Wayne Allyn Root
on any of our great contributors above to read their fine articles!
Common Core Had “Significant Negative Effect” on
A barely noticed study on the Obama-backed Common Core scheme revealed that the controversial national “education” standards caused a “significant” decline in student achievement.
Basically, if the Common Core scheme had never existed, students would have been much better off, according to researchers at the federally funded Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction and Learning (C-SAIL).
Results show that student performance declined in both reading and math as a result of Common Core, the researchers noted.
“Contrary to our expectation, we found that [Common Core] had significant negative effects on 4th graders’ reading achievement during the 7 years after the adoption of the new standards,” the study found.
Indeed, Common Core is packed with quackery such as the “sight-word” method that was first exposed as a dangerous failure over 150 years ago when it was tried in Boston. Even contributors to the Common Core reading section are blowing the whistle!
The controversial standards also “had a significant negative effect on 8th graders’ math achievement 7 years after adoption based on analyses of [National Assessment of Educational Progress] composite scores,” according to the analysis.
Researchers were surprised a how bad it was. Mengli Song, one of the authors of the study, noted that it is getting worse, too. “It’s rather unexpected,” Song explained. “The magnitude of the negative effects [of Common Core] tend to increase over time. That’s a little troubling.”
The results, which come after the politically toxic scheme has infested everything to do with education, confirm once again that the critics have been right all along.
The only two subject matter experts on the Common Core Validation Committee tried to warn Americans about it, too. Some of it was even based on incorrect math!
Common Core has been a total disaster for education, as FreedomProject Academy and FreedomProject Media have been warning consistently since the scheme was established. But of course, the disaster began long before Common Core.
And despite false statements from U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Common Core is more firmly entrenched today than it was in the final year of the Barack Obama administration. Read Full Article
Can Learn A Lot From Switzerland
ZURICH — No nation is perfect. And of course, Switzerland is no exception – it has plenty of flaws. But there’s a good reason why America’s Founding Fathers once looked to the tiny alpine nation for inspiration while laying the foundations of constitutional government in the New World. The Swiss model works – it keeps the peace, promotes individual liberty and leads to a prosperous society.
A great deal has been written, even in recent times, about what the American people and other governments could learn from the Swiss in terms of statesmanship. In a piece entitled “Freedom vs Force,” Zurich-based retirement consultant Ron Holland makes an excellent case for having the U.S. federal government and the European Union follow the Swiss model, as opposed to “the failed top down examples of other nations and empires.” Even members of the European Parliament have made similar assertions.
The reason for all the attention is largely that Switzerland
is so successful. Compared to the rest of the world, it’s an oasis
of liberty and wealth. Its per capita GDP, for example, is about twice
that of the European Union – far higher than in the U.S. as well.
And that’s despite the fact that Switzerland has few natural
The standard of living in Switzerland is also among the highest in the world. Crime rates and taxes, on the other hand, remain among the lowest. According to the Centre for Global Competitiveness and Performance, Switzerland actually has the most competitive economy in the world. And it’s one of the most stable countries, too. International businesses flock to set up headquarters there despite the high cost of living.
But what makes the country so different that it can prosper and remain relatively free while the rest of the world descends into chaos and tyranny? For starters, it has a unique, decentralized form of government: it’s a confederation. That means decisions are largely made at the local and cantonal level, where politicians are accountable and citizens are engaged and influential.
A big plus.
Most taxes are collected by local and cantonal authorities, too. The layered political system leads to benefits for Switzerland that few other nations enjoy. For example, the decentralized process ushers in competition between cantons for businesses, investment, and people. If a canton raises taxes too much, or imposes burdensome regulations, companies and taxpayers can simply move to another canton with a more business-friendly and liberty-minded environment.
Of course, that’s sort of how the system is supposed to work in America, too. But the reality is that the U.S. federal government is now an ever-present overlord that squanders close to a fourth of the nation’s GDP while taxing and regulating just about everything. If current trends continue, Washington will soon represent the largest source of funding for state governments as well.
But not in Switzerland. The Swiss federal government is as unique as it is limited. The two-chamber Federal Assembly, with one house representing the people and the other representing cantonal governments, meets only for about 12 weeks out of the year. Unlike American politicians, most Swiss legislators also have real jobs. And if the legislature passes laws the people don’t like, citizens can simply override them with a referendum.
The Swiss government’s executive branch is interesting as well. Instead of having all executive power vested in one person, which clearly has led to problems in other nations, the Swiss have a seven-member executive council with a rotating chief. One can often find the president of the council riding the train to work, just like any other citizen.
Under the Swiss system of government – technically a republic, but possibly closer to direct democracy than any other nation in the world – the people could easily destroy the nation. And every once in a while, voters make decisions that illustrate the obvious limitations of being able to vote on everything. Swiss voters decided against moving back toward the gold standard in 2014, for instance, amid a fear-mongering campaign led by bankers.
But Swiss voters get a lot right, too – probably more than most populations of the world would. Some years ago, for instance, a measure to introduce federal gun control was rejected overwhelmingly at the polls. Switzerland is one of the most well-armed societies on Earth, with almost every man of military age keeping a fully automatic rifle at home. Americans, of course, are prohibited from possessing such guns without all sorts of fees and federal permits. The Swiss, on the other hand, can simply purchase their rifles from the government after completing their militia service.
Another area where Switzerland shines, thanks largely to well-educated voters, is in its fierce defense of national sovereignty and neutrality. Despite immense pressure, the tiny nation of about 7 million – totally surrounded by the emerging European super state – has firmly resisted calls to join the EU. Voters have overwhelmingly and repeatedly rejected the super-state, despite constant bullying. And the Swiss stood strong against United Nations membership for more than 50 years. They also managed to stay out of both world wars that raged all around them, too, thanks in large part to the fact that virtually all Swiss men are armed and trained.
While Switzerland is no utopia of liberty – some cantons have restricted homeschooling while others maintain “garbage police” and dog registries – its model of government puts most of the world’s political systems to shame. It’s remarkably similar in many ways to the original Articles of Confederation a young United States eventually rejected.
America, however, still has a great design for its government. The U.S. Constitution, which also inspired the Swiss in the mid-1800s, is probably the finest example of a constitution in the world. Unfortunately, the regime in D.C. ignores it and the government-“educated” masses simply let it happen. Read Full Article
Hwy Honors American Hero
One of America’s greatest 20th century heroes, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), has a highway named after him outside of Atlanta, Georgia. And I was fortunate enough not only to drive on it several times, but to drive on it with people who knew McDonald and worked with him and for him.
