Dear Pope Francis:
Not since the Reformation has the Catholic Church endured the scathing censure is so richly deserves. With the latest revelations about hundreds of Pennsylvania priests abusing minors, the church's already unholy reputation has been left in scandalous ruins.
No amount of mea culpas will suffice for the morally reprehensible conduct of pedophile priests and church leaders who covered up the widespread abusive behavior in Pennsylvania. Your expression of "sorrow" for the victims does not erase the heinous nature of the sinful conduct.
According to a two-year grand jury investigation, priests groped, raped and performed oral sex on minors as young as nine-years-old. More than 300 priests were involved in decades of child abuse. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania church hierarchy hid the crimes and shielded guilty priests.
It is unconscionable for you Pope Francis to assume your remorse suffices for your gross disregard for moral accountability. In any other setting, secular or religious, those who condoned the transgressions by their silence are guilty. They deserve swift judgment and punishment.
You can no longer pretend these priestly scandals are rare. Despite the covert efforts of your church managers (i.e. the archbishops, bishops and cardinals) to coverup the misconduct, wave after wave of credible reports have surfaced over the last couple of decades exposing the abhorrent behavior.
And the incidents are not isolated. Diocesan leaders across the U.S. have been exposed for harboring sexual predators. The allegations are worldwide, having spread to Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Austria, German, Belgium and Mexico, to name just a few countries. It is an epidemic.
Under your leadership, the church continues to dither. Catholics are growing weary of the same broken promises to clean up the sordid mess. You keep talking about change and accountability but from the view in the church pews we Catholics are convinced the situation has grown worse.
There was hope when you assumed the role of Pope that you would not repeat the same mistake as your predecessors, who disregarded vows of a no tolerance policy. You pledged the same. Yet the man who presided over the Pennsylvania dereliction today remains a cardinal in Washington, D.C.
Quit listening to church apologists and your lawyers. Act now or watch your once holy church be relegated to a footnote in religious history. Claim what tattered moral authority remains invested in your office and boldly decide the buck has been passed long enough. It stops at the Vatican.
And order your surrogates to cease trying to mitigate the damage by pointing out pedophilia is not exclusively a church issue. Of course, it's not. But no one cares. People expect the church to set an example of Christian behavior. Words no longer matter. Only actions will make a difference.
First, open all the records of the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania to the authorities. Defrock any pedophile priests who are still living. Demand the bishop who presided over the scandal resign immediately. In fact, fire him. That's not church protocol, but don't stand on ritualistic formality.
Secondly, announce from this day forward any priest accused of abuse will be immediately suspended. Law enforcement will be called in to investigate. Any bishop or other senior official who fails to report an incident to the authorities will be summarily fired. No exceptions. Period.
Thirdly, you can no longer evade your obligation to review the church's policy of priestly celibacy. It is not wholly to blame for the sickening behavior, however, therapists who have worked with clergy are convinced it contributes to sexual immaturity which may help explain the deviant tendencies.
Do more than study the issue to death. Do something. Priests should be allowed to date, marry and explore their sexuality. Clinging to the past will only ensure the problems of today will be the same ones tomorrow. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth among traditionalists. Remain firm.
The church stands at a crossroad. It can no longer weather the legal, financial and criminal storms gathering outsides its doors without disastrous consequences. This is your moment to display moral leadership. Your responsibility cannot be delegated. Take decisive action or resign your papacy.
A Disillusioned Catholic,
Drew Roy
Monday, August 27, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018
Socialism: Make America Venezuela
A shocking new poll by the non-partisan Gallup organization should vex all Americans. In a nationwide survey, the firm reported that Democrats are more positive about socialism than capitalism. While the results are astounding, the findings help explain the party's leftward surge.
The research, which included a sample of 1,505 adults aged 18 and older, signals a sharp turn in attitudes about socialism. Fully 57 percent of self-identified Democrats and independents who lean Democratic hold a positive view of a system once considered anathema to most Americans.
By comparison, 48 percent of Democrats and leaners approve of capitalism. Looking at the demographics, older Americans from both parties have a dim view of socialism. Young people, aged 18-29, are the most ardent supporters with a majority (55%) approving of socialism.
For decades, Americans associated socialism with Marxist Communism, a Utopian theory of a collectivist society characterized by the equal distribution of wealth, property housing and other goods. While the theory captivates the naive, in actual practice socialism has a record of utter failure.
But many who should know better, including politicians, Hollywood glitterati and economists, now are openly embracing socialism. Perhaps that has swayed Democrats' opinions on the allure of a thoroughly discredited system. Fortunately, their views do not reflect the majority of Americans.
In the Gallup poll, about 37 percent of all Americans have a rosy view of socialism. By an overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent of Republicans favor capitalism. Only 13 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican are in favor of socialism.
Those who believe socialism will make America great need to look to Venezuela, once one of the world's richest countries now wallowing in despair. The South American nation is on the brink of collapse after jettisoning capitalism two decades ago, replacing it with socialism.
The country, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, has squandered its wealth by heavily spending on government subsidies for residents, including 'free' health care. Experts believe the nation's inflation rate may hit one million percent by year's end. (One million is not a typo.)
The Venezuelan Central Bank has stopped issuing economic data in an effort to hide the country's chronic decline. Before it halted the practice, the bank's statistics showed that in a single year (2015) the per capita income plunged from $15,929 to $6,042. People are suffering in extreme poverty.
Venezuela's currency is in shambles, tumbling to an all time low. At the end of July, country's currency, the bolivar, was practically worthless. It took 115,000 bolivars to equal one U.S. dollar. Venezuelans lug pallets full of currency to the grocery store just to buy essentials.
