This weekend most parishes in U.S. dioceses will be taking up a collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).
Here’s the point: Give nothing to that collection.
It’s a fraudulent collection portrayed as helping the poor, when in reality huge sums of the donations are handed out to pro-abortion, pro-gay groups, not to mention radical, social justice-warrior groups who are also involved in getting out the vote for the Party of Death.
CCHD is a sham. Sure, it may do a good thing here or there, but the thrust of this decades-old endeavor has been to support Saul Alinsky-style community organizing.
Alinsky was an atheist Jewish marxist who cozied up to some in the chancery and got them to drink his Kool-Aid. Alinsky founded an outfit called the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was essentially a Democratic Party voter-registration initiative posing as a poverty-fighting agency.
Priests he encountered through that work, especially a Msgr. Jack Egan of Chicago, went on to establish what was first called the Campaign for Human Development — missing the word “Catholic.” The entire initiative was put in place by Chicago’s eventual cardinal, the homopredator satanist Joseph Bernardin.
The annual collection, which usually generates millions, was first overseen by Bernardin back in 1969 and 1970 just as he was gaining a stranglehold on the U.S. hierarchy and installing dozens of homosexual men as bishops and using the cover of social justice to justify it.
In fact, Bernardin’s CCHD produced the most famous community organizer of all time — Barack Obama — who learned the Saul Alinksy tactics of division and class warfare on the Church’s dime, as Bernardin paid for Obama to go to Southern California back in the day to hone his craft.
Obama came back to Chicago and began plying his trade until it got him all the way to the White House, with the destruction of the United States at the top of his agenda. And if you don’t believe it, then listen to Obama himself praise the homopredator cardinal and recognize the contribution Bernardin made to his formation. His comments were made from the graduation stage at Notre Dame in 2009.
Notre Dame itself, bastion of heresy now, played an important role during the very early years of the CCHD. That Chicago priest, Jack Egan, was driven out of Chicago by his cardinal, who saw right through Saul Alinksy’s cover story and recognized the threat to the Church. Egan was then given 13 years of protection at Notre Dame by the notorious Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, who was busy in his own sphere dismantling Catholic higher education.
When you step back and understand the confluence of all these various factors — the alliances between evil, wicked men stretching back decades — the current disaster come straight into focus.
Much of the funding for the dismantling of the culture, and the treason in the Church, was funded by this collection. It still is.
If you’d like to watch the full report, please just click on the link. It’s as timely now as it was then.
In the meantime, how dare the U.S. bishops — who have been met with privately and sent dozens of reports about this evil and refused to act on them — how dare they still lie to faithful Catholics and collect this money?
Last year the CCHD gave a gay group three-quarters of a million dollars for their activity.
But over the years, tens of millions of your money, gotten from you under false pretenses, has been handed out to all kinds of radical, anti-Catholic, anti-American groups.
Don’t do it. Just say no.
If bishops want to fund these horrific groups, then let them dip into their own savings and sell off their luxury mansions, or get some of the enormous sums homopredator Bp. Michael Bransfield stole, or the millions that homopredator Theodore McCarrick had squirreled away.
The laity is done with being lied to and played for fools.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-11-22 11:35:352019-11-22 11:35:35ALINSKY AND THE US BISHOPS: Decades of lying and stealing from faithful Catholics.
Crucifixion: extreme and painful punishment, affliction, or suffering.
There are those in America who will crucify anyone and everyone who does not agree with them. Today telling the truth is no longer a defense. As George Orwell wrote:
“In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Americans are experiencing a period in our history where the rule of law and due process are no longer valid constructs.
America has devolved into a state of universal deceit.
Americans are being deceived by those who want power more than they want justice. Those who demand “social justice” want it for themselves but not for others. Those who demand “tolerance” are intolerant. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide.
Those who say they seek “democracy” actually have the ultimate goal of turning America toward tyranny and into a dictatorship. They demand that all others compromise their beliefs and principles. But compromising one’s beliefs and principles is the art of losing slowly.
The basic constructs of every civilized American citizen are under attack, from the traditional nuclear family to our system of fairness. Deceit is how people gain and keep power. The big lies have now become public policy.
