wnd--2020-01-15--Go to church – and live longer and happier

I do n't go to church to live longer or to be happier .
I go because I am commanded to go by the Bible ( Hebrews 10:25 ) .
But study after study shows that those who actively go to church generally do live longer and happier lives .
I go to church because 2,000 years ago , the Founder of the church walked out of His own tomb .
He was dead on Friday , and then He became alive on Sunday morning .
If you have an open mind , you can even see that He left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the followers of Jesus were crushed and demoralized by His very public death .
They cowered in fear , and then they became bold and unstoppable and went to the ends of the earth proclaiming His death for the salvation of those who believe .
What changed them ?
His resurrection from the dead .
Every Sunday morning is a weekly reminder throughout much of the whole world of His historical resurrection from the dead .
That is why people from every continent , nation , race and tongue gather together then to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me We do n't worship Him for pragmatic reasons , but in the Providence of God , longer , more satisfying lives are often a byproduct of active churchgoing – so notes study after study .
On Jan. 10 , 2020 , an Australian-born minister , Glen Scrivener , had a discussion with an American atheist , Matt Dillahunty , on a British-based online series called `` The Big Conversation . ''
Scrivener said , `` There is a tremendous amount of public benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those people thrive in a world where , if the government were able to put a magic elixir into the water that could deliver those benefits – longer life , happier , healthier , societies , all of these things have been demonstrated in thousands of studies – it would make society better . ''
The atheist did not totally disagree , but he countered : `` The truth has to do with who we are , and it maybe is the case that what people need is the community , which religions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building , and it 's one of the things that secular organizations are working towards doing now , building stronger communities . ''
Meanwhile , just a little online searching shows that it is a consistent finding that attending church tends to cause people to live longer and healthier lives .
Time magazine said ( Feb. 15 , 2018 ) : `` If a long life is what you 're after , going to church may be the answer to your prayers . ''
Harvard professor Tyler J. VanderWeele noted : `` Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gradually accumulated suggesting that religious service attendance is associated with better physical and mental health . ''
For example , a study published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded : `` Frequent attendance at religious services was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause , cardiovascular , and cancer mortality among women .
Religion and spirituality may be an under-appreciated resource that physicians could explore with their patients , as appropriate . ''
They also noted that an overall look at `` studies on the connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 1994 and 2009 concluded that religious service attendance helped reduce mortality by 18 % in healthy populations . ''
The New York Times ( June 12 , 2016 ) adds more details of this particular long-term research project involving 75,534 women : `` After controlling for more than two dozen factors , they found that compared with those who never went to church , going more than once a week was associated with a 33 percent lower risk for death from any cause , attending once a week with a 26 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once a week a 13 percent lowered risk .
Risks for mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer followed a similar pattern . ''
The more often you go to church , the more healthy you tend to be .
These findings are consistent .
About 15 years ago , I interviewed Dr. Byron Johnson , now of Baylor , then of the University of Pennsylvania , about the impact of churchgoing on people 's lives .
Said Johnson : `` There is research now that seems to indicate faith does add to lifestyle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 770 studies , on religion , to see what the impact was .
Every study that we could find .
And that 's when we came up with the conclusion that about 85 percent have a beneficial effect .
… People of faith report higher levels of satisfaction , higher levels of hope and meaning , purpose in their lives than their counterparts who do n't have that same kind of commitment . ''
And he added this amazing statistic : `` We have serious research that indicates regular church attendance can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longevity for white Americans and 14 years for African Americans . ''
To me going to church is its own reward .
But how nice to see it is also good for me .

I don't go to church to live longer or to be happier. I go because I am commanded to go by the Bible (Hebrews 10:25). But study after study shows that those who actively go to church generally do live longer and happier lives.
I go to church because 2,000 years ago, the Founder of the church walked out of His own tomb. He was dead on Friday, and then He became alive on Sunday morning. If you have an open mind, you can even see that He left a virtual photograph behind.
Furthermore, the followers of Jesus were crushed and demoralized by His very public death. They cowered in fear, and then they became bold and unstoppable and went to the ends of the earth proclaiming His death for the salvation of those who believe. What changed them? His resurrection from the dead.
Every Sunday morning is a weekly reminder throughout much of the whole world of His historical resurrection from the dead.
That is why people from every continent, nation, race and tongue gather together then to worship Him the world over.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
We don't worship Him for pragmatic reasons, but in the Providence of God, longer, more satisfying lives are often a byproduct of active churchgoing – so notes study after study.
On Jan. 10, 2020, an Australian-born minister, Glen Scrivener, had a discussion with an American atheist, Matt Dillahunty, on a British-based online series called "The Big Conversation."
Scrivener said, "There is a tremendous amount of public benefit for religions to flourish in societies. Those people thrive in a world where, if the government were able to put a magic elixir into the water that could deliver those benefits – longer life, happier, healthier, societies, all of these things have been demonstrated in thousands of studies – it would make society better."
The atheist did not totally disagree, but he countered: "The truth has to do with who we are, and it maybe is the case that what people need is the community, which religions have done a really good job of building, and it's one of the things that secular organizations are working towards doing now, building stronger communities."
Meanwhile, just a little online searching shows that it is a consistent finding that attending church tends to cause people to live longer and healthier lives.
Time magazine said (Feb. 15, 2018): "If a long life is what you're after, going to church may be the answer to your prayers."
Harvard professor Tyler J. VanderWeele noted: "Over the last 20 years, research has gradually accumulated suggesting that religious service attendance is associated with better physical and mental health."
For example, a study published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded: "Frequent attendance at religious services was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality among women. Religion and spirituality may be an under-appreciated resource that physicians could explore with their patients, as appropriate."
They also noted that an overall look at "studies on the connection between attendance at religious services and mortality between 1994 and 2009 concluded that religious service attendance helped reduce mortality by 18% in healthy populations."
The New York Times (June 12, 2016) adds more details of this particular long-term research project involving 75,534 women: "After controlling for more than two dozen factors, they found that compared with those who never went to church, going more than once a week was associated with a 33 percent lower risk for death from any cause, attending once a week with a 26 percent lower risk, and going less than once a week a 13 percent lowered risk. Risks for mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer followed a similar pattern."
The more often you go to church, the more healthy you tend to be.
These findings are consistent. About 15 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Byron Johnson, now of Baylor, then of the University of Pennsylvania, about the impact of churchgoing on people's lives.
Said Johnson: "There is research now that seems to indicate faith does add to lifestyle and satisfaction. … So we reviewed over 770 studies, on religion, to see what the impact was. Every study that we could find. And that's when we came up with the conclusion that about 85 percent have a beneficial effect. … People of faith report higher levels of satisfaction, higher levels of hope and meaning, purpose in their lives than their counterparts who don't have that same kind of commitment."
And he added this amazing statistic: "We have serious research that indicates regular church attendance can add as much as seven years to longevity for white Americans and 14 years for African Americans."
To me going to church is its own reward. But how nice to see it is also good for me.


