Freedom of Speech Facts: Even in National Anthem Protest in Football Game, First Amendment Rights have Choices and Consequences

For Constitution Day, Freedom of Speech Facts:

Even in a National Anthem Protest in a Football Game. . .

First Amendment Rights have Choices and Consequences

In a free and open society with the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech, there are consequences. ~Rush Limbaugh

 

Rush Limbaugh

What do you think the First Amendment’s free speech clause grants you? The right to say what you want politically? You’re right. It does. Now, the First Amendment says that government cannot stop you from saying what you want. It doesn’t say the San Francisco 49ers can’t. If you work someplace, your First Amendment rights do fall under the policies of your owner or of your boss or of your workplace.

This is not a fine point. But larger point is this: The media is trying to portray Kaepernick as a hero for courageously and with great guts criticizing his own country and criticizing the bias and the prejudice and the murderous police. It takes guts and courage.

1) You Have the Right To Say What You Want, But You Don’t Have The Right To Be Heard

Now, there’s every entitlement to do it. Kaepernick, anybody else has every right to say what they want to say about that. But, two things are incumbent here. No one has the right to be heard — and this I find… When I say this to people who think they understand the First Amendment, that shocks them.

‘Cause they’ve never thought of it that way. Yeah, you can say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you.

2) You Don’t Have the Right To Be Immune from the Consequences

The second thing is you have the right to say what you want, you have the right to believe what you want, but you do not have the right to not suffer any consequences from it. So if you are going to make a case as a player in the NFL that your country is rotten, that your country mistreats people of color — if you’re gonna say what Kaepernick said — then you’ve got to be willing to accept the consequences of what you said!

How many people do you think believe that Kaepernick should be applauded for courage and not have to suffer consequences for what he said? How does that work? Everybody… You know, there’s a price.

There are consequences.

There’s gonna a reaction. Not everybody’s gonna agree with everything that anybody else says. Kaepernick is not a victim. But they’re trying to portray him as a victim. “He went out and he said courageous things; he had the courage to criticize his own country,” and for that he should be made a hero? That’s not how it works.

You don’t get to go out and say provocative things and then be immune from criticism or consequences.

And so that factors into what you’re gonna do. If you’re gonna go out and you’re gonna say things that are gonna make it harder for the people who might hire you to do business, it makes perfect sense they wouldn’t hire you. Now you add to that that these people may believe you’re not any good anymore. But if Kaepernick isn’t being hired because of what he said, that’s perfectly normal.

Anybody who’s been in the free speech business understands this the first time they ever say something controversial. Why do you think most people shut up? Why do you think most people “don’t want to go there”? They don’t want the reaction. They don’t want the controversy. They don’t want the criticism. So they don’t say anything. They whimper around. They may react when somebody else does, but most people will stand or sit mute — and the reason is because they see what happens.

In a free and open society with the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech, there are consequences, and there are ramifications.

Now, some of the responses, some of the circumstances are not fair, admittedly. But in a free and open society with the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech, there are consequences, and there are ramifications. The point is, the First Amendment does not grant anybody immunity from the consequences of what they say or from the reactions from people to what they say — and Kaepernick is being held up as somebody who should be immune. “He should not be held accountable for what he said because we happen to agree with what he said,” the media says. That’s not how it works.

If you’re a football coach and you believe your team needs discipline and focus if they’re to have a chance, the last thing you want is a circus, for whatever reason. Talk to Tim Tebow! Tim is the exact opposite of Kaepernick. He loves America, is a born-again proselytizing Christian. Why do you think he’s not in the league? A lot of people think, “Because there’s anti-Christian bias, Mr. Limbaugh!” There may be, but there are also people that don’t want to deal with the circus — and, if they don’t, that’s a consequence. You know, it may seem unfair, because you make value judgments on what someone says.