Uncontested Absurdities
Former Governor Mike Huckabee listed the following four ideologies championed by many political candidates:
“Separation of church and state” – the lie that silences prayer at school and keeps the Ten Commandments out of the statehouse.
“Acceptance” – requiring Christians to deny the Bible and participate in gay weddings or have their businesses closed.
“Women’s’ choice” – forcing Christians to pay for the killing of unborn life – a baby created in the image of God.
“Equality” – calling males females and females males – violating the belief that gender is not determined by man but assigned by God.
Ayn Rand wrote:
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.
Daily Americans turn on their TVs, open their newspaper or visit their social media sites and enter the “theatre of the absurd.”
In my column March 22nd, 2018 titled The Top 20 Uncontested Absurdities of Today I wrote that uncontested absurdities have become today’s slogans. I created a list the top 20 uncontested absurdities:
You are a racist.
You are homophobic.
You are Islamophobic.
You are a misogynist.
A male can choose to be a female and visa versa or both.
The nuclear family is bad, divorce/single parenthood is good.
God is dead.
Islam is the religion of peace.
Believing there is no religion (Atheism) is a religion.
Hate speech is any speech I disagree with or that causes me to be uncomfortable.
Facts no longer matter.
Truth is relative.
Me, Myself and I feeling good is the only thing that counts.
People don’t kill people, only guns kill people.
Welfare is better than work.
Self defense is bad.
Killing the unborn is necessary to save the planet.
Communism is better than Capitalism.
I need to be protected from free speech.
In order to “save humanity” we must give government more power.
This list reads like the policy platform of one of America’s major political parties. We are, for the first time in our history witnessing the crucifixion of all those who stand for America’s sovereignty, values and culture. We are witnessing a time when every American who is telling the truth is crucified. Crucifixion has become the new normal.
Conclusion
Crucifixion for expressing one’s religious, cultural or political beliefs is an atrocity.
Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
There are those, in their thirst for power, who are willing to commit atrocities.
A battle is raging across America. A battle that pits good against evil. Evil is not winning. Just look at what is happening in Hong Kong, in France with the Yellow Jackets and in Iran.
For most of the last three years, Donald Trump’s critics have scoffed at supposed “conspiracy theories” that claimed a “deep state” of bureaucrats were aborting the Trump presidency.
We have been told the word “coup” is hyperbole that reveals the paranoid minds of Trump supporters. Yet oddly, many people brag that they are proud members of a deep state and occasionally boast about the idea of a coup.
Recently, former acting CIA chief John McLaughlin proclaimed in a public forum, “Thank God for the deep state.” Former CIA Director John Brennan agreed and praised the “deep state people” for their opposition to Trump.
Far from denying the danger of an unelected careerist bureaucracy that seeks to overturn presidential policies, New York Times columnists have praised its efforts to nullify the Trump agenda.
Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>
On the first day of the impeachment inquiry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff called his initial two witnesses, career State Department diplomats William Taylor Jr. and George Kent.
Far from providing damning evidence of criminal presidential behavior, Taylor and Kent mostly confined themselves to three topics: their own sterling resumes, their lack of any firsthand knowledge of incriminating Trump action, and their poorly hidden disgust with the manner and substance of Trump’s foreign policy.
Oddly, both had little clue that their demeanor and thinly disguised self-importance were a perfect example of why Trump got elected—to come up with new ideas antithetical to the conventional wisdom of unelected career bureaucrats.
Taylor and Kent announced that they are simply high-minded civil servants who serve the presidential administrations of both parties without bias.
But by nature, the huge federal bureaucracy counts on bigger government and more taxes to feed it. So naturally, the bureaucracy is usually more sympathetic to big-government progressives than to small-government conservatives.
Taylor and Kent cited their anguish with Trump’s foreign policy toward Ukraine—namely that it did not go through official channels and was too unsympathetic to Ukraine and too friendly to Russia.
If so, one might have thought the anguished bureaucrats would have similarly gone public during the Obama administration.
After all, Vice President Joe Biden took over the Obama administration’s Ukrainian policy at a time when his son Hunter Biden was knee-deep in Ukrainian affairs. As a consultant for a Ukrainian natural gas company, Hunter Biden made a reported $80,000 a month without expertise in either the energy business in particular or Ukraine in general.
