John Stossel says that the program is unsustainable. Young people shouldn’t expect it to cover their retirement.
               Romina Boccia explains the Heritage Foundation’s plan to allow young people to contribute to their Social Security payments via private investment accounts.
               Those private accounts would likely grow faster than people’s contributions to Social Security, and young people could invest in “whatever floats your boat,” Boccia tells Stossel.
               Private investment accounts have been tried in other parts of the world. When Chile started them in 1981, it was poorer than most Latin American countries. Now it’s the very richest.
               Yet mass demonstrations denounce it for being run privately, and for companies taking some of the profit. They miss the fact that Chileans have more money for retirement than most Latin Americans only because of their private accounts.
               Privatization is also unpopular in America, and so are Boccia’s other proposals. She and Heritage would raise the retirement age to 70 to account for rising lifespans.
               “When Social Security was actually founded, life expectancy was below 65,” Boccia tells Stossel. Now it’s 78. Stossel tells Boccia: “What you guys are pushing is the right thing to do, but it’s not popular.” She replies: “It is not popular, but I think people don’t fully understand how these programs work.”
               The good news is that this was the first time that when Stossel went to talk with people on the street, most people understood the problem.
               One man called it a “Ponzi scheme” and asked, “Why not take it and invest it in the stock market and let it grow that way?”
               A woman summed it up well: “The country’s in a deficit; there’s a point where you can’t pay out and go in the negative forever.”

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT9LwoeYJyg

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57648?mailing_id=3679&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3679&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

https://patriot.imgix.net/f2de55705252fade8dbc4be0d05ebb224c151a21b6cd56d9af177cace2376491.jpg?w=1200" width="454" height="227" />

             John Stossel says that the program is unsustainable. Young people shouldn’t expect it to cover their retirement.
               Romina Boccia explains the Heritage Foundation’s plan to allow young people to contribute to their Social Security payments via private investment accounts.
               Those private accounts would likely grow faster than people’s contributions to Social Security, and young people could invest in “whatever floats your boat,” Boccia tells Stossel.
               Private investment accounts have been tried in other parts of the world. When Chile started them in 1981, it was poorer than most Latin American countries. Now it’s the very richest.
               Yet mass demonstrations denounce it for being run privately, and for companies taking some of the profit. They miss the fact that Chileans have more money for retirement than most Latin Americans only because of their private accounts.
               Privatization is also unpopular in America, and so are Boccia’s other proposals. She and Heritage would raise the retirement age to 70 to account for rising lifespans.
               “When Social Security was actually founded, life expectancy was below 65,” Boccia tells Stossel. Now it’s 78. Stossel tells Boccia: “What you guys are pushing is the right thing to do, but it’s not popular.” She replies: “It is not popular, but I think people don’t fully understand how these programs work.”
               The good news is that this was the first time that when Stossel went to talk with people on the street, most people understood the problem.
               One man called it a “Ponzi scheme” and asked, “Why not take it and invest it in the stock market and let it grow that way?”
               A woman summed it up well: “The country’s in a deficit; there’s a point where you can’t pay out and go in the negative forever.”

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT9LwoeYJyg

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57648?mailing_id=3679&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3679&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Fein-stein must believe that the thousands in campaign contributions she and dummycrats-Democrats received from foreign entities, specifically China, as well as her husband’s lucrative multimillion-dollar business deals with China have no bearing on concerns over national security. How could they? The Chinese are our friends.
               But when it comes to Russia, Fein-stein, who sits as a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, only sees a dangerous foreign power seeking to sow discord and corruption into America’s electoral system.
