Children as young as SIX are to be given compulsory self-touching lessons that critics say are sexualising youngsters

  • The lessons are part of the controversial All About Me teaching programme

  • All About Me is being rolled out across 241 primaries by Warwickshire County Council

  • Campaigners warn that inappropriate sexual material could be given to children

By SANCHEZ MANNING and MARK HOOKHAM

Children as young as six are being taught about touching or ‘stimulating’ their own genitals as part of classes that will become compulsory in hundreds of primary schools.

Some parents believe the lessons – part of a controversial new sex and relationships teaching programme called All About Me – are ‘sexualising’ their young children.

One couple told last night how they were so disturbed they withdrew their sons from lessons at a school where the programme is already being taught.

All About Me is being rolled out across 241 primaries by Warwickshire County Council and could be adopted by other local authorities next year as part of the Government’s overhaul of Relationship and Sex Education (RSE).

Family campaigners and religious groups warned that vague guidelines issued by the Department for Education meant schools could soon be providing sexual material to young children that many parents would consider inappropriate.

Children as young as six are being taught about touching or ¿stimulating¿ their own genitals in lesson that are part of a controversial new sex and relationships teaching programme called All About Me (stock image)

Children as young as six are being taught about touching or ‘stimulating’ their own genitals in lesson that are part of a controversial new sex and relationships teaching programme called All About Me (stock image)

Even politicians who had supported the RSE legislation expressed concern. Tory MP David Davies said: ‘I and many other parents would be furious at completely inappropriate sexual matters being taught to children as young as six. These classes go way beyond the guidance the Government is producing and are effectively sexualising very young children.’

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday detail how All About Me classes involve pupils aged between six and ten being told by teachers that there are ‘rules about touching yourself’. An explanation of ‘rules about self-stimulation’ appears in the scheme’s Year Two lesson plan for six and seven-year-olds.

Under a section called Touching Myself, teachers are advised to tell children that ‘lots of people like to tickle or stroke themselves as it might feel nice’. They are also instructed to inform youngsters that this may include touching their ‘private parts’ and, that while some people may say this behaviour is ‘dirty’, it is in fact ‘very normal’.

However, the youngsters are warned it is ‘not polite’ to touch themselves in public – it is an activity they should do when alone in the bath, shower or in bed.

In the same lesson, children are given scenarios which they must judge to be ‘OK’ or ‘not OK’.

In one, pupils are told that when a girl called Autumn ‘has a bath and is alone she likes to touch herself between her legs. It feels nice’.

At this point, teachers are advised to remind the students of the ‘rules about self-stimulation’.

Family campaigners and religious groups warned that vague Government guidelines meant schools could soon be providing sexual material to young children that many parents would consider inappropriate (stock image)

Family campaigners and religious groups warned that vague Government guidelines meant schools could soon be providing sexual material to young children that many parents would consider inappropriate (stock image)

 

The guidance on touching is repeated in lesson plans for Years Four and Five, involving pupils aged eight to ten.

As part of the Government’s RSE reforms, all primary schools will be required to teach compulsory relationships education from next September. It includes topics about families, friendships, online relationships, privacy and ‘being safe’. Sex education tailored to the needs of their pupils is also recommended, but not mandatory.

Warwickshire has introduced relationship lessons in some primaries ahead of the nationwide launch, including sessions addressing ‘self-stimulation’. From next September, parents will not be able to withdraw children from these lessons.

Parents at Coten End Primary School in Warwick met sex education consultant Jonny Hunt, one of the architects of the All About Me scheme, in June and raised concerns about some of its content.

Asked why ‘self-stimulation’ appeared in the Year Five lesson plans and why it was not in the non-compulsory sex education element of the programme, he said: ‘Actually we refer to self-stimulation or self-soothing throughout the programme in earlier years as well. This is not sex education but actually information around safe and appropriate touching. However uncomfortable adults may find it, children of all ages will self-stimulate from time to time. They may do this when anxious or simply because it feels nice.’