As a result of hyperinflation, there are dire food and medical shortages. The country ran out of toilet paper and was forced to dispatch army troops to a paper manufacturing company occupied by angry residents. Recurring electricity blackouts and growing thug violence are a common occurrence.
Food riots erupt with alarming regularity. Hospitals have no running water. Thousands of Venezuelans are fleeing the country, escaping into neighboring Columbia. In response, the government has cracked down on dissent, jailing opponents and ratcheting up propaganda.
Dunderhead Hollywood nabobs like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and Michael Moore once pointed to Venezuela as a shining example of the benefits of socialism. They have been strangely silent as Venezuela plunges into economic and societal oblivion. The media has been mum too.
In the face of his nation's crisis, President Nicolas Maduro is continuing the practice of his mentor Hugo Chavez, looting the private sector, seizing companies and taking over farms, while fattening his personal fortune at the expense of his poverty-stricken people. This is what socialism looks like.
Democrat Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed Democratic Socialist who enchants young people with his message of free college and free health care, has been the standard bearer for socialist policies. Now Democrats candidates for elective office are openly endorsing the same ideals.
Those Americans who shill for socialism should be exposed as charlatans. They are peddling an economic and social solution that ruins the lives of people and bankrupts countries. The only equality socialism guarantees is shared misery. That's reason enough to soundly reject socialism.
The research, which included a sample of 1,505 adults aged 18 and older, signals a sharp turn in attitudes about socialism. Fully 57 percent of self-identified Democrats and independents who lean Democratic hold a positive view of a system once considered anathema to most Americans.
By comparison, 48 percent of Democrats and leaners approve of capitalism. Looking at the demographics, older Americans from both parties have a dim view of socialism. Young people, aged 18-29, are the most ardent supporters with a majority (55%) approving of socialism.
For decades, Americans associated socialism with Marxist Communism, a Utopian theory of a collectivist society characterized by the equal distribution of wealth, property housing and other goods. While the theory captivates the naive, in actual practice socialism has a record of utter failure.
But many who should know better, including politicians, Hollywood glitterati and economists, now are openly embracing socialism. Perhaps that has swayed Democrats' opinions on the allure of a thoroughly discredited system. Fortunately, their views do not reflect the majority of Americans.
In the Gallup poll, about 37 percent of all Americans have a rosy view of socialism. By an overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent of Republicans favor capitalism. Only 13 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican are in favor of socialism.
Those who believe socialism will make America great need to look to Venezuela, once one of the world's richest countries now wallowing in despair. The South American nation is on the brink of collapse after jettisoning capitalism two decades ago, replacing it with socialism.
The country, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, has squandered its wealth by heavily spending on government subsidies for residents, including 'free' health care. Experts believe the nation's inflation rate may hit one million percent by year's end. (One million is not a typo.)
The Venezuelan Central Bank has stopped issuing economic data in an effort to hide the country's chronic decline. Before it halted the practice, the bank's statistics showed that in a single year (2015) the per capita income plunged from $15,929 to $6,042. People are suffering in extreme poverty.
Venezuela's currency is in shambles, tumbling to an all time low. At the end of July, country's currency, the bolivar, was practically worthless. It took 115,000 bolivars to equal one U.S. dollar. Venezuelans lug pallets full of currency to the grocery store just to buy essentials.
As a result of hyperinflation, there are dire food and medical shortages. The country ran out of toilet paper and was forced to dispatch army troops to a paper manufacturing company occupied by angry residents. Recurring electricity blackouts and growing thug violence are a common occurrence.
Food riots erupt with alarming regularity. Hospitals have no running water. Thousands of Venezuelans are fleeing the country, escaping into neighboring Columbia. In response, the government has cracked down on dissent, jailing opponents and ratcheting up propaganda.
Dunderhead Hollywood nabobs like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and Michael Moore once pointed to Venezuela as a shining example of the benefits of socialism. They have been strangely silent as Venezuela plunges into economic and societal oblivion. The media has been mum too.
In the face of his nation's crisis, President Nicolas Maduro is continuing the practice of his mentor Hugo Chavez, looting the private sector, seizing companies and taking over farms, while fattening his personal fortune at the expense of his poverty-stricken people. This is what socialism looks like.
Democrat Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed Democratic Socialist who enchants young people with his message of free college and free health care, has been the standard bearer for socialist policies. Now Democrats candidates for elective office are openly endorsing the same ideals.
Those Americans who shill for socialism should be exposed as charlatans. They are peddling an economic and social solution that ruins the lives of people and bankrupts countries. The only equality socialism guarantees is shared misery. That's reason enough to soundly reject socialism.
Monday, August 13, 2018
News Media Has Lost Americans' Trust
Media elites, chafing under withering criticism from President Trump and his spokespersons, are infuriated over attacks impugning the integrity of news reporting. News execs are pitching a temper tantrum, calling the vilificaton an assault on the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.
There's nothing unusual about an adversarial relationship between the media and White House, but the current environment is toxic. Hostilities recently escalated into a fiery war of words over testy White House press briefings and the heckling of a CNN reporter at a Trump campaign rally.
Newspaper editors and television officials are framing the issue as an altruistic battle over a free and open press versus government censorship. But their real motive is less magnanimous. News organizations are trying to salvage their already tattered public standing, which has sunk to new lows.
A 2016 Pew Research study found that only 18 percent of Americans have a "a lot of trust" in national newspaper, television and radio news media. In a poll last year, Gallup reported that only 32 percent of adults have a "great deal" or "fair" amount of trust in the news media.
These are historic troughs for the news media. However, it is hardly breaking news. There has been a steady erosion in public opinion of the integrity of the news media over the last 20 years, stretching back to 1997. The downdraft did not begin with the election of Donald Trump.
