Month: October 2018

Human rights is a myth.

Via NRO:

When he was 50, the prophet of Islam took as his wife Aisha, who was then six or seven. The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine.

This is not a smear. It is an accurate account of authoritative Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Nos. 234–236.) Yet it can no longer safely be discussed in Europe, thanks to the extortionate threat of violence and intimidation — specifically, of jihadist terrorism and the Islamist grievance industry that slipstreams behind it. Under a ruling by the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), free speech has been supplanted by sharia blasphemy standards.

The case involves an Austrian woman (identified as “Mrs. S.” in court filings and believed to be Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff) who, in 2009, conducted two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam.” She included the account of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. Though this account is scripturally accurate, Mrs. S. was prosecuted on the rationale that her statements implied pedophilic tendencies on the part of the prophet. A fine (about $547) was imposed for disparaging religion.

Mrs. S. appealed, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision purports to safeguard “freedom of expression,” though it works about the same way the warranty on your used car does — it sounds like you’re covered, but the fine print eviscerates your protection.

Article 10 starts out benignly enough: Europeans are free “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” But then comes the legalese: One’s exercise of the right to impart information, you see, “carries with it duties and responsibilities.” Consequently, what is called “freedom” is actually “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that the authorities decide “are necessary in a democratic society,” including for “public safety” and for “the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”

Translation: Europeans are free to say only what they are permitted to say by the unelected judges of the European courts. Truth is irrelevant. As the jurists reasoned in the case of Mrs. S., a person’s freedom to assert facts must be assessed in “the wider context” that balances “free” expression against — I kid you not — “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected,” as well as “the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

Keep reading…

Actress Stacey Dash said the political left divides Black American men and women in order to “divide and conquer,” while addressing a crowd at the Young Black Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C.

Dash told a room full of young black American conservatives that the left’s goal with the two sexes is to divide them, which leads to fatherless homes, specifically in the black American community.

“They’re trying to divide men and women … when they divide, that’s how, divide and conquer. That’s what they’ve done to us,” Dash said. Since the Great Society and the welfare.”

“Get the men out of the house and let the women think they don’t need them,” Dash continued. “And what’s happened? Boys are growing up without men, so they’re not becoming men. You want a man? You want a man? Have a good man. Make a good man. Be a mother to a good man.”

“There is no greater job than being a mother,” Dash said. “But today, that’s something to be frowned upon. If you want to be a mother and stay at home with your children … [you are told] you have no aspirations. I’m sorry, I’m doing the hardest job on the planet. I’m raising the next generation.”

U.S. Census Bureau data from 2010 revealed that nearly 60 percent of black American children live in households where their biological father is absent. About 31 percent of Hispanic American children and 20 percent of white American children live in homes where their biological father is absent.

Since the 1960’s — when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” national welfare program was implemented — fatherless households have skyrocketed across the U.S.

Something still doesn’t pass the smell test. In a moment of time where merely wearing a “MAGA” hat can get you fired, beat up, or merely harangued out of your favorite eatery, we are asked to believe that Cesar Altieri Sayoc was allowed to drive around safely in a van abundantly and meticulously adorned with pro-Trump stickers and a few depicting his personal animus toward the usual anti-Trump suspects, all of their colors vibrant, un-faded in the semitropical Florida sun.

The van was never overturned or torched wherever he parked or drove it. No tires were ever slashed, no windows were ever smashed in with a baseball bat. It was never even keyed. And there it was in pristine condition, undamaged and ready for its close-up before a media avid to blame President Trump for Sayoc’s actions.

Why would an ardent or, as the media will say, “unhinged” Trump supporter, watching, as the rest of us have, the so-called “blue wave” break up before it reaches shore amidst a roaring economy and widespread outrage over the treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the oncoming illegal alien caravan invasion, do something so idiotic, something that could only slow the Trump train and help Democrats blame “both sides” and Trump’s allegedly “toxic rhetoric”

One observer asked the obvious question:

Why does Cesar Sayoc, the alleged “MAGABomber”, follow mainly liberals on Twitter and have a van covered in brand new pro-President Donald Trump stickers? It’s as if he isn’t a supporter and wants it pinned on the president.

Another asked

A noted pundit made another observation that is curious:

Cesar Sayoc — the alleged mail bomber — had Trump stickers all over his vehicle. But on Twitter, he only follows 32 people — many of whom are left-wingers like Lina Dunham, Barack Obama and Jimmy Kimmel. What gives?

Indeed, what gives? Before we haul down the false flag, it might be worth trying to answer that question. It just doesn’t make sense, but maybe Sayoc is a few fries short of a happy meal and logic does not apply. Logic will certainly not apply to Trump critics who are already blaming for Sayoc’s actions a resident of the White House one celebrity has thought of blowing up, whose severed head replica has been held up by another celebrity, whom a top Hollywood actor would like to punch in the face as another notes that it has been a long time since an actor assassinated a President. Toxic atmosphere and toxic rhetoric indeed. 

It could just be that, like James T. Hodgkinson, the anti-Trump Bernie fan who tried to massacre Republican congressmen at a baseball practice, apparent Trump fan Cesar Sayoc is mentally challenged. Though one is doubtful that liberals will excuse Sayoc and Trump like they excused Hodgkinson and Sanders.

No one blamed Sanders for inspiring Hodgkinson with what Illinois Republican congressman Rodney Davis called “political rhetorical terrorism”,  and who, unlike Sayoc, actually harmed his targets with real bullets and did not use devices inspired by Wile E. Coyote. No one blamed Sanders for his “toxic” rhetoric:

Following the passage of the American Health Care Act, which still needs Senate approval to become law, Democrats and Sanders took to Twitter and the airwaves to condemn it in the gravest terms.

“If, which is not going to happen, the bill passed today in the House became law, thousands of Americans would die, because they would no longer have access to health care,” the independent from Vermont told CNN.

Bernie Sanders rightly and correctly disavowed the crimes of a volunteer whose actions he could not envision or control. Yet he and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi have spent the time since President Trump’s reelection yelling fire in the political theatre we call democracy, warning endlessly that people will die because of the Trump agenda, painting apocalyptic visions of planetary doom. With them claiming the Republican agenda is dooming the sick, the elderly, and the planet itself, was it so surprising that another liberal infused with the left’s messianic complex would try to save us all by killing Republicans trying to implement Trump’s America First agenda?

Pelosi especially should remember her own words as reported by the Washington Examiner:

With less than one week until Obamacare enrollment concludes, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi used congressional Democrats’ inaugural weekly address to warn of the catastrophic effects repealing the law would have on the public. Tragically, repeal of the Affordable Care Act will lead to death, disability and suffering.

Quite a call to arms for Hodgkinson to assassinate the congressional leaders who would impose “death, disability, and suffering” on the American people.  As I have noted, complaining about “fake news”, or chants of “CNN sucks” at campaign rallies, or pointing out the deep-state coup to overthrow a duly elected president by Democrats, the intelligence community, the FBI and the DOJ, is a call for fairness and justice and not violence.

By the grace of God and the presence of a security detail assigned to Steve Scalise, dozens of congressmen and their staff are alive today.

Let us consider who are the real inspirers of violence and where the real threat to civility and life rests. And let us answer the curious questions surrounding Cesar Altieri Sayoc 

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

Something still doesn’t pass the smell test. In a moment of time where merely wearing a “MAGA” hat can get you fired, beat up, or merely harangued out of your favorite eatery, we are asked to believe that Cesar Altieri Sayoc was allowed to drive around safely in a van abundantly and meticulously adorned with pro-Trump stickers and a few depicting his personal animus toward the usual anti-Trump suspects, all of their colors vibrant, un-faded in the semitropical Florida sun.

The van was never overturned or torched wherever he parked or drove it. No tires were ever slashed, no windows were ever smashed in with a baseball bat. It was never even keyed. And there it was in pristine condition, undamaged and ready for its close-up before a media avid to blame President Trump for Sayoc’s actions.

Why would an ardent or, as the media will say, “unhinged” Trump supporter, watching, as the rest of us have, the so-called “blue wave” break up before it reaches shore amidst a roaring economy and widespread outrage over the treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the oncoming illegal alien caravan invasion, do something so idiotic, something that could only slow the Trump train and help Democrats blame “both sides” and Trump’s allegedly “toxic rhetoric”

One observer asked the obvious question:

Why does Cesar Sayoc, the alleged “MAGABomber”, follow mainly liberals on Twitter and have a van covered in brand new pro-President Donald Trump stickers? It’s as if he isn’t a supporter and wants it pinned on the president.

Another asked

A noted pundit made another observation that is curious:

Cesar Sayoc — the alleged mail bomber — had Trump stickers all over his vehicle. But on Twitter, he only follows 32 people — many of whom are left-wingers like Lina Dunham, Barack Obama and Jimmy Kimmel. What gives?

Indeed, what gives? Before we haul down the false flag, it might be worth trying to answer that question. It just doesn’t make sense, but maybe Sayoc is a few fries short of a happy meal and logic does not apply. Logic will certainly not apply to Trump critics who are already blaming for Sayoc’s actions a resident of the White House one celebrity has thought of blowing up, whose severed head replica has been held up by another celebrity, whom a top Hollywood actor would like to punch in the face as another notes that it has been a long time since an actor assassinated a President. Toxic atmosphere and toxic rhetoric indeed. 

It could just be that, like James T. Hodgkinson, the anti-Trump Bernie fan who tried to massacre Republican congressmen at a baseball practice, apparent Trump fan Cesar Sayoc is mentally challenged. Though one is doubtful that liberals will excuse Sayoc and Trump like they excused Hodgkinson and Sanders.

No one blamed Sanders for inspiring Hodgkinson with what Illinois Republican congressman Rodney Davis called “political rhetorical terrorism”,  and who, unlike Sayoc, actually harmed his targets with real bullets and did not use devices inspired by Wile E. Coyote. No one blamed Sanders for his “toxic” rhetoric:

Following the passage of the American Health Care Act, which still needs Senate approval to become law, Democrats and Sanders took to Twitter and the airwaves to condemn it in the gravest terms.

“If, which is not going to happen, the bill passed today in the House became law, thousands of Americans would die, because they would no longer have access to health care,” the independent from Vermont told CNN.

Bernie Sanders rightly and correctly disavowed the crimes of a volunteer whose actions he could not envision or control. Yet he and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi have spent the time since President Trump’s reelection yelling fire in the political theatre we call democracy, warning endlessly that people will die because of the Trump agenda, painting apocalyptic visions of planetary doom. With them claiming the Republican agenda is dooming the sick, the elderly, and the planet itself, was it so surprising that another liberal infused with the left’s messianic complex would try to save us all by killing Republicans trying to implement Trump’s America First agenda?

Pelosi especially should remember her own words as reported by the Washington Examiner:

With less than one week until Obamacare enrollment concludes, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi used congressional Democrats’ inaugural weekly address to warn of the catastrophic effects repealing the law would have on the public. Tragically, repeal of the Affordable Care Act will lead to death, disability and suffering.

Quite a call to arms for Hodgkinson to assassinate the congressional leaders who would impose “death, disability, and suffering” on the American people.  As I have noted, complaining about “fake news”, or chants of “CNN sucks” at campaign rallies, or pointing out the deep-state coup to overthrow a duly elected president by Democrats, the intelligence community, the FBI and the DOJ, is a call for fairness and justice and not violence.

By the grace of God and the presence of a security detail assigned to Steve Scalise, dozens of congressmen and their staff are alive today.

Let us consider who are the real inspirers of violence and where the real threat to civility and life rests. And let us answer the curious questions surrounding Cesar Altieri Sayoc 

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

In the 1960s, an informed but naïve undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price.  He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organization was.  When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations.  I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before.  To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organization dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world.   I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale. 

How would Prof. Price’s vision of a new world government emerge?  Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body.  And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world:  the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). 

The word “rights” appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document.  The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France.   However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with.  In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.”  Are they implying that security will bring happiness?  Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western?  Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.

We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20).  But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world.   Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care,  and free education, plus the right to “full development of the personality,” (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me) and the “right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community… and to enjoy the arts” (we each have the right to enjoy a painting or a movie). However, they do not state the right to appear on the “Tonight Show” or “Saturday Night Live”, so there were limits to their largesse. 

In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document.  They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”  This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government.  The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19.  Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership.  Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet. 

What is meant by the term “sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.  Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”  Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress. 

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water.  Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19.  In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document. 

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move.  The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage.  The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony. 

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of  environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality.  The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers.  The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945.  Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?

In the 1960s, an informed but naïve undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price.  He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organization was.  When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations.  I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before.  To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organization dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world.   I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale. 

How would Prof. Price’s vision of a new world government emerge?  Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body.  And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world:  the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). 

The word “rights” appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document.  The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France.   However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with.  In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.”  Are they implying that security will bring happiness?  Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western?  Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.

We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20).  But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world.   Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care,  and free education, plus the right to “full development of the personality,” (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me) and the “right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community… and to enjoy the arts” (we each have the right to enjoy a painting or a movie). However, they do not state the right to appear on the “Tonight Show” or “Saturday Night Live”, so there were limits to their largesse. 

In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document.  They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”  This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government.  The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19.  Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership.  Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet. 

What is meant by the term “sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.  Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”  Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress. 

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water.  Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19.  In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document. 

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move.  The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage.  The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony. 

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of  environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality.  The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers.  The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945.  Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?

President Donald Trump tweeted congratulations to Brandon Straka, the former Democrat who launched the #WalkAway campaign to encourage leftists who are fed with fake news and mob tactics to leave the party.

“#Walkaway  Walkaway from the Democrat Party movement marches today in D.C. Congratulations to Brandon Straka for starting something very special. @foxandfriends,” Trump tweeted on Saturday as hundreds were gathering at Freedom Plaza for a rally.

Watch Live here.

#Walkaway Walkaway from the Democrat Party movement marches today in D.C. Congratulations to Brandon Straka for starting something very special. @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2018

“The Democratic Party has taken for granted that it owns racial, sexual, and religious minorities in America,” Straka said in a video he made to launch the campaign in May. “It has encouraged groupthink, hypocrisy, division, stereotyping, resentment, and the acceptance of victimhood mentality.”

Some of the speakers scheduled to speak at Saturday’s rally include Straka, Dinesh D’Souza, Stacey Dash, and Wayne Dupree. Herman Cain, California Congressional candidate Antonio Sabato Jr., Diamond and Silk, and Tomi Lahren will make video appearances.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

The national security threat at the southern border is extensive and palpable: potential terrorists and saboteurs; general and felonious human traffic; special interest aliens (SIA); weapons and ammunition, explosives, WMD; unchecked disease hazards; illicit drugs, contraband; aerial, subterranean, and submersible traffic.

The commander in chief of the United States has the solemn obligation (and power) to secure America’s borders.  To that end, all immigration laws are interpreted by the executive to extract enforcement outcomes, and then to muster tools and capabilities required to accomplish them.  Immigration laws addressing border security generally orbit border control.

Operational control is the advertised endgame of federal immigration statutes and the topic of executive branch statements and directives.  For example:

• The Secure Fence Act of 2006, PL109-367 states in part: “Not later than 18 months after its enactment, the DHS Secretary shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”  Operational control is defined in the statute as “[t]he prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras.”
• The January 25, 2018 Whitehouse Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security states in part: “Securing the southern and northern border of the United States takes a combination of physical infrastructure, technology, personnel, and resources. The Department of Homeland Security must have the tools to deter illegal immigration; the ability to remove individuals who illegally enter the United States.

The Secure Fence Act and other federal immigration laws are not mere suggestions by the Congress of the United States.  They represent clear-cut marching orders to the commander in chief.  Related presidential memoranda issued to subordinates are meant to motivate action.

The border can be shut down in six months using existing technology and personnel.  It’s no secret how: just deploy the necessary force with vigor. The problem of a porous border is not solved by endless discussion or becoming embroiled in interior enforcement issues like workplace raids, visa overstays, or so-called deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA).  Arguments such as “we need to address the reasons so many are traveling north,” “the U.S. job market is the magnet,” and “this is not who we are; we were all immigrants once” is counterproductive and irrelevant to enforcing existing border security law.

Rigorous border enforcement entails averting the gaze from distracting minutia to embracing physics and logistics, the opposite of sociological hyperbole.  Assets, methodologies, and systems don’t deploy themselves; a sea-to-sea plan must be developed and steadfastly executed.  Partial measures and tinkering will not secure the border.

Operation Skywall (OPSW) is meant to rattle the status quo by challenging government inertia and dispelling the myth that a secure border can’t be done.  OPSW articulates the way ahead.  First, commit to an overarching tactical structure capable of accomplishing the objective.  Second, deploy and sustain it.

OPSW utilizes commercial-off-the-shelf (COT) capabilities and uses personnel drawn from tried and true geospatial disciplines.  The task force delivers a double punch: it becomes a tool of law enforcement to efficiently achieve a closed border and does it cost-effectively.

The overview: Deploy a non-lethal intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) task force along the entire southern land and maritime border of the United States.  Focus on complete border situational awareness by using geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) systems to expeditiously identify cross-border threats.  Report and archive operational data to DHS.

The execution of OPSW is in four parts: 1. Establish Geographic Scope, 2. Determine Technical Means, 3. Define Personnel Requirements, and 4. Deploy and Sustain Force.

Establish geographic scope based on threat extent

Approx. 2000 miles of land and maritime borders (to include 18 miles into Pacific and 12 miles into Gulf of Mexico); length segregated into Grid Control Sectors, 3 miles wide x 6 miles long; 6000 total square miles of persistent surveillance; 334 Grid Control Sectors total.

Determine technical means to cover geography

Reconnaissance System: 8 fixed wing or rotary, un-manned/un-armed aerial vehicles w/ gimbled cameras; 4 Ground Control Units (GCU); each Grid Control Sector will employ 3 bands of aerial recon: #1 and #2 bands run primary detection (continuous) counter-fly routes, they will notify #3 back-up band once target is locked, and will then continue primary detection mission; #3 band once notified, will engage target and stay on point until interdiction authorities arrive and apprehend target. Additional system capabilities will be added to surveillance regime as required, e.g., motion, bathymetric, and artificial intelligence threat identification.

Define personnel requirements

Personnel strength calculated on approx. 10 troops (or technicians) operating three shifts at each Grid Control Sector; 334 Grid Control Sectors x 30 troops = 10,020 troops (or technicians).

Deploy and sustain the force

Suggested course of action: utilize U.S. military forces; a military approach better ensures mission cohesiveness and discipline.  Alternative course of action: civilian contract.  Initiate a full operational capability (FOC) regime to ensure operational outcomes and to certify regular compliance to actionable benchmarks.  Task force will require battalion-level support.

The national security threat at the southern border is extensive and palpable: potential terrorists and saboteurs; general and felonious human traffic; special interest aliens (SIA); weapons and ammunition, explosives, WMD; unchecked disease hazards; illicit drugs, contraband; aerial, subterranean, and submersible traffic.

The commander in chief of the United States has the solemn obligation (and power) to secure America’s borders.  To that end, all immigration laws are interpreted by the executive to extract enforcement outcomes, and then to muster tools and capabilities required to accomplish them.  Immigration laws addressing border security generally orbit border control.

Operational control is the advertised endgame of federal immigration statutes and the topic of executive branch statements and directives.  For example:

• The Secure Fence Act of 2006, PL109-367 states in part: “Not later than 18 months after its enactment, the DHS Secretary shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”  Operational control is defined in the statute as “[t]he prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras.”
• The January 25, 2018 Whitehouse Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security states in part: “Securing the southern and northern border of the United States takes a combination of physical infrastructure, technology, personnel, and resources. The Department of Homeland Security must have the tools to deter illegal immigration; the ability to remove individuals who illegally enter the United States.