Naomi and Matthew Seymour, whose two sons attend Coten End, strongly disagree with that assessment. Concerned their sons would be exposed to issues they ‘were not ready to hear’, they removed them from school for the week during which the programme was taught.

‘My wife cried the first time she read what was going to be in the lessons,’ said Mr Seymour, 38. ‘This sexualisation of our children is just totally inappropriate. They are calling it self-touching and they won’t use the term masturbation, but when you read it that’s exactly what they’re talking about.

‘We don’t want to start picket lines and wave banners. We’re just an ordinary family. I think many families who had seen these lesson plans would feel the same way we did.’

Lynette Smith, a teacher who runs a company which provides RSE programmes for schools, said she sympathised with those concerned by the ‘self-stimulation’ section of the Year Two curriculum.

She said: ‘We never use the word self-stimulation, not in primary school. For us it is not appropriate.’

Piers Shepherd, of the Family Education Trust, said RSE guidance was too vague. He added: ‘It is even more concerning that parents may be denied the opportunity to withdraw their children from these lessons if the school brands them as relationship education classes rather than as sex education.’

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said: ‘It looks like Warwickshire has paid more attention to a controversial sex education consultancy than to… what parents understand to be in the best interests of their children.’

Warwickshire County Council said the lessons were ‘tailored to the age and development level of the children’, adding: ‘While some of the material may be sensitive for some, we believe it is important for children… to get clear and consistent information about this important, but often overlooked subject.’

The married sex education guru who doesn’t want your children to be taught marriage is good 

The sex education consultant behind the All About Me programme is also likely to raise eyebrows with his views on marriage.

Jonny Hunt, 37, criticised draft Government guidelines for relationships and sex education for highlighting the importance of wedlock

Jonny Hunt, 37, criticised draft Government guidelines for relationships and sex education for highlighting the importance of wedlock

On the blog section of his website last July, Jonny Hunt, 37, criticised draft Government guidelines for relationships and sex education for highlighting the importance of wedlock.

Ironically, he married his partner Gemma the following month. The guidelines stated that by the end of primary school, pupils should know that marriage represents ‘a formal and legally recognised commitment of two people to each other which is intended to be lifelong’.

But railing against the ‘continued emphasis on marriage’, Mr Hunt wrote: ‘There still seems to be the belief that a marriage provides a safer environment for children or for sex. This is not the case.’

Mr Hunt has worked with Warwickshire Council for more than seven years.

After he visited Holland in 2012, the council bought Spring Fever, a Dutch sex education programme for four to 11-year-olds which provided the blueprint from which he helped develop the All About Me lesson plans. Approached for comment, Mr Hunt said he had nothing to add to the council’s statement.

FEDS MAKE ARREST IN PORTLAND AFTER ANTIFA ATTACKS ICE AGENTS WITH PROJECTILES AND ROCKS

Feds Make Arrest In Portland After Antifa Attacks ICE Agents With Projectiles And Rocks

Shouting “Whose streets, our streets” & expletives at police

SEPTEMBER 23, 2019

This is why they were being chased:

CAP

BORDER SECURITY – NINE AND COUNTING: Another Illegal Alien Charged with Child Rape in Maryland Sanctuary County

In less than two months, there have been nine illegal immigrants charged with sex crimes in the Maryland sanctuary county.

By Shane Trejo

In what has become a disturbingly familiar story over the past couple months, another illegal alien has been charged with rape in the sanctuary jurisdiction of Montgomery County, Md.

Wilder Hernandez-Nolasco, 21, of Silver Spring is accused of raping a six-year-old girl. He was apprehended and charged with the crime last week, and faces 155 years in prison if he is ultimately convicted of the heinous act.

Hernandez-Nolasco, an illegal immigrant who is a Honduran national, reportedly threatened his child victim that he would ground her for “100 days” if she told anyone about the vicious attack. Law enforcement claims he admitted to committing the rape, and he committed sexual assault against the child on more than one occasion.

