Daily Archives: January 14, 2019

January 14 Suffering a Faith Failure

Scripture Reading: Numbers 13–14

Key Verses: Proverbs 3:5–6

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.

The spies’ report was very negative and discouraging. The Israelites spent the entire night weeping and mourning. The situation seemed hopeless.

Under God’s direction, Moses had led them triumphantly out of Egypt toward their final destination—the promised land. But now they were stuck in the desert outside a land filled with menacing giants.

At a critical point in time—the moment of challenge—the Israelites took their eyes off the Lord and looked only at the obstacles. Because they forgot God’s promise and listened to false information, an entire generation wandered and died in the desert, never even getting a glimpse of the land of milk and honey.

Are you facing a challenge to your faith? Is God calling you to a task that seems unreasonable? Don’t assess the situation by your limited resources; failure to see things God’s way may cause you to miss His blessing, and others may be hurt. Disobedience is always followed by disappointment and disillusionment.

Remember what God has done for you in the past, and trust Him to deal with the impossible. You cannot be defeated when you follow God’s plan in confident faith.

Precious Father, as I face my spiritual journey today, help me view each challenge in terms of Your resources instead of my limited strength. Give me faith to deal with the impossible.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 15). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

January 14 Spiritual Hunger and Thirst

Scripture reading: John 7:37–39

Key verse: Psalm 11:7

For the Lord is righteous,

He loves righteousness;

His countenance beholds the upright.

The more you learn about the Lord, the more you want to know Him. That’s what happens when you get just a taste of His goodness—you can’t get enough of His fellowship. In her book Lord, Only You Can Change Me, Kay Arthur observes:

God’s righteousness begins with a dissatisfaction, a yearning. When sin’s presence is finally realized, an inner longing is kindled and begins to burn with a slow, steady flame. A longing to be righteous! With every glimpse of God’s shining holiness and purity comes an accompanying awareness of self.

Finally the realization comes: “God, You alone are righteous.” A hunger and thirst for righteousness—His righteousness—awakens and grows. But how is that hunger and thirst to be satisfied?

We know we cannot quench it in ourselves, so we run to the fountain of living waters and receive the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. He alone can lead us into a life of righteousness, by leading us into the truth …

Jesus is the fountainhead of God’s righteousness. Oh Beloved, do you see it? You can be as righteous as you want to be! How?

By totally depending upon God. By yearning for Him more and more. Ours is to be an ever-increasing hunger and thirst.

Satisfy my spiritual hunger and thirst for You, O God. Lead me into a life of righteousness through the continuing revelation of Your truth.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 15). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

New Poll Reveals Only 7% of Millennials Support the Democratic Party’s Stance on Abortion — The Gateway Pundit

A new poll from The Polling Company, Inc./WomanTrend commissioned by Students for Life of America (SFLA) found that only 7% of millenials agree with the Democratic Party platform that pledges to fight for abortion to be legal for any reason, paid for by taxpayers and unrestricted through the entire pregnancy.

The survey found that a whopping 70% of respondents favor some form of limits on abortions — with 28% wanting more restrictions than what we currently have in the US — such as banning late term abortion or requiring parental notification.

According to a report from LifeSiteNews, “the survey of Americans aged 18-34 found that while a majority rejected identifying with either party and they were evenly divided among ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ labels at 39 percent each, they also consistently backed a rightward shift on abortion-related policy questions.”

“Fifty-six percent also opposed selling abortion pills online or administering them without a physical exam, and when informed that Federally Qualified Health Centers dramatically outnumber Planned Parenthood locations, 48 percent of millennials said they’d rather tax dollars go to the former (just 17 percent still preferred Planned Parenthood),” LSN reports.

Also worth noting: regarding Roe v. Wade, the survey found that 65% of respondents believe the public should have the right to vote on abortion laws — while 16% support courts limiting public votes and 19% were unsure.

Interestingly, when asked if they support Roe v. Wade, 40% of respondents initially said that they did — but “fifty-one percent became opposed after learning it effectively permits abortion through all nine months, and 54 percent after learning it protects the use of abortion as contraception or to eliminate children of a particular sex,” according to LSN.

via New Poll Reveals Only 7% of Millennials Support the Democratic Party’s Stance on Abortion — The Gateway Pundit

An FBI that is corrupt and dishonest — Latest reports offer only more proof — Christian Research Network

The investigation had been running for ten months. Comey admitted, “In fact, when I was fired as director, I still didn’t know whether there was anything to it.”  Nevertheless, top officials at the FBI opened their investigation of Trump in May of 2017 without sufficient evidence and in direct violation of FBI and DOJ regulations.  They broke the law.  And they did it to depose Trump.

(Gregg Jarrett – Fox News)  Dishonesty and corruption are endemic at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The latest proof comes in a New York Times report that the FBI initiated an investigation in May of 2017 into whether President Donald Trump was serving as a covert Russian agent.  The accusation itself was ludicrous on its face.  But from a legal standpoint, the FBI’s probe constituted an egregious abuse of power.  The Bureau had no probable cause, no evidence, and no reasonable suspicions.  They investigated Trump because they could.  They defied the law, ignored or perverted facts, and debased the integrity of a heretofore-respected law enforcement agency.

Why did these rogue officials commit such an outrageous act of malfeasance? In a word, vengeance.  Already incensed that Trump had defeated their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, they grew furious when the president fired Director James Comey on May 9, 2017. In reaction, they sought retribution. What better way to avenge Comey’s firing than to launch a counterintelligence investigation of Trump under the false pretense that he committed treasonous acts for the benefit of the Kremlin and at the direction of President Vladimir Putin. Absent credible proof, information could be manipulated to frame Trump while a compliant media would gobble up the leaks and report the damaging charge. The election results could then be undone when the president was driven from office.

To readers of my book, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton And Frame Donald Trump,” this comes as no surprise.  As detailed therein, Comey and his faithful confederates at the Bureau twisted facts and contorted the law to absolve Clinton of all criminal acts she most certainly committed in the mishandling of her classified emails while Secretary of State.  View article →

via An FBI that is corrupt and dishonest — Latest reports offer only more proof — Christian Research Network

Ocasio-Cortez Accuses Math Of Sexism — The Babylon Bee

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Several aides sat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez down Monday to show to her how her radical, socialist tax plans simply don’t add up, explaining how she needs to make radical changes if she’s going to make any headway implementing her policies.

In response to the cold, hard numbers that shredded her economic plans, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that she was being unfairly targeted by objective facts because she’s a woman and a minority.

“When my economic plans are revealed to be hopelessly flawed, it becomes obvious that numbers have a deep-seated, institutional bias against me because I’m a woman,” she said. “Would the numbers call this stuff out if I were a man? No, of course they wouldn’t. Mathematical facts are simply not comfortable with a powerful, strong woman like me.”

“Economic realities simply aren’t ready for a girl from da Bronx!” she added as she posted a tweet condemning the “institutionalized patriarchy” inherent in mathematics.

She also said that numbers are “obsessed” with her and that her popularity and success are just “getting under math’s skin.”

“I am sick of harsh economic facts catcalling me and mathsplaining everything to me!” she said.

via Ocasio-Cortez Accuses Math Of Sexism — The Babylon Bee

Why Everyone Believes in Borders — Cross Examined – Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Do you have locks on your doors? How about on your car? Got a fence so your kids can play safely? The truth is everyone believes in secure borders. In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.
Frank skillfully discuss this extremely difficult topic and help you navigate thru this issue with some clear and helpful insights.
Also, during the last section of this episode, he responds to a question from a listener related to a Bible Study she attended where they told her basically she doesn’t have to give reasons for the truth of Christianity. Yikes! Yes, we know; unfortunately, there are still preachers, teachers, and pastors that don’t get it, and then when 75% of their youth leaves the faith when they go to college, they act surprised. Make sure to listen until the end. God bless!

via Why Everyone Believes in Borders — Cross Examined – Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers

January 14, 2019 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

29 Yahweh is David’s lamp or source of life and prosperity (cf. Job 18:6; Prov 20:20; 24:20); he dispels his servant’s darkness and brings him back to life (cf. vv 6, 16–17).[1]

Ver. 29. First, he declares what the Lord (in connection with the exhibitions of grace in the Sauline persecution) is for him perpetually. The “for” attaches this verse as the ground or confirmation of the preceding, where David included himself among the “afflicted people,” the oppressed; the Lord has helped him “the afflicted one” out of the affliction brought on him by his enemies. All these experiences of divine help find their reason or ground in the fact that the Lord is his lamp. While “light” is always the symbol of good fortune and well-being (Job 18:5), the burning lamp denotes the source of lasting happiness and joyful strength; Job 18:6; 21:17; 29:3; Ps. 132:17; comp. Isa. 42:3; 43:17. The Psalm has the unusual expression: “thou makest light my lamp.”—What the lamp is for a man in his house, the source of joy and good fortune, this the Lord is for David: his lamp, the source of his well-being. This is the ground of David’s being called (21:17) the lamp of Israel. This is the ground of the declaration: “the Lord is my light.” (Ps. 27:1). The consequence of this is: The Lord enlightens my darkness. Darkness is the symbol of affliction—in contrast with light, without God, his lamp, he would have remained in wretchedness and ruin. His experiences are based on the general truth: it is the Lord who, as His lamp, makes even the darkness light about Him. Comp. Job 29:3. In the Psalm: “The Lord, my God, makes my darkness light.” This general declaration, proved by the past, is confirmed also for the future by setting forth the foe-conquering might which he, through the Lord’s help, has shown and will forever be able to show.[2]

22:29 my lamp. David as the “lamp” of Israel (see note on 21:17) reflected the light of the glory of God, who was the “Lamp” of David himself.[3]

22:29 Both the Lord and his Word function as a lamp for his people (Ps 119:105).[4]

[1] Hubbard, D. A., Barker, G. W., Watts, J. D. W., & Martin, R. P. (1998). Editorial Preface. In 2 Samuel (Vol. 11, p. 264). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[2] Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Erdmann, D., Toy, C. H., & Broadus, J. A. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 & 2 Samuel (p. 574). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[3] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (2 Sa 22:29). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[4] Beyer, B. E. (2017). 2 Samuel. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 494). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

January 14, 2019 Truth2Freedom Briefing Report (US•World•Christian)


President Donald Trump said on Monday he rejected a proposal from a Republican ally in the Senate that he temporarily reopen closed parts of the government to allow resumption of negotiations on a funding standoff.