In fact, an exhaustive study commissioned by the American Society of Newspapers Editors in 1998 uncovered that 78 percent of respondents agreed there is "bias" in reporting. A CBS News/New York Times poll in 2006 affirmed that only four in 10 adults believed news reports are truthful.
Those are alarming numbers for the news industry, which is suffering from dwindling newspaper readership, plummeting television viewership and tumbling radio ratings. The news business' high-stakes struggle for survival is being undermined by its flagging public image.
News officials may be outraged by the labeling of their reporting as "fake news," but they have given their detractors plenty of ammunition. There has been an epidemic of reporting that has proven to be false, misleading or deliberately biased. Examples abound across all media.
After Mr. Trump's victory, reports circulated on social media and the news that multiple transgender teenagers had committed suicide in response to his election. Even Snopes, an alleged fact-checking website, called the rumors "unconfirmed" rather than false. Turns out the news was indeed a fraud.
Later in November, the New York Magazine claimed a group of computer scientists and election lawyers were demanding a recount in three states won by Mr. Trump. The story was picked up by most media outlets. No proof was ever produced by the so-called experts and the story was pulled.
Another bombshell that exploded in the media's faces was a report that a Muslim business owner flew to Iraq to bring his sick mother to America for medical treatment. The woman supposedly died because her flight was delayed by the immigration ban. The account was a total fabrication.
Associated Press reported that the House had voted to roll back Obama rules on background checks for gun ownership a year ago. The news created hysteria on social media. Some might call the story misleading but it was downright deceitful. The House did no such thing.
For the record, the House repealed a narrow slice of the Obama era rule dealing with background checks for those with Social Security disability and adults receiving Supplemental Security Income. Even the American Association for People with Disabilities and the ACLU supported the change.
CNN has earned the title of least trusted network for egregious bogus reporting. CNN falsely reported the president removed a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King from his office. Three CNN employees resigned after the network retracted a story about a meeting between a Trump official and a Russian.
And on and on it goes. The New York Times falsely claimed on its front page that the Trump Administration had hidden a climate report. ABC demoted Brian Ross for a bungled report on Trump-Russia. The Washington Post posted a phony photo of an empty stadium for a Trump rally.
In each case, social media users amplified the lies thousands and thousands of times on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. One false story turns into a tsunami of fake news. That makes it even more incumbent on the legacy media to get its facts straight before the stories are reported as news.
There is no defense for the current spate of reckless reporting by the national media. The First Amendment is not a license for outright lying and deception. The media has an obligation to hold government accountable, but it must be credible to do its job the way the founders intended.
Journalists are the ones who can fix the credibility problem. Editors and media owners need to hold reporters accountable for truth and fairness or nothing will change. The choice is theirs. Either deal with the integrity issue or watch the news industry incinerate itself.
There's nothing unusual about an adversarial relationship between the media and White House, but the current environment is toxic. Hostilities recently escalated into a fiery war of words over testy White House press briefings and the heckling of a CNN reporter at a Trump campaign rally.
Newspaper editors and television officials are framing the issue as an altruistic battle over a free and open press versus government censorship. But their real motive is less magnanimous. News organizations are trying to salvage their already tattered public standing, which has sunk to new lows.
A 2016 Pew Research study found that only 18 percent of Americans have a "a lot of trust" in national newspaper, television and radio news media. In a poll last year, Gallup reported that only 32 percent of adults have a "great deal" or "fair" amount of trust in the news media.
These are historic troughs for the news media. However, it is hardly breaking news. There has been a steady erosion in public opinion of the integrity of the news media over the last 20 years, stretching back to 1997. The downdraft did not begin with the election of Donald Trump.
In fact, an exhaustive study commissioned by the American Society of Newspapers Editors in 1998 uncovered that 78 percent of respondents agreed there is "bias" in reporting. A CBS News/New York Times poll in 2006 affirmed that only four in 10 adults believed news reports are truthful.
Those are alarming numbers for the news industry, which is suffering from dwindling newspaper readership, plummeting television viewership and tumbling radio ratings. The news business' high-stakes struggle for survival is being undermined by its flagging public image.
News officials may be outraged by the labeling of their reporting as "fake news," but they have given their detractors plenty of ammunition. There has been an epidemic of reporting that has proven to be false, misleading or deliberately biased. Examples abound across all media.
After Mr. Trump's victory, reports circulated on social media and the news that multiple transgender teenagers had committed suicide in response to his election. Even Snopes, an alleged fact-checking website, called the rumors "unconfirmed" rather than false. Turns out the news was indeed a fraud.
Later in November, the New York Magazine claimed a group of computer scientists and election lawyers were demanding a recount in three states won by Mr. Trump. The story was picked up by most media outlets. No proof was ever produced by the so-called experts and the story was pulled.
Another bombshell that exploded in the media's faces was a report that a Muslim business owner flew to Iraq to bring his sick mother to America for medical treatment. The woman supposedly died because her flight was delayed by the immigration ban. The account was a total fabrication.
Associated Press reported that the House had voted to roll back Obama rules on background checks for gun ownership a year ago. The news created hysteria on social media. Some might call the story misleading but it was downright deceitful. The House did no such thing.
For the record, the House repealed a narrow slice of the Obama era rule dealing with background checks for those with Social Security disability and adults receiving Supplemental Security Income. Even the American Association for People with Disabilities and the ACLU supported the change.
CNN has earned the title of least trusted network for egregious bogus reporting. CNN falsely reported the president removed a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King from his office. Three CNN employees resigned after the network retracted a story about a meeting between a Trump official and a Russian.
And on and on it goes. The New York Times falsely claimed on its front page that the Trump Administration had hidden a climate report. ABC demoted Brian Ross for a bungled report on Trump-Russia. The Washington Post posted a phony photo of an empty stadium for a Trump rally.