wnd--2020-01-15--207 members of Congress to SCOTUS: Rethink Roe v. Wade

In March 2020 , the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Louisiana 's new abortion law , which requires that physicians doing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic .
Under the leadership of House Minority Whip Steve Scalise , an amicus – `` friend of the court '' – brief supporting the law was just filed , signed by 207 members of Congress , 39 senators and 168 House members .
A press release from Scalise summarizes the arguments made and lists a number of conservative organizations supporting the brief , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center for Urban Renewal and Education .
What makes this filing particularly interesting is not just the sheer volume of congressional signatories – almost 40 % of the Senate and House combined ; it 's also the fact that it goes further than just arguing support for the constitutionality of the Louisiana law to suggest that the widespread confusion regarding abortion law ties directly to the confusing basic premises under which abortion was found constitutional in the 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions .
The brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny on these two landmark decisions that have defined the abortion legal landscape .
TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me Asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade is provocative , to say the least .
But it is also courageous and on target .
How can we possibly function as a nation when an issue as critical as abortion defies consensus as to its constitutional pedigree as well as its morality ?
Can there be any better evidence of this confusion than recalling the famous interchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked then-presidential candidate Barack Obama , `` At what point does a baby get human rights , in your view ? ''
Obama , a Harvard-educated lawyer who would go on to be twice elected president , replied lamely , `` Answering that question … is above my pay grade . ''
Yet despite his candor about his inability to clarify the biological and legal status of the unborn child , he did n't hesitate to be the first sitting American president to address the national meeting of Planned Parenthood , the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , `` God bless you . ''
There is a well-known expression from the world of computing that says , `` garbage in , garbage out . ''
This is a pretty good summary of what has been happening to American culture since the Roe v. Wade decision .
Once sanctity of life and its legal protections became ambiguous , our entire culture began to unravel .
The percentage of American adults married since Roe v. Wade has dropped by one-third .
The percentage of children in households with married parents is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of babies born to unwed mothers up over 300 % .
The last decade , according the Census Bureau , is estimated to have the slowest 10-year growth in the U.S. population since the first census was taken in 1790 .
The Census Bureau forecasts that by 2034 , for the first time , there will be more Americans over age 65 than under 18 .
And , of course , we can not overlook the damage our national soul has incurred by looking away as 61,628,584 babies have been destroyed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute reports .
In the latest Gallup polling , 49 % identified as pro-life and 46 % as pro-choice .
Fifty percent say abortion is `` morally wrong , '' and 42 % say it is `` morally acceptable . ''
For the 47th time , hundreds of thousands will arrive in Washington for the March for Life , noting the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision , Jan. 22 , 1973 .
There is growing appreciation for the notion that what 's driving a sense that something is wrong in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
Let 's pray that the court heeds these 207 members of Congress and starts rethinking the Roe v. Wade decision .

In March 2020, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Louisiana's new abortion law, which requires that physicians doing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
Under the leadership of House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, an amicus – "friend of the court" – brief supporting the law was just filed, signed by 207 members of Congress, 39 senators and 168 House members.
A press release from Scalise summarizes the arguments made and lists a number of conservative organizations supporting the brief, one of which is my organization – the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
What makes this filing particularly interesting is not just the sheer volume of congressional signatories – almost 40% of the Senate and House combined; it's also the fact that it goes further than just arguing support for the constitutionality of the Louisiana law to suggest that the widespread confusion regarding abortion law ties directly to the confusing basic premises under which abortion was found constitutional in the 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to cast new scrutiny on these two landmark decisions that have defined the abortion legal landscape.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade is provocative, to say the least. But it is also courageous and on target.
How can we possibly function as a nation when an issue as critical as abortion defies consensus as to its constitutional pedigree as well as its morality?
Can there be any better evidence of this confusion than recalling the famous interchange in August 2008 when Pastor Rick Warren asked then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"
Obama, a Harvard-educated lawyer who would go on to be twice elected president, replied lamely, "Answering that question … is above my pay grade."
Yet despite his candor about his inability to clarify the biological and legal status of the unborn child, he didn't hesitate to be the first sitting American president to address the national meeting of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, and tell them, "God bless you."
There is a well-known expression from the world of computing that says, "garbage in, garbage out."
Faulty premises will produce faulty results and output.
This is a pretty good summary of what has been happening to American culture since the Roe v. Wade decision.
Once sanctity of life and its legal protections became ambiguous, our entire culture began to unravel.
The percentage of American adults married since Roe v. Wade has dropped by one-third. The percentage of children in households with married parents is down 15%, and the percentage of babies born to unwed mothers up over 300%.
The last decade, according the Census Bureau, is estimated to have the slowest 10-year growth in the U.S. population since the first census was taken in 1790.
The Census Bureau forecasts that by 2034, for the first time, there will be more Americans over age 65 than under 18.
And, of course, we cannot overlook the damage our national soul has incurred by looking away as 61,628,584 babies have been destroyed in the womb since 1973, as the Guttmacher Institute reports.
In the latest Gallup polling, 49% identified as pro-life and 46% as pro-choice. Fifty percent say abortion is "morally wrong," and 42% say it is "morally acceptable."
For the 47th time, hundreds of thousands will arrive in Washington for the March for Life, noting the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, 1973.
There is growing appreciation for the notion that what's driving a sense that something is wrong in our nation is ambiguity regarding the sanctity of life.
Let's pray that the court heeds these 207 members of Congress and starts rethinking the Roe v. Wade decision.


wnd--2020-01-15--The death of ERA helps save girls' sports

The Equal Rights Amendment ( ERA ) is officially dead , declares the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice .
Its announcement is just in time to save girls ' sports from ruination by testosterone-advantaged boys .
We are four decades past the moment when ERA went lifeless under its own deadline for ratification .
That is long past any chance at resuscitation , the OLC explained in its detailed legal analysis .
`` Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired , '' the OLC concluded .
`` Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance , '' for which there is not the two-thirds supermajority in Congress to pass .
The Archivist of the United States immediately stated that he would comply with this legal ruling , as he should .
He will not add to the Constitution any belated attempt by a state to ratify this amendment posthumously .
This good news comes not a moment too soon .
Liberals who have taken over the statehouse in Richmond had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which , if the five rescissions are not counted , would ostensibly satisfy the three-fourths requirement to put ERA in the Constitution .
TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me A reenactment of those who supported ERA in the 1970s can be seen in a trailer for a new miniseries about Phyllis Schlafly called `` Mrs. America , '' to be aired on the Hulu streaming service beginning April 15 .
Two-time Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett is portraying Phyllis , but the script is sympathetic to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are generally not athletes , and either do n't know or do n't care about the havoc that ERA is causing for girls ' sports in states that have passed it .
In Massachusetts its state ERA has required that boys be allowed to compete in girls ' sports , to break their records and potentially break their bones in contact sports like field hockey .
Without ERA in the U.S. Constitution , neighboring New Hampshire is able to hold a hearing this week on good legislation to protect girls against unfair competition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boys have overpowering advantages of muscular size , thanks to testosterone , and there is nothing fair about allowing them to go into girls ' sports to win prizes and shatter records .
Sponsored by 10 women , New Hampshire HB 1251 would prohibit allowing boys to invade girls ' sports , as is happening in other states under the guise of ERA or transgender rights .
This legislation would limit competition in girls ' sports based on the athlete 's chromosomes , reproductive organs and testosterone levels .
`` Interscholastic or intramural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a primary or secondary school or institution of higher education and designated for 'females , ' 'women , ' or 'girls ' shall only be open to students of the female sex , '' states HB 1251 .
This fairness would not be possible if ERA were ratified .
`` Biological males are already starting to dominate women 's competitive sports , '' and females `` deserve a level playing field , '' says Save Women 's Sports and Cornerstone , which supports the New Hampshire legislation .
`` They should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spot on the podium , even if those males claim a female gender identity . ''
Hollywood could be presenting , in its heart-wrenching style , true stories about girls who trained hard for competitions they won against other girls , but were then denied the awards grabbed by transgendered biological boys instead .
This has happened in Connecticut , where there is no limit on transgenders crossing over to win races in girls ' sports .
ERA , indeed , would have mandated this unfairness by prohibiting sensible distinctions based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Constitution , there would have been nothing any state or Congress could do to protect girls against the unfair ruination of their sports by boys .
So while Hollywood has promoted ERA since the 1970s , top women athletes are speaking out on the conservative side of this issue .
Transgender athletes could ruin women 's tennis and many other sports , and some women champions have spoken out against this trend .
Yet non-athlete Elizabeth Warren clings to the mindless-equality approach of ERA , and even wants to put male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schlafly warned that ERA would have required prisons to be co-ed , and that women would be ordered to guard dangerous male prisoners .
Warren and Hollywood supporters of ERA should pay more attention to girls who work hard to win scholarships in their high school sports .
ERA has the effect of denying these girls the honors they earned , which boys took away from them .
Rather than endorsing ERA postmortem , the Virginia legislature should help girls by considering the New Hampshire bill to protect them against unfair competition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest in peace .