A partial government shutdown entered its 24th day on Monday as talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats remained stalled even as some of Trump’s fellow Republicans called on the president to cut a deal and strains mounted nationwide.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday stayed out of the fight over whether President Donald Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general is unlawful by rejecting a motion relating to the matter filed in a pending case.

A judge in California on Sunday partially blocked a set of Trump administration rules that allow employers to opt out of providing health insurance that covers women’s birth control from taking effect.

President Donald Trump threatened Turkey with economic devastation if it attacks a U.S.-allied Kurdish militia in Syria, drawing a sharp rebuke from Ankara on Monday and reviving fears of another downturn in ties between the NATO allies.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed a China-European Union summit during Germany’s 2020 EU presidency that would include national leaders of EU countries as well as officials from Brussels and Beijing, EU diplomats said.

Russia told Japan on Monday that Moscow’s sovereignty over several disputed islands was not up for discussion and that disagreements between the countries still obstruct the path to a peace deal.

Pawel Adamowicz, the liberal mayor of the Polish city of Gdansk, died on Monday of his wounds, a day after being stabbed by a man who rushed the stage during a charity event.

Newmont Mining Corp said on Monday it would buy smaller rival Goldcorp Inc in a deal worth $10 billion, creating the world’s biggest gold producer in the face of dwindling easy-to-find reserves of the precious metal.

Across some of the biggest U.S. cities, rent prices are continuing to rise for lower-income Americans. Meanwhile, an estimated 553,000 people experienced homelessness in 2018, according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data.

AP Top Stories

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel had at the weekend carried out an air strike on Iranian weapons in Syria, a rare public confirmation of such attacks.

A 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck near Anchorage, Alaska, on Sunday morning, the U.S. Geological Survey said, with tremors felt as far as 120 miles southwest of the state’s capital city.

A British-Iranian aid worker who has been jailed in Tehran is going on hunger strike in protest at her treatment, her employer and her husband said.

Artillery shelling by government forces pounded parts of the northwestern Idlib province on Saturday, thwarting an infiltration attempt by militants as tension rises in the region following victories by al-Qaida-linked militants against Turkey-backed opposition fighters.

Jordanian King Abdullah II met Iraq’s president and prime minister in Baghdad on Monday, in the monarch’s first trip to Iraq in more than a decade.

Over 600 people were evacuated Saturday from the Islamic State group’s remaining holdout in eastern Syria, a monitor said, as US-backed fighters prepare for a final assault on the area.

China will seek to establish an international lunar base one day, possibly using 3D printing technology to build facilities, the Chinese space agency said Monday, weeks after landing a rover on the moon’s far side.


A court in China has sentenced a Canadian to death for drug smuggling, a verdict likely to reignite a diplomatic row between the two countries.

A Californian energy firm, Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (PG&E), has said it plans to file for bankruptcy protection as it faces huge costs from last year’s wildfires.

Protests have broken out in Zimbabwe’s two main cities following the more than doubling of the fuel price.

Chinese exports saw the steepest fall for two years in December, according to the latest trade figures. Exports from China fell 4.4% last month compared with the year before, while imports fell 7.6%.

A row has broken out between the mayor of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church over what should happen to coins retrieved from the Trevi fountain. Every year nearly €1.5m is fished out of the famous landmark. It is traditionally given to a Catholic charity to help the destitute. But now Mayor Virginia Raggi wants the money spent on the city’s crumbling infrastructure instead. The Catholic charity Caritas says the loss of income will hit the poor.


Stephens College, a private women’s school in Columbia, Missouri, recently changed its admissions policy to accept applicants who either live or identify as women while no longer accepting women who now identify as men. The college has refused to comment on this new policy. On the flip side, the new policy states that “the College will stop admitting and enrolling students who were born female but who now identify as men or who are transitioning from female to male.”

A new federal report, “Surviving a Catastrophic Power Outage,” warns that the United States’ response plans and resources would be hugely “outmatched” by a catastrophic power outage, which could leave society in disarray and many people dead.

Mid-Day Snapshot

The Foundation

“During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety.” —Thomas Jefferson (1805)

NYT Inadvertently Exposes FBI’s Anti-Trump Bias

The Times reveals a retaliatory FBI investigation into Trump after he fired Comey.

Anti-Wall Equals Pro-Globalism

A wall is both a symbolic and substantive rejection of the globalists’ open-border agenda.

Morality, Populism, and Cultural Decay

John Adams once wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

Republicans Have Had Enough of Steve King

The Iowa Republican has a long history of unfiltered rhetoric. He may not get away with his latest.

Feinstein Wants to Ban All ‘Assault Weapons,’ GOP Aims at Reciprocity

While Senate Dems seek to limit Second Amendment protections, Republicans seek to expand them.

Evaluating the Prudence of Declaring a National Emergency

There’s a big question in conservative circles regarding the legitimacy of such a move.

Video: Former Border Patrol Chief: Walls ‘Absolutely Work’

The chief of U.S. Border Patrol during Barack Obama’s presidency says that Donald Trump is right.

Monday Short Cuts

Braying Jenny: “I know it’s a strong word, but this [shutdown] is political terrorism.” —Rep. Katie Hill

Monday Top Headlines

Shutdown sets record, Trump’s legal argument, another caravan, Dems hit Puerto Rico, opioid overdoses, and more.

Today’s Opinion

Peggy Noonan
Baby, There’s a Chilling Effect Outside
Do We Need Our Country Anymore?
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Because the Knights Belong to Lovers of God
Jeff Jacoby
The PC Commissars vs. Bryan Cranston
Gary Bauer
Trump at the Border

Today’s Meme

Today’s Cartoon

News – 1/14/2019

An FBI that is corrupt and dishonest — Latest reports offer only more proof
Dishonesty and corruption are endemic at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The latest proof comes in a New York Times report that the FBI initiated an investigation in May of 2017 into whether President Donald Trump was serving as a covert Russian agent. The accusation itself was ludicrous on its face. But from a legal standpoint, the FBI’s probe constituted an egregious abuse of power. The Bureau had no probable cause, no evidence, and no reasonable suspicions. They investigated Trump because they could. They defied the law, ignored or perverted facts, and debased the integrity of a heretofore-respected law enforcement agency. Why did these rogue officials commit such an outrageous act of malfeasance? In a word, vengeance.

President G. W. Bush Signed The 2006 Secure Fence Act For A Border Wall – Where’s The $50 Billion? Where’s The Fence?
On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109-367) into law stating, “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform. The bill was introduced on September 13, 2006, by Congressman Pe ter T. King, Republican of New York. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283-138 on September 14, 2006.[2] On September 29, 2006, the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80-19.

Lebanese Media: Nasrallah Suffers Heart Attack, Stroke
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been hospitalized in serious condition in Beirut after apparently suffering a heart attack, Lebanese media outlets reported on Saturday. Another report said he also suffered a stroke, and that he has been fighting cancer.

Shame on you Chuck…and Nancy
Trump is right. There is a border crisis, bad enough, but even worse is the hate crisis that has consumed, sickened and poisoned the Democratic Party, and that is even worse. Worse because they are already IN the country. That, plus hating Trump is the only agenda that motivates them.

Scientists prepare for Hikurangi subduction zone faultline to rupture in future
Scientists are developing an emergency response plan to prepare for the rupture of New Zealand’s largest fault. Using a credible magnitude 8.9 earthquake and tsunami scenario, five Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) groups from across the North Island are working together on the plan.

Ark of Covenant Mystery May Be Solved as Archaeologist Names Its Likely Location
Israel Finkelstein, a professor at Tel Aviv University and the man in charge of an archaeological dig at the Israeli town of Kiryat Ye’arim, revealed that that area could be the resting place of the … Ark of the Covenant.

UFO alert as Putin drafts in army after Siberian mountain ‘collapses’
VLADIMIR Putin has drafted in soldiers to investigate a “collapsed mountain” in a remote region of Siberia amid suggestions it may have been caused by a UFO crash-landing. “I insist that it was a meteorite.” However, a local poll in eastern Russian suggested the while 27 per cent agreed with his assessment, more – 33 per cent believed a UFO – was the cause.

There will be no Palestinian state here
“I came here to tell the Israeli public, and especially the residents of Judea and Samaria, that we will not allow the establishment of more than one state west of the Jordan River. A Palestinian state will not be established here,” Galant said.

Dems party in Puerto Rico amid shutdown
Despite a partial government shutdown with no end in sight, about 30 Democratic members of Congress traveled to Puerto Rico this weekend — with their families and lobbyists — for a winter retreat where they also planned to see a special performance of the hit Broadway show “Hamilton.”

