men, but because of the same dwelling place, or rather because of the same laws and the same manner of living, as Aristotle says in book III of the Politica”  (On spiritual creatures, a. 9, ad 10).

The Church has always exhorted men to love their own people and homeland, and to respect the treasure of various cultural expressions, customs and traditions and right ways of living rooted in peoples. At the same time, the Church has warned persons, peoples and governments about deviations from this attachment when it is about excluding and hating others, when it becomes conflictual nationalism that builds walls, indeed even racism or anti-Semitism. The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism which neglects the common good. There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.

It is a common doctrine that the State is at the service of the person and of the natural groupings of people such as the family, the cultural group, the nation as an expression of the will and profound customs of a people, the common good and peace. All too often, however, States are subservient to the interests of a dominant group, mostly for reasons of economic profit, which oppresses, among others, the ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities who are in their territory.

From this perspective, for example, the way in which a nation welcomes migrants reveals its vision of human dignity and its relationship with humanity. Every human person is a member of humanity and has the same dignity. When a person or a family is forced to leave their own land, they must be welcomed with humanity. I have said many times that our obligations to migrants are articulated in four verbs: to welcome, to protect, to promote and to integrate. The migrant is not a threat to the culture, customs and values of the host nation. He too has a duty, to integrate into the nation who receives him. To integrate does not mean to assimilate, but to share the kind of life of his new homeland, even though he himself as a person the bearer of his own biographical story. In this way, the migrant can present himself and be recognized as an opportunity to enrich the people who integrate him. It is the task of public authority to protect migrants and to regulate migratory flows with the virtue of prudence, as well as to promote reception so that local populations are formed and encouraged to participate consciously in the integration process of the migrants being received.

The issue of migration, which is a permanent feature of human history, also enlivens reflection on the nature of the Nation-State. All nations are the result of the integration of successive waves of people or groups of migrants and tend to be images of the diversity of humanity while being united by common values, cultural resources and healthy customs. A state that arouses the nationalistic feelings of its own people against other nations or groups of people would fail in its mission. We know from history where such deviations lead.

The Nation-State cannot be considered as an absolute, as an island in relation to its surroundings. In the current situation of globalization not only of economy but also of technological and cultural exchanges, the Nation-State is no longer able to procure by itself the common good for its population. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit. When a supranational common good is clearly identified, there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation. Think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new slavery and peace.

While, according to the principle of subsidiarity, individual nations must be given the power to operate as far as they can reach, on the other hand, groups of neighboring nations — as is already the case — can strengthen their cooperation by attributing the exercise of certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests.It is to be hoped that, for example, we will not lose in Europe the awareness of the benefits brought by this path of rapprochement and harmony between peoples undertaken after the Second World War. In Latin America, on the other hand, Simón Bolivar urged the leaders of his time to forge the dream of a Great Homeland that knows how to welcome, respect, embrace and develop the riches of every people.

This cooperative vision among nations can move history by relaunching multilateralism, which is opposed both to new nationalistic pressures and to hegemonic politics.

Humanity would thus avoid the threat of recourse to armed conflicts every time a dispute arises between Nation-States, as well as evading the danger of economic and ideological colonization of superpowers, avoiding the tyranny of the strongest over the weakest, paying attention to the global dimension without losing sight of the local, national and regional dimensions. Faced with the plan of globalization imagined as “spherical,” which levels differences and suffocates localization, it is easy for both nationalism and hegemonic imperialism to re-emerge. In order for globalization to be of benefit to all, one must think of implementing a “multifaceted” form of globalization, supporting a healthy struggle for mutual recognition between the collective identity of each people and nation and globalization itself, according to the principle that the whole comes before the parts, so as to arrive at a general state of peace and harmony.

Multilateral bodies were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home. Of course, these bodies must ensure that States are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disregarding the identity, customs and traditions, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of such tendencies is weakening the multilateral system, with the result of a lack of credibility in international politics and a progressive marginalization of the most vulnerable members of the family of nations.