For Both Tebow and Kaepernick there are Reactions, Consequences

Like you may value what Tebow is and what he says, and you might not think so much of Kaepernick and what he says or does. But in both instances, there are consequences for behavior and for reactions. You know, if you want to be on radio or TV? That’s what Kaepernick ought to do. I think what he ought to do, Kaepernick ought to get a show on YouTube and go to town. He can say anything he wants; Google would celebrate it. (Google owns YouTube.) But Jim Brown said it. Jim Brown said (summarized), “Make up your mind what you want to do: You want to play football or you want to be an activist?”

It’s that simple.

When you pick up a stick, you pick up the  other end. Choices have consequences. It’s as simple as that. ~C.D.

Advertisements

History Facts: NEVER FORGET History Lesson We Should Have Learned From 9/11 Attack

History Facts:

NEVER FORGET  History Lesson We Should Have Learned From 9/11 Attack

NEVER FORGET:  the 5 Lessons We Should Have Learned From 9/11

ByBen Shapiro

On the sixteenth anniversary of 9/11, it’s time for a reminder of the lessons we should have learned — and that we have now unlearned. On that horrific day, on a bright sunshine-riddled morning, Islamist terrorists flew two passenger airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, collapsing them both and murdering nearly 3,000 Americans; flew another passenger airliner into the Pentagon; and were only prevented from flying a fourth into the White House or Capitol by the bravery of passengers who forced the crash of the flight in a field in Pennsylvania.

America responded with the full brunt of her wrath. For a brief moment in time, we were united against a common enemy: we reduced Afghanistan’s ruling regime to powerlessness, then turned and reduced the Saddam Hussein regime to smoldering ash. We increased bureaucracy and security at our airports. We poured money into building our military. Some of this was necessary; some of it wasn’t. But we knew one thing: we wouldn’t allow ourselves to be hit again. We wouldn’t be caught asleep at the wheel again.

We had learned our lessons.

But now those lessons have been largely forgotten. Here were some of the lessons we should have learned.

  1. Global Retreat Is Not A Strategy. The Clinton Administration foreign policy of quasi-isolationism, combined with occasional human rights-driven interventionism, was a formula for failure. After Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States did virtually nothing; again, the U.S. did virtually nothing after Bin Laden bombed the USS Cole. Bin Laden saw the United States as a paper tiger. That prompted him to strike, thinking that he would get away with it.

The Bush Administration’s aggressive response took Al Qaeda by surprise. According to James Mitchell, the man who questioned Al Qaeda mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, KSM stated, “How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?” Mitchell writes, “KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.”

But the blowback from the Iraq War led the Obama Administration to imitate the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration, and in many ways, has led the Trump Administration to do the same.

  1. Money Doesn’t Buy Off Islamists. Neither Does Friendliness. For a decade, the Clinton Administration reached out to the Palestinian government with cash, pressure on our ally Israel, and symbolic moves to legitimize the regime. The response: on 9/11, the Palestinians danced in the streets and celebrated as Americans leapt to their deaths from burning buildings.

One of the great myths purveyed by Bin Laden was that the United States had been overtly hostile toward Muslims around the world. That’s nonsense. We used the power of America’s military to stop the invasion of Kuwait; we sided with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets; we activated NATO to prevent a genocide against Croatian Muslims in former Yugoslavia. Friendliness toward the Muslim world does not matter to Islamists, who seek only the domination of a religious caliphate.

Yet the Obama Administration sought friendship with the Iranian government, essentially handing them a nuclear program and control of a vast swath of the Middle East.