The Secure Fence Act and other federal immigration laws are not mere suggestions by the Congress of the United States.  They represent clear-cut marching orders to the commander in chief.  Related presidential memoranda issued to subordinates are meant to motivate action.

The border can be shut down in six months using existing technology and personnel.  It’s no secret how: just deploy the necessary force with vigor. The problem of a porous border is not solved by endless discussion or becoming embroiled in interior enforcement issues like workplace raids, visa overstays, or so-called deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA).  Arguments such as “we need to address the reasons so many are traveling north,” “the U.S. job market is the magnet,” and “this is not who we are; we were all immigrants once” is counterproductive and irrelevant to enforcing existing border security law.

Rigorous border enforcement entails averting the gaze from distracting minutia to embracing physics and logistics, the opposite of sociological hyperbole.  Assets, methodologies, and systems don’t deploy themselves; a sea-to-sea plan must be developed and steadfastly executed.  Partial measures and tinkering will not secure the border.

Operation Skywall (OPSW) is meant to rattle the status quo by challenging government inertia and dispelling the myth that a secure border can’t be done.  OPSW articulates the way ahead.  First, commit to an overarching tactical structure capable of accomplishing the objective.  Second, deploy and sustain it.

OPSW utilizes commercial-off-the-shelf (COT) capabilities and uses personnel drawn from tried and true geospatial disciplines.  The task force delivers a double punch: it becomes a tool of law enforcement to efficiently achieve a closed border and does it cost-effectively.

The overview: Deploy a non-lethal intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) task force along the entire southern land and maritime border of the United States.  Focus on complete border situational awareness by using geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) systems to expeditiously identify cross-border threats.  Report and archive operational data to DHS.

The execution of OPSW is in four parts: 1. Establish Geographic Scope, 2. Determine Technical Means, 3. Define Personnel Requirements, and 4. Deploy and Sustain Force.

Establish geographic scope based on threat extent

Approx. 2000 miles of land and maritime borders (to include 18 miles into Pacific and 12 miles into Gulf of Mexico); length segregated into Grid Control Sectors, 3 miles wide x 6 miles long; 6000 total square miles of persistent surveillance; 334 Grid Control Sectors total.

Determine technical means to cover geography

Reconnaissance System: 8 fixed wing or rotary, un-manned/un-armed aerial vehicles w/ gimbled cameras; 4 Ground Control Units (GCU); each Grid Control Sector will employ 3 bands of aerial recon: #1 and #2 bands run primary detection (continuous) counter-fly routes, they will notify #3 back-up band once target is locked, and will then continue primary detection mission; #3 band once notified, will engage target and stay on point until interdiction authorities arrive and apprehend target. Additional system capabilities will be added to surveillance regime as required, e.g., motion, bathymetric, and artificial intelligence threat identification.

Define personnel requirements

Personnel strength calculated on approx. 10 troops (or technicians) operating three shifts at each Grid Control Sector; 334 Grid Control Sectors x 30 troops = 10,020 troops (or technicians).

Deploy and sustain the force

Suggested course of action: utilize U.S. military forces; a military approach better ensures mission cohesiveness and discipline.  Alternative course of action: civilian contract.  Initiate a full operational capability (FOC) regime to ensure operational outcomes and to certify regular compliance to actionable benchmarks.  Task force will require battalion-level support.

Rent control is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.  When Californians scan their ballots for the November 6 election and consider Proposition 10, which would allow local governments to impose and expand rent control laws, they should consider the long-term harms the measure would inflict on housing quantity, quality, and affordability.

Rent control is a textbook example of a price ceiling, in which prices are capped below market rates (i.e., where supply and demand are left free to interact).  As those Econ 101 textbooks will show you, many more people will demand housing at these lower prices, but fewer landlords will be willing to provide them at those rates.  This leads to a shortage of housing, which only exacerbates the affordability problem.  Furthermore, diminished landlord profits and a glut of prospective renters lead to less investment in maintaining properties and offering amenities, thereby reducing the quality of rental housing.