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is officially dead, declares the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. Its announcement is just in time to save girls' sports from ruination by testosterone-advantaged boys.
We are four decades past the moment when ERA went lifeless under its own deadline for ratification. That is long past any chance at resuscitation, the OLC explained in its detailed legal analysis.
"Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired," the OLC concluded. "Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance," for which there is not the two-thirds supermajority in Congress to pass.
The Archivist of the United States immediately stated that he would comply with this legal ruling, as he should. He will not add to the Constitution any belated attempt by a state to ratify this amendment posthumously.
This good news comes not a moment too soon. Liberals who have taken over the statehouse in Richmond had planned to make Virginia the 38th state, which, if the five rescissions are not counted, would ostensibly satisfy the three-fourths requirement to put ERA in the Constitution.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
A reenactment of those who supported ERA in the 1970s can be seen in a trailer for a new miniseries about Phyllis Schlafly called "Mrs. America," to be aired on the Hulu streaming service beginning April 15. Two-time Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett is portraying Phyllis, but the script is sympathetic to the ideology of radical feminists.
ERA supporters are generally not athletes, and either don't know or don't care about the havoc that ERA is causing for girls' sports in states that have passed it. In Massachusetts its state ERA has required that boys be allowed to compete in girls' sports, to break their records and potentially break their bones in contact sports like field hockey.
Without ERA in the U.S. Constitution, neighboring New Hampshire is able to hold a hearing this week on good legislation to protect girls against unfair competition by boys in girls' sports. Boys have overpowering advantages of muscular size, thanks to testosterone, and there is nothing fair about allowing them to go into girls' sports to win prizes and shatter records.
Sponsored by 10 women, New Hampshire HB 1251 would prohibit allowing boys to invade girls' sports, as is happening in other states under the guise of ERA or transgender rights. This legislation would limit competition in girls' sports based on the athlete's chromosomes, reproductive organs and testosterone levels.
"Interscholastic or intramural athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by a primary or secondary school or institution of higher education and designated for 'females,' 'women,' or 'girls' shall only be open to students of the female sex," states HB 1251. This fairness would not be possible if ERA were ratified.
"Biological males are already starting to dominate women's competitive sports," and females "deserve a level playing field," says Save Women's Sports and Cornerstone, which supports the New Hampshire legislation. "They should not have to compete against biological males for a spot on the podium, even if those males claim a female gender identity."
Hollywood could be presenting, in its heart-wrenching style, true stories about girls who trained hard for competitions they won against other girls, but were then denied the awards grabbed by transgendered biological boys instead. This has happened in Connecticut, where there is no limit on transgenders crossing over to win races in girls' sports.
ERA, indeed, would have mandated this unfairness by prohibiting sensible distinctions based on sex. If ERA had become part of the Constitution, there would have been nothing any state or Congress could do to protect girls against the unfair ruination of their sports by boys.
So while Hollywood has promoted ERA since the 1970s, top women athletes are speaking out on the conservative side of this issue. Transgender athletes could ruin women's tennis and many other sports, and some women champions have spoken out against this trend.
Yet non-athlete Elizabeth Warren clings to the mindless-equality approach of ERA, and even wants to put male convicts into women's prisons. Phyllis Schlafly warned that ERA would have required prisons to be co-ed, and that women would be ordered to guard dangerous male prisoners.
Warren and Hollywood supporters of ERA should pay more attention to girls who work hard to win scholarships in their high school sports. ERA has the effect of denying these girls the honors they earned, which boys took away from them.
Rather than endorsing ERA postmortem, the Virginia legislature should help girls by considering the New Hampshire bill to protect them against unfair competition. ERA died long ago, and should rest in peace.


wnd--2020-01-15--Blacks' problems are self-inflicted

Blacks' problems are self-inflicted

Criminal activity imposes huge costs on black residents in low-income neighborhoods of cities such as Chicago , Baltimore , Detroit , St. Louis , Philadelphia and many others .
Thousands of black Americans were murdered in 2019 .
Over 90 % of the time , the perpetrator was also black .
Leftists and social justice warriors charge that what blacks have to fear most is being shot and killed by police , but the numbers do n't add up .
For several years , The Washington Post has been documenting police shootings in America .
Last year , 933 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twenty-three percent ( 212 ) of people shot and killed were black ; 35 % ( 331 ) were white ; 16 % ( 155 ) were Hispanic ; and 201 were of other or unknown races .
The high homicide rate within the black community does n't begin to tell the full tragedy .
Crime imposes a hefty tax on people who can least afford it .
They are the law-abiding residents of black neighborhoods .
Residents must bear the time cost and other costs of having to shop outside of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-crime neighborhoods are absent or scarce in high-crime , low-income neighborhoods .
Because of the paucity of supermarkets and other big-box stores in these neighborhoods , some `` experts '' and academicians have labeled them as `` food deserts . ''
That 's the ridiculous suggestion that white supermarket merchants and big-box store owners do n't like green dollars coming out of black hands .
The true villains of the piece are the criminals who make some businesses unprofitable .
By the way , these are equal opportunity criminals .
They will victimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victimize a white-owned business .
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities .
In low-crime neighborhoods , FedEx , UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages containing valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is home .
That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages .
In high-crime neighborhoods , delivery companies leaving packages at the door or supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ black drivers , often refuse to accept telephone calls for home pickups and frequently pass prospective black customers who hail them on the street .
Plus , there 's the insult associated with not being able to receive pizzas or other deliveries on the same terms as people in other neighborhoods .
Another often-overlooked impact of crime is lower property values .
Homes that would n't fetch $ 10,000 , $ 20,000 or $ 40,000 suddenly fetch hundreds of thousands when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gentrification , where wealthier , predominantly white , people bid higher rental prices thus forcing out low-income residents .
As a result of gentrification , there is greater police protection and other neighborhood amenities increase .
Many make the erroneous assumption that black people do n't care about crime .
But black people strongly disapprove of the day-to-day violence that 's all too common in their communities .
What compounds that problem is a deep mistrust of police in poor black neighborhoods .
This distrust , along with fear of reprisals by black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the police .
It creates the `` stop snitching '' principle .
This principle of snitches being worse than criminals themselves only exacerbates the crime problem in black communities by giving aid and comfort to the true enemies of the community – those who prey on the community and have little fear of being brought to justice .
In some cities , less than 10 % of murderers are ever charged .
TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me For decades , the problems of blacks could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our ancestors started a civil rights struggle and won .
Today , the most devastating problems of blacks are entirely self-inflicted such as high illegitimacy , family breakdown and unsafe communities .
These problems have little to do with civil rights .
But as long as blacks buy into the notion that white racism is the source of their problems , the solutions will be elusive forever .

Criminal activity imposes huge costs on black residents in low-income neighborhoods of cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia and many others. Thousands of black Americans were murdered in 2019. Over 90% of the time, the perpetrator was also black. Leftists and social justice warriors charge that what blacks have to fear most is being shot and killed by police, but the numbers don't add up. For several years, The Washington Post has been documenting police shootings in America. Last year, 933 people were shot and killed by police. Twenty-three percent (212) of people shot and killed were black; 35% (331) were white; 16% (155) were Hispanic; and 201 were of other or unknown races. The high homicide rate within the black community doesn't begin to tell the full tragedy.
Crime imposes a hefty tax on people who can least afford it. They are the law-abiding residents of black neighborhoods. Residents must bear the time cost and other costs of having to shop outside of their neighborhoods. Supermarkets that are abundant in low-crime neighborhoods are absent or scarce in high-crime, low-income neighborhoods. Because of the paucity of supermarkets and other big-box stores in these neighborhoods, some "experts" and academicians have labeled them as "food deserts." That's the ridiculous suggestion that white supermarket merchants and big-box store owners don't like green dollars coming out of black hands. The true villains of the piece are the criminals who make some businesses unprofitable. By the way, these are equal opportunity criminals. They will victimize a black-owned business just as they would victimize a white-owned business. The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities.
In low-crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages containing valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high-crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door or supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide. Fearing robberies, taxi drivers, including black drivers, often refuse to accept telephone calls for home pickups and frequently pass prospective black customers who hail them on the street. Plus, there's the insult associated with not being able to receive pizzas or other deliveries on the same terms as people in other neighborhoods.
Another often-overlooked impact of crime is lower property values. Homes that wouldn't fetch $10,000, $20,000 or $40,000 suddenly fetch hundreds of thousands when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification, where wealthier, predominantly white, people bid higher rental prices thus forcing out low-income residents. As a result of gentrification, there is greater police protection and other neighborhood amenities increase.
Many make the erroneous assumption that black people don't care about crime. But black people strongly disapprove of the day-to-day violence that's all too common in their communities. What compounds that problem is a deep mistrust of police in poor black neighborhoods. This distrust, along with fear of reprisals by black criminals, causes an atmosphere of noncooperation with the police. It creates the "stop snitching" principle. This principle of snitches being worse than criminals themselves only exacerbates the crime problem in black communities by giving aid and comfort to the true enemies of the community – those who prey on the community and have little fear of being brought to justice. In some cities, less than 10% of murderers are ever charged.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
For decades, the problems of blacks could be laid at the feet of racial discrimination. Our ancestors started a civil rights struggle and won. Today, the most devastating problems of blacks are entirely self-inflicted such as high illegitimacy, family breakdown and unsafe communities. These problems have little to do with civil rights. But as long as blacks buy into the notion that white racism is the source of their problems, the solutions will be elusive forever.