  1. Immigration Matters. President Trump is right to look to immigration vetting as a serious problem in handling of the terror threat. All 19 of the hijackers arrived on visas, either student, tourist, or business. Several of them overstayed their visas. While Trump worries mostly about immigration via the southern border, an estimated 40% of illegal immigration occurs through legal entry and then visa overstay. Our porous southern border is a problem. A bigger problem is the government’s utter failure to vet people entering the country generally and then their complete unwillingness to follow up on those who overstay their visas. While the Left complains about Trump’s refugee stay, the fact is that the government ought to be deeply concerned about those who enter the country from Islamist-rich regions. Europe is finding that out the hard way through increased crime and terrorism.
  2. Major Terrorist Attacks Require Sponsor States. This was a widely-accepted truism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — that major attacks require planning, coordination and resources that demand a home base. That’s why the Bush Administration took out the Taliban, and looked (wrongly) to Iraq as a sponsor state of terrorism (they should have looked more closely at Iran). That logic led the Bush Administration to think that replacement of regimes with more democratic institutions would naturally effectuate less terror; the Obama Administration, in its bizarre argument in favor of the so-called Arab Spring, felt the same way. That was a problem with the implementation of the theory, not the theory itself. Major terrorist operations do require state sponsors — that’s why ISIS’ territorial integrity matters to its sponsorship of major terror operations overseas.
  3. America Has Real Enemies. It’s tempting for the United States to look inward for threats to its citizens — we’re the freest, most prosperous country in human history. As Obama noted, Al Qaeda was never an existential threat to us, nor is ISIS. But when it comes to threats to American citizens, the first duty of the government is to prevent those threats and stop those who would perpetrate them. We should be unified in that effort, not divided for political reasons.

Many of the lessons we learned on 9/11 have faded with time. We seem to be back where we started — in the miasma of Clintonian isolationism, although tempered by a stronger anti-terror mechanism abroad. That’s why it’s imperative that we once again remember what happened on 9/11 — and what we must do to stop the next 9/11.

 

NEVER FORGET: The 5 Lessons We Should Have Learned From 9/11

Marquis Lafayette: Great among Revolutionary War Heroes

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

Marquis Lafayette: Great among Revolutionary War Heroes

By Christopher Ruddy

It is doubtful the American Republic would have been born were it not for the courage and generosity of our greatest French friend, Marquis de Lafayette, who joined the Continental Army at the age of 19 with the rank of lieutenant general.

Ruddy-LafayeteGraveside-(1)Remembering General Lafayette, hero of the American Revolution. Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy lays flowers at the grave of the Marquis de Lafayette on July 4, 2015, Picpus Cemetery, Paris.
It is doubtful the American Republic would have been born were it not for the courage and generosity of our greatest French friend, Marquis de Lafayette, who joined the Continental Army at the age of 19 with the rank of lieutenant general.

He helped provision George Washington’s army, led troops in several battles ,and played a key role at Yorktown.

He persuaded France to join the war on our side.

He was Washington’s surrogate son and a beloved American.

lafayetteWhen he died in 1830 he was eulogized by former President John Quincy Adams for three hours, and Congress and the nation mourned his death for 30 days.

All Americans today still owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Gen. Lafayette!
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/ruddy-lafayette-hero-revolution/2015/07/04/id/653446/#ixzz3g79vshb3

History Heroes: U.S. Constitution, John Locke, and Founding Fathers

Dinner Topics for Tuesday

keyHe that thinks absolute power purifies men’s blood and corrects the baseness of human nature, need only read history to be convinced to the contrary. ~John Locke

John Locke’s Influence on the U.S. Constitution and Founding Fathers

signers3John Locke 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism,[2][3][4] was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.[5]

Influence on Founding Fathers

The Constitutional Convention began deliberations on May 25, 1787.
Delegates used two streams of intellectual tradition, and any one delegate could be found using both or a mixture depending on the subject under discussion, foreign affairs or the economy, national government or federal relationships among the states. The Virginia Plan recommended a consolidated national government, generally favoring the big population states. It used the philosophy of John Locke to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu for divided government, and Edward Coke emphasizing civil liberties. The New Jersey Plan generally favored the small population states, using the philosophy of English Whigs such as Edmund Burke to rely on received procedure, and William Blackstone emphasizing sovereignty of the legislature.
The Convention devolved into a “Committee of the Whole” to consider the fifteen propositions of the Virginia Plan in their numerical order. These discussions continued until June 13, when the Virginia resolutions in amended form were reported out of committee.
All agreed to a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states.

Influence

Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism. Michael Zuckert has argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State. He had a strong influence on Voltaire who called him “le sage Locke”.

 His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, one passage from the Second Treatise is reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, the reference to a “long train of abuses.”

