A new Harris poll shows that 80% of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with. The poll also shows that President Trump enjoys broad public support to crack down on sanctuary cities.
As it stands, hundreds of cities across the nation – many with Democratic mayors or city councils – are refusing to do so.
Trump has signed an executive order directing Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to find ways to starve these sanctuary cities of federal funding. A Reuters analysisfound the top 10 sanctuary cities in the U.S. receive $2.27 billion in federal funding for programs ranging from public health services to early childhood education.
Kelly is expected to hire thousands of new immigration enforcement agents with broad authority to detain and deport those in the country illegally, potentially setting up a showdown between the federal government and sanctuary cities.
The Harvard–Harris Poll survey found strong support for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, with 77 percent saying they support comprehensive immigration reform against only 23 percent who oppose.
"While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform, there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities," said Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. "The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that's very clear from the data."
The finding is one of several in the survey that show Trump has support for some of the controversial immigration proposals that were a hallmark of his campaign.
A majority – 52 percent – say they support Trump's two executive orders allowing for the construction of a southern border wall, increasing the number of immigration officers by 10,000 and finding a way to revoke federal funds for sanctuary cities.
The crackdown on sanctuary cities is the most popular feature of those actions, followed closely by the directive to increase the border patrol, which is backed by 75 percent of voters.
The wall is the most divisive element of Trump's plan, with 53 percent opposing its construction.
Meanwhile, 53 percent of voters surveyed said they back Trump's travel ban, which was rejected by the courts. That order temporarily suspended the United States' refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely suspended resettlement for Syrian refugees and imposed a 90-day travel and immigration ban from seven predominately Muslim nations: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.
Kelly has said the administration will roll out a "tighter, more streamlined version" of the executive order some time soon.
The large number of voters supporting a crackdown on sanctuary cities means that even in the most fervent pro-illegal alien jurisdictions, most residents oppose releasing illegals from custody. That should make it easier politically for the GOP if President Trump can find a way to cut funding for sanctuary cities that passes muster with the courts.
Finding a way to cut education and health care funding that goes to both illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens will be a problem. There's no way to dissect this funding so that only money earmarked for illegals is denied by Washington.
That's why the administration and the Republican Congress could have more success if they target grants to cities from various federal departments – especially the Justice Department. Many of these grants go to local law enforcement in sanctuary cities. True, ordinary citizens will have to share in the punishment of city governments who defy the law, but that should put political pressure on those governments to change their policies.
The days of these sanctuary cities may be numbered if the political will can be found to deny funds to those governments who thumb their noses at the law.
Current stock market valuations are not sustainable. If there is one thing that I want you to remember from this article, it is that cold, hard fact. In 1929, 2000 and 2008, stock prices soared to absolutely absurd levels just before horrible stock market crashes. What goes up must eventually come down, and the stock market bubble of today will be no exception. In fact, virtually everyone in the financial community acknowledges that stock prices are irrationally high right now. Some are suggesting that there is still time to jump in and make money before the crash comes, while others are recommending a much more cautious approach. But what almost everyone agrees on is the fact that stocks cannot go up like this forever.
On Tuesday, the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq all set brand new record highs once again. Overall, U.S. stocks are now up more than 10 percent since the election, and this is probably the greatest post-election stock market rally in our entire history.
But stocks were already tremendously overvalued before the election, and at this point stock prices have reached a level of ridiculousness only matched a couple of times before in the past 100 years.
Only the most extreme optimists will try to tell you that stock prices can stay this disconnected from economic reality indefinitely. We are in the midst of one of the most outrageous stock market bubbles of all time, and as MarketWatch has noted, all stock market bubbles eventually burst…
The U.S. stock market at this level reflects a combination of great demand, great complacency, and great greed. Stocks are clearly in a bubble, and like all bubbles, this one is about to burst.
If corporations were making tremendous amounts of money, rapidly rising stock prices would make logical sense.
But that is not the case at all. Corporate earnings for the fourth quarter of 2016 were actually quite dismal, and this disconnect between Wall Street and economic reality is starting to really bug financial analysts such as Brian Sozzi…
The S&P 500 has gone 89 straight sessions without a 1% decline. Considering that Corporate America didn’t exactly light up on the top and bottom lines during the fourth quarter, such a streak is rather troublesome. Granted, the stock market is a forward-looking mechanism that appears to be trading on hopes that Trump’s unannounced stimulus and tax plans will be lifting economic growth in 2018. Even so, the inability of investors to at least acknowledge persistent struggles among companies and ongoing chaos in Washington is starting to become disturbing.
It is a basic fact of economics that stock prices should accurately reflect current and future earnings.
