The Houston Chronicle recently published the first in a three-part exposé entitled “Abuse of Faith,” wherein is chronicled a 20-year history of Southern Baptist leadership essentially ignoring or suppressing complaints of sexual abuse raised against men within leadership positions in various churches. In some instances, individuals accused of sexual assault are still serving in leadership roles to this day.

The Chronicle notes that “more than 250 people who worked or volunteered in Southern Baptist churches have been charged with sex crimes.” Moreover, “It’s not just a recent problem: In all, since 1998, roughly 380 Southern Baptist church leaders and volunteers have faced allegations of sexual misconduct. … That includes those who were convicted, credibly accused and successfully sued, and those who confessed or resigned.”

Sexual abuse by those in authority is bad enough, but it’s that much worse when it comes at the hands of those in roles of spiritual authority who are supposed to guide and care for individuals’ eternal souls. As one of the victims, who was molested by his youth pastor, put it, “So many people’s faith is murdered. I mean, their faith is slaughtered by these predators.”

While the abuse reported is no less egregious than that within the Roman Catholic Church, there remains an important distinction that makes both addressing the problem and determining responsibility significantly different.

Unlike the Catholic Church’s hierarchical governance model — in which every parish and every priest is directly accountable to a centralized authority that runs all the way to the top in the Vatican — each church within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is essentially an autonomous local congregation that chooses to freely associate and organize with other local Baptist congregations in forming the “convention.” Also, Baptist pastors are not ordained by the denomination; they are ordained by and become members of the local congregation that called them.

Therefore, unlike the Catholic Church, the SBC does not hold near the authority as an organization over individual SBC congregations and their pastors. In other words, pastors answer to their local congregations. The SBC does not have the power to discipline a misbehaving pastor; that authority rests with his local congregation.

The question then is, to what degree should the SBC as a denomination be held accountable for past and present predatory pastors within some SBC churches? There’s no question that this scandal casts a shadow over the entire denomination of Southern Baptists. Secondly, this news should move every congregation to be even more vigilant in taking careful consideration in who they choose for leadership — and then keeping watch over how those leaders steward the position entrusted to them. Finally, and most importantly, it’s a reminder of the universal fallen nature of all humanity and our desperate need for the very Savior these churches worship.  ~The Patriot Post

So, after two years of an investigation that was instigated by scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s opposition-research smear, the Senate has concluded — as President Donald Trump has steadfastly insisted the entire time and as the House concluded last year — there was no collusion.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has ignored newly released FBI emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that reveal former FBI Director scumbag-James Comey sought to work a quid pro quo deal with Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s State Department in exchange for going easy on scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton with her private email server.

Back in October 2016, Fox News first reported the allegations of a quid pro quo deal, which former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) called at the time “a flashing red light of potential criminality.” He further explained, “In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed.” It’s now clear that individuals within the FBI, including former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were involved in discussing a quid pro quo arrangement, though there is no indication it was ever implemented.

On top of this comes Tuesday’s revelation that the Federal Election Committee (FEC) has refused to investigate allegations of scumbag/liar-Clinton’s campaign-money laundering scheme. The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland explains, “[The] complaint charged that, during the 2016 presidential election, Democrats illegally funneled approximately $84 million through the scumbag/liar-Hillary Victory Fund to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which then illegally coordinated with the scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton campaign.” Nothing to see here; move along, says the FEC.

Once again, with all the thick, steady smoke emanating from scumbag/liar-Clinton and the DNC, it’s almost laughable the lengths to which the MSM goes in ignoring or outright denying that there is any scandal there, while at the same time fixating on a fictional Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy that has yet to produce one iota of actual evidence.  ~The Patriot Post

“The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long,” declared Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom in his State of the State Address this week.

Oh.

So, after current construction on one leg is done, Newsom laid the track for abandoning the boondoggle, though state Democrats rushed to insist he’s not killing the statewide plan.

