wnd--2020-02-08--Iowa: An early look behind the election theft curtain

Democrats have been stealing elections since … well , since there have been elections .
Let 's say the modern era of election theft began with JFK , the labor unions and Illinois .
The deal was simple : If Illinois unions went full Democrat and elected Kennedy , their reward would be an executive order unionizing the federal government .
In the early days , Democrats had to work hard to steal elections .
Heal the sick in the nursing homes , raise the dead in the cemeteries , and find kindred spirits working in state and local elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration irregularities .
( `` Oh , I see ol ' Whiskey Joe voted three times in this election .
Guess he really liked the guy . ''
) As recent elections in Florida have shown , Democratic election officials are more likely to carry out the dirty work themselves today .
Voting periods are commonly extended until enough Democratic ballots are found in vehicle trunks and polling closets to elect the anointed candidate .
Speaking of `` anointed , '' we come to Iowa , the caucuses and a twofer wrinkle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have to make sure you are running the right – er , correct – candidate .
That means you have to steal the primary election , first .
In other words , if it is not `` your '' candidate who is running , why waste your time , energy and money electing him or her ?
There is going to be nothing in it for you .
Once the candidate the party elites support has won the Democratic primary election , big money , big media and big tech will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because there is money to be made !
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus Democrats and Republicans think differently about making money .
Republicans still think in terms of starting a business that provides a product or service to customers , who then pay the company .
Democrats think about getting more taxpayer dollars allocated to their pet grievance causes , which then spread the money around through kickbacks , consultants , nonprofits and United Nations NGOs .
In a very real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the victims who elected them ( and the rest of us ) .
When the Iowa results first became muddled , I thought it was typical Democratic incompetence : Hire who you know , vs. hire for what they know .
Both The Guardian and Vice wrote about it .
But after this NBC report , I think we got a an early look behind the election theft curtain .
Since the caucus doors are locked once the process begins , how can the initial voting numbers be different than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app simply an excuse for the party to jiggle the votes to push the `` correct '' candidate to the top of the list ?
Why would n't the party let the Department of Homeland Security review the app for security purposes before it was used ?
Did `` some people who did some things '' know what would be found in a security review ?
I hope I 'm wrong about this and that the tech-bashing Guardian article is correct .
But I wonder : Have we just witnessed a return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of big tech ?

Democrats have been stealing elections since … well, since there have been elections. Let's say the modern era of election theft began with JFK, the labor unions and Illinois. The deal was simple: If Illinois unions went full Democrat and elected Kennedy, their reward would be an executive order unionizing the federal government.
In the early days, Democrats had to work hard to steal elections. Heal the sick in the nursing homes, raise the dead in the cemeteries, and find kindred spirits working in state and local elections offices who would "overlook" Democratic registration irregularities. ("Oh, I see ol' Whiskey Joe voted three times in this election. Guess he really liked the guy.")
As recent elections in Florida have shown, Democratic election officials are more likely to carry out the dirty work themselves today. Voting periods are commonly extended until enough Democratic ballots are found in vehicle trunks and polling closets to elect the anointed candidate.
Speaking of "anointed," we come to Iowa, the caucuses and a twofer wrinkle. Before you can steal the general election, you have to make sure you are running the right – er, correct – candidate. That means you have to steal the primary election, first. In other words, if it is not "your" candidate who is running, why waste your time, energy and money electing him or her? There is going to be nothing in it for you.
Once the candidate the party elites support has won the Democratic primary election, big money, big media and big tech will come out of the shadows. Why? Because there is money to be made!
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Democrats and Republicans think differently about making money. Republicans still think in terms of starting a business that provides a product or service to customers, who then pay the company. Democrats think about getting more taxpayer dollars allocated to their pet grievance causes, which then spread the money around through kickbacks, consultants, nonprofits and United Nations NGOs. In a very real sense, Democrats simply take their money away from the victims who elected them (and the rest of us).
When the Iowa results first became muddled, I thought it was typical Democratic incompetence: Hire who you know, vs. hire for what they know. Both The Guardian and Vice wrote about it.
But after this NBC report, I think we got a an early look behind the election theft curtain. Since the caucus doors are locked once the process begins, how can the initial voting numbers be different than the final voting numbers? Was the clunky app simply an excuse for the party to jiggle the votes to push the "correct" candidate to the top of the list? Why wouldn't the party let the Department of Homeland Security review the app for security purposes before it was used? Did "some people who did some things" know what would be found in a security review?
I hope I'm wrong about this and that the tech-bashing Guardian article is correct. But I wonder: Have we just witnessed a return to smoke-filled back rooms under the smiley face of big tech?


wnd--2020-02-08--How to stop fraudsters, smugglers & spies from doing business

That 's what Deep Throat supposedly told Woodward and Bernstein to do to find the perps behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up .
But what if they could n't follow the money ?
What if the chain of custody was hidden ?
That 's the problem for law enforcement chasing Mexican drug cartels , Iranian terrorists , human traffickers and Chinese spies today .
Criminal organizations , fraudsters and spies hide behind anonymous shell companies to carry out their nefarious business .
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus A loophole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incorporate a company in the U.S. than to obtain a driver 's license or even a library card .
Under current law , companies do n't have to disclose their ownership unless they do business with a U.S. bank or financial institution .
Put it another way , the task of tracking ownership of shadowy companies is not done by law enforcement ; it 's been outsourced to banks .
What could possibly go wrong ?
A lot .
An investigation by Reuters found more than 2,000 companies were registered at one address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wyoming , population 60,000 .
That 's the headquarters for a `` corporate services '' company that helps clients `` create a company , and more : set up a bank account for it ; add a lawyer as a corporate director to invoke attorney-client privilege ; even appoint stand-in directors and officers as high as CEO . ''
It will even provide years of back-dated regulatory filings to make the company look more real .
Some of the thousands of companies registered in this sleepy Wyoming town have been sued for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringement .
State and federal authorities have filed liens against them to collect more than $ 300,000 in unpaid taxes .
A former Ukrainian prime minister ( them again ! )
who had the dubious distinction of being named the eighth-most corrupt official in the world and served a prison term in California for money-laundering and extortion had his shell company in Cheyenne .
So if you thought secret bank accounts , paper companies and dodgy incorporation laws were the exclusive province of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands , think again .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up there with those notorious tax-scam and money laundering havens when it comes to corporate secrecy .
The good news is Congress is ready to do something about it .
The Illicit Cash Act closes the legal loopholes that allow criminals and corrupt governments to hide .
The bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, and Sen. Mark Warner , D-Va. , requires shell companies to disclose their true owners to the Department of Treasury , so law enforcement can track down criminal networks .
The owners of these companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply have to provide their name , address , date of birth and driver 's license or passport number – the information you need to show to get on an airplane .
The information would be kept in a confidential federal registry that could only be accessed in a law enforcement investigation .
Penalties for failing to comply would only apply to criminals ; small businesses that slip up would not be hit .
Every day brings a new headline of spies using increasingly sophisticated means to steal advanced technology and research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' tradecraft .
Chinese telecom giant Huawei is charged with using shell companies to deceive U.S. banks and evade sanctions against Iran .
`` The FBI has about 1,000 investigations involving China 's attempted theft of U.S. based technology in all 56 of our field offices and spanning just about every industry sector , '' FBI Director Christopher Wray reveals .
The ILLICIT CASH Act is a straightforward piece of legislation to ensure law enforcement can follow the money and stop cartels , terrorists , fraudsters and spies .
Now that the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should pass the ILLICIT CASH Act now .