wnd--2020-01-15--How government licensing harms us

How government licensing harms us

People who want to work should be allowed to work .
That includes people who once went to jail .
Why bother ?
State laws often make such employment impossible .
Courtney Haveman had an alcohol problem .
When she was 19 , she got a DUI .
Then she took a swing at a security guard .
`` I made dumb decisions , '' she admits in my new video .
`` Served three days in jail . ''
Eight years later , and now sober , Courtney enrolled in beauty school .
Such schools invite applicants to `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rewarding career . ''
TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me The schools do provide good careers – to owners of cosmetology schools .
In Pennsylvania , where Courtney applied , they typically charge $ 6,000 tuition and require 1,000 hours of courses .
All that training is required by the state to work .
Courtney had worked in a salon and wanted to do more .
Unfortunately , `` doing more '' requires not just serving customers well , but getting permission from bureaucrats .
Byzantine state laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you may become a hairdresser , tour guide , travel agent , house painter and all sorts of other jobs where customer happiness should be the guide .
So after taking hundreds of hours of cosmetology courses , Courtney paid more to apply for a Pennsylvania cosmetology license .
Pennsylvania then told her she could n't do cosmetology there because she has a criminal record .
The bureaucrats said she could appeal .
She could prove she has good moral character .
`` I sent letters , and people in my 12-step program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters , '' she says .
`` They sent me a rejection letter that said , 'Sorry .
You lack the good moral character requirement , ' '' says Courtney .
`` One time in my life that I felt like a productive member of society , I was proud of myself ... people were proud of me , and then it was just like , you 're not good enough still . ''
Courtney did her time – all three days of it .
She should be allowed the `` second chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her arrest was eight years ago .
She then got sober .
Now she sponsors other women in AA .
She has a toddler to support .
But Pennsylvania says , to protect `` public health and safety , '' she may not practice cosmetology .
The rule does n't `` protect '' anyone .
Barbers do n't have to prove they have `` good moral character . ''
Courtney is allowed to work as an `` assistant . ''
`` I 'm allowed to touch clients , just not allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do ! ''
says Courtney .
She shampoos customers ' hair and has intimate contact with them .
She 's just not allowed to do facials , makeup , waxing – the work she trained for .
`` Our government makes it extremely difficult for people like me , '' she says .
`` People ca n't just be kicked out of society , '' says Institute for Justice lawyer Andrew Ward .
He took Courtney 's case for free because he believes that the cosmetology law is unconstitutional .
`` Everyone has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happiness … a right to engage in any of the common occupations of life . ''
`` It 's certainly convenient , '' says Ward , `` that established players have a law that gets to keep new people , that would compete with them , out . ''
Right .
Cosmetology boards are dominated by people who run beauty schools .
They benefit by making it hard for newcomers to compete for customers by offering better service .
The established schools and salons lobby legislators , demanding stringent `` safety '' requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they limit competition .
Courtney says , `` Years of my life have been wasted . ''
She paid to train for a job she is not allowed to do .
State licensing rules like Pennsylvania 's cosmetology rule do n't protect public health .
They do n't help customers .
They crush the little guy and limit competition .
Get rid of them .

People who want to work should be allowed to work. That includes people who once went to jail.
With President Donald Trump's support, Congress spends your money giving ex-cons "employment assistance."
Why bother? State laws often make such employment impossible.
Courtney Haveman had an alcohol problem. When she was 19, she got a DUI. Then she took a swing at a security guard. "I made dumb decisions," she admits in my new video. "Served three days in jail."
Eight years later, and now sober, Courtney enrolled in beauty school. Such schools invite applicants to "turn your interest in beauty into a rewarding career."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The schools do provide good careers – to owners of cosmetology schools. In Pennsylvania, where Courtney applied, they typically charge $6,000 tuition and require 1,000 hours of courses.
All that training is required by the state to work.
Courtney had worked in a salon and wanted to do more. Unfortunately, "doing more" requires not just serving customers well, but getting permission from bureaucrats.
Byzantine state laws demand you get a state-approved license before you may become a hairdresser, tour guide, travel agent, house painter and all sorts of other jobs where customer happiness should be the guide.
So after taking hundreds of hours of cosmetology courses, Courtney paid more to apply for a Pennsylvania cosmetology license.
Pennsylvania then told her she couldn't do cosmetology there because she has a criminal record.
The bureaucrats said she could appeal. She could prove she has good moral character.
"I sent letters, and people in my 12-step program wrote letters on my behalf, character letters," she says.
The result?
"They sent me a rejection letter that said, 'Sorry. You lack the good moral character requirement,'" says Courtney. "One time in my life that I felt like a productive member of society, I was proud of myself ... people were proud of me, and then it was just like, you're not good enough still."
This is wrong.
Courtney did her time – all three days of it. She should be allowed the "second chance" that politicians keep promising former prisoners. Her arrest was eight years ago. She then got sober. Now she sponsors other women in AA. She has a toddler to support.
But Pennsylvania says, to protect "public health and safety," she may not practice cosmetology.
The rule doesn't "protect" anyone. Barbers don't have to prove they have "good moral character."
Courtney is allowed to work as an "assistant."
"I'm allowed to touch clients, just not allowed to do what I went to school to do!" says Courtney.
She shampoos customers' hair and has intimate contact with them. She's just not allowed to do facials, makeup, waxing – the work she trained for. "Our government makes it extremely difficult for people like me," she says.
"People can't just be kicked out of society," says Institute for Justice lawyer Andrew Ward. He took Courtney's case for free because he believes that the cosmetology law is unconstitutional. "Everyone has a right … to pursue their own happiness … a right to engage in any of the common occupations of life."
Who benefits from restrictive licensing laws?
"It's certainly convenient," says Ward, "that established players have a law that gets to keep new people, that would compete with them, out."
Right. Cosmetology boards are dominated by people who run beauty schools. They benefit by making it hard for newcomers to compete for customers by offering better service.
The established schools and salons lobby legislators, demanding stringent "safety" requirements. It's "accidental" that they limit competition.
Courtney says, "Years of my life have been wasted." She paid to train for a job she is not allowed to do.
State licensing rules like Pennsylvania's cosmetology rule don't protect public health. They don't help customers.
They crush the little guy and limit competition.
Get rid of them.


wnd--2020-01-15--Woke folks' eyes wide shut

Woke folks' eyes wide shut

Stunner : Obama Dems were 'trying to work with ' Russians to 'take down ' Trump

* Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required.
Thank you for contacting us. Please check your email inbox to confirm your message and send it to our editorial team.


wnd--2020-01-15--In praise of Dollar General

In praise of Dollar General

( AMERICAN GREATNESS ) -- TARRS , Pennsylvania — Five years ago , the plot of land where the Dollar @ @ @ @ @ Pike was just that : a plot of pastoral greenery located near a row of @ @ @ @ @ unincorporated village that once briefly boomed as a coal town .
The store ’ s @ @ @ @ @ , all-capitalized black letters sits slightly back from rolling Pennsylvania Route 31 , which runs @ @ @ @ @ and the Lincoln Highway .
For many people in the area , the store serves @ @ @ @ @ a forgotten grocery staple or deeply discounted household goods .
These places match the service @ @ @ @ @ pop general stores that once dotted rural America for two centuries , or the five-and-dime @ @ @ @ @ medium-sized towns across the country post-Civil War .
They serve a purpose unmet by larger @ @ @ @ @ lower-population regions because the regions make no business sense .

