Index to essays on this page:
  • The Vatican deal: Made In China
  • “A bad beginning makes for a bad ending.” ~Chinese Proverb


  • It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game
  • Rarely a day goes that a global warming alarmists do not use it to promote their cause of enlarging government and reducing personal freedom through the promotion of fear about our future.
  • Leading Muslim cleric says Islamophobia a result of Islamic extremism and not racism
  • 61-Year-Old woman gives birth to own granddaughter for gay son using his "husband's" sister's egg
  • Cecile Eledge carried her gay son's daughter to term; the six-pound baby girl, named Uma Louise Dougherty-Eledge, was conceived through in vitro fertilization with her son Matthew Eledge's sperm and his "husband's" sister's egg.
  • California’s rendezvous with reality
  • Years of lax policies and overspending are finally catching up to the Golden State.
  • Shall we defend our common history?
  • Welcome to the new Orwellian world where censorship is free speech and we respect the past by attempting to elide it.
  • Most people treat the Constitution like it’s only a suggestion
  • Dating is a free software issue
  • Many dating Web sites run proprietary JavaScript. JavaScript is code that Web sites run on your computer in order to make certain features on Web sites function. Proprietary JavaScript is a trap that impacts your ability to run a free system.
  • The Republicans’ preemptive cringe
  • Stop validating the Left's self-serving standards.
  • Fire the Fed?




  • Before the ink was dry on the September 22, 2018 Vatican-China secret agreement, the Chinese government initiated its demolition derby by targeting Christian churches and their faithful. The Chinese Communist Government thugs ratcheted up a coordinated pogrom of demolishing, seizing, and closing Christian Churches. The first targets for destruction by the authorities were two Catholic Marian shrines in Shanxi and Guizhou. Government goons stripped crucifixes from church facades, and began to round up and imprison faithful underground Catholics, priests and bishops. Leave it to the Chinese to monetize their terror campaign: The government is offering cash for neighbors to spy on churches.

    Some detente, Pope Francis! No wonder the details of the deal are still secret.

    The three-part deal sought to clarify the manner of episcopal appointments, with the atheistic regime appointing bishops that were then approved by the Vatican, the status of the seven illegitimate bishops and the future of the faithful “underground” Catholic Church. Incredibly, the Vatican agreement with China allows the communist-controlled Chinese “Catholic” Patriotic Association (CPA) to nominate Catholic bishops and instructs the Underground Church to unite with it.

    In June 2017, retired Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen warned his fellow Catholic priests of the dire consequences of a Vatican-China agreement:

    “For you, a new age of the catacombs will begin. It will be winter. It will be hard on you. The government will seize your churches. The priests will no longer be able to administer the sacraments. All that will be left for you is to go home to farm the land.”

    Alone and undeterred, Cardinal Zen battled, cajoled, pleaded with the Vatican not to sign an agreement with the Chinese Communist government. Zen warned the Vatican and the Catholic world that the Chinese Communist government would step up its persecution of the Catholic faithful, once the deal was signed.

    Sure enough. Xi’s government thugs brought out the wrecking ball, razing churches, arresting faithful priests and bishops and initiating its unique Communist reign of terror on Christians.

    Zen alerted his faithful priests and predicted that persecutions would begin if the Vatican signed a deal with the ChiComms.

    Zen accurately described the Vatican deal as “suicide” and a “shameless surrender” to the Communist Government. As if on command, the devastation predicted by Zen has begun. Yet, the Vatican remains stonily silent and issues no protestations.

    No one knows the Chinese government better than Cardinal Zen. This feisty and fearless 87-year-old prelate saw the handwriting on the 40-foot Vatican wall. He recognized that the Vatican was desperate for a deal, any deal. “In recent years, the almost unrestricted desire for dialogue to reach an outcome has weakened our Church in China.”

    No fool for the ChiComms, Cardinal Zen warned the Vatican about the malevolent tactics of Chinese authorities:

    “We cannot rule out the danger of deception. The Chinese are masters at playing with words. The gentlemen in the Vatican are no match. Moreover, for the Communists there is no truth; truth is what is needed for the success of the party.”