 

Such was Locke’s influence that Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Bacon, Locke and Newton … I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences”.[11][12][13] Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence.
But Locke’s influence may have been even more profound in the realm of epistemology. Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and Jerrold Seigel argue that Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) marks the beginning of the modern Western conception of the self.[14]

Theories of religious tolerance

johnlockeLocke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[15]

Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Continued

Dinner Talk: Definition of Classic Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism

John Locke is called the Father of “Classic Liberalism.” The Founding Fathers were considered liberal at the time of the American Revolution because they were in favor of liberty, and they wanted to change the form of government to allow more liberty.Tories were considered to be conservative, because they wanted to conserve the Britiish monarchy.

Today these definitions have almost reversed. Today’s liberals want to change the U.S. Constitution (or destroy it) to decrease the amount of liberty, give more power to the federal government, and remove responsibility from the individual. Today, the Founding Fathers would be considered to be conservative, because they would want to conserve the U.S. constitution which they created, with limited government, and freedom of the people, balanced with individual responsibility.

America, History, and Geography

jedmorse

Jedediah Morse—Father of American Geography

Jedidiah Morse (August 23, 1761 – June 9, 1826) was a notable geographer whose textbooks became a staple for students in the United States. He was the father of telegraphy pioneer and painter Samuel F. B. Morse, and his textbooks earned him the sobriquet of “father of American geography.”

 

Early life and education

Born to a New England family in Woodstock, Connecticut, Morse did his undergraduate work and earned a divinity degree at Yale University (M.A. 1786). While pursuing his theological studies studies under Jonathan Edwards and Samuel Watts, in 1783 he established a school for young women in New Haven.[1]

Career

In the summer of 1785 he was licensed to preach, but continued to occupy himself with teaching. He became a tutor at Yale in June 1786, but, resigning this office, was ordained on 9 November 1786, and settled in Medway, Georgia, where he remained until August of the following year. He spent the winter of 1787/8 in New Haven in geographical work, preaching on Sundays to vacant parishes in the vicinity.[1]

Religious activities

He became a pastor in Charlestown, Massachusetts (across Boston harbor) on 30 April 1789, where he served until 1820.[1] Among his friends and numerous correspondents were Noah Webster, Benjamin Silliman and Jeremy Belknap. In 1795 he received the degree of D.D. from the University of Edinburgh.[1]

Throughout his life he was much occupied with religious controversy, and in upholding the faith of the New England church against the assaults of Unitarianism. Ultimately his persevering opposition to liberal views of religion brought on him a persecution that affected deeply his naturally delicate health. He was very active in 1804 in the movement that resulted in enlarging the Massachusetts general assembly of Congregational ministers, and in 1805 unsuccessfully opposed, as a member of the board of overseers, the election of Henry Ware to the Hollis Chair of Divinity at Harvard.[1]

Morse did much toward securing the foundation of Andover Theological Seminary, especially by his successful efforts in preventing the establishment of a rival institution in Newburg,[where?] which had been projected by the Hopkinsians.[who?] He participated in the organization of the Park Street Church in Boston in 1808, when all the Congregational churches of that city, except the Old South Church, had abandoned the orthodox faith. In 1805 he established The Panoplist for the purpose of illustrating and defending the commonly received orthodoxy of New England, and continued its sole editor for five years. This journal later became The Missionary Herald.[1]

Geography

Morse strongly influenced the educational system of the United States. While teaching at a school for young women, he saw the need for a geography textbook oriented to the forming nation. The result was skimpy and derivative, Geography Made Easy (1784).[citation needed] He followed that with American Geography (1789), which was widely cited and copied. New editions of his school textbooks and the more weighty works often came out annually, earning him the informal title, “father of American geography.” His postponed gazetteer for his work of 1784 was bested by Joseph Scott’s Gazetteer of the United States in 1795. With the aid of Noah Webster and Rev. Samuel Austin, Morse published his gazetteer as Universal Geography of the United States (1797).