In each case, social media users amplified the lies thousands and thousands of times on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. One false story turns into a tsunami of fake news. That makes it even more incumbent on the legacy media to get its facts straight before the stories are reported as news.
There is no defense for the current spate of reckless reporting by the national media. The First Amendment is not a license for outright lying and deception. The media has an obligation to hold government accountable, but it must be credible to do its job the way the founders intended.
Journalists are the ones who can fix the credibility problem. Editors and media owners need to hold reporters accountable for truth and fairness or nothing will change. The choice is theirs. Either deal with the integrity issue or watch the news industry incinerate itself.
Monday, August 6, 2018
Greenhouse Gas: Holy Cow! Stop Already!
As any fifth grader knows fossil fuels and energy production are the largest producers of greenhouse gasses. But many Americans are unaware scientists have documented that cattle also contribute unhealthy emissions. New research holds promise of a solution to relieve gasbag cows.
Leading scientists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have quantified the impact of livestock methane emissions. The best estimate is that these animals account for 4.2 percent of all greenhouse gas output. That includes not only cows, but sheep, pigs, chickens and horses.
However, dairy and beef cattle account for the largest share of animal methane emissions. In 2016, the U.S. had 38.1 million cows, including 29 million beef and 9 million diary cattle. California leads the nation in dairy cows with 1.8 million. Texas ranks first with 10.9 million beef cows.
Scientists beef with cows is the animals perpetually burp and exhale, creating methane. The beasts also pass methane gas from the other end of their carcass, but to a lesser degree. Manure also is a source of methane emissions. Think about these details next time you bite into a juicy steak.
California politicians decided to raise a stink about all that burping and defecating so they adopted new regulations requiring diary farmers and producers of other livestock to cut methane emissions by 40 percent by 2030. How would you like to be the bureaucrat measuring cattle emissions?
Some smart people at the University of California, Davis, offered to tackle the issue to give cattle ranchers a way to meet the methane mandate. A team from the Department of Animal Science zeroed in on the diet and digestive tract of the animals. They also found a nugget from past studies.
A trial in Australia found that introducing just two percent seaweed into feed munched by cows could reduce methane emissions by 99 percent. The seaweed inhibits an enzyme that contributes to methane production. But the cows turned up their noses when they tasted the seaweed.
Starting with that research, the UCD group experimented with several supplements until they stumbled upon one the cows practically mooed over. They found a touch of molasses masked the smell of the ocean algae (aka seaweed). And you thought molasses was just for baked beans.
Researchers introduced the sweetened seaweed into standard cattle pellets made from oil cakes, peanut seedling, grass, maize straw, wheat straw, wheat bran and other agricultural byproducts. As the cows snacked on the mixture scientists measured the methane in their breath.
The results were amoozing, according to the UCD team. Cows whose diet included the molasses enriched seaweed had reductions in methane gas emission that exceeded the California legislature's target. Researchers called the findings "very surprising and promising."
Of course, less methane would be pointless if the cows milk tasted like seaweed. Throughout the trial, researchers tested the cows milk for flavor, yield and nutritional content. Preliminary results were encouraging, but more research is required to verify the findings of the small survey.
"We have much more research to do to determine if seaweed supplements could provide a viable, long term-term solution," confirmed Ermias Kebreab with the UCD Animal Science Department. "But we are very encouraged by these early results." The trial involved only 12 smelly cows.
Beyond tenderizing emissions, growing seaweed doesn't require land, fresh water or fertilizer. No carbon producing equipment would be needed to harvest the seaweed, which can't be said for hay and other livestock feed. This could be a win-win for the cattle industry and the climate.
No matter the environmental issues, it would be udder-ly senseless to adopt the molasses and seaweed recipe unless cows are convinced it cud be worth chewing. Researchers hopefully won't have to wait until the cows come home to have an answer to that question.
Leading scientists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have quantified the impact of livestock methane emissions. The best estimate is that these animals account for 4.2 percent of all greenhouse gas output. That includes not only cows, but sheep, pigs, chickens and horses.
However, dairy and beef cattle account for the largest share of animal methane emissions. In 2016, the U.S. had 38.1 million cows, including 29 million beef and 9 million diary cattle. California leads the nation in dairy cows with 1.8 million. Texas ranks first with 10.9 million beef cows.
Scientists beef with cows is the animals perpetually burp and exhale, creating methane. The beasts also pass methane gas from the other end of their carcass, but to a lesser degree. Manure also is a source of methane emissions. Think about these details next time you bite into a juicy steak.
California politicians decided to raise a stink about all that burping and defecating so they adopted new regulations requiring diary farmers and producers of other livestock to cut methane emissions by 40 percent by 2030. How would you like to be the bureaucrat measuring cattle emissions?
Some smart people at the University of California, Davis, offered to tackle the issue to give cattle ranchers a way to meet the methane mandate. A team from the Department of Animal Science zeroed in on the diet and digestive tract of the animals. They also found a nugget from past studies.
A trial in Australia found that introducing just two percent seaweed into feed munched by cows could reduce methane emissions by 99 percent. The seaweed inhibits an enzyme that contributes to methane production. But the cows turned up their noses when they tasted the seaweed.
Starting with that research, the UCD group experimented with several supplements until they stumbled upon one the cows practically mooed over. They found a touch of molasses masked the smell of the ocean algae (aka seaweed). And you thought molasses was just for baked beans.
Researchers introduced the sweetened seaweed into standard cattle pellets made from oil cakes, peanut seedling, grass, maize straw, wheat straw, wheat bran and other agricultural byproducts. As the cows snacked on the mixture scientists measured the methane in their breath.
The results were amoozing, according to the UCD team. Cows whose diet included the molasses enriched seaweed had reductions in methane gas emission that exceeded the California legislature's target. Researchers called the findings "very surprising and promising."