               This is the hypocrisy displayed by manydummycrats- Democrats. Lacking any genuine evidence other than the liar-Clinton campaign’s fabricated dossier, they continue to moan over the influence of Russia and its ongoing threat to the U.S. and the upcoming elections.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57644?mailing_id=3679&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3679&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Dan Bosch, the director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, added, “Collectively, executive agencies subject to a regulatory budget remain on pace to double the administration’s overall savings goal. On an individual basis, 12 of 22 agencies have already met or surpassed their savings target.” There’s always more to do, but those deregulation efforts are saving literally hundreds of millions of dollars in budget money. Investor’s Business Daily reports, “All told, the government aimed for savings of about $686.6 million from deregulation so far this year. Right now, the government has saved some $1.308 billion from 47 separate deregulation actions.” And that’s just the budget money saved, not the amount Americans save via the reduced regulatory burden.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57647?mailing_id=3679&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3679&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             According to the Associated Press, “Siraj Ibn Wahhaj was conducting weapons training with assault rifles at the compound near the Colorado border where 11 hungry children were found in filthy conditions.” Very tellingly, said person is the son of Siraj Wahhaj — a man who Fox News explains “was named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.” Remember that when the inevitable cries of “lone wolf” begin circulating.
               There’s also an extremely grisly revelation involving a deceased child. NBC says, “The young boy whose remains were found … died in a religious ritual conducted because his father believed he was possessed by demons. … [The child] disappeared from his home in Georgia in December. A nationwide search eventually led authorities to the compound in Taos, which was set up by … Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 40, who authorities allege had kidnapped his son.” And then apparently oversaw his death.
               Judge Sarah Backus, an elected dummycerats-Democrat, set bail at just $20,000 for the five defendants in the case.
               Sadly, the silence regarding the reporting of this case is nearly deafening. Yes, occasional articles appear here and there, but the truth is that the coverage is orchestrated and permissibly limited. As Matt Walsh observes, “This should be the biggest story of the year so far.” But the Islamic angle forbids it from being placed under a needed spotlight, as it most assuredly would be if the perpetrators were non-Muslim and Westerners. Given the media hoopla surrounding a couple dozen “alt-right” protesters over the weekend, it’s not a stretch to reach that conclusion. Consequently, a harrowing fact is being sanitized: The Islamic practices of slavery, brainwashing, and jihad commonly seen in the Middle East are happening right here on American soil. Religion of Peace™ indeed.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57645?mailing_id=3679&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3679&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             In one of the episodes in season two, Anne, her friend Diana Berry, and a boy named Cole attend a gathering at Diana’s great-aunt Josephine’s home, where a party of cross-dressing men and women have gathered to honor the memory of Josephine’s departed “partner,” Gertrude. BreakingPoint’s Eric Metaxas further describes the scene:
               Looking around her, Anne exclaims to Diana, “Isn’t this the most amazing group of people!” Well, I can’t help thinking that if a sheltered young girl like Anne actually encountered cross-dressing men and women in 1908, she would be shocked and probably frightened — not delighted.
               In a scene that takes place in Aunt Josephine’s bedroom, Anne observes a novel on Josephine’s nightstand. Gertrude was reading it the year before. Josephine tells her the books “sit just where she left them.” Anne processes this remark, and then, enlightened, says, “That’s what you meant by, in your way, you were married,” she says.
               “Yes,” Josephine replies. Diana — who is nonplussed by her discovery of her aunt’s relationship with Gertrude, tells Anne their love affair was “unnatural.”
               But the boy Cole — a character who is invented for the TV series — soon straightens her out. “If your aunt lived her life feeling … that she was broken, defective, or unnatural, and one day she met someone that made her realize that wasn’t true …. shouldn’t we be happy for her?”
               Cole later confesses to Aunt Josephine that he thinks he is “like you and Gertrude.” Josephine tells him, “You have a life of such joy before you.”
               The cultural appropriation of classic stories whose authors never would have dreamed of advocating for what at the time was rightly viewed as vile and deviant behavior has become not only commonplace but even obligatory. Putting this agenda into emotive stories with characters we love is full on entertainment as indoctrination, and it’s a powerful elixir for adults — never mind children. But full acceptance, promotion, and celebration of the “LGBT identity” and lifestyle is fast becoming the only permissible opinions for individuals to hold. Anything less may one day literally become a crime.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57627?mailing_id=3677&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3677&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             “The hard truth about our criminal justice system: It’s racist,” Warren told a crowd at Dillard University in New Orleans. “I mean all the way. I mean front to back. This is not just sentencing reform we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the front end on what you declare to be illegal, on how you enforce it, on who gets arrested.”