Native American peoples

Morse rebutted certain racist views published in the Encyclopædia Britannica concerning the Native American peoples, e.g., that their women were “slavish” and that their skins and skulls were thicker than those of other humans.[2]

He took great interest in the subject of civilizing and Christianizing the native Americans, and in 1820 he was appointed by the secretary of war to visit and observe various tribes on the border, in order to ascertain their actual condition, and to devise the most suitable means for their improvement. This work occupied his attention during two winters, and the results of his investigations were embodied in a Report to the Secretary of War on Indian Affairs (New Haven, 1822).[1]

Continued

Dinner Talk

When I was in the 5th grade, I had to learn the shapes of all the United States, the names of the state capitals, and be able to label and locate each state and capital on a blank map of the United States, with only the states outlined. It has been a really useful thing to know, and doing that, I never forgot it. Try it with a blank U.S. map, and color each state a different color, so you can remember the shape of each state. ~C.A. Davidson

History Heroes: Pioneers of America

History Heroes:

Pioneers of America

Builders of the Nation

 

Ida R. Alldredge

 

They, the builders of the nation, Blazing trails along the way;

Stepping -stones for generations were their deeds of every day.

Building new and firm foundations, pushing on the wild frontier,

Forging onward, ever onward, blessed, honored pioneer!

 

Service ever was their watchcry; love became their guiding star;

Courage, their unfailing beacon, radiating near and far.

Every day some burden lifted, every day some heart to cheer,

Every day some hope the brighter, blessed, honored pioneer!

 

As an ensign to the nation, they unfurled the flag of truth,

Pillar, guide, and inspiration to the hosts of waiting youth.

Honor, praise, and veneration to the founders we revere!

List our song of adoration, blessed, honored pioneer!

Immigration Facts: Merit-based Immigration System and Immigration Assimilation in the US

Immigration Facts:

Merit-based Immigration System and Immigration Assimilation in the US

Polls Show Huge Public Support for Trump’s Immigration Reforms

Seven Facts About Donald Trump’s Merit-Based Immigration System

Neil Munro

Candidate Donald Trump promised to reform the nation’s cheap-labor immigration strategy, and President Donald Trump unveiled the merit-based immigration reform plan on Wednesday.

Here are seven major features of the new merit-based economic and immigration legislation.

  1. The Senate bill was jointly drafted by two GOP Senators who were elected in the 2014 wave. In that election, Senate Democrats lost ten seats because voters were angry at the Democratic-dominated “Gang of Eight” plan that would have doubled immigration for at least ten years, and shifted more of the nation’s annual income from employees to employers. The two Senators are Georgia CEO David Purdue, and Arkansas veteran and Harvard grad Tom Cotton
  2. The plan would roughly halve the inflow of unskilled labor into the United States, so forcing employers to boost recruitment, training and pay for ordinary Americans. It would halve the inflow of unskilled by canceling the so-called “diversity lottery” which annually hands green cards to 50,000 people picked by lottery, by capping the inflow of refugees at 50,000 per year, and — most importantly — by largely ending the “chain migration” which allows new citizens to bring in their parents, adult children, and siblings, regardless of health, skills or ability to work.
  3. Trump’s plan would allow companies to bring in highly skilled or “ultra-skilled” foreigners — if those foreigners can prove their skills by showing job offers which pay MORE than what is being paid to local Americans. That merit-based process would put an upward ratchet on Americans’ wages, instead of the current process which drags down wages by flooding the labor market with unskilled workers.
  4. Most applicants for immigration and citizenship would be graded on a points system, determined by their age, education credentials, English-language skills, professional awards, investment resources, and job offers. That process likely will allow the immigration of highly skilled foreigners who want to assimilate into Americans’ democratic culture — and who can also develop new technology that makes Americans more productive and wealthy.
  5. Progressives want to hate the reform. It would end their plan to seize national power via the mass immigration of unskilled, government-dependent migrants. That plan has already won them near-complete power in California and Illinois. But without those future migrants, progressives would be forced to seek the votes from actual blue-collar and white-collar Americans, so shifting the focus of national politics back towards a focus on middle-class Americans, and away from the progressives’ media-magnified push for pro-transgender laws, free abortion and weather control.
  6. Business and investors rationally hate the merit-based plan. It would reduce the inflow of cheap labor and of welfare-funded consumers which have helped boost profits and the stock market. Without those migrants, companies will have to raise wages for employees, recruit and train now-sidelined Americans, and invest in American-made, labor-saving machinery, such as robots for farms, restaurants, and slaughterhouses.
  7. Prior polls suggest Trump’s plan will be very popular because it prioritizes Americans over foreigners, employees over employers, wages over profits, and solidarity around the English language over imposed multiculturalism. But the media polls will try to suppress that Trump advantage by portraying the pro-American plan as being mean to weak foreigners, so allowing many elected officials to ignore the public’s real views until around September 2018. That is when the Americans will have the decisive opportunity to vote for or against politicians who support or oppose Trump’s reform. To read more about immigration polls, click here.