So if corporate earnings are at the same level they were at in 2011, why has the S&P 500 risen by 87 percent since then? The following comes from Wolf Richter…
The S&P 500 stock index edged up to an all-time high of 2,351 on Friday. Total market capitalization of the companies in the index exceeds $20 trillion. That’s 106% of US GDP, for just 500 companies! At the end of 2011, the S&P 500 index was at 1,257. Over the five-plus years since then, it has ballooned by 87%!
These are superlative numbers, and you’d expect superlative earnings performance from these companies. Turns out, reality is not that cooperative. Instead, net income of the S&P 500 companies is now back where it first had been at the end of 2011.
The cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio was originally created by author Robert Shiller, and it is widely regarded as one of the best measures of the true value of stocks in existence. According to the Guardian, there have only been two times in our entire history when this ratio has been higher. One was just before the stock market crash of 1929, and the other was just before the bursting of the dotcom bubble…
Traditionally, one of the best yardsticks for whether shares are over-valued or under-valued has been the cyclically adjusted price earnings ratio constructed by the economist Robert Shiller. This ratio is currently at about 29 and has only twice been higher: in 1929 ahead of the Wall Street Crash, and in the last frantic months of the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s.
We can definitely wish for the current euphoria on Wall Street to last for as long as possible, but let there be absolutely no doubt that it is going to end at some point.
It would take a market decline of 40 or 50 percent to get the cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio back to a level that makes economic sense. Let us hope that the market does not make such a violent move very rapidly, because that would likely be absolutely crippling for our financial system.
Markets tend to go down a lot faster than they go up, and every other major stock market bubble in U.S. history has ended very badly.
And this bubble is definitely overdue to burst. The bull market that led up to the great crash of 1929 lasted for 2002 days, and this week the current bull market will finally exceed that record.
Trying to pick a specific date for a market crash is typically a fruitless exercise, but market watchers are becoming very concerned about some of the signs that we are now seeing. For example, the “CCT indicator” is currently showing “the lowest bullish energy ever”…
The first factor is the CCT indicator. This indicator is a proprietary internal measurement of the general volume of the New York Stock Exchange. The measurements take into account the institutional participation as a ratio of the overall volume. Also measured is the duration of heavy block buying in rallies.
The sum total of all the measurements now shows the lowest bullish energy ever — even lower than in 2008, just before the market crash.
In other words, this current bull market appears to be completely and utterly exhausted.
The laws of economics cannot be defied forever. Traditionally, commodity prices and stock prices have tended to move in unison. And this makes perfect sense, because commodity prices tend to rise when economic conditions are good, and in such an environment stock prices are typically going to move up.
But now we are in a time when commodity prices and stock prices have become completely disconnected. In order to bring this ratio back into line, the S&P 500 would need to fall by about 1000 points, and such a decline would cause a level of financial chaos that would be absolutely unprecedented.
This current stock market bubble has lasted much longer than many of the experts originally anticipated, but that just means that the eventual crash will likely be that much more devastating.
In the end, you don’t need to know all of the technical details in this article.
But what you do need to know is that current stock market valuations are not sustainable and that a great crash is coming.
It may not happen next week or next month, but it is going to happen. And when it does happen, it is likely to make what happened in 2008 look like a Sunday picnic.
This article written by Michael Snyder and originally published on The Economics Collapse Blog
Rather than focus its journalistic energy on chronicling the economic insecurity plaguing so many of our fellow Americans, the billionaire-owned corporate media appears entirely obsessed with chattering endlessly about Russia conspiracy theories and domestic coup plots. Instead of looking in the mirror and admitting how its countless errors and propaganda pushing led to multiple humanitarian disasters over the last couple of decades, the oligarch-owned mainstream media insist upon a narrative that Trump the individual is at the root of our problems, as opposed to an entrenched executive branch with excessive power. This is because the mainstream media isn’t actually concerned about our cancerous, systemic metastasizing statism, it merely doesn’t want Trump in charge of it. I, on the other hand, want to dismantle that unconstitutional state entirely and transfer power to the American people where it belongs — self-government. Does anyone actually think for a second the media would be this adversarial if Hillary won?
This weekend’s article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times represents a sort of coming out party for the billionaire-owned, corporate media. More than anything else I’ve seen, it perfectly demonstrates how completely disconnected and worthless billionaire-owned media truly is. It’s the height of absurdity that these media organizations, owned by billionaires or giant corporate conglomerates, are playing the victim in all this when they’ve been the world’s primary abuser for the entire 21st century.
You can be a staunch defender of the free press and the 1st Amendment, and at the same time point out that the billionaire-owned media has failed us. This is my position, and Trump’s election hasn’t changed that. The handful of corporations and billionaires who control the mainstream press does not = “the press.” They (and the deep state) are currently trying to convince the public that they’re the only ones standing between you and fascism. This is complete stupidity, and if we fall for it, we will get what we deserve.