               In her slanderous attack, Warren would have Americans believe that from the time one is approached by a cop all the way through to the moment one is sentenced and incarcerated, one is in a racist system that targets minorities. For the system to be racist, then by extension wouldn’t most if not all the people who serve it be racist too? dinky-Warren seems to ignore the 27% of the nation’s police officers who are minorities, as well as the 400 black prosecutors, the 383 minority federal judges, and the previous two U.S. attorneys general.
                dinky-Warren’s rhetorical assault is surely meant to stir up some press for her 2020 presidential run. But more broadly speaking, the race card is a key part of the leftist toolkit, and it has been used to rail on the justice system for years.
               It can’t be denied that the criminal justice system needs reform, as we have argued on these pages. There is something wrong when America, with 4% of the world’s population, has 25% of the world’s prisoners. Two-thirds of the 650,000 people who leave prison every year will be back in jail within three years. This is a failure with sentencing and giving inmates the tools they need to turn their lives around. It’s not racism.
               Reforms are already taking place on the state level that have improved the situation in certain areas. President Donald Trump proposed following that example at the federal level and threw his support behind the First Step Act, a House bill with tremendous bipartisan support.
               The bill, which addresses recidivism and allowing prisoners to build “good time” credit, had bipartisan support in the House but was stymied in the Senate.
               The Left has drawn the conclusion that the criminal justice system is racist because of the disparity between the total black population versus the black prison population. Blacks make up 13% of the total population but 30% of the state prison population. It can be said that black incarceration rates for drug offenses are significantly higher, but you can’t blame it all on the drug war. In 2014, the share of the prison population in jail for only drug offenses was 16%.
               One of the biggest culprits in the mushrooming prison population may be the plea-bargaining system. Plea bargains are a popular tool with prosecutors because it allows them the power to send someone to jail without having to deal much with judges. It’s a fast-moving, murky process that has likely scooped up some people who would otherwise be serving less time in jail, or perhaps no time at all.
               Criminal justice reformers would also like to do away with mandatory-minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws that take the sentencing out of the hands of judges and create a sort of automatic sentencing structure that does not consider details of specific cases.
                dinky-Warren makes her accusations, unfounded though they may be, because racism is the red meat of her campaign. In fact, her phony claims of Native American ancestry boosted her career for decades. You can be sure that she, along with other dummycrats-Democrat senators — especially those with plans in 2020 — will pick apart any prison reform proposed by Trump and Republicans. They won’t be specific about what they don’t like about the proposals. They’ll just jump around and yell “racism.” If the GOP were to get even some credit for prison reform, then it’s one less thing the Left can use to attack them.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57635?mailing_id=3677&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3677&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Instead, after 22 years at the bureau, Strzok was finally fired Friday — two years too late, albeit one year after being removed from Robert Mueller’s investigation. Moreover, according to Strzok’s attorney, he was fired only after Deputy Director David Bowdich took the rare step of overruling the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which recommended only a suspension.
               After the damning inspector general’s report in June, Strzok gave a contemptuous congressional testimony insisting on his innocence. No one should believe him.
               More than anything else, this lagging timeline — the fact that only now is this bad apple fired — is an indication of what is wrong with government. Entrenched bureaucracy, which sometimes becomes the so-called “deep state,” is cancerous and difficult to remove. Think of the immense effort required to fire Strzok and McCabe in particular, and then ponder how many other liar-Clintonistas remain fixed in the bowels of government.
