wnd--2020-02-18--The first 'throuple' on HGTV

The first 'throuple' on HGTV -- so what about 'sologamy'?

Is anyone surprised that HGTV recently featured its first `` throuple , '' in this case , a man and two women ?
But what else should we expect ?
This is the inevitable direction of our society 's slippery moral slide .
The avalanche goes downward , not upward .
People Magazine reported Feb. 13 , `` With 17 seasons under its belt , 'House Hunters ' made HGTV history on Wednesday when it featured its first throuple – three people in a polyamorous romantic relationship – on one of its episodes . ''
The episode was titled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado Springs , '' and it featured one line in which one of the two women , named Lori , commented , `` This is a couple 's kitchen , not a throuple 's kitchen . ''
Polyamory is now as American as apple pie .
Of course , for years we were mocked for predicting this very thing .
For years we were vilified for saying that the redefining of marriage to include homosexual unions would soon lead to more radical redefinitions .
For years we were criticized for pointing to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pride events .
`` We 're next , '' they confidently proclaimed .
Now `` throuples '' are being mainstreamed too .
But why not ?
It 's the question I 've never had answered in all of my interactions with LGBT activists and their allies .
( For a classic example , see my debate with professor Eric Smaw . )
Put simply , if marriage is not the unique union of one man and one woman , then what is so sacred about the number 2 ?
As I asked in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Love , Why Not Three Men 'Marrying ' ?
For that matter , if love is love , why not four or more ?
Or why even need formal marriage ?
Conversely , why not marry yourself ?
As absurd as this may sound , `` self-marriage '' ( sologamy ) has been growing in recent years .
But why not ?
If marriage can be so fundamentally redefined as to include no member of the opposite sex ( think of it ! )
, then why not ?
It 's like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or three ) .
Or twins can refer to three babies ( or one ) .
That 's just like saying marriage can refer to two men or two women .
It fundamentally redefines the very meaning of the term .
And once that is done , then there 's no reason you ca n't have throuples ( or more ) .
And there 's no reason people can not marry themselves .
A search today for `` self-marriage '' yielded scores of thousands of hits , including links to a 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channel .
It was titled , `` Sologamy : People Who Marry Themselves . ''
There 's even a link to the Self Marriage Ceremonies website , which states , `` Self-Marriage is a profound rite of passage into wholeness , trust , self-responsibility , self-liberation , and love sourced from within .
It is a ritual of transformation , of proclaiming what is true in your heart and being celebrated as you make it known that you are ready to live your full potential .
It is the commitment to radically honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gift of your life .
It is the freedom to live authentically in alignment with your deepest values .
It is the dedication to love , no matter what . ''
The search also answers the question , `` What states allow self-marriage ? ''
This was the answer : `` Other states that allow some form of self-uniting marriage are Wisconsin , Colorado , the District of Columbia , California , Maine and Nevada .
July 31 , 2017 . ''
Now there is a throuple on HGTV , and soon enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagged on spell check .
And did I mention that the original husband and wife in this throuple have two children ?
Should that be a factor when adding in a third lover to the equation ?
As People reported , `` Brian and Lori , who are legally married , fell in love with Geli after meeting her at a bar .
The trio entered into a relationship with Brian and Lori exchanging vows with Geli in a commitment ceremony attended by their children . ''
Sorry , but there 's nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contrary , it 's tragic .
In my 2011 book `` A Queer Thing Happened to America , '' I wrote , `` Until recently , polyamory had a different name : adultery .
Not anymore !
Just get all the parties involved to agree to the new relationships ( really now , that jealousy stuff is so outmoded ) and be poly – which rhymes with jolly – instead .
`` Not surprisingly , '' I continued , `` polyamory groups sometimes march in gay pride events , part and parcel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , in 2004 , polyamory advocate Jasmine Walston stated , 'We 're where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago . '
Five years later , in 2009 , Newsweek featured an article by Jessica Bennett entitled , 'Polyamory : The Next Sexual Revolution ' with this bold , provocative beginning : 'Only You .
And You .
And You .
Polyamory – relationships with multiple , mutually consenting partners – has a coming-out party . '
'' The real surprise , then , is not that HGTV featured a throuple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it took so long .
As noted by professor Robert P. George , `` The normalization of polyamory rolls down the track , just as I and others predicted it would .
It was , as I said , less a 'slippery slope ' than a simple unfolding of the logic of social liberalism . ''
With `` logic '' like this , the moral fall is inevitable .
There 's something else that 's inevitable .
First , the slippery slope is denied .
`` You 're crazy , '' we 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ! ''
Then , when the very thing we predicted happens , the same people say , `` So what 's the big deal ?
You people are such prudes . ''
And so the slide continues but at an even faster pace .
Only a radical spiritual awakening , leading to a radical social awakening , will stem the tide .
Sorry to say , but we told you so .

Is anyone surprised that HGTV recently featured its first "throuple," in this case, a man and two women? But what else should we expect? This is the inevitable direction of our society's slippery moral slide. The avalanche goes downward, not upward.
People Magazine reported Feb. 13, "With 17 seasons under its belt, 'House Hunters' made HGTV history on Wednesday when it featured its first throuple – three people in a polyamorous romantic relationship – on one of its episodes."
The episode was titled, "Three's Not a Crowd in Colorado Springs," and it featured one line in which one of the two women, named Lori, commented, "This is a couple's kitchen, not a throuple's kitchen."
Polyamory is now as American as apple pie.
Of course, for years we were mocked for predicting this very thing.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
For years we were vilified for saying that the redefining of marriage to include homosexual unions would soon lead to more radical redefinitions.
For years we were criticized for pointing to the presence of polyamorous groups marching in gay pride events. "We're next," they confidently proclaimed.
Now "throuples" are being mainstreamed too. But why not?
It's the question I've never had answered in all of my interactions with LGBT activists and their allies. (For a classic example, see my debate with professor Eric Smaw.)
Put simply, if marriage is not the unique union of one man and one woman, then what is so sacred about the number 2? As I asked in a 2015 article, "If Love Is Love, Why Not Three Men 'Marrying'?
For that matter, if love is love, why not four or more? Or why even need formal marriage? Conversely, why not marry yourself?
As absurd as this may sound, "self-marriage" (sologamy) has been growing in recent years. But why not? If marriage can be so fundamentally redefined as to include no member of the opposite sex (think of it!), then why not?
It's like saying a duet can have one singer (or three). Or twins can refer to three babies (or one).
That's just like saying marriage can refer to two men or two women. It fundamentally redefines the very meaning of the term.
And once that is done, then there's no reason you can't have throuples (or more). And there's no reason people cannot marry themselves.
A search today for "self-marriage" yielded scores of thousands of hits, including links to a 2017 YouTube video on the What's Trending channel. It was titled, "Sologamy: People Who Marry Themselves."
There's even a link to the Self Marriage Ceremonies website, which states, "Self-Marriage is a profound rite of passage into wholeness, trust, self-responsibility, self-liberation, and love sourced from within. It is a ritual of transformation, of proclaiming what is true in your heart and being celebrated as you make it known that you are ready to live your full potential. It is the commitment to radically honor and express your gifts and the precious gift of your life. It is the freedom to live authentically in alignment with your deepest values. It is the dedication to love, no matter what."
The search also answers the question, "What states allow self-marriage?" This was the answer: "Other states that allow some form of self-uniting marriage are Wisconsin, Colorado, the District of Columbia, California, Maine and Nevada. July 31, 2017."
Now there is a throuple on HGTV, and soon enough, the word will no longer be flagged on spell check.
And did I mention that the original husband and wife in this throuple have two children? Should that be a factor when adding in a third lover to the equation? As People reported, "Brian and Lori, who are legally married, fell in love with Geli after meeting her at a bar. The trio entered into a relationship with Brian and Lori exchanging vows with Geli in a commitment ceremony attended by their children."
Sorry, but there's nothing beautiful about this at all. To the contrary, it's tragic.
In my 2011 book "A Queer Thing Happened to America," I wrote, "Until recently, polyamory had a different name: adultery. Not anymore! Just get all the parties involved to agree to the new relationships (really now, that jealousy stuff is so outmoded) and be poly – which rhymes with jolly – instead.
"Not surprisingly," I continued, "polyamory groups sometimes march in gay pride events, part and parcel of the sexual liberation vanguard. In fact, in 2004, polyamory advocate Jasmine Walston stated, 'We're where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.' Five years later, in 2009, Newsweek featured an article by Jessica Bennett entitled, 'Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution' with this bold, provocative beginning: 'Only You. And You. And You. Polyamory – relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners – has a coming-out party.'"
The real surprise, then, is not that HGTV featured a throuple in 2020. The surprise is that it took so long.
As noted by professor Robert P. George, "The normalization of polyamory rolls down the track, just as I and others predicted it would. It was, as I said, less a 'slippery slope' than a simple unfolding of the logic of social liberalism."
With "logic" like this, the moral fall is inevitable.
There's something else that's inevitable. First, the slippery slope is denied. "You're crazy," we're told. "This will never happen!"
Then, when the very thing we predicted happens, the same people say, "So what's the big deal? You people are such prudes."
And so the slide continues but at an even faster pace.
Only a radical spiritual awakening, leading to a radical social awakening, will stem the tide.
Sorry to say, but we told you so.


wnd--2020-02-18--Is it OK to divorce and remarry?

