lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Human Coalition leader explains how they’ve rescued 14,500 babies from abortion

Brian Fisher of Human Coalition talks with Jonathon Van Maren on today ’ s episode of The Van Maren Show .
Fisher was actually working in Christian radio when he was first introduced to the pro-life movement .
He became involved with a pregnancy resource center as a donor and volunteer over 20 years ago .
Quickly , Fisher began using his business experience and way of looking at everything to evaluate the pro-life movement .
He began to use tools and data to evaluate opportunities , risks , and performance within the pro-life movement .
That ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ If we ’ re not going to measure it , we won ’ t do it because we need to be able to make the best use of every donor dollar , and validate that our work is having an impact.
” They said no to a lot of cool projects , because it wasn ’ t measurable .
They began to realize the biggest problems with pregnancy resource centers : they struggled to reach women who were at risk to abort .
Why ?
Because pregnancy centers are often volunteer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with .
A women who is at high-risk to abort doesn ’ t even know pregnancy centers exist , and certainly won ’ t visit one , because they ’ re not offering what she thinks she needs ( which is an abortion ) .
Human Coalition began using a specific and unique approach to reach and talk with women who are in the high-at-risk-to-abort category .
This method has been the backbone of the organization for the last decade .
Watch this week ’ s episode of The Van Maren Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .

Brian Fisher of Human Coalition talks with Jonathon Van Maren on today’s episode of The Van Maren Show. Fisher was actually working in Christian radio when he was first introduced to the pro-life movement. He became involved with a pregnancy resource center as a donor and volunteer over 20 years ago. Quickly, Fisher began using his business experience and way of looking at everything to evaluate the pro-life movement. He began to use tools and data to evaluate opportunities, risks, and performance within the pro-life movement.
That’s how Human Coalition got started. Fisher explains, “If we’re not going to measure it, we won’t do it because we need to be able to make the best use of every donor dollar, and validate that our work is having an impact.” They said no to a lot of cool projects, because it wasn’t measurable.
They began to realize the biggest problems with pregnancy resource centers: they struggled to reach women who were at risk to abort. Why? Because pregnancy centers are often volunteer only, and have little-to-no budget to work with. A women who is at high-risk to abort doesn’t even know pregnancy centers exist, and certainly won’t visit one, because they’re not offering what she thinks she needs (which is an abortion).
Human Coalition began using a specific and unique approach to reach and talk with women who are in the high-at-risk-to-abort category. This method has been the backbone of the organization for the last decade. Watch this week’s episode of The Van Maren Show to find out how they access these women.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Buttigieg refuses to distance himself from Virginia gov’s approval of infanticide

January 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Former South Bend , Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg is facing scrutiny for his refusal to either endorse or distance himself from the notorious pro-abortion policies of Virginia ’ s Gov .
Ralph Northam and New York ’ s Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , just days after catching heat for rejecting a plea to afford “ pro-life Democrats ” representation in the party platform .
Buttigieg , who is among the Democrats currently running for the party ’ s presidential nomination , said at a candidate forum over the weekend that there should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal abortion “ later in pregnancy.
” To pro-lifers , his answer invited comparisons to infamous laws proposed in Virginia and enacted in New York , which allow virtually unlimited abortions up until the moment of birth .
In response to inquiries by RealClearPolitics , the Buttigieg campaign would not answer whether his position was the same as that of Northam or Cuomo , with spokesman Chris Meagher answering simply , “ I think he made his position clear in the town hall last night.
” This would be far from the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He previously tried to dismiss late-term abortions as “ hypothetical , ” refusing to accept any cutoff line for abortion beyond declaring , “ I trust women to draw the line when it ’ s their own bodies.
” His pro-abortion platform also includes appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and making the abortion drug RU-486 available over the counter .
As mayor of South Bend , he vetoed Women ’ s Care Center ’ s re-zoning application to build a pro-life pregnancy center near the site of a proposed abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about the discovery of thousands of babies ’ corpses on the property of a deceased area abortionist .
In addition , he has misrepresented Scripture as suggesting that “ life begins with breath , ” for which his own brother-in-law , Rhyan Glezman , labeled him a “ modern-day pharisee.
” Buttigieg currently places fifth in RealClearPolitics ’ s national polling average of the Democrat primary , with 6.8 percent .

The Democrat presidential candidate did declare that there should be 'very few exceptions' to legal abortion 'later in pregnancy.'
January 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg is facing scrutiny for his refusal to either endorse or distance himself from the notorious pro-abortion policies of Virginia’s Gov. Ralph Northam and New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo, just days after catching heat for rejecting a plea to afford “pro-life Democrats” representation in the party platform.
Buttigieg, who is among the Democrats currently running for the party’s presidential nomination, said at a candidate forum over the weekend that there should be “very few exceptions” to legal abortion “later in pregnancy.” To pro-lifers, his answer invited comparisons to infamous laws proposed in Virginia and enacted in New York, which allow virtually unlimited abortions up until the moment of birth.
In response to inquiries by RealClearPolitics, the Buttigieg campaign would not answer whether his position was the same as that of Northam or Cuomo, with spokesman Chris Meagher answering simply, “I think he made his position clear in the town hall last night.”
This would be far from the first sign that Buttigieg favors effectively unlimited abortion. He previously tried to dismiss late-term abortions as “hypothetical,” refusing to accept any cutoff line for abortion beyond declaring, “I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own bodies.”
His pro-abortion platform also includes appointing pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court and making the abortion drug RU-486 available over the counter. As mayor of South Bend, he vetoed Women’s Care Center’s re-zoning application to build a pro-life pregnancy center near the site of a proposed abortion center, and he has largely dodged questions about the discovery of thousands of babies’ corpses on the property of a deceased area abortionist. In addition, he has misrepresented Scripture as suggesting that “life begins with breath,” for which his own brother-in-law, Rhyan Glezman, labeled him a “modern-day pharisee.”
Buttigieg currently places fifth in RealClearPolitics’s national polling average of the Democrat primary, with 6.8 percent.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--After pro-abortion state supreme court ruling, Kansas moves pro-life constitutional amendment

January 29 , 2020 ( Live Action News ) — A Kansas constitutional amendment that would prevent unrestricted abortion in the state and make it possible for Kansas legislators to pass laws restricting abortion has advanced both House and Senate committees after strong testimony from pro-life supporters .
Known in pro-life camps as the “ Value Them Both Amendment , ” the amendment has been in the works since a state Supreme Court ruling last year removed virtually all restrictions against abortion .
According to KMBC News , the amendment is the top priority for the state ’ s GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing room last Tuesday to offer testimony in support of the amendment at a joint House and Senate committee .
Among the supporters were several women who themselves have had abortions .
“ To call abortion a right is to have an injustice to women .
To date , I ’ ve met no one that brags about their choice , ” a woman named Danette told the committee .
After hearing the testimony , committee members met Wednesday to vote on separate but similar iterations of the proposed amendment .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House committee with a 15-6 show of hands after some deliberation , while it passed the Senate with a voice vote and little deliberation .
The amendment was born after an April 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that created a “ fundamental right ” to abortion within the framework of the state ’ s constitution .
Under this ruling , Kansans are no longer allowed to pass any laws restricting abortion .
This means that things like parental-notification laws , partial-birth abortions , and taxpayer-funded abortions can ’ t be regulated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed both the House and Senate committees , it advances to the chambers , where the Associated Press reports that debates could begin as early as next week .
If both chambers approve the amendment with a majority two-thirds vote , it will be on the ballot for Kansas voters to decide its fate as early as August .

January 29, 2020 (Live Action News) — A Kansas constitutional amendment that would prevent unrestricted abortion in the state and make it possible for Kansas legislators to pass laws restricting abortion has advanced both House and Senate committees after strong testimony from pro-life supporters. Known in pro-life camps as the “Value Them Both Amendment,” the amendment has been in the works since a state Supreme Court ruling last year removed virtually all restrictions against abortion. According to KMBC News, the amendment is the top priority for the state’s GOP majority.
Pro-life supporters filled a Statehouse hearing room last Tuesday to offer testimony in support of the amendment at a joint House and Senate committee. Among the supporters were several women who themselves have had abortions. “To call abortion a right is to have an injustice to women. To date, I’ve met no one that brags about their choice,” a woman named Danette told the committee.
After hearing the testimony, committee members met Wednesday to vote on separate but similar iterations of the proposed amendment. According to the Associated Press, the measure cleared the House committee with a 15-6 show of hands after some deliberation, while it passed the Senate with a voice vote and little deliberation.
The amendment was born after an April 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that created a “fundamental right” to abortion within the framework of the state’s constitution. Under this ruling, Kansans are no longer allowed to pass any laws restricting abortion. This means that things like parental-notification laws, partial-birth abortions, and taxpayer-funded abortions can’t be regulated by law.
Now that the amendment has passed both the House and Senate committees, it advances to the chambers, where the Associated Press reports that debates could begin as early as next week. If both chambers approve the amendment with a majority two-thirds vote, it will be on the ballot for Kansas voters to decide its fate as early as August.
Published with permission from Live Action News.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Catholics can’t allow exceptions to rules against divorce, homosexuality, fornication