The billionaire-owned media is far more complicit in creating the imperial Presidency than Donald Trump, he merely figured out a way to get control of it. Now these same charlatans are pretending to put out a fire they themselves started, and want to be celebrated for being so courageous. This is eerily similar to the scam pulled off by the Federal Reserve during and after the financial crisis.
With that introduction out of the way, let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the mind-bogglingly explicit piece in this past weekend’s New York Times, titled brazenly enough, How Can We Get Rid of Trump?
Maybe things will settle down. But what is striking about Trump is not just the dysfunction of his administration but also the — vigorously denied — allegations that Trump’s team may have cooperated with Vladimir Putin to steal the election. What’s also different is the broad concern that Trump is both: A) unfit for office, and B) dangerously unstable. One pro-American leader in a foreign country called me up the other day and skipped the preliminaries, starting with: “What the [expletive] is wrong with your country?”
So let’s investigate: Is there any way out?
Trump still has significant political support, so the obstacles are gargantuan. But the cleanest and quickest way to remove a president involves Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and has never been attempted. It provides that the cabinet can, by a simple majority vote, strip the president of his powers and immediately hand power to the vice president. The catch is that the ousted president can object, and in that case Congress must approve the ouster by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or the president regains office.
It’s never been attempted in the history of the country, but let’s promote it anyway!
The 25th Amendment route is to be used when a president is “unable” to carry out his duties. I asked Laurence Tribe, the Harvard professor of constitutional law, whether that could mean not just physical incapacity, but also mental instability. Or, say, the taint of having secretly colluded with Russia to steal an election?
Tribe said that he believed Section 4 could be used in such a situation.
“In the unlikely event that Pence and a majority of Trump’s bizarre cabinet were to grow the spine needed to do the right thing with the process set up by that provision, we would surely be in a situation where a very large majority of the public, including a very substantial percentage of Trump’s supporters, would back if not insist upon such a move,” Tribe said. “In that circumstance, I can’t imagine Trump and his lawyers succeeding in getting the federal courts to interfere.”
As a reminder, here’s an example of the intellectual and ethical wasteland known as Laurene Tribe’s mind as of late:
Now back to Kristof.
The better known route is impeachment. But for now it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger.
In Kristof’s mind, a major downside to pursuing impeachment is that it won’t get rid of Trump fast enough. Is this really a paper the public can remotely trust to report on the country’s problems in a fair manner?
Now here’s where it starts to get simply comical. Kristoff writes:
Some people believe that the 2018 midterm elections will be so catastrophic for the G.O.P. that everyone will be ready to get rid of him. I’m skeptical. In the Senate, the map is disastrous for Democrats in 2018: The Republicans will be defending only eight Senate seats, while Democrats will in effect be defending 25.
So while Democrats can gnash their teeth, it’ll be up to Republicans to decide whether to force Trump out. And that won’t happen unless they see him as ruining their party as well as the nation.
Perhaps instead of “gnashing their teeth,” Democrats could come up with a coherent platform that doesn’t revolve around worshiping Wall Street.
Finally, here’s how Kristoff ends his pathetic plea for overthrowing Trump.
And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early?
No Nicholas, “we” aren’t already discussing it. You are. You and your media peers. Which brings me to the most infuriating aspect of what is happening in American discourse today. What is someone like me, who dislikes Trump, but dislikes the corporate media even more, supposed to do?
This is the uncomfortable position I find myself in today, and if I’m there, millions of others are there as well. Trump understands this, which is why he continues his unrelenting attacks on elements of the corporate press. Personally, my dislike of Trump would be far more acute if not for my total disdain for the billionaire-owned media. Journalists are supposed to be adversarial toward power generally, not pick and choose which powerful figures to challenge based on political ideology. The corporate media has clearly failed the country, thus Trump is being politically savvy by picking a fight with it. As I noted last week on Twitter:
I've said this forever.
If Trump targets elitist institutions, he will win.
If he targets average people, he will lose.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) February 17, 2017
Once again, the corporate media is proving its worthlessness by making everything about a man, as opposed to the systemic disaster that is the oligarch-controlled society we live in. The current President isn’t charismatic enough, and doesn’t espouse the right platitudes when he bombs Muslim women and children. That’s the media’s red line apparently. If it sounds like I’m against everything, there’s a reason. Our culture is deranged and corporate media deserves a lot of the blame.
Finally, here’s an article published by Forbes last year to get you up to speed on what we’re up against: These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies.
Billionaires don’t buy media outlets to make money, they already have that. They buy them to manipulate public opinion.
It’s time for white people to pay the “black tax.” That’s the tax for not having enough melanin in their skin, ergo gaining from “white privilege.”
Yes, once more white America suffers the guilt of people who haven’t been slaves or oppressed in any way. The Congressional Black Circus, most more wealthy that 99 percent of our readers race-bait in order to keep the gravy train running.