Is it OK to divorce and remarry?

Millennial : `` Is it OK to divorce and then remarry someone as Christians ? ''
Read on … For the third year in a row , a divorce attorney in the Nashville area , W. Scott Kimberly , held a `` giveaway '' for free divorce representation on Valentine 's Day .
Scott stated that for many people Valentine 's Day is `` another reminder that they remain trapped in a relationship that they can not leave because of financial problems , because of a spouse who refuses to agree to a divorce , or for some other reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see multiple marriages and billboards promising `` quick and easy divorce , '' God gives us a far different perspective .
`` Marriage is to be honored among everyone , and the bed undefiled .
But God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers '' ( Hebrews 13:4 ) .
If you 're divorced , contemplating one or single , read on .
And please do n't compromise through the seduction of living together ( lifestyle fornication ) or fear marrying because of discouraging statistics .
Avoid a truckload of trauma .
God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marital relationship , yet it 's true there are times divorce is necessary .
Our responsibility is to reject any casual approach to the painful shattering of a marriage covenant with its lifelong consequences for multiple lives .
While millions trivialize marriage and minimize divorce , Netflix recently dared to release `` Marriage Story '' that a reviewer says jolts audiences with a gut-wrenching reality check of the emotional devastation that comes from divorce .
God calls His people to recapture the sacredness and permanence of covenant marriage .
The Bible records the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together in this mission .
When Nehemiah returned to find some in marital unfaithfulness and intermarriage with pagan people he was understandably furious !
He called the people to return to God 's precepts ( Deuteronomy 7:3-6 ) .
He reminded them of the tragedy of Solomon .
He stigmatized the obstinate ones ( Deuteronomy 25:2-3 ) in a passionate display of righteous indignation , openly confronting , cursing , expelling , pummeling and even plucking out the hairs of the rebellious ( Nehemiah 13 ) !
Scripture does n't revel in Nehemiah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It highlights necessary purification and restoration of what is holy .
The application for us today , especially pastors , is to not avoid addressing `` hot button '' issues out of fear of man and a desire to appear inclusive and non-judgmental .
Cohabitation , casual divorce , pornography , homosexuality and gay `` marriage '' must be understood from a biblically informed worldview so God 's people might abide by His holy standards .
It 's important to embrace God 's precepts and perspective to experience His blessings and fulfillment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know is headed in the direction of marital break up , push the pause button and ponder some important things .
It takes humility , but remember : `` God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble '' ( James 4:6 ) .
If you 're reading this having been through a divorce , do n't succumb to perpetual shame and condemnation but rather reflection .
Were you an unbeliever ?
Were you in a backslidden state and have since returned to God ?
If you did not have any biblical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repented , learned lessons and consecrated yourself to obey God without reservation ?
If you 're a woman in long-standing marital tension with an unbeliever , God 's Word says that `` if any do not obey the Word , they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives , as they see the purity and reverence of your lives '' ( 1 Peter 3:1 ) .
Do n't lose hope !
In my 50 years of ministry , I 've seen miracles of marriage restoration – even couples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biblical basis for divorce and remarriage Here are three commonly accepted biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage : 1 .
Ongoing and unrepentant adultery ( Matthew 19:9 ) .
Was it a one-time incident , or ongoing pattern of behavior ?
Remember recently deceased Kobe Bryant admitting to adultery and how his wife , who once before filed for divorce , reversed course when he sincerely repented .
2 .
Abandonment by an unbeliever ( 1 Corinthians 7:15 ) ; physical desertion ( and some would add ongoing physical violence that reveals `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semblance of true faith – as grounds for separation and possible divorce after all attempts to avert it have failed ) .
God says in Malachi 2 , that He `` hates divorce '' and strongly rebukes and exposes those dealing treacherously with a spouse as well as marrying outside the faith .
3 .
Marriage with subsequent divorce as a non-Christian : `` Therefore , if any man is in Christ , he is a new creature .
Old things have passed away .
Look , all things have become new '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are biblical grounds for a divorce , yet this does not mean it 's the first recourse when God is endeavoring to mature character through submitting to a season of biblical counseling , accountability and possibly a temporary separation .
People must yield to Holy Spirit empowered obedience rather than fleshly convenience .
Mature character demonstrating humility , perseverance and meekness ( strength under control ) are essential , as pressure reveals the person .
Someone once asked Ruth Graham if she ever thought about divorce with Billy .
She responded , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … '' she winked .
Again , `` God hates divorce '' ( Malachi 2:16 ) , but there is something He hates even more : adultery .
This is why he allows it as grounds to nullify a sacred marriage covenant .
God hates divorce ( not divorced people ) because of what divorce does to everyone involved .
It 's like hating cancer , not people with cancer .
In our culture people tend to think divorce is no `` big deal , '' simply a `` conscious uncoupling , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's a sad reality that it has become an acceptable solution to inevitable conflicts in marriage .
What God is calling us to is to change our mind about divorce and stop advising it as a quick way out of problems all couples face .
A Christian marriage is different than what the world puts forth as marriage , which , if difficulties mount or sexual attraction wanes , makes it normal to `` bail . ''
Then instead of taking personal responsibility , folks often blame shift and excuse it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian marriage is not high school dating !
God-ordained marriage is a covenant – a sacred and binding vow for life between one man and one woman .
It is not a 50-50 proposition , but giving of oneself 100 % for one 's spouse based not on fleeting emotion but an unselfish choice for the greatest good of one 's mate .
My wife and I admit we 've fallen short many times in almost 44 years of marriage , but we made a vow that `` divorce is not an option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God 's favor from honoring covenantal commitment even as her parents did for almost 70 years .
A study , `` Does Divorce Make People Happy ? ''
conducted by the Institute for American Values , encourages us .
The findings were noteworthy because they `` debunked the modern myth that someone in a troubled marriage is faced with a choice between either staying in a miserable relationship or getting a divorce to be more happy . ''
This study revealed `` a full 2/3 of the unhappily married spouses who persevered were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who initially rated their marriages as 'very unhappy ' but remain together , nearly 80 % considered themselves 'happily married ' and 'much happier ' five years later . ''
`` Surprisingly , the opposite was found to be true for those who divorced .
The study confirmed that divorce frequently fails to make people happy because while it might provide a respite from the pain associated with a bad marriage , it also introduces a host of complex new emotional and physiological difficulties over which the parties involved have little control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotionally scarred children , and economic hardships . ''
Here 's the deal : When Pharisees tried to trick Jesus regarding divorce He told them Mosaic Law permitted it for the `` hardness of their hearts , '' but He renewed God 's original standard saying , `` from the beginning it was not so '' ( Matthew 19:8 ) .
In this day of `` free divorce '' and `` conscious uncoupling , '' may we return to our roots showing the world a better way under the benevolent reign of good @ @ @

