The Defense Department reported that it’s found $12.8 billion in possible funding that could be used to build a border wall, or roughly twice what Trump asked Congress for. It’s not that the Pentagon has major change under its sofa cushions. They just have a lot of areas where big chunks of money have been allocated but haven’t been spent yet. For instance, there’s more than $700 million in unused Army and Navy military construction funds in California alone, and Hawaii has more than $400 million.
It would be doubly ironic if Trump not only got his border wall without any funding from House Democrats, but it was built with money largely taken from federal funds that were going to be spent in blue states. The good news for California: the wall construction will at least create some jobs for Californians. Although if the jobs go to illegal immigrants, California’s leaders won’t exactly be in a position to protest that.
Sorry to hear that we might have to add the video hosting website Vimeo to the list of social media sites that think they have the power to ban and censor Christian religious beliefs in the name of LBGTQ rights.
It’s interesting that liberals think a Christian baker who doesn’t want to provide service for same-sex weddings that violate his religious beliefs is a bigot who deserves to be driven out of business. But if the liberal owners of a social media site refuse service to Christian customers just because they disagree with their views, that’s perfectly okay.
Reason.com reports that as recently as 2013, Bernie Sander’s new campaign adviser was touting the “economic miracle” of Venezuela. I don’t think that making all the food, medicine and toilet paper disappear qualifies as a “miracle.”
I’m always gratified to hear that people enjoy my Twitter account.
(If you’re on Twitter and aren’t following me yet, what are you waiting for?)
On the subject of the latest crackpot Democratic idea of lowering the voting age to 16, Speaker Pelosi embraced that, saying, “I think it’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school, when they’re interested in all of this, when they’re learning about the government, to be able to vote.”
I suspect the operative word in that statement is “capture.” The Democrats want to capture young people before they learn too much about government or earn their first paycheck with a big chunk of taxes taken out of it, or discover just how much they already owe because of the government maxing out their credit card, or figure out that there is no such thing as a free lunch (or college or health care.)
Recent studies have found that the rational part of the human brain isn’t fully developed until around age 25 or so, which explains why so many college students are enamored with socialism. It might also explain the Democrats’ eagerness to let 16-year-olds vote. That might be an argument for raising the voting age to 25, but I wouldn’t go that far.
I just can’t help wondering why liberals are simultaneously pushing to raise the age for purchasing a gun and lowering the age to vote. If they really believe people are too immature to handle bullets without killing themselves and everyone around them until they’re 21, why should they be trusted with ballots at 16?
As history has shown too often, poorly-cast ballots can have deadly consequences, too.
From the “The Science is Settled” Desk: Those of us old enough to remember the turn of the century (I mean the last one, around 2001) will recall the outrage from the media and liberal politicians when President Bush announced that federal funding of stem cell research would be limited to existing stem cell lines. That’s because embryonic stem cell research was seen as opening the door to treating human embryos as nothing but a commodity, eroding the sanctity of life, and encouraging researchers to create human embryos just to destroy them, and abortionists and researchers to collude in “harvesting” the body parts of pre-born children. To many, it carried frightening echoes of Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele’s sick and dehumanizing medical experiments on Jews.
At the time, those who opposed embryonic stem cell research were mercilessly criticized and mocked. They were “science deniers” standing in the way of the miracles that were sure to flow from embryonic stem cell research. They were accused of being heartless zealots who didn’t care about people suffering from diseases that might be cured through embryonic stem cell research. Barack Obama eventually reversed Bush’s order, so you’d think that the miracle cures would be flowing by now.
But something unexpected happened. Embryonic stem cells proved to have serious problems, such as an inability to control their growth and preventing them from turning into tumors. The vaunted miracles never materialized. The real breakthroughs are coming from stem cells harvested from adults.
The full extent of how wrong the initial “scientific” consensus was has now been verified in a groundbreaking paper in the medical journal, “Circulation Research.” Author David A. Prentice, Ph. D., writes, “Nonembryonic stem cell research has surpassed embryonic stem cells…The superiority of adult stem cells in the clinic and the mounting evidence supporting their effectiveness in regeneration and repair make adult stem cells the gold standard of stem cells for patients.”
It should serve as a lesson that when you abandon basic morality in the name of “science,” you end up with bad morality and bad science. It’s not always easy to stand up for doing the right thing when you’re being told to shut up and stand aside, but nobody ever ended up at the right destination by starting down the wrong path.
Shortly after the tragic Parkland school shooting, CNN hosted a townhall on guns that let the local sheriff and school officials off the hook and let participants blame and threaten NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch. An independent investigation later found that the crime could have been prevented if it weren’t for the incompetence of the sheriff and school officials, and recommended that teachers be armed. In other words, everything CNN presented was wrong. Like, 180-degrees from the truth. So what just happened?