Follow the money.
That's what Deep Throat supposedly told Woodward and Bernstein to do to find the perps behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up.
But what if they couldn't follow the money? What if the chain of custody was hidden?
That's the problem for law enforcement chasing Mexican drug cartels, Iranian terrorists, human traffickers and Chinese spies today.
Criminal organizations, fraudsters and spies hide behind anonymous shell companies to carry out their nefarious business.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
A loophole in the law makes it easier to incorporate a company in the U.S. than to obtain a driver's license or even a library card.
Under current law, companies don't have to disclose their ownership unless they do business with a U.S. bank or financial institution.
Put it another way, the task of tracking ownership of shadowy companies is not done by law enforcement; it's been outsourced to banks. What could possibly go wrong? A lot.
An investigation by Reuters found more than 2,000 companies were registered at one address, a single family home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, population 60,000.
That's the headquarters for a "corporate services" company that helps clients "create a company, and more: set up a bank account for it; add a lawyer as a corporate director to invoke attorney-client privilege; even appoint stand-in directors and officers as high as CEO." It will even provide years of back-dated regulatory filings to make the company look more real.
Some of the thousands of companies registered in this sleepy Wyoming town have been sued for unpaid taxes, securities fraud and trademark infringement. State and federal authorities have filed liens against them to collect more than $300,000 in unpaid taxes.
A former Ukrainian prime minister (them again!) who had the dubious distinction of being named the eighth-most corrupt official in the world and served a prison term in California for money-laundering and extortion had his shell company in Cheyenne.
So if you thought secret bank accounts, paper companies and dodgy incorporation laws were the exclusive province of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, think again. An international report ranks the United States right up there with those notorious tax-scam and money laundering havens when it comes to corporate secrecy.
The good news is Congress is ready to do something about it.
The Illicit Cash Act closes the legal loopholes that allow criminals and corrupt governments to hide. The bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., requires shell companies to disclose their true owners to the Department of Treasury, so law enforcement can track down criminal networks.
The owners of these companies, flesh and blood people, would simply have to provide their name, address, date of birth and driver's license or passport number – the information you need to show to get on an airplane.
The information would be kept in a confidential federal registry that could only be accessed in a law enforcement investigation. Penalties for failing to comply would only apply to criminals; small businesses that slip up would not be hit.
Every day brings a new headline of spies using increasingly sophisticated means to steal advanced technology and research. Cut-out companies are part of the theives' tradecraft. Chinese telecom giant Huawei is charged with using shell companies to deceive U.S. banks and evade sanctions against Iran.
"The FBI has about 1,000 investigations involving China's attempted theft of U.S. based technology in all 56 of our field offices and spanning just about every industry sector," FBI Director Christopher Wray reveals.
The ILLICIT CASH Act is a straightforward piece of legislation to ensure law enforcement can follow the money and stop cartels, terrorists, fraudsters and spies.
Now that the Senate has finished with other distracting business, it should pass the ILLICIT CASH Act now.


wnd--2020-02-07--Why I'm not upset with Mitt Romney

Why I'm not upset with Mitt Romney

Before you crucify me for not condemning `` the traitor , '' please hear me out .
My position has nothing to do with whether I agree with Sen. Mitt Romney 's `` guilty '' vote on the first article of impeachment .
And it has nothing to do with whether I believe he is a true conservative .
Or even a loyal Republican for that matter .
It has to do with something far deeper .
Are you willing to hear me out ?
I 'm quite aware of the litany of charges against Mitt Romney 's past political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and here and here and here ) .
And I 'm quite aware that this track record would seem to clash directly with Sen. Romney 's deep Mormon faith .
I 'm also quite aware of Romney 's very public attacks on Trump since 2016 .
In other words , I write what I write with my eyes wide open .
And with my eyes wide open , I take Mitt Romney at his word .
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agonized over his decision .
I believe him when he says that he took his oath before God seriously .
I believe him when he speaks of sleepless nights .
I believe him when he talks of wanting to act with integrity for the sake of his children and grandchildren .
The bottom line is that God alone knows what is in Mitt Romney 's heart , and it is not up to you or me to pass judgment on why he ( or anyone else ) did what he did .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we can not judge his motivations .
On a purely practical level , what Romney did will be far more destructive to his political career .
And he certainly does n't need to write a bestselling , anti-Trump book to make himself extra money .
Romney has subjected himself to isolation within his own party .
He has likely doomed any future political plans .
And he has guaranteed that he will be hated and vilified by millions of loyal Trump supporters in the years ahead .
That 's why I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conscience , since I genuinely believe that 's exactly what he did .
Ironically , the very people who will believe President Trump when he speaks of the motivations behind his Ukraine phone call will not believe Romney when he speaks of the motivations behind his vote .
Really now , do you believe his private meetings with journalists and broadcasters and his talks with other senators were all an act and a sham ?
Or are you that sure that he was so consumed by bitterness toward Trump that he used this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Writing for The Atlantic , McKay Coppins states that Romney said to him , `` This has been the most difficult decision I have ever had to make in my life . ''
Coppins explains , `` For weeks , the senator from Utah had sat silently in the impeachment trial alongside his 99 colleagues , reviewing the evidence at night and praying for guidance .
The gravity of the moment weighed on him , as did the pressure from members of his own party to acquit their leader .
As his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the exercise took on a spiritual dimension . ''
He continues , `` According to Romney 's interpretation of Alexander Hamilton 's treatise on impeachment in 'Federalist No .
65 ' – which he says he 's read 'multiple , multiple times ' – Trump 's attempts to enlist the Ukrainian president in interfering with the 2020 election clearly rose to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors . '
'' This would be in harmony with the tweet of Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett , who said , `` Before anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should listen to his 9 minute explanation of why he voted as he did .
This was n't an easy vote for him to make politically , and it 's possible to have a good faith disagreement about this issue – in particular , on Article 1 . ''
Again , I disagree with Romney 's conclusion .
And , I believe that , from day 1 , the impeachment process was part of a multi-year witch hunt to take down the president .
I 've made that clear before .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of how he came to make his decision , and that is something that I must respect .
Coppins notes that `` when the senator invited me to his Capitol Hill office yesterday [ Feb. 4 ] , I was unsure what he would reveal .
Romney had been largely silent throughout the impeachment proceedings , giving little indication of which way he was leaning .
I half-expected to find a cowed and calculating politician ready with a list of excuses for caving .
( His staff granted the interview on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he took to the Senate floor . )
`` Instead , I found Romney filled with what seemed like righteous indignation about the president 's misconduct – quoting hymns and Scripture , expressing dismay at his party and bracing for the political backlash . ''
Romney even claims that he wanted Bolton to testify with `` the hope that he would be able to say something exculpatory and create reasonable doubt , so I would n't have to vote to convict . ''
And I take the senator at his word .
Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to your own conclusions , remembering that we will be judged the way we judge others .
As for you judging me for even writing this column , bear in mind that I 'm not a Mormon .
In fact , I reject Mormonism as a non-Christian cult that distorts the Scriptures .
And I view Joseph Smith as a false prophet .
But if Mitt Romney genuinely felt that , for the sake of integrity and in harmony with his faith , he had to vote `` guilty '' on the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
In the end , that 's the best any of us can do : Make careful decisions in the fear of God .
History may condemn Romney ( or vindicate him ) .
He will likely pay a high price for his vote .
And , overall , he will most probably be a very small footnote in a very big , messy drama .
And , to repeat , I disagree with his vote and I disagree with his religious beliefs .
But I do n't despise him for what @ @ @

Before you crucify me for not condemning "the traitor," please hear me out. My position has nothing to do with whether I agree with Sen. Mitt Romney's "guilty" vote on the first article of impeachment. And it has nothing to do with whether I believe he is a true conservative. Or even a loyal Republican for that matter. It has to do with something far deeper. Are you willing to hear me out?
I'm quite aware of the litany of charges against Mitt Romney's past political record and business dealings (see here and here and here and here). And I'm quite aware that this track record would seem to clash directly with Sen. Romney's deep Mormon faith.
I'm also quite aware of Romney's very public attacks on Trump since 2016.
In other words, I write what I write with my eyes wide open.
And with my eyes wide open, I take Mitt Romney at his word.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
I believe him when he says that he agonized over his decision.
I believe him when he says that he took his oath before God seriously.
I believe him when he speaks of sleepless nights.
I believe him when he talks of wanting to act with integrity for the sake of his children and grandchildren.
The bottom line is that God alone knows what is in Mitt Romney's heart, and it is not up to you or me to pass judgment on why he (or anyone else) did what he did. We can categorically differ with his decisions. But we cannot judge his motivations.
On a purely practical level, what Romney did will be far more destructive to his political career. And he certainly doesn't need to write a bestselling, anti-Trump book to make himself extra money.
Romney has subjected himself to isolation within his own party. He has likely doomed any future political plans. And he has guaranteed that he will be hated and vilified by millions of loyal Trump supporters in the years ahead.
That's why I'm not upset with him for voting his conscience, since I genuinely believe that's exactly what he did.
Ironically, the very people who will believe President Trump when he speaks of the motivations behind his Ukraine phone call will not believe Romney when he speaks of the motivations behind his vote.
Really now, do you believe his private meetings with journalists and broadcasters and his talks with other senators were all an act and a sham? Or are you that sure that he was so consumed by bitterness toward Trump that he used this as a lasting "gotcha" moment?
Writing for The Atlantic, McKay Coppins states that Romney said to him, "This has been the most difficult decision I have ever had to make in my life."
Coppins explains, "For weeks, the senator from Utah had sat silently in the impeachment trial alongside his 99 colleagues, reviewing the evidence at night and praying for guidance. The gravity of the moment weighed on him, as did the pressure from members of his own party to acquit their leader. As his conscience tugged at him, he said, the exercise took on a spiritual dimension."
He continues, "According to Romney's interpretation of Alexander Hamilton's treatise on impeachment in 'Federalist No. 65' – which he says he's read 'multiple, multiple times' – Trump's attempts to enlist the Ukrainian president in interfering with the 2020 election clearly rose to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
This would be in harmony with the tweet of Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, who said, "Before anyone condemns @SenatorRomney for his vote, they should listen to his 9 minute explanation of why he voted as he did. This wasn't an easy vote for him to make politically, and it's possible to have a good faith disagreement about this issue – in particular, on Article 1."
Again, I disagree with Romney's conclusion. And, I believe that, from day 1, the impeachment process was part of a multi-year witch hunt to take down the president. I've made that clear before.
I simply take Romney at his word in terms of how he came to make his decision, and that is something that I must respect.
Coppins notes that "when the senator invited me to his Capitol Hill office yesterday [Feb. 4], I was unsure what he would reveal. Romney had been largely silent throughout the impeachment proceedings, giving little indication of which way he was leaning. I half-expected to find a cowed and calculating politician ready with a list of excuses for caving. (His staff granted the interview on the condition that it would be embargoed until he took to the Senate floor.)
"Instead, I found Romney filled with what seemed like righteous indignation about the president's misconduct – quoting hymns and Scripture, expressing dismay at his party and bracing for the political backlash."
Romney even claims that he wanted Bolton to testify with "the hope that he would be able to say something exculpatory and create reasonable doubt, so I wouldn't have to vote to convict."
And I take the senator at his word.
Watch his 9-minute speech for yourself and come to your own conclusions, remembering that we will be judged the way we judge others.
As for you judging me for even writing this column, bear in mind that I'm not a Mormon. In fact, I reject Mormonism as a non-Christian cult that distorts the Scriptures. And I view Joseph Smith as a false prophet.
But if Mitt Romney genuinely felt that, for the sake of integrity and in harmony with his faith, he had to vote "guilty" on the first article of impeachment, I will respect that.
In the end, that's the best any of us can do: Make careful decisions in the fear of God.
History may condemn Romney (or vindicate him). He will likely pay a high price for his vote. And, overall, he will most probably be a very small footnote in a very big, messy drama.
And, to repeat, I disagree with his vote and I disagree with his religious beliefs.
But I don't despise him for what he did.