Under pre-Trump policies, the federal government annually imports 1 million legal immigrants into the United States, just as 4 million young Americans turn 18.

The federal government also awards roughly 1.5 million temporary work permits to foreigners, grants temporary work visas to roughly 500,000 new contract workers, such as H-1B workers, and also largely ignores the resident population of eight million employed illegal immigrants. That huge extra inflow of wage-cutting workers is to be handled via different legislation and regulation.

The current annual flood of foreign labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.

Click here to read the full text of the legislation. Click here  for a section-by-section summary and click here for a fact sheet on the legislation.

Immigration Assimilation in the US

Rush Limbaugh

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

THE PRESIDENT: Crucially, green card reforms in the RAISE Act will give American workers a pay raise by reducing unskilled immigration. This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the twenty-first century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens. This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first. Finally, the reforms in the RAISE Act will help ensure that newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed, and will achieve the American dream.

RUSH: Whoa! Whoa! Did you hear that? He used the word “assimilated.” You don’t hear that in immigration anymore. “Assimilation? Why, that’s discriminatory! Why should immigrants have to have the American way of life forced on them?” That’s what the left says. That’s right. The American way of life is an imposition, don’t you know? Yes, we have forced — we have imposed — our way of life on people around the world against their wishes.

And we now want to impose our way of life on immigrants. Who the hell do we think we are? That’s their attitude. But assimilation has always been the key to immigration. Again, I want to remind people, immigration, legal immigration in the United States stopped in the mid-1920s and was not resumed until 1965, with the Immigration Act of that year. Do you know why? Because there had been a flood of immigrants in late 1800s throughout the early 1900s, and we had to assimilate them.

Now, it was easy because they wanted to become Americans. They came from all over the world and wanted to be Americans. But it still takes time to assimilate to a new culture, to learn English as your predominant language. We didn’t have any legal immigration for all of those years, mid-twenties to 1965. Every time I tell people that and they don’t know it, they’re shocked.

Culture Wars: Transgender Military Cost compromises Military Lifestyle and American Security

Culture Wars: 

Transgender Military Cost compromises Military Lifestyle and American Security

Military Thanks Trump for Transgender Ban: ‘Courageous Decision’…

5 Good Reasons Why Transgender Accommodations Aren’t Compatible With Military Realities

Ryan T. Anderson

Heritage Foundation report

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced that he was reversing an Obama-era policy that opened the military to people who identify as transgender.

The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.

Mortality Facts

Unfortunately, 41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. And people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide.

People who identify as transgender suffer a host of mental health and social problems—including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse—at higher rates than the general population. Biology isn’t bigotry, and we need a sober and honest assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

So there were well-justified concerns that Obama was using the military to advance the latest social justice culture warrior agenda item—seeking to mainstream transgender identities and promote controversial therapies for gender dysphoria.

Obama’s policy change ignored the reality that placing individuals who might be at increased risk for suicide or other psychological injury in the most stressful situation imaginable—the battlefield—is reckless.

But even people who disagree about the underlying transgender issues should acknowledge that there are practical concerns for the military when it comes to people who identify as transgender.