    The Vatican clearly got played, badly played by the Communist Chinese. Not only did the Vatican cede its spiritual authority to an atheistic, totalitarian, brutal regime but, in so doing, it seriously endangered the faithful underground Catholic Church of 6 million Chinese Catholics.

      





    We are confident that all of our readers have read or heard for a number of years that 97% of all scientists believe that mankind has played a role in changing the earth’s climate. While it should have been recognized long ago as an urban myth, one of those stories that hang around regardless of a lack of any supporting facts. Rarely a day goes that a global warming alarmists do not use it to promote their cause of enlarging government and reducing personal freedom through the promotion of fear about our future.

    Many articles have been written to refute this claim but they all dig into the statistical weeds. Common sense alone should set you straight. If the reader wishes he or she read could read the original paper by Naomi Oreskes that started it all in Science Magazine in December of 2004. Be aware you might die laughing.

    The biased folks who concluded from a truly bizarre survey of science literature that 97% of all authors believe in man-caused global warming would have actually been better served had they concluded that 70% of all scientists believe in their premise. That would actually have been possible. However a little common sense should tell us that no large group of people on our planet could ever reach 97% agreement on anything. Yes anything, including the Earth being round rather than flat or the sun rising in the East rather than West, or even the Earth’s gravitational pull.

    Simple proof of this erroneous talking point is provided by the Global Warming Petition Project at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2015. They obtained signatures on a Declaration from 31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s that stated they did not believe man kind had a significant impact on his climate. The declaration included the words: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human releases of carbon dioxide methane or other greenhouse gases are causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”

    They made all the names available in a paper back book.It is rather doubtful that these people all comprise the 3% of non believers.

    We do not doubt there are many scientists who do believe that man plays a major role in the determination of his climate. However, among the unsuspecting public who do not stop to consider what we are saying, the near universal comment of “the 97%” has done a lot of damage. It leads to poor anti fossil fuel legislation in states all across the nation. It leads to some states embracing the Paris Accord which would redistribute $3 trillion of American dollars to nations who use little fossil fuel. These American states could have none but zero impact on the planets thermometer but they can and will damage their state’s economy and their citizens standard of living.

    The fraudulent 97% consensus is clearly a marketing ploy. What makes science different from religion is that only empirical evidence matters not opinion. Consensus does not matter at all in science.

    It is not unique in science for incorrect views to hold forth for decades if not centuries before the crowds are turned back by incontrovertible evidence. Medical history is full of the minorities trying to make surgery safer by the simple effort of hand washing. Ulcers were long thought to be a result of type “A” personalities rather than requiring a specific bacteria to allow their development. Einstein himself fought an uphill battle with his theory of relativity. When 100 German scientists collaborated on a consensus to defeat him he said famously “If I were wrong one would have been enough”.

    Give some thought to what we are saying next time you are confronted with this dangerous absurdity, which will likely be tomorrow.

    Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he went on to receive the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers



    Leading Muslim cleric Yahya Cholil Staquf says islamophobia a result of islamic extremism and not racism
    The secretary-general of Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama movement, which claims to have more than 90 million adherents, wrote in an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph saying that the traditional muslim mindset needed to change.

    The senior member of the world’s biggest Muslim organisation has insisted that Islamophobia is not rooted in racism and that the distrust of Muslims in many countries is a result of Islamist extremism and terrorism throughout the world.

    Yahya Cholil Staquf, the secretary-general of Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama movement, which claims to have more than 90 million adherents, wrote in an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph saying that the traditional Muslim mindset needed to change.

    He called for a rejection of Islamic orthodoxy, condemning it as “obsolete and problematic” and “fuelling violence on both sides”.

    The influential cleric wrote that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims was “factually incorrect” in linking the definition of the word “Islamophobia” to racism, and that it was “counter-productive” to do so.

    “The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of sharia that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict,” he wrote.

    Staquf stated that Brenton Tarrant’s murder spree, which killed 50 people  at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 15 March, was part of an “ancient cycle of violence” and that the killer shared a “historical framework” with many Muslims that went back almost 1,400 years. He explained the traditional Islamic teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims are and shall remain in a state of permanent conflict, until the end of time (according to Islamists) or the disappearance of Islam (according to advocates of a ‘counter-jihad’).”