wnd--2020-02-07--The power of integrity and taking a stand

Awhile back I came across an interesting headline in Forbes magazine : `` Success Will Come and Go , but Integrity Is Forever . ''
The article pointed out that building integrity takes years , but it only takes seconds to lose .
How true .
Billionaire Warren Buffett says that when you 're looking for someone to hire , you should look for three qualities : integrity , intelligence and energy .
Then he adds , `` But the most important is integrity , because if they do n't have that , the other two qualities , intelligence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Moses had integrity .
The Bible describes him as `` Moses the man of God '' ( Deuteronomy 33:1 NKJV ) .
And when Moses the man of God temporarily left the scene , it was complete chaos .
He left his brother , Aaron , in charge of the Israelites while he went up to Mount Sinai to receive the commandments .
But while Moses was away , the people went to Aaron and basically said , `` Hey , you know what ?
We need something we can worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Take the gold rings from the ears of your wives and sons and daughters , and bring them to me '' ( Exodus 32:2 NLT ) .
Then Aaron took all of the gold , melted it , and formed it into the shape of a calf .
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus When the people saw it , they said , `` O Israel , these are the gods who brought you out of the land of Egypt ! ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Moses was up on the mountain .
And when he came down and saw what they were doing , he said to Aaron , `` What did these people do to you to make you bring such terrible sin upon them ? ''
( verse 21 NLT ) .
So why were the people worshiping a golden calf ?
They came from Egypt , and Egypt essentially was idol central .
They had all kinds of images they worshiped , and the people were used to this sort of thing .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this story that one man , Moses , lived a godly life and influenced millions of people .
On the other hand , one man , Aaron , lived a compromised life and had a horrible influence on others .
Check out Greg Laurie 's books and movies in the WND Superstore Not only that , but Aaron lied .
He said to Moses , `` You yourself know how evil these people are .
They said to me , 'Make us gods who will lead us .
We do n't know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who brought us here from the land of Egypt . '
So I told them , 'Whoever has gold jewelry , take it off . '
When they brought it to me , I simply threw it into the fire – and out came this calf ! ''
( verses 22–24 NLT ) .
George Washington said that it 's better to offer no excuse than a bad one .
Aaron initiated this .
He was responsible , but he did n't take responsibility for his actions .
It was on his watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He should have stopped them cold and refused .
And to make matters worse , he wrapped it in religious jargon to do away with the guilt .
He said , `` Tomorrow will be a festival to the Lord ! ''
( verse 5 NLT ) .
This still happens .
People will make sure they carry out a token spiritual action like giving thanks before a meal , but then they 'll go commit a gross sin .
God does n't want to hear their grace at mealtime .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We find a fascinating passage in the Old Testament book of Amos , where God says , `` Away with your noisy hymns of praise !
I will not listen to the music of your harps .
Instead , I want to see a mighty flood of justice , an endless river of righteous living '' ( 5:23 NLT ) .
Did you know there can come a point when you 're singing praises to the Lord and God effectively says , `` Stop already !
I do n't want to hear it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ singing .
What you 're doing is offensive to me '' ?
That 's what was happening when the Israelites presented a burnt offering and worshiped the golden calf .
God was saying , `` I do n't want your burnt offering .
I do n't want you to worship false gods .
I want you to love me with all your heart . ''
What a contrast Moses and Aaron were .
Moses set an example that the people could follow , while Aaron set a bad example .
Moses was known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was right .
Aaron , on the other hand , was known for his indecisiveness , weak will and desire to fit in .
You see , Aaron did n't want to offend anyone .
In the same way , sometimes we 're afraid to make a stand because we do n't want to offend .
Do n't do that .
Make a stand .
Do what is right , not what is easy .
In fact , sometimes when you do what is right , it 's very hard .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right thing whether or not someone is watching .
When Aaron was with Moses , he was `` godly . ''
And when he was n't with Moses , he was pretty ungodly .
He gave in , and he led the people in their sin .
Sometimes we 're the same way .
When we 're around strong believers , we 're strong – kind of .
But the moment we 're away from them , we crumble .
Find strong Christians to be around .
And in time , you need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The highest compliment we can pay is to describe someone as a man or woman of God .
May that be said of us , not just by casual acquaintances , but by our family and close friends , by those who know us well .
`` I am only one , but I am one , '' said Edward Everett Hale .
`` I can not do everything , but I can do something .
And I will not let what I can not do interfere with what I can do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right , and God will bless you for it .

Awhile back I came across an interesting headline in Forbes magazine: "Success Will Come and Go, but Integrity Is Forever." The article pointed out that building integrity takes years, but it only takes seconds to lose. How true.
Billionaire Warren Buffett says that when you're looking for someone to hire, you should look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence and energy. Then he adds, "But the most important is integrity, because if they don't have that, the other two qualities, intelligence and energy, are going to kill you."
Moses had integrity. The Bible describes him as "Moses the man of God" (Deuteronomy 33:1 NKJV). And when Moses the man of God temporarily left the scene, it was complete chaos. He left his brother, Aaron, in charge of the Israelites while he went up to Mount Sinai to receive the commandments.
But while Moses was away, the people went to Aaron and basically said, "Hey, you know what? We need something we can worship."
So Aaron told them, "Take the gold rings from the ears of your wives and sons and daughters, and bring them to me" (Exodus 32:2 NLT). Then Aaron took all of the gold, melted it, and formed it into the shape of a calf.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
When the people saw it, they said, "O Israel, these are the gods who brought you out of the land of Egypt!" (verse 8 NLT).
Meanwhile, Moses was up on the mountain. And when he came down and saw what they were doing, he said to Aaron, "What did these people do to you to make you bring such terrible sin upon them?" (verse 21 NLT).
So why were the people worshiping a golden calf? They came from Egypt, and Egypt essentially was idol central. They had all kinds of images they worshiped, and the people were used to this sort of thing. So they reverted to it.
We see from this story that one man, Moses, lived a godly life and influenced millions of people. On the other hand, one man, Aaron, lived a compromised life and had a horrible influence on others.
Check out Greg Laurie's books and movies in the WND Superstore
Not only that, but Aaron lied. He said to Moses, "You yourself know how evil these people are. They said to me, 'Make us gods who will lead us. We don't know what happened to this fellow Moses, who brought us here from the land of Egypt.' So I told them, 'Whoever has gold jewelry, take it off.' When they brought it to me, I simply threw it into the fire – and out came this calf!" (verses 22–24 NLT).
George Washington said that it's better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
Aaron initiated this. He was responsible, but he didn't take responsibility for his actions. It was on his watch that he helped the people commit idolatry. He should have stopped them cold and refused.
And to make matters worse, he wrapped it in religious jargon to do away with the guilt. He said, "Tomorrow will be a festival to the Lord!" (verse 5 NLT).
This still happens. People will make sure they carry out a token spiritual action like giving thanks before a meal, but then they'll go commit a gross sin. God doesn't want to hear their grace at mealtime. Rather, God wants them to repent.
We find a fascinating passage in the Old Testament book of Amos, where God says, "Away with your noisy hymns of praise! I will not listen to the music of your harps. Instead, I want to see a mighty flood of justice, an endless river of righteous living" (5:23 NLT).
Did you know there can come a point when you're singing praises to the Lord and God effectively says, "Stop already! I don't want to hear it. Your lifestyle contradicts what you're singing. What you're doing is offensive to me"?
That's what was happening when the Israelites presented a burnt offering and worshiped the golden calf. God was saying, "I don't want your burnt offering. I don't want you to worship false gods. I want you to love me with all your heart."
What a contrast Moses and Aaron were. Moses set an example that the people could follow, while Aaron set a bad example. Moses was known for his decisiveness, conviction and doing what was right. Aaron, on the other hand, was known for his indecisiveness, weak will and desire to fit in.
You see, Aaron didn't want to offend anyone. In the same way, sometimes we're afraid to make a stand because we don't want to offend.
Don't do that. Make a stand. Do what is right, not what is easy. In fact, sometimes when you do what is right, it's very hard.
A man or woman of integrity does the right thing whether or not someone is watching. When Aaron was with Moses, he was "godly." And when he wasn't with Moses, he was pretty ungodly. He gave in, and he led the people in their sin.
Sometimes we're the same way. When we're around strong believers, we're strong – kind of. But the moment we're away from them, we crumble.
Find strong Christians to be around. And in time, you need to be that strong believer yourself.
The highest compliment we can pay is to describe someone as a man or woman of God. May that be said of us, not just by casual acquaintances, but by our family and close friends, by those who know us well.
"I am only one, but I am one," said Edward Everett Hale. "I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do."
Make your stand for what is right, and God will bless you for it.