CAP

This is at least the ninth time that there has been an illegal immigrant charged with a sex crime in the sanctuary jurisdiction of Montgomery County since July 25. The area has become a hot bed for illegal aliens to commit vicious sex crimes with law enforcement being ordered by county officials not to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Kevin Lewis of ABC 7 News has documented the many gruesome cases that have emerged as the result of the county’s liberal policies.

CAP

CAP

CAP

An executive order was issued in July to officially grant sanctuary status within the county. County Executive Mark Elrich signed the executive order that banned all county support toward enforcing federal immigration law.

“We don’t interact with ICE. We don’t contact ICE nor do we ask any of our residents in Montgomery county about their immigration status in the United States,” Acting Montgomery County Police Chief Marcus Jones said.

“I feel pretty sure that most Montgomery county residents don’t agree with the president’s immigration policy such as it is,” Elrich said.

#StandWithICE organizer Michelle Malkin held a rally in Montgomery County last week to unite the community against partisan left-wing county officials who have put the vulnerable in extreme danger in a vain attempt to damage President Donald Trump.

The full video of her rally can be seen here:

CAP

Despite the ongoing illegal rape spree, the liberal county officials are digging in their heels and refusing to budge no matter how many innocent people are victimized.

“These individuals and organizations should be ashamed for spreading false information seeking to establish a baseless, illogical and xenophobic connection between a person’s failure to obtain legal status and their propensity to commit a sex crime,” the county officials said in an official statement, placing blame on the “White House, President Trump, Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli, local and national conservative news outlets and neo-Nazi sympathizers.”

To the people paying $4,200 to see Michelle Obama talk – do you expect her to say anything interesting?

CAP

Michelle Obama might have been a ‘classy’ First Lady, but she has rarely done or said anything remarkable or even entertaining. That the media has deified her into the ultimate role model for women is depressing.

The cult of Michelle continues to grow stronger since her departure from the White House. She has just been voted the most admired woman in a worldwide opinion poll, a ranking she already holds in similar US-only surveys.

Her second autobiography, Becoming, released last November, sold over 10 million in the first six months, and stands to become the biggest-selling memoir in history, at least until her husband’s is published, likely next year.

Tickets for the additional book tour dates she has scheduled – in which she recites incidents from her book after prompts from a moderator – are on sale for $2,500 apiece for a meet-and-greet during the Newark stop and up to $4,200 for a suite. The cheapest seats are offered at over $100.

CAP

I do not begrudge her making the money – there is genuine public demand – but what makes Michelle Obama special?

Is it her life story? A middle-class A-grade student goes to a good school, a prestigious university and a top place of employment, before meeting a man and putting her career on the back-burner to focus on being a wife and mother.

Is it her personal achievements? Obama has not practiced law in a quarter of a century, and most of her jobs have been admin positions or post-office board sinecures. While in the White House she was best-known for her organic vegetable garden, and promoting politically orthodox and safe causes like eradicating child poverty, bettering education and LGBT+ rights.

Is it her rare insight? Despite being in the public eye for well over a decade, her only truly sticky quote has been “when they go low, we go high, which is as often used ironically as it is in earnest. Her pronouncements have consisted almost exclusively of vaguely defiant or vaguely empowering or vaguely celebratory platitudes. “When girls are educated, their countries become stronger and more prosperous” or “We need to do a better job of putting ourselves higher on our own ‘to do’ list.” Even middle-schoolers would probably cock an eyebrow at this stuff if they saw it in their Facebook feed.

Is it her candidness? Obama doles a perfectly measured dose of vulnerability or openness, such as her revelations about miscarriage or discussions about how much she loves dogs, without ever threatening the edifice of her public persona, marriage or morals. She is easily more sanitized than any of the candidates in the 2020 Democratic race.

In summary, what we have here is a vanity tour from a woman who has led a comfortable and happy existence and an unremarkable professional life, giving bland ‘inspirational’ advice off a big-room stage in a scripted set-up without revealing too much of herself.