(AMERICAN GREATNESS) -- TARRS, Pennsylvania — Five years ago, the plot of land where the Dollar General store sits on Glades Pike was just that: a plot of pastoral greenery located near a row of neatly kept homes in an unincorporated village that once briefly boomed as a coal town.
The store’s familiar yellow sign with bold, all-capitalized black letters sits slightly back from rolling Pennsylvania Route 31, which runs parallel to both the turnpike and the Lincoln Highway. For many people in the area, the store serves as a quick stop for a forgotten grocery staple or deeply discounted household goods.
These places match the service provided by the mom and pop general stores that once dotted rural America for two centuries, or the five-and-dime stores that populated small- and medium-sized towns across the country post-Civil War. They serve a purpose unmet by larger supermarkets unwilling to locate to lower-population regions because the regions make no business sense.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-15--Ken Jennings wins 'Jeopardy! Greatest of All Time'

Answer : The greatest “ Jeopardy !
” player of all time .
Jennings defeated legendary champs James Holzhauer and @ @ @ @ @ game show ’ s first-ever Greatest of All Time — or GOAT — tournament on @ @ @


wnd--2020-01-15--Warren, Bernie spar over her claim he said woman can't win

( AP ) -- DES MOINES , Iowa -- Elizabeth Warren made a vigorous case for a female president and @ @ @ @ @ sexism by progressive rival Bernie Sanders Tuesday night in a tense Democratic debate that raised @ @ @ @ @ in the sprint to Iowa ’ s presidential caucuses .
Sanders vehemently denied Warren ’ @ @ @ @ @ to split the Democratic Party ’ s far-left flank -- and a longtime liberal alliance @ @ @ @ @ in the 2020 contest .
“ Look at the men on this stage .
Collectively @ @ @ @ @ , ” Warren exclaimed “ The only people on this stage who have won every @ @ @ @ @ ve been in are the women .
”

(AP) -- DES MOINES, Iowa -- Elizabeth Warren made a vigorous case for a female president and stood behind her accusation suggesting sexism by progressive rival Bernie Sanders Tuesday night in a tense Democratic debate that raised gender as a key issue in the sprint to Iowa’s presidential caucuses.
Sanders vehemently denied Warren’s accusation, which threatened to split the Democratic Party’s far-left flank -- and a longtime liberal alliance -- at a critical moment in the 2020 contest.
“Look at the men on this stage. Collectively they have lost 10 elections,” Warren exclaimed “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-15--Cancel culture strikes again: Banned in Maine

In November , I was banned in Boston after speech-squelchers on the left and right forced the cancellation of my lecture at Bentley University , a small private institution .
The grassroots activists who had invited me were rejected by every major event venue in the nation 's purported Cradle of Liberty .
The tail-tuckers cited security concerns or jacked up their rental fees to make it prohibitively expensive to gather peacefully to discuss – gasp !
– ideas .
Lou Murray of Bostonians Against Sanctuary Cities and Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies heroically persisted , pulling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home attended by 100 patriots who risked their privacy , friendships and even their jobs to listen to – gasp !
– ideas .
Soon after , a group of conservative students at the University of Maine , a publicly funded school , invited me to bring my nationalist message about who 's funding the destruction of America to their campus .
This prompted the College Republicans ' faculty adviser , political science professor Amy Fried , to resign in protest .
That led to the de-chartering of the CR group .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young students who have asked trenchant , pesky questions at Young America 's Foundation and Turning Point USA lectures about the GOP elites ' support of wage-suppressing , job-outsourcing , Democrat voter-importing policies that put American students , workers and families last .
Many of those students follow a 21-year-old nationalist named Nick Fuentes , who hosts a program ( for now ) on YouTube and DLive in his basement called `` America First . ''
Because I refused to play the gatekeepers ' game of condemning every last joke or chatroom comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose questions I support , Fried believes that no students at her campus under her watch should be allowed to hear what I have to say about , well , anything .
How strongly do University of Maine officials oppose the free association of college students who want to know more about my work ?
Yesterday , I learned from Portland Sheraton at Sable Oaks general manager Ed Palmer and others that at least one University of Maine official – along with dozens of others cancel culture jihadists galvanized on social media by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maine 's Future '' – had called to complain about the students and me after they posted an event notice last Friday .
I reached out to top administrators , who did not respond by my filing deadline .
TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me I also wrote to Fried , who responded late Tuesday evening : `` I never did that .
Did n't happen .
Whoever told you I did is incorrect .
Thank you for checking , as you received a false report regarding me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad you did n't pay me the same courtesy . ''
Adrienne Bennett , a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress ( Maine , District 2 ) , challenged the school 's bullying tactics : `` Free speech is the cornerstone of a free democracy .
We are hearing reports that administrators from the University of Maine pressured a private Maine hotel to cancel an appearance by conservative speaker Michelle Malkin .
If true , this is a disturbing development from Maine 's public , land-grant university , '' she blasted .
`` All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public funds – have an obligation to foster free speech and free inquiry .
I support President Trump 's recent executive order on campus free speech .
… I am disturbed that academic elites would interfere to block this speech .
For those who disagree with Malkin 's views , the answer is debate and discourse , not censorship . ''
My upcoming speaking schedule ( for now ) includes the New York Young Republican Club ( Jan. 16 ) ; somewhere , hopefully , in Maine ( Jan. 17 ) ; Liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ; Michigan Conservative Coalition 's Battle Cry 2020 , Troy , Michigan ( Feb. 14 ) ; Arizona State University ( Feb. 26 ) ; and San Diego State University ( April TBD ) .
A total of six organizations have now deemed me such a public menace that I 've been barred from speaking at their venues or events : Mar-a-Lago ( canceled by the Trump Organization after complaints by the Southern Poverty Law Center spread by left-wingers at the Miami Herald ) ; Bentley University ; the University of Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ) ; the New Jersey Right to Life Committee ; an Indiana conservative group ; and Young America 's Foundation .
Why is this censorship campaign from both sides of the political spectrum happening ?
University of Maine College Republican Jeremiah Childs astutely observed : `` They 're doing this to delegitimize us because we 're popular . ''
Popular , peacefully expressed ideas that threaten establishment empires in both parties must be stopped .
The pretense of free inquiry and association must be propped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left and the culture warrior poseurs on the right .
The illusion of `` free speech '' must be maintained by the keepers of the gate .
Lying is lucrative .
Telling the truth , controlled by no one , only gets you grief .