    “If Muslims do not address the key tenets of Islamic tradition that encourage this violence, anyone – at any time – can harness them to defy what they claim to be illegitimate laws and butcher their fellow citizens, whether they live in the Islamic world or the West. This is what links so many current events, from Syria to the streets of London,” he added.

    Barnabas Fund is an aid agency for the persecuted Church. We work in over 60 countries around the world where Christians are marginalised because of their faith.

      





    Last week, a 61-year-old woman carrying her own granddaughter via a surrogacy pregnancy gave birth in a North Platte, Nebraska hospital.

    Cecile Eledge carried her gay son's daughter to term; the six-pound baby girl, named Uma Louise Dougherty-Eledge, was conceived through in vitro fertilization with her son Matthew Eledge's sperm and his "husband's" sister's egg.

    According to NBC News, Matthew and his 'husband' Elliot Dougherty decided to have a child using Elliot's sister Lea Yribe's egg via surrogacy but were “hesitant to go into agencies due to the 'conservative' nature of the state.”

    “Nebraska is a bit more conservative, and we were hesitant to go into agencies, and had a bit of fear that maybe some things would hold us back being a gay 'couple,'” Matthew said, according to the outlet.

    So, Matthew’s mother offered to carry the baby. “I just never hesitated. I was just so excited to be able to be part of this adventure with them. … It was just unconditional love,” she said.

    Due to Cecile being postmenopausal, Matthew was initially unsure if such an offer could be delivered. Doctors, however, cleared the healthy 61-year-old for the pregnancy.

    “It was really exciting to know that my mom and dad and whole ancestry and family lineage were going to be a part of her,” said Elliot, who recently lost his mother.

    “I was feeding her, and it was early, and she wasn't eating very fast, and I just looked at her face, and I saw my mom's face there,” he added. “In a way it just felt like I was taking care of my sweet mom.”

    According to The Cut, surrogacy is actually not legal is all states. “Surrogacy laws vary on a state-by-state basis,” reported the outlet. “For instance, surrogacy agreements cannot be enforced under New York law, so someone in the state who would like to find a surrogate to carry an embryo to term will have to find a carrier in a surrogate-friendly state, like New Jersey or Connecticut.”

      





    Californians brag that their state is the world’s fifth-largest economy. They talk as reverentially of Silicon Valley companies Apple, Facebook, and Google as the ancient Greeks did of their Olympian gods.

    Hollywood and universities such as Caltech, Stanford, and Berkeley are cited as permanent proof of the intellectual, aesthetic, and technological dominance of West Coast culture.

    Californians also see their progressive, one-party state as a neo-socialist model for a nation moving hard to the left.

    But how long will they retain such confidence?

    California’s 40 million residents depend on less than 1 percent of the state’s taxpayers to pay nearly half of the state income tax, which for California’s highest tier of earners tops out at the nation’s highest rate of 13.3 percent.

    In other words, California cannot afford to lose even a few thousand of its wealthiest individual taxpayers. But a new federal tax law now caps deductions for state and local taxes at $10,000 — a radical change that promises to cost many high-earning taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

    If even a few thousand of the state’s 1 percent flee to nearby no-tax states such as Nevada or Texas, California could face a devastating shortfall in annual income.

    During the 2011-16 California drought, politicians and experts claimed that global warming had permanently altered the climate, and that snow and rain would become increasingly rare in California. As a result, long-planned low-elevation reservoirs, designed to store water during exceptionally wet years, were considered all but useless and thus were never built.

    Then, in 2016 and 2017, California received record snow and rainfall — and the windfall of millions of acre-feet of runoff was mostly let out to sea. Nothing since has been learned.

    California has again been experiencing rain and cold that could approach seasonal records. The state has been soaked by some 18 trillion gallons of rain in February alone. With still no effort to expand California’s water storage capacity, millions of acre-feet of runoff are once again cascading out to sea (and may be sorely missed next year).

    The inability to build reservoirs is especially tragic given that the state’s high-speed rail project has gobbled up more than $5 billion in funds without a single foot of track laid. The total cost soared from an original $40 billion promise to a projected $77 billion. To his credit, newly elected governor Gavin Newsom, fearing a budget catastrophe, canceled the statewide project while allowing a few miles of the quarter-built Central Valley “track to nowhere” to be finished.