January 29 , 2020 ( The Catholic Thing ) — One of the distinctive things about Catholic moral doctrine is that it has a number of absolute or exceptionless rules , many of them involving or at least associated with sexual matters .
For example : • One must never perform or undergo an abortion .
• One must never commit adultery .
• One must never engage in fornication .
• One must never engage in marital contraception .
• One must never divorce and remarry .
• One must never commit suicide .
Most people , I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole sympathetic to the prohibitions just outlined , feel that some exceptions should be made to the above prohibitions .
But their sympathies are partly misguided , and warrant serious clarification : ( 1 ) Divorce .
Almost everybody agrees that marriage should be a permanent and lifelong thing .
Once you ’ ve promised to remain married “ till death do us part , ” you should make every effort to keep that promise .
You should bear with your spouse ’ s shortcomings as long as they are bearable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ In that case , you may resort to measures to remove those conditions that are making you miserable .
Of course , Catholicism agrees with this , after a fashion .
It is willing to tolerate , if there is sufficient cause , divorce from “ bed and board ” — that is , a permanent separation .
What it is not willing to tolerate is a divorce from “ the chains of matrimony ” — it is unwilling , in other words , to tolerate the kind of divorce that allows for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Why , ” they ask , “ should a man or woman who made a foolish mistake early in life , the foolish mistake of marrying a very unsuitable partner , be barred from ever enjoying the many benefits and consolations of marriage , these including children , a shared marriage bed , shared values , shared ownership of property , and so on ?
” The Catholic Church itself seems to share these misgivings as to the no-remarriage rule .
And so the Church makes annulment available , allowing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was no real marital union the possibility of a declaration of nullity .
Annulment is not divorce .
It is simply a declaration that the apparent first marriage was not in fact a real marriage .
By maintaining this theory of annulment the Church remains faithful to Jesus ’ s ban on divorce-and-remarriage .
Unfortunately , in practice annulment is , at least in many cases , little more than a legal fiction that allows Catholics to divorce and remarry just like their non-Catholic neighbors .
It is then , as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divorce.
” ( 2 ) Adultery .
Suppose you ’ re a married man or woman working for the CIA as a counter-spy , and suppose that by engaging in an adulterous relationship with a spy from Russia or China or Iran you will very probably gain information that will save hundreds or thousands of American lives — Catholicism says you mustn ’ t do this .
As for the hundreds or thousands of lives that may be lost as the result of your remaining faithful to your wedding vows , well ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by immoral means .
Or suppose , less dramatically , you ’ re a healthy young woman with normal sexual appetites , but your husband ( like Lady Chatterley ’ s husband ) is incapable of performing the sexual act ; and let ’ s also suppose that your husband ( again like Lady Chatterley ’ s husband ) has given you permission to go to bed with other men — provided these men treat you with kindness and respect , and provided precautions are taken against pregnancy and disease .
Again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aliens from a distant galaxy turn up and tell you , a married woman , that they will destroy the planet Earth and every person on it unless you have sex with , say , Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks , Catholicism will still say NO .
As St. Paul warned when the Faith was still young , we can not “ do evil that good may come ” ( Rm .
3:4 ) ( 3 ) Fornication .
Suppose you ’ re an elderly widow , and you and an elderly man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with one another .
You ’ d both be happy to marry one another .
However , your late husband , who left you many millions , provided that in the case of your remarriage all these millions would go to the SPCA or , worse still , to Planned Parenthood .
Would it be morally okay for you and your boyfriend , while remaining unmarried , to have sexual relations with one another ?
Catholicism says NO .
I ’ ve given enough hypotheticals to make my point .
Readers can easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about abortion , contraception , and suicide .
In all these imaginary cases Catholicism would say , “ No exceptions may be made , ” while the average non-Catholic would say , “ Surely some exceptions may be made.
” What justification can a Catholic offer for these exceptionless rules ?
I think there are three .
Given space limitations , I won ’ t elaborate , at least not today .
First , the Catholic can say : “ This is what divine Revelation tells us .
These absolute rules have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Jesus , through the Bible , and through the Church .
We dare not disagree with God.
” Second , the Catholic can say : “ This is what natural law tells us , and by natural law I mean a moral law that is the common law of the human race , a law that all humans understand , at least in its fundamental principles .
We must listen to the voice of nature.
” Finally , the Catholic can say : “ Once you allow for a few exceptions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more , and then more and more , until , finally , the rule collapses altogether .
Make a few exceptions for divorce , and soon people will divorce for trivial reasons .
The same with abortion , suicide , adultery , etc.
” In fact , as we ’ ve seen in recent decades , that ’ s precisely what has happened .
The process begins with hard cases and has within it no limiting principle .
And so the norms themselves essentially evaporate except as “ ideals.
” I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now gotten entry even in Church circles , in the near future .
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing .

One of the distinctive things about Catholic moral doctrine is that it has a number of absolute or exceptionless rules.
January 29, 2020 (The Catholic Thing) — One of the distinctive things about Catholic moral doctrine is that it has a number of absolute or exceptionless rules, many of them involving or at least associated with sexual matters. For example:
One must never perform or undergo an abortion.
One must never commit adultery.
One must never engage in fornication.
One must never engage in marital contraception.
One must never divorce and remarry.
One must never commit suicide.
Most people, I believe, including most people who are on the whole sympathetic to the prohibitions just outlined, feel that some exceptions should be made to the above prohibitions. But their sympathies are partly misguided, and warrant serious clarification:
(1) Divorce. Almost everybody agrees that marriage should be a permanent and lifelong thing. Once you’ve promised to remain married “till death do us part,” you should make every effort to keep that promise. You should bear with your spouse’s shortcomings as long as they are bearable. But sometimes they are not bearable. In that case, you may resort to measures to remove those conditions that are making you miserable.
Of course, Catholicism agrees with this, after a fashion. It is willing to tolerate, if there is sufficient cause, divorce from “bed and board” — that is, a permanent separation. What it is not willing to tolerate is a divorce from “the chains of matrimony” — it is unwilling, in other words, to tolerate the kind of divorce that allows for remarriage.
Most people find this unreasonable. “Why,” they ask, “should a man or woman who made a foolish mistake early in life, the foolish mistake of marrying a very unsuitable partner, be barred from ever enjoying the many benefits and consolations of marriage, these including children, a shared marriage bed, shared values, shared ownership of property, and so on?”
The Catholic Church itself seems to share these misgivings as to the no-remarriage rule. And so the Church makes annulment available, allowing that the parties involved in an immature decision that was no real marital union the possibility of a declaration of nullity. Annulment is not divorce. It is simply a declaration that the apparent first marriage was not in fact a real marriage.
By maintaining this theory of annulment the Church remains faithful to Jesus’s ban on divorce-and-remarriage. Unfortunately, in practice annulment is, at least in many cases, little more than a legal fiction that allows Catholics to divorce and remarry just like their non-Catholic neighbors. It is then, as it has often been called, “Catholic divorce.”
(2) Adultery. Suppose you’re a married man or woman working for the CIA as a counter-spy, and suppose that by engaging in an adulterous relationship with a spy from Russia or China or Iran you will very probably gain information that will save hundreds or thousands of American lives — Catholicism says you mustn’t do this. As for the hundreds or thousands of lives that may be lost as the result of your remaining faithful to your wedding vows, well…regrettable, but not to be saved by immoral means.
Or suppose, less dramatically, you’re a healthy young woman with normal sexual appetites, but your husband (like Lady Chatterley’s husband) is incapable of performing the sexual act; and let’s also suppose that your husband (again like Lady Chatterley’s husband) has given you permission to go to bed with other men — provided these men treat you with kindness and respect, and provided precautions are taken against pregnancy and disease. Again, Catholicism says: NO.
Even if aliens from a distant galaxy turn up and tell you, a married woman, that they will destroy the planet Earth and every person on it unless you have sex with, say, Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks, Catholicism will still say NO. As St. Paul warned when the Faith was still young, we cannot “do evil that good may come” (Rm. 3:4)
(3) Fornication. Suppose you’re an elderly widow, and you and an elderly man, likewise widowed, are in love with one another. You’d both be happy to marry one another. However, your late husband, who left you many millions, provided that in the case of your remarriage all these millions would go to the SPCA or, worse still, to Planned Parenthood. Would it be morally okay for you and your boyfriend, while remaining unmarried, to have sexual relations with one another? Catholicism says NO.
I’ve given enough hypotheticals to make my point. Readers can easily imagine what other hypotheticals I might offer about abortion, contraception, and suicide. In all these imaginary cases Catholicism would say, “No exceptions may be made,” while the average non-Catholic would say, “Surely some exceptions may be made.”
What justification can a Catholic offer for these exceptionless rules? I think there are three. Given space limitations, I won’t elaborate, at least not today.
First, the Catholic can say: “This is what divine Revelation tells us. These absolute rules have been revealed to us by God, speaking through Jesus, through the Bible, and through the Church. We dare not disagree with God.”
Second, the Catholic can say: “This is what natural law tells us, and by natural law I mean a moral law that is the common law of the human race, a law that all humans understand, at least in its fundamental principles. We must listen to the voice of nature.”
Finally, the Catholic can say: “Once you allow for a few exceptions, you’ll soon have to allow for more, and then more and more, until, finally, the rule collapses altogether. Make a few exceptions for divorce, and soon people will divorce for trivial reasons. The same with abortion, suicide, adultery, etc.”
In fact, as we’ve seen in recent decades, that’s precisely what has happened. The process begins with hard cases and has within it no limiting principle. And so the norms themselves essentially evaporate except as “ideals.”
I hope to analyze this problem, which has now gotten entry even in Church circles, in the near future.
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Trump would have less trouble now if he hadn’t kept so many Obama staffers