Millennial: "Is it OK to divorce and then remarry someone as Christians?" Read on …
For the third year in a row, a divorce attorney in the Nashville area, W. Scott Kimberly, held a "giveaway" for free divorce representation on Valentine's Day.
Scott stated that for many people Valentine's Day is "another reminder that they remain trapped in a relationship that they cannot leave because of financial problems, because of a spouse who refuses to agree to a divorce, or for some other reason." In our society where we see multiple marriages and billboards promising "quick and easy divorce," God gives us a far different perspective.
"Marriage is to be honored among everyone, and the bed undefiled. But God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers" (Hebrews 13:4).
If you're divorced, contemplating one or single, read on. And please don't compromise through the seduction of living together (lifestyle fornication) or fear marrying because of discouraging statistics.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Avoid a truckload of trauma. God intends for us to enjoy a fulfilling marital relationship, yet it's true there are times divorce is necessary. Our responsibility is to reject any casual approach to the painful shattering of a marriage covenant with its lifelong consequences for multiple lives.
While millions trivialize marriage and minimize divorce, Netflix recently dared to release "Marriage Story" that a reviewer says jolts audiences with a gut-wrenching reality check of the emotional devastation that comes from divorce.
A time of recovery
God calls His people to recapture the sacredness and permanence of covenant marriage. The Bible records the exploits of Ezra and Nehemiah who labored together in this mission. When Nehemiah returned to find some in marital unfaithfulness and intermarriage with pagan people he was understandably furious!
He called the people to return to God's precepts (Deuteronomy 7:3-6). He reminded them of the tragedy of Solomon. He stigmatized the obstinate ones (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) in a passionate display of righteous indignation, openly confronting, cursing, expelling, pummeling and even plucking out the hairs of the rebellious (Nehemiah 13)!
Scripture doesn't revel in Nehemiah's intensity but simply records it. It highlights necessary purification and restoration of what is holy. The application for us today, especially pastors, is to not avoid addressing "hot button" issues out of fear of man and a desire to appear inclusive and non-judgmental. Cohabitation, casual divorce, pornography, homosexuality and gay "marriage" must be understood from a biblically informed worldview so God's people might abide by His holy standards.
'Help! I need hope'
It's important to embrace God's precepts and perspective to experience His blessings and fulfillment in marriage. If you or someone you know is headed in the direction of marital break up, push the pause button and ponder some important things. It takes humility, but remember: "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6).
If you're reading this having been through a divorce, don't succumb to perpetual shame and condemnation but rather reflection. Were you an unbeliever? Were you in a backslidden state and have since returned to God? If you did not have any biblical grounds for divorce, have you thoroughly repented, learned lessons and consecrated yourself to obey God without reservation?
If you're a woman in long-standing marital tension with an unbeliever, God's Word says that "if any do not obey the Word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, as they see the purity and reverence of your lives" (1 Peter 3:1).
Don't lose hope! In my 50 years of ministry, I've seen miracles of marriage restoration – even couples remarrying each other after divorcing!
The biblical basis for divorce and remarriage
Here are three commonly accepted biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage:
1. Ongoing and unrepentant adultery (Matthew 19:9). Was it a one-time incident, or ongoing pattern of behavior? Remember recently deceased Kobe Bryant admitting to adultery and how his wife, who once before filed for divorce, reversed course when he sincerely repented.
2. Abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15); physical desertion (and some would add ongoing physical violence that reveals "breaking faith" – abandonment of any semblance of true faith – as grounds for separation and possible divorce after all attempts to avert it have failed). God says in Malachi 2, that He "hates divorce" and strongly rebukes and exposes those dealing treacherously with a spouse as well as marrying outside the faith.
3. Marriage with subsequent divorce as a non-Christian: "Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things have passed away. Look, all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
A cautionary word
There are biblical grounds for a divorce, yet this does not mean it's the first recourse when God is endeavoring to mature character through submitting to a season of biblical counseling, accountability and possibly a temporary separation. People must yield to Holy Spirit empowered obedience rather than fleshly convenience. Mature character demonstrating humility, perseverance and meekness (strength under control) are essential, as pressure reveals the person.
Someone once asked Ruth Graham if she ever thought about divorce with Billy. She responded, "Divorce? No. Murder? Well …" she winked.
Again, "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16), but there is something He hates even more: adultery. This is why he allows it as grounds to nullify a sacred marriage covenant. God hates divorce (not divorced people) because of what divorce does to everyone involved. It's like hating cancer, not people with cancer.
In our culture people tend to think divorce is no "big deal," simply a "conscious uncoupling," as actress Gwyneth Paltrow called hers. It's a sad reality that it has become an acceptable solution to inevitable conflicts in marriage. What God is calling us to is to change our mind about divorce and stop advising it as a quick way out of problems all couples face.
A Christian marriage is different than what the world puts forth as marriage, which, if difficulties mount or sexual attraction wanes, makes it normal to "bail." Then instead of taking personal responsibility, folks often blame shift and excuse it as just a "bad marriage."
Christian marriage is not high school dating! God-ordained marriage is a covenant – a sacred and binding vow for life between one man and one woman. It is not a 50-50 proposition, but giving of oneself 100% for one's spouse based not on fleeting emotion but an unselfish choice for the greatest good of one's mate. My wife and I admit we've fallen short many times in almost 44 years of marriage, but we made a vow that "divorce is not an option" and have enjoyed the fruit of God's favor from honoring covenantal commitment even as her parents did for almost 70 years.
Progress through perseverance
A study, "Does Divorce Make People Happy?" conducted by the Institute for American Values, encourages us. The findings were noteworthy because they "debunked the modern myth that someone in a troubled marriage is faced with a choice between either staying in a miserable relationship or getting a divorce to be more happy."
This study revealed "a full 2/3 of the unhappily married spouses who persevered were actually happier five years later. Among those who initially rated their marriages as 'very unhappy' but remain together, nearly 80% considered themselves 'happily married' and 'much happier' five years later."
"Surprisingly, the opposite was found to be true for those who divorced. The study confirmed that divorce frequently fails to make people happy because while it might provide a respite from the pain associated with a bad marriage, it also introduces a host of complex new emotional and physiological difficulties over which the parties involved have little control. They include child custody battles, emotionally scarred children, and economic hardships."
Here's the deal: When Pharisees tried to trick Jesus regarding divorce He told them Mosaic Law permitted it for the "hardness of their hearts," but He renewed God's original standard saying, "from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8).
In this day of "free divorce" and "conscious uncoupling," may we return to our roots showing the world a better way under the benevolent reign of good King Jesus.


wnd--2020-02-18--If Philippines' Duterte wants us out, let's go

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has just given us notice he will be terminating the Visiting Forces Agreement that governs U.S. military personnel in the islands .
His notification starts the clock running on a six-month deadline .
If no new agreement is negotiated , the VFA is dissolved .
Duterte was offended that one of his political allies who led his anti-drug campaign in the islands , which involves extrajudicial killings of drug dealers , had been denied a U.S. visa .
Yet , Duterte has never been an enthusiast of the U.S. presence .
In 2016 , he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want , maybe in the next two years , my country free of the presence of foreign military troops .
I want them out . ''
The Pentagon is shaken .
If there is no VFA , how do we continue to move forces in and out to guarantee our ability to honor the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty ?
Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Duterte 's action `` a step in the wrong direction . ''
President Donald Trump openly disagreed : `` If they would like to do that , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of money . ''
The Philippine Islands are among the largest recipients of foreign aid in East Asia , and we 've provided $ 1.3 billion in military assistance over the last two decades .
But money should n't be the largest consideration here .
Trump has been given a historic opportunity to reshape U.S. and Asia policy along the lines he ran on in 2016 .
He should tell Duterte that we accept his decision and that we , too , are giving notice of our decision to let the 1951 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that treaty , the U.S. will be absolved of any legal obligation to come to the defense of the Philippines .
Time for Manila to take charge of its own defense .
Indeed , what is the argument for a treaty that virtually dictates U.S. involvement in any future war in 7,600 islands 8,000 miles from the United States ?
When we negotiated the 1951 treaty , it was a different world .
We had entered a Cold War with Stalin 's USSR .
We were in a hot war in Korea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douglas MacArthur had just been relieved of his command of U.S. forces in Korea by Harry Truman .
A disarmed Japan had not fully recovered from World War II .
The Communist armies of Chairman Mao had overrun China and driven our Nationalist allies off the mainland .
The Viet Minh were five years into a guerrilla war to drive the French out of Indochina .
Today , the Cold War is long over .
Vladimir Putin 's Russia is no threat to the Philippines .
Nor is China , though Xi Jinping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reef in the South China Sea that are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines .
There is no U.S. vital interest at risk in these islands to justify an eternal war guarantee or treaty commitment to fight Beijing over rocks and reefs in the South China Sea .
Trump should seize this opportunity to tell Duterte that when the VFA , which guarantees immunity for U.S. forces in the Philippines , is dissolved , the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty is dissolved .
A message would be sent to Asia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he said that he intends to revisit and review all the defense alliances and war guarantees entered into 60 and 70 years ago , to address threats that no longer exist in a world that no longer exists .
The U.S. has a long history with the Philippines , beginning in the War of 1898 with Spain , when Adm. George 's Dewey 's Asian squadron sank a Spanish fleet in Manila harbor , and we invaded , occupied and colonized the islands , thus emulating Europe 's imperial powers and abandoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Take up the White Man 's burden , '' Rudyard Kipling admonished us .
After Filipino patriots fought for nearly four years to liberate their islands from the Americans , as they had from the Spanish , inflicting on U.S. soldiers and Marines thousands of casualties , the New York Herald replied to the Poet of Empire : '' We 've taken up the white man 's burden/Of ebony and brown/Now , will you tell , Rudyard/How we may put it down . ''
After Pearl Harbor in December 1941 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , until Gen. MacArthur made good in on his famous pledge on leaving Corregidor , `` I shall return . ''
In 1944 , we liberated the islands .
A year after Japan 's surrender , on July 4 , 1946 , we granted the Philippines full independence .
And that nation and people , far more populous and prosperous than in 1946 , should take full custody of the defense of their own sovereignty and independence .
At the end of the Cold War , nationalists in Manila ordered the U.S. to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built at Subic Bay .
We should have used that expulsion to let the 1951 security treaty lapse .
Trump should not miss this opportunity .