Reason’s Scott Shackford writes of the California train, “Voters approved a ballot initiative in 2008 that set aside a $10 billion bond to begin the project of building a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco with the promise that more funding would come through from the feds or from private sources, that the train would not require subsidies to operate, and that it would help fight climate change.” Indeed, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s infamous “stimulus” redistributed $3.5 billion to California for the train. Gavin’s not entirely giving up primarily because he’s “not interested in sending” that money “back to Donald Trump.”

Not to be completed until at least 2033, the latest estimate for the train’s price tag was $77 billion after initial estimates pegged it at $33 billion. In reality, it would probably end up costing well over $100 billion.

Newsom’s lack of enthusiasm for his predecessor Jerry Brown’s beloved project isn’t new, but the timing of his comments couldn’t have been worse for Green New Deal proponents. Doubly so as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared (with a smirk) that the chamber will actually vote on the resolution to “give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.”

Dan McLaughlin quips, “If something is too expensive to build once, why not build it everywhere in the country instead?” He’s obviously joking, but don’t be surprised if that’s exactly the argument trotted out by GND chief engineer commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  ~The Patriot Post

The headline reads “Millions of Americans could be stunned as their tax refunds shrink,” which on its face seems a pretty damning indictment of President Trump’s signature legislative achievement of his first two years. After all, Trump and congressional Republicans touted tax reform as a huge victory for the American people, yet now we are learn millions of Americans are receiving lower tax refunds than expected? Have Republicans pulled a fast one on the American people and lied about the benefits of the tax cuts?

Hardly.

The Post, having done a masterful job of burying the lede, eventually gets to the truth … in paragraph 13. After noting the average tax refund is down 8% from last year (about $170) and quoting American workers angry and frustrated at smaller tax refunds (for which they blame Republicans), the Post finally drops this little nugget of truth:

Many Americans may confuse their meager refunds as a sign that they paid more in taxes as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Generally, that is not true.

According to the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of filers received a tax cut, and about 5 percent wound up paying more in federal income taxes. The tax cuts showed up in fatter weekly or biweekly paychecks for most Americans, but few people noticed, according to polling.

“There’s a difference between taxes and your refund,” said Joseph Rosenberg, a senior research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute. “People generally got a piece of their tax cut last year gradually in the form of lower withholding on their paychecks.”

In other words, 80% of Americans are receiving smaller refunds because fewer tax dollars were taken from their weekly paychecks!

And that is a very good thing. Aside from the simple fact of having more money on a regular basis, Nicole Kaeding, director of federal projects at the Tax Foundation, points out, “Getting a tax refund means that you gave the government an interest-free loan because you overpaid your taxes.”

A small percentage of Americans are feeling a pinch from the new tax law; primarily the more affluent taxpayers in high-tax, Democrat-run states. Under the new tax law, the SALT (state and local income taxes, and property taxes) deduction was capped at $10,000. In past years, these Democrat states have gotten away with forcing the rest of America to subsidize their lavish welfare  programs and government-employee benefits. Voters in these states were apparently perfectly happy to keep electing leftist politicians who enact these high tax rates, knowing they could deduct those taxes on their federal returns and make the rest of us cover the difference. With the SALT deduction cap, they are finally feeling the sting.

To be sure, many Americans are excited to receive a large tax-refund check, despite personal-finance experts telling us that is simply not a good idea. As Rosenberg notes, “It’s a mystery why taxpayers seem to be comfortable — and even happy — with getting refund checks.” Our banks certainly would never give us interest-free loans, so why should we give the government one, rather than using that extra money to pay down debt or increase savings?

Despite the intentional misrepresentation and criticism by the press, the tax cuts have been an enormous success.

After the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the positive benefits kick in almost immediately. Hundreds of American corporations announced wage increases and bonuses ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 for rank-and-file workers. Even Walmart, the corporation leftists most love to hate because they claim it forces workers to labor for slave wages, responded to the tax cut by raising its minimum wage to $11/hour, a full 52% higher than the federal minimum wage demands.