The picture above was taken after I gave a speech in McDonald’s old district, right across the street from the church where his memorial service was held. Dozens of lawmakers attended his memorial. Some of his old friends and even one of his staffers came to my talk–what an honor!
For those who may not know, McDonald was a patriot of the highest order. In addition to serving as a medical doctor, he became a constitutionalist U.S. congressman from Georgia, where he served faithfully until his KAL-007 flight to Korea was shot out of the sky by a Soviet fighter jet. McDonald was also the chairman of the John Birch Society, the only organization that has effectively resisted the Deep State for over 60 years. Read Full Article
WikiLeaks & Assange
Exposed Deep State Crimes
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has not only been arrested but is also expected to be extradited to the United States. His crime: the exposure of government dirty dealings, or journalism.
After years spent hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested. Deep State propagandists in the media could barely contain their excitement over the arrest and upcoming prosecution of Assange on criminal charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. And it is not hard to see why. Assange and his organization helped to expose a wide array of Deep State crimes, ranging from illegal gunrunning and war crimes to subversion and even perversion among elites. Taken together, it is clear that because of WikiLeaks and its disclosures, the world is much better informed about what has been taking place in the shadows.
So far, however, the crimes exposed by WikiLeaks have gone largely unpunished. Instead, the Deep State turned its attention to WikiLeaks founder Assange and those who provided information to him. In Sweden, prosecutors filed “sex crimes” charges against Assange because he allegedly failed to use a condom during consensual sex. But in the United States, matters were more serious. Under the guise of protecting “national security,” a number of Deep State operatives called for him to be prosecuted for “espionage” or even “treason,” perhaps forgetting that Assange is not American.
The Deep State is serious about keeping its secrets. Prior to Assange’s arrest, an advisor to then-Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposed skipping the whole “due process” thing and simply having Obama assassinate Assange with a drone-fired missile. Numerous neocons called Assange an “enemy combatant.”
Eventually, the Deep State-controlled U.S. Department of Justice — the same DOJ whose leaders conspired with each other and the establishment media to take down President Trump with “Russia collusion” lies — settled on a charge of “conspiracy” to hack into a computer “in furtherance of a criminal act.” After years inside the London embassy with political-asylum protection from the government of Ecuador, Assange was finally arrested by U.K. authorities. He is almost certain to be extradited, and is expected to face trial in the United States. He could face as much as five years in prison, assuming no new charges are filed. But it could have been much worse. In November of 2018, it emerged that the DOJ had filed a secret indictment against Assange that many feared could see him locked up for life.
But for what crimes? Despite the Deep State hysteria, it appears that all that Assange did was what any (real) journalist would do: obtain information about powerful individuals and institutions revealing wrongdoing, and then publish it for the world to see. This is what real journalism has always been about. Indeed, a quote often attributed to 1984 author George Orwell sums it up quite well: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” And if that is the standard, Assange was certainly doing real journalism. He may be one of the few people in the world today who truly deserve the title “journalist.” And that is almost certainly why the Deep State wants him behind bars.
What WikiLeaks Exposed
What follows is a brief sample of the mega-stories first exposed by WikiLeaks — stories that much of the “mainstream” media under-reported or ignored, and stories that the Deep State hopes you will never hear about.
War crimes: What really put WikiLeaks on the map for the first time was incredible footage it released in 2010 offering smoking-gun evidence of U.S. government war crimes. Among other horrors, the video, dubbed “Collateral Murder” by the organization, included footage of U.S. troops firing on civilians and journalists from an Apache helicopter in Iraq. Some 18 people were slaughtered by American forces from the air, including two Reuters employees covering the war and U.S. occupation of that nation. Also shown in the video was an attack by the U.S. gunship on civilians trying to aid and evacuate the dead and wounded, an act that is universally considered a war crime. Two children were seriously wounded in the attack. Before the video was released by WikiLeaks, the U.S. military had refused to disclose the circumstances under which the Reuters employees were killed. And it claimed not to know how the children were injured. The video proved the military was lying.
Secret war in Yemen: Another major scandal exposed by WikiLeaks was the fact that the Obama administration was unlawfully waging a secret war in Yemen, while lying to Americans about it. Among other revelations, diplomatic cables released by the organization showed that high-profile bombings inside Yemen that were reportedly carried out by Yemeni forces had actually been unleashed by Obama — without even a semblance of congressional approval, much less a constitutionally mandated declaration of war from Congress. A cable that documented a meeting between U.S. General David Petraeus with Yemen’s U.S.-backed “President” Ali Abdullah Saleh in early 2010 quoted Saleh discussing a conspiracy to lie to the world. “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh said. According to the cable, Saleh’s remarks prompted one of Saleh’s minions, Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al-Alimi, “to joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG [Repubic of Yemen Government].” WikiLeaks also revealed U.S. government war crimes in Yemen, including the use of illegal cluster bombs.
North American Union: By the time 2011 came around, The New American had spent years exposing a plan to merge the United States, Canada, and Mexico under a European Union-style regime for North America. But without smoking-gun government documents to prove it, much of the establishment simply ridiculed or ignored the voices calling out the scheming. But then, WikiLeaks dropped a bombshell: A secret U.S. embassy cable from 2005, released by WikiLeaks in April 2011, confirmed in black and white that North American governments were indeed plotting to “integrate” the continent. The official document, signed by then-American Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci, outlined the best ways to peddle the scheme to policymakers and the public. Most alarming to critics, it also discussed ways of getting around national constitutions and even the possibility of an eventual “monetary union.” Numerous other topics are broached in the leaked document, too: borders, labor, regulations, and more. Incredibly, the document points to Canada’s constitutional protections for provincial sovereignty as a “problem” that could be overcome by an “international initiative.”