January 29 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — There were literally thousands of qualified Trump-supporters eager to join his administration , yet those responsible for personnel decisions decided to retain Obama employees or hire NeverTrumps , who , collectively , either resisted or actively undermined Trump and his America First agenda .
The consequences of that neglect are now playing out in the Senate impeachment trial .
In his shocking article `` Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump , '' Paul Sperry describes a plot hatched by Obama holdovers and Democrat partisans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NSC ) to remove President Trump from office .
According to Sperry , after a staff-wide meeting called by then–national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn , NSC co-workers Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko , both Obama holdovers , were overheard talking about toppling Flynn and Trump .
Ciaramella said , `` We need to take him out , '' and Misko replied , `` Yeah , we need to do everything we can to take out the president . ''
That incident was n't the only time the pair exhibited open hostility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , both were accused of leaking negative information about Trump to the media .
Ciaramella has been unofficially identified as the `` whistleblower '' of the leaked Trump July 25 , 2019 conversation with Ukraine 's president that provided the pretext for impeachment .
Sperry states that former NSC co-workers and congressional sources identified Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , who held Ciaramella 's old position at the NSC , as the Democrat partisan who leaked the information to Ciaramella on July 26 .
The same day , House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of Trump .
Sperry also identifies another Schiff recruit believed to be part of the clandestine political operation against Trump .
It is Abby Grace , who also worked closely with Ciaramella at the NSC , both before and after Trump was elected .
During the Obama administration , Grace was an assistant to Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes .
It is disturbing to say the least that such opponents of the administration remained in high positions well into Trump 's tenure .
What is far more disturbing is that no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when their comments at the Flynn meeting were reported , or the fact that many possessing questionable loyalty remain in the Trump administration .
For example , why is James H. Baker , an Obama appointee , still director of the Office of Net Assessment at the Pentagon ?
The October 24 , 2019 court filing by the defense attorneys for General Flynn alleges that Baker leaked to the press copies of the transcripts from Flynn 's December 2016 telephone calls to then–Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak .
Baker had regularly scheduled lunches with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who published an article about the calls in January 2017 .
Over four years , the Office of Net Assessment paid alleged FBI informant Stefan Halper , linked both to the Flynn case and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax , over $ 1 million for research papers of dubious value .
Trump-supporters have every right to be angry , both those who applied to serve in his administration but were ignored and those who see the agenda for which they voted sabotaged by partisan moles .
Lawrence Sellin , Ph.D. is a retired U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kurdish ; an I.T .
command and control and cyber-security subject matter expert ; and a veteran of Afghanistan , Iraq , and Africa .
He receives email at [ email protected ] and can be followed on Twitter at @ LawrenceSellin .
In an ideal world , yes , the Trump administration would have been able to vet the thousands of willing applicants and replace nearly everyone held over from the previous administration .
But who would carry out the vetting before Trump took office ?
The incoming administration 's personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing Obama carryover staff — the very people who would be deemed unreliable by the categorical replacement policy advocated here .
Before inauguration , there would be no access to information resources ( including classified information ) other than through the incumbent Obama administration officials .
Keep in mind that there is every possibility that hostile actors , including both domestic political opponents and foreign governments , would seek to insert covert agents into the new administration , and that in the future they could wreak havoc .
The incoming Trump administration would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` ideological purge '' that inserted `` unqualified hacks , '' and the `` loss of expertise '' would be blamed for anything bad that happened .
Keep in mind , also , that many people in important positions enjoy Civil Service protections and can not be fired .
All in all , it was a serious challenge , and more probably should have been done .
There is no excuse for ignoring the report of Ciaramella 's and Misko 's conversation , though I wonder who it was that received the complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact is that the federal bureaucracy as a whole has been weaponized , and replacing it is not possible on a mass basis .
In particular , those parts of it where a security clearance is necessary can not be quickly re-staffed .
Trump faced the same sort of problems that any corporate turnaround artist does — for instance , Mitt Romney 's Bain Capital .
But in the corporate world , you can fire people without the Civil Service limitations and do not face the time-consuming , complex process of obtaining or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the American Thinker .

The consequences of that neglect are now playing out in the Senate impeachment trial.
January 29, 2020 (American Thinker) — There were literally thousands of qualified Trump-supporters eager to join his administration, yet those responsible for personnel decisions decided to retain Obama employees or hire NeverTrumps, who, collectively, either resisted or actively undermined Trump and his America First agenda.
The consequences of that neglect are now playing out in the Senate impeachment trial.
In his shocking article “Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump,” Paul Sperry describes a plot hatched by Obama holdovers and Democrat partisans in the White House National Security Council (NSC) to remove President Trump from office.
According to Sperry, after a staff-wide meeting called by then–national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, NSC co-workers Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko, both Obama holdovers, were overheard talking about toppling Flynn and Trump.
Ciaramella said, “We need to take him out,” and Misko replied, “Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.”
That incident wasn't the only time the pair exhibited open hostility toward the president. During the following months, both were accused of leaking negative information about Trump to the media.
Ciaramella has been unofficially identified as the “whistleblower” of the leaked Trump July 25, 2019 conversation with Ukraine's president that provided the pretext for impeachment.
Sperry states that former NSC co-workers and congressional sources identified Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who held Ciaramella's old position at the NSC, as the Democrat partisan who leaked the information to Ciaramella on July 26.
The same day, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff hired Misko to head up the investigation of Trump.
Sperry also identifies another Schiff recruit believed to be part of the clandestine political operation against Trump. It is Abby Grace, who also worked closely with Ciaramella at the NSC, both before and after Trump was elected. During the Obama administration, Grace was an assistant to Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes.
It is disturbing to say the least that such opponents of the administration remained in high positions well into Trump's tenure.
What is far more disturbing is that no action was taken against Ciaramella and Misko when their comments at the Flynn meeting were reported, or the fact that many possessing questionable loyalty remain in the Trump administration.
For example, why is James H. Baker, an Obama appointee, still director of the Office of Net Assessment at the Pentagon?
The October 24, 2019 court filing by the defense attorneys for General Flynn alleges that Baker leaked to the press copies of the transcripts from Flynn's December 2016 telephone calls to then–Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Baker had regularly scheduled lunches with The Washington Post's David Ignatius, who published an article about the calls in January 2017.
Over four years, the Office of Net Assessment paid alleged FBI informant Stefan Halper, linked both to the Flynn case and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, over $1 million for research papers of dubious value.
Trump-supporters have every right to be angry, both those who applied to serve in his administration but were ignored and those who see the agenda for which they voted sabotaged by partisan moles.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel; trained in Arabic and Kurdish; an I.T. command and control and cyber-security subject matter expert; and a veteran of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. He receives email at [email protected] and can be followed on Twitter at @LawrenceSellin.
Thomas Lifson adds:
In an ideal world, yes, the Trump administration would have been able to vet the thousands of willing applicants and replace nearly everyone held over from the previous administration. But who would carry out the vetting before Trump took office? The incoming administration's personnel office would be entirely dependent on the existing Obama carryover staff — the very people who would be deemed unreliable by the categorical replacement policy advocated here. Before inauguration, there would be no access to information resources (including classified information) other than through the incumbent Obama administration officials.
Keep in mind that there is every possibility that hostile actors, including both domestic political opponents and foreign governments, would seek to insert covert agents into the new administration, and that in the future they could wreak havoc. The incoming Trump administration would be raked over the coals for an “ideological purge” that inserted “unqualified hacks,” and the “loss of expertise” would be blamed for anything bad that happened.
Keep in mind, also, that many people in important positions enjoy Civil Service protections and cannot be fired.
All in all, it was a serious challenge, and more probably should have been done. There is no excuse for ignoring the report of Ciaramella's and Misko's conversation, though I wonder who it was that received the complaint. Another Obama holdover?
The sad fact is that the federal bureaucracy as a whole has been weaponized, and replacing it is not possible on a mass basis. In particular, those parts of it where a security clearance is necessary cannot be quickly re-staffed.
Trump faced the same sort of problems that any corporate turnaround artist does — for instance, Mitt Romney's Bain Capital. But in the corporate world, you can fire people without the Civil Service limitations and do not face the time-consuming, complex process of obtaining or renewing security clearances.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Christians must be explicit about what the Bible teaches on sex

January 29 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — Writing about sexual morality in the mid-twentieth century , C.S .
Lewis concluded that the world 's `` great relaxation and simplifying '' of the rules of modesty , or standards of propriety , while not necessarily a bad thing , presents this `` inconvenience . ''
He wrote : `` People of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard , and [ thus ] we hardly know where we are . ''
Lewis goes on to point out : There is no getting away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` Either marriage , with complete faithfulness to your partner , or else total abstinence . ''
Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts , that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct , as it now is [ remember , `` now '' was the mid-twentieth century ] , has gone wrong .
One or the other .
Of course , being a Christian , I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong .
Lewis was — and is — right .
Note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong that Lewis 's clear declaration of Christian sexual morality — published in one of the greatest works of modern apologetics , Mere Christianity — is now , in the early twenty-first century , somewhat insufficient .
This is because the God-haters , and those otherwise devoted to a `` theology of self , '' have now perverted the oldest institution in the history of humanity : marriage .
In other words , we are today so far removed from the `` same standard '' when it comes to matters in the sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have little to no idea `` where we are '' on marriage .
If he were writing or speaking today , Lewis would need to clarify that , by `` marriage , '' he means the biblical definition of marriage .
Tragically , this would be the case even if his audience were church-going Americans .
No other issue today has so divided Christendom than matters concerning homosexuality .
Even the Roe v. Wade decision — which , in 1973 , legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy — did not so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christianity , and the church as has the evil LGBT agenda .
As recently as just over a decade ago — 2009 — U.S. states were 31 for 31 in their rejection of same-sex `` marriage . ''
Whenever an electorate was given a choice , by an average rate of more than two to one — 67.5 % to 32.5 % — American voters said no to same-sex `` marriage '' and yes to marriage as defined in Scripture .
As I noted at the time , the rejection of gay `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , but in some very liberal ones as well , such as Maine , California , Oregon , and Hawaii .
Purple states such as Ohio , Colorado , and Nevada also soundly rejected gay `` marriage . ''
Barely over a decade ago , across the U.S. , from the Deep South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the West Coast , Americans united behind biblical marriage .
According to the Pew Research Center , in 2004 , Americans opposed same-sex `` marriage '' by a margin of 60 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those numbers were almost exactly reversed .
According to Pew , Americans now support same-sex `` marriage '' by a margin of 61 % to 31 % .
Gallup polling shows similar trends : in 1996 , Americans opposed the legalization of same-sex `` marriage '' 68 % to 27 % .
By 2019 , Gallup showed Americans supporting same-sex `` marriage '' 63 % to 36 % .
How did this happen ?
How was there such a vast reversal on homosexuality and marriage in such a short period of time ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get millions of Americans to abandon long held views on marriage : an organized and determined LGBT agenda ; a vast and like-minded media ; like-minded federal judges ; the Democratic Party ; and , most tragically , churches unwilling or unequipped to fight for the truth on these grave issues .
It is a common misperception that churches — and Christians in general — spend a lot of time talking about sex .
Last year , Decision magazine — a publication of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association — reported : Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — much of it leading to death ( abortion , disease , and the like ) — and the significance of marriage — the lifetime union of one man and one woman — one would think pastors , Sunday school teachers , church youth leaders , evangelists , Christian media , Christian politicians , Christian celebrities , Christian parents , and the like would give great time and effort to telling the truth on what are undoubtedly some of the most important moral issues of our time .
Sadly , I believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it 's time for this to change .
Now , perhaps more than at any other moment in history , it 's time for Christians to be explicitly — even graphically — clear that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage .
This is especially the case when it comes to our young people .
Christians must be explicit that marriage is only the lifelong union of one man and one woman ( as revealed `` in the beginning '' ! )
.
Christians must be explicitly clear that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` shacking up , '' fornication , pornography , etc .
— is sin .
These truths must be loudly and plainly proclaimed in pulpits , classrooms , living rooms , board rooms , legislative houses , and the like .
Decades of shying away from telling such truths is one of the biggest reasons why we are where we are on sexual matters in our culture .
It 's not just the media , the courts , corporations , and much of our government who have become agents of the enemy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has fallen to corruption as the result of sexual sin .
The Methodist Church sits on the verge of a massive split because so many Methodists are completely lost when it comes to sexual sin .
Many other denominations and individual congregations have recently seen similar splits over sexual sin .
As C.S .
Lewis 's fictional demon Screwtape taught us , this is what results when fewer and fewer Americans are willing `` to contend with the explicit repentance of a definite , fully recognized , sin . ''
When the church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that even further corruption awaits the culture .
Not long after many so-called Christians embraced same-sex `` marriage , '' America soon descended even farther into the pit of sexual sin .
Along with debating what is marriage , truth-loving Americans now have to debate and defend the truth on who is a male and who is a female !
As a result of the evil `` transgender '' agenda , in a matter of only a handful of years , we have seen males take trophies from females ; men and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bathrooms and locker rooms ; people facing prison , fines , and job loss because of the supposed misuse of pronouns ; government schools embracing `` transgenderism '' ; government libraries hosting `` Drag Queen Story Hour '' ; corporations promoting `` transgender '' lies ; the demand for tampons in men 's rooms ; state taxpayers forced to pay for `` transgender '' surgeries ( dozens of Democrat-led states now force this ignorant evil on taxpayers ) ; and so on ( for a comprehensive list of such evil , see here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ church on this grave matter ?
I 'm sure that most Christians never imagined that they would have to defend the truth about something a child can be made to understand , but this is where the world is , and we must meet it there , with the truth .
To my fellow believers , I say , properly equip yourselves , and get in this battle !
Trevor Grant Thomas : At the Intersection of Politics , Science , Faith , and Reason .
Trevor is the author of the The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with permission from the American Thinker .

Decades of shying away from telling such truths is one of the biggest reasons why we are where we are on sexual matters in our culture.
January 29, 2020 (American Thinker) — Writing about sexual morality in the mid-twentieth century, C.S. Lewis concluded that the world's “great relaxation and simplifying” of the rules of modesty, or standards of propriety, while not necessarily a bad thing, presents this “inconvenience.” He wrote: “People of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and [thus] we hardly know where we are.”
Lewis goes on to point out:
There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, “Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is [remember, “now” was the mid-twentieth century], has gone wrong. One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.
Lewis was — and is — right. Note that our sexual instinct has gone so wrong that Lewis's clear declaration of Christian sexual morality — published in one of the greatest works of modern apologetics, Mere Christianity — is now, in the early twenty-first century, somewhat insufficient. This is because the God-haters, and those otherwise devoted to a “theology of self,” have now perverted the oldest institution in the history of humanity: marriage.
In other words, we are today so far removed from the “same standard” when it comes to matters in the sexual realm that many in the world today have little to no idea “where we are” on marriage. If he were writing or speaking today, Lewis would need to clarify that, by “marriage,” he means the biblical definition of marriage. Tragically, this would be the case even if his audience were church-going Americans.
No other issue today has so divided Christendom than matters concerning homosexuality. Even the Roe v. Wade decision — which, in 1973, legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy — did not so quickly or so decidedly corrupt Christians, Christianity, and the church as has the evil LGBT agenda.
As recently as just over a decade ago — 2009 — U.S. states were 31 for 31 in their rejection of same-sex “marriage.” Whenever an electorate was given a choice, by an average rate of more than two to one — 67.5% to 32.5% — American voters said no to same-sex “marriage” and yes to marriage as defined in Scripture.
As I noted at the time, the rejection of gay “marriage” occurred not only in conservative states, but in some very liberal ones as well, such as Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. Purple states such as Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada also soundly rejected gay “marriage.” Barely over a decade ago, across the U.S., from the Deep South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the West Coast, Americans united behind biblical marriage.
According to the Pew Research Center, in 2004, Americans opposed same-sex “marriage” by a margin of 60% to 31%. By 2019, those numbers were almost exactly reversed. According to Pew, Americans now support same-sex “marriage” by a margin of 61% to 31%. Gallup polling shows similar trends: in 1996, Americans opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage” 68% to 27%. By 2019, Gallup showed Americans supporting same-sex “marriage” 63% to 36%.
How did this happen? How was there such a vast reversal on homosexuality and marriage in such a short period of time? Several things were at work in order to get millions of Americans to abandon long held views on marriage: an organized and determined LGBT agenda; a vast and like-minded media; like-minded federal judges; the Democratic Party; and, most tragically, churches unwilling or unequipped to fight for the truth on these grave issues.
It is a common misperception that churches — and Christians in general — spend a lot of time talking about sex. Last year, Decision magazine — a publication of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association — reported:
The Bible is very clear in its teaching about two of the most controversial issues we face today — homosexuality and abortion. According to researcher George Barna, 90 percent of pastors recognize that the Bible speaks to these issues. But fewer than 10 percent are actually teaching what the Bible says about them!
Given the rampant sexual sin in our culture — much of it leading to death (abortion, disease, and the like) — and the significance of marriage — the lifetime union of one man and one woman — one would think pastors, Sunday school teachers, church youth leaders, evangelists, Christian media, Christian politicians, Christian celebrities, Christian parents, and the like would give great time and effort to telling the truth on what are undoubtedly some of the most important moral issues of our time. Sadly, I believe that this has not been the case, and it's time for this to change.
Now, perhaps more than at any other moment in history, it's time for Christians to be explicitly — even graphically — clear that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage. This is especially the case when it comes to our young people. Christians must be explicit that marriage is only the lifelong union of one man and one woman (as revealed “in the beginning”!). Christians must be explicitly clear that any deviation from these truths — homosexuality, “shacking up,” fornication, pornography, etc. — is sin.
These truths must be loudly and plainly proclaimed in pulpits, classrooms, living rooms, board rooms, legislative houses, and the like. Decades of shying away from telling such truths is one of the biggest reasons why we are where we are on sexual matters in our culture. It's not just the media, the courts, corporations, and much of our government who have become agents of the enemy in this fight. Even the church itself has fallen to corruption as the result of sexual sin.
The Methodist Church sits on the verge of a massive split because so many Methodists are completely lost when it comes to sexual sin. Many other denominations and individual congregations have recently seen similar splits over sexual sin. As C.S. Lewis's fictional demon Screwtape taught us, this is what results when fewer and fewer Americans are willing “to contend with the explicit repentance of a definite, fully recognized, sin.”
When the church becomes so corrupted, there's no doubt that even further corruption awaits the culture. Not long after many so-called Christians embraced same-sex “marriage,” America soon descended even farther into the pit of sexual sin. Along with debating what is marriage, truth-loving Americans now have to debate and defend the truth on who is a male and who is a female!
As a result of the evil “transgender” agenda, in a matter of only a handful of years, we have seen males take trophies from females; men and boys invade women's and girl's bathrooms and locker rooms; people facing prison, fines, and job loss because of the supposed misuse of pronouns; government schools embracing “transgenderism”; government libraries hosting “Drag Queen Story Hour”; corporations promoting “transgender” lies; the demand for tampons in men's rooms; state taxpayers forced to pay for “transgender” surgeries (dozens of Democrat-led states now force this ignorant evil on taxpayers); and so on (for a comprehensive list of such evil, see here).
Again, where is the church on this grave matter? I'm sure that most Christians never imagined that they would have to defend the truth about something a child can be made to understand, but this is where the world is, and we must meet it there, with the truth. To my fellow believers, I say, properly equip yourselves, and get in this battle!
Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Trump Senate impeachment trial began with foolishness from Adam Schiff