    For years, high-speed rail has drained the state budget of transportation funds that might have easily updated nightmarish stretches of the Central Valley’s Highway 99, or ensured that the nearby ossified Amtrak line became a modern two-track line.

    California politicians vie with each other to prove their open-borders bona fides in an effort to appeal to the estimated 27 percent of Californians who were not born in the United States.

    But the health, educational, and legal costs associated with massive illegal immigration are squeezing the budget. About a third of the California budget goes to the state’s Medicare program, Medi-Cal. Half the state’s births are funded by Medi-Cal, and in nearly a third of those state-funded births, the mother is an undocumented immigrant.

    California is facing a perfect storm of homelessness. Its labyrinth of zoning and building regulations discourages low-cost housing. Its generous welfare benefits, non-enforcement of vagrancy and public health laws, and moderate climate draw in the homeless. Nearly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients live in the state, and nearly one in five live below the poverty line.

    The result is that tens of thousands of people live on the streets and sidewalks of the state’s major cities, where primeval diseases such as typhus have reappeared.

    California’s progressive government seems clueless how to deal with these issues, given that solutions such as low-cost housing and strict enforcement of health codes are seen as either too expensive or politically incorrect.

    In sum, California has no margin for error.

      





    The following is adapted from a talk delivered on board the Crystal Symphony on July 19, 2018, during a Hillsdale College educational cruise to Hawaii.

    The recent news that the University of Notre Dame, responding to complaints by some students, would “shroud” its twelve 134-year-old murals depicting Christopher Columbus was disappointing. It was not surprising, however, to anyone who has been paying attention to the widespread attack on America’s past wherever social justice warriors congregate.

    Notre Dame, a Congregation of Holy Cross institution, may not be particularly friendly to its Catholic heritage. But its president, the Rev. John Jenkins, demonstrated how jesuitical (if not, quite, Jesuit) he could be. Queried about the censorship, he said, apparently without irony, that his decision to cover the murals was not intended to conceal anything, but rather to tell “the full story” of Columbus’s activities.

    Welcome to the new Orwellian world where censorship is free speech and we respect the past by attempting to elide it.

    Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

    As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

    But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

    In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.

    In the background is the conviction that we, blessed members of the most enlightened cohort ever to grace the earth with its presence, occupy a moral plane superior to all who came before us. Consequently, the defacement of murals of Christopher Columbus—and statues of later historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt—is perfectly virtuous and above criticism since human beings in the past were by definition so much less enlightened than we.

    The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer. “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

    High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.

    The psychopathology behind these occurrences is a subject unto itself. What has happened in our culture and educational institutions that so many students jump from their feelings of being offended—and how delicate they are, how quick to take offense!—to self-righteous demands to repudiate the thing that offends them? The more expensive education becomes the more it seems to lead, not to broader understanding, but to narrower horizons.

    ***

    Although there is something thuggish and intolerant about the monument controversy, it is not quite the same as the thuggishness of the Roman emperor Caracalla, who murdered his brother and co-emperor Geta and had statues of Geta toppled and his image chiseled off coins. Nor is it quite the same as what happened when Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin exiled Leon Trotsky, had him airbrushed out of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and sent assassins to Mexico to finish the job.

    Iconoclasm takes different forms. The disgusting attacks on the past and other religious cultures carried out by the Taliban, for example, are quite different from the toppling of statues of Saddam Hussein by liberated Iraqis after the Iraq War. Different again was the action of America’s own Sons of Liberty in 1776, who toppled a statue of the hated George III and melted down its lead to make 40,000 musket balls. It is easy to sympathize with that pragmatic response to what the Declaration of Independence called “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” It is worth noting, however, that George Washington censured even this action for “having much the appearance of a riot and a want of discipline.”

    While the monument controversy does depend upon a reservoir of iconoclastic feeling, it represents not the blunt expression of power or destructiveness but rather the rancorous, self-despising triumph of political correctness. The exhibition of wounded virtue, of what we now call “virtue-signaling,” is key.