Also, Trump’s policies have been more anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian than those of the Obama administration. Trump armed the Ukrainians; Obama did not. Trump imposed new sanctions against Russia, used force against Russian mercenaries in Syria, beefed up NATO defenses, pulled the U.S. out an asymmetrical missile treaty with Russia, and pumped more oil and gas to lower world prices—much to the chagrin of oil-exporting Russia.
In contrast, Obama was the architect of “reset” with Russia that reached its nadir in a hot mic exchange in which Obama offered a quid pro quo, vowing more flexibility on issues such as U.S.-sponsored missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for Russia giving Obama “space” to concentrate on his reelection.
Trump’s critics have also radically changed their spin on “coups.” To them, “coup” is no longer a dirty word trafficked in by right-wing conspiracists. Instead, it has been normalized as a possibly legitimate means of aborting the Trump presidency.
Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the Ukraine whistleblower, boasted in two recently discovered tweets of ongoing efforts to stage a coup to remove Trump.
Retired Adm. William H. McRaven recently wrote an op-ed for The New York Times all but calling for Trump’s ouster—”the sooner the better.”
No sooner had Trump been elected than Rosa Brooks, a former Defense Department official during the Obama administration, wrote an essay for Foreign Policy magazine discussing theoretical ways to remove Trump before the 2020 election, among them a scenario involving a military coup.
In September 2018, The New York Times published an op-ed from an anonymous White House official who boasted of supposedly widescale efforts inside the Trump administration to nullify its operations and subvert presidential directives.
Such efforts to oppose Trump are often self-described as “The Resistance,” a reference to the underground French fighters resisting the Nazis in World War II.
Trump’s opponents often have praised the deep state precisely because unelected career officials are seen as the most effective way to sabotage and stymie his agenda.
A “coup” is no longer proof of right-wing paranoia, but increasingly a part of the general progressive discourse of resistance to Trump.
In these upside-down times, patriotism is being redefined as removing a president before a constitutionally mandated election.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com. Twitter: @VDHanson.
As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.
We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.
The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?
The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
Barack Obama knows a thing or two about winning elections. So when the former president warns you that your campaign is out of touch, most people would listen. Not these candidates. If anything, they’re setting out to show America just how radical they can be — giving the 44th president and the rest of his party plenty to worry about.
It was a rare moment of admonishment from the 44th president — and an even rarer moment of clarity for the Left. But when Obama sat down with a roomful of liberal donors last Friday, his concern was impossible to miss. Whoever Donald Trump’s challenger is, they’re setting a dangerous table of extremism in these primary debates — too dangerous, he worries, for the average American. “Even as we push the envelope, and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality,” he insisted, “and the fact that voters — including Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds, or the activist wing of our party.”
If the 2020 field heard his cautionary words, they didn’t heed them. Despite the “#TooFarLeft” hashtag trending on Twitter, the Democrats in Georgia did nothing to allay the fears that they’ve jumped off the deep end on abortion, infanticide, immigration, health care, gender, socialism, and climate change. “There are a lot of persuadable voters, and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff.” Unfortunately for Obama, this field specializes in crazy — and proved it again last night.
After five of these events, the commentators are right about the boredom factor. Where I part ways with the analysis is that these are just “standard politicians saying standard things.” There isn’t anything routine about the agenda these candidates are proposing for America. Theirs is a country where mothers can rock their newborns to death, where criminals stream over our borders without consequences, where 230-plus years of democracy are swallowed up by a Venezuelan system of unrest and lack. “Listen to Obama,” the Washington Post pleaded. And not that I want to aid them in their efforts to capture the White House, but I agree.
In choosing Atlanta for last night’s debate, MSNBC did have the perfect backdrop to tee up their questions on one of the most controversial topics: abortion. “Most states, including right here where we are tonight in Georgia, have passed laws that severely limit or outright ban abortion,” Rachel Maddow started. Right now, Roe v. Wade protects a woman’s right to abortion nationwide. But if Roe gets overturned and abortion access disappears in some states, would you intervene as president to try to bring that access back?” Their answers, as usual, went far beyond Roe. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) insisted that we should “codify” the ruling, meaning she would wipe the country clean of pro-life laws. Then, in a night that featured some statistical whoppers, she piled on with arguments that were ridiculous on their face.