Iraqis Establish a ‘Virtual Embassy’ in Israel
Attitudes toward Israel are shifting in the Arab world. This has a lot to do with Iran becoming a common enemy. But it has even more to do with average Arabs finally realizing that the Jewish state is not their enemy (accompanied by a serious decrease in support for the “Palestinian cause,” which still seeks to destroy Israel).

Gantz, in first public political statement, vows to fix Nation-State Law
Former IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz made his first political statement on Monday morning since forming his Israel Resilience Party on December 27, when he promised a group of Druze leaders that he would work to get the controversial Jewish Nation-State Law changed. “I will do everything in my power to fix the Nation State Law,” he said.

Trump threatens to ‘devastate’ Turkish economy over Syrian Kurds
US President Donald Trump has threatened to “devastate Turkey economically” if it attacks Kurdish forces in Syria following a planned pullout of US troops. In two tweets on Sunday, Mr Trump said that he did not want the Kurds to provoke Turkey either. US forces have fought alongside a Kurdish militia in northern Syria against the Islamic State (IS) group.

Immigration loophole allows MS-13 gang members to go free
If the Trump administration had its way, Ramon Arevalo Lopez and Oscar Canales Molina would have been either in detention or deported. Instead, they were out on the streets — thanks to judges’ orders — where, according to police, they and another illegal immigrant delivered an MS-13 gang beat-down to two high school students in New York.

Industry wary of alternatives tries to protect a word: meat
More than four months after Missouri became the first U.S. state to regulate the term “meat” on product labels, Nebraska’s powerful farm groups are pushing for similar protection from veggie burgers, tofu dogs and other items that look and taste like real meat. Nebraska lawmakers will consider a bill this year defining meat as “any edible portion of any livestock or poultry, carcass, or part thereof” and excluding “lab-grown or insect or plant-based food products.”

Israel employs same methods used on Palestinians in Jewish terror crackdown
The Israel Defense Forces is using monitoring systems initially meant to target Palestinian terrorism in a crackdown on Jewish terrorism in the West Bank, as well as in order to deter possible perpetrators. “Our radar and observation systems are used to solve ‘price tag’ cases,” an IDF officer said, referring to attacks by Jewish extemists purportedly in response to political moves they oppose.

Iranian official says Israel is spreading lies about Nasrallah’s health
Hussein Abd al-Lahian, advisor to Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, said Sunday that rumors about Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s ill health are lies spread by Israel. “The Zionists’ claims that Nasrallah has suffered a heart attack are the new year’s biggest lie,” Larijani said on Twitter.

China trade shock rattles European stocks, commodities
World stock markets stumbled and commodities took a hit on Monday after a shock contraction in Chinese trade pointed to deepening cracks in the world’s second-biggest economy and sparked fresh fears of a sharper slowdown in global growth. Latest data from China showed imports fell 7.6 percent year-on-year in December when analysts had predicted a 5 percent rise, while exports dropped 4.4 percent, confounding expectations for a 3 percent gain.

India’s top court seeks govt response on plans to snoop on citizens’ computers
India’s Supreme Court on Monday asked the government to respond in six weeks on pleas challenging a recent home ministry order that allowed some agencies to monitor personal computers of citizens. Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi issued the notice to the government against the controversial order. However, the Supreme Court has not stayed the order.

“China’s Nightmare”: B-2 Stealth Bombers Deployed To Hawaii, “On Watch” 24/7
“Deploying to Hawaii enables us to showcase that the B-2 is on watch 24 hours a day, seven days a week” — US Air Force

A NEW LOW: The United Nations is intentionally turning a blind eye to rampant child rape within its own ranks
The United Nations is raping children. The facilitation of these child rapes is in part funded by the UK taxpayer. You think this is “fake news”? Well let’s go right to the top and check the facts.

Trump rules letting employers opt out of birth control coverage blocked
A U.S. judge in California on Sunday blocked Trump administration rules, which would allow more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control, from taking effect in 13 states and Washington, D.C.

Attention America: Prepare to Defend Yourselves
Yesterday, I published a report regarding a somewhat covert group, funded by Soros, scripted by former Democratic Congressional staffers, which was preparing to unleash a jihad of mob violence in America. The prevailing belief was that these groups would be triggered by by decisive action against the Deep State on the part of President Trump. For example, a declaration of national emergency and a shutdown of the border could trigger such mob counter-reaction. We did not have to wait long for this plot to unfold and its operations exposed.

California’s Gavin Newsom Proposes Tax on Drinking Water in First Budget
California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed his first budget for the state on Friday, and it includes a tax on drinking water.

Battering-ram attack on homeschoolers gets court OK
The European Court of Human Rights has issued a ruling supporting a decision by German authorities to demand parents relinquish their children to state socialization in public schools, accompanied by the right of government to remove those children – through methods including police battering-ram assaults on the family home – to make sure that happens.

175 U.S. patents prove that geoengineering and weather control technologies are REAL… see the list here
The United States government has granted patent approval to at least 175 inventions and technologies that are officially recognized to control or augment weather systems. (See the full list below.)

Las Vegas Man Gets Flu Shot, Then Loses His Vision, Becomes Partially Paralyzed Spends 4 Days On Ventilator
Every year, we here at NTEB do our best to warn you about the dangers of getting a flu shot. And every year, some dear sweet reader, who works as a nurse in a hospital somewhere, will write in and chide us for discouraging people from getting their shot.

Doctor Drops Bombshell About 5G Technology Dangers At Congressional Hearing
Internal medicine physician & professor Dr. Sharon Goldberg delivered testimony before Congress about 5G technology and the inherent dangers surrounding it, specifically the biological effects of the electromagnetic radiation.

Russian Navy To Deploy 30 Poseidon Strategic Underwater Nuclear Drones
Poseidon, previously known by the Russian codename Status-6, is designed to create a tsunami wave up to 1,600 ft. tall and wipe out enemy vessels and marine bases

Headlines – 1/14/2019

Jordanian King, Egyptian President call for ‘two-state solution’

Abdullah, Sisi: A Palestinian state should be established within 1967 borders

Funding shortage leads to World Food Program cuts for Palestinians

Six years after completion, Israel’s border fence with Egypt has transformed the south

At farewell ceremony, PM salutes outgoing IDF chief for fighting Iran

In rare acknowledgement, Israel confirms strike on Iran weapons caches in Syria

Satellite photos show Iranian missile depot allegedly leveled by Israeli strike

After strikes in Syria, Netanyahu threatens to hit Iranian targets even harder

Netanyahu: If necessary, we’ll step up attacks on Iranian targets in Syria

Arab nations inch toward rehabilitating Syria’s Assad

US-backed Syrian force: ISIS in ‘its final moments’

Report: Damascus seeks ‘intensified’ talks with Kurds

Trump threatens Turkey with economic devastation if it hits Kurds

Turkey urges US to honor partnership after Trump warns of economic devastation

Turkey vows to continue fight Kurdish militia after Trump threat

US Secretary of State Pompeo urges Gulf states to heal rift

Pompeo: Saudi Arabia must hold Khashoggi killers ‘accountable’

Iranian official says Israel is spreading lies about Nasrallah’s health

Iran taking ‘preliminary steps’ to restart uranium enrichment

White House asked the Pentagon for plans to strike Iran – report

Russian Official Cancels U.S. Visit, Saying ‘Second American Civil War’ Is Underway

Macron Tells French It’s Time to Channel Anger Away From Streets

Passenger carried gun onto international Delta flight from Atlanta, report says

Immigration loophole allows MS-13 gang members to go free

Border Agent Explains to Trump Why a Wall Won’t Solve Problems at the U.S.-Mexico Border – discovery of a tunnel under section already protected by a wall

Day 23: Graham says Trump isn’t giving in on southern border wall

Republican Senator Graham urges Trump to open U.S. government temporarily

30 Democrats in Puerto Rico with 109 lobbyists for weekend despite shutdown

Trump Confronts the Prospect of a ‘Nonstop Political War’ for Survival

Trump’s Putin problem seizes the spotlight in a time of turmoil

‘So many questions raised’: Lawmakers respond to two bombshell Trump, Russia reports

The U.S. Government Has Amassed Terabytes of Internal WikiLeaks Data

Israel needs national vision for AI or risk falling behind, tech authority warns

Technology brings images of Holocaust survivors to life

Magnitude 5.4 quake strikes near Anchorage, Alaska: USGS

5.3 magnitude earthquake hits near Kirakira, Solomon Islands

5.1 magnitude earthquake hits near Oyama, Japan

5.0 magnitude earthquake hits near Kaktovik, Alaska

5.0 magnitude earthquake hits near Ohonua, Tonga

Sabancaya volcano in Peru erupts to 27,000ft

Popocateptl volcano in Mexico erupts to 22,000ft

Sheveluch volcano on Kamchatka, Russia erupts to 18,000ft

Reventador volcano in Ecuador erupts to 17,000ft

Fuego volcano in Guatemala erupts to 16,000ft

Planchon Peteroa volcano in Chile erupts to 16,000ft

Five people die, 54 suffer injures in accidents across Egypt due to bad weather

Egypt shuts six ports due to bad weather

Israel issues severe weather advisory as winds blow dust storm from Egypt

1 Dead And 12 Hospitalized After Mass Drug Overdose In California

Judge blocks Trump birth control rollback from taking effect in 13 states, DC

No pants! People in NY, London and other cities take bizarre ‘no trousers subway ride’

Apostasy Watch Daily News

Chip Brogden – 5 Reasons Why Fellowship Eludes Us

New ‘Visual Commentary on Scripture’ website offers new way to study the Bible

Listening to a false preacher gives you false hope – looking at Christine Caine’s speech at Passion 2019

After Thoughts on William Branham

Pastor Who Posted “Bruce Jenner is Still a Man” on Church Sign Ousted As Pastor

“Gay Christians” Seeking to Hook Up? – There’s an App For That

Brooklyn pastor charged with sexually abusing his own daughter

U.S. immigration services approved visa requests for thousands of child brides….. from 2007 to 2017

China creates church-free zones around schools

Truth2Freedom Blog Disclaimer

This post was originally posted on: https://truth4freedom.wordpress.com

(Alternative News, Apologetics, Current Events, Commentary, Opinion, Theology, Discernment Blog, Devotionals, Christian Internet Evangelism & Missions Activist).