    Consider some recent events at Yale University, an institution where preening self-infatuation is always on parade. Yale recently formed a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming and a Committee on Art in Public Spaces. Members of the former prowl the campus looking for buildings, colleges, faculty chairs, lecture programs, and awards that have politically incorrect names. The latter police works of art and other images on campus, making sure that anything offensive to favored groups is covered or removed.

    At the residential college formerly known as Calhoun College, for example—it’s now called Grace Hopper College—the Committee ordered the removal of stained glass windows depicting slaves and other historical scenes of Southern life. Statues and other representations of John C. Calhoun have likewise been slotted for removal. Calhoun, an 1804 Yale graduate, was a leading statesman and political thinker of his day. But he was also an apologist for slavery, so he has to be erased from the record.

    Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator USA, American Greatness, and PJ Media. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

      





    The Constitution is really just a series of suggestions. At least that’s how most American treat it.

    The concept of a “Living Breathing Constitution” is the biggest enduring myth in America’s political narrative.

    It used to be primarily a left-wing dogma. But in the era of Trump, an awful lot of people on the right have embraced the myth as well.

    A few weeks ago, I posted an article by KrisAnne Hall about the illegitimacy of presidential “emergency powers.” But I was told the constitutional argument wasn’t really important.

    After all, we’re faced with a “crisis” at the border and it’s imperative that the president deals with it. Surely there is wiggle-room in the Constitution for the president to act. We can’t be dogmatic at times like this. The Constitution was meant to flex with the times!

    No.

    No, it wasn’t.

    The powers delegated to the federal government, and distributed among its three branches, were set in stone. As I have explained before, a “living, breathing” Constitution is dead.

    “But Mike,” people say, “You can’t expect the government to be limited by a document written more than 200 years ago. It has to be able to flex and change with the times.”

    Yes. I agree. And in their wisdom, the founders included a process to change the Constitution as needed. It’s called the amendment process. You will find it in Article V.

    “But Mike,” people say. (People “but Mike” me a lot.) “It’s hard to amend the Constitution and it takes too long. We need to be able to react quickly in an emergency. We can’t be waiting around for amendments.”

    Actually, that was the point. We don’t want to give government new powers every time there’s some perceived crisis. [Emphasis mine — ed.] Once the government has a given power, it will never give it up. Not ever. The power you allow government to exercise today will remain with you forever. So, you darn well better slow your roll and count the cost.

      





    I've been making the argument that everything is a free software issue for a few months now. Back in November, I was lucky enough to speak at SeaGL and SFSCon, specifically on the issues proprietary technology poses in dating and maintaining romantic relationships.

    I've been thinking about this since then -- the issues and infringements on user freedom we face when using technology to meet people, date, and fall in love. I think Valentine's Day is the perfect opportunity to share just some of these thoughts I've been having.

    Meeting people

    Many dating Web sites run proprietary JavaScript. JavaScript is code that Web sites run on your computer in order to make certain features on Web sites function. Proprietary JavaScript is a trap that impacts your ability to run a free system, and not only does it sneak proprietary software onto your machine, but it also poses a security risk. Any piece of software can be malicious, but proprietary JavaScript goes the extra mile. Much of the JavaScript you encounter runs automatically when you load a Web site, which enables it to attack you without you even noticing.

    Proprietary JavaScript doesn't have to be the only way to use Web sites. LibreJS is an initiative which blocks "nonfree nontrivial" JavaScript while allowing JavaScript that is either free or trivial.

    Many dating apps are also proprietary, available only at the Apple App and Google Play stores, both of which currently require the use of proprietary software.

    Going out

    When it's time to meet your online date in person, or spend time together with the person you're dating, more proprietary software is ready to crash the party, whether you're going out or staying in. Many restaurants run reservations entirely through Web sites, using software and JavaScript that is proprietary. Using ride sharing apps like Uber to get around puts users and drivers alike at all sorts of risks. Or, if you decide to have a romantic evening at home, you might find yourself tempted by freedom disrespecting, DRM-supporting streaming services like Hulu and Netflix.

    DRM is an oppressive technology, prevalent among downloadable, online, and streaming media. It restricts your ability to use, reuse, modify, share, and really own the media you purchase. There are practical damages DRM causes: it prevents modifying media for accessibility needs; it keeps people from being able to access their media whenever they want or need to; and it stifles creativity through the prevention of re-use. However, most importantly, the type of control enabled by DRM infringes on your freedoms.