               Yet much of this comes from the top. Presidential attorney Rudy Giuliani hit the nail on the head, saying, “I’m going to tell you who was the quarterback for all of this. Strzok — he’s a bit of a puppet. Then there’s Mueller — he’s a puppet. … The guy running it is [former CIA Director scumbag/commie-John] Brennan. And he should be in front of a grand jury.” scumbag/commie-Brennan, who once voted communist in a presidential election, was indeed Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s hatchet man behind the whole Russia fiasco. Removing Strzok is good, but we’re a long way from justice.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57637?mailing_id=3677&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3677&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             With dummycrats-Democrat numbers like this, it’s not surprising to hear commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the new socialist face of the dummycrats-Democrat Party, assert, “The whole country is further left than Congress. The whole country. The electorate is way further left than Congress, [but] we have low voter turnout.”
               The most interesting aspect to these latest poll numbers is the change in dummycrats-Democrats’ opinion of capitalism. In 2010, 53% of dummycrats-Democrats had a favorable view of socialism, which increased to 58% in 2016, most likely due to the popularity of Bernie Sanders. But that same year 56% of dummycrats-Democrats also had a positive view of capitalism. That’s dropped by a whopping nine percentage points in just two years.
               What happened? Trump Derangement Syndrome. As Gallup notes, “It’s possible that the drop in dummycrats-  Democrats’ positive views of capitalism is related to Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump is an enthusiastic capitalist, and his administration’s efforts to roll back regulations on business and industry, as well as the tax cut law that is advantageous to businesses and corporations, may have caused dummycrats- Democrats to view the entire capitalist enterprise with less positive eyes.”
               The Gallup poll also notes, “The question wording does not define ‘socialism’ or ‘capitalism’ but simply asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative.” This is an important caveat given how poorly many Americans, particularly young people, understand what socialism actually is. Again, much of the reason for this is that the Left within media and academia has long preached the myth of socialism as a positive system that brings equity and fairness, whereas capitalism is allegedly a system primarily organized to support only the greedy interests of the wealthy and big business. With the hard-Left’s increasing takeover of the dummycrats-Democrat Party, it’s only logical that support for capitalism would severely wane, as the eventual goal of these leftists is to create a political boogieman out of capitalism that must be overtly opposed and attacked. The more dummycrats-Democrats go down this extremist road, the more average Americans will walk away. Will Republicans be able to capitalize on the dummycrats-Dems’ socialist bent?

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57640?mailing_id=3677&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3677&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             According to the latest filings from the NRA in its legal action against Cuomo over his weaponization of bank and insurance regulations against the nation’s oldest civil rights group, his blacklisting campaign would “deprive the NRA of basic bank-depository services, corporate insurance coverage, and other financial services essential to the NRA’s corporate existence and its advocacy mission.”
               To put it bluntly, if the NRA is denied access to banking institutions or insurance coverage (whether for events like its Annual Meetings, health insurance for the employees, or even liability coverage), the NRA can’t effectively defend the Second Amendment. It may be unable to take in donations and membership dues, leaving it unable to pay the bills that result from the unfortunate need to defend the Second Amendment against people like Cuomo. That’s precisely the outcome Cuomo wants.
               Cuomo, though, has been defiant in the face of the lawsuit, even though the head of the First Amendment Coalition noted the NRA’s claims are plausible. In recent media appearances, Cuomo has labeled the NRA an extremist group that has “caused carnage” though its opposition to gun-control laws. He called the NRA “the bad guys.” Here’s the problem with Cuomo’s argument — it’s just not true. The blame for shootings and violent crimes lies not with those who didn’t go along with Cuomo’s legislative agenda but with the perpetrators of the crimes.
               The NRA’s actual non-culpability for those malicious shootings aside, the First Amendment protects the right of Americans to speak out against gun-control laws (or on any other issue), to assemble (and to create associations to magnify their voice), and to petition for redress of grievances (including to urge the passage or defeat of legislation). All of which the NRA has done on behalf of its five million members. The fact that many self-proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment are silent in the face of this is appalling.