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has just given us notice he will be terminating the Visiting Forces Agreement that governs U.S. military personnel in the islands.
His notification starts the clock running on a six-month deadline. If no new agreement is negotiated, the VFA is dissolved.
What triggered the decision?
Duterte was offended that one of his political allies who led his anti-drug campaign in the islands, which involves extrajudicial killings of drug dealers, had been denied a U.S. visa.
Yet, Duterte has never been an enthusiast of the U.S. presence. In 2016, he told his Chinese hosts in Beijing: "I want, maybe in the next two years, my country free of the presence of foreign military troops. I want them out."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Pentagon is shaken. If there is no VFA, how do we continue to move forces in and out to guarantee our ability to honor the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty? Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Duterte's action "a step in the wrong direction."
President Donald Trump openly disagreed: "If they would like to do that, that's fine. We'll save a lot of money."
The Philippine Islands are among the largest recipients of foreign aid in East Asia, and we've provided $1.3 billion in military assistance over the last two decades. But money shouldn't be the largest consideration here.
Trump has been given a historic opportunity to reshape U.S. and Asia policy along the lines he ran on in 2016.
He should tell Duterte that we accept his decision and that we, too, are giving notice of our decision to let the 1951 treaty lapse. And following expiration of that treaty, the U.S. will be absolved of any legal obligation to come to the defense of the Philippines.
Time for Manila to take charge of its own defense. Indeed, what is the argument for a treaty that virtually dictates U.S. involvement in any future war in 7,600 islands 8,000 miles from the United States?
When we negotiated the 1951 treaty, it was a different world.
We had entered a Cold War with Stalin's USSR. We were in a hot war in Korea that would cost 37,000 U.S. lives. Gen. Douglas MacArthur had just been relieved of his command of U.S. forces in Korea by Harry Truman. A disarmed Japan had not fully recovered from World War II.
The Communist armies of Chairman Mao had overrun China and driven our Nationalist allies off the mainland. The Viet Minh were five years into a guerrilla war to drive the French out of Indochina.
Today, the Cold War is long over. Vladimir Putin's Russia is no threat to the Philippines. Nor is China, though Xi Jinping has occupied and fortified islets like Mischief Reef in the South China Sea that are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.
There is no U.S. vital interest at risk in these islands to justify an eternal war guarantee or treaty commitment to fight Beijing over rocks and reefs in the South China Sea.
Trump should seize this opportunity to tell Duterte that when the VFA, which guarantees immunity for U.S. forces in the Philippines, is dissolved, the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty is dissolved.
A message would be sent to Asia, and the world, that Trump was serious when he said that he intends to revisit and review all the defense alliances and war guarantees entered into 60 and 70 years ago, to address threats that no longer exist in a world that no longer exists.
The U.S. has a long history with the Philippines, beginning in the War of 1898 with Spain, when Adm. George's Dewey's Asian squadron sank a Spanish fleet in Manila harbor, and we invaded, occupied and colonized the islands, thus emulating Europe's imperial powers and abandoning the anti-colonial legacy of the Founding Fathers.
"Take up the White Man's burden," Rudyard Kipling admonished us.
After Filipino patriots fought for nearly four years to liberate their islands from the Americans, as they had from the Spanish, inflicting on U.S. soldiers and Marines thousands of casualties, the New York Herald replied to the Poet of Empire:
"We've taken up the white man's burden/Of ebony and brown/Now, will you tell, Rudyard/How we may put it down."
After Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Japanese invaded and occupied the islands, until Gen. MacArthur made good in on his famous pledge on leaving Corregidor, "I shall return."
In 1944, we liberated the islands.
A year after Japan's surrender, on July 4, 1946, we granted the Philippines full independence. And that nation and people, far more populous and prosperous than in 1946, should take full custody of the defense of their own sovereignty and independence.
At the end of the Cold War, nationalists in Manila ordered the U.S. to vacate the great naval base we had built at Subic Bay. We should have used that expulsion to let the 1951 security treaty lapse.
Trump should not miss this opportunity.


wnd--2020-02-18--A response to 2 secular conservatives I adore

In the latest edition of `` The Rubin Report '' podcast , two people I adore , Dave Rubin and Heather Mac Donald , dialogue about some of the great issues facing America .
Interestingly , though both are secular , Dave opened the interview asking Heather about God and religion .
She began by saying that she is not conservative because of religion but because of her commitment to empirical truth .
It is empirical truth that leads her to affirm , for example , `` the necessity of the two-parent family '' and `` most traditional values .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be committed to empirical truth and be a leftist ( though one can be a conservative or a liberal ) .
Left-wing assertions that men give birth ; that America was founded in 1619 ( when the first enslaved black was brought to the American colonies ) ; that people can be lifted from poverty on a mass scale without capitalism ; that there are no innate differences between men and women ; that America is a racist nation ; that women are paid less than men for the same type and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and innumerable other leftist assertions are all false .
But while a secular conservative may be committed to the two-parent family because of empirical truth , marriage and family are not `` empirical truths '' nearly as much as they are religious values .
Few secular arguments to get married and/or have children are as compelling as religious ones .
That 's why religious people are so much more likely to get married and have children .
Mac Donald said : `` ( P ) eople who I respect enormously … whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … are making the argument that you can not have a moral society without a foundation of religious belief . ''
That is precisely the argument nearly every founder of America made .
Not all were Christ-centered Christians , but virtually every one believed that inalienable rights come from the Creator , and only from the Creator .
And none ( except perhaps Thomas Paine ) believed that America could endure if it were to become a godless society .
Mac Donald : `` Part of my resistance to this is simply I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the idea of a personal loving God consistent with what I see – what I call the daily massacre of the innocents .
To me it 's a very hard claim to make that I should expect God to pay attention to my well-being when He 's willing to allow horrific things to happen to people far more deserving and innocent than I am .
So , for me , it 's partly just a truth value .
I can not stomach what appears to me to be a patently false claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I agree with Heather 's premises but not with her conclusion .
I have never believed that God has any reason to pay more attention to me than to any other innocent human being .
And I , too , `` can not stomach '' the `` daily massacre of the innocents '' – so much so that I have written how I find the commandment to love God the hardest commandment in the Bible .
But what I also can not stomach is the thought of a universe in which the horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good and just God : The good and the evil all die ; the former receive no reward and the latter no punishment .
The problem of unjust suffering troubles every thinking believer .
But the Jewish theologian Milton Steinberg offered a powerful response : `` The believer in God has to account for unjust suffering ; the atheist has to account for everything else . ''
Between the two , I would argue that the atheist 's burden is infinitely greater .
And insurmountable .
Mac Donald : `` ( T @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universe – we ca n't really answer that .
I think to say , 'God ' – that 's just a placeholder for ignorance .
That does n't help . ''
Maybe we really ca n't answer what started the universe .
But , as Charles Krauthammer , a great secular conservative , said , `` The idea that this universe always existed , that it created itself ex nihilo – I mean , talk about the violation of human rationality .
That , to me , is off the charts . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a placeholder for ignorance . ''
Since science can never and will never answer the question `` Why is there anything ? ''
attributing the origins of the universe to an intelligent force ( which we call `` God '' ) strikes me as the most rational explanation .
Rubin : `` I might have to get you in here with Prager . ''
Mac Donald : `` Where are we all headed ?
What is the meaning of life ?
To me , anybody who claims … he does n't find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Haydn – to invoke a Dennis Prager favorite – or Beethoven or John Milton or Aeschylus or Anthony Trollope – '' Rubin : `` Or just waking up with purpose for whatever you do . ''
Mac Donald : `` Exactly … trying to do the best you can do .
I do n't find life meaningless for one second . ''
Haydn began every manuscript with the Latin words `` in nomine Domini , '' `` in the name of the Lord , '' and ended his manuscripts with the words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to God . ''
I would ask Heather and other secular conservatives : Do you or do n't you identify the steep deterioration of the arts with the death of God and religion ?
Is a secular society capable of achieving artistic achievement equal to that which was accomplished in tribute to God ?
As for meaning , you – and I – may find meaning every day in trying to do the best we can do , or in great works of art .
But , as I know you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has any ultimate meaning .
If there is no God , we are nothing more than self-conscious stellar dust .
And stellar dust has no meaning .
We really need to continue this dialogue .
In the meantime , for what it 's worth , I want to say to both of you , who do so much for our country , God bless you .