In November, I was banned in Boston after speech-squelchers on the left and right forced the cancellation of my lecture at Bentley University, a small private institution. The grassroots activists who had invited me were rejected by every major event venue in the nation's purported Cradle of Liberty. The tail-tuckers cited security concerns or jacked up their rental fees to make it prohibitively expensive to gather peacefully to discuss – gasp! – ideas.
Lou Murray of Bostonians Against Sanctuary Cities and Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies heroically persisted, pulling together a great event at a private home attended by 100 patriots who risked their privacy, friendships and even their jobs to listen to – gasp! – ideas.
Soon after, a group of conservative students at the University of Maine, a publicly funded school, invited me to bring my nationalist message about who's funding the destruction of America to their campus. This prompted the College Republicans' faculty adviser, political science professor Amy Fried, to resign in protest. That led to the de-chartering of the CR group. Why? Because I refused to disavow other young students who have asked trenchant, pesky questions at Young America's Foundation and Turning Point USA lectures about the GOP elites' support of wage-suppressing, job-outsourcing, Democrat voter-importing policies that put American students, workers and families last.
Many of those students follow a 21-year-old nationalist named Nick Fuentes, who hosts a program (for now) on YouTube and DLive in his basement called "America First." Because I refused to play the gatekeepers' game of condemning every last joke or chatroom comment or tweet of someone followed by students whose questions I support, Fried believes that no students at her campus under her watch should be allowed to hear what I have to say about, well, anything.
How strongly do University of Maine officials oppose the free association of college students who want to know more about my work? Yesterday, I learned from Portland Sheraton at Sable Oaks general manager Ed Palmer and others that at least one University of Maine official – along with dozens of others cancel culture jihadists galvanized on social media by an anonymous Twitter account called "Support Maine's Future" – had called to complain about the students and me after they posted an event notice last Friday. I reached out to top administrators, who did not respond by my filing deadline.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
I also wrote to Fried, who responded late Tuesday evening: "I never did that. Didn't happen. Whoever told you I did is incorrect. Thank you for checking, as you received a false report regarding me."
I responded: "Too bad you didn't pay me the same courtesy."
Adrienne Bennett, a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress (Maine, District 2), challenged the school's bullying tactics: "Free speech is the cornerstone of a free democracy. We are hearing reports that administrators from the University of Maine pressured a private Maine hotel to cancel an appearance by conservative speaker Michelle Malkin. If true, this is a disturbing development from Maine's public, land-grant university," she blasted. "All universities – but especially those that receive public funds – have an obligation to foster free speech and free inquiry. I support President Trump's recent executive order on campus free speech. … I am disturbed that academic elites would interfere to block this speech. For those who disagree with Malkin's views, the answer is debate and discourse, not censorship."
My upcoming speaking schedule (for now) includes the New York Young Republican Club (Jan. 16); somewhere, hopefully, in Maine (Jan. 17); Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley (Feb. 11); Michigan Conservative Coalition's Battle Cry 2020, Troy, Michigan (Feb. 14); Arizona State University (Feb. 26); and San Diego State University (April TBD).
A total of six organizations have now deemed me such a public menace that I've been barred from speaking at their venues or events: Mar-a-Lago (canceled by the Trump Organization after complaints by the Southern Poverty Law Center spread by left-wingers at the Miami Herald); Bentley University; the University of Minnesota (canceled at the behest of national leaders of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow); the New Jersey Right to Life Committee; an Indiana conservative group; and Young America's Foundation.
Why is this censorship campaign from both sides of the political spectrum happening? University of Maine College Republican Jeremiah Childs astutely observed: "They're doing this to delegitimize us because we're popular." Popular, peacefully expressed ideas that threaten establishment empires in both parties must be stopped. The pretense of free inquiry and association must be propped up by the tolerance hypocrites on the left and the culture warrior poseurs on the right. The illusion of "free speech" must be maintained by the keepers of the gate. Lying is lucrative. Telling the truth, controlled by no one, only gets you grief.


wnd--2020-01-15--WATCH: Pro-abortion students fail to condemn Nazism

Pro-abortion students at Bowling Green State University who were confronted with the moral reasoning required to maintain their stance were unable to condemn Nazism in an exchange with pro-life activists .
The conversations were captured by an activist wearing a Go-Pro camera at a display on the Ohio campus by the non-profit Created Equal .
The organization , which seeks to reveal the truth about abortion on campuses and elsewhere , encourages passersby to express their opinion about abortion .
TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me '' The result is shocking .
Open-minded students change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ babies while liberal students struggle to defend their pro-abortion views , '' the group said .
The video shows Seth Drayer , the vice president of the group , asking passersby their view of abortion after seeing the group 's graphic display of aborted children .
Some students who congregated to listen to him explain the science of abortion could n't agree that it 's always wrong to beat a toddler .
`` Those are our morals , '' says one student .
He then asks whether genocide is immoral for everyone or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Will you condemn Nazism ? ''
he asks .
The students then deflect and even shift blame to Created Equal .
`` Our future leaders have forgotten how to do simple moral reasoning , '' said Mark Harrington , Created Equal 's founder .
`` If they refuse to condemn intentionally killing innocent human beings , is there anything they will not accept with open arms ? ''

Pro-abortion students at Bowling Green State University who were confronted with the moral reasoning required to maintain their stance were unable to condemn Nazism in an exchange with pro-life activists.
The conversations were captured by an activist wearing a Go-Pro camera at a display on the Ohio campus by the non-profit Created Equal.
The organization, which seeks to reveal the truth about abortion on campuses and elsewhere, encourages passersby to express their opinion about abortion.
See the group's latest video:
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"The result is shocking. Open-minded students change their mind after seeing images of aborted babies while liberal students struggle to defend their pro-abortion views," the group said.
The video shows Seth Drayer, the vice president of the group, asking passersby their view of abortion after seeing the group's graphic display of aborted children.
Some students who congregated to listen to him explain the science of abortion couldn't agree that it's always wrong to beat a toddler.
"Those are our morals," says one student.
He then asks whether genocide is immoral for everyone or up to each individual to decide.
"Will you condemn Nazism?" he asks.
The students then deflect and even shift blame to Created Equal.
"Our future leaders have forgotten how to do simple moral reasoning," said Mark Harrington, Created Equal's founder.
"If they refuse to condemn intentionally killing innocent human beings, is there anything they will not accept with open arms?"


wnd--2020-01-15--Poll: 47% of young Democrats believe other countries are superior to U.S.

A new poll finds 47 % of young Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe that other countries are better than the United States .
And many in the 18 to 29 demographic say it would be acceptable for other countries to become as militarily powerful as the U.S. , according to the survey by Pew Research .
Pew said the share of Democrats saying other countries are superior to the U.S. is higher than at any point since the pollster first asked the question in 2011 .
Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents age 50 and older , just 20 % agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. TRENDING : Sharyl Attkisson : Feds admit to spying on me '' This poll demonstrates the dramatic shift in the Democrat party 's base , and the potential schism between traditional Democrat voters and young and woke progressives , '' Pew said .
Overall , a majority of adults , 61 % , say the U.S. should maintain its status as the world 's greatest military superpower .
But 55 % of Democrats under 30 admit say it would be acceptable if other nations became as militarily powerful .
Among young Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of adults under 30 agree .
Among Republicans ages 50 and older , just 4 % agree it would be acceptable .

A new poll finds 47% of young Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe that other countries are better than the United States.
And many in the 18 to 29 demographic say it would be acceptable for other countries to become as militarily powerful as the U.S., according to the survey by Pew Research.
Pew said the share of Democrats saying other countries are superior to the U.S. is higher than at any point since the pollster first asked the question in 2011.
Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents age 50 and older, just 20% agree that other countries are superior to the U.S.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"This poll demonstrates the dramatic shift in the Democrat party's base, and the potential schism between traditional Democrat voters and young and woke progressives," Pew said.
Overall, a majority of adults, 61%, say the U.S. should maintain its status as the world's greatest military superpower.
But 55% of Democrats under 30 admit say it would be acceptable if other nations became as militarily powerful.
Among young Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, only 19% of adults under 30 agree.
Among Republicans ages 50 and older, just 4% agree it would be acceptable.


wnd--2020-01-16--Slap on the wrist for Deep State criminal?