The townhall just won “The Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism.”
Sort of makes you question the value of awards, doesn’t it? Read more here, including Dana Loesch’s response.
It isn’t often you see someone writing in the New York Times admit that there’s cause for optimism on racial issues in America (if white liberals with college degrees would quit dividing people by race), so this came as a welcome surprise:
The article includes charts based on various studies that suggest that racial tension in America isn’t so much animosity between different races as it is different views about racial ideology, with the recent ramping up of racial tensions being largely driven by white liberals going off the deep end (my term, not the Times’.) For all the attempts to blame President Trump for racial tension in America, the studies show that with divisive issues such as whether immigration should be increased or whether blacks need affirmative action to get ahead, support among white Republicans and blacks remained fairly low and consistent over time, while support for both among white liberals shot up sharply when Obama was still in office.
There are some stark differences between minorities and white Democrats and Republicans on some issues. For instance, on whether it’s racist for a white person to want less immigration to maintain the white share of the population, 91% of white Clinton voters with post-graduate degrees say it’s racist; while 95% of Trump voters with no college degree say it’s just racial self-interest, which is not racist. But most interestingly, minority voters said it was just racial self-interest and not racist by 55-45 percent.
That suggests that what a lot of people have been saying for a white now is true: white liberals who attended leftist indoctrination camps – sorry, “universities”— are loudly taking offense at things they declare to be racist that even most minority members don’t think are racist. They’re taking offense on behalf of people who aren’t offended, and in the process, aggravating racial tensions, divisions and suspicions, or even creating new ones.
This might help explain why the image we get of America from the media and liberal politicians seems unrecognizable compared to what we all experience every day. If you listen to the media or leftwing activists, you’d think that America in 2019 had hardly changed since the Reconstruction era, that the KKK was a growing threat and every political position favored by a white Republican, such as keeping our borders secure, was motivated by nothing but seething hatred for other races.
And yet, when you turn off the idiot box and go into America, aside from a handful of racially-polarized areas (many in gang-infested big cities run by liberal politicians, coincidentally), people of all races seem to be getting along pretty well. Whites, blacks, Asians, Indians and people of every other race and creed hold jobs where they serve each other and are served by each other. People of all different races are friends and co-workers and relatives of each other; they’re our bosses and our employees; they share the same churches, concert venues, parks, movie theaters and restaurants; and I would wager that only a tiny fraction of Americans ever have the thought “Oh, there’s someone of a race different from me” even cross their minds. It’s like we’re in America or something!
White liberals keep trying to convince us that racial animosity and prejudice are the driving forces behind all social and economic interactions in America, so we must constantly think about race and talk about race and make laws based on race. But these studies support what most of us already sense, based on our daily experiences: what really matters is what we all have in common. We’re all humans, we’re all Americans, we’re all God’s children, and we’re all just trying to get through life and take care of our families the best we can. Our skin may be different shades, but that’s really the least important thing about us.
The one thing the Times gets hilariously wrong is in saying that since “America isn’t racially divided, it’s divided by racial ideology,” that “this raises the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions.” That’s the arrogance of the Times showing through. In reality, it’s the political elites who are stirring the divisions to advance their political fortunes. The healing of divisions will come when everyday Americans of good will and of all races finally get tired of being played and toss the divisive elites out.
As the Rev. Martin Luther King liked to remind us, “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” It’s just hard for us all to pull in the same direction when a handful of people bent on dividing us keep rocking the boat.
In one sense, it’s hardly news when the Supreme Court overrules the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but this is still a story worth noting. The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 Tuesday in favor of the Trump Administration (although the case actually dates back to the Obama Administration, a detail I’m sure most media accounts will neglect to mention), ruling that any non-citizen/alien can be detained and held indefinitely by federal authorities while awaiting deportation hearings.
The 9th Circuit had ruled that aliens can only be detained if they were arrested soon after being released from jail, which is so vague that if they could evade arrest for even 24 hours, they might claim that was too long and they couldn’t be detained.
The SCOTUS noted that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the law differed from that of four other Circuit Courts (surprise!) It’s a complicated issue, and you should read the link to get more details on the arguments on each side. But the major takeaway is that once again, the 9th Circuit looked at a law that allowed even the slightest interpretation and, in effect, created their own version of it that differed wildly from what lawmakers obviously intended.
If, as the plaintiffs contend, the law is vague, confusing or unfair, then the solution should be to lobby Congress to fix the law, not expect a judge to rewrite it.