wnd--2020-02-09--Christian who escaped Muslim Pakistan warns of 'sword of Damocles'

A Christian woman who escaped the `` near-total enforcement of Shariah '' in Islamic Pakistan warns that the Christians who remain face a constant `` sword of Damocles . ''
Asia Bibi , who spent eight years on death row in Pakistan on a false charge of blasphemy , issued the warning in an interview she gave to the Tribune India .
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch said the `` persecution of Asia Bibi was a particularly ugly chapter in the history of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and its enforcement of Shariah blasphemy laws . ''
TRENDING : James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we lost our minds ? '
Bibi was acquitted by the Pakistani Supreme Court , but mobs began rioting , calling for her blood as they hunted for her from house to house .
Spencer said that while Bibi made it out of the country , Christians still in Pakistan live `` a precarious existence under near-total enforcement of Shariah . ''
The Tribune report said Bibi 's trauma began when she intervened in a fight and was charged with blasphemy under a law criticized globally .
A trial court in 2010 sentenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After eight years , she was acquitted by a higher court and allowed to leave for Canada . ''
In a new book about her by French journalist Anne-Isabelle Tollet , she says she `` became a prisoner of fanaticism and tears were the only companions in the cell . ''
`` My wrists are burning me , it is hard to breathe .
My neck is encased in an iron collar that the guard can tighten with a huge nut .
A long chain drags along on the filthy ground .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that pulls me like a dog on a lead .
Deep within me , a dull fear takes me towards the depths of darkness .
A lacerating fear that will never leave me , '' she says .
`` Even with my freedom , the climate does not seem to have changed and Christians can expect all kinds of reprisals .
They live with this sword of Damocles over their head , '' she says .
Last year , a video circulated in which a Muslim youth , claiming to be in Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was cleared by Pakistani courts .
`` This message is for all the enemies of Islam and to the Jew government who helped her get out of Pakistan , '' the man declared , according to a translation provided by the British Pakistani Christian Association , reported Breitbart News .
`` To give Asia Bibi a terrible death and to send her to hell I also reached Canada last night , '' he said .
As WND reported , Bibi was held in protective custody after Pakistan 's Supreme Court overturned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan political party and others vowed to kill her , her family , and the judges and lawyers who helped her .

A Christian woman who escaped the "near-total enforcement of Shariah" in Islamic Pakistan warns that the Christians who remain face a constant "sword of Damocles."
Asia Bibi, who spent eight years on death row in Pakistan on a false charge of blasphemy, issued the warning in an interview she gave to the Tribune India.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch said the "persecution of Asia Bibi was a particularly ugly chapter in the history of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and its enforcement of Shariah blasphemy laws."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Bibi was acquitted by the Pakistani Supreme Court, but mobs began rioting, calling for her blood as they hunted for her from house to house.
Spencer said that while Bibi made it out of the country, Christians still in Pakistan live "a precarious existence under near-total enforcement of Shariah."
The Tribune report said Bibi's trauma began when she intervened in a fight and was charged with blasphemy under a law criticized globally. A trial court in 2010 sentenced her to death on blasphemy charges. After eight years, she was acquitted by a higher court and allowed to leave for Canada."
In a new book about her by French journalist Anne-Isabelle Tollet, she says she "became a prisoner of fanaticism and tears were the only companions in the cell."
"My wrists are burning me, it is hard to breathe. My neck is encased in an iron collar that the guard can tighten with a huge nut. A long chain drags along on the filthy ground. This connects my neck to the handcuffed hand that pulls me like a dog on a lead. Deep within me, a dull fear takes me towards the depths of darkness. A lacerating fear that will never leave me," she says.
And now?
"Even with my freedom, the climate does not seem to have changed and Christians can expect all kinds of reprisals. They live with this sword of Damocles over their head," she says.
Last year, a video circulated in which a Muslim youth, claiming to be in Canada, vowed to kill Bibi even though she was cleared by Pakistani courts.
"This message is for all the enemies of Islam and to the Jew government who helped her get out of Pakistan," the man declared, according to a translation provided by the British Pakistani Christian Association, reported Breitbart News.
"To give Asia Bibi a terrible death and to send her to hell I also reached Canada last night," he said.
As WND reported, Bibi was held in protective custody after Pakistan's Supreme Court overturned the conviction and death sentence in October as members of the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan political party and others vowed to kill her, her family, and the judges and lawyers who helped her.


wnd--2020-02-09--Driver plows through Republican voter-registration tent

( NEWS4JAX ) -- JACKSONVILLE , Fla. – Hours after a van plowed through a Republican Party tent where volunteers @ @ @ @ @ police arrested a 27-year-old man on two counts of aggravated assault on a person over @ @ @ @ @ mischief and driving without a license .
The Jacksonville Sheriff ’ s Office identified Gregory @ @ @ @ @ person behind the wheel of the van that struck the tent set up the parking @ @ @ @ @ at the corner of Atlantic and Kernan boulevards about 3:50 p.m. Saturday .
Timm is @ @ @ @ @ driving through the tent and striking their tables .

(NEWS4JAX) -- JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Hours after a van plowed through a Republican Party tent where volunteers were registering voters, Jacksonville police arrested a 27-year-old man on two counts of aggravated assault on a person over 65 years old, criminal mischief and driving without a license.
The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office identified Gregory William Loel Timm as the person behind the wheel of the van that struck the tent set up the parking lot of a Walmart Superstore at the corner of Atlantic and Kernan boulevards about 3:50 p.m. Saturday.
Timm is accused of pulling up, driving through the tent and striking their tables.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-02-09--Facebook drops the hammer on Dems wanting video of Pelosi ripping Trump speech removed