    Luckily, there are DRM-free media options available to you. Whether you want to find movies, listen to music, or curl up and read together, there is the perfect DRM-free choice available now.

      





    Recently two events occurred that illustrate the Republican bad habit of ceding to progressives a whole set of questionable assumptions. Whether out of sincere but misguided belief or fear of political cost, this anxious and cringing validation of progressive ideas and the double-standards that follow empowers the Democrats and weakens the GOP.

    The most egregious example was the speed at which many nominal conservatives chastised the Kentucky parochial school students who were attacked by an illiberal and racist outfit called the Black Hebrew Israelites, and by an American Indian “activist,” “tribal elder,” and “Vietnam vet” (the last a patent lie and a case of stolen valor). The anti-Trump media, as expected, without waiting for more information savaged the kids for embodying the worst traits of “white supremacism,” “toxic masculinity,” and “racial privilege.” One CNN Minister of Propaganda delighted in pointed out one kid’s “punchable face.” This was the same young man who stoically endured a deranged grown-up banging a drum in his face while the Black Hebrews rained down vile epithets on him.

    The left’s reaction should surprise no one familiar with its disregard for fact and equal justice, and its penchant for bullying the weak. More disgusting were the equally precipitate and bullying comments from some on the right. The NeverTrumpers at National Review beclowned themselves with their usual moral preening and preemptive cringing. One editorial subaltern tweeted of the students, “they might as well have just spit on the cross and got it over with.” At least the putative conservatives had the decency to be embarrassed, apologizing and removing their tweets and articles.

    Those gestures, however, don’t explain the initial impulse to attack, before all the facts were in, sixteen-year-old Catholic kids attending the March for Life rally against abortion, a cohort likely to become readers of National Review. Given that the bell of the attackers’ calumny cannot be unrung, it smacks of opportunism to apologize now, when the pundits never should have hastened to condemn the kids on such scant and subjective evidence in the first place.

    The next incident is not quite as straightforward. Nine-term Iowa Representative Steven King was stripped of his committee assignments by the Republican leadership for wondering during a New York Times interview, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” In King’s defense, he claims that his point was to protest equating white supremacism and nationalism with Western civilization, as the left does frequently. And it is certainly plausible that the ethically challenged Times would stoop to such unethical journalism.

    Whether King actually made the comment or the Times distorted his comment, associating the West with race-based nationalism and notions of racial superiority validates the identity politics lie that the West is an inherently oppressive and racist civilization. This staple of left-wing multiculturalism is a crude misunderstanding of history and human nature. For quite simply, the offenses of the West––slavery, sex inequality, violent invasion, occupation, and exploitation–– are the universal sins of a flawed mankind.

    Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

      





    President Trump’s frustration with the Federal Reserve’s (minuscule) interest rate increases that he blames for the downturn in the stock market has reportedly led him to inquire if he has the authority to remove Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. Chairman Powell has stated that he would not comply with a presidential request for his resignation, meaning President Trump would have to fire Powell if Trump was serious about removing him.

    The law creating the Federal Reserve gives the president power to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board — including the chairman — “for cause.” The law is silent on what does, and does not, constitute a justifiable cause for removal. So, President Trump may be able to fire Powell for not tailoring monetary policy to the president’s liking.

    By firing Powell, President Trump would once and for all dispel the myth that the Federal Reserve is free from political interference. All modern presidents have tried to influence the Federal Reserve’s policies. Is Trump’s threatening to fire Powell worse than President Lyndon Johnson shoving a Fed chairman against a wall after the Federal Reserve increased interest rates? Or worse than President Carter “promoting” an uncooperative Fed chairman to Treasury secretary?

    Yet, until President Trump began attacking the Fed on Twitter, the only individuals expressing concerns about political interference with the Federal Reserve in recent years were those claiming the Audit the Fed bill politicizes monetary policy. The truth is that the audit bill, which was recently reintroduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and will soon be reintroduced in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), does not in any way expand Congress’ authority over the Fed. The bill simply authorizes the General Accountability Office to perform a full audit of the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy, including the Fed’s dealings with Wall Street and foreign central banks and governments.

      




    Proudly hosted by freehostia.com