History Facts: Nazi Racism Ideas borrowed from Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Founder

History Facts:

Nazi Racism Ideas borrowed from Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Founder

Dinesh D’Souza on How the Nazis Borrowed Ideas from American Democrats

Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left and Democratic Party

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: On Tuesday afternoon, I interviewed the author and moviemaker, Dinesh D’Souza. He has a new book coming out called The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. Provocative, obviously: “Exposing the Nazi roots of the American left.” So I chatted with him for the upcoming issue of The Limbaugh Letter. What he said… He gave three examples of how his book is true, the allegation here that the Nazis were able to take cues from the American left.

But the first claim that D’Souza makes — and by the way, to back this up, we need to point out that militant Islam has also deep ties to Hitler and Nazism.

Hitler had an appreciation and an understanding for Islam, and there are numerous bits of evidence that recount meetings between the Grand Mufti and mullahs and Hitler during World War II. These are things not said in polite society. It’s not alleged. What D’Souza is doing — and he’s in the process of making a movie about this as well. He said it will be ready next summer, into next September, as a prelude to the election. His first contention is there are basically three examples of the Nazis, the German Nazis adopting leftist ideas from the American Democrat Party.

Fed Up with Liberal Lies

I’ll tell you why he decided to do this. He’s like everybody else in the right-wing: Fed up with the allegation that racism and all this has its home in the Republican Party. It’s the exact opposite. Racism, segregation, all of this, these were all Democrats back in the 1960s that were trying to violate civil rights and keep blacks out of universities.

Democrat Governors vs. Martin Luther King

All those governors and Bull Connor, the fire chief, turning the firehoses on African-American protesters and Martin Luther King? They’re all Democrats. D’Souza is, like many people in the right, frustrated with this history revisionism.

1) How Hitler stole from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century

So he decided to write the book and do a movie about how it’s even worse than that, and his first example here is how Hitler stole from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century.

D’SOUZA: Hitler remembered that in the 19th century the Jacksonian Democrats — despite the existence of all these treaties with the American Indians — essentially decided to violate the treaties, throw the Indians off their land, drive them further west. So displace them, resettle that land — and if any of the Indians remained, either kill them or attempt to enslave them. Hitler goes: “This is a fantastic idea!

“I don’t need to go to India like the British. I’ll just conquer in Europe; I’ll throw the Poles off their land, the Slavs, the Eastern Europeans, the Russians. We’ll resettle that land with German families — and if any of the natives stay back, we’ll enslave them.” So this notion — the historians call it Lebensraum, which means “living space.” But it’s basically German expansion in Europe. Hitler got the idea to do that from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century.

RUSH: As I talked to him about it, I said, “Wait, is this just your interpretation? Are you looking at events that happened in America in the 19th century and then comparing events that happened in Europe in the 1940s? Are you drawing a connection?”

Hitler liked Jackson’s Treatment of the Native Americans

“No, no, the Nazis acknowledged this,” he said. The historical record is clear.” The Nazis acknowledged where they, quote/unquote, learned this stuff. His point here was that when he saw how the Jacksonian Democrats dealt with Indians, Native Americans, throwing them on the reservation, throwing them off — basically getting them out of mainstream circulation; saying, “Hey, this is a good idea.”

Now, this is going to offend I can’t tell you how many people. It’s going to light up I can’t tell you how many people — if his book isn’t ignored and if his movie isn’t. But I guarantee you, these are just things you don’t say.

2) Hitler Liked Southern Democrat Style Segregation

 D’Souza is saying these things after having been imprisoned by the Obama administration for this bogus campaign finance charge. The second example of the Nazis adopting leftist Democrat ideas was that Hitler stole the whole idea of segregation from Southern Democrats.

D’SOUZA: The Nuremberg Laws were the laws that turned Jews into second-class citizens. The senior officials of the Nazi Party get together to draft these laws.

 There was a transcript made of their meeting, ’cause they felt it was a momentous occasion: They were founding the world’s first racist state.