If you know one thing about President Donald Trump 's State of the Union speech on Tuesday , it 's that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the address in full view of the cameras from her perch behind the president .
If you know a second thing about the State of the Union address , it 's that the president used it as a vehicle for a number of moving stories -- including salutes to a Tuskegee Airman , the family of a fallen police officer and a young girl who wanted to escape a failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Point USA decided to juxtapose these two things , showing the emotional stories and then showing , repeatedly , Nancy Pelosi ripping up the speech .
Anyone who would see this would logically know there were only so many times she ripped up the speech -- namely , one -- and that the occasion probably did n't happen after Trump saluted a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman .
It was obviously an attempt to synthesize the two differing visions of the speech in a short video , something no one looking at it would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president retweeted the video , however , and that 's exactly why Nancy Pelosi 's staff tried to have the video removed from social media .
TRENDING : James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze : 'Have we lost our minds ? '
Here it is , in all its glory : Drew Hammill , Pelosi 's chief of staff , took to Twitter to lambaste social media organizations for not taking down the `` fake '' clip .
`` The American people know that the President has no qualms about lying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see Twitter and Facebook , sources of news for millions , do the same , '' he wrote in a Friday tweet .
`` The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people , and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders ’ interests than the public ’ s interests . ''
This prompted a clap-back response from Facebook policy communications manager Andy Stone , who wrote : '' Sorry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't make those remarks and the Speaker did n't rip the speech ? ''
tweeted Stone -- a veteran of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democrat California Sen. Barbara Boxer 's team , just in case you needed to know where his politics are .
Stone then pointed Hammill to Facebook 's policy on banning `` manipulated media . ''
That guide lays out two criteria for banning said media : • `` It has been edited or synthesized – beyond adjustments for clarity or quality – in ways that aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say .
And : • `` It is the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning that merges , replaces or superimposes content onto a video , making it appear to be authentic . ''
This did n't sit well with Hammill , who apparently did n't read the guidelines : It 's good to see Drew Hammill does n't have a whole lot of respect for American voters , who he thinks are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 'd all be funny if it were n't so serious .
Twitter has banned political advertising and Democrats are pressuring Facebook to do the same -- in part because the Republicans in general and the Trump campaign in particular have a distinct advantage in social media advertising strategy .
Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly threatened to break up big tech and , as NPR reported , ran a deliberately faked ad to protest the fact that Facebook has , she claims , `` repeatedly fumbled their responsibility to protect our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those interminable CNN town hall meetings in New Hampshire on Thursday , entrepreneur and Democratic presidential contender Andrew Yang said he would consider legislating against `` fake '' campaign ads from appearing on social media .
“ Mark [ Zuckerberg ] , your company is contributing to the disintegration of our democracy , ” Yang said , according to the Daily Wire , addressing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg .
“ If you ’ re an American and a patriot , and you care about the country your kids will inherit , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and say there will not be untrue political ads on your platform.
” When asked to clarify : “ Well , my first preference is to sit down with a major organization like Facebook and say , ‘ hey , do the right thing.
’ But if they don ’ t want to do the right thing , then we have a legislature for a reason , ” Yang said .
“ We should just pass a law saying Facebook should not have verifiably false political advertisements on their platform .
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a penalty accordingly.
” So , `` do what we say or we 'll legislate that way anyhow . ''
Try this one if you 're a Republican and see how many ugly news cycles you have to endure .
And just in case you did n't grasp the subtext of this , given the execrably liberal state of fact-checking at social media organizations -- including Facebook -- guess which ads are going to be deemed `` verifiably false political advertisements '' ?
Warren 's chances are fading and all those blue-cap emojis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter do n't seem to be materializing into actual polling numbers , so neither of these individuals will likely be in a position to carry out any of this directly .
However , losing Democratic candidates can often serve as incubators for bad ideas -- and this is an awfully popular awful idea right now , particularly if it is n't Joe Biden that wins the nomination .
If things go south for Trump and Republicans in November , then , I can guarantee you this : Andy Stone wo n't exactly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this if someone with Andrew Yang 's mindset decides to sit down and have a chat with him and his boss .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

If you know one thing about President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech on Tuesday, it's that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the address in full view of the cameras from her perch behind the president.
If you know a second thing about the State of the Union address, it's that the president used it as a vehicle for a number of moving stories -- including salutes to a Tuskegee Airman, the family of a fallen police officer and a young girl who wanted to escape a failing school.
The conservative activist group Turning Point USA decided to juxtapose these two things, showing the emotional stories and then showing, repeatedly, Nancy Pelosi ripping up the speech.
Anyone who would see this would logically know there were only so many times she ripped up the speech -- namely, one -- and that the occasion probably didn't happen after Trump saluted a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman. It was obviously an attempt to synthesize the two differing visions of the speech in a short video, something no one looking at it would have thought was happening in real time.
The president retweeted the video, however, and that's exactly why Nancy Pelosi's staff tried to have the video removed from social media.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Here it is, in all its glory:
Drew Hammill, Pelosi's chief of staff, took to Twitter to lambaste social media organizations for not taking down the "fake" clip.
"The American people know that the President has no qualms about lying to them – but it is a shame to see Twitter and Facebook, sources of news for millions, do the same," he wrote in a Friday tweet.
"The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people, and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders’ interests than the public’s interests."
The latest fake video of Speaker Pelosi is deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people, and every day that these platforms refuse to take it down is another reminder that they care more about their shareholders’ interests than the public’s interests. — Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) February 7, 2020
This prompted a clap-back response from Facebook policy communications manager Andy Stone, who wrote:
Sorry, are you suggesting the President didn't make those remarks and the Speaker didn't rip the speech? — Andy Stone (@andymstone) February 7, 2020
"Sorry, are you suggesting the President didn't make those remarks and the Speaker didn't rip the speech?" tweeted Stone -- a veteran of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democrat California Sen. Barbara Boxer's team, just in case you needed to know where his politics are.
Stone then pointed Hammill to Facebook's policy on banning "manipulated media."
The reason I was making the point about the fact that the things featured in this video actually happened is because that's a key element of our policy on content like this. https://t.co/CAtmBPczlG — Andy Stone (@andymstone) February 7, 2020
That guide lays out two criteria for banning said media:
"It has been edited or synthesized – beyond adjustments for clarity or quality – in ways that aren’t apparent to an average person and would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say. And:
"It is the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning that merges, replaces or superimposes content onto a video, making it appear to be authentic."
This didn't sit well with Hammill, who apparently didn't read the guidelines:
what planet are you living on? this is deceptively altered. take it down. — Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) February 7, 2020
It's good to see Drew Hammill doesn't have a whole lot of respect for American voters, who he thinks are going to be deceived by this. It'd all be funny if it weren't so serious.
Twitter has banned political advertising and Democrats are pressuring Facebook to do the same -- in part because the Republicans in general and the Trump campaign in particular have a distinct advantage in social media advertising strategy.
Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly threatened to break up big tech and, as NPR reported, ran a deliberately faked ad to protest the fact that Facebook has, she claims, "repeatedly fumbled their responsibility to protect our democracy."
What would really “suck” is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy. https://t.co/rI0v55KKAi — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) October 1, 2019
Meanwhile, at one of those interminable CNN town hall meetings in New Hampshire on Thursday, entrepreneur and Democratic presidential contender Andrew Yang said he would consider legislating against "fake" campaign ads from appearing on social media.
“Mark [Zuckerberg], your company is contributing to the disintegration of our democracy,” Yang said, according to the Daily Wire, addressing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
“If you’re an American and a patriot, and you care about the country your kids will inherit, then you need to have Facebook step up and say there will not be untrue political ads on your platform.”
When asked to clarify: “Well, my first preference is to sit down with a major organization like Facebook and say, ‘hey, do the right thing.’ But if they don’t want to do the right thing, then we have a legislature for a reason,” Yang said.
“We should just pass a law saying Facebook should not have verifiably false political advertisements on their platform. And if they do, then they should pay a penalty accordingly.”
So, "do what we say or we'll legislate that way anyhow." Try this one if you're a Republican and see how many ugly news cycles you have to endure.
And just in case you didn't grasp the subtext of this, given the execrably liberal state of fact-checking at social media organizations -- including Facebook -- guess which ads are going to be deemed "verifiably false political advertisements"?
Warren's chances are fading and all those blue-cap emojis from the "Yang Gang" on Twitter don't seem to be materializing into actual polling numbers, so neither of these individuals will likely be in a position to carry out any of this directly.
However, losing Democratic candidates can often serve as incubators for bad ideas -- and this is an awfully popular awful idea right now, particularly if it isn't Joe Biden that wins the nomination.
If things go south for Trump and Republicans in November, then, I can guarantee you this: Andy Stone won't exactly be in a position to clap back like this if someone with Andrew Yang's mindset decides to sit down and have a chat with him and his boss.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-09--Van Jones: Dems have pummeled themselves with '3 years of fantasy-football politics'