Of course, less methane would be pointless if the cows milk tasted like seaweed. Throughout the trial, researchers tested the cows milk for flavor, yield and nutritional content. Preliminary results were encouraging, but more research is required to verify the findings of the small survey.
"We have much more research to do to determine if seaweed supplements could provide a viable, long term-term solution," confirmed Ermias Kebreab with the UCD Animal Science Department. "But we are very encouraged by these early results." The trial involved only 12 smelly cows.
Beyond tenderizing emissions, growing seaweed doesn't require land, fresh water or fertilizer. No carbon producing equipment would be needed to harvest the seaweed, which can't be said for hay and other livestock feed. This could be a win-win for the cattle industry and the climate.
No matter the environmental issues, it would be udder-ly senseless to adopt the molasses and seaweed recipe unless cows are convinced it cud be worth chewing. Researchers hopefully won't have to wait until the cows come home to have an answer to that question.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Why Soros Is Buying District Attorneys
Elections for local district attorneys were once political yawners. The contests were uninteresting, void of partisan politics and starved for big money donors. All that has changed in recent years as billionaire George Soros has emptied his coffers to tip the scales for liberal Democrat candidates.
Beginning in 2014, the hedge fund kingpin has poured tens of millions of dollars into races for county district attorney across the nation. His goal is to remove pro-law enforcement, anti-illegal immigration and anti-sanctuary city DA incumbents and replace them with handpicked ideologues.
Soros launched his campaign four years ago with a $50 million donation from his Open Society Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). To gain more political leverage, he shoveled millions into political action committees (PAC) targeting law-and-order district attorneys.
Why are county district attorneys so important to Soros? DA's have wide discretion to decide which crimes to prosecute, what charges to file, who to prosecute and whether to permit plea agreements. They have the power to accept or reject police evidence in recommendations for prosecution.
With that much authority, district attorneys have the opportunity to reshape the criminal justice system to fit Soros' progressive model.
The mogul and ally ACLU favor candidates who support open borders, amnesty for illegal immigrants, a moratorium on the death penalty and reduced sentences for so-called low level offenses, such as drug crimes. However, his candidates rarely mention these issues.
Soros' wealth has found its way into races in Philadelphia, San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, Houston, several Florida counties, Mississippi and San Antonio. Political action committees and shadow groups are showered with cash, usually at least $1 million per contest.
Until Soros waded into these arcane races, most voters could not even name their local district attorney. A contested battle for the position usually attracted little interest and far less than $1 million in donations. That was before Soros began using his finances and political clout to tilt the equation.
His modus operandi is to employ powerful Washington-based law firm Perkins Cole to establish a PAC with a name that is politically sanitized. The PACs are branded "Justice and Safety," "California Justice" and "Public Safety." The names are deliberately obtuse to hide Soros' real agenda.
Soros funding flows through his foundation and some of the 100 organizations with ties to the magnate. The carpetbagger prefers to remain in the background, the puppet master hidden behind the veiled curtain of secrecy. He never publicly endorses a candidate for district attorney.
Rather the tycoon orchestrates an infusion of cash for his chosen candidate, swamping war chests raised by opponents. The money allows the challenger to dominate the air waves with ads smearing the incumbent. Opponents are caught off guard when they discover Soros is financing the attacks.
Consider what happened to incumbent Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood in his reelection campaign this spring. Soros blindsided LaHood, investing nearly $1 million in Joe Gonzales to oust the incumbent for the sin of opposing San Antonio's sanctuary city status. LaHood was trounced.
The campaign playbook calls for recruitment of anti-law enforcement organizations such as Black Lives Matter and pro-immigration groups to join forces with the ACLU in stirring up activists in the community. The result creates the appearance of large scale opposition to the office holder.
A few incumbents are fed up with Soros' meddling. In the race for DA in San Diego, the incumbent struck back slamming Soros on the airwaves. In the ads, a picture of Soros is superimposed over masked, black-clad street demonstrator. The inference is clear: Soros is a threat to public safety.
Despite the push back, Soros has racked up many successes, toppling incumbent district attorneys around the nation. His funding is creating a national liberal agenda on criminal justice by buying one county district attorney at a time. There is only one way to stop Soros. Voters are the best defense.
Don't ignore your local district attorney race. Research the positions of the candidates. Use online sources to find out which PAC's are involved in the race. Learn if the organizations have links to Soros. Then decide whether you want an independent DA or one beholden to George Soros.
Beginning in 2014, the hedge fund kingpin has poured tens of millions of dollars into races for county district attorney across the nation. His goal is to remove pro-law enforcement, anti-illegal immigration and anti-sanctuary city DA incumbents and replace them with handpicked ideologues.
Soros launched his campaign four years ago with a $50 million donation from his Open Society Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). To gain more political leverage, he shoveled millions into political action committees (PAC) targeting law-and-order district attorneys.
Why are county district attorneys so important to Soros? DA's have wide discretion to decide which crimes to prosecute, what charges to file, who to prosecute and whether to permit plea agreements. They have the power to accept or reject police evidence in recommendations for prosecution.
With that much authority, district attorneys have the opportunity to reshape the criminal justice system to fit Soros' progressive model.
The mogul and ally ACLU favor candidates who support open borders, amnesty for illegal immigrants, a moratorium on the death penalty and reduced sentences for so-called low level offenses, such as drug crimes. However, his candidates rarely mention these issues.
Soros' wealth has found its way into races in Philadelphia, San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, Houston, several Florida counties, Mississippi and San Antonio. Political action committees and shadow groups are showered with cash, usually at least $1 million per contest.