D’SOUZA: And then one of the Nazis in the justice department, who happened to have studied in America, basically told the Nazis: “Not so fast. You can’t start the world’s first racist state because the Democrats in the American South have already done it.

3) Nazi Forced-Sterilization and Euthanasia Laws Modeled on Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder

D’SOUZA: The Nazis, in the 1930s, based both their forced-sterilization laws as well as their euthanasia laws on the models that had been created by Margaret Sanger. As Margaret Sanger said, “More children from the fit and less from the unfit,” and that’s how she viewed birth control. And not as a matter of giving every woman a choice, but as a matter of convincing the sort of, the successful and the fit to have more kids and the unsuccessful — the sick, the “imbeciles” and what she considered to be the disposable people — essentially to prevent them from “breeding” altogether.

The other idea that a California eugenicist named Paul Popenoe had proposed. He said, “We have…” He said, “We have all these useless people who are already born, and so it’s not enough to have sterilization. We have to have euthanasia. We have to kill these people off. The first people that they killed were not the Jews. They were the sick, the disabled, the group that was called “imbeciles.” And later, the Nazi euthanasia program was expanded into Hitler’s Final Solution.

RUSH: But it’s not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are perhaps best.

Correcting Liberal Lies on History 

1) True History: Republicans passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, NOT Democrats

That is the Democrat Party — the original racists, the original segregationistssomehow have rewritten history and have ended up seeing themselves portrayed as saviors and rescuers. And the Republican Party, which did not let the Democrats get away with segregation… LBJ’s Civil Rights Act, ’64, would not have passed were it not for Republican votes. Major history revision.

2) True History: Planned Parenthood was Never about Choice . . . Especially for the Unborn

Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood was not about “choice” and it was not about allowing women to have control over their bodies.

Margaret Sanger was the original eugenicist in this country.

She was from Australia. Many Americans joined her in this effort to create a master race. Margaret Sanger believed in getting rid of the sick, preventing them from “breeding,” as it’s said here.

History has revised the original intent and objectives of Margaret Sanger as well, so as to prevent the Democrat Party from being harmed by the actual truth of any of these assertions.

Dinesh D’Souza on How the Nazis Borrowed Ideas from American Democrats

The Key Facts About Slavery That the Left Conveniently Ignores

Walter E. Williams

 

History Facts: Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

History Facts:

Media Bias, the Demise of Journalistic Integrity; Rise of the Smear Campaign

The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

Hillsdale Imprimis Part 1

Michael Goodwin
The New York Post

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species.

History of Media Bias

For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

Promote Big Government, Not Report Truth

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do.

Habit of thinking: Create Victim Groups

Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A New Dimension

I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics.

 In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media’s tone grow more serious.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion.

The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that.

The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

Historic Smear Campaign of a Presidential Candidate

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction—toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

The Presidency as a First Job for an Outsider?

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.

But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it—George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And The Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

All Pretense of Fairness Dropped

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? [But it was A-OK for Obama to cozy up to anti-American dictators? ~C.D.]

If you can’t be fair, you shouldn’t cover the candidate—Cover Sports or Entertainment

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that’s actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn’t cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn’t be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you’ve already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.

What happened to fairness? What happened to Journalistic Standards? New York Times Eliminated Them

I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

New Formula: Who, What, When, Where, and Why + OPINION

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where, and why, he added the reporter’s opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper—all the tools that writers and editors have—were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Liberal Lies Never Exposed

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.”

From Journalistic Integrity to Cheerleading

Indeed, the Times and The Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

 

Culture Wars Alert: Electric Cars built on the backs of Child Slavery in Africa

Culture Wars Alert:

Abuse Report

Electric Cars built on the backs of Child Slavery in Africa

These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race, —fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them. ~David O. McKay

Send This Story to Everyone You Know Who Drives an Electric Car

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Those of you driving a Prius, those of you who have ordered a Tesla, those of you who think that you are saving the planet before it climate change or other horrible acts of nature because you are purchasing an electric car, which means that you are engaging in sustainable, renewable energy, this story is for you. It’s from the U.K. Daily Mail. I want those of you out there to pass this story on to everybody you know that drives an electric car or a hybrid.