Wednesday’s announcement reflects good reasons why transgender accommodations are incompatible with military realities. Here are just a few of the considerations:

  1. That the privacy of service members must not be infringed.

This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected.

Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed.

  1. That all service members remain combat-ready at all times.

But soldiers who have “transitioned” medically require regular hormone treatments and follow-up visits after sex-reassignment surgery. It is unclear how someone who has “transitioned” would be deployable.

  1. That all service members be held to the same physical fitness standards, and that these standards by based on the reality of biological sex, not the subjective “gender identity.”

Men who identify as women should not be held to a lower standard than other men—they should be held to the standard for someone with their body that the military has determined is most effective for combat.

  1. That scarce taxpayer monies not be expended on costly and controversial sex-reassignment therapies.

This is particularly the case as growing foreign threats are stretching our military’s resources, and as we struggle as a nation to provide basic health care to all. But it is unclear how soldiers who identify as transgender would pay for their treatments apart from including coverage in Tricare, the military health care program.

  1. That the medical judgment, conscience rights, and religious liberty of military doctors, chaplains, commanding officers, and fellow service members be respected.

Unless and until military leaders are able to find a way to respect all of these provisions, there will remain good reasons why the military will be unable to accommodate people who identify as transgender.

Walt Heyer:

I Was Once Transgender. Why I Think Trump Made the Right Decision for the Military.

Culture Wars: Pro-Life Policy takes back Judeo-Christian Culture from Liberal Progressives

Culture Wars:

Pro-Life Policy takes back Judeo-Christian Culture from Liberal Progressives

Seven Ways Trump Is Taking Back America’s Judeo-Christian Culture

Dr. Susan Berry

Andrew Breitbart famously said, “Politics is downstream of culture,” and while establishment Republicans seem unwilling to defend America’s culture and values on many fronts, President Donald Trump is already changing the country’s politics by taking back its culture from progressives.

Here’s how he is doing it:

  1. Trump announces ban on transgenders in military:

Trump’s decision to ban transgender individuals from the military sends a clear message that the U.S. military should be focused on defending the nation and winning decisive battles, not participating in social justice engineering or experimentation.

Accepting gender dysphoric individuals in the military – as former President Barack Obama did – and allowing them to undergo gender reassignment surgery and formally change their gender while serving in the military, weakens the ability of the military to focus on defense.

James Delingpole noted at Breitbart News:

[Transgendered individuals] were also about to cost the U.S. taxpayer heinous amounts of money – perhaps $8.4 million a year – because, thanks to legislation introduced last year by President Obama, the Defense Department was liable for the cost of the gender reassignment surgery on any soldier whose ability to serve was “adversely affected by a medical condition or medical treatment related to their gender identity.”

  1. Trump reinstates and expands the “Mexico City anti-abortion Policy”:

The president is implementing his executive order that reinstated what is known as the “Mexico City Policy,” one that prohibits any non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. aid from performing and promoting abortion overseas. However, Trump also has expanded that policy – called “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” – by directing the Secretary of State to ensure the ban on taxpayer funds for overseas abortions is in place across most U.S. global health programs that provide assistance.

The fact that Trump issued the executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy within days after his inauguration sent a clear message that he intended to keep his promises to the pro-life base of the Republican Party that helped to elect him. Unlike many Republican politicians who, even recently, have failed to pass pro-life legislation – such as the provision to defund Planned Parenthood included in all of the bills to repeal Obamacare – Trump has shown he intends to keep his promises.

  1. Trump signs executive order that he intends to “vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom”:

Signed in May, the president’s order also directs the Attorney General of the United States “to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law…interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.”

Though perhaps just one small step forward in the battle to protect religious liberty, the language still sets the stage for a culture shift.

Many conservatives, however, would like to see a stronger statement on religious liberty coming from the White House, particularly with regard to the imposition of same-sex marriage even on states whose voters rejected it at the polls. A prior draft of the executive order that was leaked to left-wing media was more definitive, but, apparently, was scuttled.