I encourage you to persevere in your search for processes to overcome what divides nations and to propose new paths of cooperation, especially with regard to the new challenges of climate change and new slavery, as well as the excellent social good that is peace. Unfortunately, today the season of multilateral nuclear disarmament seems outdated and no longer stirs the political conscience of nations which possess atomic weapons. On the contrary, a new season of disturbing nuclear confrontation seems to be opening, because it cancels the progress of the recent past and multiplies the risk of war, also due to the possible malfunctioning of very advanced technologies that are always subject to natural and human imponderables. If, now, offensive and defensive nuclear weapons are placed not only on earth but also in space, the so-called new technological frontier will have raised and not lowered the danger of a nuclear holocaust.

The State is therefore called upon to assume greater responsibility. While maintaining the characteristics of independence and sovereignty and continuing to pursue the good of its people, today its task is to participate in the construction of the common good of humanity, a necessary and essential element for world equilibrium. This universal common good, in turn, must acquire greater legal value at international level. I am certainly not thinking of a universalism or a generic internationalism that overlooks the identity of individual peoples: this, in fact, must always be valued as a unique and indispensable contribution to the greatest harmonious design.

Dear friends, as inhabitants of our time, Christians and academics of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, I ask you to collaborate with me in spreading this awareness of renewed international solidarity in the respect for human dignity, the common good, respect for the planet and the supreme good of peace. 

I bless all of you, I bless your work and your initiatives. I accompany you with my prayer, and you too, please, do not forget to pray for me. Thank you!

Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.

This article was updated at 11:45am on Friday, April 3, 2019.

Finished reading? Want to make an impact?

Your donation today helps bring the truth to MILLIONS.


 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

STAND UP, MARGARET !

Oh, My God! C’mon, Let’s Hear it for Madame Thatcher (R.I.P.)

Joe Biden is so popular among world leaders, he’s having a hard time keeping them all straight.

Biden, who would be 78 on Inauguration Day, told a small group of donors in Columbia, South Carolina on Saturday that “14 heads of state” have contacted him, and “voiced concerns about Trump.”

Bloomberg reports:
That list included Margaret Thatcher, he said, before correcting what he called a “Freudian slip,” that he was actually referring to current British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Biden decried Trump calling his foes names, before the former vice president called him a “clown” and “no good S.O.B.,” according to Bloomberg.

DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Robert Francis O’Rourke is a stand-up guy

  • Or is it Robert Francis O’Brien  . . . or Conan Beto O’Rourke . . . it gets confusing
  • Nut case or comedian – you decide
  • Beto would have an ‘all-star’ Cabinet…and Michele Obama as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS

Don’t Laugh, Folks!
Beto is a nutcase…he’d be just as likely to put Ilhan Omar in charge of ‘Foreign Relations ; or AOC as Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors; or Rashid Tlaib as “Civility Czarina”; or Jerry Nadler in charge of Anything!

‘BETO’ WOULD PUT STACY ABRAMS IN CHARGE OF VOTER SUPPRESSION (OOPS! I MEAN “COMBATTING” VOTER SUPPRESSION)

Emily Tillett is a politics reporter and video editor for CBS News Digital….I can believe that! (DLH)

Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke says he’d put former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams in charge of combating voter suppression if elected president. Speaking to supporters in Fort Worth on Friday, O’Rourke said he had a conversation on the subject with the rising star in the Democratic Party.

“I called her to thank her for all the work that she’s doing on voting rights. And making sure that every person in this country can vote. And that every vote counts in this country,” O’Rourke said. “We talked about how in our states of the former Confederacy, really ever since the end of reconstruction, we have drawn people out of their ability to participate in this Democracy.”
While he didn’t go into specifics about the details of the role, O’Rourke told the Texas crowd the country is in need of a “new voting rights act” and Abrams would play a part in that.

“Beto” has the gestures down, word is he is working on the Conan pouf

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

When Obama issued executive orders on major matters – crickets

  • When Trump reverses them the bullfrogs come out

Releasing his plan to address climate change on Monday, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) topped his announcement with a pledge to take executive action to re-join the Paris climate agreement and enact regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) pledged during a CNN town hall to take executive action on gun control within her first 100 days if Congress does not adopt sweeping legislation.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), promised that on her first day in office she would sign an executive order “that says no more drilling — a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.”