I don’t care if it’s a Prius or if it’s a Tesla. Even if they’ve ordered one and don’t yet have possession of it. Here’s the headline of the story: “Child Miners Aged Four Living a Hell on Earth So That You Can Drive an Electric Car: Awful Human Cost in Squalid Congo Cobalt Mine that Michael Gove Didn’t Consider in His ‘Clean’ Energy Crusade. Sky News investigated the Katanga mines and found Dorsen, 8, and Monica, 4″ — eight and four! — that “were working in the vast mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

“They are two of the 40,000 children working daily in the mines, checking rocks for cobalt,” the “tell-tale chocolate-brown streaks of cobalt — the prized ingredient essential for the batteries that power electric cars.” Now, we hear all the horror stories of the cheap labor and the inhuman conditions on the iPhone assembly lines in China and routinely the Drive-By Media tries to guilt iPhone buyers and Apple into changing this. “This is inhumane what’s necessary for you selfish people to have your precious iPhone!”

Well, look at this: 40,000 kids mining rocks looking for cobalt because it’s an essential ingredient in batteries that are used to power electric cars. You people that I’ve asked to copy this link when you see it at RushLimbaugh.com and send it to all your friends that drive electric cars? I want you to do something else. Send it on to all the leftist media that you know. Send it to the websites. Send it to CNN. Send it New York Times. See if anybody will dare even cover this.

As I say, the story is in the U.K. Daily Mail, and it has pictures of the two kids — one eight, one four — who are being slapped and physically abused by foremen. And, by the way, these are Africans. These are black people. These are minorities in America being forced at age four to mine cobalt and being physically abused if they slack off or don’t find enough during the busywork day. Young children working in Congo mines in horrific conditions, all for “sustainability,” all for clean, renewable energy — which also is a crock.

UKDM: Child Miners Aged Four Living a Hell on Earth So YOU Can Drive an Electric Car: Awful Human Cost in Squalid Congo Cobalt Mine that Michael Gove Didn’t Consider in His ‘Clean’ Energy Crusade

 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/08/08/send-this-story-to-everyone-you-know-who-drives-an-electric-car/

Gallery

History Facts: True Story about Statue of Liberty and Immigration

This gallery contains 4 photos.

History Facts:  True Story about Statue of Liberty and Immigration Rush Limbaugh   RUSH: Here’s Jim Acosta at CNN. By the way, Jim Acosta, after having been humiliated by Stephen Miller, after having been exposed as an idiot, as an … Continue reading

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

Gallery

Western Culture Dinner Topics Newsletter: Foundation of Faith

Western Culture Dinner Topics Newsletter: Foundation of Faith August  2017 Welcome to Western Culture Dinner Topics!  WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT? In the 70s, there was a popular song by that title. Nowadays there are many people wandering the streets, who … Continue reading

History Facts: Media Bias, Boy Scouts of America, and Liberal Hypocrisy

History Facts:

Media Bias, Boy Scouts of America, and Liberal Hypocrisy

Rush Limbaugh

THE PRESIDENT: In order to succeed, you must find out what you love to do. You have to find your passion, no matter what they tell you. If you don’t — I love you too. I don’t know. Nice guy. (cheers) Hey, what am I gonna do? He sounds like a nice person. He. He, he, he. Thank you. I do, I do love you. (crowd chanting “we love Trump”) By the way, just a question. Did President Obama ever come to a jamboree? (crowd booing)

RUSH: I’m counting here. I’m counting, 14 seconds, and that’s where we cut it, 14 seconds of boos, Barack Hussein O who never once in eight years accepted the invitation from the Boy Scouts to speak to their national jamboree. And this is what Newsweek has described as a Hitler youth rally conducted by Donald Trump. It totally, totally shook them up. In their minds they’ve destroyed this kind of appreciation for Trump.