In the latest edition of "The Rubin Report" podcast, two people I adore, Dave Rubin and Heather Mac Donald, dialogue about some of the great issues facing America. Interestingly, though both are secular, Dave opened the interview asking Heather about God and religion.
She began by saying that she is not conservative because of religion but because of her commitment to empirical truth. It is empirical truth that leads her to affirm, for example, "the necessity of the two-parent family" and "most traditional values."
Heather is right that one cannot be committed to empirical truth and be a leftist (though one can be a conservative or a liberal). Left-wing assertions that men give birth; that America was founded in 1619 (when the first enslaved black was brought to the American colonies); that people can be lifted from poverty on a mass scale without capitalism; that there are no innate differences between men and women; that America is a racist nation; that women are paid less than men for the same type and amount of work because they are women; and innumerable other leftist assertions are all false.
But while a secular conservative may be committed to the two-parent family because of empirical truth, marriage and family are not "empirical truths" nearly as much as they are religious values. Few secular arguments to get married and/or have children are as compelling as religious ones. That's why religious people are so much more likely to get married and have children.
Mac Donald said: "(P)eople who I respect enormously … whether it's Dennis Prager or Michael Medved … are making the argument that you cannot have a moral society without a foundation of religious belief."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
That is precisely the argument nearly every founder of America made. Not all were Christ-centered Christians, but virtually every one believed that inalienable rights come from the Creator, and only from the Creator. And none (except perhaps Thomas Paine) believed that America could endure if it were to become a godless society.
Mac Donald: "Part of my resistance to this is simply I don't find claims of petitionary prayer and the idea of a personal loving God consistent with what I see – what I call the daily massacre of the innocents. To me it's a very hard claim to make that I should expect God to pay attention to my well-being when He's willing to allow horrific things to happen to people far more deserving and innocent than I am. So, for me, it's partly just a truth value. I cannot stomach what appears to me to be a patently false claim about a personal loving God."
I agree with Heather's premises but not with her conclusion. I have never believed that God has any reason to pay more attention to me than to any other innocent human being. And I, too, "cannot stomach" the "daily massacre of the innocents" – so much so that I have written how I find the commandment to love God the hardest commandment in the Bible.
But what I also cannot stomach is the thought of a universe in which the horrible suffering of innocents is never compensated by a good and just God: The good and the evil all die; the former receive no reward and the latter no punishment.
The problem of unjust suffering troubles every thinking believer. But the Jewish theologian Milton Steinberg offered a powerful response: "The believer in God has to account for unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for everything else." Between the two, I would argue that the atheist's burden is infinitely greater. And insurmountable.
Mac Donald: "(T)he idea of what started the universe – we can't really answer that. I think to say, 'God' – that's just a placeholder for ignorance. That doesn't help."
Maybe we really can't answer what started the universe. But, as Charles Krauthammer, a great secular conservative, said, "The idea that this universe always existed, that it created itself ex nihilo – I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality. That, to me, is off the charts." God, therefore, is not "just a placeholder for ignorance." Since science can never and will never answer the question "Why is there anything?" attributing the origins of the universe to an intelligent force (which we call "God") strikes me as the most rational explanation.
Rubin: "I might have to get you in here with Prager."
Mac Donald: "I'd love to."
I'd love to, too.
Mac Donald: "Where are we all headed? What is the meaning of life? To me, anybody who claims … he doesn't find meaning in life when there is Mozart and Haydn – to invoke a Dennis Prager favorite – or Beethoven or John Milton or Aeschylus or Anthony Trollope –"
Rubin: "Or just waking up with purpose for whatever you do."
Mac Donald: "Exactly … trying to do the best you can do. I don't find life meaningless for one second."
Haydn began every manuscript with the Latin words "in nomine Domini," "in the name of the Lord," and ended his manuscripts with the words "Laus Deo," "Praise be to God." I would ask Heather and other secular conservatives: Do you or don't you identify the steep deterioration of the arts with the death of God and religion? Is a secular society capable of achieving artistic achievement equal to that which was accomplished in tribute to God?
As for meaning, you – and I – may find meaning every day in trying to do the best we can do, or in great works of art. But, as I know you will agree, that does not mean life has any ultimate meaning. If there is no God, we are nothing more than self-conscious stellar dust. And stellar dust has no meaning.
We really need to continue this dialogue. In the meantime, for what it's worth, I want to say to both of you, who do so much for our country, God bless you.


Separate and unequal

Biden snaps after interviewer pulls out photo of child Obama admin put in cage

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


wnd--2020-02-17--Senate Republicans planning mass amnesty for illegals?

( CONSERVATIVE REVIEW ) -- Senator Thom Tillis and other liberal Republicans are hell-bent on turning our rural communities into pipelines for cartel drug trafficking and criminal aliens .
Rather than holding vote after vote on ridding our communities of sanctuary cities and dangerous criminal alien gangs and drug traffickers , liberal Republicans like Thom Tillis are working on , amazingly , more amnesty for illegal aliens .
The North Carolina senator evidently doesn ’ t think that the Tar Heel State is turning blue like Virginia as quickly as he would like .
He also believes that now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration in order get Trump ’ s endorsement and scare away a primary challenger , he can go back to screwing his voters .
Two GOP staffers have informed me that Sen. Tillis , along with Sens .
James Lankford ( R-Okla. ) and Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , began working this Wednesday on an effort to get Trump ’ s support for a mass amnesty bill that passed the House last year .
Rosemary Jenks , government relations director of Numbers USA , which is opposing the bill , confirmed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the potential bill in the Senate .
Conservative HQ , a publication run by legendary conservative Richard Viguerie , reports that Tillis is expected to be the lead Senate sponsor and that Vice President Pence ’ s PAC is rumored to be supporting this bill .
I ’ ve heard the same from my sources in the Senate as well .

(CONSERVATIVE REVIEW) -- Senator Thom Tillis and other liberal Republicans are hell-bent on turning our rural communities into pipelines for cartel drug trafficking and criminal aliens. Rather than holding vote after vote on ridding our communities of sanctuary cities and dangerous criminal alien gangs and drug traffickers, liberal Republicans like Thom Tillis are working on, amazingly, more amnesty for illegal aliens. The North Carolina senator evidently doesn’t think that the Tar Heel State is turning blue like Virginia as quickly as he would like. He also believes that now that he lied about being tough on illegal immigration in order get Trump’s endorsement and scare away a primary challenger, he can go back to screwing his voters.
Two GOP staffers have informed me that Sen. Tillis, along with Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), began working this Wednesday on an effort to get Trump’s support for a mass amnesty bill that passed the House last year. Rosemary Jenks, government relations director of Numbers USA, which is opposing the bill, confirmed to me that those are the three leaders of the potential bill in the Senate. Conservative HQ, a publication run by legendary conservative Richard Viguerie, reports that Tillis is expected to be the lead Senate sponsor and that Vice President Pence’s PAC is rumored to be supporting this bill. I’ve heard the same from my sources in the Senate as well.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-02-18--Joy Behar brings Holocaust survivor into border debate, it backfires almost instantly

'The View '' co-host Joy Behar attempted to compare the horrors of the Holocaust to the detention of migrants at America 's southern border , but it did n't quite go as she hoped .
The ABC talk show welcomed Holocaust survivors Millie and Mikhl Baran to honor Holocaust Memorial Day last month .
The couple appeared with their two adult daughters to share their experiences and showcase an inspirational video about their lives together .
The video , narrated by Whoopi Goldberg , depicts the couple 's journey to America after World War II .
Like so many others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no money and little knowledge of the English language .
They spent their lives teaching children Jewish customs and sharing stories of their time in Germany .
The Barans said they hoped their legacy would show future generations the importance of kindness and prayed their story would help ensure the Holocaust never happens again .
During the discussion , Behar unsurprisingly used a touching and powerful moment to bash President Donald Trump 's immigration policies .
She said , `` We just heard in the video that you had to wait over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country .
... You know , some people are experiencing that right now in our country .
These children are at the border , and they ’ re not letting people in , and it ’ s just tragic to me and to you , I ’ m sure .
Would you like to speak to that at all ?
” Millie Baran responded by saying she empathized with those trying to enter the country and spoke about how tragic being separated from one 's family would be .
She continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to come to America ?
The best land in the world .
The lucky ones who can come here , a land of opportunity , of freedom .
To us , it was a dream to get here .
`` Naturally , it was worth it to wait , because when we came here , I practically kissed the earth.
” '' We lived in Brownsville , Brooklyn , for 10 years , '' Baran said .
`` I loved the place .
My best memories are from there .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets , all kinds of people , all races .
We felt at home .
At night , during the day -- we were so deprived of being free , so that was for us a miracle . ''
While she said the four-year wait was difficult , she pointed out the importance of following the laws and said it is not enough to want to enter the country .
“ When we saw what happened with the people who wanted to come to America , naturally -- it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` You can not just come and want to come in .
`` But I ’ m sure that the United States will find a way how to accommodate people who want freedom , who want a good life.
” Behar probably realized she had made a mistake in attempting to get a Holocaust survivor to compare her experience with what 's going on at the U.S. border .
She seemed to be at loss for words after her effort backfired .
This is n't the first time those on the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of the Nazis , but whether it 's New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Joy Behar , this overused talking point does n't become any more accurate .
Those waiting or detained at the southern border were not taken from their homes against their will , nor are they being executed .
To compare the human rights atrocities in Nazi Germany to the Trump administration 's enforcement of immigration law is unbelievably offensive to those who suffered during the Holocaust .
This provides yet another example of how out of touch and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Madeleine Grisanzio, The Western Journal