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

— Augustine

This blog is an aggregator of news and information that we believe will provide articles that will keep people informed about current trends, current events, discussions and movements taking place within our church and culture.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,material here is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

A headline link on this blog post doesn’t necessarily mean that there is agreement or approval with all the views and opinions expressed within the headline linked article. Caution is also warranted with regards to the advertisements and links that are embedded within the headline linked article.

*Please note that the preceding blog post content is formed by my personal conviction, values, worldview and opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

January 14 Examine Your Methods

scripture reading: James 3:13–18
key verse: 1 Peter 2:12

Having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

History records lamentable incidents, such as the Inquisition and the Crusades, that had seemingly spiritual goals but completely wrong methods. That’s why, once the proper motivation for your goals for this year is established, it is essential that you assess the wisdom of your methods.

Ask yourself the following questions:

Are my methods in keeping with the revealed will and principles of God as recorded in the Scriptures? For instance, a goal of becoming the company president may be set with the proper motivation for leading the business overseas so that the markets abroad can be used as distribution points for gospel literature. However, accomplishing that goal by manipulating accounting records that falsely increase sales figures and thus mislead others is thoroughly condemned by the Scriptures.

A second question is: Are my methods in any way unjustly harming my fellow human beings? If the individual described in the previous paragraph reaches his goal through slandering an employee who also seeks the same position, his methods are wrong.

Examine your methods by observing these standards. When you reach your goal, you can then be sure that God is honored.

Dear Lord, I pause this day to examine my ways before You. Please prevent me from harming my fellow human beings in any way. Let my methods be in harmony with Your will and the principles revealed in Your Word.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (1998). Enter His gates: a daily devotional. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

14 january (1855) 365 Days with Spurgeon

The sin of unbelief

“And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.” 2 Kings 7:19

suggested further reading: John 20:24–29

“Thou shalt shall see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.” It is so often with God’s own saints. When they are unbelieving, they see the mercy with their eyes, but do not eat it. Now, here is corn in this land of Egypt, but there are some of God’s saints who come here on the Sabbath, and say, “I do not know whether the Lord will be with me or not.” Some of them say, “Well, the gospel is preached, but I do not know whether it will be successful.” They are always doubting and fearing. Listen to them when they get out of the chapel. “Well, did you get a good meal this morning?” “Nothing for me.” Of course not. Ye could see it with your eyes, but did not eat it, because you had no faith. If you had come up with faith, you would have had a morsel. I have found Christians, who have grown so very critical, that if the whole portion of the meat they are to have, in due season, is not cut up exactly into square pieces, and put upon some choice dish of porcelain, they cannot eat it. Then they ought to go without, until they are brought to their appetites. They will have some affliction, which will act like quinine upon them: they will be made to eat by means of bitters in their mouths; they will be put in prison for a day or two until their appetite returns, and then they will be glad to eat the most ordinary food, off the most common platter, or no platter at all. But the real reason why God’s people do not feed under a gospel ministry, is because they have not faith. If you believed, if you heard only one promise, that would be enough.

for meditation: The unbeliever needs to hear in order to believe (Romans 10:14); the believer needs to believe in order to hear.

sermon no. 3[1]

[1] Spurgeon, C. H., & Crosby, T. P. (1998). 365 Days with Spurgeon (Volume 1) (p. 21). Leominster, UK: Day One Publications.

Homebuilders Set To Deliver “Canary” Message Again! — Kimble Charting Solutions

There are often market “tells” that occur long before the beginning of a broader stock market rally or correction. And they tend to be sectors/areas of the market that are more sensitive to the economy… for instance, small cap stocks, tech/growth stocks, housing stocks, etc…

When a reversal pattern shows up for one of these sectors, it could be a pre-cursor to what’s coming for the broader market.

Homebuilders… Again?

The Homebuilders (XHB) started sending a bearish divergence message to the broad market in early January of 2018. It has been a leader to the downside over the past year, declining nearly 40%. 

While declining, XHB looks to have formed two falling channels marked by (1) and (2). The counter-trend rally has the homebuilders testing the underside of the falling channel (2) and recent highs at (3). I humbly feel we will get a very important message about where the broad market is headed, by how XHB handles resistance at (3).

Keep a close eye on the homebuilders, as it sent important topping signals at the 2007 highs and once again this past year.

Long stock positions DO NOT want to see XHB peak at (3) and turn lower!!!

This article was first written for See It Markets.com. To see original post CLICK HERE

Homebuilders Set To Deliver “Canary” Message Again! — Kimble Charting Solutions

Brannon Howse: January 11, 2019 | Worldview Weekend

Topic: Brannon continues part 3 in his series on brainwashing. But first Dr. Jimmy DeYoung joins him the program for our weekly Middle East update. Topic: Prime Minister Netanyahu requests from the Trump Administration to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights because of the significance of the security situation in the North. Topic: Red-Dead project moving forward – a deal between Israel and Jordan. Topic: The Palestinian – UNCivil War. Topic: Hamas to increase violence, to cover incompetence, and they did that beginning today. Topic: We take your calls. 

Download File Here

— Read on www.worldviewweekend.com/radio/audio/brannon-howse-january-11-2019

Americans Used To Support A Border Wall. What Changed Their Minds?

Averaging national public opinion polls conducted in 2018 reveals that 6 in 10 Americans oppose building a border wall. But just a few years ago, at least that many supported a wall. 

If there is only one thing people know about Donald Trump, they know he wants to build a border wall. And if there’s only one thing people know about Democratic lawmakers, it’s that they rarely turn down multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects.

Yet since December 22, the federal government has been partially shut down after President Trump and Democratic congressional leaders were unable to compromise on $5.7 billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has called the border wall “immoral, ineffective, and expensive,” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said it was “wasteful” and “doesn’t solve the problem.” Democratic leadership may feel confident holding their ground against Trump during the shutdown in part because public opinion is on their side.

Averaging national public opinion polls conducted in 2018 reveals that 6 in 10 Americans oppose building a border wall. For instance, a CBS News pollconducted in October 2018 found that 60 percent oppose “building a wall along the US-Mexico border to try and stop illegal immigration,” while 37 percent favor building a wall.

Americans Used to Support a Border Wall

But just a few years ago a majority of Americans supported building a border wall or fence. In 2013, an ABC News/Washington Post survey found that nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of Americans supported building a 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico and adding 20,000 border patrol agents.

The same survey found a slim majority (52 percent) still favored building a wall even when told it would cost $46 billion—much higher than Trump’s current request. Similarly in 2011, a majority (57 percent) supported building a security fence, even without additional patrol personal, a Quinnipiac poll found.

Not only that, but in early 2006 a Time/SRBI poll found that a slim majority (52 percent) of Democrats also favored “building a security fence along the 2,000-mile US-Mexican border.” Sixty-one percent (61 percent) of Republicans also agreed. Between 2005 and 2015, polls show that nearly half of Democrats continued to support building a border barrier of some kind.

However, things changed in 2015 when Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency. Since then opposition rose upwards among the general public. Analyzing more than 150 polls conducted between 2007 and 2018 from the Roper Center iPoll Databank reveals that an average of 43 percent of Americans opposed building a border wall between 2007-2014. Opposition increased to 48 percent in 2015, 58 percent in 2016, and 61 percent in 2017, and then back to 59 percent in 2018.

Democratic support shifted more swiftly starting in the fall of 2015 onward. Now only about 12 percent of Democrats support a border wall or fence. As the charts above demonstrate, Trump’s entry into politics (and making immigration issues salient) played a major role in turning the public against the border wall.

Why Did Americans Change Their Minds About the Wall?

Here I offer four reasons that may explain why Americans turned against building a border wall.

1) Harsh Rhetoric Makes People More Sympathetic to Immigrants

First, Americans may become more sympathetic of immigration when public figures who want to reduce it, like Trump, Steve Bannon, or Pat Buchanan, are on the offensive. Rhetoric from all sides becomes emotional, the media weighs in, people make statements that give the impression they do not like immigrants, and voters get upset.

Available survey data reveals two such instances, first in the mid-1990s and next in the mid-2000s. Both were periods when the nation debated immigration reform, with skeptics leading the charge.

In the mid-1990s, immigration became a hotly contested issue with California’s Prop 187, which sought to restrict unauthorized immigrants’ access to social services, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act President Clinton signed in 1996. Debate during this time centered on expanding border security, cutting legal immigration, and preventing unauthorized immigrant children from accessing public schools.

Emotions ran hot. For instance, in a televised interview in 1991 Buchanan argued“there is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country” and in 1995 he described illegal immigration as a “foreign invasion.”

Gallup surveys conducted in 1993 and 1995 found about two-thirds of Americans opposed a border wall or fence at that time. However, by the mid-2000s, support for a border wall bounced back. A Time survey conducted in early 2006 found 56 percent supported building a 2,000-mile security fence.