Politico Article Scarier Than They Realize

In a way, the understated style in which it is written actually makes it all the more ominous.

It is actually an early warning of a potential time of total destruction of the “Great Experiment” that became the greatest nation in all of human history…the USA.

Sound overwrought?

Read those excerpts above and consider them a preview of what is to come if the next president comes from the political party which has already spawned today’s most prominent Democrats…Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Maxine Waters, Nadler, “Pencil-Neck”, “Pocohantas”, etc, etc

Politico seems to paint a grim picture, subtly told from an entirely Democrat point of view (note from whom nearly all the quotes are). But how dire America’s future could become is not presented as honestly as one would expect.

Politico tut-tuts about the ‘new way’ to govern which has emerged in recent times.

It does not, however, fairly cite that this very dangerous “Rule by Executive Order” is actually the chief legacy of Barack Obama’s intention to “fundamentally transform America”…the very definition of which translates into “when you really, really dislike something, it can only mean you believe it should be completely changed”. In Obama’s case that meant ridding the nation of its founding principles as laid out in the US Constitution and, thus trashing concepts including the ‘rule of law’, ‘co-equal branches of government’, ‘due process’, ‘separation of powers’ etc, etc

For example this accounting of how our Republic is being eroded notes how governance by executive order’s downside is that an order by one president can be undone by executive order of the next president.

Yet, an example Politico cites is the Judiciary’s blocking of Trump’s effort to undo a major Obama executive order :

“A federal court in Alaska in March barred the Trump administration from undoing an Obama-era ban on oil and gas leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, finding Trump’s 2017 executive order has “exceeded the president’s authority.”

Note, the “Obama judge” apparently did not think that Obama’s executive order “exceed(ed) (his) authority”.

Nor did the “insightful” article mention that Obama ignored Constitutional requirements regarding major treaties with foreign countries. The previous president went around the Senate, denying its responsibility to ratify treaties, including the “Paris Accords” on climate change, “the Iran Nuclear Agreement”, The massive ‘TPP’ trade “agreement’…all by simple “calling” them “agreements” and NOT “treaties” and “non-binding”, yet imposing enormous obligations on America to other foreign powers! (When an executive order merely undoes an illegal, unconstitutional executive order, that’s not ‘bad’ governance).

Politico is not the only “news” outlet to ignore that striking example of Obama’s dismantling of Constitutional requirements. Just about every other”news” and opinion source, right or left, also has!

“Overwrought”? Read the Politico story, and let us know if you think our concerns are “overwrought”. DLH

Democrats preview post-Trump plan: Executive orders
The 2020 presidential contenders are starting to point more frequently to the ambitious policies they’ll ram through on their own.

Presidential candidates once boasted about their ability to bridge Washington’s partisan divide, and to accomplish great things by bringing together different factions.

But with Republicans favored to maintain control of the Senate in 2020 — and a new norm taking root after three successive administrations that aggressively wielded executive orders to make policy — Democratic candidates for president are starting to point more frequently to the ambitious things they’ll ram through on their own.

Campaign-trail pledges to sign executive orders aren’t new. But the frequency of the promises this year, and the expansive nature of them, mark a departure from practice.
It’s a tacit acknowledgment of an increasingly dysfunctional, polarized system of government — one that is beyond any one candidate’s ability to repair. Against that backdrop, the thinking goes, a prospective president’s only option for meaningful policymaking is to take unilateral action by signing executive orders.

“That’s basically the only way to govern now,” said Andrew Feldman, a Democratic strategist in Washington. “It’s kind of a way of life.”

With executive orders, he said, “you can actually get a lot done, and as we’ve seen with the Trump administration, you can do a lot of harm.”