'The View" co-host Joy Behar attempted to compare the horrors of the Holocaust to the detention of migrants at America's southern border, but it didn't quite go as she hoped.
The ABC talk show welcomed Holocaust survivors Millie and Mikhl Baran to honor Holocaust Memorial Day last month.
The couple appeared with their two adult daughters to share their experiences and showcase an inspirational video about their lives together.
The video, narrated by Whoopi Goldberg, depicts the couple's journey to America after World War II. Like so many others, the Barans arrived in this country with no money and little knowledge of the English language. They spent their lives teaching children Jewish customs and sharing stories of their time in Germany.
The Barans said they hoped their legacy would show future generations the importance of kindness and prayed their story would help ensure the Holocaust never happens again.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
During the discussion, Behar unsurprisingly used a touching and powerful moment to bash President Donald Trump's immigration policies.
She said, "We just heard in the video that you had to wait over four years before you could come into this country. ... You know, some people are experiencing that right now in our country. These children are at the border, and they’re not letting people in, and it’s just tragic to me and to you, I’m sure. Would you like to speak to that at all?”
Millie Baran responded by saying she empathized with those trying to enter the country and spoke about how tragic being separated from one's family would be.
She continued, "I realized, who doesn’t want to come to America? The best land in the world. The lucky ones who can come here, a land of opportunity, of freedom. To us, it was a dream to get here.
"Naturally, it was worth it to wait, because when we came here, I practically kissed the earth.”
"We lived in Brownsville, Brooklyn, for 10 years," Baran said. "I loved the place. My best memories are from there. We felt so free. We were walking the streets, all kinds of people, all races. We felt at home. At night, during the day -- we were so deprived of being free, so that was for us a miracle."
While she said the four-year wait was difficult, she pointed out the importance of following the laws and said it is not enough to want to enter the country.
“When we saw what happened with the people who wanted to come to America, naturally -- it’s a land of laws," Baran said. "You cannot just come and want to come in.
"But I’m sure that the United States will find a way how to accommodate people who want freedom, who want a good life.”
Behar probably realized she had made a mistake in attempting to get a Holocaust survivor to compare her experience with what's going on at the U.S. border.
She seemed to be at loss for words after her effort backfired.
This isn't the first time those on the left have likened the president's policies to those of the Nazis, but whether it's New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Joy Behar, this overused talking point doesn't become any more accurate.
Those waiting or detained at the southern border were not taken from their homes against their will, nor are they being executed.
To compare the human rights atrocities in Nazi Germany to the Trump administration's enforcement of immigration law is unbelievably offensive to those who suffered during the Holocaust.
This provides yet another example of how out of touch and arrogant those on the left really are.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-18--Franklin Graham fires back at 'truthophobic' LGBT radicals

We know now why LGBT activists in the United Kingdom have been campaigning for venues there to censor the speech of Franklin Graham , chief of the worldwide Christian ministry Samaritan 's Purse .
At least a possible reason .
Graham had planned a series of events across the U.K. later this year , but in just recent weeks many of those venues have simply breached their contracts and canceled his plans .
He 's announced that he 'll be doing the series of meetings anyway , sometimes at nearby , larger venues .
But in a social-media statement over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks might be going on , with the LGBT opposition to his biblical stance on homosexuality and marriage .
`` Opposition to the Gospel should n't really surprise us .
Jesus warned that it would come , '' he said .
`` As you may know , my eight-city evangelistic tour across the U.K. has been met with resistance by LGBTQ activists who inaccurately claim that I am homophobic , Islamophobic , and say that I speak hate .
`` Anyone who knows me or has heard me speak knows that this really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DO preach the TRUTH of the Gospel .
Could it be , rather , that these folks are truthophobic or free-speech-ophobic ? ''
He quoted Australia commentator Martyn Iles who wrote about whether society has become so `` 'tolerant ' that it is now `` intolerant of mainstream Christianity . ''
`` Those in opposition are okay if their opinion divides , but they don ’ t want to hear anyone who disagrees with them , '' Graham said .
`` This is really a fight for truth , and the Gospel is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these venues .
It really boils down to the fact that they disagree with the message .
`` One person commented , 'How is Christianity a hatred speech , when you 're trying to save people from HELL ?
I call it a love speech . '
He 's right , '' Graham said .
In a recent interview with Premier Christian , he said that not only will his tour go on , he likely will end up in venues bigger than the ones originally planned .
And it 's not impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contracts he had with the various venues that they then breached .
WND had reported that all of the venues in the United Kingdom scheduled to host Graham , son of the late Billy Graham , canceled their agreements to hold his events because of the evangelist 's Bible-based based views on human sexuality and marriage .
`` Pastor Graham peddles controversial , repulsive views about LGBT people which are in direct conflict with the values we hold dear in Newcastle , '' Newcastle City Council leader Nick Forbes told the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arena became the latest venue to cancel .
It ’ s undeniable : Today ’ s Democratic Party has become a gargantuan web of lies and liars – and little else .
Explore in a fascinating and enlightening way the left ’ s bizarre disregard for truth in the current issue of Whistleblower magazine .
It ’ s titled , “ IN LOVE WITH LYING : For today ’ s enraged , power-obsessed Democrats , deception is a creative force.
” Previously , Graham events were canceled in Birmingham , Newport , Glasgow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a Pink News report cited by Breitbart News .
Franklin Graham told Premier that his views are like most Christians .
`` I believe the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman , '' he said .
`` That 's the Church of England 's position .
I think Her Majesty the Queen , that 's her position and it 's the position of the church , pretty much worldwide .
This is what the Bible teaches and that 's what I believe . ''
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's also a free speech issue .
It does n't just affect me .
There are churches that meet in public arenas for Sunday services ; schools and so forth .
If a small group of people can force a cancellation of an event where thousands of Christians are participating , I think there is no question about the danger in the future to others , '' Graham said then .
`` We did have a contract signed with these venues and they have breached that contract .
I have n't broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anything .
We just have to look at what our options are but even though we can assign other venues , which we will do , I 'm thinking of the church in the future , '' he said .

We know now why LGBT activists in the United Kingdom have been campaigning for venues there to censor the speech of Franklin Graham, chief of the worldwide Christian ministry Samaritan's Purse.
At least a possible reason.
They're "truthophobic."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Graham had planned a series of events across the U.K. later this year, but in just recent weeks many of those venues have simply breached their contracts and canceled his plans.
He's announced that he'll be doing the series of meetings anyway, sometimes at nearby, larger venues.
But in a social-media statement over the weekend, he explained what he thinks might be going on, with the LGBT opposition to his biblical stance on homosexuality and marriage.
"Opposition to the Gospel shouldn't really surprise us. Jesus warned that it would come," he said. "As you may know, my eight-city evangelistic tour across the U.K. has been met with resistance by LGBTQ activists who inaccurately claim that I am homophobic, Islamophobic, and say that I speak hate.
"Anyone who knows me or has heard me speak knows that this really isn't true – but, I DO preach the TRUTH of the Gospel. Could it be, rather, that these folks are truthophobic or free-speech-ophobic?"
He quoted Australia commentator Martyn Iles who wrote about whether society has become so "'tolerant' that it is now "intolerant of mainstream Christianity."
"Those in opposition are okay if their opinion divides, but they don’t want to hear anyone who disagrees with them," Graham said. "This is really a fight for truth, and the Gospel is what is really being 'banned' from these venues. It really boils down to the fact that they disagree with the message.
"One person commented, 'How is Christianity a hatred speech, when you're trying to save people from HELL? I call it a love speech.' He's right," Graham said.
In a recent interview with Premier Christian, he said that not only will his tour go on, he likely will end up in venues bigger than the ones originally planned.
And it's not impossible that there might be legal action over the contracts he had with the various venues that they then breached.
WND had reported that all of the venues in the United Kingdom scheduled to host Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, canceled their agreements to hold his events because of the evangelist's Bible-based views on human sexuality and marriage.
"Pastor Graham peddles controversial, repulsive views about LGBT people which are in direct conflict with the values we hold dear in Newcastle," Newcastle City Council leader Nick Forbes told the local Chronicle Live after the city's Utilita Arena became the latest venue to cancel.
It’s undeniable: Today’s Democratic Party has become a gargantuan web of lies and liars – and little else. Explore in a fascinating and enlightening way the left’s bizarre disregard for truth in the current issue of Whistleblower magazine. It’s titled, “IN LOVE WITH LYING: For today’s enraged, power-obsessed Democrats, deception is a creative force.”
Previously, Graham events were canceled in Birmingham, Newport, Glasgow, Milton Keynes, Sheffield and Liverpool, according to a Pink News report cited by Breitbart News.
Franklin Graham told Premier that his views are like most Christians.
"I believe the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said. "That's the Church of England's position. I think Her Majesty the Queen, that's her position and it's the position of the church, pretty much worldwide. This is what the Bible teaches and that's what I believe."
See the interview:
"This is a religious freedom issue and it's also a free speech issue. It doesn't just affect me. There are churches that meet in public arenas for Sunday services; schools and so forth. If a small group of people can force a cancellation of an event where thousands of Christians are participating, I think there is no question about the danger in the future to others," Graham said then.
"We did have a contract signed with these venues and they have breached that contract. I haven't broken any laws and I'm not guilty of anything. We just have to look at what our options are but even though we can assign other venues, which we will do, I'm thinking of the church in the future," he said.