It is doubtful that very many people watched hours and hours of the impeachment proceedings in the Senate last Tuesday .
A little bit went a long way .
But this much was abundantly clear : Adam Schiff is maniacally obsessed with removing President Trump from office .
We have known for years that he is a pathological liar ; he lies even when he surely knows his lies will be exposed in due time .
Rep. Schiff promised for at least two years that he had absolute proof that Trump had colluded with Russia .
He did not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest .
Schiff made up the phony transcript of the president 's phone call to President Zelensky of Ukraine even after the actual transcript had been released .
He was so driven that he read his little screenplay in public , in an official hearing !
How dumb is that ?
It is worse than dumb ; it is pathological .
Schiff appears to have some serious mental problems .
Watching him , even in small doses , throughout the first day of the `` trial '' in yet another of the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed from office , one can not help but realize we are watching a disturbed man melt down before our eyes .
He is shockingly arrogant , thoroughly disdainful of the president , Republicans , and the American people .
Schiff is willing to fabricate and twist the tale he tells even though there is no evidence for all of his wild accusations .
He 's already been caught misrepresenting the evidence , as Melanie Zanona of Politico reports : House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to documents obtained by POLITICO — a possible error the GOP will likely criticize as another example of the Democrats ' rushed effort to impeach President Donald Trump .
The issue arose when Schiff ( D-Calif. ) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas , an indicted former associate of Trump 's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani .
In one section of the letter , Schiff claims that Parnas `` continued to try to arrange a meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani : `` trying to get us mr Z . ''
The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff 's letter — was redacted .
But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later , Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky , the founder of Burisma , followed by a text message to Giuliani that states : `` mr Z answers my brother . ''
That suggests Parnas was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charitable explanation for this is sloppiness .
But Schiff has deliberately lied before , so charity may not be in order .
He surely can not think President Trump will be convicted in the Senate , so he must have his eyes on defeating Trump at the polls in November .
Not much chance of that , given the quality of the opposition candidates and the phenomenal success of President Trump 's three years in office .
America , as Trump rightly asserted in Davos , has not been so economically successful in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from around the world to follow his lead , to unleash their own populations with freer markets , fewer regulations , etc .
He was the star of that show .
Adam Schiff has made himself the face of impeachment , and he is obviously very proud of his role in this Democrat disaster .
He just seems not to know how big a disaster it is , for him and his party .
Sure , the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC think Schiff is some kind of hero .
How they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mystery because it is likely that most Americans who saw any of his frenzied attacks on the president on Tuesday were not only put off , but horrified .
The man is not well .
By midnight , Schiff seemed close to actually melting down like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz — close to tears , as in his final act at the oh , so illegitimate `` inquiry . ''
Schiff is the biggest mistake Pelosi ever made , for he has made fools of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cowardly to rein him in , to admit that the emperor has no clothes .
They may grit their teeth and utter his praise , but they all know he is a menace to their society .
`` An outside show is a poor substitute for inner worth '' ( Aesop again ) .
Schiff is all show , an empty vessel .
He will be his party 's undoing .
Adam Schiff 's unrestrained zeal to overturn the 2016 election and affect the 2020 vote betrays his wholesale lack of discretion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' efforts to unseat him , will be re-elected in a landslide in 2020 .
Published with permission from the American Thinker .

Rep. Schiff promised for at least two years that he had absolute proof that Trump had colluded with Russia. He did not.
January 29, 2020 (American Thinker) — “Zeal should not outrun discretion” —Aesop
It is doubtful that very many people watched hours and hours of the impeachment proceedings in the Senate last Tuesday. A little bit went a long way. But this much was abundantly clear: Adam Schiff is maniacally obsessed with removing President Trump from office. We have known for years that he is a pathological liar; he lies even when he surely knows his lies will be exposed in due time.
Rep. Schiff promised for at least two years that he had absolute proof that Trump had colluded with Russia. He did not. The Mueller Report put that claim to rest.
Schiff made up the phony transcript of the president's phone call to President Zelensky of Ukraine even after the actual transcript had been released. He was so driven that he read his little screenplay in public, in an official hearing! How dumb is that? It is worse than dumb; it is pathological.
Schiff appears to have some serious mental problems. Watching him, even in small doses, throughout the first day of the “trial” in yet another of the Democrats' sure-to-fail attempts to see President Trump removed from office, one cannot help but realize we are watching a disturbed man melt down before our eyes. He is shockingly arrogant, thoroughly disdainful of the president, Republicans, and the American people.
Schiff is willing to fabricate and twist the tale he tells even though there is no evidence for all of his wild accusations. He's already been caught misrepresenting the evidence, as Melanie Zanona of Politico reports:
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga, according to documents obtained by POLITICO — a possible error the GOP will likely criticize as another example of the Democrats' rushed effort to impeach President Donald Trump. The issue arose when Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas “continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,” citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: “trying to get us mr Z.” The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff's letter — was redacted. But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: “mr Z answers my brother.” That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky.
The charitable explanation for this is sloppiness. But Schiff has deliberately lied before, so charity may not be in order.
He surely cannot think President Trump will be convicted in the Senate, so he must have his eyes on defeating Trump at the polls in November. Not much chance of that, given the quality of the opposition candidates and the phenomenal success of President Trump's three years in office. America, as Trump rightly asserted in Davos, has not been so economically successful in decades. He encouraged his fellow CEOs from around the world to follow his lead, to unleash their own populations with freer markets, fewer regulations, etc. He was the star of that show.
Adam Schiff has made himself the face of impeachment, and he is obviously very proud of his role in this Democrat disaster. He just seems not to know how big a disaster it is, for him and his party. Sure, the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC think Schiff is some kind of hero. How they miss his deranged visage and manner is a mystery because it is likely that most Americans who saw any of his frenzied attacks on the president on Tuesday were not only put off, but horrified. The man is not well.
By midnight, Schiff seemed close to actually melting down like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz — close to tears, as in his final act at the oh, so illegitimate “inquiry.” Schiff is the biggest mistake Pelosi ever made, for he has made fools of her and all those who are too cowardly to rein him in, to admit that the emperor has no clothes. They may grit their teeth and utter his praise, but they all know he is a menace to their society.
“An outside show is a poor substitute for inner worth” (Aesop again). Schiff is all show, an empty vessel. He will be his party's undoing. Adam Schiff's unrestrained zeal to overturn the 2016 election and affect the 2020 vote betrays his wholesale lack of discretion. And Trump, despite all the Democrats' efforts to unseat him, will be re-elected in a landslide in 2020.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--New Zealand voters to decide in September referendum if doctors can kill sick patients