Releasing his plan to address climate change on Monday, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) topped his announcement with a pledge to take executive action to re-join the Paris climate agreement and enact regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) pledged during a CNN town hall to take executive action on gun control within her first 100 days if Congress does not adopt sweeping legislation.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), promised that on her first day in office she would sign an executive order “that says no more drilling — a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.”

On a litany of policy issues ranging from immigration to environmental protections, Trump has infuriated Democrats with his executive actions. Democrats gained a legislative check on the president when they retook the House in last year’s midterm elections. But Democrats are pining for a presidential nominee who, if elected, will immediately set about undoing Trump’s work.

He or she will almost certainly have to accomplish that without the assistance of the Senate. Though Democrats have a narrow path to gaining a majority, it is more likely that Republicans will maintain control. In the earliest stages of the presidential campaign, candidates have faced pressure from activists to outline what they will do in office without cooperation from Republicans.

“All of the presidential candidates recognize that the Senate will be where good policy goes to die,” said RL Miller, founder of the super PAC Climate Hawks Vote.
She called candidates’ focus on executive orders a product of a legitimate “frustration with the polarized nature of Congress, and a realization that Congress is in fact gridlocked — especially the Senate.”

Promises to assert executive powers — whether by order, proclamation or other means — have at times played a prominent role in campaigns. Jimmy Carter vowed while campaigning for president in 1976 to grant unconditional pardons to thousands of people who had evaded the draft during the Vietnam War, a promise fulfilled by proclamation on his first full day in office.

But controversy surrounding the practice reached new heights with President Barack Obama and a recalcitrant Congress — and now Trump. Obama, though initially cautious of wielding executive power, used his pen to enact significant changes in climate, immigration and labor policy after declaring in 2011 that with “an increasingly dysfunctional Congress … Where they won’t act, I will.”

Like most Republicans, Trump was critical of Obama before taking office, writing on Twitter in 2014 that “Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress.”

But the president has come to fully embrace executive authority once in office, using the occasion of his 100th day in office in 2017 to note that no president since World War II had signed as many executive orders by that point in his presidency.

He has continued his pace, but not by outlandish numbers. In the first two years of his presidency, Trump issued 92 executive orders, 18 more than Obama and seven more than George W. Bush during their first two years, according to the Office of the Federal Register.

Yet the Obama-to-Trump changeover at the White House has highlighted one shortcoming of executive actions — that they can be reversed or, at a minimum, become mired in court.

A federal court in Alaska in March barred the Trump administration from undoing an Obama-era ban on oil and gas leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, finding Trump’s 2017 executive order has “exceeded the president’s authority.”

Last month, Trump came under legal threat again after signing two orders designed to limit states’ power to block or delay construction of oil and gas pipelines.

One of his opponents: Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democratic candidate for president who promised in a prepared statement “to challenge any attempt by the administration to illegally constrain Washington’s authority to protect our state’s natural resources.”
Inslee is expected to propose his own executive action or actions of some kind when he outlines his plans to address climate change.

That’s precisely the problem raised by an abundance of candidates promising to work their will through executive orders: it furthers the prospect of a political system in which each successive administration spends its time undoing the work of the previous one.
For candidates proposing their own executive orders, said Les Francis, a deputy White House chief of staff in the Carter administration, “Talking about an executive order on the campaign trail is just a lot easier than accomplishing it through normal legislative procedures and processes.”

He said, “I think it’s more to appeal to various segments of the electorate – to rev people up issue by issue. It’s against a backdrop of dysfunctionality and paralysis to be sure. But I think it’s more, ‘How do you get people revved up?’”

Bo Cutter, a veteran of the Carter and Clinton White Houses, pointed to the uncertainty surrounding protections for undocumented immigrants — the subject of conflicting executive actions by Obama and Trump — as an example of the danger of governing by executive action.

To the extent that executive orders reflect the inability of a president and lawmakers to cooperate, he predicted that eventually, “People will get thoroughly sick of that … Increasingly, you’ll see citizens sour on the whole enterprise.”

For a presidential candidate, he said, “It’s probably not yet a political mistake.”

However, he added, “I think it’s a governing mistake.”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment