18 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-13-19

  1. The House passed a bi-partisan farm bill……

    That’s DOA, since they’re trying to back door amnesty in it as well. They couldn’t help but sabotage it, for the agenda.


    “House Passes Farm Bill With Bipartisan Support, But Includes Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

    34 Republicans voted for the bill.”

    “The House passed Farm Workforce Modernization Act with supports from both sides of the aisle. However, critics have blasted the bill since it contains language they describe as “large-scale amnesty.”


    “A few GOP representatives had other problems with the bill. Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) did not vote for the bill, but said he would work with his GOP colleagues in the Senate “to improve on the existing proposal.”

    Collins said the farm bill benefits large dairies but “would not have a meaningful impact on Georgia’s agriculture.”

    But Collins also lashed out at the immigration language:

    “While the 224 pages of H.R. 5038 make many more changes to the H-2A program — some good and some bad — one need look no further than the first few pages to figure out the real point of this bill: a path to citizenship for an unknown number of illegal immigrants who do some work in agriculture, along with their families,” he said at the Judiciary Committee markup last month.

    He also said the bill’s document standards are low and could allow illegal immigrants with multiple DUI convictions and a history of Social Security fraud to get legal status.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Soros and his pals at World Relief are at it again, trying to pressure states to take in more refugees.

    It boggles the mind that a group that claims to be evangelical would join forces with this vile and evil man.


    “Six Republican governors across the country have been pressured into accepting more refugee resettlement measures in their states due to the lobbying efforts of a Soros-connected group, according to Breitbart.

    World Relief, an ostensibly Evangelical organization dedicated to bringing more refugees into first-world countries, has been lobbying governors to take on more refugee resettlement measures. World Relief has links to the National Immigration Forum, which is funded by Soros and also promotes an open borders agenda.”



    “Coupled with the refugee reduction, Trump signed an executive order that gives localities, counties, and states veto power over whether they want to resettle refugees in their communities.

    Executives at World Relief and the Evangelical Immigration Table — an organization with links to the Soros-funded National Immigration Forum — have been lobbying governors across the country to bring more refugees to their states. So far, six Republican governors have signed off to resettle refugees in their states, including North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey.

    The New York Times notes:

    Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical agency whose work includes resettlement, has been steering an effort to lobby governors to keep their states open to refugees. [Emphasis added]

    She said about 16 governors have submitted written consent, six of them Republicans. Gov. Doug Ducey, Republican of Arizona, agreed after receiving a letter supporting resettlement signed by 250 evangelical leaders. Gov. Greg Abbott, Republican of Texas, who leads the state that received the most refugees last year, has not yet offered his view, despite a plea from the mayor of Fort Worth to continue accepting refugees. [Emphasis added]

    Refugee contractors, like the Lutheran Social Services organization, have deployed a campaign to get mayors, local officials, and governors to admit more refugees to their states. Those contractors’ budgets every year are reliant on ensuring that as many refugees are resettled across the U.S. as possible.

    It remains unclear which six Republican governors, aside from Burgum and Ducey, have been successfully lobbied by the Soros-linked group.”


    And lest you think we’re not doing enough already…..

    “The federally mandated refugee resettlement program has brought more than 718,000 refugees to the U.S. since January 2008 — a group larger than the entire state population of Wyoming, which has 577,000 residents. In the last decade, about 73,000 refugees have been resettled in California, 71,500 resettled in Texas, nearly 43,000 resettled in New York, and more than 36,000 resettled in Michigan.

    Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to the latest research. Over the course of five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.”


  3. This is the problem with all these phony social justice types…….


    “The Cost of America’s Cultural Revolution

    Social-justice crusaders are stripping the future of everything that gives human life meaning: beauty, sublimity, and wit.”

    “Social-justice ideology is turning higher education into an engine of progressive political advocacy, according to a new report by the National Association of Scholars. Left-wing activists, masquerading as professors, are infiltrating traditional academic departments or creating new ones—departments such as “Solidarity and Social Justice”—to advance their cause. They are entering the highest rung of college administration, from which perch they require students to take social-justice courses, such as “Native Sexualities and Queer Discourse” or “Hip-hop Workshop,” and attend social-justice events—such as a Reparations, Repatriation, and Redress Symposium or a Power and Privilege Symposium—in order to graduate.

