02/9/17

Who Killed the Boy Scouts?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

John Stemberger of Trail Life USA talks about how the DNA deniers have taken over the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), permitting open homosexuals and girls who want to be boys to join. He discusses how Rex Tillerson, BSA past national president and now the nation’s secretary of state, played a role in the moral decline of the BSA.

02/9/17

HAS TRUMP UNLOCKED THE PROVERBIAL ANIMAL SPIRITS?

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
From: 1/30/17

For those who doubted President Trump’s campaign rhetoric, they are now surprised. His proposals are indeed tectonic, perhaps reshaping the geopolitical and socioeconomic landscape of the last fifty to sixty years. It is potentially generational setting.

Society is responding positively to Trump’s proposals for according to Gallup there is now 66% of Americans that think they will be better off one year from today. One year ago, only 44% thought they would be better off in one year.

This survey is consistent with the University of Michigan survey that showed the strongest sentiment among households in 13 years.

The Establishment has low expectations of a Trump presidency, a view not shared by society according to Gallup. Forty nine percent of Americans state they are better off today than one year ago, a ten year high. Most of this gain has occurred since the election.

Has Trump unlocked the proverbial Animal Spirits?

Preliminary estimates of fourth quarter GDP was released Friday. There was something to confirm one’s preconceived expectations and confirmation bias. Some will champion final sales to domestic purchases which strip out inventories and exports rose by 2.5% last quarter the fastest since 2015.

Others will focus on the headline number of the paltry increase of 1.9% versus expectations of 2.2%. This disappointing number was the result of trade that subtracted 1.7% from GDP, the most since 2Q10.

2016 capped the eleventh straight year of annual growth of less than 3%. Many are asking what will be the impact to GDP if Trump’s trade proposals come to fruition?

What I find of concern is that there is little narrative about the potential inflationary implications of the President’s trade proposals. It is because of trade that flat screen TVs are only $150, iPhones have dropped considerably in price and socks are now only $2. If tariffs are instated, will corporate America absorb any production cost increases resulting in lower margins, a huge issue for the largest capitalized momentum companies? Or will the increase in price be passed onto the consumer?

How will the environment unfold? Personally, I have disdain for people who shop at Wal-Mart that imports a majority of its products and then complains there are no jobs or salary increases. One can’t have both…cheap prices and high wages. Eventually, this unbalanced situation changes either by politics or by natural events.

Last night, the foreign markets were down. London was down 0.69%, Paris down 0.81% and Frankfurt down 0.70%. China was up 0.31%, Japan down 0.51% and Hang Sang down 0.06%.

The Dow should open moderately lower, mirroring losses in global markets, after Trump’s executive order halting some immigration to the country. Earning season accelerates this week as over 100 firms are set to post results in the next five days. To date, about a third of members have released results, of which seventy five percent beat profit estimates and about half topped sales forecasts.

The 10-year is unchanged at 2.48%.

02/9/17

A GUNLESS REVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED…POPULISTS OVERTOOK THE ELITISTS/GLOBALISTS

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
From: 1/23/17

Wow! Life is stranger than fiction where few could have written the script of the last 18 months. In my view President Trump put to rest any thoughts that he was not a populist. The President attacked the Establishment, defined as the elected pols and globalists. A gunless revolution has occurred in this peaceful transition of power, a transition I think few have not yet grasped its magnitude.

How will today’s Administrative state look tomorrow? Has “The Power” been returned back To the People? Perhaps the only certainty is that those in power will fight tooth and nail to protect their proverbial sandbox.

The success of the Trump Presidency will have a large impact on the markets. If he is successful, history will regard him as one of the greatest Presidents that restored the Teddy Roosevelt mantra of American Exceptionalism to the bane of the globalists and elitists, where Main Street vastly out performs Wall Street.

Change is feared but I will also write no change is ever linear.

Markets were little changed following Trump’s fiery speech that promised to upend the political establishment.

What will happen this week? Will Trump disappoint his supporters or will the Establishment be hit with shock and awe?

The economic calendar consists of various housing and manufacturing statistics and the initial release of fourth quarter GDP. Earning season also accelerates, a season that to date has been overshadowed by the Inauguration.

Last night the foreign markets were down. London was down 0.52%, Paris down 036%, and Frankfurt down 0.41%. China was up 0.44%, Japan down 1.29% and Hang Sang up 0.06%.

The Dow should open nominally lower as the markets are fearful that protectionism will increase and the Establishment is no longer protected. Moreover there is a surge of earning releases. Profits are expected to rise by 4.4% for the period and 12% in 2017. The 10-year is up 2/32 to yield 2.46%.

02/9/17

Trump’s Immigration Pause and the Media Backlash

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media continue their misleading reporting about President Donald Trump’s executive order, which calls for temporarily limiting immigration into the United States from seven countries, and a review of refugee policy. The media have blatantly sought to undermine Trump’s initiatives.