The Washington Examiner reported, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and the CBC have reissued a bill to study reparations for America’s past sin of slavery.
For Conyers, this twenty-year long crusade, reemerges annually. And even with a black president in office, he couldn’t get it passed.
These clowns expect to tax white people for nothing more than being white. Well, this white chick is not paying any tax every other American must pay.
Moreover, before some bleeding heart pansies say they are willing to pay the “black tax,” I suggest getting a DNA test on all of the CBC. Have you seen these people? Many, and I do mean MANY are not black at all, but dangerously close to white themselves.
I want to have Ancestry.com run DNA test on every member of the CBC. I bet the results will be shocking.
Look at Conyers.
Hardly a black person I know wouldn’t say this many has “white hair.” This man makes TAN look black.
Look at the waves. Then look at his complexion. I’d be willing to bet that Conyers is more white than he is black. He may very well be Dolezal’s father, for goodness sake.
Then let’s test white people too. Perhaps we may find that many of us have been missing out on “reparations,” and we can get in line. Maybe when idiots black Leftists like Conyers find out that almost the whole country has “black” blood, they will drop this nonsense.
You can bet if we required DNA, the CBC would drop this, as many of them put their Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren cards back in their purses and wallets. It’s not about what you “look” like, but your DNA.
Since many blacks in America descended from slaves, many of them have white blood. And while we are on the subject, which white ancestors are to blame?
Was it the less than 2 percent of whites who actually had slaves? Or what about the blacks who owned black slaves in America? Oy! That gets dicey, doesn’t it. The Root magazine reported that black Americans owned black slaves from at least the mid-17th century.
Further, let’s not forget Africa. The African tribal chiefs that sold their own people to the white slave traders in the first place, now didn’t they.
This is the latest Democrat attempt to reverse black poverty, at the expense of the boogeyman.
For decades, Leftist have pretended to care about poverty by giving out other people’s money. It hasn’t worked because government handouts are a short term solution. Long term success depends on teaching those in poverty how to lift themselves out of it through education, entrepreneurship, and a work ethic; things Leftists don’t teach.
Slavery was outlawed in America over 150 years ago, thanks to Republican white people. Further, not every white American’s ancestors participated in this horrendous trade, and in fact many came to America afterward.
Black Leftists are free to join the rest of America and pursue opportunity…equally.
I received this slick campaign video in my email, titled "How To Resist The Trump Agenda," and thought it was a joke. After realizing that the video was for real, I thought, "What the...?!"
Folks, I've been a black Tea Party guy from its beginning. I penned, recorded, and performed "The American Tea Party Anthem" at over 500 Tea Party rallies on 14 national bus tours.
Thus, I witnessed that the movement was filled with white duped Obama voters who had realized he was driving us to a place we did not want to go: down the road to socialism. Tea Partiers' opposition had nothing to do with Obama's skin color. And yet despicable leftist fake news media portrayed opposing Obama's unlawful overreaches as racist and unpatriotic. Well, now that same immoral media is boldly leading the charge to oppose everything Trump while elevating every Trump resister to sainthood. Suddenly, leftists have decreed that opposing our president is the epitome of patriotism and moral righteousness.
Folks, please get this truth down in your souls. There is an unprecedented effort by the fake news media; Obama; George Soros; the Democratic Party, conservative NeverTrumps; establishment elites; Hollywood; assorted leftist groups; and traitorous GOP Washington, D.C. status quo defenders to take down our new president.
The only thing Trump has in his corner is We the People who voted for him. But be of good cheer, folks, because we and God are a powerful majority. All you prayer warriors out there, please keep prayin' for President Trump.
Am I advocating that we blindly rubber-stamp everything Trump does? Absolutely not. I am saying it emboldens our enemies when folks on our side join leftists in nitpicking Trump at every turn. Obviously, NeverTrumps still do not realize what's at stake and the evil we are dealing with on the left.
Leftists, for the most part, are godless people who seek to crush all traditional norms, rendering conservatives dispirited and politically dead. Leftists deem causing pain, suffering, and the loss of American lives minor consequences in implementing their godless socialist-progressive agenda. Cancer patients lost their life-saving doctors due to Obamacare. Leftists didn't care. Four Americans were tortured and murdered in Benghazi for Obama's re-election. Not only did leftists not care, but Obama's minions repeatedly lied about it on national TV.
If leftists care about American lives, why do they celebrate Democrats refusing to pass Kate's Law, which protects Americans from illegal alien multiple criminal offenders?
Folks, I could go on and on with examples of how leftists do not give a rat's derrière about American lives. We're all just pawns to be used to get them what they want. All leftists care about is ensuring that men use little girls' restrooms and opening our borders to everyone who wants to come to America for freebies.