               In 2014, Cuomo was widely condemned when he declared that pro-life and Second Amendment advocates were among those “not welcome in New York.” Now, he’s acting on that animosity. It seems as if he realizes that he has largely lost the debate on Second Amendment issues, his SAFE Act notwithstanding. In 1999, Cuomo similarly came under fire for his attempts to use civil lawsuits to enact gun control rejected by Congress and state legislatures in the wake of the Columbine massacre.
               Gun-control supporters are moving to silence supporters of the Second Amendment. They’re also carrying out a more ruthless version of Operation Choke Point, with banks demanding that companies discriminating against gun-makers or FFLs who don’t voluntarily relinquish the right to sell legal firearms or related products.
               Cuomo isn’t the only one. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) says he has a list of sites or media outlets he wants banned. We assume there’s an element of “or else” to Murphy’s demand. They may succeed, and thus harm law-abiding citizens, but for dummycrats-Democrats, winning gun control through government abuse is likely to backfire.
               Indeed, the silver lining in the cloud is that this pattern of abuse, combined with the IRS scandal and other government malfeasance, will only convince many more Americans that a tyrannical government is possible, especially if people like Cuomo and Murphy are in charge. Perhaps that will rally voters to stand for Liberty.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57617?mailing_id=3675&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3675&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             It’s an interesting contrast to discuss the age-old debate about capital punishment for the most heinous crimes while we await evidence of abominable crimes alleged to have been committed within the Catholic Church. While we do, let’s cheer on the justice system to bring every true sexual predator to face a swift trial and punishment, whether in the Church or wherever.
               In the meantime, what about that death penalty? Is it ever fitting? Have crimes become more or less evil or monstrous? Do we expect our governments to address the most atrocious of crimes as a justice system, a legal system, or an institution that appears to selectively apply morality? Acknowledging the moral and religious aspects of this debate, why is the partisan divide over the death penalty growing, with an 18-point increase from 2000 to 2016, according to Gallup? And why does it appear that there’s greater offense to capital punishment for criminals as opposed to other loss of innocent life?
               In America, there are 41 capital crimes — criminal acts punishable by death. Understanding that the taking innocent life is deemed murder, the taking of a life in self-defense has not been considered or punished as murder either in religious teachings or in civil governments. As restitution and justice, society has established that an especially atrocious act of murder may be punished through death precisely because life is so precious, and that the riddance of such evil provides a good.
               Regardless of political stripes, those who adhere to the Christian faith see that God, our Creator, who states in the writings of Paul that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), did provide a way, a Redeemer, to pay the required debt of sin. That debt is paid for those who take the Name and ways of Jesus Christ through the confession of sin and the repentance, or turning away from, the same. But, problematically, dummycrats-Democrats and the political Left demand that the state and Church never intersect — or, put another way, that the church not encroach on the state’s province. The blame for this falls on their out-of-context use of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists that agreed that a state-sponsored church should be prohibited instead of their misuse to discourage the free exercise of religion. dummycrats-Democrats literally voted God out of their party platform in 2012, but in the case of capital punishment cite the precious nature of life and the power of redemption. Yes, this is the same group who also demand abortion as an essential element of women’s health, viewing an unborn child as a clump of cells, not a life.
               So why would the amoral state spare the life of a convicted criminal sentenced to death, especially in the day of DNA evidence, videographic and technological advances to provide more than circumstantial evidence and the incredibly high bar a death penalty case must reach for execution?
               Even Christ Himself, hanging on the cross on Golgotha’s hill between two criminals sentenced to death promised them eternal life in heaven if they believed. He did not offer a bargain of escape from punishment deemed appropriate by the government for the crimes they had committed.
               To punctuate the magnitude and seriousness of our sin, iniquities, and transgressions, the sinless Son of Man hung on a criminal’s cross in public humiliation to die and pay the penalty of sin for all of Creation. In other words, while there’s redemption and reform available, justice is demanded. And, here are some thoughts that are a bit uncomfortable when citing the Bible, a Holy Father God, and His Son Jesus: The very nature of God in His righteousness demands and guarantees justice, and that very same nature of a Holy God provides mercy and grace as a gift to be received. All of the teachings of God and Christ are to the individual, not governments. While governments can show mercy, the role of a government is to provide structure, order, and authority — see Romans 13.