CNN analyst and former Obama adviser Van Jones is blowing the whistle on his fellow Democrats for wastefully spending `` three years of fantasy football politics '' with the impeachment of President Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russia instead of focusing on African-American voters .
Appearing on CNN 's `` SE Cupp Unfiltered '' on Saturday , Jones said : '' I would accuse my party at this point of having engaged in three years of fantasy-football politics where we said , 'OK , do n't worry .
Trump is never going to be seated because the Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember that ? ''
`` 'Do n't worry , Bob Mueller is going to take him out of the White House in handcuffs . '
Remember that ?
'Oh , do n't worry .
He 'll be impeached and removed . '
TRENDING : James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze : 'Have we lost our minds ? '
`` After three years of all of that fantasy football , guess what we have ?
Trump is still in the White House , and we still do n't have a candidate . ''
Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying : `` The way we 've developed our issues may or may not even serve us . ''
`` Had we spent past three years accepting reality that a bunch of people who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump , hard to call them Nazis , and listen to them , in addition to our own constituencies , and figured out what they needed , we might be in a position to have Trump on the run .
The reality is all the blood , sweat and tears over impeachment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dent Trump , he 's higher in the polls than he 's ever been , and we still do n't have a candidate . ''
After President Trump 's State of the Union address Tuesday night touting record-low black unemployment , rising wages , criminal justice reform and school choice , Jones warned Democrats to `` wake up , '' because the president is `` going after enough black votes to cause us problems . ''
`` What he was saying to African-Americans can be effective , '' Jones told a CNN panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You may not like it but he mentioned [ historic black colleges and universities ] , '' he continued .
`` Black colleges have been struggling for a long time , a bunch of them have gone under : He threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget .
He talked about this .
He talked about criminal justice reform .
He talked about Opportunity Zones.
” A recent Rasmussen poll shows black-voter support for Trump has doubled in the last year to an astonishing 42 % .
Jones said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking that Trump 's rhetoric will turn off all black voters .
`` The thing about it is , and we 've got to wake up , folks , there 's a whole bubble thing that goes on .
Well , he said s-hole nations , therefore all black people are going to hate him forever , '' the analyst said .
`` That ai n't necessarily so .
I think what you 're going to see him do , you may not like my rhetoric , but look at my results and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he narrow casts that , it 's going to be effective . ''
Jones said Democrats also need to pay more attention to `` the Latino vote '' and not assume that Trump 's hard-line stance on immigration will alienate everyone in that demographic .
`` We 've got to be clinical about this stuff , '' he said .
`` We get so emotional about it .
That was a warning shot to us that he 's going after enough black votes to cause us problems . ''
In November , polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a remarkable 34 % approval rating among black voters , compared to the 8 % he received from blacks in the 2016 election .
An analysis by the Washington Examiner in November showed the dramatic rise in support by blacks could make the difference in the 2020 election .
Boosting his percentage among blacks in November to between 10 % and 15 % could be enough to put him over the top , said pollster Jonathan Zogby of Zogby Analytics at the time .
Zogby found at that time that Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Joe Biden , 14 % against Sen. Bernie Sanders and 17 % against Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
Those levels are the best for a Republican president or presidential candidate since 1968 .
Senior Trump campaign official Katrina Pierson said in November that Trump 's support among blacks is `` going in the right direction . ''
Pierson noted Trump had respect in the black community long before he ran for president , with Don King and Jesse Jackson counted among his friends .
But when he ran for the presidency , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a `` racist , '' and it has taken time to overcome that .
`` He could n't understand it at first , and it 's very frustrating , '' said Pierson .
`` But it came with the baggage of running as a Republican .
`` It went through a couple of years , during the campaign , where Trump 's a racist , he hates brown people , but yet he 's doing all of these things that the first black president never did for black people , and so you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who Donald Trump is , '' she said .
In November , after confirming his faith in Jesus Christ , superstar rapper Kanye West affirmed his support for Trump and advised black Americans in an appearance in New York City not to vote Democrat .
`` Own your power .
Your power is not to just vote Democrat for the rest of our lives .
That 's not the power , '' he said , the New York Post 's Page Six reported .
In an interview one week earlier , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Democrats who are making them abort their children .
West was asked about his support for Trump .
`` I 'd rather deal with somebody who call me the N-word to my face than a person that signed me for a lifetime deal on a 255-page contract , '' West replied .
`` I 'd rather know what I 'm dealing with . ''
The radio host asked if he was worried his support for Trump could be viewed as endorsement of `` racism . ''
`` The most racist thing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm supposed to choose something based on my race , '' West said .
Learn astonishing Bible truth on a higher level than ever before with the Holy Spirit-filled books by Joe Kovacs

CNN analyst and former Obama adviser Van Jones is blowing the whistle on his fellow Democrats for wastefully spending "three years of fantasy football politics" with the impeachment of President Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russia instead of focusing on African-American voters.
Appearing on CNN's "SE Cupp Unfiltered" on Saturday, Jones said:
"I would accuse my party at this point of having engaged in three years of fantasy-football politics where we said, 'OK, don't worry. Trump is never going to be seated because the Electoral College won't seat him.' Remember that?"
"'Don't worry, Bob Mueller is going to take him out of the White House in handcuffs.' Remember that? 'Oh, don't worry. He'll be impeached and removed.'
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"After three years of all of that fantasy football, guess what we have? Trump is still in the White House, and we still don't have a candidate."
Jones continued his verbal assault on Democrats, saying: "The way we've developed our issues may or may not even serve us."
"Had we spent past three years accepting reality that a bunch of people who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump, hard to call them Nazis, and listen to them, in addition to our own constituencies, and figured out what they needed, we might be in a position to have Trump on the run. The reality is all the blood, sweat and tears over impeachment, Bob Mueller, has not done anything dent Trump, he's higher in the polls than he's ever been, and we still don't have a candidate."
After President Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday night touting record-low black unemployment, rising wages, criminal justice reform and school choice, Jones warned Democrats to "wake up," because the president is "going after enough black votes to cause us problems."
"What he was saying to African-Americans can be effective," Jones told a CNN panel, the Daily Caller reported.
"You may not like it but he mentioned [historic black colleges and universities]," he continued. "Black colleges have been struggling for a long time, a bunch of them have gone under: He threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget. He talked about this. He talked about criminal justice reform. He talked about Opportunity Zones.”
A recent Rasmussen poll shows black-voter support for Trump has doubled in the last year to an astonishing 42%.
Jones said Democrats shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that Trump's rhetoric will turn off all black voters.
"The thing about it is, and we've got to wake up, folks, there's a whole bubble thing that goes on. Well, he said s-hole nations, therefore all black people are going to hate him forever," the analyst said. "That ain't necessarily so. I think what you're going to see him do, you may not like my rhetoric, but look at my results and my record for black people. If he narrow casts that, it's going to be effective."
Jones said Democrats also need to pay more attention to "the Latino vote" and not assume that Trump's hard-line stance on immigration will alienate everyone in that demographic.
"We've got to be clinical about this stuff," he said. "We get so emotional about it. That was a warning shot to us that he's going after enough black votes to cause us problems."
See Jones' remarks on CNN:
42% approval
In November, polls by both Rasmussen and Emerson showed Trump had a remarkable 34% approval rating among black voters, compared to the 8% he received from blacks in the 2016 election.
An analysis by the Washington Examiner in November showed the dramatic rise in support by blacks could make the difference in the 2020 election.
Boosting his percentage among blacks in November to between 10% and 15% could be enough to put him over the top, said pollster Jonathan Zogby of Zogby Analytics at the time.
Zogby found at that time that Trump was receiving 12% of the black vote against Joe Biden, 14% against Sen. Bernie Sanders and 17% against Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Those levels are the best for a Republican president or presidential candidate since 1968.
New perspective
Senior Trump campaign official Katrina Pierson said in November that Trump's support among blacks is "going in the right direction."
Pierson noted Trump had respect in the black community long before he ran for president, with Don King and Jesse Jackson counted among his friends.
But when he ran for the presidency, she said, the Democrats smeared him as a "racist," and it has taken time to overcome that.
"He couldn't understand it at first, and it's very frustrating," said Pierson. "But it came with the baggage of running as a Republican.
"It went through a couple of years, during the campaign, where Trump's a racist, he hates brown people, but yet he's doing all of these things that the first black president never did for black people, and so you kind of have this new perspective on who Donald Trump is," she said.
The Kanye factor
In November, after confirming his faith in Jesus Christ, superstar rapper Kanye West affirmed his support for Trump and advised black Americans in an appearance in New York City not to vote Democrat.
"Own your power. Your power is not to just vote Democrat for the rest of our lives. That's not the power," he said, the New York Post's Page Six reported.
In an interview one week earlier, he said black Americans have been "brainwashed" by Democrats who are making them abort their children.
West was asked about his support for Trump.
"I'd rather deal with somebody who call me the N-word to my face than a person that signed me for a lifetime deal on a 255-page contract," West replied. "I'd rather know what I'm dealing with."
The radio host asked if he was worried his support for Trump could be viewed as endorsement of "racism."
"The most racist thing a person can tell me is that I'm supposed to choose something based on my race," West said.
Learn astonishing Bible truth on a higher level than ever before with the Holy Spirit-filled books by Joe Kovacs
Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews


wnd--2020-02-09--City trying to force woman to pay $60,000 'ransom' for street fix didn't expect resistance