President Trump is trying to stop the insanity. Meanwhile, NeverTrumps are obsessed with the man's imperfections. I do not care about Trump's shortcomings. At the end of the day, I believe that Trump is a good man who truly desires to make our country great again. My fellow Americans, that is good enough for me.
This has annoyed me for years. Leftists are totally free to spread horrific lies about us. Democrat Alan Grayson outrageously said the Tea Party and Republicans want sick people to die. To ignite racial hate, Democrat Andre Carson said the Tea Party wants to see blacks hanging from trees.
Frustratingly, many blacks in my family hate Trump because they believe the fake news lie that he is a racist.
Democrats are allowed to say whatever hate-generating thing their deviant minds conceive with the media's blessings. Leftists arrogantly believe that free speech entitles them to break the law, incite violence, and destroy property, doing gross things like dumping a bucket of feces in a public lobby.
Meanwhile, Republican and conservative political advisers relentlessly caution us to walk on eggshells – go slow and be nice, careful not to make leftists too angry. Even after our electoral landslide victory awarding the GOP control of the House, Senate and W.H., we are still advised to find common ground to work with leftists. Well, how do you work with people who want you politically dead?
Am I suggesting that we mimic the left's bad behavior? Heaven forbid. I am simply suggesting that NeverTrumps cut our people, Trump, and his administration some slack. Trump is trying to drain the D.C. swamp, something no other administration has attempted to do. I don't care that the Trump gang is a bit rough around the edges. He is making reforms, and for that I say, "Thank you, God!" I am sick of our side eating our courageous fighters every time we discover that they cannot walk on water – Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Joe Miller, and Chris McDaniel, to name a few.
Thank God, President Trump is not playing by standard ineffective rules for Republican behavior. He is calling out leftist fake news media, Democrats, and other liars while quickly moving forward with the domestic agenda he promised during his campaign. By calling them out, Trump puts leftists on the defensive for a change while retaining his power.
There's a new sheriff in town, folks, and I love it!
In the left's "resisting Trump's agenda" video, they claim that over half a million downloaded their guide, over 100,000 have registered, and over 3,000 groups have registered. It is well documented that leftists lie about practically everything. So take their claims with a grain of salt. We America-loving Trump supporters outnumber them. Let's work on keeping it that way with rallies, etc.
I for one, as I am sure are millions of Americans, am standing up and cheering President Trump on. Folks, the only way Trump can fail to implement his and our agenda is for him to lose our support. Barring Trump betraying us, we cannot allow that to happen. I realize I sound like a broken record, but we must stand together, holding up our president's arms to counter the tsunami of attacks coming from both sides of the political aisle. May God be with us.
By Lloyd Marcus
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist
How’s that #Resist hashtag workin’ out for ya’, Democrats? Not that your hysteria levels would permit any de-escalation, but really, the American people are sick of your frenzied inability to accept the verdict of the election. Jonathan Easley reports for The Hill on a new poll it exclusively published:
A strong majority of Americans say Democrats should look to cooperate with President Trump to strike deals, according to the inaugural Harvard-Harris poll provided exclusively by The Hill.
The survey found that 73 percent of voters want to see Democrats work with the president, against only 27 percent who said Democrats should resist Trump’s every move.
The findings are significant as Democratic leaders in Congress are under growing pressure by their liberal base to obstruct the president's agenda. The poll shows the party is divided on how to deal with Trump: 52 percent of Democrats polled say they should cooperate with him on areas of agreement and 48 percent saying they shouldn't.
In other words, the Democrats are equally divided, with half of them wanting cooperation and the other half a scorched earth resistance strategy. But by a three-to-one margin, the public wants them to cooperate.
Given the fact that the #Resist faction is powered by anger while the other half of the Democrats are merely depressed, we can expect the rejectionists to win the internal struggle and alienate the public.
Rick Moran points out that by a similar margin the public wanted GOP cooperation with the Obama presidency in 2009. But at that point, the Dems went whole hog, passing the disastrous Obamacare bill by parliamentary trickery with no GOP support at all. That is what led to the Tea Party and began the 8 years of Democrat decline and the loss of a thousand elected offices.
If the Trump administration avoids Obamacare-scale disasters, it can further the marginalization of the Democratic Party.
Conservatives have long held respect for our nation's Founders. While our values closely mirror those of our Founding Fathers – self-governance, natural rights, (historic) liberalism, and the free exchange of commerce and ideas, what is most respected (according to this author) is the use of "reason" to advance the tenets set forth in establishing our new nation.
Great men with disparate views, advancing great ideas. Make no mistake: passions were high, but all sides (Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists) used reason to make the case for their ideals.
The Federalists – James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and others – wrote 85 essays (The Federalist Papers) to explain the provisions of the Constitution and to make the case for its adoption.