Polls reveal another period where the nation intensely debated immigration and support for a border wall plummeted. Starting in the spring of 2006, majorities once again came to oppose a wall. For instance, a Gallup survey found 56 percent opposed a border barrier by May 2006, just a few months after the Time survey. This was precisely the time Congress debated immigration reform, particularly in relation to H.R. 4337, which sought to build a 700-mile border fence and classify unauthorized foreign citizens and those who provide them assistance as felons.

To give a taste of the rhetoric of the time, Buchanan lamented in his book “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America,” that white people would become the minority by 2050 and that by then “America will be a Third World country.”

One could see how many people were offended. Unauthorized foreign citizens and their supporters organized mass protests across the country, “A day without an immigrant,” to demonstrate what the economy would be like without their contributions.

But once the debate subsided, support for the border wall bounced back and majorities supported it again. That is, until Trump entered the presidential race and made the border wall a centerpiece of his policy agenda.

Like in the mid-1990s and 2000s, the public today has turned against building a border wall. The more immigration restrictionists push for building a border wall, the more impassioned the rhetoric, and the more salient it becomes in the news, the more people get offended, and voters turn against it.

2) People Feel Differently About a ‘Wall’ than a ‘Fence’

Second, some people make a distinction between building a border “wall” and a border “fence.” Indeed, analyzing 150-plus polls conducted over the past 13 years available in the iPoll Databank archive shows that 49 percent supported a border “fence” while 38 percent supported a border “wall”—an 11-point difference. However, Trump has emphasized building a wall rather than a fence, whereas lawmakers in the past largely discussed erecting fences.

Why do people make the distinction between a fence and a wall? People may simply think a wall means no one can cross it and thus it would completely halt all immigration across the Southern border.

Furthermore, people may perceive nefarious motives from people who wish to build a border “wall” rather than a “fence.” You might not care much if your neighbor built a fence between your house and theirs. But what would you think if your neighbor erected a large, tall, thick concrete wall between your house and theirs? You might think they don’t like you or want to interact with you. You probably wouldn’t be inviting them over for dinner any time soon either.

Walls give the impression of exclusion and that they cannot be crossed, even legally. Fences, on the other hand, often have gates and give the impression that they can be crossed using the proper channels.

Many supporters of building a border wall may think that a wall can also be crossed if done legally. However, in the minds of the median voter, a wall maysound permanent and impermeable. For some voters this is a feature, but for others it’s a bug.

This conception of what a wall means is demonstrated through a very poorly written survey question from pollsters Greenberg Quinlan and Rosner Research, when they asked voters if they favored or opposed: “Building a fence along the Mexican border to keep Mexicans from entering the country.” No serious Republican lawmakers are calling for a wall to prevent all Mexicans from immigrating to the United States. The fact that these pollsters misinterpreted the intentions of the wall show that many Americans believe the wall is motivated by animus toward Hispanic migrants and their descendants.

3) The Border Wall Has Become a Symbol

This leads to the third likely reason for the recent shift against building a border wall: In the minds of many Americans—although not all—the wall has become symbolic of attitudes toward immigrants and racial minorities. As political scientists may put it, the wall has become “racialized.”

Particularly Democrats have come to believe that support for a border wall indicates animus toward immigrants and people of color more generally. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s contention that the border wall is “immoral,” not just cost-ineffective, demonstrates that for many the wall is about values, not number-crunching.

This clearly wasn’t the case several years ago when majorities of Americans, as well as Democrats, supported erecting a border wall or fence. How did framing of the border wall shift from being about security to being about race?

When Trump announced his bid for the presidency, he declared Mexico is “sending people that have lots of problems…They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

How did framing of the border wall shift from being about security to being about race?

Many people interpreted Trump’s remarks to mean that he thinks a majority of immigrants from Mexico are criminals while the minority, or only “some,” are law-abiding. This led many to conclude that Trump’s motivation for building a border wall was driven by animus toward a majority of Mexican and Latino immigrants.

Trump further fueled this impression when he claimed that the “Mexican heritage” of the judge presiding over Trump University lawsuits was incapable of impartiality because of his Mexican heritage. Even if Trump didn’t mean to give this impression, it’s understandable how millions concluded that a dislike of Mexican immigrants—here legally or otherwise—motivated Trump’s promise of a border wall.

Surveys show that many Americans reacted negatively to Trump’s comments. An NBC/WSJ poll conducted soon after Trump’s presidential campaign announcement found 37 percent thought his comments were “insulting” and “racist.” Even in 2018, a Quinnipiac poll found that 41 percent believe the “main motive behind President Trump’s immigration policies” is “racist beliefs.”

To be clear, many Americans who support the border wall do not view it as exclusionary or symbolic of animus toward immigrants. However, many people did come to view it this way, and that has significantly contributed to the public turning swiftly against it.

Further evidence that the wall has become a symbol is the fact that Hispanics have consistently opposed building a wall or fence along the border with Mexico for at least the past decade, even though most are U.S. citizens born in the United States or are legal residents. In 2008 only 11 percent supported “building a fence along 670 miles of border between the United States and Mexico,” an AP/Ipsos poll found.

This shows that Latino attitudes about the border wall are not about Trump, because this survey was conducted seven years before Trump ran for president. Latino attitudes have persisted, with only 13 percent in support of a wall in 2018, according to a Washington Post/ABC survey. The fact that most Hispanics are U.S.-born citizens yet still oppose the border wall indicates they view it as a symbolic gesture saying they and people like them aren’t wanted.

4) Democrats Will Oppose What Trump Supports

Trump is a polarizing figure, particularly for Democrats. Survey experiments conducted by Reuter/Ipsos found that simply telling Democrats Trump supports a policy turns them against it—even universal health care. For instance, 68 percent of Democrats ordinarily would agree that when it comes to health care “government should take care of everybody and the government should pay for it.” But among another sample of Democrats who were told Trump made that statement, only 47 percent supported government guaranteed health care—a 21-point drop.

Republicans given the same treatment moved only by 6 points. A third (33 percent) of Republicans supported government-guaranteed health care when they were not told that Trump once supported it. But among those who were told Trump made that statement, 39 percent supported it.

Thus, even on an issue as central to the Democratic policy agenda as government-guaranteed universal health subsidies, Trump can turn Democrats against it. So certainly he can turn them against a border wall too.

But one of the reasons Democrats and the media turned against Trump so intensely was because of the language he chose to use to talk about immigrants. Partisanship alone can’t explain why more than just Democrats, but the median voter also turned against a border wall. In a world where Trump had not gone on the offensive to curb both legal and illegal immigration and had not used inconsiderate language in the process, it’s likely that fewer people would oppose him with such zeal.

Democrats Will Resist Compromise

Democrats talk a lot about the benefits of compromise. In fact 75 percent of Democrats in a 2016 VOTER Survey said they’d rather lawmakers “compromise to get things done” rather than stick to principles. Yet Democratic leadership hasn’t shown signs of budging on building a wall, at least for now.

It’s not particularly credible for Democrats to say they oppose the wall because it’s not “cost-effective.” If they opposed it for that reason, why did many support a border barrier just a few years ago? It’s equally cost-ineffective today as it was then.

But Pelosi calling the wall “immoral” is a more credible explanation for why Democrats oppose the wall now but not before. It’s also indicative that she doesn’t view the wall like other public policy disagreements. As Democratic constituents have come to see the border wall as a symbol of animus toward immigrants, they can’t allow leadership to compromise without violating deeply held values.

What All This Might Mean

There are useful lessons here about how Americans changed their minds on the border wall. Facts and numbers about the cost-ineffectiveness of building a 2,000-mile wall across diverse geological terrain were available before 2015 and did not change many minds. Telling people that it costs money the country doesn’t have didn’t work. Explaining that unauthorized immigration will still continue despite a tremendous amount of money spent also hasn’t been particularly persuasive.

Instead, many people changed their minds about a border wall when they came to view it as a symbol of exclusion and animus toward immigrants and racial minorities and thus immoral. While many advocates of the border wall insist the wall is a humanitarian cause and is necessary for border security, they are talking past those who view it as a racialized symbol.

Perhaps there’s something to be learned here. Sometimes persuasion requires more than simply facts and reason. But persuasion needs the flavor of righteousness for people to care enough to change their minds and for it to stick.

Emily Ekins is a research fellow at the Cato Institute. Her research focuses primarily on American politics, public opinion, political psychology, and social movements, with an emphasis in survey and quantitative methods.
— Read on thefederalist.com/2019/01/14/americans-used-support-border-wall-changed-minds/

NYT Reveals FBI Retaliated Against Trump For Lawfully Firing Comey — The Federalist

A Friday expose from the New York Times reveals that the FBI investigation of Trump for alleged treason was little more than retaliation against the president for lawfully firing an incompetent and ethically challenged FBI director.

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.

The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The Washington Post reported Mueller was looking into whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by insisting he was innocent of the outlandish charges selectively leaked by government officials to compliant media. Perhaps because such an obstruction investigation was immediately condemned as scandalous political overreach, that aspect was downplayed while Mueller engaged in a limitless “Russia” probe that has rung up countless Trump affiliates for process crimes unrelated to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and spun off various investigations having nothing to do with Russia in any way.

The latest Times report does provide more detail than these earlier reporters, however, and none of it makes the FBI look good. In fact, it provides evidence of a usurpation of constitutional authority to determine foreign policy that belongs not with a politically unaccountable FBI but with the citizens’ elected president. More on that in a bit.

Criminalizing Foreign Policy Differences

Using leaked information and testimony from various former governmental officials, we learn that the FBI opened its aggressive, norm-breaking, and unconstitutional investigation, supposedly into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” after he fired Comey and revealed how the agency was playing games with their spurious “Russia” probe.

The Saturday New York Times article appeared on page one, above the fold, with the almost laughable headline “F.B.I. Investigated if Trump Worked for the Russians.” The online version of the story was headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” Nine paragraphs into the story, the reporters admit that there is and was literally “no evidence” to support the idea Trump worked for Russia.

The top of the article, however, immediately presented the FBI-friendly interpretation of the agency’s motivations as fact — without evidence and despite strong evidence to the contrary — saying the FBI began its investigation because they were “so concerned by the president’s behavior” rather than saying it was because they were “so concerned he’d continue to expose their behavior” or “so concerned he’d hold them accountable for their political investigations.”

The article accepts FBI spin that arguing for better relations with the nuclear-armed Russia “constituted a possible threat to national security” that could only be explained if Trump was “knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.” Because FBI officials personally opposed Trump’s foreign policy, and that of the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, the FBI was “suspicious” of him, we’re told. The reporters admit the reckless decision by FBI officials was “an aggressive move” that disturbs many former law enforcement officials.

The FBI never had a good reason to investigate Trump, according to information in the article, but even the justifications they use are erroneous. For example, all three items mentioned here are inaccurately framed and presented:

Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.

First, Trump never called on Russia to hack Clinton, despite repeated media claims to the contrary. Clinton had already destroyed her server, along with 30,000 emails she claimed were about yoga, while she was under investigation for mishandling classified information. Trump was highlighting that tons of hackers could have already accessed her insecure server when it still existed and, if they had, those emails should be released so that Americans would know what foreign governments undoubtedly already did. It was a way to highlight her reckless handling of classified information and the global security concerns of that.

Second, having a foreign policy different from those who seek conflict with Russia is neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. In fact, it’s a big part of why the American people voted for Trump. The American people get to determine who sets foreign policy, and they do so through elections. The FBI does not get to set foreign policy by running criminal and counterintelligence investigations to punish those who step outside their preferred approach. They have no constitutional authority to do that.

Third, even if the Republican Party had changed its convention platform regarding Ukraine, which it had not, that is also neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. It’s shocking and scandalous that the FBI thinks it should criminalize foreign policy disputes.

The FBI argues, without evidence, that the president needed to be investigated as a threat to national security. Keep in mind that the FBI did not act this way during the previous administration, when many of Barack Obama’s detractors argued his foreign policy was a threat to national security. They didn’t investigation collusion with Iran, or the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to the regime. Neither did they do such things with any previous president.

It’s good that they didn’t, because Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the authority to determine foreign policy to the president, not the director or acting director of the FBI. Harvard law professor and former Comey deputy Jack Goldsmith expands on this:

One danger in the what the FBI apparently did is that it implies that the unelected domestic intelligence bureaucracy holds itself as the ultimate arbiter—over and above the elected president who is the constitutional face of U.S. intelligence and national security authority—about what actions do and don’t serve the national security interests of the United States.

Criminalizing Lawful Hiring And Firing Decisions

The article says that the FBI was, unbelievably, discussing whether they could go after Trump because he asked if Comey was loyal. It does not mention that Comey promised his loyalty or the context of Trump’s question, which was rampant leaking by the FBI, Comey’s blackmail attempt before Trump was inaugurated, and obvious game-playing against him and his administration with the Russia probe.

The FBI ultimately decided to act when Trump told the truth and revealed some of their game-playing with the Russia probe. He wanted to send a letter to Comey in which he thanked Comey for telling him he was not a subject of the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wanted him to hide that fact.

Rosenstein, it’s worth remembering, wrote the memo explaining why Comey was so bad at his job, a view that was completely confirmed by the inspector general’s report on the Clinton email probe. When Trump fired Comey, in part for his incompetent handling of political investigations such as those mentioned in Rosenstein’s memo, Rosenstein used that as the predicate to launch what became the special counsel investigation against Trump.

In any case, Trump told Rosenstein to tell the truth even if he wanted to keep it hidden. Rosenstein refused, irritating Trump, according to the New York Times. Trump told the truth to the American public — which Comey was later forced to admit under oath — that Comey had told him three times he was not under investigation.

According to the New York Times, by not going along with the FBI’s game — privately admitting to Trump that he wasn’t under investigation while publicly suggesting otherwise or leaking numerous snippets of information, selectively curated and framed to suggest he was — the FBI grew concerned that he was a Russian agent. Readers would be forgiven for thinking that makes no sense whatsoever and that it’s more plausible they were concerned their behavior against Trump would be exposed.

Their other justification for targeting their political foe was that Trump publicly flat-out said he didn’t like the game Comey was playing with the Russia investigation. They decided, we’re told, to interpret, or pretend to interpret, this as obstruction.

‘I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,’ he said. ‘And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’

Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. ‘I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,’ Mr. Trump added. ‘He’s the wrong man for that position.’

Angered by Trump’s critique of Comey’s double-dealing regarding the Russia probe, the FBI retaliated with an investigation.

While it’s not mentioned in the article, hours after Comey was fired, top FBI officials and paramours Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texted about the need to open a “case” against Trump they’d already been discussing in a “formal, chargeable way” and that it had to be done “while Andy is acting.” The texts also mention “Bill”–believed to be FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap–being in on the plot.

“Andy” is then-deputy director Andrew McCabe, who took over the bureau until Christopher Wray was confirmed as director in August 2017. McCabe was later fired for repeatedly lying under oath about just one of many of his rampant leaks to friendly reporters and is reportedly under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury. Strzok was also fired for his behavior, Page resigned, and Priestap announced his retirement last month. It is unclear which officials in the Department of Justice authorized the unconstitutional investigation into the president as a national security threat because he didn’t share their foreign policy views.

It was important for this group to launch the official investigation into Trump while McCabe was acting director because they reasonably understood it wouldn’t happen if an FBI director outside their control took over the agency. The opening of an investigation followed a pattern of shocking behavior by the FBI, including Comey telling Trump that there was information floating around about an alleged videotape showing prostitutes urinating on a bed while he watched (there is zero evidence that such a videotape exists or that the alleged event it memorialized ever took place).

Government officials leaked the fact of that briefing to CNN almost immediately, one of the key moments that got the outlandish Russia conspiracy story started. Even Comey admitted that his behavior looked a lot like a blackmail or extortion attempt, which he strenuously denied it was. The move backfired because Trump immediately realized the FBI was playing games. McCabe also launched an investigation of former attorney general Jeff Sessions, before Sessions recused himself from holding the FBI accountable for their handling of the Russia probe.

In sum, the framing of this New York Times article is either poorly conceived or outright disingenuous at every turn. Using the completely lawful and constitutional firing of the bumbling Comey as pretext for opening a criminal investigation into the president is a grand abuse of power by the FBI. Attempting to overtake the authority to determine U.S. foreign policy from the lawfully determined president of the United States is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

For one of the nation’s largest newspapers to suggest that this makes the president — and not the FBI — look bad actually validates two of Trump’s biggest complaints: the media are hopelessly biased, and there really is a “deep state” out to to overturn the 2016 election.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
— Read on thefederalist.com/2019/01/14/nyt-reveals-fbi-retaliated-against-trump-for-comey-firing/

Illegal Immigration and Socialist Strategy — American Thinker Blog

With the sudden rise of Democrat Socialist politicians like Bill de Blasio, who

What is also apparent is that as a prescription for change the left still puts faith in the 53-year-old Saul Alinsky-inspired Cloward-Piven strategy.

In the mid-1960s, the late Richard Cloward, and wife, Canadian-born

In a 1966 piece in

In the piece, Cloward-Piven demonized the ruling class by claiming the federal government used welfare to undermine and foment rebellion in poor, black communities.  Sounding like the worlds’ most famous community organizer, Barack Obama, who spent eight years tacitly whipping up domestic terrorists like Organize Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, Cloward-Piven maintained that the underclass

Enter black masks, billy clubs, bricks and, calculated chaos.

At the time, Cloward and Piven’s hope was that “cadres of aggressive organizers” involved in “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy” would incite a breaking point that possessed the power to influence the federal government to “

Cloward and Piven stand behind President Bill Clinton as he signs the 1993 Motor Voter Act, enabling automatic voter registration when getting  drivers’ licenses

Then, in 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote in his primer for community organizers titled

When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to ‘live up’ to its rulebook can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist ‘rulebook’ with a socialist one.

Remember when Alinsky-trained

Then, like a street activist daring America to live up to its rulebook, Obama set his sights higher when he laid out a “

With that in mind, perhaps, open border apologists like de Blasio and Ocasio-Cortez should consider coauthoring a 2019 version of Cloward and Piven’s 1966 article and entitle the modern-day version, “The Weight of Illegal Immigration: A Socialistic Strategy to Gain Control.”

In the interim, those committed to a nation without borders can continue to test America’s collective conscience by stressing that

For the time being, as unrest percolates over an unwavering presidential demand for Democrats to fund and build a levee to hold back the human tide, radical politicians rebel by flexing states-rights muscle and by

With pressure

Meanwhile, as the onslaught of sickly, criminal, indigent, unruly individuals overrun America; godless leftists continue to mouth “Judeo-Christian moral tenets,” and parrot 60s radicals whose goal was to indoctrinate a generation of publicly educated Americans with a sense of entitlement, who then, based on the false belief that getting without giving is a human right, would eventually assist undermining the future by accepting the unacceptable.

And so, a half a century after Cloward-Piven proposed their plan and 48 years after Alinsky penned

Jeannie hosts a blog at
— Read on www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/illegal_immigration_and_socialist_strategy_.html

Where Did All This Pentecostalism Come From? — Tim Challies

It is impossible to consider the modern history or contemporary state of Christianity without accounting for the sudden rise, the explosive spread, and the worldwide impact of Pentecostalism. To that end, I’ve been reading several books on the subject, focused especially on the Azusa Street Revival, which most historians consider the setting in which Pentecostalism began. Here are a few key points I’ve learned about the Azusa Street Revival and the Azusa Street Mission that housed it.

Its roots were in the Holiness Movement. The roots of the Azusa Street Revival and the Pentecostalism it birthed are entwined with the Holiness Movement of the late nineteenth century. This was a renewing movement within the Wesleyan tradition that emphasized complete sanctification and taught that moral perfection is available to Christians. It was marked by a heavy emphasis on personal holiness, most often displayed through a close adherence to the law as a means of drawing near to God. In general, early Pentecostal theology took Wesleyan theology as its starting place, then added to it certain new elements.

It was led by William Seymour. The Azusa Street Mission was led by William J. Seymour, an African American son of former slaves who was born and raised in Louisiana. In his early twenties he traveled to Indianapolis where he had a conversion experience at a Methodist Episcopal church. He left that tradition, though, after becoming convinced of premillennialism and special revelation. He likely migrated to a group called Evening Light Saints where he was exposed to their policies of non-sectarianism, non-creedalism, and equality between races and genders, all of which he adopted and promoted. Though he felt the call to ministry, he battled it until he contracted smallpox and came to believe this was God’s chastisement for his disobedience.

It built upon a previous movement. Though it’s fair to say that the Azusa Street Mission marked the beginning of Pentecostalism, William Seymour had based much of his doctrine and certain of his practices on Charles Parham. Parham had become convinced that Christians needed to rediscover the miraculous spiritual gifts, especially that of tongues. These tongues would allow mission work to advance in foreign lands and help usher in the Lord’s return. Parham founded a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, where in 1901 one of his students received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Though Parham was an unabashed racist and unorthodox in many key doctrines, Seymour studied at his college for a short time—enough to absorb his view of the ongoing spiritual gifts. Seymour was soon called to a church in Los Angeles and left Parham, whom he was soon to eclipse as the father of Pentecostalism. Parham seems never to have forgiven Seymour for this.

It began near Azusa Street. The Azusa Street Revival actually began in a small house on nearby Bonnie Brae Street. On April 9, 1906, Seymour was three days into a ten-day fast with several other people (all of whom were African American), when he laid hands on one participant and prayed he would receive the Holy Spirit. That man fell to the floor, then began to speak in tongues. They hurried to the house of Richard and Ruth Asberry on Bonnie Brae Street where others were waiting. Soon many of them had a similar experience of Spirit baptism and also spoke and sang in tongues. This drew the interest of neighbors and within days the house became so packed that they were forced to move to the nearby vacant building at 312 Azusa Street. (That building has since been torn down, but the house on Bonnie Brae Street remains as a museum.)

It was distinctly egalitarian. From its very beginning, the Azusa Street Mission permitted both men and women to fill all positions of leadership, including preaching. The revival was also racially egalitarian, so that whites and minorities worshipped together in a way that many at the time considered scandalous. Some of the early critiques of the movement ooze with malicious racism as onlookers express their revulsion with black men worshipping alongside white women. The multi-ethnicity of the earliest Pentecostals contributed to what would become Pentecostal worship, which absorbed elements of various cultural traditions. (Seymour would later amend his views to allow only men to hold certain leadership positions.)

It was a revival of a particular view of sanctification. The Azusa Street Revival was not first an evangelistic movement, though some people did claim to be saved through it. Neither, like the Great Awakening, was it marked by people coming to a deep awareness of their sinfulness. Rather, the reviving that took place was predominantly sanctification and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This sanctification was according to the Wesleyan definition of “Christian perfection” or “entire sanctification”—an instantaneous act that was to be pursued after justification as a second act of grace. Where justification saved the believer, sanctification cleansed him. To this Wesleyan theology, the early Pentecostals added a third experience, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This was not an act of grace, but an act of empowerment in which the Holy Spirit made the person particularly useful to Christian service.

Its most noteworthy characteristic was speaking in tongues. The defining experience of those involved in the Revival was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the essential mark of that baptism was speaking in tongues. In the early days, these tongues were thought to be human languages and some went so far as to attempt to write them in foreign scripts (much to the glee of the media). It would take months or even years before they came to understand these tongues were not human languages. In the meantime, they had sent scores of missionaries to foreign lands, convinced they had been given the gift of the local language. It was only subsequently that they developed a theology of tongues that would account for the speaking of angelical or prayer languages.

Its worship involved more than speaking in tongues. For the first two or three years of the movement, there were three services each day at the Azusa Street Mission, so the building was constantly full of people engaging in many forms of worship. While speaking in tongues was one of the marks of worship, there was far more to it. Cecil Robeck says, “While the mission valued and celebrated spontaneity, every service also included the predictable. There were public prayers, singing, testimonies, preaching or teaching from the Bible, and time spent around the altar or in one of the upstairs rooms in personal prayers.” Some of the Pentecostal worship was readily identifiable to any Christian of any tradition, while some was new and unique. Gaston Espinosa insists that Seymour’s “main message was not tongues, missions, nor end times eschatology, but rather that a person must be born-again to go to Heaven.” With this being true, tongues did play a key role as the necessary mark of one who had been filled with the Spirit.

It spread rapidly. The Revival sparked a movement that spread with startling rapidity first across Los Angeles, then through America, and into the rest of the world. Many of those who spent time at the Azusa Street Mission “caught the fire” and took it to their own churches in their own cities. Many others took it overseas so that within months its influence had extended to distant lands. It would very quickly take root on every continent and, in many places overwhelm existing works to become the foremost expression of Christianity.

It was undermined by bad eschatology. The leaders of the movement were convinced that speaking in tongues stood as proof that the Spirit was beginning to work in a fresh way that foretold the imminent return of Christ. This added an urgency to the movement that often overwhelmed reason and discernment. So missionaries were dispatched to foreign lands without preparation, without any view to biblical qualification, and without any thought as to when and how they would return. They claimed God had gifted them with that foreign language, they claimed to be called, they believed Christ was about to return, so they were duly sent—sometimes within a matter of days or even hours after being baptized in the Spirit. Not surprisingly, this often proved disruptive and destructive to work already underway in the foreign nations.

It collapsed through scandal and infighting. Though Seymour was able to lead the Mission, he proved unsuited to lead the movement. Some of those who attempted to do so on his behalf betrayed him or sought to displace him. The Oneness movement, which insisted that baptism should be only in the name of Jesus, splintered Pentecostalism. One of his closest co-workers absconded with the mailing list through which Seymour had disseminated his influence throughout the world. William Durham attempted to integrate a more Calvinistic view of sanctification into early Pentecostalism and drew away many of Azusa’s people. The movement also began to experience disruptions along racial lines and Seymour attributed this largely to the prejudices of white people who wanted to take over the work. He responded by decreeing that no white person could be in leadership until the racial climate had improved. The early unity quickly gave way to all manner of scandal and infighting.

By 1908 the Mission had begun to wane. By the end of 1909 there was little doubt that it had gone into serious decline, just three years after it had begun. But, of course, Pentecostalism survived and thrived. Today there are 500 million people in the world who identify as either Pentecostal or Charismatic and, to some degree, all of them can trace their roots to Azusa Street.

(These are the facts. At some point in the future I’d like to bring some analysis of those facts. Sources: William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism; The Azusa St Mission and Revival.)

Where Did All This Pentecostalism Come From? — Tim Challies

14 JANUARY 365 Days with Calvin

Mental Murder

Thou shalt not kill. Exodus 20:13

suggested further reading: Genesis 4:3–10

This commandment has two parts: first, that we should not vex, or oppress, or be at enmity with others; and, second, that we should live at peace with others without exciting quarrels. We should aid, as much as possible, those who are unjustly oppressed. And we should strive to resist the wicked lest they injure others. Christ, in teaching the true sense of the law, speaks against those transgressors who have committed murder, saying they are in danger of the judgment. So is anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause. He adds, “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:22). Contrary to what some have supposed, Jesus does not offer a new law here, as if to cast blame upon his Father. But he shows the folly and perversity of those interpreters of the law who only insist on the external appearance and husk of things, since the doctrine of God must rather be estimated from a due consideration of his nature.

If a man carries a weapon for the purpose of killing a man, earthly judges will find him guilty of violence. God, who is a spiritual lawgiver, goes even further. With him, anger is counted as murder; yea, inasmuch as God pierces to the most secret feelings, he holds even concealed hatred to be murder. John writes, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15); i.e., hatred conceived in the heart is sufficient for his condemnation, although it may not openly appear.

for meditation: How can we feel morally superior to murderers? Are not we ourselves often murderers in our thoughts and words?[1]

[1] Calvin, J., & Beeke, J. R. (2008). 365 Days with Calvin (p. 32). Leominster; Grand Rapids, MI: Day One Publications; Reformation Heritage Books.

Do the Math: Trump’s Wall Is $25 Billion, Illegals Cost $165 Billion – American Greatness

Scott Adams, the creator of the popular cartoon “Dilbert,” transformed himself into a persona non grata in 2016 by exposing how Donald Trump manipulated the media by using sophisticated persuasion techniques. History proved Adams was correct and Trump won the election. As it turns out, Trump was not the bumbling blowhard of CNN’s fever dreams. He was a marketing mastermind whose words went far beyond “resonating” with ordinary Americans—they stuck. Epithets like crooked, lyin’, and low-energy were not just insults, they were silver bullets spoken by a silver tongue. Hillary, Ted, and Jeb didn’t know what hit ’em.

Two years on and Trump’s word-wizardry is as potent as ever—Pocahontas‘s racial fraud is now common knowledge, and Trump’s little rocket man jab arguably set the stage for North Korea’s denuclearization summit. At this point, Trump’s language is indistinguishable from political magic. For example, Trump’s push for “the wall” has turned ardent socialists into laissez-faire economists on the issue of illegal immigration—who cares if migration hurts America’s most vulnerable? We need aliens to grow the economy!

This flip-flop has made it clear to ordinary Americans: the Democratic Party cares more about illegal aliens than it does the common citizen.

Another Brick in the Wall
The Democratic Party shut down the government to avoid funding President Trump’s border wall with Mexico. In the meantime, the media has harped incessantly on the wall’s futility. The wall is too expensive, they claim. And in any event, the wall won’t work! 

Nonsense. Illegal aliens cost American citizens more in three months than the wall will cost to build in its entirety. What’s more, the available evidence suggests that walls are fantastically effective at arresting migrant flows.

To begin with: how much will Trump’s wall cost to build?

In her informative piece, statistician Liberty Vittert estimates that Trump’s wall will cost some $25 billion to build. Vittert breaks her estimate down as follows:

Size of the wall: 1,150 miles long; 40 feet high; 10 feet deep into the ground; 1 foot wide

Total volume of material: 11.2 million cubic yards

Materials: Approximately $8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials); approximately $3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)

Labor: Approximately $12.3 billion (given the labor costs on the original 654 miles of barriers we can assume a conservative 1:1 ratio of materials to labor)

Land acquisition: About 60 percent of the border is privately owned land. While the federal government has the power to take privately owned property for public purposes, it must provide “just compensation.” Based on previous purchases from the 2006-2009 wall construction, the cost at most would be $300,000 per mile acquired, or approximately $200 million altogether.

In total, the actual physical cost of the wall would be about $25 billion.

Such a large project will require maintenance. Estimates suggest that the wall may cost $150 million to $750 million per year to maintain. This is not much in the grand scheme of things—especially when you consider that the wall likely will save money by making border control more efficient.

Many argue that the wall will be more expensive. The Cato Institute, for examplesuggests that the wall will cost a total of $59.8 billion to construct. This does not include maintenance costs, but does include an inflationary modifier to account for the fact that government projects usually incur large cost overruns. This is reasonable—rarely has a government project cost less than expected. In any event, Cato‘s estimate is (by far) the highest of any mainstream estimates. 

Reuters in 2017 reported an internal report compiled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that a border wall would cost $21.6 billion to build. Meanwhile, an MIT study reported in the notoriously left-leaning Huffington Postsuggests that the wall could cost $40 billion to build. Together, these studies give us a fairly wide range: a border wall as proposed by Trump could cost anywhere from $20 to $60 billion. This article will proceed using $25 billion as the (somewhat arbitrary) go-to estimate.

The Democrat’s Dilemma
Illegal aliens cause economic harm to Americans because they consume far more in government services than they contribute in taxes. We make: they take.

According to a 2017 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal aliens and their children cost American taxpayers $135 billion annually—$8,075 per alien per year. These costs are partially offset by taxes collected from illegal aliens, which total around $19 billion. Thus, the net cost of illegal immigrants to American taxpayers is $116 billion annually.

The report also details how those billions are spent. Unsurprisingly, state and local governments bear the majority (two-thirds) of the costs, spending $88 billion annually. The federal government has it relatively easy, spending just $45 billion. This is ironic, given that the federal government created this problem. What’s more, the federal government receives the lion’s share of taxes paid by illegal aliens ($15.4 billion), while state and local governments receive just $3.5 billion in annual taxes from illegal immigrants.

Unsurprisingly, the single greatest cost associated with illegal immigration is educating their children ($46 billion a year). Not only is this expensive, but it reduces school quality for American students. Consider that one-in-five California students is an illegal alien or anchor baby. This crowding is the main reason why California’s public school system is one of America’s worst: California has one of the highest student-teacher ratios and among the lowest per-student spending in America. Government also spends $29 billion on medical expenses, $23 billion on law enforcement, and $9 billion on straight-up welfare programs (some of which actually favor illegal aliens over American citizens).

Illegal aliens also cost Americans indirectly by sending $30 billion in remittancesabroad per year—this is the “hidden tax” that Americans pay for illegal labor.

Functionally there is little difference between these remittances and a maximally inefficient tax. Consider: you hire a gardener who then remits five cents to the government as a sales tax. Now imagine that the government spends this money in Washington building marble monuments—none of the money returns to your community. This tax is maximally inefficient because you get no return for your “investment” in the common weal.

How is this any different than remittances? Americans hire illegal aliens, who then remit a large portion of their income back to their homeland. This money is spent abroad, never to return to your local community. Hypothetically it may return—a decade from now. But realistically, the velocity of money is reduced to nil. In this way, the remittances sent by illegal aliens are effectively a tax that Americans pay for the privilege of hiring “cheap” illegal labor. 

For this reason, it is reasonable to bundle the remittances sent by illegal aliens in with America’s tax burden. This means that illegal aliens cost Americans $165 billion annually. 

Old Dragon Head to Berlin
Walls work. Everyone knows this. It’s why we build them around prisons, military installations, and even our homes without hesitation. The confusion sets in when we talk about big walls. Well, I have news for you: big walls work too.

For example, in 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act which required the construction of 850 miles of double-layered fencing to be built on the Mexican-American border. Although the Bush administration only completed 36.6 miles of said fencing (at Yuma) before Obama gutted the project, the results are telling. Between 2006 and 2015 border apprehensions at Yuma declined by 96 percent, falling from 138,438 to just 5,902. While I do not doubt that many migrants simply used other routes to enter America, this proves the point: walls and fences are powerful deterrents. 

These findings are supported by a report released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The report found that while the average interdiction rate along the U.S.-Mexican border is 50 percent, it was as low as just 5 percent in areas without fencing or vehicle barriers. Basically, walls and fences are a significant force multiplier for America’s border patrol agents—they delay migrants long enough for the authorities to apprehend them. They give America the edge in the endless game of “red rover” they currently play with migrants.

There is plenty of international evidence that walls work. For example, Hungary has claimed that fences along its borders with Croatia and Serbia have stemmed the flow of migrants by 99.7 percent since 2015. Specifically, “the number of successful attempts to illegally cross the border fell from 391,000 in 2015 to 18,236 in 2016 and only 1,184 in 2017” according to Gyorgy Bakondi, the Hungarian prime minister’s chief security advisor. Neighboring Austria refused to build a fence, and now their nation’s social services are being abused by migrants to a terminal degree.

Finally, even left-leaning Politico was forced to admit that walls are effective. Specifically, it found that the construction of a 150-mile long border wall between Israel and Egypt cut the number of illegal border crossings from 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016. Basically, Israel’s wall was 100 percent effective.

America could build a highly-effective border wall for some $25 billion. Meanwhile, illegal aliens cost Americans $165 billion worth of taxes and remittances every year. Do the math.

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images
— Read on amgreatness.com/2019/01/13/do-the-math-trumps-wall-is-25-billion-illegals-cost-165-billion/

American Psychological Association States Men are the Cause of Society’s Woes — Pulpit & Pen

For years now, the APA has been at the forefront of legitimizing progressive gender and sexual ideologies; that is just what they did in this new report on boys and men. The report is the first of its kind from the APA, which in the past has issued “guidelines” for girls and women, as well as for so-called “sexual minorities.”  Simply put, this report is full of vain conclusions that are less clinical recommendations than they are naked worldview assertions.

While the APA report is full of strawman assertions, the report isn’t lacking is some cold hard facts. The problem is the conclusion the APA draws from the report, not the facts. Fact is that men and boys in America are not doing well. They’re diagnosed with ADHD at two times the rate of girls; they perform worse on standardized tests.  Males are suspended and expelled from school at a disproportionate rate. Older men use drugs and alcohol more often and don’t seek help for mental health issues like depression. Males commit 90 percent of homicides and make up 77 percent of homicide victims. The male population accounts for 93 percent of federal prison inmates and are 3.5 times more likely than women to commit suicide.

Yes, the American male is in trouble, but the trouble does not stem from what the APA identifies as “traditional masculinity” in their report.  In other words, according to the APA report “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and ability to handle violence” is the cause of societal woes. To me, these are characteristics of what a man should be like with Christ being the center focus of all these qualities. The problem lies in the fact that what the APA is calling “problematic with men” is not the problem at all. It is the lack of these characteristics in the majority of the male population that is causing these problems.

To be a man doesn’t mean being barbaric, as the APA report wants to paint the picture. What it means is protecting, loving, leading, fellowshipping with God. As Christians, we should be raising our sons to be men. We should be raising them not to look or act like women, wanting them to strive for achievement, not to appear weak, to seek adventure, risk and to be able to handle violence. The bible is clear that men are to act like men and women like women. The game that the APA is playing here is clear; they are against traditional and biblical masculinity. Masculinity reaches its pinnacle in Christ, who far from being a man of violence, laid down His life for His beloved.

Make no mistake here, the APA’s report is not science; it’s a worldview. That worldview is against traditional masculinity, with the end goal being to stomp out any form of biblical or traditional manhood. Our society’s rejection of biblical truths is at the root of much of the real turmoil that the APA’s reports. Until we, as a society, turn back to biblical truths and stop relying on recommendations from organizations like the APA, men will continue to be marginalized and society will continue to crumble. Without Christ, there is no hope.

American Psychological Association States Men are the Cause of Society’s Woes — Pulpit & Pen