So, what’s the secret ingredient? That she was married to a man who was president for eight years? That she is the first black American woman who got to redecorate the White House?

And that is enough to lift her over 3.8 billion women on the planet.

To me, that is an indictment of US-style feelgood identity politics, where it is enough to be someone rather than do something to be considered an idol. Even if that someone is primarily famous for that most traditionalist of things – being the wife of a powerful man, a commitment that curtailed her potential.

Secondly, it illustrates the transformation of even the most serious media into partisan hype machines, with the New York Times and Washington Post squealing in the presence of Michelle like little girls at a Harry Styles autograph session. Have some self-respect.

CAP

Thirdly, it betrays the unexamined worship of the Obama legacy among supporters. It is understandable that the likely 90-percent-plus Democratic-voting audience of Michelle’s Q & A is still reeling from the contrast between her and the current occupants of the White House. But will the time ever come to question another person who was lauded more for who he represented than what he achieved – on, say, his economic complacency paired with social divisiveness at home, or his ineffectiveness abroad? Or at least admit that he helped usher in Trump in 2016, and may do so again in 2020 if a decrepit Joe Biden manages to nab the Democratic nomination riding on black voters’ goodwill from the Obama connection.

Just the whole vibe of the sickly, sycophantic and corporate Obama industry – Netflix deals and all – seems not just vapid and grating, but weirdly passé already in a world where their life truisms and political philosophies have already been proven to be inadequate. Bill and Hillary Clinton – she the most admired woman in the US for an amazing 22 years – also seemed like the perfect power couple once. Now, we view both as more rounded, flawed characters. The same reckoning can’t come soon enough for the most recent Democratic Party White House family.

In the meantime, school girls and broadsheet editors looking for positive role models can look up to women who have actually earned their fame. From Simone to Malala to Scarlett to Adele, there are plenty to pick from.

YOUTUBE BLOCKS TRUMP RALLY BROADCASTER FROM BEING ABLE TO LIVESTREAM

YouTube Blocks Trump Rally Broadcaster from Being Able to Livestream

Platform continues to censor Right Side Broadcasting, popular for streaming Trump rallies

  – SEPTEMBER 16, 2019

A channel popular for broadcasting President Donald Trump’s rallies was banned from livestream capabilities Sunday night, according to the broadcaster.

Without explanation, YouTube blocked Right Side Broadcasting from going live, despite the channel, known for streaming Trump rallies, having over 380,000 subscribers and 80 million views.

“Tonight our live-streaming abilities have been revoked by youtube,” said the channel’s founder Joe Seales, in a video uploaded to Twitter. “That’s right after 300+ million views and four years plus of obeying copyright law, of obeying community guidelines, all of a sudden we can no longer livestream on YouTube. They have given us no reason why we can’t livestream. We have received no communication or correspondence whatsoever.”

The channel’s YouTube analytics also show RSBN received zero copyright violations and zero community guidelines strikes.

Seales says ultimately the ban will “cripple” his company’s revenue going into 2020, and suspects his channel has been targeted for censorship by Big Tech, especially given the channel’s demonitization and recent censorship from search results.

“We don’t want to say this, but it feels like we are being targeted by YouTube – because we have been kept out of the search results now for the last several months,” Seales says, adding, “But now not even allowing us to livestream, this is going to severely cripple our company and make it very difficult for us to survive in the lead-up to 2020.”

In follow-up posts, RSBN says a YouTube bot shut down livestream capabilities after it flagged one of their videos for containing audio which violated copyright guidelines, unbeknownst to them.

CAP

CAP

The channel hopes to have livestream capabilities restored in time to stream a Monday Trump rally in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.

CAP

Three Hot Topics Unmentioned at Democrat Debate: Impeachment, Abortion, and Warren’s Ancestry

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) interact on stage during the Democratic Presidential Debate at Texas Southern University's Health and PE Center on September 12, 2019 in Houston, Texas. Ten Democratic presidential hopefuls were chosen from the larger field …

By Hannah Bleau

The third Democrat debate in Houston, Texas, finally brought the top-tier candidates on the same debate stage. While there were a few squabbles over hot button issues like Medicare for All and ongoing wars, three subjects were, notably, not mentioned during the three-hour event: impeachment, abortion, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) false ancestry claims.