               In both the religious and civil aspects of society, unlawful behavior carries a penalty. In the first five books of the Bible, the penalty for murder is mentioned and clear: death. Furthermore, the specifics of Genesis 9 to Noah and his family were to reestablish civility after the Great Flood included God’s demand of an accounting for the life of another human being stating, “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
               From 1976 through July 2018, there have been 1,479 executions for capital crimes in the U.S. Already this year, there have been over 500,000 abortions in America with a report of child abuse made, on average, every 10 seconds. Now, which life do we celebrate?

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57604?mailing_id=3675&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3675&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

https://patriot.imgix.net/e13b6fc532bb8af79720e53a9304729bec605e2599ba07594ba60d96e54b8dff.jpg?auto=format" width="454" height="227" />

             It’s an interesting contrast to discuss the age-old debate about capital punishment for the most heinous crimes while we await evidence of abominable crimes alleged to have been committed within the Catholic Church. While we do, let’s cheer on the justice system to bring every true sexual predator to face a swift trial and punishment, whether in the Church or wherever.
               In the meantime, what about that death penalty? Is it ever fitting? Have crimes become more or less evil or monstrous? Do we expect our governments to address the most atrocious of crimes as a justice system, a legal system, or an institution that appears to selectively apply morality? Acknowledging the moral and religious aspects of this debate, why is the partisan divide over the death penalty growing, with an 18-point increase from 2000 to 2016, according to Gallup? And why does it appear that there’s greater offense to capital punishment for criminals as opposed to other loss of innocent life?
               In America, there are 41 capital crimes — criminal acts punishable by death. Understanding that the taking innocent life is deemed murder, the taking of a life in self-defense has not been considered or punished as murder either in religious teachings or in civil governments. As restitution and justice, society has established that an especially atrocious act of murder may be punished through death precisely because life is so precious, and that the riddance of such evil provides a good.
               Regardless of political stripes, those who adhere to the Christian faith see that God, our Creator, who states in the writings of Paul that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), did provide a way, a Redeemer, to pay the required debt of sin. That debt is paid for those who take the Name and ways of Jesus Christ through the confession of sin and the repentance, or turning away from, the same. But, problematically, dummycrats-Democrats and the political Left demand that the state and Church never intersect — or, put another way, that the church not encroach on the state’s province. The blame for this falls on their out-of-context use of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists that agreed that a state-sponsored church should be prohibited instead of their misuse to discourage the free exercise of religion. dummycrats-Democrats literally voted God out of their party platform in 2012, but in the case of capital punishment cite the precious nature of life and the power of redemption. Yes, this is the same group who also demand abortion as an essential element of women’s health, viewing an unborn child as a clump of cells, not a life.
               So why would the amoral state spare the life of a convicted criminal sentenced to death, especially in the day of DNA evidence, videographic and technological advances to provide more than circumstantial evidence and the incredibly high bar a death penalty case must reach for execution?
               Even Christ Himself, hanging on the cross on Golgotha’s hill between two criminals sentenced to death promised them eternal life in heaven if they believed. He did not offer a bargain of escape from punishment deemed appropriate by the government for the crimes they had committed.
               To punctuate the magnitude and seriousness of our sin, iniquities, and transgressions, the sinless Son of Man hung on a criminal’s cross in public humiliation to die and pay the penalty of sin for all of Creation. In other words, while there’s redemption and reform available, justice is demanded. And, here are some thoughts that are a bit uncomfortable when citing the Bible, a Holy Father God, and His Son Jesus: The very nature of God in His righteousness demands and guarantees justice, and that very same nature of a Holy God provides mercy and grace as a gift to be received. All of the teachings of God and Christ are to the individual, not governments. While governments can show mercy, the role of a government is to provide structure, order, and authority — see Romans 13.