The Anti-Federalists – James Wilson, Samuel Bryan, Robert Yates, George Clinton, Patrick Henry and others made their case in opposition to the Constitution's adoption. Morten Borden consolidated Anti-Federalists writings into 85 Essays, corresponding with the 85 Federalists Papers.
At the end of debate, all parties determined that the cause of liberty, leading to the adoption of our Constitution and the formation of the United States of America, was greater than their respective viewpoints. These great men, in their own right, came together to form a more perfect union.
A perfect union, no, but one that, through thick and thin, has stood the test of time.
Sadly, we appear to have entered a new time – a time of emotion.
The progressive left have abandoned reason. They are determined to have America ruled by emotion.
Nothing symbolizes this new era more than the attempts by the left to quash free speech. Their insistence on accepting only thought that comports with their viewpoint is bordering on apoplectic. The media, celebrities, the NFL, academia, congressional Democrats, radical protest groups (but I repeat myself) have formed a storm front against opposing viewpoints.
Their use of inflammatory adjectives (racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, Nazi, fascist, etc.) to describe their opponents is nothing but an attempt to shut down debate (reason).
The left have made holding a viewpoint not consistent with their own progressive dogma tantamount to murder.
Under this environment, finding common ground will be difficult, if not impossible. How can common ground be found, when one party (conservatives) are unable to use reason to make their case?
Make no mistake: what the left fears most is not that conservative ideas will fail, but that they'll succeed. They can't abide the thought that liberty and self-determination might supplant the nanny state and centralized control.
For our part, we must continue to debate big ideas and, under a Trump presidency, continue to advance our principles. We must, though, at the same time, do a better job of mapping said principles to benefits in service to the American people. Republicans have historically done a poor job of this.
Subsequently, we'll also need to isolate the radical left, to show them for what they are: radicals. We'll then need to work to reason with what used to be Kennedy/Reagan Democrats. The radical left represent a small segment of Democrats. We must not confuse their tantrums with those of Middle America.
We are in the midst of a battle of ideas. We have lived under Progressive rule for much of a generation. We must not allow the radical left to keep us from reasoning a path forward.
One wouldn't give into a child's emotional tantrum. We must not give in to the left's emotional meltdown.
Let's reason our way to making America great again.
By Earick Ward
Friday night, north Philadelphia experienced protests against the police, which resulted in 4 arrests and 3 police officers hurt. The neighborhood surrounding Temple University was the locus for this disruption. The grievances originate with complaints of police brutality and mistreatment, much as the Black Lives Matter movement. However continued anarchy demonstrates an organized attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration. This is furthered by the media which continues to haunt the Trump administration.
President Trump has been in the White House for one month. The press has given us a non-stop narrative of confusion, disarray (McCain), corruption andincompetence. Thursday’s news conference reenergized the Trump supporters, barraged daily with negative news about the functioning of the administration. He hopes his trips to South Carolina and Florida continue the positive feeling.
Lost in all this news is the successful completion of one aim of Trump’s campaign. He sought to deregulate elements of the national economy. TheCongress sent legislation undoing the regulations placed by Obama’s administration on coal and petroleum, using the Congressional Review Act, a Clinton era law. Under this law, most regulations put in place since June 2016 may be subject to congressional reversal. Presently, Congress is examining reversal to retirement rules and recently passed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of those on social security disability.
The administration is still waiting to fill the cabinet, and few sub-cabinet positions have been filled or announced. This leaves many embedded Obama officials within the bureaucracy to stall and thwart Trump policies. These people are likely the source of the many leaks regarding foreign affairs that occupy news reports concerning General Flynn, Russia, and immigration policy. The State Department and much of the intelligence community are loaded with liberal leaning officials.
Trump has made changes already by executive orders that reverse many Obama regulations and orders. The president is fighting with the media, the Democrats and many in his own party. The swamp is deep and full of dangerous animals. The reversal of governmental control will allow jobs to appear that would have not gotten off the ground or would have disappeared.
Senator Schumer claims that the disinfectant of sunlight must be used to vet cabinet nominees, but this is the longest such hearings have ever occurred. Yet, he could not stop the vote for EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. The future trajectory of this agency is now subject to reversal.
Perhaps the best way to change the trajectory of the federal governmental growth is through the budgetary process. Now the Republicans in Congress have a president prepared to sign such legislation. There still remains work to prepare a unified repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Whether this should be piecemeal to gain necessary Democratic votes, or all at once as Senator Paul desires, is not clear yet.
Then, the president must work for tax reform and continue the effort to grow the economy. Despite the trend to automation which threatens manual jobs, there is room for manufacturing growth. This is ambitious because, unlike Obama, Trump is going against the beating drums of the media.
At the press conference, he was asked about the division in our politics. He stated that he did not create it, nor did Obama. The main-stream liberal press is the dividing agent and their narrative is to continue this division at the detriment of America. This makes them the enemy of the people.