There were a few tense matchups between the ten candidates on the debate stage – Joe Biden (D), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), Beto O’Rourke (D), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Andrew Yang (D), and Julián Castro (D). Early on, Castro questioned Biden’s memory during a heated discussion on health care.

“Are you forgetting what you said already just two minutes ago?” Castro asked after Biden said his healthcare plan would cause Americans to lose their employee health insurance and “automatically … buy into” his plan. Minutes later, he said they would not have to.

“I mean, I can’t believe that you said two minutes ago that they had to buy in, and now, you’re saying they don’t. … You’re forgetting that,” Castro said.

Other notable moments include O’Rourke’s vowing to enact mandatory gun confiscation, Warren’s refusing to say if she would raise taxes on middle class Americans to pay for Medicare for All, and Sanders’ urging the U.S. to focus less on military expenditures and more on bringing the world “together” on climate change.

However, three hot topics were notably absent from the evening’s discussions: impeachment, abortion, and Warren’s false ancestry claims.

Impeachment: Impeachment has been a contentious topic on Capitol Hill. On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution outlining the impeachment inquiry rules, even though the full House has yet to vote. While Democrats are more than 80 votes short of a pro-impeachment majority in the House, chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said a vote will transpire before Democrats choose a Democrat nominee to face President Trump.

“Candidates for the president are going to run on whatever they run on,” Nadler told the Washington Examiner“By the time of the campaign, the president will or will not have been impeached.”

Despite the buzz on the Capitol and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) constantly fielding questions on her position on the committee’s move, impeachment was not mentioned during the debate.

Abortion: Women’s issues – abortion, specifically – have been a massive talking point for many of the Democrat candidates. The subject became even more prominent following the slew of states enacting pro-life laws this year, and tensions increased as Democrats repeatedly stiff-armed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Some candidates have been under fire in recent weeks for their hardline stance on abortion. Buttigieg – who considers himself a Christian – made waves last week after suggesting that Scriptures indicate that a baby’s life does not begin until a physical first breath. Sanders also came under fire last week after CNN’s climate change town hall during which he floated population control – via worldwide abortion – as a viable solution to combat the climate change “crisis.”

Despite that, abortion was not mentioned during the three-hour event.

Warren’s ancestry: Warren’s ancestry failed to come up in the third presidential debate, as moderators and candidates refused to grill her on the subject. While Warren mentioned her past – waitressing, going to college, and becoming a special needs teacher – she failed to mention the role her false claims of Native American heritage played.

The presidential hopeful identified as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) deskbook for years and listed herself as a Native American on her Texas Bar registration card. Ultimately, a DNA test found that she had between 1/64th to 1/1,024 Native American ancestry. Even so, her possible connections were not associated with tribal nations in America. Additionally, as Breitbart News reported, Warren has significant ancestral ties to Indian fighters. Specifically, her great-great-great-grandfather, Jonathan Crawford, “served in Major William Lauderdale’s Battalion of Tennessee Volunteer Militia from November 1837 to May 1838, a six month time period during which it fought two battles in Florida against the Seminoles.”

While Warren has apologized for making “mistakes,” she has yet to elaborate on her false claims of Native American heritage, particularly on a debate stage.

 

Trump DOJ to Disclose Identity of Saudi-Connected Man Alleged to Have Aided 9/11 Perpetrators

More truth about the Sept. 11 attacks is going to be released to the public.

By Shane Trejo

The Trump administration is getting ready to release the identity of a man who allegedly aided and abetted the Sept. 11, 2001 attackers, believed to be an individual with deep ties to the Saudi government.

Attorney General William Barr made the final determination for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release this information on Thursday, one day after the 18th anniversary of the attacks.