Judge James Robart, who serves on the District Court for the Western District of Washington State, asked the Department of Justice representative, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” Robart then continued, saying, “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell.”

Well, Judge Robart is wrong. Data provided to Congress indicates that between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, “at least 60” persons from those seven countries were convicted “of terror-related offenses,” writes Byron York for The Washington Examiner. There may have been more, since an additional 129 persons convicted of these crimes were “of unknown origin,” York reports.

Yet ABC News sought to downplay the security risk individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen pose. Instead, it reports that “Only eight of the 78 attacks that appeared on a White House list of terrorist incidents over the past two years were committed by individuals from the seven countries affected by Donald Trump’s immigration order…”

In other words, ABC is arguing that the travel pause would have little national security benefit. “In fact, the list provided by the White House shows Americans were responsible for more attacks than those from the seven banned countries combined,” reports ABC News.

The media have clearly chosen a side in the debate about the travel pause, and are willing to deceive their audience. In a recent appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer got into a discussion with Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) over Obama’s immigration record, and its similarity to Trump’s recent immigration executive order.

“There’s absolutely no evidence that this [Trump’s action] is unconstitutional or illegal,” said Labrador, a former immigration attorney, on CNN. “In fact, the President of the United States, our previous president, President Obama, did the same actions three times during his administration. There wasn’t a single protest.”

“There were some nuance—there were some differences. We don’t have to go through all of that,” replied Blitzer.

Why did Blitzer not want to get into specifics with Rep. Labrador? It might have informed his viewers. Instead, Blitzer aired a misleading clip featuring former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

According to the edited clip, Giuliani stated, “When he [Trump] first announced it, he said Muslim ban. He called me up, he said, put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.”

Blitzer doubled down after airing the misleading Giuliani clip, saying, “So, basically, what Rudy Giuliani helped him come up with was this formula for having a Muslim ban, but not calling it a Muslim ban.”

LABRADOR: You’re misleading a little bit, Wolf.
BLITZER: Tell me why.
LABRADOR: If you listen to the entire interview…Rudy Giuliani said…that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional, illegal.
BLITZER: You believe that?

Blitzer, like so many in the media, is skeptical that Trump might have had other than bigoted motives. He is clearly taking a side in this argument, and abandoning journalistic impartiality.

NBC had been called out just the day before for showing this deceptively edited clip. In full context, Giuliani continued by saying, “And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on.”

Opponents of Trump’s travel pause claim that the President’s immigration executive order is religiously motivated and discriminatory. So, too, The Wall Street Journal reports that critics note that “all seven affected nations are majority Muslim…”

The media, and Democrats, are engaging in hysteria by labeling this a “Muslim ban.” This is worse than hyperbole—it is deception. After all, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries have significant Muslim populations and yet have not been blocked. An estimated 85 percent of all Muslims are not affected by Trump’s executive order.

We are right now contemplating no other countries,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress this week, admitting the executive order was rolled out too hastily, for which he himself took the blame.

“The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016,” wrote David French for National Review, in a sober analysis of what the executive order does and does not do. “Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.”

To his detriment, President Trump appears to be getting in the way of his own potential success. He argued at a recent meeting of law enforcement officials in Washington that “A bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this.” In other words, he argued, a clear reading of the law should grant the government victory in this case.

This is a misstep by Trump. It is, as The Hill reports, “highly unusual for presidents to publicly comment on court cases dealing with their policy proposals,” especially when a case is open.

Trump is also putting the judiciary in a position to directly challenge him; he has made this into a high-profile showdown with his inept utterances.

Trump also asserted that the media have not sufficiently covered terrorist incidents. Trump told troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa this week that “It’s gotten to a point where it’s [terror] not even reported, and in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t even want to report it.” His administration then issued a list of 78 attacks that had taken place between September 2014 and December 2016. The liberal media had a field day with the list, citing misspellings and proclaiming that they had covered many of those events, often for days at a time. National Public Radio (NPR), for example, claims this was false, because most news organizations covered the attacks in Paris; San Bernardino, California; the Orlando night club; and others.

But, as Robert Spencer points out for Jihad Watch, it is not the act of covering the attacks for which the media have been derelict—it is how these events are covered. “But in virtually all cases, they did all they could to obscure the motivating ideology behind those attacks,” writes Spencer. “They deliberately conceal and/or misrepresent the aspects of them that make it clear that they’re Islamic jihad attacks. This is in accord with the guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists, which tells journalists not to connect Islam with terrorism, and to obscure that connection wherever possible.”

Once a terrorist has been confirmed to have Islamic jihadist ties, the media then question whether the attacker was a “self-radicalized lone wolf.” Whether these jihadi terrorists were inspired by the Islamic State or al Qaeda, or were directed members of these terrorist groups, makes little difference. Islamic jihadist terrorists drink from the same poisonous well.