Pushing climate-change program with bribes: One of the most interesting revelations to come from WikiLeaks’ dump of U.S. diplomatic cables exposed how U.S. and EU authorities bribed, threatened, and bullied other governments to join the climate bandwagon. Cables about the Maldives, for example, showed that that backward regime promised to support the 2009 UN Copenhagen Accord on climate change in exchange for U.S. taxpayer money. The “tangible assistance,” as the regime referred to it, would allegedly be used to finance various pet projects such as a deeper harbor. Why a nation supposedly on the brink of disappearing under the waves needed a deeper harbor was not explained. How the depth of a harbor is related to climate change was not mentioned either. But once U.S. tax money began flowing, other nations would understand “the advantages to be gained by compliance” with the climate agreement, a Maldivian official promised U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing. Bribes were also used to bring Saudi officials on board with the UN climate regime. One cable featured U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Fay Levin plotting “to use aid money as political leverage” on the “climate” front. And then-EU climate boss Connie Hedegaard “suggested the AOSIS [Alliance of Small Island States] countries ‘could be our best allies’ given their need for financing,” according to another cable. In short, wealthy Western powers were bribing Third World regimes to support the UN climate agenda, while threatening those that refused. Other cables revealed that the CIA and the State Department were even spying on those involved in the climate process to obtain leverage. Analysts called those revelations the “tip of the iceberg.” Private businesses engaged in such unethical practices would likely have been prosecuted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Aiding drug cartels: One of the biggest bombshells to come from WikiLeaks was the U.S. government’s involvement with murderous Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps the most explosive of the e-mails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, many of which were released by WikiLeaks, showed that the U.S. government was allowing Mexican assassins into the United States to murder people, at least if they agreed to cooperate with U.S. authorities. “Regarding ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] screwing up informants: They [ICE] were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.,” a “federal law enforcement supervisor” wrote in a Stratfor e-mail released by WikiLeaks in 2012. That same U.S. official revealed that U.S. Special Operations troops were operating in Mexico. Those U.S. troops were helping Mexican forces — described as “death squads” by analysts — to use “surgical strikes” to murder people. The Stratfor release also confirmed what many other sources had alleged: The U.S. government was quietly supporting certain Mexican criminal empires, especially the Sinaloa drug cartel, in a bid to solidify the syndicates’ reign as dominant powerbrokers in particular territories. If cartel chiefs cooperate with authorities, “governments will allow controlled drug trades,” a diplomatic source wrote in an e-mail, confirming numerous other sources and reports on the practice.
Clinton-Podesta “spirit cooking”: Among the most bizarre and disturbing revelations to come from WikiLeaks were some found in the e-mails belonging to John Podesta, an insider’s insider. Before becoming the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, he served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, counselor to Obama, and chairman of the subversive, Soros-funded “Center for American Progress.” He is also — perhaps surprisingly to those who do not study the elites — deeply involved in the world of occultism, his e-mails revealed. Consider, for instance, a June 28, 2015 e-mail exchange between Podesta and occult-themed pseudo-artist Marina Abramovic, whose Twitter handle is AbramovicM666. “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place,” Abramovic wrote to Podesta before asking whether his brother (and fellow Deep State bigwig) would be attending. For those unfamiliar with “spirit cooking,” this is an occult ritual in which menstrual blood, sperm, breast milk, and urine are mixed together and blood is splashed around under the guise of “art.” The ostensible purpose is to connect with the “spirits,” something the Bible clearly condemns and that has roots in the demonic. Consider that spirit cooking is considered a “sacrament” in the satanic “religion” of “Thelema” founded by notorious satanist pervert Aleister Crowley. Other e-mails in the WikiLeaks releases include conversations Clinton had about an accused child-trafficker whom the Clintons had protected through their influence.
Fomenting regime change in Syria before civil war: While Western powers claimed that the Syrian civil war was simply the result of a pro-democracy uprising being suppressed by a tyrant, WikiLeaks proved otherwise. In fact, leaked U.S. government diplomatic cables showed that the U.S. government had been showering American funds on Syrian opposition groups for many years before armed conflict broke out. Even propaganda and psy-ops were being bankrolled by the U.S. taxpayer as far back as the George W. Bush administration. Among the recipients of that “aid” was Barada Television, a Syrian opposition TV outfit founded and run by Osama Monajed of the Syrian National Council, or SNC, the Western-backed front group purporting to be the genuine representative of the Syrian people. The Syrian regime “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” noted the top U.S. diplomat in Damascus in a 2009 embassy cable, highlighting “current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria.” State Department spokesmen later claimed that unconstitutionally pouring U.S. taxpayer money on foreign propaganda aimed at fomenting revolution in Syria was not “necessarily” undermining the existing government.
Gunrunning to terrorists: On the campaign trail, Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of “co-founding” the Islamic State (ISIS). Documents obtained and released by Judicial Watch and WikiLeaks proved he was right. In addition to a smoking-gun report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency showing that a “salafist principality” (hardline Islamic state) in Eastern Syria was a policy objective of the Obama administration, and that the White House knew the rebellion in Syria was led by al-Qaeda terrorists, e-mails released by WikiLeaks from Clinton exposed her involvement as secretary of state in shipping weapons to jihadists, including to ISIS. Speaking to the far-left Democracy Now program, Assange highlighted the fact that Clinton played a key role in funneling weaponry from Libya to Obama-backed terror groups in Syria. Other e-mails reveal that the Obama administration knowingly supported al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, hoping to create an Islamic State. Another shows that Clinton knew Libyan “rebels” she supported during that country’s overrun were massacring blacks as part of an “ethnic cleansing” campaign, along with other war crimes. “So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates,” Assange said. “So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS — that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.”
Gold/Libya: In 2011, The New American became one of the first media outlets in the world to report on the fact that Moammar Gadhafi’s proposed gold-backed currency for the region was likely a major factor in the decision of Western globalists and the United Nations to overthrow his regime by partnering with al-Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups on the ground. (Al-Qaeda’s Libyan branch was known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, and e-mails show the State Department knew this as well.) E-mails from the U.S. State Department under Clinton, released on New Year’s Eve and compiled in searchable format by WikiLeaks, confirm that Gadhafi’s gold-currency plan was a major factor in the decision to destroy him. In an April 2011 e-mail to Clinton from Sid Blumenthal, a globalist warmonger close to the Clinton family, Clinton is told that “Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver.” The gold, which was accumulated prior to the Obama-backed jihad against Libya, “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar,” Blumenthal told Clinton, adding that the precious metals were valued at over $7 billion. “This plan was designed to provide the Francophone [French-speaking] African Countries with an alternative to the French [Central African] franc (CFA).” Blumenthal also told Clinton that this gold currency plan “was one of the factors that influenced [French] President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Oil was another motivating factor.