This week , a former top Treasury Department official pleaded guilty in federal court on conspiracy charges for leaking confidential banking reports associated with members of the 2016 Trump campaign .
Prior to October 2018 – when she was arrested with a government-issued flash drive chock-full of sensitive documents – Natalie Edwards , 41 , was a senior adviser at Treasury 's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network .
According to prosecutors , beginning in October 2017 , Edwards sent a series of communications to a BuzzFeed News reporter containing numerous confidential reports on the financial activity of Paul Manafort and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interests .
Federal prosecutors revealed that the flash drive with which Edwards was arrested also contained `` highly sensitive material relating to Russia , Iran , and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant . ''
Let 's put aside for a moment our knowledge of the fact that the Russia collusion investigation was a politically-driven sham and acknowledge that legitimate whistleblowers do have a duty and every right to reveal sensitive information in the cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bureau of Investigation Associate Director Mark Felt provided information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein : key details about the involvement of President Richard Nixon 's cabinet in the Watergate scandal .
The ensuing investigation ultimately led to Nixon 's resignation , and Felt – who had been given the designation `` Deep Throat '' by the reporters – remained anonymous for decades afterward .
TRENDING : Best debate moment : Bernie has trouble with math while demanding credit for 30-year-old election win We may never know what was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he decided to act as a confidential informant for Woodward and Bernstein rather than taking his concerns to the Justice Department or the House Judiciary Committee ( which is charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing ) .
In that climate , he may indeed have been concerned that any evidence of wrongdoing on the president 's part would be quashed by those loyal to Nixon , or that making waves internally would have put his own career at risk .
In any case – even if Felt 's agenda was political – it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position that Nixon and his surrogates had most certainly engaged in activity that was of a criminal nature .
Had he been asked , Felt could have easily recited the relevant legal statutes supporting his actions .
What Mark Felt did not do was to share a `` data dump '' with a journalist , including reams of sensitive and confidential information , much of it involving private citizens who may or may not have been involved in actions that could not definitively be construed as criminal .
I have previously shared the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two prosecutors in a capital murder case in the city in which I live .
These two prosecutors were absolutely certain that the 25 year-old defendant had committed the sexual mutilation and murder of a young woman , and they got their conviction in 1997 .
In 2008 , a judge overturned the conviction after DNA evidence pointed to another suspect .
The defendant became the first person freed from prison in the state due to DNA evidence ; later , he received a $ 4.1 million settlement from the county in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed that during the original trial , the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence – evidence which would have thrown the defendant 's culpability into question .
So , what happened to the prosecutors ' certainty ?
While I have the utmost respect for law enforcement and our criminal justice system , the above evidences why I will never , for example , support the death penalty .
Prosecutors are human beings and , as such , are subject to making mistakes like the rest of us .
Factor in the pressure to close cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future career aspirations , and it is very easy for individuals in such positions to determine that the ends justify the means , especially when they are `` sure '' that a given defendant is guilty .
This is leaving aside the unfortunate – if small – percentage of prosecutors in America who do n't care about guilt or innocence as long as they do get a conviction .
So ... was Natalie Edwards a government employee who thought she was acting as a legitimate whistleblower , but who drifted unknowingly into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the right thing , or was she a Deep State operative acting in accordance with hidden directives and a twisted ideology ?
Considering her position at Treasury , I 'm going to vote for the latter .
As a senior adviser at Treasury 's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , like Mark Felt , Ms. Edwards knew what constituted criminal activity and what did not constitute criminal activity .
So , she knew exactly what she was doing .
Given the political climate in Washington at present , I 'd wager that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion that Donald Trump is an incomprehensibly evil scumbag who must be removed from office as Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff .
What really disturbs me here is that with a conspiracy charge that carried the potential for imprisonment of up to five years , Edwards has already signed a plea deal with prosecutors that recommended a prison sentence of zero to six months .
It is n't so much that the punishment does n't fit the crime – lives , fortunes and careers were destroyed during the course of the Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light sentence for Natalie Edwards represents a business-as-usual , zero-accountability modality in dealing with entrenched government operatives who cavalierly conduct their agenda-driven business with complete impunity , up to and including criminal conduct .
Bear in mind that the Natalie Edwardses in our federal government enjoyed carte blanche during the Obama administration ( the weaponization of federal agencies and the illegal surveillance of private citizens spring to mind ) , and positions such as theirs proliferated dramatically within government .
This means that there are still tons of them running around .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prosecute those who represent the most insidious threats to our liberties , what does that say about Trump 's commitment to `` draining the Swamp '' or dismantling the Deep State ?

This week, a former top Treasury Department official pleaded guilty in federal court on conspiracy charges for leaking confidential banking reports associated with members of the 2016 Trump campaign.
Prior to October 2018 – when she was arrested with a government-issued flash drive chock-full of sensitive documents – Natalie Edwards, 41, was a senior adviser at Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. According to prosecutors, beginning in October 2017, Edwards sent a series of communications to a BuzzFeed News reporter containing numerous confidential reports on the financial activity of Paul Manafort and other figures in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interests.
Federal prosecutors revealed that the flash drive with which Edwards was arrested also contained "highly sensitive material relating to Russia, Iran, and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."
Let's put aside for a moment our knowledge of the fact that the Russia collusion investigation was a politically-driven sham and acknowledge that legitimate whistleblowers do have a duty and every right to reveal sensitive information in the cause of justice.
In 1972, Federal Bureau of Investigation Associate Director Mark Felt provided information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein: key details about the involvement of President Richard Nixon's cabinet in the Watergate scandal. The ensuing investigation ultimately led to Nixon's resignation, and Felt – who had been given the designation "Deep Throat" by the reporters – remained anonymous for decades afterward.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
We may never know what was in Mark Felt's mind or heart when he decided to act as a confidential informant for Woodward and Bernstein rather than taking his concerns to the Justice Department or the House Judiciary Committee (which is charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing). In that climate, he may indeed have been concerned that any evidence of wrongdoing on the president's part would be quashed by those loyal to Nixon, or that making waves internally would have put his own career at risk.
In any case – even if Felt's agenda was political – it would have been evident to someone in his position that Nixon and his surrogates had most certainly engaged in activity that was of a criminal nature. Had he been asked, Felt could have easily recited the relevant legal statutes supporting his actions.
What Mark Felt did not do was to share a "data dump" with a journalist, including reams of sensitive and confidential information, much of it involving private citizens who may or may not have been involved in actions that could not definitively be construed as criminal.
I have previously shared the story of an acquaintance who was one of two prosecutors in a capital murder case in the city in which I live. These two prosecutors were absolutely certain that the 25 year-old defendant had committed the sexual mutilation and murder of a young woman, and they got their conviction in 1997.
In 2008, a judge overturned the conviction after DNA evidence pointed to another suspect. The defendant became the first person freed from prison in the state due to DNA evidence; later, he received a $4.1 million settlement from the county in a federal lawsuit.
It was also revealed that during the original trial, the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence – evidence which would have thrown the defendant's culpability into question.
So, what happened to the prosecutors' certainty?
While I have the utmost respect for law enforcement and our criminal justice system, the above evidences why I will never, for example, support the death penalty.
Prosecutors are human beings and, as such, are subject to making mistakes like the rest of us. Factor in the pressure to close cases, concern over their conviction rates and future career aspirations, and it is very easy for individuals in such positions to determine that the ends justify the means, especially when they are "sure" that a given defendant is guilty.
This is leaving aside the unfortunate – if small – percentage of prosecutors in America who don't care about guilt or innocence as long as they do get a conviction.
So ... was Natalie Edwards a government employee who thought she was acting as a legitimate whistleblower, but who drifted unknowingly into the realm of criminal activity in her zeal to do the right thing, or was she a Deep State operative acting in accordance with hidden directives and a twisted ideology?
Considering her position at Treasury, I'm going to vote for the latter. As a senior adviser at Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, like Mark Felt, Ms. Edwards knew what constituted criminal activity and what did not constitute criminal activity. So, she knew exactly what she was doing. Given the political climate in Washington at present, I'd wager that Edwards was every bit as committed to the notion that Donald Trump is an incomprehensibly evil scumbag who must be removed from office as Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff.
What really disturbs me here is that with a conspiracy charge that carried the potential for imprisonment of up to five years, Edwards has already signed a plea deal with prosecutors that recommended a prison sentence of zero to six months.
It isn't so much that the punishment doesn't fit the crime – lives, fortunes and careers were destroyed during the course of the Russia collusion investigation – it's that a light sentence for Natalie Edwards represents a business-as-usual, zero-accountability modality in dealing with entrenched government operatives who cavalierly conduct their agenda-driven business with complete impunity, up to and including criminal conduct.
Bear in mind that the Natalie Edwardses in our federal government enjoyed carte blanche during the Obama administration (the weaponization of federal agencies and the illegal surveillance of private citizens spring to mind), and positions such as theirs proliferated dramatically within government. This means that there are still tons of them running around.
If the Trump Justice Department isn't going to prosecute those who represent the most insidious threats to our liberties, what does that say about Trump's commitment to "draining the Swamp" or dismantling the Deep State?


wnd--2020-01-16--Mommy, how did Russia become bad?

Mommy, how did Russia become bad?