This is well understood among economists.  Though they struggle to agree on many issues, an astonishing 93 percent of economists in a 1992 survey of American Economic Association members agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.”

And yet, here we have Prop. 10, which would roll back a 1995 law that curbs rent control.  The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibited local governments from implementing rent control for housing built after January 31, 1995.  It also exempted condos and single-family homes from rent control laws and allowed landlords to bump prices back up to market rates once a tenant left.

Santa Monica, one of the early adopters of rent control, is champing at the bit to double down on the policy if Prop. 10 passes, and property-owners and developers have taken notice.  The number of multifamily rental properties up for sale in the city is at the highest level in 20 years – with about 80 percent more listings than usual – and developers are holding off on land deals, the Wall Street Journal noted in May, as they fear plunging property values if the measure passes.

But if rent control is so harmful an economic policy, why is it still being pursued with such vigor at the ballot box?  Because it is all about politics.  As journalist Henry Hazlitt asserted in his book, Economics in One Lesson, “[t]enants have more votes than landlords.”  In an even more sobering analysis, Hazlitt observes: “The more unrealistic and unjust the rent control is, the harder it is politically to get rid of it.”  In effect, you have created a group with strong personal interests that feels forever entitled to such subsidies. The truth of this can be seen in any attempt to reduce – or even slow the growth of – any government welfare program.

The best way to improve housing affordability across the state would be to eliminate the laws and regulations that restrict supply and keep it from meeting demand.  But this is much more difficult politically than blaming “greedy” landlords, wealthy tech workers in the Bay Area, and “gentrification.”  After all, powerful unions want their prevailing wage laws, environmentalists want to prevent development to keep the environment in a “pure” state (and preserve their hiking and biking trails), neighborhood busybodies want to impose “smart growth” and prevent people from developing their own property to “preserve the character of the neighborhood,” and local governments want to impose high development fees and extract concessions from developers to pad city coffers and get others to pay for their priorities.

It is no wonder, then, that California produces 100,000 fewer housing units than it needs each year, particularly in coastal communities, according to a March 2015 Legislative Analyst’s Report, and why California home prices have gone from 30 percent above the national average in 1970 to 80 percent above average in 1980 to two and a half times the national average in 2015 (not to mention rents that are 50 percent higher).

The slogan should not be “The rent is too damn high!”  It should be “The government is too damn big!”

It is dishonest for proponents of Prop. 10 to promise that rent control will deliver affordable rents for all.  If they were more forthright, they would say, “We are going to violate people’s property rights and right of contract to force them to offer below-market rents, and only a small portion of you will actually benefit from it, while most of you will have to pay even higher prices for a smaller choice of more poorly maintained housing, or move farther away to areas without rent control.”  But that requires longer-term thinking – and doesn’t work so well on a bumper sticker or a protest sign.

Adam B. Summers is a research fellow at the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute.

Rent control is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.  When Californians scan their ballots for the November 6 election and consider Proposition 10, which would allow local governments to impose and expand rent control laws, they should consider the long-term harms the measure would inflict on housing quantity, quality, and affordability.

Rent control is a textbook example of a price ceiling, in which prices are capped below market rates (i.e., where supply and demand are left free to interact).  As those Econ 101 textbooks will show you, many more people will demand housing at these lower prices, but fewer landlords will be willing to provide them at those rates.  This leads to a shortage of housing, which only exacerbates the affordability problem.  Furthermore, diminished landlord profits and a glut of prospective renters lead to less investment in maintaining properties and offering amenities, thereby reducing the quality of rental housing.

This is well understood among economists.  Though they struggle to agree on many issues, an astonishing 93 percent of economists in a 1992 survey of American Economic Association members agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.”

And yet, here we have Prop. 10, which would roll back a 1995 law that curbs rent control.  The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibited local governments from implementing rent control for housing built after January 31, 1995.  It also exempted condos and single-family homes from rent control laws and allowed landlords to bump prices back up to market rates once a tenant left.