Not surprisingly, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi referred to these worker windfalls as “pathetic,” “insignificant,” and “crumbs.” Other Democrats claimed the corporations had planned on these wage increases and bonuses anyway, and it was entirely coincidental that they occurred right after the Republican tax cuts.

Yet none other than Apple, the proudly “liberal,” Trump-hating corporation adored for its “wokeness” by idealistic “progressives,” admitted the GOP tax cuts were the catalyst. Apple CEO Tim Cook announced that, due to the lower corporate tax rate, Apple would repatriate $250 billion dollars into the U.S. economy, in the process paying a $38 billion tax bill. Additionally, Apple handed out $2,500 in stock grants to employees, and announced an additional $350 billion investment in the U.S., creating 20,000 new jobs.

Democrat Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris, working hard to win the hearts of the party’s far-left wing and thus the Democrat 2020 presidential nomination, tweeted, “The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.”

Her spin is so demonstrably false that even The Washington Post’s “fact-checker” was obliged to award her Four Pinocchios for lying.

Even so, while the GOP/Trump tax cuts (which not a single Democrat voted for) have been a massive jumpstart to the economy, neither Trump nor Republicans can depend on a hostile press to really admit the truth. They’ll have to take this good news directly to the American people.  ~The Patriot Post

Stung in recent years by valid charges of rampant anti-Semitism  in their ranks — not to mention the whole racist fiasco in Virginia — Democrats may have had enough. House Speaker Nancy Pulosi and other Democrat leaders quickly issued a statement condemning Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” and demanding an apology.

That apology was soon forthcoming, but Omar couldn’t resist a wink and nod to make clear it wasn’t sincere. “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,” she said. “My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. … I unequivocally apologize.” But then she added, “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists [like] AIPAC” — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Translation: Sorry not sorry.

At least she has the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

From a larger perspective, the growing anti-Semitism on the Left could become a political problem for Democrats. More than 75% of American Jews voted Democrat in the 2018 midterms, and that’s roughly in line with most of the last century. There are 34 Jews in Congress, and all but two are Democrat.

Dennis Prager and Don Feder, both conservative Jews, have attempted to explain this seeming paradox. The situation may be unlikely to change anytime soon, but Democrats must also be careful to sweep their anti-Semites under the rug where they won’t cause too much voter bleed. That also explains their effort to elevate a small rabble of anti-Semitic “alt-right” loudmouths and tie them to President Donald Trump. Like blacks or women, if Democrats ever begin to lose Jews in serious numbers, they’ll be in serious trouble.  ~The Patriot Post

Our modern news media has failed spectacularly in this regard.

There is debate about why the media today is one of the most distrusted establishments in America. Some blame the corporatization of the news media. Others fault academia for churning out brainwashed leftist mouthpieces disguised as journalists. Everyone seems to blame social media to some degree.

Whatever the cause, and all the above reasons surely play some role, today’s news media has proven itself to be out of synch with the needs of the American public and totally incapable of doing the job the public expects. To be sure, there are some individual reporters and some news outlets that are doing good, or at least better, journalistic work. Unfortunately, these are too few and far between to save the downward spiral of American journalism as an institution.

The liberal bent of the news media was an open secret for decades, becoming more pronounced in the 1990s when acolytes of scumbag/liar-Bill and scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton repeatedly turned a blind eye to his sexual indiscretions and their downright illegal dealings. The sheer leftward tilt of the media grew worse, to the point that Barack scumbag/liar-nObama was treated like a leftist messiah in the news while his “scandal free” administration committed untold numerous unconstitutional actions.

Now that Donald Trump is president, the news media has completely, and in some cases admittedly, jettisoned any pretense of impartiality. Over the last 15 years, we’ve seen the rise of “fact-checkers,” stand-alone websites or bureaus within existing news outlets that “check” statements made by public figures for falsehoods. They’ve gone into hyperdrive with Trump.

But these fact-checking sites are a complete fraud. Many of those that claim to be independent are backed by Leftmedia organizations, and for some reason, rarely seem to get around to fact-checking statements made by Democrats. When they do, Democrats mysteriously rank higher with the truth in their view. Gee, who’d have thunk it?