    But social-justice education is merely a symptom of an even deeper perversion of academic values: the cult of race and gender victimology, otherwise known as “diversity.” The diversity cult is destroying the very foundations of our civilization. It is worth first exploring, however, why social-justice education is an oxymoron.

    Why shouldn’t an academic aspire to correcting perceived social ills? The nineteenth-century American land-grant universities and the European research universities were founded, after all, on the premise that knowledge helps society progress. But social justice is a different beast entirely. When a university pursues social justice, it puts aside its traditional claim to authority: the disinterested search for knowledge. We accord universities enormous privileges. Their denizens are sheltered from the hurly-burly of the marketplace on the assumption that they will pursue truth wherever it will take them, unaffected by political or economic pressures. The definition of social justice, however, is deeply political, entailing a large number of contestable claims about the causes of socioeconomic inequality. Social-justice proponents believe that those claims are settled, and woe to anyone who challenges them on a college campus. There are, however, alternative explanations—besides oppression and illegitimate power—for ongoing inequalities, taboo though they may be in academia.

    A social-justice agenda, therefore, is a political commitment, and politics is not disinterested. Indeed, it is often tribal. Such tribalism caricatures political opponents and whitewashes political leaders, ignoring facts along the way, as shown both by the frenzied hostility to Donald Trump on the left and by his elevation to status of wise statesman and paragon of truth-telling by his most enthusiastic supporters, including in the conservative intelligentsia.”

    In his 1918 lecture, “Science as a Vocation,” Max Weber criticized the conflation of intellectual work with political action: “Whenever the man of science introduces his personal value judgment, a full understanding of the facts ceases.” The primary task of a teacher, Weber said, is to help his students recognize what Weber called “inconvenient” facts—inconvenient, that is, to the students’ party opinions. And for every party opinion, Weber observed, some facts are extremely inconvenient. Our political understanding of the world is partial; we will emphasize certain aspects of reality that buttress our values and deemphasize other aspects that contradict those values. According to Weber, when an academic pronounces on how one should act, he becomes a prophet or demagogue, neither of whom belong on the academic platform.

    Weber adduced another reason for abjuring politics in the classroom. Amusingly—an adverb that does not usually modify the great sociologist—it has been rendered completely irrelevant by twentieth-century education trends. A professor should not inflict his politics on his students, Weber said, because those students may not challenge his authority: “It is somewhat too convenient to demonstrate one’s courage in taking a stand where the audience and possible opponents are condemned to silence.” To which one can only respond: if only! Leave aside such student abuse of the adults in charge as the scourging of Nicholas Christakis at Yale, of Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College, and of Allison Stanger at Middlebury College, among others. The goal of the ordinary classroom today is to get ignorant students babbling about whatever idle thoughts pass through their heads without showing any intellectual deference to their professor. The number of professors who deserve such deference, however, is by now depressingly low, thanks to the triumph of social-justice ideology.

    Of course, many people on college campuses today are still “condemned to silence”—not out of any respect for faculty authority but because they disagree with the premises of victim politics. Conservative Harvard law students, a professor there recently told me, refrain from challenging the regnant dogmas in class, terrified that their remarks may end up on social media and thus jeopardize their careers. This unwillingness to air inconvenient facts—facts such as the connection between family breakdown and poverty—is precisely the shrinking of intellectual freedom against which Weber warned. And if a Harvard law student, occupying the closest position to riches, power, and prestige that a university can guarantee, nevertheless feels acutely vulnerable in his dissent from the orthodoxies, what is a lowly undergraduate or even post-doc to do?”


  4. And they seek to spread their wokeness to the younger students now too. Exhibit A.


    “The New Far-Left Curriculum Transforming Our Public Schools”

    “”Deep Equity,” developed by the Corwin company, is quickly becoming the new standard curriculum being taught in our public schools. If you’ve never heard of it, you soon will. It’s in San Tan Valley in Arizona; Chicago, Illinois; Louisville, Kentucky; the entire Cleveland Ohio public school district; charter schools in California; and many more American cities as well as Canada.