wnd--2020-02-18--Fearless Trump tweets same quote that once got James Woods suspended

President Donald Trump is not afraid of the big bad wolf that is the social media machine in Silicon Valley and he just showed it in a major way .
The president tweeted a variation of a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson that got famed actor and hardcore conservative James Woods banned from Twitter .
`` 'Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate Impeachment Trial of President Trump .
`` When you strike at the King , Emerson famously said , 'you must kill him . ''
`` Mr. Trump ’ s foes struck at him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A triumphant Mr.Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened , ready to claim exoneration , and take his case of grievance , persecution and resentment to the campaign trail . '
Peter Baker @ nytimes The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History ! ''
the president wrote in a pair of tweets .
The tweet got the attention of Woods , who said that the president must have remembered that he got suspended for a similar quote .
`` Surely you remember that I was banned from # Twitter almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Emerson ’ s , Mr. President , '' Woods wrote .
`` No words have ever been more relevant to the heinous jihad perpetrated against you by the vermin # Democrats and their media propagandists .
# Trump2020 . ''
There is no way to know , short of asking him , if Trump thought of Woods ’ suspension when he sent the tweet , but if he did , it would be tantamount to daring Twitter to ban him .
Woods was furious when Twitter demanded he delete his tweet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of a quid pro quo ) in May 2019 .
And after Twitter deleted it without his permission , he went on a self-imposed hiatus from the platform .
“ Twitter demanded that I rescind my tweet paraphrasing Emerson .
It now seems they have chosen to delete that tweet from my account without my permission .
Until free speech is allowed on Twitter , I will not be permitted to participate in our democracy with my voice , ” Woods wrote in May .
`` As long as Jack Dorsey remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my Twitter days are in the past , '' he said in a statement given to Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire .
“ If you try to kill the king , you 'd better not miss , ” Woods said in the tweet that led to his hiatus with an added “ # HangThemAll ” in response to the Mueller report failure .
It is possible that it was not the Emerson quote , but the added “ # HangThemAll ” that was flagged by Twitter , but in either case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same thing with the president .
Not if they want to stay in business .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

President Donald Trump is not afraid of the big bad wolf that is the social media machine in Silicon Valley and he just showed it in a major way.
The president tweeted a variation of a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson that got famed actor and hardcore conservative James Woods banned from Twitter.
"'Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate Impeachment Trial of President Trump. "When you strike at the King, Emerson famously said, 'you must kill him."
"Mr. Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down. A triumphant Mr.Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration, and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.' Peter Baker @nytimes The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!" the president wrote in a pair of tweets.
“Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate Impeachment Trial of President Trump. ‘When you strike at the King, Emerson famously said, “you must kill him.’ Mr. Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down. A triumphant Mr.Trump emerges from the..... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2020
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
.....biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration, and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.” Peter Baker @nytimes The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2020
The tweet got the attention of Woods, who said that the president must have remembered that he got suspended for a similar quote.
"Surely you remember that I was banned from #Twitter almost a year for paraphrasing this exact quote of Emerson’s, Mr. President," Woods wrote.
"No words have ever been more relevant to the heinous jihad perpetrated against you by the vermin #Democrats and their media propagandists. #Trump2020."
Surely you remember that I was banned from #Twitter almost a year for paraphrasing this exact quote of Emerson’s, Mr. President. No words have ever been more relevant to the heinous jihad perpetrated against you by the vermin #Democrats and their media propagandists. #Trump2020 https://t.co/uxjnrx24aC — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 17, 2020
There is no way to know, short of asking him, if Trump thought of Woods’ suspension when he sent the tweet, but if he did, it would be tantamount to daring Twitter to ban him.
Woods was furious when Twitter demanded he delete his tweet in order to have his account unlocked (sort of a quid pro quo) in May 2019.
And after Twitter deleted it without his permission, he went on a self-imposed hiatus from the platform.
“Twitter demanded that I rescind my tweet paraphrasing Emerson. It now seems they have chosen to delete that tweet from my account without my permission. Until free speech is allowed on Twitter, I will not be permitted to participate in our democracy with my voice,” Woods wrote in May.
"As long as Jack Dorsey remains the coward he seems to be, my Twitter days are in the past," he said in a statement given to Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire.
“...I will not be permitted to participate in our democracy with my voice. As long as Jack Dorsey remains the coward he seems to be, my Twitter days are in the past.” (2/2) — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) May 10, 2019
“If you try to kill the king, you'd better not miss,” Woods said in the tweet that led to his hiatus with an added “#HangThemAll” in response to the Mueller report failure.
It is possible that it was not the Emerson quote, but the added “#HangThemAll” that was flagged by Twitter, but in either case, it is unlikely Twitter would attempt the same thing with the president.
Not if they want to stay in business.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-19--Geo. Washington: Hero or villain?

Geo. Washington: Hero or villain?

Ours is an historically illiterate age – despite our technological advances .
Just in time for Presidents ' Day 2020 ( which honors George Washington ) comes a new book and a three-part TV mini-series on the History Channel , which apparently questions many aspects of the moral character of Washington .
The Daily Mail in the U.K. ( Feb. 15 ) writes : `` George Washington was a 'liar ' who the other Founding Fathers could n't wait to see the back of , claims a new biography on The Father of his Country . ''
The article continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a third of the market price , refusing to free them , and causing conflict that eventually led to the start of 'humanity 's first world war ' are among the many ethical and moral missteps the country 's first president made , claims new book 'You Never Forget Your First : A Biography of George Washington ' by historian Alexis Coe . ''
Coe serve as a `` consulting producer '' on the new TV series .
This slant does seem to fit the pattern of some of the recent deconstructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Christian biography .
George Washington was a hero in American history for the first two centuries .
But now the history books are being rewritten .
And his flaws , true and alleged , are blown out of proportion – without the wider backdrop of Washington 's many sacrifices for his country .
Fourteen years ago , I had the privilege to co-author with Dr. Peter Lillback a 1,200-page biography of George Washington that focused on his religion .
Lillback is the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It documents the copious evidence that Washington was a devout 18th century Anglican and all that that entails .
It is certainly true that a mythology has arisen over Washington , who has been called `` The Marble Man . ''
This mythology has cast him as virtually sinless .
But there 's no one without sin – no , not one – except Jesus .
Despite the myths about Washington , the overall service he rendered to his country and the overall character he displayed through many difficult circumstances caused many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During his funeral at Christ Episcopal Church ( Washington 's adopted church for the last decade of his life ) , Revolutionary War hero Henry Lee III spoke : `` To the memory of the Man , first in war , first in peace , and first in the hearts of his fellow-citizens . ''
There is no doubt the young Washington made some mistakes when he began his career in the wilderness in western Pennsylvania at the outset of the French and Indian War .
But through it all , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another day .
And he thanked God for sparing him .
Later , when he was serving as our fledgling nation 's first commander-in-chief , Washington proved to be a great military leader , doing much with few resources and little outside backing .
He sacrificed a great deal in service of the new nation .
In his day and in succeeding generations , George Washington was praised by critics and friends alike .
In 1782 , during a time of chaos , some of his soldiers wanted George Washington to become king @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back him .
But on Christian principle , he declined .
Despite the falseness of some of the `` hagiography '' that arose over George Washington , the fact is that he was universally viewed as a hero , including by those who knew him .
Patrick Henry , the first governor of Virginia ( as a state ) , said , `` [ I ] f you speak of solid information and sound judgment , Washington is unquestionably the greatest man of them all . ''
Thomas Jefferson remarked on Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure , his justice the most inflexible I have ever known … no motives of interest or consanguinity , of friendship or hatred , being able to bias his decision . ''
George Bancroft , former secretary of the U.S. Navy , was America 's first great historian and the author of a multi-volume series on our nation 's story , which he revised through the years .
His final version ( 1888 ) was in six volumes and is difficult to read today , but well worth the time .
Bancroft said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is qualities were so faultlessly proportioned that the whole people rather claimed him as its choicest representative , the most complete expression of all its attainments and aspirations .
… he used power solely for the public good ; that he was the life and moderator and stay of the most momentous revolution in human affairs . ''
Call me skeptical , but the new book and series sound suspicious because they apparently highlight the first president 's foibles and negatives without highlighting the positives .
Ted Baehr , publisher of MOVIEGUIDE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blatant revisionism , and selective impeachment of a great man .
The best refutation is that George always deferred to Congress , and retired after two terms when he could have become a tyrant . ''