Until Soros waded into these arcane races, most voters could not even name their local district attorney. A contested battle for the position usually attracted little interest and far less than $1 million in donations. That was before Soros began using his finances and political clout to tilt the equation.
His modus operandi is to employ powerful Washington-based law firm Perkins Cole to establish a PAC with a name that is politically sanitized. The PACs are branded "Justice and Safety," "California Justice" and "Public Safety." The names are deliberately obtuse to hide Soros' real agenda.
Soros funding flows through his foundation and some of the 100 organizations with ties to the magnate. The carpetbagger prefers to remain in the background, the puppet master hidden behind the veiled curtain of secrecy. He never publicly endorses a candidate for district attorney.
Rather the tycoon orchestrates an infusion of cash for his chosen candidate, swamping war chests raised by opponents. The money allows the challenger to dominate the air waves with ads smearing the incumbent. Opponents are caught off guard when they discover Soros is financing the attacks.
Consider what happened to incumbent Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood in his reelection campaign this spring. Soros blindsided LaHood, investing nearly $1 million in Joe Gonzales to oust the incumbent for the sin of opposing San Antonio's sanctuary city status. LaHood was trounced.
The campaign playbook calls for recruitment of anti-law enforcement organizations such as Black Lives Matter and pro-immigration groups to join forces with the ACLU in stirring up activists in the community. The result creates the appearance of large scale opposition to the office holder.
A few incumbents are fed up with Soros' meddling. In the race for DA in San Diego, the incumbent struck back slamming Soros on the airwaves. In the ads, a picture of Soros is superimposed over masked, black-clad street demonstrator. The inference is clear: Soros is a threat to public safety.
Despite the push back, Soros has racked up many successes, toppling incumbent district attorneys around the nation. His funding is creating a national liberal agenda on criminal justice by buying one county district attorney at a time. There is only one way to stop Soros. Voters are the best defense.
Don't ignore your local district attorney race. Research the positions of the candidates. Use online sources to find out which PAC's are involved in the race. Learn if the organizations have links to Soros. Then decide whether you want an independent DA or one beholden to George Soros.
Monday, July 23, 2018
Unaccompanied Children: Propaganda Versus Fact
A chilling photo of two immigrant children in a fenced detention center went viral two months ago. The picture of young females stretched out on a concrete floor caused a national furor over President Trump's immigration policy. There was only one problem. The photo was snapped in 2014.
In May, posts on Twitter and other social media never mentioned the photo was four years old. The provocative image and others were posted by President's Obama's former speechwriter Jon Favreau, who claimed the photos were evidence of Mr. Trump's cruel punishment of unaccompanied children.
Only when an Arizona newspaper pointed out the photos were taken four years ago did Favreau confess. However, he attempted to weasel out of his deception by pleading he made a mistake. His assertion came long after the images triggered a national outrage on the handling of minors.
The incident is one example of many disinformation efforts to inflame the national conscience over this volatile issue. As a result of the propaganda, the blame for the treatment of these children has fallen on the shoulders of the current administration. Facts seem to matter little to the perpetrators.
In the rush to judgment, few recall the U.S. policy for detaining unaccompanied children has been in force for a decade. Under a law passed with bi-partisan support in 2008, unaccompanied foreign children from countries other than Mexico or Canada are taken into custody for their protection.
The unaccompanied minor problem spiked during the Obama years, beginning in 2014 when thousands of immigrants from Central American countries were smuggled into the U.S. From October 2015 to March of 2016, unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border rose 78 percent.
According to a Pew Research analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, from 2014 to March of 2016, border agents detained 71,951 unaccompanied minors who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Detention centers quickly were overcrowded by the stream of foreign minors.
Alarmed at the surge, the Obama Administration was forced to launch a public information campaign in Central America to stem the flood of children. Although the effort had a temporary impact, it failed to deter the tsunami of immigrant youths journeying north to the U.S.
During the crisis, the Obama Administration followed the 2008 law without a peep from the media. Minors were temporarily placed in shelter facilities operated by Customs and Border Protection. After screening, they were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
This policy was designed to prevent human trafficking and to keep children safe. The youths were fed, sheltered and provided medical care until they could be released to a family member or sponsor. No matter what you read in the media, this policy remains the same today as it was under Obama.
In recognition of the growing problem, the Department of Health and Human Services recently expanded the number of shelters to 100 with 13,000 beds in 17 states. The federal budget for this fiscal year was increased to $1.08 billion to handle minors placed in U.S. custody.
It was no coincidence the fake social media propaganda appeared soon after the administration enacted a policy of zero tolerance for illegal adults apprehended at the border. The directive does cause children to be temporarily separated from their families after the adult is placed in custody.
Adding to the duplicity, the media circulated stories asserting 1,500 children separated from their parents had gone missing. There was confusion about whether the children were separated from families at the border. It turns out ORR transitioned the minors to sponsors in the U.S.
Under President Trump, ORR has placed 23,543 minors who entered the country illegally. Some of those minors are sent to family members who may be living in the country illegally. Reuniting families is a priority even if the sponsors are undocumented foreigners. Does that sound cruel?
Critics deliberately obfuscate the issue by mixing the unaccompanied minor policy with the apprehension of illegal adult immigrants. The issues are divided by very different laws and legal directives. Most news reporting jumbles the two together to support their anti-Trump narrative.
Additionally, the media has neglected to report that some minors are not innocent children. Documents obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch reveal nearly 1,000 cases in 2014 of foreign minors confessing to murders, rapes, smuggling and prostitution in their country of origin.
The ORR incident logs also contain reports of Central American minors suffering sexual assaults during their journey through Mexico and being subjected to inappropriate sexual relationships with Mexican cops. Why is there no denunciation of Mexican corruption and treatment of minors?