    This is how their website describes it:

    The Deep Equity framework, based on the work of Gary Howard, helps schools and districts establish the climate, protocols, common language, and common goal of implementing culturally responsive teaching practices.

    The Deep Equity approach is based on the belief that scholastic inequities are symptomatic of institutional biases and norms that must be directly challenged through systemic, ongoing, and authentic work.

    Deep Equity is a comprehensive and systemic professional development process aimed at producing the deep personal, professional, and organizational transformations that are necessary to create equitable places of learning for all of our nation’s children.

    This capacity-building program helps educators dismantle disparities through sustained, collaborative efforts and courageous leadership.

    Notice the politically “woke” phrases used.

    Disparities. Translation: The monolithic gap in education between disadvantaged people and those who are privileged.

    Culturally responsive teaching practices. Translation: If you’re not white, you will get much more leniency in matters of academic performance.

    Institutional biases. Translation: Institutions that operate in a manner that oppresses certain social groups while favoring others. For example: institutional racism victimizes blacks, Hispanics, and Asians while favoring whites.

    Organizational transformations. One of Obama’s favorites. Remember the “fundamentally transform the U.S.” speech? In other words, substitute the current white privilege–based curriculum with a new Marxist one.

    From this, it is clear that Deep Equity teaches that America is a deeply racist nation with a “hierarchy of various oppressions” (intersectionality). It demonizes whites, halts all debate, and tells teachers to reject and resist parents who disagree. Social justice demands that everyone believe that white people are simply too ignorant and privileged to understand that they are the oppressors within our society.”


  5. Nice to see some Dems are taking this impeachment thing seriously.




  6. Groom children with Drag Queen Story Time at the library, win accolades from the left.

    Pray for them at the library? Prepare to be prosecuted.

    These people are disgusting.


    “Spokane Prosecutes Pastor For Trying To Pray For Kids At Public Library Drag Queen Show

    In Spokane, 649 rape kits are awaiting attention, an opioid crisis is raging, and a serial killer hasn’t been caught, yet the city is throwing the book at a pastor who objects to a sexual minstrel show performed for children.”

    “This last June, a Christian pastor named Afshin Yaghtin dared to question the sexualization and objectification of our children on public property, and he paid the price. After his case was thrown out of court, last week Spokane officials announced they’ll appeal their prosecution of him for attempting to nonviolently use his free speech on public property.

    In June, Yaghtin attempted to enter the Spokane, Washington, South Hill Public Library to quietly pray for children attending a Drag Queen Story Hour, an event in which a crossdressing person reads young children books about sexuality. When Yaghtin stepped onto the public property of the library parking lot, a slew of police officers confronted him and informed him he would not be allowed on public property — because he was a Christian opposed to men in dresses reading to children and exposing them to a sexual fetish.

    This author was present at this event and watched as police arrested Yaghtin, who was not holding a sign or a megaphone, nor attempting to be disruptive. He simply wanted to enter a public building and exercise his constitutionally guaranteed rights. The pastor objected to police obstructing him from entering a public building because of his Christian faith — and they promptly arrested him for obstructing them. Yaghtin did not fight with police, and he did not raise his voice. He simply told the officers he had a constitutionally guaranteed right to enter the public library.

    One would think that after Yaghtin was arrested, he would be let go with at most a warning, as he was not threatening, violent, or even an agitator. But the Spokane City Attorney’s Office pressed full charges against this dangerous Christian who dared to exercise his constitutional rights.

    Thankfully, when brought before a Spokane Municipal Court, the judge rightly threw out the case for violating Yaghtin’s right to free speech and for a lack of evidence. This was a huge win for free speech and religious liberty — or was it? Unfortunately, this story is not over yet. The City of Spokane Prosecutor’s Office has indicated it plans to appeal the judge’s decision and make an example out of this Christian man.

    Currently, Spokane is ranked third most dangerous for property crimes nationally, and 649 rape kits are awaiting attention, an opioid crisis is raging, and a serial killer still hasn’t been caught, yet the city attorney’s office is determined to throw the book at a pastor who had an opinion about a sexist minstrel show being performed for children.”