AUCKLAND , New Zealand , January 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Voters will decide whether to legalize the practice of doctors killing sick patients , making New Zealand the first country in the world to decide on euthanasia via referendum .
On Tuesday , Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the referendum , which will be held September 19 .
On the same day , voters will decide whether to return Ardern to power .
If the euthanasia referendum passes with more than 50 percent of the vote , the End of Life Choice Act of 2019 would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results are finalized .
Currently , the aiding and abeting of suicide is illegal , according to New Zealand ’ s criminal code .
If the new euthanasia law goes pass , it would allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of substances to patients requesting death who are believed to have less than six months to live .
According to the bill , a person is eligible for assisted killing when he or she “ is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability , experiences unbearable suffering that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person considers tolerable ” and “ is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying.
” The bill would allow a medical practitioner to administer the death-dealing substances to the patient .
However , the bill also would allow those who have a non-terminal , “ grievous and irremediable medical condition ” to request lethal euthanasia .
It prohibits euthanasia in cases when patients are disabled , elderly , mentally ill , or have a mental disorder .
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in Canada , Belgium , Luxembourg , Netherlands , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are illegal worldwide and mostly seen as murder , even while there have been reports that babies diagnosed with certain disabilities have been at times abandoned and left without treatment by physicians in the Netherlands .
In New Zealand , the Catholic bishops warned against euthanasia in a 2011 statement .
They noted that they had written in 1995 : `` Euthanasia occurs when a doctor , not an illness , kills a patient . ''
“ At that time we drew attention to a very important distinction : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdraw extraordinary methods of keeping a person alive when it is no longer sensible to do so ; it is another thing to do something , or omit to do something for the purpose of terminating a person 's life , ” the bishops wrote .
“ In the former case , we are simply allowing a person to die .
In the latter case , we are killing.
” The bishops said that because society views suffering as meaningless and intolerable , “ euthanasia is presented as a way of avoiding suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like an attractive option , or even a right.
” Introducing legalized killing for those who are suffering would introduce , they wrote , “ a whole new , and dangerous , dimension to society.
” Legalizing euthanasia , they argued , would initiate a slippery slope already witnessed in other countries that allow the practice .
They noted that while euthanasia was once made available in the Netherlands to dying adults with terminal illness , “ lethal injections can now be given to newborns and teenagers with disabilities , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In some of these cases , there is no explicit request from the person concerned for euthanasia.
” Advances in palliative care , the bishops wrote , mean that no one needs to die in pain .
“ The real moral imperative is on us all to be bearers of hope and to offer selfless care to all those who are sick , ” they continued , saying , “ disabled and dying while ensuring that there are adequate resources for palliative care.
” Finally , they stated , “ We do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equitable access to good palliative care for all New Zealanders .
We need to learn how to live well and die well.
” Writing at EuthanasiaDebate.org , retired Dr. David Richmond wrote that he fears the bill would diminish the trust between physicians and their patients .
The website expressed special concern for the dangers that euthanasia poses to elderly persons : “ Abuse of disabled and elderly people is a serious issue in New Zealand and in other Western nations .
Legalising euthanasia would put them further at risk , especially when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget .
Coercion to die would be a form of abuse that may be particularly difficult to detect .
”

The law would allow medical practitioners to accommodate death requests for terminal and, in some cases, non-terminal conditions.
AUCKLAND, New Zealand, January 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Voters will decide whether to legalize the practice of doctors killing sick patients, making New Zealand the first country in the world to decide on euthanasia via referendum.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the referendum, which will be held September 19. On the same day, voters will decide whether to return Ardern to power.
If the euthanasia referendum passes with more than 50 percent of the vote, the End of Life Choice Act of 2019 would go into effect exactly one year after the results are finalized. Currently, the aiding and abeting of suicide is illegal, according to New Zealand’s criminal code.
If the new euthanasia law goes pass, it would allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of substances to patients requesting death who are believed to have less than six months to live.
According to the bill, a person is eligible for assisted killing when he or she “is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability, experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable” and “is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying.” The bill would allow a medical practitioner to administer the death-dealing substances to the patient.
It prohibits euthanasia in cases when patients are disabled, elderly, mentally ill, or have a mental disorder.
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, and several U.S. states. Non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are illegal worldwide and mostly seen as murder, even while there have been reports that babies diagnosed with certain disabilities have been at times abandoned and left without treatment by physicians in the Netherlands.
In New Zealand, the Catholic bishops warned against euthanasia in a 2011 statement. They noted that they had written in 1995: “Euthanasia occurs when a doctor, not an illness, kills a patient.”
“At that time we drew attention to a very important distinction: it is one thing to withhold or withdraw extraordinary methods of keeping a person alive when it is no longer sensible to do so; it is another thing to do something, or omit to do something for the purpose of terminating a person's life,” the bishops wrote. “In the former case, we are simply allowing a person to die. In the latter case, we are killing.”
The bishops said that because society views suffering as meaningless and intolerable, “euthanasia is presented as a way of avoiding suffering. This can be made to look like an attractive option, or even a right.” Introducing legalized killing for those who are suffering would introduce, they wrote, “a whole new, and dangerous, dimension to society.”
Legalizing euthanasia, they argued, would initiate a slippery slope already witnessed in other countries that allow the practice. They noted that while euthanasia was once made available in the Netherlands to dying adults with terminal illness, “lethal injections can now be given to newborns and teenagers with disabilities, as well as to persons with dementia and depression. In some of these cases, there is no explicit request from the person concerned for euthanasia.”
Advances in palliative care, the bishops wrote, mean that no one needs to die in pain.
“The real moral imperative is on us all to be bearers of hope and to offer selfless care to all those who are sick,” they continued, saying, “disabled and dying while ensuring that there are adequate resources for palliative care.”
Finally, they stated, “We do not need euthanasia. We need to promote equitable access to good palliative care for all New Zealanders. We need to learn how to live well and die well.”
Writing at EuthanasiaDebate.org, retired Dr. David Richmond wrote that he fears the bill would diminish the trust between physicians and their patients. The website expressed special concern for the dangers that euthanasia poses to elderly persons:
“Abuse of disabled and elderly people is a serious issue in New Zealand and in other Western nations. Legalising euthanasia would put them further at risk, especially when there is increasing pressure on the health budget. Coercion to die would be a form of abuse that may be particularly difficult to detect.”
Feb. 3, 2020 correction: A previous version of this report stated that the “bill also would allow those who have a non-terminal, ‘grievous and irremediable medical condition’ to request lethal euthanasia.” This information was not correct. Only those with a terminal illness who are believed to have less than six months to live or less are eligible to apply. LifeSiteNews regrets this error.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Judges ‘reluctantly’ dismiss kids’ lawsuit demanding ‘climate justice’

Judges ‘reluctantly’ dismiss kids’ lawsuit demanding ‘climate justice’ from US govt

January 29 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — On a 2-1 vote , the Ninth Circuit Court finally dismissed Juliana v. United States , the lawsuit brought on behalf of child plaintiffs demanding their constitutional right to `` a climate system capable of sustaining human life . ''
The children , and the environmentalist group Our Children 's Trust that 's using them as lawfare puppets , were demanding a court order compelling the U.S. government to `` swiftly phase out fossil-fuel use '' and develop and implement `` a national plan to restore Earth 's energy balance ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The way William Yeatman at Cato boils it down : `` If the plaintiffs had their druthers a single federal district court judge would become , after the president , the most powerful official in the country . ''
The majority 's opinion ( one judge wrote a dissent ) correctly recognizes the clear-cut limits the U.S. Constitution places on Article III courts — i.e.
, `` [ n ] ot every problem posing a threat to the American Experiment can be solved by federal judges ... [ so ] the plaintiffs ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branches or to the electorate at large . ''
Dissenting Judge Josephine L. Staton , writing more in the style we 've come to expect from activist jurists , believes that those constitutional limits can be ignored , because ... well , this is an emergency !
It goes without saying that the government never `` bluntly insist [ ed ] '' any such thing .
But because of her own unswerving conviction that , short of immediate enactment of the most draconian sacrifices , we 're `` doomed , doomed , doomed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decree Green New Deal–like measures with a deliberate intention to obliterate the country .
She even tries to fine-tune her asteroid analogy into `` a scenario in which the government itself accelerated the asteroid towards the earth before shutting down our defenses . ''
With the country at the climate tipping point , Staton contends that the courts are empowered to `` enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty , '' which is `` that the Constitution does not condone the Nation 's willful destruction . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to dismiss the case , also take for granted the imminence of an `` environmental apocalypse . ''
They dismissed the kiddies ' lawsuit on the strictly legal issues of standing and the court 's inability to grant the requested relief , then wrote they decided only `` reluctantly . ''
In fact , the majority admit they found `` beguiling '' the plaintiffs ' childish ideas about `` simply ordering the promulgation of a plan . ''
According to their opinion , the only problem with decreeing such a sweeping plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that : In other words , even if an ( unfit ) Oregon trial judge could order herself superior to both other branches of government and impose her will nationwide , compelling obedience would entail judicial meddling in so many different areas of the nation 's political , economic , and social activities that it would be too complex to succeed .
Dissenting Judge Staton scoffs that such complexity would be a barrier to judicial intervention .
She notes the far-reaching enforcement mechanisms required to implement the Supreme Court 's order to desegregate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and says `` [ m ] ere complexity '' does n't place an issue beyond the courts ' authority to force `` constitutional compliance '' : The `` variety of obstacles '' she has in mind undoubtedly include the energy sector , modern transportation , and democracy , but whoever said the job of running the country from your judicial bench was going to be easy ?
We need only recall the outstanding results wrought by all those `` deft judicial hands '' who managed busing , district-drawing , and school desegregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and '70s .
Staton barely touches on how the courts are entitled to `` step into the shoes of the political branches '' except to say it 's justified `` if those branches walk the Nation over a cliff . ''
This is exactly why the Framers of the Constitution placed strict limits on the power of the federal Judiciary .
Judicial power going to people 's heads is just as real as the threat of the imperial presidency we 're forever being warned about .
It 's probably a greater a threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mischievous judges to worry about , as seen by the number of nationwide injunctions granted just since Inauguration Day 2017 .
Judge Staton 's argument that federal judges are ideally equipped to weigh the `` scientific and prudential considerations '' needed to commandeer the nation 's energy policy falls flat in light of her own manifest credulity on the issue of climate `` science . ''
She believes everything , and questions nothing , of so-called climate experts ' highly questionable claims .
She states as a matter of fact that the Juliana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science , specifically , an impending point of no return . ''
She knows that the day is upon us `` when the seas envelop our coastal cities , fires and droughts haunt our interiors , and storms ravage everything between . ''
Juliana is only one of a `` wave '' of climate lawsuits proceeding on the basis `` that climate science itself is n't up for debate . ''
Even when a court gets it right as a matter of law , as happened this time in Juliana , widespread allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science '' have a cumulative effect across the Judicial Branch .
It 's unavoidable to have judges making factual findings , because it 's part of the job description .
But ill informed and overreaching judges like Josephine Staton prove that , when it comes to something as critical as energy policy , the complex `` scientific and prudential considerations '' are best trusted to the American people .
T.R .
Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn , Michigan .
You can email him at [ email protected ] .
Published with @ @ @ @ @ @