Other notable releases: The above list is far from exhaustive. Other revelations from WikiLeaks worth mentioning include documents from the National Security Agency released in 2015 confirming that the Obama administration was spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. WikiLeaks also exposed over 100 key companies in the “mass surveillance industry” and the close relationship between the industry and brutal dictators and tyrants the world over. “Intelligence companies such as VASTech secretly sell equipment to permanently record the phone calls of entire nations,” WikiLeaks explained when dumping the documents. Among the alarming disclosures surrounding the Afghan war, meanwhile, were documents showing that Pakistani intelligence officials were working with jihadists to plan attacks on U.S. troops — all while the U.S. government was sending billions in aid to the regime in Pakistan.
Revenge of the Deep State
Right now, Assange is being prosecuted for supposedly trying (unsuccessfully) to help a U.S. military intelligence analyst to crack a password. Whether that even happened remains unclear. However, more charges have not been ruled out. Either way, it appears that rather than seeking justice, the Deep State operatives at the U.S. Department of Justice are seeking revenge against WikiLeaks and Assange for having exposed and embarrassed their friends and associates.
“WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form, about how modern institutions actually behave,” Assange explained about the disclosures his organization was responsible for, with the highlights above representing the tip of the iceberg. “And it’s gone on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some case — or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so on. So, you know, our civilization can only be as good as our knowledge of what our civilization is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that which we do not understand.” And perhaps that is the whole point. Read Full Article
Swiss Into Restricting Gun Rights
By threatening the Swiss with massive consequences, the European Union superstate succeeded in terrorizing Switzerland into adding draconian new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. That is despite the fact that the Swiss have repeatedly rejected membership in the sovereignty-crushing EU Leviathan, which surrounds the Alpine nation on all sides.
Switzerland has long been a bastion of gun ownership and tradition, with men required to keep military weapons at home throughout their militia service. The country is among the most heavily armed on earth. And instead of requiring a license to obtain fully automatic weapons, the government distributes them to men when they turn 18. Men then have the option to keep their weapons after serving in the militia.
But thanks to relentless EU bullying and threats, Swiss voters have finally agreed to adopt a gun-control regime demanded by the EU that everyone from Adolf Hitler to Joseph Stalin would have loved. Over 60 percent of Swiss voters supposedly supported the scheme in the May 19 referendum. It requires gun registration, special permits even for semi-automatic rifles, and other attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.
Critics say it threatens the unique Swiss gun culture which makes Switzerland a peaceful nation of sharp shooters, as well as one of the safest countries on the planet. Indeed, despite guns being ubiquitous, Switzerland has among the lowest murder rate of any nation. Because most guns are unregistered, data is sparse. But some estimates suggest the Swiss may have even more guns per capita than Americans.
The EU has also been terrorizing Switzerland on open borders, mass migration, low taxes, and even its famously decentralized form of government. The U.S. government has also been bullying the Swiss, especially on its banking laws.
This writer wrote a detailed
investigative report on Switzerland’s
amazing gun culture for Swiss News magazine just before another referendum
on gun control some years ago. That one was rejected by voters. But
the Swiss News article may be just as relevant today as it was then.
And it has major implications for America’s gun owners, too.
Gun debate heats up as vote on new gun control nears
Guns are a part of Swiss culture. They have been for centuries. Switzerland is home to the world’s largest shooting competitions, which attract target shooters by the hundreds of thousands. Nearly every Swiss militiaman still keeps a fully automatic rifle at home – a weapon that even Americans cannot obtain without a special permit. Significantly more than half of Swiss soldiers purchase their military rifles from the government after their service is concluded. And for hundreds of years, the well-trained populace has protected Switzerland from Europe’s mightiest armies.
The idea that a well-armed society is key to national defense is almost as old as the confederation. Even in the early 1500s, famed military strategist Niccolo Machiavelli remarked in his book ‘The Prince’ that, “The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom.” And still today, Switzerland remains one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth – and one of the freest.
Estimates on the number of privately owned firearms in Switzerland vary widely, ranging from 1.2 million on the very low end to 12 million on the high side. The 2007 Small Arms Survey concluded that there were between 2.3 million and 4.5 million, translating into between 31 and 60 per 100 residents. A recent study found that more than one third of Swiss households own at least one gun.
But even with the wide availability of firearms and some of the most liberal gun laws in the world, crime is extremely low when compared to other countries. According to statistics compiled by the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, Switzerland actually has among the lowest murder rates in the world – even when compared to countries where legal guns are virtually non-existent except among police and the military.
Questions about stricter gun laws were almost unheard of until recent decades. But after a series of high-profile tragedies like the Zug Parliament massacre or the murder of a famous ski champion by her husband, the gun-control debate in Switzerland has become increasingly fierce. Under the banner of the ‘Federal Popular Initiative for Protection Against Gun Violence,’ a powerful coalition consisting of 76 organizations and parties is now trying to limit access to guns. And in February or May of 2011, they will have a chance to move closer to that goal, having obtained the required number of signatures to force a vote on changing the Swiss Constitution.
The initiative consists of several key changes which will all be considered together as one package. Among the new provisions: all military weapons would be kept in an arsenal, not at home; every person who has or wishes to acquire a gun must obtain a permit, justify the decision, and prove that they are capable of handling a weapon; a national register of all guns would be created; so-called dangerous weapons, such as pump-action shotguns, would be prohibited; and the Swiss Foreign Ministry would be required to push for stronger gun-control laws worldwide.
“The monopoly of violence should be by the state in every case,” says Peter Hug, the president of the anti-gun coalition and the political secretary for foreign and security affairs of the social-democratic (socialist in French) group in the Swiss Parliament. “These weapons are not used for nothing – not for hunting, not for shooting – for nothing,” he said about the majority of firearms in Swiss homes.
And self-defense is not a good excuse for having a gun, or a good way to fight against criminality, he says. “That is a job for the police.” Among the problems Hug and his coalition blame on private ownership of firearms are increased suicides, domestic violence, and the fear police might have about encountering an armed citizen. And plus, “the Cold War is over,” he says, repeatedly calling for a professional army and police force rather than an armed populace to achieve peace and security.