`` Mommy , how did Russia become so bad ? ''
If a child ever asks you this question , here is an answer so simple even toddlers can understand it : In fact , honey , Russia has been bad for a century , but the Democrats did not think so until 2016 .
They certainly did not think so in 2009 .
At a conference that year , Vice President Joe Biden said he and President Obama wanted to make nice with Russia .
Mr. Biden said , `` It is time to press the reset button and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can and should be working together with Russia . ''
A month later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the Russian foreign minister and presented him with a cute , red plastic `` reset '' button .
TRENDING : Best debate moment : Bernie has trouble with math while demanding credit for 30-year-old election win Two years later , Mr. Biden made an amazing speech in Russia .
He listed the many new areas of cooperation between Russia and the United States and told of all good things that were happening .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and President Obama .
The two men had improved Russia 's military and cyber capabilities – `` cyber '' is like internet stuff – and they also helped Russia get more power .
During his 2011 speech , Mr. Biden boasted of visiting a high-tech hub near Moscow called `` Skolkovo . ''
Mr. Biden has a talent for taking care of those close to him , so he encouraged friendly Americans with bags of money to put some in Sklokovo .
This was a little nutty .
EUCOM , the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe , called American participation in Skolkovo `` an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage . ''
That 's like spying made easy .
Mr. Bill Clinton did not care about Russian spies .
Mr. Clinton cared about money .
He happened to be in Russia at the time to give one speech that paid more money than Daddy will make in the next 10 years .
The Russians were thinking Mrs. Clinton would be the next president of the United States .
They figured if they gave her husband and her foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would owe them down the road .
On that same trip Mr. Clinton got permission to meet with senior officials from Rosatom , the company that controls all the nuclear stuff in Russia , including the weapons .
At the time , Rosatom needed Mrs. Clinton 's permission to buy Uranium One , a Canadian company with huge U.S .
Uranium reserves .
With the help of Mrs. Clinton 's State Department , Rosatom got what it wanted .
For Russian President Putin , getting Uranium One was like finding a pony under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the head Rosatom guy told President Putin , `` Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S .
reserves . ''
Few indeed !
During the 2012 presidential campaign , President Obama showed the world just how happy he was with his Russian friends .
A live microphone picked up the president saying to a Russian big shot , `` It 's important for him to give me space , '' the `` him '' being incoming President Putin .
President Obama continued , `` This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election I have more flexibility . ''
Said the Russian big shot , `` I understand .
I will transmit this information to Vladimir . ''
President Obama defended his Russian friends during his debate with Mitt Romney in 2012 .
Earlier in that year , Mr. Romney scolded President Obama for being nice to President Putin .
`` This is without question our No .
1 geopolitical foe , '' said Mr. Romney .
During the debate , President Obama zinged Mr. Romney : `` The 1980s are now calling to ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cold War 's been over for 20 years . ''
His buddies in the media laughed off the Russian threat along with President Obama .
President Putin served as prime minister during President Obama 's first term and was elected president eight months before President Obama made fun of Mr. Romney on national TV .
Obama had a happy relationship with Russia during those first four years and expected more of the same , especially with his newfound flexibility .
Flexibility ?
That means the ability to bend over and kiss someone 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As our president should have been known , President Putin thought by being flexible President Obama really just showed he was a sissy .
Russia seized the Crimea , refused to accept inspection of its nuclear sites , and gave rogue NSA contractor Edward Snowden a safe place to hang out .
Still , in July 2015 , President Putin and President Obama made nice once again when President Obama called President Putin to thank him for his help making a deal with Iran , a not very nice country .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As he told the New York Times , `` We would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia 's willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal . ''
In July 2015 , it was still OK for a president to be friends with a Russian like President Putin .
No one would have predicted that within a year Russia would become a terrible , horrible , no good , very bad country .
No one would have predicted this because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Obama and Hillary , and they liked Russia .
Mr. Donald Trump did not like Russia .
`` Putin has eaten Obama 's lunch , therefore our lunch , for a long period of time , '' Mr. Trump said in 2014 .
Russia did not need an unpredictable man like Mr. Trump to become president , but President Obama and the Clintons were afraid he would become president .
So they decided to make believe Mr. Trump was so bad he would even become friends with the terrible , horrible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , you 're right , they had to pretend they were never friends with the terrible , horrible , no good , very bad President Putin in the first place .
It was n't easy , but President Obama and his media pals have this thing called a `` memory hole ... '' Jack Cashill 's newest book , `` Unmasking Obama : The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency , '' will be out in the spring .

"Mommy, how did Russia become so bad?" If a child ever asks you this question, here is an answer so simple even toddlers can understand it:
In fact, honey, Russia has been bad for a century, but the Democrats did not think so until 2016.
They certainly did not think so in 2009. At a conference that year, Vice President Joe Biden said he and President Obama wanted to make nice with Russia.
Mr. Biden said, "It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."
A month later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the Russian foreign minister and presented him with a cute, red plastic "reset" button.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Two years later, Mr. Biden made an amazing speech in Russia. He listed the many new areas of cooperation between Russia and the United States and told of all good things that were happening.
Russians had good reason to like Mr. Biden and President Obama. The two men had improved Russia's military and cyber capabilities – "cyber" is like internet stuff – and they also helped Russia get more power.
During his 2011 speech, Mr. Biden boasted of visiting a high-tech hub near Moscow called "Skolkovo." Mr. Biden has a talent for taking care of those close to him, so he encouraged friendly Americans with bags of money to put some in Sklokovo.
This was a little nutty. EUCOM, the American military's leading intelligence think tank in Europe, called American participation in Skolkovo "an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage." That's like spying made easy.
Mr. Bill Clinton did not care about Russian spies. Mr. Clinton cared about money. He happened to be in Russia at the time to give one speech that paid more money than Daddy will make in the next 10 years.
The Russians were thinking Mrs. Clinton would be the next president of the United States. They figured if they gave her husband and her foundation all kinds of money now, she would owe them down the road.
On that same trip Mr. Clinton got permission to meet with senior officials from Rosatom, the company that controls all the nuclear stuff in Russia, including the weapons.
At the time, Rosatom needed Mrs. Clinton's permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with huge U.S. Uranium reserves. With the help of Mrs. Clinton's State Department, Rosatom got what it wanted.
For Russian President Putin, getting Uranium One was like finding a pony under his tree on Christmas morning. As the head Rosatom guy told President Putin, "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves." Few indeed!
During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama showed the world just how happy he was with his Russian friends.
A live microphone picked up the president saying to a Russian big shot, "It's important for him to give me space," the "him" being incoming President Putin.
President Obama continued, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Said the Russian big shot, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
President Obama defended his Russian friends during his debate with Mitt Romney in 2012. Earlier in that year, Mr. Romney scolded President Obama for being nice to President Putin. "This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe," said Mr. Romney.
During the debate, President Obama zinged Mr. Romney: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." His buddies in the media laughed off the Russian threat along with President Obama.
President Putin served as prime minister during President Obama's first term and was elected president eight months before President Obama made fun of Mr. Romney on national TV.
Obama had a happy relationship with Russia during those first four years and expected more of the same, especially with his newfound flexibility.
Flexibility? That means the ability to bend over and kiss someone's butt. Sounds weird, I know.
As our president should have been known, President Putin thought by being flexible President Obama really just showed he was a sissy.
Russia seized the Crimea, refused to accept inspection of its nuclear sites, and gave rogue NSA contractor Edward Snowden a safe place to hang out.
Still, in July 2015, President Putin and President Obama made nice once again when President Obama called President Putin to thank him for his help making a deal with Iran, a not very nice country.
President Obama had reason to be grateful. As he told the New York Times, "We would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia's willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal."
In July 2015, it was still OK for a president to be friends with a Russian like President Putin. No one would have predicted that within a year Russia would become a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad country.
No one would have predicted this because it made no sense. Russia liked President Obama and Hillary, and they liked Russia.
Mr. Donald Trump did not like Russia. "Putin has eaten Obama's lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time," Mr. Trump said in 2014.
Russia did not need an unpredictable man like Mr. Trump to become president, but President Obama and the Clintons were afraid he would become president.
So they decided to make believe Mr. Trump was so bad he would even become friends with the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad President Putin.
Yes, you're right, they had to pretend they were never friends with the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad President Putin in the first place.
It wasn't easy, but President Obama and his media pals have this thing called a "memory hole ..."
Jack Cashill's newest book, "Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency," will be out in the spring.