Even the majority, who dismissed the case strictly on legal issues, take for granted the imminence of an 'environmental apocalypse.'
January 29, 2020 (American Thinker) — On a 2-1 vote, the Ninth Circuit Court finally dismissed Juliana v. United States, the lawsuit brought on behalf of child plaintiffs demanding their constitutional right to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The children, and the environmentalist group Our Children's Trust that's using them as lawfare puppets, were demanding a court order compelling the U.S. government to “swiftly phase out fossil-fuel use” and develop and implement “a national plan to restore Earth's energy balance … to stabilize the climate system.” The way William Yeatman at Cato boils it down: “If the plaintiffs had their druthers a single federal district court judge would become, after the president, the most powerful official in the country.”
The majority's opinion (one judge wrote a dissent) correctly recognizes the clear-cut limits the U.S. Constitution places on Article III courts — i.e., “[n]ot every problem posing a threat to the American Experiment can be solved by federal judges … [so] the plaintiffs' case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large.”
Dissenting Judge Josephine L. Staton, writing more in the style we've come to expect from activist jurists, believes that those constitutional limits can be ignored, because…well, this is an emergency!
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
It goes without saying that the government never “bluntly insist[ed]” any such thing. But because of her own unswerving conviction that, short of immediate enactment of the most draconian sacrifices, we're “doomed, doomed, doomed,” Staton can equate unwillingness to decree Green New Deal–like measures with a deliberate intention to obliterate the country. She even tries to fine-tune her asteroid analogy into “a scenario in which the government itself accelerated the asteroid towards the earth before shutting down our defenses.” With the country at the climate tipping point, Staton contends that the courts are empowered to “enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty,” which is “that the Constitution does not condone the Nation's willful destruction.”
The Juliana majority, regardless of their decision to dismiss the case, also take for granted the imminence of an “environmental apocalypse.” They dismissed the kiddies' lawsuit on the strictly legal issues of standing and the court's inability to grant the requested relief, then wrote they decided only “reluctantly.” In fact, the majority admit they found “beguiling” the plaintiffs' childish ideas about “simply ordering the promulgation of a plan.” According to their opinion, the only problem with decreeing such a sweeping plan (aside from the Constitution) is that:
… it ignores that an Article III court will thereafter be required to determine whether the plan is sufficient to remediate the claimed constitutional violation of the plaintiffs' right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” We doubt that any such plan can be supervised or enforced by an Article III court.
In other words, even if an (unfit) Oregon trial judge could order herself superior to both other branches of government and impose her will nationwide, compelling obedience would entail judicial meddling in so many different areas of the nation's political, economic, and social activities that it would be too complex to succeed.
Dissenting Judge Staton scoffs that such complexity would be a barrier to judicial intervention. She notes the far-reaching enforcement mechanisms required to implement the Supreme Court's order to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education, and says “[m]ere complexity” doesn't place an issue beyond the courts' authority to force “constitutional compliance”:
[D]ecelerating from our path toward cataclysm will undoubtedly require “elimination of a variety of obstacles.” Those obstacles may be great in number, novelty, and magnitude, but there is no indication that they are devoid of discernable [sic] standards. Busing mandates, facilities allocation, and district-drawing were all “complex policy decisions” faced by post-Brown trial courts … and I have no doubt that disentangling the government from promotion of fossil fuels will take an equally deft judicial hand.
The “variety of obstacles” she has in mind undoubtedly include the energy sector, modern transportation, and democracy, but whoever said the job of running the country from your judicial bench was going to be easy? We need only recall the outstanding results wrought by all those “deft judicial hands” who managed busing, district-drawing, and school desegregation in the happy decades of the 1960s and '70s.
Staton barely touches on how the courts are entitled to “step into the shoes of the political branches” except to say it's justified “if those branches walk the Nation over a cliff.”
This is exactly why the Framers of the Constitution placed strict limits on the power of the federal Judiciary. Judicial power going to people's heads is just as real as the threat of the imperial presidency we're forever being warned about. It's probably a greater a threat, because there are so many more mischievous judges to worry about, as seen by the number of nationwide injunctions granted just since Inauguration Day 2017.
Judge Staton's argument that federal judges are ideally equipped to weigh the “scientific and prudential considerations” needed to commandeer the nation's energy policy falls flat in light of her own manifest credulity on the issue of climate “science.” She believes everything, and questions nothing, of so-called climate experts' highly questionable claims. She states as a matter of fact that the Juliana “Plaintiffs' claims are based on science, specifically, an impending point of no return.” She knows that the day is upon us “when the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors, and storms ravage everything between.”
Juliana is only one of a “wave” of climate lawsuits proceeding on the basis “that climate science itself isn't up for debate.” Even when a court gets it right as a matter of law, as happened this time in Juliana, widespread allegations that apocalyptic climate theories are “settled science” have a cumulative effect across the Judicial Branch. It's unavoidable to have judges making factual findings, because it's part of the job description. But ill informed and overreaching judges like Josephine Staton prove that, when it comes to something as critical as energy policy, the complex “scientific and prudential considerations” are best trusted to the American people.
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan. You can email him at [email protected].
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-30--Wildfires devastating Australia have their roots in extreme Green policies