The information will be released to attorneys that are representing the families of victims who have filed a lawsuit accusing the government of Saudi Arabia of helping to coordinate the terror attack that took their loved one’s lives. The attorneys will have to petition the DOJ to release the name to the greater public for the man’s identity to be widely known.

While it is commonly understood that 15 of the 19 terrorists who committed the attacks were Saudi nationals, the Saudi government has denied any complicity in the attacks, and the official investigation has largely cleared them of any wrongdoing. Additional information released to the public has shown that the Saudis may have been more intimately involved in planning the attacks than what was initially claimed by the Bush administration.

Stunning disclosures illuminating previously unknown facts about who provided material support to the 9/11 attackers have been made available to the public, as 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 were finally released in 2016. The unredacted information provides shocking details that show the Saudi government had more than a passive role in facilitating the attacks.

The report states: “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’”

The 28 pages contain evidence that the 9/11 attackers contacted and received support from individuals closely connected to the Saudi royal family. The report also indicated that CIA and FBI officers were aware of these connections, but they were mysteriously covered up. The Saudis also stonewalled the investigative process and made it difficult for federal authorities to get answers after the attacks took place.

“A number of FBI agents and CIA officers complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks,” the report states.

While some lawmakers see the release of the documents as a substantial victory for transparency, Saudi authorities still refuse to take any culpability for their behavior that led to the worst attacks in American history.

“The information in the 28 pages reinforces the belief that the 19 hijackers — most of whom spoke little English, had limited education and had never before visited the United States — did not act alone in perpetrating the sophisticated 9/11 plot,” former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham said in a statement after the documents were released.

“It suggests a strong linkage between those terrorists and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saudi charities, and other Saudi stakeholders. The American people should be concerned about these links,” he added.

“Hopefully, these pages will provide some resolution to the families of victims of the attacks and help our government craft better foreign policy moving forward,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said after the pages were released.

“Several government agencies, including the CIA and the FBI, have investigated the contents of the ’28 Pages’ and have confirmed that neither the Saudi government, nor senior Saudi officials, nor any person acting on behalf of the Saudi government provided any support or encouragement for these attacks,” Saudi Ambassador to the United States Abdullah Al-Saud said in 2016.

“We hope the release of these pages will clear up, once and for all, any lingering questions or suspicions about Saudi Arabia’s actions, intentions, or long-term friendship with the United States,” he added.

Nothing will be cleared up until an authentic independent investigation takes place into what really took place on 9/11. The new release of a four-year academic study showing that World Trade Center building seven did not collapse due to office fires only underscores the need for another investigation.

 

Sorry Democrats and Never-Trumpers… Import Prices are Down Despite Trump Tariffs!

CAP

 

President Trump has said for years that the US was hurt by politicians that didn’t protect US jobs.  He decided to do something about and the US is winning because of it!

The far-left Washington Post wrote in August that President Trump’s tariffs will cost the average family hundreds of dollars a year –

More than a year into the U.S.-China trade war, American consumers are about to find themselves squarely in the crosshairs for the first time, with households estimated to face up to $1,000 in additional costs each year from tariffs, according to research from JPMorgan Chase.

Consumers, whose spending fuels about 70 percent of the U.S. economy, have been largely shielded from previous rounds of tariffs, which have left businesses reeling and upended global supply chains. But that’s about to change with the 10 percent levies on roughly $300 billion in Chinese imports, about a third of which will take effect Sept. 1. Those tariffs will primarily target consumer goods.

But it was just more fake news from the far left Washington Post.

Sorry liberals, Trump’s tariffs are having little to no impact on the cost of goods to the consumer.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning that the costs of imports actually went down in August.

Prices for U.S. imports fell 0.5 percent in August following a 0.1-percent increase in July and a 1.1-percent decline in June. With the exception of the August and June decreases, U.S. import prices advanced in each month of 2019. Despite the increases, the price index for U.S. imports declined 2.0 percent from August 2018 to August 2019. (See table 1.)