Children traveling alone is a humanitarian and public safety nightmare. Some are quick to pin the blame on the administration because these minors are put in peril after parents ship them out on their own. There are better ways. The United States offers legal immigration and political asylum.
No one in Congress is asking the obvious question: Why are so many unaccompanied foreign minors continuing to enter the U.S. illegally? Finding a solution requires answers from the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A country trying to protect children is not the problem.
In May, posts on Twitter and other social media never mentioned the photo was four years old. The provocative image and others were posted by President's Obama's former speechwriter Jon Favreau, who claimed the photos were evidence of Mr. Trump's cruel punishment of unaccompanied children.
Only when an Arizona newspaper pointed out the photos were taken four years ago did Favreau confess. However, he attempted to weasel out of his deception by pleading he made a mistake. His assertion came long after the images triggered a national outrage on the handling of minors.
The incident is one example of many disinformation efforts to inflame the national conscience over this volatile issue. As a result of the propaganda, the blame for the treatment of these children has fallen on the shoulders of the current administration. Facts seem to matter little to the perpetrators.
In the rush to judgment, few recall the U.S. policy for detaining unaccompanied children has been in force for a decade. Under a law passed with bi-partisan support in 2008, unaccompanied foreign children from countries other than Mexico or Canada are taken into custody for their protection.
The unaccompanied minor problem spiked during the Obama years, beginning in 2014 when thousands of immigrants from Central American countries were smuggled into the U.S. From October 2015 to March of 2016, unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border rose 78 percent.
According to a Pew Research analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, from 2014 to March of 2016, border agents detained 71,951 unaccompanied minors who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Detention centers quickly were overcrowded by the stream of foreign minors.
Alarmed at the surge, the Obama Administration was forced to launch a public information campaign in Central America to stem the flood of children. Although the effort had a temporary impact, it failed to deter the tsunami of immigrant youths journeying north to the U.S.
During the crisis, the Obama Administration followed the 2008 law without a peep from the media. Minors were temporarily placed in shelter facilities operated by Customs and Border Protection. After screening, they were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
This policy was designed to prevent human trafficking and to keep children safe. The youths were fed, sheltered and provided medical care until they could be released to a family member or sponsor. No matter what you read in the media, this policy remains the same today as it was under Obama.
In recognition of the growing problem, the Department of Health and Human Services recently expanded the number of shelters to 100 with 13,000 beds in 17 states. The federal budget for this fiscal year was increased to $1.08 billion to handle minors placed in U.S. custody.
It was no coincidence the fake social media propaganda appeared soon after the administration enacted a policy of zero tolerance for illegal adults apprehended at the border. The directive does cause children to be temporarily separated from their families after the adult is placed in custody.
Adding to the duplicity, the media circulated stories asserting 1,500 children separated from their parents had gone missing. There was confusion about whether the children were separated from families at the border. It turns out ORR transitioned the minors to sponsors in the U.S.
Under President Trump, ORR has placed 23,543 minors who entered the country illegally. Some of those minors are sent to family members who may be living in the country illegally. Reuniting families is a priority even if the sponsors are undocumented foreigners. Does that sound cruel?
Critics deliberately obfuscate the issue by mixing the unaccompanied minor policy with the apprehension of illegal adult immigrants. The issues are divided by very different laws and legal directives. Most news reporting jumbles the two together to support their anti-Trump narrative.
Additionally, the media has neglected to report that some minors are not innocent children. Documents obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch reveal nearly 1,000 cases in 2014 of foreign minors confessing to murders, rapes, smuggling and prostitution in their country of origin.
The ORR incident logs also contain reports of Central American minors suffering sexual assaults during their journey through Mexico and being subjected to inappropriate sexual relationships with Mexican cops. Why is there no denunciation of Mexican corruption and treatment of minors?
Children traveling alone is a humanitarian and public safety nightmare. Some are quick to pin the blame on the administration because these minors are put in peril after parents ship them out on their own. There are better ways. The United States offers legal immigration and political asylum.
No one in Congress is asking the obvious question: Why are so many unaccompanied foreign minors continuing to enter the U.S. illegally? Finding a solution requires answers from the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A country trying to protect children is not the problem.
Monday, July 16, 2018
The Supremes: Court Nominees Endure Inquisition
When President George Washington named John Jay as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he could never have imagined the gauntlet future nominees would face. Almost 230 years later, court appointees endure fierce partisan attacks and personal vilification.
Once presidential nominees to the nation's highest court were treated with polite deference. Those days disappeared during the presidency of Richard Nixon when two appointees were rejected in votes by the Senate in 1969 and 1970. That had not happened since 1930 under President Hoover.
While some nominees have voluntarily withdrawn their names in the past, only a dozen nominees in two centuries have been voted down by the Senate. While scrutiny of any Supreme Court appointment is part of the Senate's role, it has evolved into political theater unfitting of the office.
As evidence, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy touched off a firestorm of opposition before his replacement was even named. When President Trump tapped Brett Kavanaugh, a respected judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the verbal knifing began.
It is an omen that his confirmation hearings will feature political teeth gnashing instead of serious judicial inquiry.
A powerful Political Action Committee (PAC) funded by George Soros has already begun digging into Kavanaugh's background. The American Bridge 21st Century, founded in 2012, specializes in opposition research, a polite term for trolling for dirt on those the PAC deems its enemies.
In fact, the group has made no pretense that it is less interested in combing through Judge Kavanaugh's legal scholarship than it is in uncovering details of his personal life or views on political and religious issues. The latter may garner the spotlight since the nominee is a practicing Catholic.
The nation was treated to a precursor of what Kavanaugh likely will encounter when President Trump nominated Notre Dame University professor Amy Coney Barrett to an appeals court. Led by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein, the hearings denigrated into a religious inquisition.