               In both the religious and civil aspects of society, unlawful behavior carries a penalty. In the first five books of the Bible, the penalty for murder is mentioned and clear: death. Furthermore, the specifics of Genesis 9 to Noah and his family were to reestablish civility after the Great Flood included God’s demand of an accounting for the life of another human being stating, “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
               From 1976 through July 2018, there have been 1,479 executions for capital crimes in the U.S. Already this year, there have been over 500,000 abortions in America with a report of child abuse made, on average, every 10 seconds. Now, which life do we celebrate?

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57604?mailing_id=3675&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3675&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Right up front, we’ll say that Jones falls into the category of what we call 10% substance and 90% fragrance. His conspiracy theories are as legendary as they are loony, and some are downright offensive (like his accusing Sandy Hook victims of being “crisis actors”). He occasionally starts with legitimate stories or concerns, but he often blows them so far out of proportion that they become falsehood. Other times, his rantings are so phony they don’t deserve the time of day. His own lawyer described him as “a performance artist” who’s “playing a character.” That’s his bread and butter.
               But that wasn’t the reason social media thought police gave for their censorship; rather, each platform categorized Jones’s content as “hate speech.” That made for an interesting setup to the hype about the so-called — and grossly misnamed — “alt-right” rallies over the weekend. After all, Jones’s listeners tend to fall on the conservative end of the political spectrum, which Big Tech and the Leftmedia are incessantly endeavoring to cast as uniformly racist bigots. Working in concert, the Leftmedia can now cite as “evidence” the censorship of their allies in Silicon Valley.
               We aren’t arguing that private companies can’t set rules for use of their systems. The First Amendment does not force companies into subserviently providing a platform for any speech. But the tech giants have engaged in a documented pattern of suppressing conservative speech, and they’re using leftist smear machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center to justify it. “Hate speech” = anything leftists don’t like.
               Meanwhile, elected dummycrats-Democrats are cheering them on. “These companies must do more than take down one website,” declared Sen. Chris Murphy (C-CT). “The survival of our democracy depends on it.” Using the government’s power to curtail speech — even advocating it as Murphy does — crosses the First Amendment line. If no one speaks up for Jones, when will they speak up? Or will they be able to?
               Finally, an irony: By literally conspiring to suppress Jones’s speech, these tech giants are bolstering his conspiracy-theory brand and rallying his followers even more to his flag. Or maybe Jones conspired with social media to achieve just that result, and they’re all having a grand laugh.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57619?mailing_id=3675&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3675&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Also showing up for the poorly named “Unite the Right II” rally — poorly named because it serves the MSM’s conflation of white racism with conservatism — were thousands of counterprotesters who stood shouting down both the white supremacists and Trump. The leftist, violence-seeking agitators known as antifa also showed up clearly prepared for a fight. They screamed chants such as, “Any time, any place, punch a Nazi in the face.” Fortunately, the strong police presence combined with the minuscule size of the white-nationalist contingent proved to thwart their efforts.
               Meanwhile in Charlottesville, hundreds of leftist activists took to the streets to ostensibly protest white nationalism and racism — a protest in which no white supremacists were given permission to rally and none showed up. It became increasingly apparent that protesting the police was also on the menu, as numerous protesters chanted, “Cops and Klan go hand in hand,” while others toted a banner that read, “Behind Every Cop, A Klansman.” The irony was that unlike last year, when police presence was severely limited and much fighting was allowed to occur unchecked, the police presence this year was heavy and clearly aimed at preventing any violence.
               If anything, this past weekend demonstrates just how vacuous is the MSM’s assertion of Trump’s presidency being responsible for stoking latent masses of white racists. The identity politics of promoting and provoking racial grievances is embraced by dummycrats-Democrats and the Left. It is clearly not popular with conservatives and the vast majority of Trump supporters, no matter how much the Leftmedia claims otherwise.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57621?mailing_id=3675&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3675&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body