Senator John McCain poured it on for the press at a Munich defense conference Saturday, warning in a veiled attack on President Trump that attacks on the press are a leading danger for democracy. “That's how dictators are made!” he shrieked. It was rich stuff, given that most of his European listeners do not have the same wide press freedoms found in the states. But more to the point, it was McCain up to his old tricks: Ingratiating himself to the anti-Trump press by playing its champion, in a bid to be the media's darling.
What stands out here is the hypocrisy of his claims. He's suddenly concerned about press freedoms and dictators?
Where was McCain when President Obama was systematically violating press freedoms every which way to Tuesday?
Seven examples of Obama's attacks on a free press spring to mind and not one of them drew any significant criticism from McCain.
Where was McCain when Fox News correspondent James Rosen was illegally followed around by Obama's Department of Justice in 2013 over a story he published on North Korean activities? It was a clear-cut example of reporters just doing their jobs, even as someone in government was leaking the story, but Team Obama went after Rosen with the Espionage Act.
Where was McCain when CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson's computer was being taken over and hacked in late 2012 by what were almost certainly Obama agents over her Benghazi scandal reporting? She described the still-unresolved incident in her book Stonewalled (which ought to give another clue about the Obama record on press freedoms) but her story about the computer hacking, which included planting classified documents and keystroke changings, certainly was disturbing. We didn't hear much from McCain.
Where was McCain when New York Times reporter James Risen was threatened with prosecution if he did not reveal his sources? Risen certainly thought Obama was acting like a dictator in a recent interview. McCain, not so much.
Where was McCain when Obama illegally wiretapped the communications systems of the Associated Press in 2013 bid to find out its sources? Nowhere to be found.
Where was McCain when radio show host Rush Limbaugh was attacked by Obama - in 2009 and 2012 for unfavorable commentary?
Where was McCain when Fox News was singled out for criticism by President Obama? This event was not only a blast at the outfit but highly inappropriate collaboration with Media Matters, which made Fox News its bugbear.
And where was McCain when Obama's spokesman John Kirby attacked a RT News correspondent at a 2016 White House press conference who asked an uncomfortable question on Syria, questioning its legitimacy as a press outfit? If the Russian state-funded press agency was that illegitimate, explain to us why it had a press pass issued by the White House at all? We heard nothing about it from McCain.
The Obama list is quite long, and that is not surprising. Obama was a socialist and socialists of all stripes have a long record of suppressing freedom of the press, subordinating its expression to the interests of an all-powerful state and its dictator. McCain found nothing wrong with that when Obama was playing that game and undercutting the press in what seemed to be pretty oppressive and downright illegal behavior. Breitbart News has another list of problems here. But when Trump, three or four weeks into his presidency, calls out some fake news on Twitter, suddenly we have a dictator descending.
Psychological decompensation refers to the loss of mental stability and self-control due to the failure of overtaxed coping mechanisms to handle stress. The term decompensation is typically applied to breakdowns in individuals who are psychologically fragile in the first place. For minds burdened with a fallacious self-image, unrealistic life expectations, or a distorted view of reality, heightened stress overwhelms the already brittle ego defenses, and raw psychic pain and rage flows unrestrained.
The election of President Trump has triggered a rage decompensation across the left wing, causing disgusting, dehumanizing, and violent expression to break out. The categories of left-wing caterwauling are mainly racist, sexist, and eco-psychotic. In that order, there was the aspiring Democratic Party chair who declared that "white people need to shut up." The Midol March on Washington featured a pathetic, wizened Madonna fantasizing about mass murder at the White House while Ashley Judd inflicted a PMS rant from hell. In giving the stage to Donna Hylton, who sodomized her victim with a pipe before helping to murder him, the left proved beyond a doubt they care that "our children are listening" only until the campaign is over. From the eco-nuts assortment came the segregationist with the Marine haircut who demanded that the Trump supporter move to the back of the plane after declaring she had the right to vomit on him.
In the madness of decompensation, the left are repressing freedom of speech and association through censorship and mob violence, "unfriending" actual and virtual relationships, ruining family get-togethers, and generally going nutters against anybody deemed to be one of the new political untouchables.
It has become a cliché to liken liberalism to a mental illness. Here is an explanation: the mental fragility of the left wing, which has allowed this rage decompensation, has to do with the counter-directional psychodynamics of the belief forms of political opinion versus moral conviction.
In 1919, G.K. Chesterton succinctly summarized the current left-wing lurch into lunacy: "In real life, people who are most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all."