The senator delved deeply into how Barrett's faith might influence her rulings, suggesting she wore her Catholicism too "loudly." This represented the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry. Expect more of the same when Kavanaugh is grilled by Democrats during the confirmation hearings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that "women's health care" will be a central issue. His choice of words is political code for abortion. Democrats will hammer that theme to raise the specter that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if a Catholic justice is confirmed.
(Note to Liberals: A 2017 Pew Research poll of adults nationwide found 57 percent support abortion in all or most cases. Among Catholics surveyed, 53 percent held the same position. That means Catholics or no more likely to oppose abortion than any other adult.)
This red herring survives despite the fact there has never been a direct legal challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled unconstitutional a state law banning abortion to save the life of a mother. The ruling has stood for 45 years. In the interim, there have been 60 million U.S. abortions.
The other issue likely to be front and center is the #MeToo movement. In today's hyper-charged atmosphere any whiff of sexual impropriety is enough to destroy a public figure. A left-wing outfit Ultraviolet has made its mission to sabotage the nomination with scurrilous sexual accusations.
Ultraviolet is shopping a six-page memo to senators and the media insinuating Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment accusations against a federal judge and failed to act. The sleazy dossier offers no incriminating evidence to back its claims against Kavanaugh, who clerked for the judge.
It matters little the alleged incident happened 25 years ago and there has never been a hint of impropriety on Kavanaugh's part. It also is no coincidence that Ultraviolet has links to MoveOn.org, another activist group that enjoys generous financial support from the irascible Soros.
Over the next month, expect activists armed with war chests to nitpick every email, memo and private utterance of Judge Kavanaugh to find a smoking gun. The ruthless efforts will yield no real proof but insidious innuendos. Thus the hearings likely will be uncivil and uninformative.
Kavanaugh has a 12-year record on the court of appeals. There are more than 300 of his cases that provide a window into his views on the Constitution as well as insights into his integrity, knowledge of the law and judicial competence. His judicial record should determine his fate, but it won't.
This is Washington and nothing inspires political grandstanding and personal bullying like hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. Ultimately, Kavanaugh will be approved but not until senators have shredded every last remnant of their already tattered cloak of dignity.
Once presidential nominees to the nation's highest court were treated with polite deference. Those days disappeared during the presidency of Richard Nixon when two appointees were rejected in votes by the Senate in 1969 and 1970. That had not happened since 1930 under President Hoover.
While some nominees have voluntarily withdrawn their names in the past, only a dozen nominees in two centuries have been voted down by the Senate. While scrutiny of any Supreme Court appointment is part of the Senate's role, it has evolved into political theater unfitting of the office.
As evidence, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy touched off a firestorm of opposition before his replacement was even named. When President Trump tapped Brett Kavanaugh, a respected judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the verbal knifing began.
It is an omen that his confirmation hearings will feature political teeth gnashing instead of serious judicial inquiry.
A powerful Political Action Committee (PAC) funded by George Soros has already begun digging into Kavanaugh's background. The American Bridge 21st Century, founded in 2012, specializes in opposition research, a polite term for trolling for dirt on those the PAC deems its enemies.
In fact, the group has made no pretense that it is less interested in combing through Judge Kavanaugh's legal scholarship than it is in uncovering details of his personal life or views on political and religious issues. The latter may garner the spotlight since the nominee is a practicing Catholic.
The nation was treated to a precursor of what Kavanaugh likely will encounter when President Trump nominated Notre Dame University professor Amy Coney Barrett to an appeals court. Led by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein, the hearings denigrated into a religious inquisition.
The senator delved deeply into how Barrett's faith might influence her rulings, suggesting she wore her Catholicism too "loudly." This represented the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry. Expect more of the same when Kavanaugh is grilled by Democrats during the confirmation hearings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that "women's health care" will be a central issue. His choice of words is political code for abortion. Democrats will hammer that theme to raise the specter that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if a Catholic justice is confirmed.
(Note to Liberals: A 2017 Pew Research poll of adults nationwide found 57 percent support abortion in all or most cases. Among Catholics surveyed, 53 percent held the same position. That means Catholics or no more likely to oppose abortion than any other adult.)
This red herring survives despite the fact there has never been a direct legal challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled unconstitutional a state law banning abortion to save the life of a mother. The ruling has stood for 45 years. In the interim, there have been 60 million U.S. abortions.
The other issue likely to be front and center is the #MeToo movement. In today's hyper-charged atmosphere any whiff of sexual impropriety is enough to destroy a public figure. A left-wing outfit Ultraviolet has made its mission to sabotage the nomination with scurrilous sexual accusations.
Ultraviolet is shopping a six-page memo to senators and the media insinuating Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment accusations against a federal judge and failed to act. The sleazy dossier offers no incriminating evidence to back its claims against Kavanaugh, who clerked for the judge.
It matters little the alleged incident happened 25 years ago and there has never been a hint of impropriety on Kavanaugh's part. It also is no coincidence that Ultraviolet has links to MoveOn.org, another activist group that enjoys generous financial support from the irascible Soros.
Over the next month, expect activists armed with war chests to nitpick every email, memo and private utterance of Judge Kavanaugh to find a smoking gun. The ruthless efforts will yield no real proof but insidious innuendos. Thus the hearings likely will be uncivil and uninformative.
Kavanaugh has a 12-year record on the court of appeals. There are more than 300 of his cases that provide a window into his views on the Constitution as well as insights into his integrity, knowledge of the law and judicial competence. His judicial record should determine his fate, but it won't.
This is Washington and nothing inspires political grandstanding and personal bullying like hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. Ultimately, Kavanaugh will be approved but not until senators have shredded every last remnant of their already tattered cloak of dignity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)