January 29 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — With at least 27 people killed and 18 million acres incinerated as of last week , the worst bushfire season Australia has seen in decades is a bad one , no doubt about it .
Reproduced with permission from the Western Australian Land Information Authority , the FireWatch map below shows the location of individual fires as of Jan. 14 , 2020 .
Disclaimer : The size of the icons on the map relates to the location of the fire and not to the size of the fire on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and were not arrived at in consultation with the Western Australian Land Information Authority .
The season 's fires have been intense and widespread , but not nearly as much as reported by some media that made it seem as though virtually the entire continent was ablaze .
Eighteen million acres destroyed is a disaster by any measure , but that acreage represents less than 1 percent of Australia 's landmass and less than 6 % of its forests .
No one denies that the fires were made worse by dry conditions resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But , as measured by the amount of forestland destroyed , the 18 million acres for this year 's fires pale in comparison to the 290 million acres burned to the ground during the 1974 bushfire season .
That 's equivalent to the size of France , Portugal , and Spain combined , and the 1974 fires occurred years before anthropogenic global warming theory suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the 1980s .
And , as measured by the respective death tolls , the recent fires pale in comparison to the under-hyped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Victoria , which killed 173 people .
Why so much more hysteria this time around ?
According to Australian-American journalist Miranda Devine , the Black Saturday bushfire outbreak `` was n't blown up into a global cause-celebre promoted by the likes of Barack Obama , Greta Thunberg and Cate Blanchett , because this time there 's a climate angle to be exploited . ''
If global warming alarmists are wrong in blaming this season 's bushfires on Earth 's ever-changing climate , then what was the cause ?
The answer , or at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not hard to see .
It 's now summer in Australia , and intense bushfires have occurred on the continent with regularity for thousands of years .
Numerous government fire commissions have all reached the same conclusion : that hazard reduction is the only way to prevent bushfires from spiraling out of control .
According to Australian forester and former acting fire control officer Ian McArthur , climate change did not cause the current crisis : In other words , planned fire prevention burns eliminate the natural ground fuel upon which rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cause of the fires , Ms. Devine wrote that `` blaming climate change is a cynical diversion from the criminal negligence of [ Australian jurisdictions ] which tried to buy green votes by locking up vast tracts of land as national parks , yet failed to spend the money to control ground fuel and maintain fire trails . ''
( Fire trails are roads built in forests to provide emergency access to firefighting equipment and personnel . )
As reported by Ms. Devine , Dr. Phil Cheney , Australia 's foremost bushfire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convince authorities that systematically reducing ground fuel annually would reduce fire intensity to a manageable level .
Burning ground fuel in the cooler months was standard fire prevention practice until progressive bureaucrats in Australia 's state and federal governments began vigorously opposing controlled burns in the name of `` biodiversity . ''
According to Frank McKee , senior fire control officer in Boyne Valley , it 's next to impossible to get all government departments to agree to hazard reduction burns on state-owned land .
`` You have to jump through hoops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McKee said .
Under pressure from greenies , the government of New South Wales decreed that preventive burning is a `` threatening process '' that undercuts the nation 's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act .
Passed in the name of Deep Ecology , that official act made it virtually impossible to prevent wildfires from spiraling to cataclysmic proportions , as happened with this season 's bushfires .
Unless natural ground fuel sources are controlled , there 's not much that can stop a wildfire from consuming vast tracts of wooded land during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( That 's a major reason why the recent wildfires in California were so devastating : in support of `` biodiversity , '' a succession of Democrat governors created an inferno-in-waiting by refusing to clear the state 's forests of an estimated 130 million dead trees . )
The climate activist movement in Australia fiercely opposes controlled burns yet receives quiet support from progressive media .
The government-backed Australian Broadcasting Corporation recently deleted a Sept. 4 Facebook post that gave uncritical publicity to activists who disrupted a controlled burn in East Gippsland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw 2.5 million acres of lush green forests go up in smoke .
The deleted post showed a green activist displaying a protest sign that read , `` Spring Burns Kill Baby Birds Alive . ''
That 's 100 % true , but how many more birds and other wildlife are killed due to obstruction of controlled fire prevention burns ?
Such obstruction can result in massive fires that destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat , as happened in the forests of East Gippsland .
Here 's a combustible question worth contemplating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire prevention burns , could there be another human cause of the Australian wildfires ?
Yes .
Wildfires can also be caused by ... arson .
According to CNN , police in New South Wales have charged 24 people with deliberately starting bushfires since November , and those are just the ones who got caught .
Imagine for a moment a small group of Aussie eco-zealots — it would n't take many — being recruited to `` prove '' man-made global warming theory once and for all by surreptitiously setting an entire continent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so during hot , dry , and windy conditions to ensure that their handiwork would spread like , pardon the pun , wildfire .
Given the astounding fraud and deception that underpins man-made global warming theory — Climategate 2009 is a prime example — political arson can not be ruled out as the cause of most of this season 's Australian bushfires .
Why would anyone even consider setting an entire continent ablaze ?
Because progressive environmentalism , AKA `` climate change , '' is an `` ends justify the means '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to effect its grand stealth agenda , which I wrote about in `` The Cynical Plot behind Global Warming Hysteria . ''
An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired , John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta .
[ email protected ] Published with permission from the American Thinker .

Why would anyone even consider setting an entire continent ablaze? Because progressive environmentalism benefits from it.
January 29, 2020 (American Thinker) — With at least 27 people killed and 18 million acres incinerated as of last week, the worst bushfire season Australia has seen in decades is a bad one, no doubt about it. Reproduced with permission from the Western Australian Land Information Authority, the FireWatch map below shows the location of individual fires as of Jan. 14, 2020. Disclaimer: The size of the icons on the map relates to the location of the fire and not to the size of the fire on the ground. Any opinions expressed herein are mine and were not arrived at in consultation with the Western Australian Land Information Authority.
©2020 Western Australian Land Information Authority
The season's fires have been intense and widespread, but not nearly as much as reported by some media that made it seem as though virtually the entire continent was ablaze. Eighteen million acres destroyed is a disaster by any measure, but that acreage represents less than 1 percent of Australia's landmass and less than 6% of its forests.
No one denies that the fires were made worse by dry conditions resulting from a drought and record hot temperatures. But, as measured by the amount of forestland destroyed, the 18 million acres for this year's fires pale in comparison to the 290 million acres burned to the ground during the 1974 bushfire season. That's equivalent to the size of France, Portugal, and Spain combined, and the 1974 fires occurred years before anthropogenic global warming theory suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the 1980s. And, as measured by the respective death tolls, the recent fires pale in comparison to the under-hyped 2009 “Black Saturday” bushfires in Victoria, which killed 173 people.
Why so much more hysteria this time around? According to Australian-American journalist Miranda Devine, the Black Saturday bushfire outbreak “wasn't blown up into a global cause-celebre promoted by the likes of Barack Obama, Greta Thunberg and Cate Blanchett, because this time there's a climate angle to be exploited.”
The intentional obstruction of fire prevention burns
If global warming alarmists are wrong in blaming this season's bushfires on Earth's ever-changing climate, then what was the cause? The answer, or at least a big part of it, is not hard to see. It's now summer in Australia, and intense bushfires have occurred on the continent with regularity for thousands of years. Numerous government fire commissions have all reached the same conclusion: that hazard reduction is the only way to prevent bushfires from spiraling out of control. According to Australian forester and former acting fire control officer Ian McArthur, climate change did not cause the current crisis:
Long unburnt fuels [dead trees, tall grass, undergrowth, etc.] in national parks are the primary cause. Basic fire management states that a fire needs oxygen, a heat source and fuel. The only one of those that can be manipulated is fuel. The more fuel, the more intense the fire, the harder it becomes to suppress the fire.
In other words, planned fire prevention burns eliminate the natural ground fuel upon which rapidly spreading wildfires depend. In commenting on the cause of the fires, Ms. Devine wrote that “blaming climate change is a cynical diversion from the criminal negligence of [Australian jurisdictions] which tried to buy green votes by locking up vast tracts of land as national parks, yet failed to spend the money to control ground fuel and maintain fire trails.” (Fire trails are roads built in forests to provide emergency access to firefighting equipment and personnel.)
As reported by Ms. Devine, Dr. Phil Cheney, Australia's foremost bushfire researcher, has spent 30 years trying to convince authorities that systematically reducing ground fuel annually would reduce fire intensity to a manageable level. Burning ground fuel in the cooler months was standard fire prevention practice until progressive bureaucrats in Australia's state and federal governments began vigorously opposing controlled burns in the name of “biodiversity.” According to Frank McKee, senior fire control officer in Boyne Valley, it's next to impossible to get all government departments to agree to hazard reduction burns on state-owned land. “You have to jump through hoops so high it's ridiculous,” McKee said.
Under pressure from greenies, the government of New South Wales decreed that preventive burning is a “threatening process” that undercuts the nation's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Passed in the name of Deep Ecology, that official act made it virtually impossible to prevent wildfires from spiraling to cataclysmic proportions, as happened with this season's bushfires.
Unless natural ground fuel sources are controlled, there's not much that can stop a wildfire from consuming vast tracts of wooded land during hot, dry, and windy conditions. (That's a major reason why the recent wildfires in California were so devastating: in support of “biodiversity,” a succession of Democrat governors created an inferno-in-waiting by refusing to clear the state's forests of an estimated 130 million dead trees.)
The climate activist movement in Australia fiercely opposes controlled burns yet receives quiet support from progressive media. The government-backed Australian Broadcasting Corporation recently deleted a Sept. 4 Facebook post that gave uncritical publicity to activists who disrupted a controlled burn in East Gippsland, a part of Victoria that later saw 2.5 million acres of lush green forests go up in smoke.
The deleted post showed a green activist displaying a protest sign that read, “Spring Burns Kill Baby Birds Alive.” That's 100% true, but how many more birds and other wildlife are killed due to obstruction of controlled fire prevention burns? Such obstruction can result in massive fires that destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat, as happened in the forests of East Gippsland.
Arson
Here's a combustible question worth contemplating: other than green activists obstructing controlled fire prevention burns, could there be another human cause of the Australian wildfires? Yes. Wildfires can also be caused by…arson. According to CNN, police in New South Wales have charged 24 people with deliberately starting bushfires since November, and those are just the ones who got caught.
Imagine for a moment a small group of Aussie eco-zealots — it wouldn't take many — being recruited to “prove” man-made global warming theory once and for all by surreptitiously setting an entire continent ablaze. Imagine them being instructed to do so during hot, dry, and windy conditions to ensure that their handiwork would spread like, pardon the pun, wildfire. Given the astounding fraud and deception that underpins man-made global warming theory — Climategate 2009 is a prime example — political arson cannot be ruled out as the cause of most of this season's Australian bushfires.
Why would anyone even consider setting an entire continent ablaze? Because progressive environmentalism, AKA “climate change,” is an “ends justify the means” movement that depends upon catastrophic weather events to effect its grand stealth agenda, which I wrote about in “The Cynical Plot behind Global Warming Hysteria.”
An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta. [email protected]
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share