The opinion versus conviction dichotomy is the core psychological contradistinction between the American left and right. The fundamental paradigm of the left tends to be humanist and scientific-materialist with a tendency to disavow what is termed "organized" religion. Whether or not there is a belief in God, and regardless of what personal experiences an individual may feel as "spiritual," for the left wing, beliefs are derived from anthropogenic information and knowledge about the phenomenal world. Anthropogenic knowledge cannot provide the underpinnings of an absolute and unchanging moral code, therefore the left wing tends to have no such code to follow.
Anthropogenic knowledge is limited to the realm of the intellect. Intellectual knowledge wavers and rationalizes because it invariably is filtered by the egos of the knowers. Therefore, when intellectual knowledge is applied to the problems of life, it necessarily culminates in ego-driven opinion.
Regardless of their claims of morality and spirituality, in truth, ego-driven opinion is the highest realm of significance in the beliefs of the left wing. The fact that the left is restricted to ego-driven opinion causes the fallacious self-image, unrealistic life expectations, and distorted view of reality that have caused the current rage decompensation.
The worldview of the contemporary American right wing still tends to be based on the tenets of theistic faith, and specifically the Judeo-Christian belief system. That paradigm is one of faith in and personal reliance on God Who has provided revelatory scripture. It is higher than anthropogenic knowledge. It can be informed by human knowledge, but only faith can use God-given, unchanging, universal standards with which to evaluate the phenomenal world. And only such faith can in turn allow the modification of egoism provided by the belief form of absolute spiritual and moral conviction. Such conviction is less prone to wavering and rationalizing. It prevents a grandiose self-image and is less prone to rage decompensation.
Opinions have been likened to the terminus of the gastro-intestinal tract – there is a general complacency toward one's own accompanied by a reluctance to inhale another's. This is because opinions – especially political opinions – are the spear-tipped progeny of assertive egoism designed to do battle with differing opinions. Political opinions are based in an identification with particular economic or social interests in competition with other interests. For that reason, political opinion is invariably mentally structured as us versus them. Furthermore, to resolve the cognitive dissonance and maintain the us-versus-them cohesion, political opinion engenders a sense of intellectual and ethical superiority. Because opinions are protestations of the ego, they fight back when challenged. And because politics are a religion substitute for the left wing, that fight has become vicious.
The victory contained in the word conviction is the conquest of one's own ego when it has discovered truth greater than self. Convictions need no defense and can incorporate any challenger into the transcendent, universal truth that supplies the basis of the convictions.
Opinion and conviction are psychodynamically opposite. Opinion tends to be psychologically destabilizing because it is associated with defensiveness, pride, and assumed superiority, all of which intensify judgment and separativism. Conviction is the inner voice of faith, a profound, self-transcending experience of Truth worthy of dedication and sacrifice. Calling someone opinionated is negative; calling someone a person of conviction is to honor him.
This "cover" of the hymn of the left reveals why leftists cannot form reconciled convictions. Imagine that you disrespect the Bible. You have no example of human perfection to emulate. All of your beliefs are tuition provided by imperfect humans like yourself. Imagine that you disrespect the religion of your own spiritual heritage. No pastor, priest, or rabbi – just Tuesdays with Morgan Freeman, Cheetos, and spiritual tourism. No one can form a lasting conviction while channel-surfing. Imagine that you believe there is nothing worth fighting or dying for – the clearest symptom of living without conviction. Imagine that you believe there's no heaven. Eat, drug, and be merry, because the black void awaits us all. Only sky above and dirt below. Imagine that the answers to the whence and whither of your existence are found only in dumbed down science and suicidal German philosophers.
Imagine that you believe there is no spiritually based moral certainty. It's easy if you try. The commandment against murdering the innocent given by God to Moses has been discarded. Imagine, as in Islam, that there is no sanctified marriage. Without God's law, sex relations are cheap biological functions, and the so-called unwanted, untethered from universal worth, are disposable. Ironically, for left-wingers, that opinion is the farthest from – and most often mistaken for – a conviction.
The best illustration of the difference between left-wing opinion and right-wing conviction is in the different actualization of the belief that "racism is evil." Because that is a political opinion for the left, certain forms of racism are much more evil than others. In fact, anti-white racism does not exist at all, as the last Democrat president just said. A black teenager beating an innocent white person to the brink of death while shouting, "F--- whitey" cannot be racism. But when that belief is based on spiritual conviction, all racism is equally wrong. The decline from conviction to opinion is why race-centered politics has been mainly destructive to black people since the 1960s. So too with feminism.
Without unity in God's love, spiritual and moral conviction becomes impossible. Brotherhood declines, and political identity communities inflict externality in social relations. All rights are alienable because they are granted by man and man's law. Politics replaces religion as the basis of ethics; political correctness becomes the standard of social acceptability. The cacophony of opinion grows. The vanishing of spiritual and moral conviction, and its replacement with the zealotry of political opinion, installs a momentum of competition and strife, which eventually decompensates into widespread rage.