Rest assured that Trump’s State of the Union Address was given the full “fact-check” treatment. The problem that the Leftmedia had to get around was that Trump gave a good speech that was well received by the overwhelming majority of the public. It was also relatively free of Trump’s typical hyperbole and misleading details. Media propagandists had to find new ways to bend the outcome to their will.

Trump was attacked by Politico for claiming that one in three women, or 33%, are sexually assaulted while trying to come to the U.S. illegally. The actual figure was 31%. The New York Times claimed that Trump’s statement that illegal border crossings presented an urgent national crisis was false because illegal border crossings have decreased. This basically means that because the Times does not agree with Trump’s assessment of the situation, then he is “wrong.” NPR also went out of its way to state that Trump’s praise of the high number of women in Congress was thanks to Democrats, not Trump or the Republicans. Trump never took credit for the fact; NPR just wanted to make sure that the public was aware of it.

The media’s long and twisted lists of fact-checks of Trump’s speech did not sway public opinion. That’s supposed to be the job of opinion columnists, not reporters. But with major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, it’s virtually impossible these days to tell what’s an op-ed and what’s supposed to be news.

Today’s news media doesn’t much care about that, though. Outlets are so eager to print stories that demean Trump and anyone who supports him that they will publish anything. Corroborating facts, confirming statements, and using reliable sources are techniques for squares in today’s world. The media repeatedly pushes stories with great fanfare that soon die quiet deaths because they were nothingburgers that didn’t hold up to greater scrutiny.

Michael Cohen’s lie to Congress about a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow? Nope. That man who was stalking Stormy Daniels? Zilch. All those women that Brett Kavanaugh supposedly assaulted in college? Nada.

But the headlines took hold in the public consciousness, even if they had to later be retracted. Well, retraction and correction is another journalistic tool that went the way of the typewriter. Nowadays, the media just stops talking about screw ups and hopes that they go away.

Fortunately, things might be changing. Parents of the unjustly maligned Covington students are preparing a major lawsuit against media outlets and celebrities who made horrible accusations against Nicholas Sandmann and his fellow classmates. The parents are also accusing Google and Facebook of playing a role in the defamation of their children.

Social-media outlets have tried to steer clear of being considered news organizations, claiming that they merely share information from point to point. While they sure don’t mind censoring that information to make sure only leftist points of view get good play, they don’t want to be legally responsible for the content they spread. So far, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other platforms have been able to have it both ways.

The media claims repeatedly that it’s under attack by Trump, but the trouble started long before he entered the Oval Office. Things started going downhill when news outlets stopped caring about the truth and started focusing on results — the chief result being supporting the leftist agenda. Any dangers that the media faces today are of its own making.  ~The Patriot Post

There is no question that if a wall is to be built on America’s Southwest border, it will only be done if Trump does it himself. We know that because both parties had complete control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government for two years each, and neither one would defy the open-border, cheap-labor, big-government globalist agenda. Can Trump build a wall without Congress? The answer appears to be yes.

We begin with a paper released Jan. 10 by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) entitled, “Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall?” It cites federal statute 10 U.S.C. § 284, which states that the secretary of defense “may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” that may include “an unspecified minor military construction project,” as well as the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”

The paper further explains that using Section 284 “would not require a declaration of a national emergency under the NEA. However, the DOD’s Section 284 authority to construct fences appears to extend only to ‘drug smuggling corridors,’ a condition that may limit where DOD could deploy fencing.”

A possible sticking point? “Drug corridors” have not been defined by law.

What about Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency? “For much of our history, presidents have understood the Constitution’s grant of ‘the executive power’ to include a power to declare national emergency,” explains former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo. “Thomas Jefferson effectively did so in response to Aaron Burr’s effort to raise a rebellion in Louisiana; Abraham Lincoln did so, with far more justification, at the start of the Civil War; FDR did so, with far less justification, at the start of his presidency in response to the Great Depression; and Harry Truman did so at the start of the Korean War.”