Fuel Imports: Import fuel prices decreased 4.3 percent in August, after rising 0.7 percent the previous month. Prices for import fuel fell 11.1 percent over the past 3 months. In August, lower petroleum prices more than offset higher prices for natural gas. The price index for import petroleum declined 4.8 percent, after increasing 0.9 percent the previous month. Fuel prices decreased 8.7 percent over the past 12 months; prices for import petroleum fell 9.6 percent over the same period. The price index for natural gas imports rose 16.0 percent in August, after declines in each of the previous 4 months. Despite the August increase, natural gas prices fell 6.1 percent over the past year.

All Imports Excluding Fuel: Prices for nonfuel imports were unchanged for the second consecutive month in August following 0.3-percent decreases in both June and May. In August, lower prices for foods, feeds, and beverages and nonfuel industrial supplies and materials were offset by price increases for automotive vehicles and consumer goods. Prices for nonfuel imports declined 1.0 percent over the past 12 months, led by price decreases for industrial supplies and materials and capital goods.

President Trump said years ago what he would do years ago about China to stop their theft of American jobs – tax China 25%.

Winning, Winning, Winning!

BETO O’ROURKE: “HELL YES, WE’RE GONNA TAKE YOUR AR-15”

Beto O'Rourke: "Hell Yes, We're Gonna Take Your AR-15"

The days of Democrats saying, “Nobody wants to take your guns,” are behind us

  – SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Beto O’Rourke solidified himself as the Civil War candidate after proclaiming, “we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” during Thursday night’s Democrat debate.

The amazingly stupid presidential hopeful is openly promoting a policy that would rip the country apart by sending armed government agents to seize semi-automatic rifles from law-abiding Americans.

Beto even reiterated his bold stance on Twitter, repeating, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15.”

CAP

O’Rourke previously tried to mask his intentions by calling his plan a “mandatory government buyback,” but most people understood exactly what that means.

The Texas Democrat is using his anti-gun platform to raise money, asking people to donate money so he can ban semi-automatic rifles.

CAP

The 2020 field of Democrats is the most anti-Second Amendment group of politicians to ever run for office in America.

Gungrabbers Unite! BETO, Biden, Kamala and Klobuchar All Pledge To Go After Your 2nd Amendmenthttps://assets.infowarsmedia.com/videos/f5cb7028-ae4c-4f8c-b2d3-ab25d319bd15.mp4

Federal Appeals Court Revives Emoluments Case Against Trump

CAP

By Joshua Caplan

A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Friday that a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause can move forward.

The lawsuit, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), was dismissed for lack of standing by a lower-level judge in December 2017. The plaintiffs, comprised of the president’s rivals in the hospitality industry, have alleged that the president’s profiting off his “foreign and domestic government clientele” have hurt their businesses.

CAP

“The Plaintiff establishments cater to foreign and domestic government clientele, and allege that they are direct competitors of hospitality properties owned by the President in Washington D.C. and New York City. The complaint alleges that President Trump, operating through corporations, limited‐liability companies, limited partnerships, and other business structures, is effectively the sole owner of restaurants, hotels, and event spaces, which are patronized by foreign and domestic government clientele,” reads the appellate court’s explanation of the case.

“The President has announced that, since assuming office, he has turned over day‐to‐day management of his business empire to his children and established a trust to hold his business assets. However, he maintains sole ownership, receives business updates at least quarterly, and has the ability to obtain distributions from the trust at any time,” it added.

Noah Bookbinder, CREW’s executive director, lauded the development and called on the president to “end his violations” of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses.

“We thank and applaud the judges of the Second Circuit for their decision today. We never wanted to be in a position where it would be necessary to go to court to compel the President of the United States to follow the Constitution,” Bookbinder told Law&Crime. “However, President Trump left us no choice, and we will proudly fight as long as needed to ensure Americans are represented by an ethical government under the rule of law.”

“If President Trump would like to avoid the case going further and curtail the serious harms caused by his unconstitutional conduct, now would be a good time to divest from his businesses and end his violations of the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution,” he added.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