Ours is an historically illiterate age – despite our technological advances.
Just in time for Presidents' Day 2020 (which honors George Washington) comes a new book and a three-part TV mini-series on the History Channel, which apparently questions many aspects of the moral character of Washington.
The Daily Mail in the U.K. (Feb. 15) writes: "George Washington was a 'liar' who the other Founding Fathers couldn't wait to see the back of, claims a new biography on The Father of his Country."
The article continues, "Buying teeth from his slaves at a third of the market price, refusing to free them, and causing conflict that eventually led to the start of 'humanity's first world war' are among the many ethical and moral missteps the country's first president made, claims new book 'You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington' by historian Alexis Coe."
Coe serve as a "consulting producer" on the new TV series.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
This slant does seem to fit the pattern of some of the recent deconstructive volumes and movies that attack American history and Christian biography. George Washington was a hero in American history for the first two centuries. But now the history books are being rewritten. And his flaws, true and alleged, are blown out of proportion – without the wider backdrop of Washington's many sacrifices for his country.
Fourteen years ago, I had the privilege to co-author with Dr. Peter Lillback a 1,200-page biography of George Washington that focused on his religion. Lillback is the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and the book is George Washington's Sacred Fire. It documents the copious evidence that Washington was a devout 18th century Anglican and all that that entails.
It is certainly true that a mythology has arisen over Washington, who has been called "The Marble Man." This mythology has cast him as virtually sinless. But there's no one without sin – no, not one – except Jesus.
Despite the myths about Washington, the overall service he rendered to his country and the overall character he displayed through many difficult circumstances caused many of his contemporaries to highly venerate him.
During his funeral at Christ Episcopal Church (Washington's adopted church for the last decade of his life), Revolutionary War hero Henry Lee III spoke: "To the memory of the Man, first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow-citizens."
There is no doubt the young Washington made some mistakes when he began his career in the wilderness in western Pennsylvania at the outset of the French and Indian War. But through it all, he was spared in miraculous ways to fight another day. And he thanked God for sparing him.
Later, when he was serving as our fledgling nation's first commander-in-chief, Washington proved to be a great military leader, doing much with few resources and little outside backing. He sacrificed a great deal in service of the new nation.
In his day and in succeeding generations, George Washington was praised by critics and friends alike. In 1782, during a time of chaos, some of his soldiers wanted George Washington to become king of America, and they were willing to back him. But on Christian principle, he declined.
Despite the falseness of some of the "hagiography" that arose over George Washington, the fact is that he was universally viewed as a hero, including by those who knew him.
Patrick Henry, the first governor of Virginia (as a state), said, "[I]f you speak of solid information and sound judgment, Washington is unquestionably the greatest man of them all."
Thomas Jefferson remarked on Washington, "His integrity was the most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known … no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision."
George Bancroft, former secretary of the U.S. Navy, was America's first great historian and the author of a multi-volume series on our nation's story, which he revised through the years. His final version (1888) was in six volumes and is difficult to read today, but well worth the time.
Bancroft said of Washington, "[H]is qualities were so faultlessly proportioned that the whole people rather claimed him as its choicest representative, the most complete expression of all its attainments and aspirations. … he used power solely for the public good; that he was the life and moderator and stay of the most momentous revolution in human affairs."
Call me skeptical, but the new book and series sound suspicious because they apparently highlight the first president's foibles and negatives without highlighting the positives.
Ted Baehr, publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, comments about this: "This is blatant revisionism, and selective impeachment of a great man. The best refutation is that George always deferred to Congress, and retired after two terms when he could have become a tyrant."


wnd--2020-02-19--Young Democrats lose interest in freedom – to the nation's detriment

I happened to listen the other day to then-Sen. John F. Kennedy 's opening remarks in his debate with then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential election cycle .
Kennedy , the Democratic Party candidate , recalled that Abraham Lincoln , in the 1860 presidential election cycle , said the great question facing the nation was whether it could exist `` half-slave and half-free . ''
In the 1960 election , said Kennedy , the issue was `` whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free . ''
`` Whether it will move in the direction of freedom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are taking ... will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the United States , '' he said .
How things change .
The Democrats ' candidate in 1960 headlined freedom as the issue defining his campaign .
Now , 60 years later , Democrats are moving down the road to nominating a socialist , pushing freedom as an American ideal out of the picture .
It is astounding that many Democrats are ready to cast aside the core value that has defined our nation , for which so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major part of the story is our youth .
Support for the two parties is divided by age .
In 2016 , a majority of those under age 44 voted for Hillary Clinton .
Fifty-five percent of those ages 18-29 voted for her , compared with 37 % for Donald Trump .
Trump received the majority of those 45 years and above .
It is our youth that is enamored with socialism and the socialist candidate .
In a recent Pew Research Center poll , 40 % of Democrats ages 18-29 expressed preference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party 's candidate , compared with 25 % of those 30-49 , 13 % of those 50-64 and 10 % of those 65 and over .
In a Gallup poll , 51 % of those ages 18-39 expressed a positive view of capitalism and 49 % a positive view of socialism .
Among those 40-54 , 61 % were positive about capitalism compared with 39 % for socialism .
And those 55 and over , 68 % were positive about capitalism compared with 32 % for socialism .
What 's driving these young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ferguson of Stanford University 's Hoover Institution and consultant Eyck Freymann suggest , in an article in The Atlantic , `` The Coming Generation War , '' that the capitalist America that worked for earlier generations is not working for these youth .
`` They face stagnant real wages '' and carry a large burden of student debt , they say .
It 's a generation `` to whom little has been given , and of whom much is expected , '' they continue .
I think it is just the opposite .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been given and from whom little is expected .
When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 , America 's youth still faced a military draft .
In 1960 , 72 % of Americans over 18 were married , compared with 50 % today .
According to Pew , 78 % of those ages 18-29 say it is acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together , even if they do n't intend to get married .
Over the decade 2009-2019 , there was a drop of 16 % among those ages 23-39 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 13 % of those self-identifying as religiously unaffiliated .
And that age group does n't vote .
Since 1980 , the percentage of eligible voters in their 20s who voted in presidential elections has averaged between 40 % and 50 % , compared with 65 % to 75 % of those over 45 , Ferguson and Freymann report .
We have a generation of American youth today who have grown up in a culture of legal abortion and same-sex marriage , with little sense of responsibility to God and country .
Freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ youth do not seem to be interested .
They appear , rather , to be very open to the idea of turning their lives over to be run by a 78-year-old socialist .
Such values among our youth do not bode well for our future .
Meanwhile , the best near-term solution is keeping the nation under Republican control .

I happened to listen the other day to then-Sen. John F. Kennedy's opening remarks in his debate with then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential election cycle.
Kennedy, the Democratic Party candidate, recalled that Abraham Lincoln, in the 1860 presidential election cycle, said the great question facing the nation was whether it could exist "half-slave and half-free."
In the 1960 election, said Kennedy, the issue was "whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free."
"Whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking ... will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the United States," he said.
How things change. The Democrats' candidate in 1960 headlined freedom as the issue defining his campaign. Now, 60 years later, Democrats are moving down the road to nominating a socialist, pushing freedom as an American ideal out of the picture.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It is astounding that many Democrats are ready to cast aside the core value that has defined our nation, for which so many have fought and died.
One major part of the story is our youth.
Support for the two parties is divided by age.
In 2016, a majority of those under age 44 voted for Hillary Clinton. Fifty-five percent of those ages 18-29 voted for her, compared with 37% for Donald Trump. Trump received the majority of those 45 years and above.
It is our youth that is enamored with socialism and the socialist candidate.
In a recent Pew Research Center poll, 40% of Democrats ages 18-29 expressed preference for Sen. Bernie Sanders to be their party's candidate, compared with 25% of those 30-49, 13% of those 50-64 and 10% of those 65 and over.
In a Gallup poll, 51% of those ages 18-39 expressed a positive view of capitalism and 49% a positive view of socialism. Among those 40-54, 61% were positive about capitalism compared with 39% for socialism. And those 55 and over, 68% were positive about capitalism compared with 32% for socialism.
What's driving these young Democrats to the far left?
Niall Ferguson of Stanford University's Hoover Institution and consultant Eyck Freymann suggest, in an article in The Atlantic, "The Coming Generation War," that the capitalist America that worked for earlier generations is not working for these youth.
"They face stagnant real wages" and carry a large burden of student debt, they say.
It's a generation "to whom little has been given, and of whom much is expected," they continue.
I think it is just the opposite. It is a generation to whom much has been given and from whom little is expected.
When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, America's youth still faced a military draft. In 1960, 72% of Americans over 18 were married, compared with 50% today.
According to Pew, 78% of those ages 18-29 say it is acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, even if they don't intend to get married.
Over the decade 2009-2019, there was a drop of 16% among those ages 23-39 who identify as Christian and an increase of 13% of those self-identifying as religiously unaffiliated.
And that age group doesn't vote. Since 1980, the percentage of eligible voters in their 20s who voted in presidential elections has averaged between 40% and 50%, compared with 65% to 75% of those over 45, Ferguson and Freymann report.
We have a generation of American youth today who have grown up in a culture of legal abortion and same-sex marriage, with little sense of responsibility to God and country.
Freedom is about personal responsibility, and these youth do not seem to be interested. They appear, rather, to be very open to the idea of turning their lives over to be run by a 78-year-old socialist.
Such values among our youth do not bode well for our future.
Meanwhile, the best near-term solution is keeping the nation under Republican control.