Santa Monica, one of the early adopters of rent control, is champing at the bit to double down on the policy if Prop. 10 passes, and property-owners and developers have taken notice.  The number of multifamily rental properties up for sale in the city is at the highest level in 20 years – with about 80 percent more listings than usual – and developers are holding off on land deals, the Wall Street Journal noted in May, as they fear plunging property values if the measure passes.

But if rent control is so harmful an economic policy, why is it still being pursued with such vigor at the ballot box?  Because it is all about politics.  As journalist Henry Hazlitt asserted in his book, Economics in One Lesson, “[t]enants have more votes than landlords.”  In an even more sobering analysis, Hazlitt observes: “The more unrealistic and unjust the rent control is, the harder it is politically to get rid of it.”  In effect, you have created a group with strong personal interests that feels forever entitled to such subsidies. The truth of this can be seen in any attempt to reduce – or even slow the growth of – any government welfare program.

The best way to improve housing affordability across the state would be to eliminate the laws and regulations that restrict supply and keep it from meeting demand.  But this is much more difficult politically than blaming “greedy” landlords, wealthy tech workers in the Bay Area, and “gentrification.”  After all, powerful unions want their prevailing wage laws, environmentalists want to prevent development to keep the environment in a “pure” state (and preserve their hiking and biking trails), neighborhood busybodies want to impose “smart growth” and prevent people from developing their own property to “preserve the character of the neighborhood,” and local governments want to impose high development fees and extract concessions from developers to pad city coffers and get others to pay for their priorities.

It is no wonder, then, that California produces 100,000 fewer housing units than it needs each year, particularly in coastal communities, according to a March 2015 Legislative Analyst’s Report, and why California home prices have gone from 30 percent above the national average in 1970 to 80 percent above average in 1980 to two and a half times the national average in 2015 (not to mention rents that are 50 percent higher).

The slogan should not be “The rent is too damn high!”  It should be “The government is too damn big!”

It is dishonest for proponents of Prop. 10 to promise that rent control will deliver affordable rents for all.  If they were more forthright, they would say, “We are going to violate people’s property rights and right of contract to force them to offer below-market rents, and only a small portion of you will actually benefit from it, while most of you will have to pay even higher prices for a smaller choice of more poorly maintained housing, or move farther away to areas without rent control.”  But that requires longer-term thinking – and doesn’t work so well on a bumper sticker or a protest sign.

Adam B. Summers is a research fellow at the Oakland, California-based Independent Institute.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, a champion of gun control, is spending $4.5 million on advertisements supporting Democrat Katie Hill, who is challenging Republican Steve Knight in California’s 25th congressional district.

The Associated Press reports that Bloomberg’s $4.5 million is part of a $9 million ad buy that also benefits Democrat Harley Rouda, who is challenging Republican Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th district.

Hill styles herself as pro-gun. In an issue statement linked on her website, she says: “As a lifelong gun owner, I am ready to be a sensible voice in the debate around gun violence. I believe that respecting the Second Amendment and advocating for gun safety measures are not mutually exclusive.” Yet Bloomberg’s massive ad buy on her behalf suggests that she would be an aggressive advocate for gun control if elected to Congress with his assistance.

Last month, Bloomberg announced that he would be spending $100 million to support Democrats’ effort to take over the House of Representatives in an effort to advance his agenda. His massive ad buy on Hill’s behalf is a big chunk of that sum.

Ironically, in a debate in Simi Valley, California, on Thursday evening, Hill accused Knight of being funded by special interests who wanted to distort the policy preferences of the district in Washington.

The Los Angeles Times notes: “The closing burst of advertising from Bloomberg was a reminder that Hill, despite her spectacular success in fundraising, still faces a tough fight to dislodge Knight in conservative-leaning suburbs on the northern outskirts of Los Angeles. Bloomberg’s first TV ad for Hill casts her as a champion for veterans in the state’s 25th Congressional District.”

Hill favors the gas tax, among other taxes, and protested the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — despite being caught on camera making a sex joke at the expense of a female staffer. She also professed ignorance in a previous debate about the Cemez sand and gravel mine, one of the most important issues facing the 25th district.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.