Yoo further explains that Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976 to restrict presidential power. But the law did not define national emergencies per se, or place any limits on the president’s ability to declare one. More important, Yoo notes “that every president since 1976 has used the NEA to declare a national emergency, several under circumstances far less immediate than this one, and the Supreme Court has never overturned one.”

The NEA grants the president the power to “seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication.” Congress can counter it by passing a joint resolution negating the president’s declaration, at which point Trump would have to convince them that the mayhem taking place at our border constitutes an “emergency.”

According to America First Policies, a pro-Trump group that asserts its statistics are based on data from the DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, approximately 1,800 illegal aliens attempt to breach the border every day, and about half succeed. If that’s accurate, approximately 328,500 illegals successfully sneak into America each year. For perspective, as of 2017 there were only 57 cities in the entire nation with populations greater than a single year’s influx of illegal aliens.

If that doesn’t constitute a national emergency, what does?

What about Congress’s ability to deny Trump funding for any construction? The NEA allows the president to spend previously appropriated money, such as funds for disaster relief for “military construction projects.” Approximately $10 billion is available. 10 U.S. Code § 2808 also allows the military to complete “construction projects” during a national emergency, and unspent Department of Defense (DOD) funds totaling $100 billion could be used. Congress could pass a joint resolution denying that spending, but Trump could veto it, thus requiring a two-thirds vote in both chambers to override that veto.

Democrats and their constituents would cheer such an override. But Republicans would be committing political suicide, by demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that their Chamber of Commerce campaign contributors take precedence over their base — and their purported principles.

The Courts? No doubt “resistance” jurists in several lower courts would leap at the chance to thwart Trump’s agenda, just as they have at an unprecedented rate already.

The Supreme Court? In 1981’s Dames & Moore v. Regan, SCOTUS, addressing actions taken by both the Carter and Reagan administrations related to the Iran hostage crisis, determined that when Congress broadly delegates foreign affairs powers to the executive branch, it does not necessarily follow that Congress’s failure to grant more specific authority precludes a president from exercising it. Rather Congress’s silence would be seen as acquiescence, especially in the advent of an emergency.

Moreover, Congress not only hasn’t passed a law denying Trump’s authority to protectthe border, it did pass a law known as the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by a bipartisan margin of 283-138 in the House and 80-19 in Senate — including “yes” votes by then-Senators Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, loose lips-Joe Biden, Chuck scumbag-Schumer, and 22 other Democrats.

An additional statute, 33 U.S. Code § 2293, is also in play. In the event of war or a national emergency, it empowers the secretary of defense to reallocate resources from projects “he deems not essential to the national defense,” and apply them to “construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”

Given SCOTUS’s decision on the travel ban, it is likely the Court sides with the president. However, if the Trump administration can’t get SCOTUS to fast-track a hearing on the inevitable avalanche of lawsuits aimed at preventing a wall’s construction, the issue could conceivably become one of the centerpieces of the 2020 presidential campaign.

In 2002, Duke University constitutional law professor H. Jefferson Powell, who served in the DOJ under the scumbag/liar-Clinton and scumbag/liar-nObama administrations, asserted, “The president has a constitutional responsibility, independent of any act of Congress … to preserve the physical safety … of the United States against foreign threat.”

Regardless, Democrats, and a few Republicans are already marshaling their forces, and the reliably hypocritical Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who once favored “real border security measures,” added a dollop of fearmongering to the mix: “If today, the national emergency is border security … tomorrow the national emergency might be climate change.”

Border security? Try constitutionally mandated national security, Mr. Rubio — a lack of which represents the quintessential  national emergency. Borders are the essence of the nation-state, no matter how vehemently they are opposed by a ruling class beholden to their globalist masters. The same globalist masters who have coordinated the avalanche of hate and hysteria directed at the one man and his “deplorable” followers for thwarting their ambitions since 2016.

Build the wall, Mr. President. Those who still believe in nations will stand behind you.  ~The Patriot Post