If the initiative is approved, people who show that they have a use for weapons – such as hunting or sport shooting – will be allowed to keep them, provided they can prove they have the “capacity” to handle it, Hug explains. “So we will have, in the end, around 130,000 people with weapons at home.” The rest of the population will be disarmed, he notes, acknowledging that determined people would always find weapons, but expressing confidence that the measures – if approved by voters – would lead to a decrease in suicides and domestic violence.
“If you have no use [for a weapon] and no capacity, you have to give it over to the authorities, of course,” Hug says. Collecting the nation’s arms should be fairly easy, he adds, explaining that there was already a campaign to have citizens surrender their weapons and “most people are very happy to give them away.”
But not according to Dr. Hermann Suter, vice-president of Switzerland’s oldest and most powerful gun group, ProTell, named after the legendary Swiss marksman and tyrant-slayer William Tell. Suter and his organization are leading the charge against the initiative, opposing every single point. “We have a primary right of self-defense; it’s the right of a citizen to defend himself when he is attacked,” he says. “Not only a militia soldier, but also a normal citizen has an absolute right to bear arms and to use his arm when he is attacked by a criminal.”
Plus, criminals will always find weapons, Suter says, noting that 80 percent of crime and gun abuse in Switzerland was committed by illegally armed foreigners. Since England disarmed its subjects, criminality has risen by more than 40 percent, he points out. “It’s because, quite simply, every criminal knows not a single household in England has a gun.”
It’s not just criminals that are the problem, either. “The world has never seen so many conflicts, so many terrorists, and so many bomb attacks as in our time. People who say there is peace for all generations, they are either stupid or liars,” Suter says, noting that around the world, military spending was at record levels. And it’s a matter of trust and tradition, too, he adds, saying that historical records show that the Swiss had shooting competitions as early as the 1500s, and that a state which expects citizens to give their life for it must trust said citizens with weapons.
And then there is the potential danger from some future hypothetical government. “As the Founders of the United States said – Jefferson, Madison, etcetera. – the most important sign of a free citizen is his right to bear arms, and if the government abuses its responsibility to serve the people, then the free citizen has not only the right, but the duty to go against his government, in extremis,” Suter says, using an argument especially popular among American gun-rights activists. “So the right to have and bear an arm is a sign of a free citizen, and it is the best weapon against any sort of dictatorship,” he adds, pointing out that the Nazis, the Soviet and Chinese communists, and all other authoritarians disarmed the people before implementing total tyranny.
ProTell is not alone. A significant segment of the population is inclined to agree that stricter gun control is not the answer. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association, for example, has expressed its opposition to the measures, calling them patronizing to militiamen and too restrictive. It represents around a quarter of a million people. The Swiss Cabinet and House of Representatives also rejected the initiative and are urging citizens to vote it down, saying gun laws are already strict enough.
“We believe in people’s responsibility,” says Silvia Bär, vice-general secretary of Switzerland’s biggest political party, the Swiss People’s Party. “Our people can handle guns responsibly, we’ve seen that for all the years, we’ve always had it in Switzerland that all our military people have their guns at home, so we don’t see a problem.”
Guns also have an important role in Swiss society as a tradition, for sport, and for public safety, she says. “So for us it’s clear that, no, there shouldn’t be more regulation.” While the party has not yet held an assembly of delegates to finalize its official position, “the party has a very clear position and it is very strongly opposed to that initiative.”
“We stand for a sovereign Switzerland, and sovereignty means that you can always defend your independence and neutrality,” she says, also citing police statistics that show Switzerland has extremely low levels of crime and abuse of weapons. “[The anti-gun coalition] wants to protect people by having everything controlled by the state, and that’s what I think is behind the whole movement,” Bär says, noting that it simply doesn’t work. “[Criminals] are always going to have weapons no matter what kind of controls you have.”
Guns at Home and the Militia
Until recently, militiamen were actually required by law to keep their weapons and ammunition at home. Now, government-issued ammunition is no longer stored with the soldiers (though it is still easy to obtain), and there is an option to leave military guns in a cantonal arsenal. Very few militiamen, however – probably less than 1,000 – actually took advantage of the offer.
“Here in Switzerland you get guns from your father and your grandfather – very old army rifles – and you keep them, maybe for your son,” says Martin Aschwanden, a 61-year-old semi-retired Swiss businessman who has ten firearms at home. “Everyone has guns here. Mine go back to my grand-grand-grandparents.”
But that all may change soon. Among the organizations supporting the anti-gun coalition – an alliance of leftists, pacifists, feminists, doctors, and police – is the ‘Group for A Switzerland Without an Army’ (GSOA). With around 18,000 members, its primary goal is to eventually abolish the Swiss Army. But it is also the biggest gun-control group in the nation, collecting more signatures than any coalition member except the social-democratic party. And it is adamant about the supposed need to remove militiamen’s weapons from the home.
“Nowadays, in 2010 in Western Europe, the risk of traditional war is so ridiculously small that it’s just no need anymore that every person has to have back home a weapon,” says GSOA political secretary Nina Regli. “It’s much more about the tradition that every real man has to have a weapon back home, and if they don’t have a weapon back home, they aren’t a real man – it’s like a big thing connected with honor and confidence, it’s a sign of confidence that they actually leave the weapons with the Swiss soldiers. But I find it just ridiculous to say that ‘there is a tradition and because of that you can’t ban it’.”
But there is, of course, another side to the story. “Danger comes and goes,” says Stephen Halbrook, author of two books about Switzerland, guns, and World War II; a member of ProTell; and an attorney who works with the American National Rifle Association. “I think [the anti-gun activists] are very naïve; they forget the lessons of history. They’re just up in the clouds to think that there will never be another danger or another threat from a foreign power or from domestic terrorists.”
The Nazis, for example, had drawn up plans to invade Switzerland. But they were deterred by widespread Swiss gun-ownership, the excellent marksmanship of Swiss militiamen, and the heavy losses they would have doubtlessly incurred, explains Halbrook. “It’s true Switzerland is not threatened by what was called Gross Deutschland at the time, but things change, and therefore it’s always prudent to keep a strong defense … [the militia with guns at home] system should be retained in good times and bad.”
The system has multiple benefits, according to Halbrook. For one, it promotes marksmanship and readiness. “It also makes possible instant mobilization in the case of a national emergency,” he says. Beyond those positive factors, “The right to keep and bear arms is a traditional, inherent human right. If you take away that right and you allow government to become all-powerful, you subject populations to tyranny at home and invasion from abroad. The Swiss learned this centuries ago – they defeated all the big armies.”