4. Trump signs resolution overturning Obama’s Planned Parenthood state funding mandate:

The president signed a resolution in April that overturned Obama’s rule – enacted during his last days as president – that forced states to provide family planning grants under Title X to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

The House approved H.J. Res. 43, introduced by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), in February. The resolution used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to rescind the Obama administration rule, enacted during the last days of the former president’s term.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) sponsored the measure in the Senate. Vice President Mike Pence cast a tie-breaking vote at the end of March to enable approval in that chamber after Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against it.

  1. Trump’s nomination of now-Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court:

Constitutionalists and pro-life leaders celebrated the confirmation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the affirmation of their relationship with Trump.

“The swift fulfillment of President Trump’s commitment to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices is a tremendous win for the pro-life movement,” said Susan B. Anthony List’s Dannenfelser.

  1. Trump makes key appointments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

In addition to the appointment of former Rep. Tom Price, a pro-life physician, as HHS secretary, Trump tapped several religious liberty and pro-life leaders to top-level positions within that department. HHS was once led by Obama-era secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who administratively implemented much of Obamacare, including the HHS contraceptive mandate, which forced many employers to provide free contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization procedures to their employees through health insurance plans.

  1. Trump vows to defend law enforcement:

Last week, the president delivered tough words to gang members and the promise of support to law enforcement, a sign that Trump intends to uphold both the nation’s physical boundaries and its laws – neither of which he wishes to see diminished or undermined through political correctness or social justice activism.

 

Berry: 7 Ways Trump Is Taking Back America’s Culture

YouTube Video: Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Dinner Topics for Thursday

YouTube Video: Milton Freedman, Capitalism and Freedom

From Rush Limbaugh Radio

miltonfriedman2One sound bite is two minutes of Milton Friedman schooling Phil Donahue and his audience in greed and capitalism and virtue.

RUSH:  [Obama] was quoting Reverend Wright, and he said that’s for me, man, I love that.  White folks’ greed runs a world in need.  So let’s go to 1979, ancient times for many of you.  We may as well be going back to the Roman Coliseum for this.  Nineteen seventy nine, I was 28.  Ancient times for many of you.  Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman, and they had this exchange.  And Donahue starts off wanting to know about greed and capitalism.  Here it is.  And listen to this.

DONAHUE:  When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?

Greed Definition

FRIEDMAN:  Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?  You think Russia doesn’t run on greed?  You think China doesn’t run on greed?  What is greed?  Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.  The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus.  Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.  Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.  In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.  If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.

So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

DONAHUE:  But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Virtue Definition

FRIEDMAN:  And what does reward virtue?  Do you think the communist commissar rewards virtue?  Do you think Hitler rewards virtue?  Do you think American presidents reward virtue?  Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?  Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?  You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted.  Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.

DONAHUE:  Well —

FRIEDMAN:  I don’t even trust you to do that.

RUSH:  Milton Friedman back in 1979 schooling Phil Donahue, and everybody else who heard that on the notions of virtue and greed and just basically upsetting Phil’s applecart.  Phil wasn’t smart enough to know it was happening. He’s still running around lamenting the accident of birth. If he’d been 30 miles south he would have grown up in poverty.  Anyway, we wanted to play that for you and recognize Milton Friedman.

miltonfriedmanMilton Friedman:  “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand.” 

 Milton Friedman:  “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” 

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.”  

Boy, isn’t that true? Pass another law.  Government comes along and creates a program.  The program is an absolute disaster.  Government says, “That’s gotta get fixed.”  Government says, “Okay, we’ll fix it.”  And it compounds itself, one error atop another. (Rush)

Another Milton Friedman quote:  “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”  

I’ll tell you, the guy was great.  He was a genius.  He lived into his late eighties.  He would have been a hundred years old this week. (Rush)

Dinner Talk

1. Who does Mr. Friedman say is greedy?

2. Do you think political self-interest is better than economic self-interest? Why or why not?

3. According to Mr. Friedman, which system fosters a stronger economy— management by government bureaucracies (socialism), or free enterprise? Why?