Perhaps the starkest example of the treatment of such an act, by the Obama administration and the media, was the case of Major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 and injured 32 others at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas back in September of 2009. For approximately five years the case was treated as “workplace violence.” It wasn’t until 2015—nearly three years after 150 family members who struggled to pay their medical bills filed a lawsuit—that the government switched its position and gave the wounded victims Purple Hearts, which carried with them added medical benefits and the acknowledgement that they had been wounded in the line of duty.

As long as the public allows it, the media will continue to avoid honest discussions about the real terror threat that jihadists and potential terrorists from these seven countries—and others—pose to the health and welfare of American citizens.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

02/9/17

After Conquering the Boy Scouts, What’s Next?

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

The epitaph of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is being written by cowardly corporations, spineless politicians, politically correct adults afraid to say anything, and of course the liberal media. The Washington Post and The New York Times have been on the front lines of the “progressive” movement that now seeks to abolish the differences between the sexes by using our children as guinea pigs in the latest version of their sick social experiment.

The BSA is near death, thanks to the most recent decision by the BSA leadership to admit girls who want to be boys. This lunacy is endorsed by the Post, which praises the BSA for adapting “in an era of rapid culture change.” In an editorial, “Welcoming Transgender Boy Scouts,” the Times declares that “The Boy Scouts are recognizing transgender boys for what they genuinely are: boys.” This is nonsense, of course. They are not boys. They are girls.

Homosexuals and others were always free to start their own organizations. Instead, however, they sought to dominate and destroy organizations training young people in the context of traditional values. Too many morally corrupted and compromised conservatives did not resist.

Conservatives who have done their homework will recognize the BSA takeover as the Gramsci strategy of marching through the institutions, named after the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. If they can conquer the Boy Scouts, there’s not much left. The churches and the religious believers who attend them constitute one possible last line of defense.

William A. Donohue recognized what was happening as far back as 1993, in his booklet, “On the Front Line of the Culture War: Recent Attacks on the Boy Scouts of America,” which was updated in 1996. The rest, as they say, is history.

In terms of organizations, the key group leading the legal assault on the Boy Scouts was the ACLU. Corporations like Levi Strauss and Wells Fargo also played roles by yanking funding.

Overall, in the society at large, Donohue cited the influence of the “new class,” the “modern liberals” who were “usually educated at America’s elite colleges and universities, who work in the media, the academy, government, and other non-profit sectors of the economy.” These people, he noted, were ideologically alienated from “bourgeois” society but were “strategically placed” in New York, Washington, D.C., Hollywood, and “on the faculties of most college campuses…”

This “new class,” he wrote, espouses “politically correct” thinking, consisting of “the view that any departure from the modem liberal agenda is racist, sexist or homophobic, and thus beyond the pale in modern society.”

Although the “new class” has conquered the Boy Scouts, there is some hope.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is planning to introduce the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), in order to protect the rights of people to associate with like-minded people opposed to sexual immorality and perversion. The proposed legislation specifically says that people can hire and fire based on their religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is, or should be, recognized as the union of one man and one woman, and that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Campaigning for office, Trump said, “If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths.”

Trump will be under enormous pressure to backtrack. Under the influence of his daughter Ivanka and her husband, he has already succumbed to pressure to keep President Obama’s executive order affirming special rights for homosexuals and transgendered people.

This insidious movement that has high-level supporters in the Trump White House and the media can only succeed by distorting the clear meaning of words and creating “fake news” about so-called progressive cultural change.

Consider what it means to be “morally straight,” which is a phrase in the Scout oath. As Donohue’s booklet notes, the Official Boy Scout Handbook once explained the meaning of “morally straight” in the Boy Scout Oath in these terms: “[w]hen you live up to the trust of fatherhood your sex life will fit into God’s wonderful plan of creation. Fuller understanding of wholesome sex behavior can bring you lifelong happiness.”

This has been reinterpreted. The BSA now says, “You stay morally straight when you do the right thing and live your life with honesty.”

The new politically correct language cannot disguise what is happening here. Children have become guinea pigs in social experimentation that is endorsed by the “new class.”

Commenting on the BSA decision to admit girls who claim to be boys, John Stemberger, Chairman of the Board of Trail Life USA, a pro-morality alternative to BSA, said it was simply stunning. He explained, “…knowing that boys and biological girls will be showering, dressing and camping in tents together create a clear child protection issue which is being ignored.”

The decision of the BSA is indeed stunning. But it’s worse than stunning for adults to participate in this fundamental transformation of America’s youth. It’s morally disgraceful and corrupt. They are permitting children to be taken away from their parents and used as cannon fodder for the next phase of the Cultural Revolution. The children are being encouraged to use dangerous chemicals and surgeries in order to impersonate members of the opposite sex. The inevitable results will be mental and physical suffering, suicide and death.

In order to disguise the truly evil nature of what is happening, media like the Post and Times accept and promote “fake news” that girls are boys. It is fake news of the worst order, since the term distorts the nature of human sexuality and threatens the health and welfare of children and young people.

Next stop: the churches and religious believers. Will Trump buckle on that fight, too?


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.