Supposed Dangers on Both Sides
Because of exceptionally low crime, gun-control advocates in Switzerland lean heavily on two main arguments to push their position – that guns supposedly increase suicides and domestic homicides. Those concerned with murder in the home point to the Netherlands, which has almost no privately owned firearms and had a domestic homicide rate of 4.3 per million people in 2006. Switzerland, by contrast, had 5.5 per million. But that same year, Australia, which strictly controls the availability of firearms, recorded seven domestic homicides per million people, according to statistics cited by the University of Lausanne in a report.
But experts in the field insist that there is a relationship, and that the presence of firearms in homes can be dangerous. “A lot of women tell us that they are afraid of the weapons that are at home,” says Gabriela Chu, a board member of a national umbrella group for battered women shelters (Dachorganisation der Frauenhäuser) which is part of the anti-gun coalition. She estimates that around ten percent of the women coming to shelters in Switzerland report fearing their husbands’ firearms.
Suicides with firearms is another topic that comes up a lot in discussions with gun-control advocates. The rate of suicides is indeed higher in Switzerland than most places, though significantly lower than in some countries with extremely strict gun control like Russia, Japan, and Lithuania. America, with by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, has a much lower rate, according to statistics compiled by the World Health Organization. And the top ten nations in terms of suicide rates all have much stricter gun control than Switzerland. But gun-control advocates say having guns in the home makes it easier to commit suicide.
The Swiss Ministry of Defense estimates that military weapons are used in about 170 suicides per year. And government statistics compiled by the Bloomberg news agency suggest that from 1969 to 2000, Switzerland had an average of 1,428 suicides per year. Less than a quarter of those actually involved guns, but critics of Switzerland‘s current firearm laws say stricter gun rules would deter some people from taking their own lives.
“Basically, the idea we have been looking at was whether the availability of deadly instruments has any effect on the prevalence – the frequency – of deadly events,” says University of Zurich criminology professor Martin Killias, who has done a lot of research in the field. “The point is, it obviously has. That is not really a surprise.”
Killias says that, while the ballot initiative may not necessarily consist of the best possible measures, it would at least represent “a step in a good direction.” He claims that less guns at home would lead to less domestic deaths and less suicides, saying, “The less guns the better.” And despite some research to the contrary, in terms of criminality rates, more guns do not lead to less crime, Killias says.
But John Lott Jr., author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ and an academic who is widely considered one of the world’s top authorities on the relationship between guns, gun control, and crime, says different. “[J]ust as you can deter criminals with higher arrest rates, higher conviction rates or longer prison sentences, the fact that a would-be victim might be able to use a gun can also make it riskier for criminals to engage in attacks and deter them from committing crimes,” he says. “Every place that I can find crime data for, you find that when you have a ban [on guns], you have an increase in murder rates,” he explains. Other types of gun-control laws have similar effects, he says, pointing to England, which had a “much lower” murder rate before the implementation of gun control.
“Switzerland has traditionally had one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and one of the reasons why they’ve had that is because people are able to protect themselves,” Lott says, adding that he hoped the Switzerland would resist the pressure from its European neighbors to disarm society. “This is one area where freedom and safety go together.” Read Full Article
Act” Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians
From the print edition of The New American:
Even a generation ago, the story of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, would have been unthinkable. After serving his community for more than two dec-ades, he suddenly found himself on the wrong side of the law. It wasn’t for health violations, stealing, tax evasion, embezzlement, or anything else you might expect, though. Rather, Phillips was guilty of nothing more than being a Christian in the public square who takes his faith seriously. And his life was turned upside down because of it.
In July 2012, two homosexual men came in to his family-owned cake shop in Lakewood demanding that he design a custom wedding cake to celebrate their homosexual “marriage.” Being a Christian, obviously he could not use his God-given artistic talents to celebrate something God describes in the Bible as an “abomination” — much less make a mockery of marriage, which to Christians is an earthly illustration of the relationship between Christ and His Church. So Phillips politely declined to bake the cake, offering to sell the homosexual couple cakes for other occasions or anything else they may want in his store.
The men could have simply taken their business elsewhere. But instead, they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation.” And incredibly, the kangaroo “court” ordered Phillips to either bake cakes celebrating homosexual “marriage,” or quit designing any and all wedding cakes. He was also commanded to “reeducate” his employees so they would understand that he was wrong to be a Christian while operating his business. In other words, Phillips could violate his conscience and his faith — or lose his livelihood and allow his family to starve. This in a nation founded by Christians, for Christians, that offered unprecedented tolerance to those of other faiths and worldviews.
Eventually, after years of allowing authorities to terrorize the poor Phillips family, the U.S. Supreme Court ended up ruling in his favor. But the decision was based on a narrow finding that Colorado’s “civil rights” bureaucrats were biased against religion. The court never ruled on the question of whether or not a business owner could be forced to violate his or her conscience. As if it could not get any more outrageous, Colorado authorities targeted Phillips again for refusing to design a cake celebrating a “gender transition” by a confused man who was planning to have his genitals surgically removed to better impersonate a woman. After Phillips filed a lawsuit against Colorado authorities for waging a “crusade to crush” him for his belief that an individual’s sex is “given by God and cannot be chosen or changed,” the state attorney general finally backed off.
Still, the Phillips saga represented a turning point in American history. Not only have Americans’ once-Christian political institutions been thoroughly de-Christianized, those same institutions are now working to crush any remnants of Christianity still lingering in society. Similar laws to those that almost destroyed the Phillips family have proliferated across America. And now, the very same anti-Christian bigotry and legislation that animated the persecution of Phillips in Colorado is on the verge of being enshrined into federal statute. Read Full Article
Try to Block Trump’s U.S. Exit From UN Paris Scheme
After years of playing defense, the “climate cult,” as numerous scientists have described man-made warming theorists, is striking back. Evidently hoping to destroy the U.S. economy and further build up Communist China´s under the guise of stopping “climate change,” Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill this week to ban the use of tax dollars by the Trump administration to withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement. In addition to keeping the United States shackled to the UN “global warming” scheme, the “Climate Action Now” Act, known as H.R. 9, would force the White House to develop a plan to massively restrict freedom and prosperity by slashing CO2 emissions. It is widely expected to die in the U.S. Senate. But Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) such as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are working to persuade others in the GOP to drink the dangerous climate Kool-Aid and jump on the alarmist bandwagon.