  7. Huh.

    And yet I’ve been told it was all Trump’s fault……


    “Millennials have earned a reputation for reshaping industries and institutions — shaking up the workplace, transforming dating culture, and rethinking parenthood. They’ve also had a dramatic impact on American religious life. Four in ten millennials now say they are religiously unaffiliated, according to the Pew Research Center. In fact, millennials (those between the ages of 23 and 38) are now almost as likely to say they have no religion as they are to identify as Christian. 1
    For a long time, though, it wasn’t clear whether this youthful defection from religion would be temporary or permanent. It seemed possible that as millennials grew older, at least some would return to a more traditional religious life. But there’s mounting evidence that today’s younger generations may be leaving religion for good.

    Social science research has long suggested that Americans’ relationship with religion has a tidal quality — people who were raised religious find themselves drifting away as young adults, only to be drawn back in when they find spouses and begin to raise their own families. Some argued that young adults just hadn’t yet been pulled back into the fold of organized religion, especially since they were hitting major milestones like marriage and parenthood later on.

    But now many millennials have spouses, children and mortgages — and there’s little evidence of a corresponding surge in religious interest. A new national survey from the American Enterprise Institute of more than 2,500 Americans found a few reasons why millennials may not return to the religious fold. (One of the authors of this article helped conduct the survey.)

    For one thing, many millennials never had strong ties to religion to begin with, which means they were less likely to develop habits or associations that make it easier to return to a religious community.

    Young adults are also increasingly likely to have a spouse who is nonreligious, which may help reinforce their secular worldview.
    Changing views about the relationship between morality and religion also appear to have convinced many young parents that religious institutions are simply irrelevant or unnecessary for their children.

    Millennials may be the symbols of a broader societal shift away from religion, but they didn’t start it on their own. Their parents are at least partly responsible for a widening generational gap in religious identity and beliefs; they were more likely than previous generations to raise their children without any connection to organized religion. According to the AEI survey, 17 percent of millennials said that they were not raised in any particular religion compared with only five percent of Baby Boomers. And fewer than one in three (32 percent) millennials say they attended weekly religious services with their family when they were young, compared with about half (49 percent) of Baby Boomers.

    A parent’s religious identity (or lack thereof) can do a lot to shape a child’s religious habits and beliefs later in life. A 2016 Pew Research Center study found that regardless of the religion, those raised in households in which both parents shared the same religion still identified with that faith in adulthood. For instance, 84 percent of people raised by Protestant parents are still Protestant as adults. Similarly, people raised without religion are less apt to look for it as they grow older — that same Pew study found that 63 percent of people who grew up with two religiously unaffiliated parents were still nonreligious as adults.

    But one finding in the survey signals that even millennials who grew up religious may be increasingly unlikely to return to religion. In the 1970s, most nonreligious Americans had a religious spouse and often, that partner would draw them back into regular religious practice. But now, a growing number of unaffiliated Americans are settling down with someone who isn’t religious — a process that may have been accelerated by the sheer number of secular romantic partners available, and the rise of online dating. Today, 74 percent of unaffiliated millennials have a nonreligious partner or spouse, while only 26 percent have a partner who is religious.”


    I seem to recall reading somewhere something about the dangers of yoking oneself to unbelievers…..

    Now where was that?…….


  8. The House has passed two articles of impeachment.
    They don’t know what they’re getting themselves into.
    It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.


  9. It’s a staged comedy….. of errors. 🙂


    An ass seems a fitting mascot for these idiots. 🙂


  10. Trying to photo what could be restricted access documents is a non-no. This guy thinks he’s a spy or something.

    And CNN caught it all on their live feed.


    “Reuters Photographer Caught Taking Pictures of Documents on Desks During Break of Impeachment Debate”

    “The House Judiciary Committee ejected Reuters photographer Josh Roberts from yesterday’s hearing after CNN’s live feed caught him photographing documents on desks during a break.”



  11. Remember the old days, when they actually taught civics and govt structure to students?

    Yeah, good times….



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.