Homeowners in Richland , Washington , now are free to improve , remodel or renovate their residences without paying a `` ransom '' to the city .
The court ruling came in a lawsuit against the city over its `` practice of unconstitutionally forcing homeowners to upgrade city streets as a condition of obtaining a building permit . ''
Linda Cameron , represented by the Institute for Justice , sued after she was told she would have to pay $ 60,000 for street work to improve her modest residence .
Paul Avelar , a lawyer representing Cameron , explained : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a federal lawsuit for the city to recognize that it was violating its citizen ’ s constitutional rights .
But with this change , Linda and other homeowners are free to renovate their property without having to pay a ransom to the city . ''
TRENDING : James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze : 'Have we lost our minds ? '
The dispute began in 2018 when Cameron sought to renovate the one-bedroom , one-bath home where she has lived for more than 40 years .
A contractor was hired , plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was submitted to the city .
A building inspector approved her project , but the Richland Public Works Department said she had to `` renovate a public street '' that ran along an edge of her property .
`` Linda would have to widen 400 feet of street ; build curbs , gutters and streetlights ; and add sidewalks that didn ’ t connect to any other sidewalks .
An engineer estimated the changes Linda would have to make at $ 60,000 , '' the Institute for Justice said .
In her lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees required by cities are constitutional , levying the charges when there is no impact is unconstitutional , amounting to `` extortion . ''
`` The Supreme Court has explained that impact fees charged without impacts are unconstitutional ; indeed , they are little more than extortion .
Linda 's case demonstrates why .
Linda just wanted to add a second bedroom to her one-bedroom home , but Richland said that before she could , she would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars widening a city street behind her house .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bedroom would not have an impact on the street .
The city just wanted Linda to pay for a new street , so it would n't have to , '' the lawyers explanation noted .
Cameron 's lawsuit convinced the city to concede it should be charging an impact fee only when there is an impact .
Typically , such fees are charged to developers for subdivision development plans .

Homeowners in Richland, Washington, now are free to improve, remodel or renovate their residences without paying a "ransom" to the city.
The court ruling came in a lawsuit against the city over its "practice of unconstitutionally forcing homeowners to upgrade city streets as a condition of obtaining a building permit."
Linda Cameron, represented by the Institute for Justice, sued after she was told she would have to pay $60,000 for street work to improve her modest residence.
Paul Avelar, a lawyer representing Cameron, explained: "It is a shame that it took a federal lawsuit for the city to recognize that it was violating its citizen’s constitutional rights. But with this change, Linda and other homeowners are free to renovate their property without having to pay a ransom to the city."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The dispute began in 2018 when Cameron sought to renovate the one-bedroom, one-bath home where she has lived for more than 40 years.
A contractor was hired, plans were drawn up and a permit application was submitted to the city.
A building inspector approved her project, but the Richland Public Works Department said she had to "renovate a public street" that ran along an edge of her property.
"Linda would have to widen 400 feet of street; build curbs, gutters and streetlights; and add sidewalks that didn’t connect to any other sidewalks. An engineer estimated the changes Linda would have to make at $60,000," the Institute for Justice said.
In her lawsuit, her lawyers argued that while impact fees required by cities are constitutional, levying the charges when there is no impact is unconstitutional, amounting to "extortion."
"The Supreme Court has explained that impact fees charged without impacts are unconstitutional; indeed, they are little more than extortion. Linda's case demonstrates why. Linda just wanted to add a second bedroom to her one-bedroom home, but Richland said that before she could, she would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars widening a city street behind her house. It's obvious that Linda's second bedroom would not have an impact on the street. The city just wanted Linda to pay for a new street, so it wouldn't have to," the lawyers explanation noted.
Cameron's lawsuit convinced the city to concede it should be charging an impact fee only when there is an impact.
Typically, such fees are charged to developers for subdivision development plans.


wnd--2020-02-09--Warren responds after minority women leave her campaign because they felt like tokens

After a rally in Derry , New Hampshire , Sen. Elizabeth Warren expressed her condolences to reporters about the minority women working on her campaign team in Nevada who said they felt like tokens , according to the Washington Examiner .
`` So I just heard about this and I believe the women who have spoken up and believe them unequivocally and I apologize to them personally .
It 's important to me to try and build and organization that is diverse and inclusive and open and lets everyone bring their whole self to work every day , '' Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the legacy of racism and oppression pervade everything that we do in this country and so for me this is about taking personal responsibility which I do and being determined that we will have accountability in this organization and keep doing better everyday , '' she added .
Since November , six minority women have fled Warren 's nearly 70-person Nevada campaign team , citing a toxic work environment where they felt like tokens , according to Politico .
Three of the six women said the campaign made them feel marginalized and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after they expressed concerns to higher-ups and the human resources team .
TRENDING : James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze : 'Have we lost our minds ? '
`` During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren , there was definitely something wrong with the culture , '' Megan Lewis , a field organizer who left in December , told Politico .
`` I filed a complaint with HR , but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Another field organizer who recently left the campaign echoed similar concerns in a separate interview with Politico .
`` I felt like a problem -- like I was there to literally bring color into the space but not the knowledge and voice that comes with it , '' the unnamed woman said .
`` We all were routinely silenced and not given a meaningful chance on the campaign , '' she continued .
`` Complaints , comments , advice and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The third woman who recently departed the campaign agreed with those statements and said that her experience was very similar .
Politico reached out to the other three women for comment , but has not received a response .
Rolling Stone reported that after Lewis heard Warren 's response to what the women said about their experience on her campaign team , she said that she was again excited to `` caucus for her . ''
`` I think it 's a great response .
I appreciate her apology .
I love Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever to caucus for her . ''
According to Politico , the three women who spoke with reporters about their issues with the Warren campaign did n't open up about it with malicious intent , but because they felt that it might be a common issue in other campaign organizations that would be resolved only if they were heard .
`` Every election will always be the most important election of our lifetimes , '' Lewis told Politico .
`` Organizing culture needs to change because the fact is our well-being is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this starts a conversation that helps facilitate personal reflection about ways we can change campaign culture . ''
Last week Pete Buttigieg 's campaign experienced a similar scenario .
The Washington Examiner reported that his campaign had failed to ensure that minority staffers feel included and valued .
`` We 've taken steps that may not be something that is typical or has happened a lot before in presidential campaigns to try to empower staffers at all levels to be able to speak to their experiences to raise concerns and to have these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in every organization in our country , '' Buttigieg told reporters in Ottumwa , Iowa .
Warren 's candidacy can probably endure little additional controversy , as she appears to be clearly behind Buttigieg , former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders among Democrats after the Iowa caucuses .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

After a rally in Derry, New Hampshire, Sen. Elizabeth Warren expressed her condolences to reporters about the minority women working on her campaign team in Nevada who said they felt like tokens, according to the Washington Examiner.
"So I just heard about this and I believe the women who have spoken up and believe them unequivocally and I apologize to them personally. It's important to me to try and build and organization that is diverse and inclusive and open and lets everyone bring their whole self to work every day," Warren told WBTS.
"But I recognize that the legacy of racism and oppression pervade everything that we do in this country and so for me this is about taking personal responsibility which I do and being determined that we will have accountability in this organization and keep doing better everyday," she added.
Since November, six minority women have fled Warren's nearly 70-person Nevada campaign team, citing a toxic work environment where they felt like tokens, according to Politico.
Three of the six women said the campaign made them feel marginalized and that in some cases it even worsened after they expressed concerns to higher-ups and the human resources team.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren, there was definitely something wrong with the culture," Megan Lewis, a field organizer who left in December, told Politico. "I filed a complaint with HR, but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture."
Another field organizer who recently left the campaign echoed similar concerns in a separate interview with Politico.
"I felt like a problem -- like I was there to literally bring color into the space but not the knowledge and voice that comes with it," the unnamed woman said.
"We all were routinely silenced and not given a meaningful chance on the campaign," she continued. "Complaints, comments, advice and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords but not much else."
The third woman who recently departed the campaign agreed with those statements and said that her experience was very similar.
Politico reached out to the other three women for comment, but has not received a response.
Rolling Stone reported that after Lewis heard Warren's response to what the women said about their experience on her campaign team, she said that she was again excited to "caucus for her."
"I think it's a great response. I appreciate her apology. I love Elizabeth Warren and I'm more excited than ever to caucus for her."
According to Politico, the three women who spoke with reporters about their issues with the Warren campaign didn't open up about it with malicious intent, but because they felt that it might be a common issue in other campaign organizations that would be resolved only if they were heard.
"Every election will always be the most important election of our lifetimes," Lewis told Politico. "Organizing culture needs to change because the fact is our well-being is more important than any election. I hope this starts a conversation that helps facilitate personal reflection about ways we can change campaign culture."
Last week Pete Buttigieg's campaign experienced a similar scenario. The Washington Examiner reported that his campaign had failed to ensure that minority staffers feel included and valued.
"We've taken steps that may not be something that is typical or has happened a lot before in presidential campaigns to try to empower staffers at all levels to be able to speak to their experiences to raise concerns and to have these tough conversations, and they are tough in every organization in our country," Buttigieg told reporters in Ottumwa, Iowa.
Warren's candidacy can probably endure little additional controversy, as she appears to be clearly behind Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders among Democrats after the Iowa caucuses.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-09--Comedian Kevin Hart relents to LGBTQ outrage mob over his jokes: 'I did f*** up'