The legislation, passed by the House on Thursday by a vote of 231 to 190, is almost too kooky to be believed. For instance, it begins by listing “findings,” including the notion that the UN Paris scheme would somehow “respect” and “promote” a so-called “right to health.” Clearly, the authors of the bill missed first-grade civics class, as it is impossible to have a “right to health,” unless cancer and other illnesses can be prosecuted for violating said “right.” Then the bill lists all the progressive policies that the Paris Agreement supposedly “requires” Americans to accept. In particular, the legislation claims the UN deal “requires” a plan to drastically slash American emissions of the gas of life, also known as CO2. Human emissions of CO2, of course, make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere. Countless experts and scientists, meanwhile, have pointed out that the man-made warming hypothesis, which claims CO2 drives climate change, has proven incorrect, and that CO2 is hugely beneficial. Even the UN admits the Paris Agreement would do virtually nothing to stop “climate change.”
The Climate Action Now Act, introduced in March by man-made warming alarmist Representative Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), is based on several easily debunked premises. “On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, which would leave the United States as the only UNFCCC member state that is not a signatory to the Paris Agreement,” the bill states. That much is true. After all, the Obama administration and the European Union bribed and bullied governments worldwide to sign on. But then come the absurdities in the bill. “Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States is November 4, 2020,” it claims. “However, the United States is still obligated to maintain certain commitments under the Paris Agreement, such as continuing to report its emissions to the United Nations.”
Of course, the Paris Agreement was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, it was described by the Obama administration as an “executive agreement,” which has no basis in law. Therefore, the scheme has no legal force or effect. Trump could dump it tomorrow if he wanted to. Even if it were ratified by the Senate as required under the Constitution, though, the U.S. government cannot grant itself new unconstitutional powers merely by signing treaties, as the founders and the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized. The bill also points to an executive order by Barack Hussein Obama — an order that has the same level of legitimacy as the Paris Agreement: none — purporting to commit the U.S. government to coercing Americans into reducing CO2 output by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The bill then refers to Paris Agreement demands that governments provide more “climate change education” (read: indoctrination) to ensure future generations do not realize they have been duped. Read Full Article
Does God Have
an Opinion on Education?
Does God have an opinion on education? If so, it would be good to know what it is.
In a fantastic and bold book, prominent homeschooling author and speaker Israel Wayne explores precisely this — one of the most important questions of all time for parents, teachers and children.
Spoiler alert: Yes, God does have an opinion on education, and He expressed it clearly. In fact, as Wayne shows, Scripture is filled with God’s views on education.
Among other reasons to read the book, the reader will find abundant evidence in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that God commands parents — not government — to oversee the education of their children. There are so many verses that it would fill pages and pages to go through them all.
The book, titled Education: Does God Have an Opinion? A Biblical Apologetic for Christian Education & Homeschooling, should be considered mandatory reading for every parent. Even those without children will find much to enjoy. Particularly insightful is Wayne’s solid and courageous case — moral, biblical, and pragmatic — against the existence of government schools in the first place.
It is especially crucial that Christian and Jewish parents with children in government schools become familiar with this information. “Every Scripture in the Bible dealing with education places it squarely on the shoulders of parents,” Wayne writes, giving dozens of examples throughout the book’s 238 pages.
In addition to exposing the myriad horrors taking place in government schools — including indoctrination into an anti-Christian worldview — Wayne gives an amazing overview of the benefits of parent-led, God-centered education. He also answers typical objections parents express about taking control of their children’s education.
But even parents who are already fulfilling their God-given duty when
it comes to education have much to learn. In Part 2 of the book, for
instance, Wayne offers a full chapter on each of the important subjects
that make up a complete education: logic, math, science, social studies,
philosophy, arts, literature, history, and more. Read
Hateful SPLC, Coalition Asks Others to Dump It Too
As the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center implodes amid scandals involving racism, sexism, and discrimination, a powerful coalition of conservative and Christian organizations is urging Big Tech and Big Media to dump the group as well. An ad in the Wall Street Journal this week quotes former SPLC employees exposing the group. And it recently emerged that Twitter has already dropped the SPLC, widely regarded as an anti-Christian hate group, as a “Safety Partner.” Last summer, the Department of Justice also severed all remaining ties with the fringe group. But now, as new reports of rampant racism and bigotry at the SPLC take down the group’s top leadership, the pressure is mounting on all respectable organizations, companies, and agencies to formally sever ties with it or be tainted with its stench.
This month, the Daily Caller reported that Twitter, facing reports that SPLC was scamming liberals out of money and was rife with racism, quietly distanced itself from the radical left-wing group. “The SPLC is not a member of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council or a partner the company has worked with recently,” a source within the blatantly liberal social-media behemoth told the online publication. However, as recently as last year, Twitter formally had SPLC listed as a “Safety Partner” that was supposedly helping the social-media company fight “hateful conduct and harassment” on its platform. The company also relied on the SPLC to provide “input on our safety products, policies, and programs.” But that appears to have ended as well.
As of right now, Amazon, Google, YouTube, Facebook, and other Internet giants reportedly continue to rely on the SPLC’s designations for various programs. Last year, Amazon even admitted that SPLC was allowed to determine which organizations would be allowed to participate in its Smile charitable program. The increasingly discredited anti-Trump CNN has also relied on the SPLC and trumpeted its widely ridiculed claims. However, now, as a barrage of libel and racketeering lawsuits threaten to put the SPLC's $500 million war chest at the disposal of its victims, and with former employees blowing the whistle on the shady inner workings of the outfit, victims of the hate group are calling on other Big Tech and Big Media giants to cut all remaining ties with the SPLC.
To advance that mission, the Family Research Council and the American Family Association — two mainstream Christian groups smeared as “hate groups” by the SPLC for supporting marriage — just bought an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal. “Will these companies and media outlets continue to use the hypocritical Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on hate and extremism?” reads the ad, headlined “Hypocrisy about Hate.” The ad, done in cooperation with SPLCExposed.com, shows logos for YouTube, MSNBC, PaylPal, CNN, Spotify, and Amazon, all of which are known to have collaborated with the far-left group. It also notes that the “bigotry and discrimination” exposed by former SPLC employees reveals the group's hypocrisy.