So what’s Trump talking about here? I think when he says that he learned this tremendous lesson of never losing momentum, what he means is you don’t stop. You don’t rest on your laurels. You don’t take time off to assess. You just keep going. This man lost his momentum when he sold the company and changed his lifestyle to cruising the Mediterranean on his yacht. He got bored with that, wanted to go back to his business, but he’d been there and done that and just wasn’t able to recapture the momentum.

Trump is saying, once you find out what you love, just keep doing it because it isn’t work. He said that in the next bite. I don’t have time to play it right now, but that’s right out of my playbook. If you do what you love, it will never be work. There may be arduous days, but you’re never gonna get up wishing you didn’t have to do it. As I say, there may not be days where certain things are gonna happen, but when it’s what you love, it’s not work.

And I can’t tell you what kind of motivating characteristic that is and what kind of freedom that that creates. Loving what you do, having a genuine passion for it. Most people, a lot of people never discover it. They force themselves. I knew when I was eight what I wanted to do. I knew why I wanted to do it.

Media Bias and Smear Campaign

RUSH: I went back, I printed out these Google search headlines on Trump Boy Scout. I got three pages of ’em here. I’m just gonna randomly read some. “Trump Boy Scout Speech is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally.”

 

Truth: Where is the Real Nazi Propaganda?

School Kids Taught to Praise Obama

 

Democrat Liberal Hypocrisy about Boy Scouts of America

 

This is August 18th in 2000, Washington Times: “Democrat delegates boo the Boy Scouts of America at their convention.” The Algore Democrat convention of 2000, the Boy Scouts of America were booed. And now these people come up and claim to be holier-than-thou supporters of the Boy Scouts. It’s all a big lie.

Even after they had been forced to admit homosexuals, he never once accepted the invitation, because I’m telling you, folks — and particularly you Millennials — the Democrat Party has had no use for the Boy Scouts. They have no use for valor and honor and manners and morality. God? That was the big obstacle for the left is the Boy Scouts’ roots, R-O-O-T-S, in the God of the founding of the United States. They just couldn’t abide it. As I say here, this is from the Washington Times, August 18th of 2000. This is during the Algore Democrat convention:

Democrat Delegates Boo the Boy Scouts of America.They hated ’em, and I’m not saying that with any exaggeration. To the left, hard-core leftists, the Boy Scouts represent an obstacle and a threat. They would not admit women. They had to go to the Girl Scouts. They would not admit homosexuals. They would not admit transgenders. Now those two groups have been forced in via pressure brought by the left, and even after that Obama would not deign to accept an invitation to go speak at the national jamboree. Trump did, and he went out and he gave them who he is. They asked Donald Trump to come speak, and President Donald Trump showed up.

And the left has flipped a gasket, now comparing it to a “Nazi youth rally” in Newsweek magazine. It’s not Trump who’s unhinged.

RUSH: No, no, it’s in Newsweek. “Trump Boy Scout Speech is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally.” And they even have pictures of Hitler speaking to his brown shirted youths in the story. Meanwhile, who was it that organized little school kids singing songs of devotion to “Barack Hussein Obama, yay, yay, yay, Barack Hussein Obama, we love him.” It was all over the place in 2009. Kids out there being forced to sing these Obama anthems.

History Facts

RUSH: My grandfather, my maternal grandfather was devoted to the Boy Scouts, was actively involved in the Boy Scouts of America. I was a Boy Scout. I was a tenderfoot for a year. You’re a tenderfoot when you join. That means I accomplished nothing. The only award I won was a gold brick as the most useless guy in the troop on a campout. (interruption) Well, I didn’t want to be there. I wanted to… I didn’t want to be there. But nevertheless, I had the uniform, and I became an expert in tying the handkerchief. You know, all the outdoor appearance things, I had ’em down pat.

The meetings were at the church. It was always a church-related organization, and when the Boy Scouts were founded — and there have been many presidents who were deeply involved. I think Teddy Roosevelt was and some others. But before it, in the earliest days of the Boy Scouts, they always… The Boy Scouts of America named the president of the United States as the honorary president every year that he was in office. Barack Obama never once accepted the invitation from the Boy Scouts to go speak.