A year after Kevin Hart stepped down as host of the Oscars , the comedian admitted that he should 've handled the controversy surrounding 10-year-old comments differently .
`` With the whole Oscars thing , there was a big gap between what I thought the problem was versus what the problem really was , '' he told Men 's Health in a recent interview .
`` It wasn ’ t until close friends like Wanda Sykes , Lee Daniels , and Ellen [ DeGeneres ] talked to me and explained what they didn ’ t hear me say that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then I was like , ‘ Oh , s -- t — I did f -- k up.
’ ” Within 48 hours of when Hart accepted the invitation to host the Oscars last year , tweets and jokes from 2009 to 2011 resurfaced , and many began to push for the boycott of the award ceremony .
One of the comments that sparked the cancel culture outrage was from his 2010 comedy special `` Seriously Funny '' in which he talked about one of `` his biggest fears '' being his son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze : 'Have we lost our minds ? '
WARNING : The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive .
In 2015 , Hart told Rolling Stone that he would n't make the same kind of jokes as he did in the early 2010s .
`` I wouldn ’ t tell that joke today , because when I said it , the times weren ’ t as sensitive as they are now , '' he said .
`` I think we love to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily big deals , because we can . ''
But as the scrutiny continued to grow online following the Oscars hosting announcement , the Academy asked Hart to apologize for his past remarks .
At first the comedian decided to stand up against the outrage .
`` I passed on the apology , '' he said in an Instagram video .
`` I ’ ve addressed this several times .
This is not the first time this has come up .
I ’ ve addressed it .
I ’ ve spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the rights and wrongs were . ''
Two days later , however , he decided to step away from the highly coveted invitation and also issued the apology he had said he was so strongly against .
`` I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year ’ s Oscars … this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists , '' he wrote on Twitter .
`` I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past . ''
Hart 's new Netflix documentary , `` Do n't F**k This Up , '' further addressed the controversy surrounding his invitation to host the Oscars last year .
`` What I thought was going to blow over ended up becoming a bigger mess than I expected , '' he said in the documentary that was released in late-December .
`` I missed an opportunity to say simply that I do n't condone any type of violence in any way , shape or form to anyone for being who they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ f -- -ed up .
...
Instead I said , ' I addressed it . '
I said , ' I apologized . '
I said , ' I talked about this already . '
I was just immature . ''
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

A year after Kevin Hart stepped down as host of the Oscars, the comedian admitted that he should've handled the controversy surrounding 10-year-old comments differently.
"With the whole Oscars thing, there was a big gap between what I thought the problem was versus what the problem really was," he told Men's Health in a recent interview.
"It wasn’t until close friends like Wanda Sykes, Lee Daniels, and Ellen [DeGeneres] talked to me and explained what they didn’t hear me say that I understood," he added. "Then I was like, ‘Oh, s--t — I did f--k up.’”
Within 48 hours of when Hart accepted the invitation to host the Oscars last year, tweets and jokes from 2009 to 2011 resurfaced, and many began to push for the boycott of the award ceremony.
One of the comments that sparked the cancel culture outrage was from his 2010 comedy special "Seriously Funny" in which he talked about one of "his biggest fears" being his son coming out as gay.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.
In 2015, Hart told Rolling Stone that he wouldn't make the same kind of jokes as he did in the early 2010s.
"I wouldn’t tell that joke today, because when I said it, the times weren’t as sensitive as they are now," he said. "I think we love to make big deals out of things that aren’t necessarily big deals, because we can."
But as the scrutiny continued to grow online following the Oscars hosting announcement, the Academy asked Hart to apologize for his past remarks.
At first the comedian decided to stand up against the outrage.
"I passed on the apology," he said in an Instagram video. "I’ve addressed this several times. This is not the first time this has come up. I’ve addressed it. I’ve spoken on it. I’ve said where the rights and wrongs were."
Two days later, however, he decided to step away from the highly coveted invitation and also issued the apology he had said he was so strongly against.
"I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscars … this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists," he wrote on Twitter. "I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past."
I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year's Oscar's....this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists. I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past. — Kevin Hart (@KevinHart4real) December 7, 2018
I'm sorry that I hurt people.. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart. Much love & appreciation to the Academy. I hope we can meet again. — Kevin Hart (@KevinHart4real) December 7, 2018
Hart's new Netflix documentary, "Don't F**k This Up," further addressed the controversy surrounding his invitation to host the Oscars last year.
"What I thought was going to blow over ended up becoming a bigger mess than I expected," he said in the documentary that was released in late-December.
"I missed an opportunity to say simply that I don't condone any type of violence in any way, shape or form to anyone for being who they are," Hart added.
"I f---ed up. ... Instead I said, 'I addressed it.' I said, 'I apologized.' I said, 'I talked about this already.' I was just immature."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-09--Report: Trump to crush ugly architecture, return federal buildings to former glory

If you live near any sort of metropolis , chances are you 've seen some ugly architecture .
As federal buildings are constructed , they sometimes fall prey to fads in the design world .
The result is often hideous structures that the taxpayers are forced to fund .
Now , a report says President Donald Trump is drafting an executive order that seeks to destroy the legacy of ugly buildings and return American architecture to its former glory .
According to the Architectural Record , an architecture news site , the Trump administration is planning to do away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A preliminary draft of the order , titled `` Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again , '' reportedly seeks to amend federal guidelines when it comes to construction of new federal buildings .
TRENDING : James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze : 'Have we lost our minds ? '
Instead of brutalism and other postmodern headaches , the order calls for a return to `` classical architectural '' that the Founding Fathers themselves preferred , the Architectural Record reported .
Several federal buildings were reportedly named in the draft order as examples of nausea-inducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Courthouse in Austin , Texas , and the U.S. Federal Building in San Francisco , have to be seen to be believed .
Take a look at the two buildings below : Thankfully , Trump 's order could reportedly do away with designs like this .
A blanket design mandate does n't appear to be the administration 's goal , as allowances are reportedly made in special circumstances .
Florida , for instance , could also see federal structures built in the Spanish colonial style , a reference to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish foothold in North America .
Unique places like New Orleans , Louisiana ; Savannah , Georgia ; and San Diego , California , would surely benefit from this sort of exception .
In the rest of the country , the order would serve to provide the American people with what they deserve -- functioning and beautiful buildings that are not a progressive architect 's experiment .
This appears to be an extension of Trump 's famous `` Make America Great Again '' 2016 campaign motto .
The return to classical architecture may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could unite Americans in at least one common point of culture .
As Trump said Tuesday in his State of the Union address : `` The best is yet to come . ''
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

If you live near any sort of metropolis, chances are you've seen some ugly architecture.
As federal buildings are constructed, they sometimes fall prey to fads in the design world. The result is often hideous structures that the taxpayers are forced to fund.
Now, a report says President Donald Trump is drafting an executive order that seeks to destroy the legacy of ugly buildings and return American architecture to its former glory.
According to the Architectural Record, an architecture news site, the Trump administration is planning to do away with hideous designs in future federal buildings.
A preliminary draft of the order, titled "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again," reportedly seeks to amend federal guidelines when it comes to construction of new federal buildings.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Instead of brutalism and other postmodern headaches, the order calls for a return to "classical architectural" that the Founding Fathers themselves preferred, the Architectural Record reported.
Several federal buildings were reportedly named in the draft order as examples of nausea-inducing designs.
Two of those listed, the U.S. Courthouse in Austin, Texas, and the U.S. Federal Building in San Francisco, have to be seen to be believed.
Take a look at the two buildings below:
The memo apparently gives these 2 specific examples of the architecture it's meant to stop. The Courthouse in Austin TX & the Fed Building in San Francisco; pic.twitter.com/0KeXtVnruS — Rosie's NOT GUILTY Verdict (@DarnelSugarfoo) February 4, 2020
Thankfully, Trump's order could reportedly do away with designs like this.
A blanket design mandate doesn't appear to be the administration's goal, as allowances are reportedly made in special circumstances.
Florida, for instance, could also see federal structures built in the Spanish colonial style, a reference to the Sunshine State's origins as an imperial Spanish foothold in North America.
Unique places like New Orleans, Louisiana; Savannah, Georgia; and San Diego, California, would surely benefit from this sort of exception.
In the rest of the country, the order would serve to provide the American people with what they deserve -- functioning and beautiful buildings that are not a progressive architect's experiment.
This appears to be an extension of Trump's famous "Make America Great Again" 2016 campaign motto.
The return to classical architecture may not seem too important, but it could unite Americans in at least one common point of culture.
As Trump said Tuesday in his State of the Union address: "The best is yet to come."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.