Perhaps most strikingly, the ad uses the words of former SPLC employees to expose the group. “There was not a single black employee with whom I spoke who was happy to be working there,” explained Christine Lee, a Harvard Law School graduate and 1989 SPLC legal intern, adding that the organization had “a way of talking about black people as jesters that hasn't — I don't think — been done in 30 or 40 years.” Former SPLC attorney Gloria Browne echoed those concerns. “I was surprised at some of the things I saw, because it was a civil rights organization,” she said. “I’ve heard racial slurs in the place.”
Also quoted in the ad was a former SPLC employee who spoke with the left-wing publication the New Yorker. "You will never step foot in a more contradictory place as long as you live,” the staffer said. Another former employee who spoke out said, “It could be racial, sexual, financial — that place was a virtual buffet of injustices.” And former SPLC writer Bob Moser went even further. “We were part of the con, and we knew it,” said Moser in remarks that were included in the WSJ ad. And finally, former SPLC “senior fellow” Mark Potok, who made a fool of himself on CNN for claiming most whites had anti-black views, was quoted as saying that the hate group’s ultimate aim in life was “to destroy these groups, completely destroy them.”
In a statement about the ad, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called on media and technology companies to do the right thing. “Now that employees of SPLC have pulled back the curtain on the organization’s hypocrisy, what will members of the media and big tech who aligned themselves with SPLC do?” he wondered. “To continue to use SPLC's politically driven labeling will be an endorsement of SPLC’s blatant racism and bigotry.” Of course, the FRC, a highly influential pro-family group, has been the victim of the SPLC's hatred of Christians in more ways than one. Indeed, in 2012, a homosexual activist turned terrorist cited the SPLC's hate propaganda as his inspiration to massacre FRC employees and then rub Chik-Fil-A sandwiches in their faces. Fortunately, the terrorist's plot was foiled by a brave security officer. Read Full Article
Being Taught As “Sexual Orientation” in California
Government school officials in California think it is “really important” to teach children about pedophilia and pederasty in the classroom because it is a “sexual orientation.” That is according to a top official for California's Brea Olinda School District, who admitted to parents that it was being done — and that it would continue, despite the outrage. The implications are mind-blowing.
The stunning admission came after a parent-information meeting last month for the Brea Olinda Unified School District (BOUSD). Stephanie Yates, founder of Informed Parents of California, asked school officials why they were “teaching pedophilia in school to 9th graders.” But instead of a denial that such an atrocity was taking place, a top school official confirmed it was happening and acted like there was nothing wrong with it.
“This is done because we are talking about historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history,” said BOUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curricula Kerrie Torres in a matter-of-fact way, sounding almost oblivious to how the bombshell might sound to normal people.
Horrified, the mother turned activist expressed shock
at Torres' admission. “So
sex between a man and a boy is a sexual orientation?” she asked.
Torres did not deny it. “It's something that occurred in history,
and so this is really important for us to include,” the assistant
superintendent said, implying that yes, sexual relations between a
man and a boy — properly considered rape under the laws of every
state — is a “sexual orientation.” Read
Ridicules John Kerry’s “Pseudo-Science” on Climate
Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a top leader in the burgeoning liberty movement, ridiculed former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for peddling “pseudo-science” related to alleged man-made global warming. Massie, an inventor with two degrees from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), also took aim at Kerry's “pseudo-science” degree in political science, implying that Kerry lacks the qualifications to understand the issue. The exchange during a hearing in Congress this week left Kerry and other Obamaites fuming.
The exchange, which occurred in the House Oversight and Reform Committee, began when Representative Massie read a part of Kerry's statement back to him. Among other absurdities, Kerry's statement blasted President Donald Trump for listening to skeptics of the man-made warming hypothesis, which Trump has repeatedly described as a “hoax.” In the statement, Kerry had described Trump's proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security as a “kangaroo court” while calling on the president to “talk with the educated adults” who previously served in senior “national security” positions.
In particular, Kerry appears to have been taking aim at Dr. William Happer, a physics professor from Princeton University with a long background serving in senior science posts in the federal government. Trump chose Happer to serve on the National Security Council. And documents from the administration revealed that the White House was planning to create a commission of scientists led by Dr. Happer to re-examine climate science and advise the president. “CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine, adding that human emissions of CO2 were not causing dangerous climate change. Read Full Article
Amid the arrest of Communist Chinese agent and former Interpol boss Meng Hongwei (shown), the Communist Party of China revealed that all Chinese officials working within international organizations are expected to obey party orders without question. Obviously, that conflicts with their ostensible job descriptions within global outfits such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Interpol, and beyond. But with Communist Chinese agents now operating across the leadership of dozens of international organizations, the explosive revelations have enormous implications for “global governance” — especially as it relates to the Communist Chinese bid to lead the scandal-plagued UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
On April 3, the Communist Chinese dictatorship announced that its ongoing “investigation” into Meng determined that the Interpol boss turned Beijing target “refused to follow [Communist] Party decisions,” according to various media reports. As a result, he was arrested, forced to resign from Interpol, expelled from the Communist Party, and fired from his post as “vice minister of public security” — a job he held at the same time as the presidency of Interpol. In September of 2018, Meng, who was still in charge of the self-styled global law-enforcement agency, went back to China. Then he was arrested by Communist Chinese authorities and "disappeared." He then resigned from his international post under duress.
The Communist Chinese Ministry of Public Security — a ruthless organization that uses terror and brutality to keep the regime's 1.4 billion victims in line — said Meng was “totally to blame” for his own problems with what passes as “law” in China. “When it comes to party loyalty and sincerity, it is absolutely not allowed to be duplicitous, to agree overtly but oppose in secret, or to be a two-face person, or lead a double life, or engage in political social climbing,” the ministry said without elaborating, adding that his associates were also being investigated. “It is absolutely not allowed to make decisions without authorization, to do or say as you wish.”
In other words, members of the Communist Chinese Party are expected to obey the party's decrees at all times — even when in “international service” at Interpol, the UN, or other institutions of “global governance.” But that is a big problem. The code of conduct of international organizations very clearly prohibits taking orders from national governments or political parties. Consider, for example, the UN Oath of Office that staff members of the global organization must adhere to in order to work there. Among other things, the oath very clearly prohibits taking orders from anyone outside the organization, requiring staffers to place their loyal to the international institutions instead. Read Full Article