“We have to remember,” she insisted, “… the people are with us. Over 70 percent of the people support Roe v. Wade. Over 90 percent of the people support funding for Planned Parenthood…” For starters, the majority of Americans do not support Roe v. Wade — which is abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy — and certainly not by the fantasy figures Klobuchar used. Only eight percent of Americans support the Democrats’ late-term abortion platform, according to the Harvard Center. And the objection to the Left’s birth day abortion campaign are even more dismal: six percent. There’s a consensus all right — but it’s not for abortion.
The numbers from Marist are even more frightening from the DNC’s perspective. Their January poll found that found 75 percent of Americans favor substantial restrictions on abortion, including 60 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of those who identify as “pro-choice.” Women, who’ve been exploited by the Democratic Party for years, feel even more strongly — a reality even Democratic pollsters admit. So when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that “If there’s ever a time in American history where the men of this country must stand with women,” he’s right. But, like the rest of his movement, he’s dead wrong on what that stand should be.
As for the 90 percent “consensus” on Planned Parenthood, that’s flat-out absurd. A generous number would be 50 percent, which is what the scandal-ridden group has typically polled at Rasmussen. But here’s where Democrats are really in trouble: their blind assumptions about their own party. When Maddow pressed Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Democrats’ abortion litmus test, she replied, “I have made clear what I think the Democratic Party stands for.”
But her assessment — and the other candidates’ — has the potential to severely hurt Trump’s eventual challenger. If the party truly wants to make support for abortion a qualifying issue for people, it’ll be kissing a significant chunk of its support goodbye. “The number of Democrats now identifying as pro-life is 34 percent, up from 20 percent [in January 2019], while the number identifying as pro-choice fell from 75 percent to 61 percent.” “Does the party have a message to 20 million pro-life Democrats other than, ‘Drop dead?'” Kristen Day, who heads up Democrats for Life of America, asked. Based on the last five debates, no.
For more on the pro-life laws in your states — the same ones that would be in jeopardy if these candidates get their wish — check out FRC’s Pro-Life Map.
Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-11-22 04:52:572019-11-29 10:16:202020 Dems: A Base Hit by Abortion
“In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act” – George Orwell
“When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.” – Confucius
Austrian Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has written a book titled The Truth Is No Defense. It is reminiscent of how far Western Civilization has devolved into a state of universal deceit.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is a diplomat’s daughter, grew up and lived in the United States, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Libya. What Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff experienced in these Middle Eastern countries shaped and influenced her passion for freedom.
And you’ll read about the final verdict brought down by the Austrian Court: that the issue was to balance “free speech” with the “right” to not have your feeling hurt, and guess which side won?
[ … ]
When the truth, in other words, doesn’t set you free, but is a threat, then perhaps one is aligned with a belief system that is harmful rather than beneficial.
Guilty of religious denigration!
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was found guilty of “religious denigration.” Sadly, in Austria religious denigration only applies to one religion, that of Islam.
What did Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff do? She accurately quoted the Qur’an and Hadith about Mohammed marrying his foster niece Aisha who was six-year old. Mohammed consummated the marriage to Aisha when she was 9-years old.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff writes:
[I]n 2008: The Austrian Freedom Party, the country’s right-of-center party, commissioned me to hold seminars on Islam; however, in 2010, I had to stand before a judge in court of law and defend myself for explaining the basics of Islam via a fully sourced Power Point presentations. And, as I learned ten years later, the truth is no defense. [Emphasis added]
Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), ‘Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ ” Sahih Bukhari 9:87:140
Elizabeth quotes in her book German novelist and poet, regarded by many as the most important 19th-century German-language realist author Theodor Fontane:
The reason why people are silenced is not because they lie, but because they speak the truth. When people lie, their own words can be used against them. But if they tell the truth, there is no other means than violence.
After it was clear that the Austrian court would not convict on the charge of “incitement to hatred”, Elizabeth writes in The Truth Is No Defensewhat happened next:
So the judge, at her own discretion, added a second charge, “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion,” and it was on that charge that I would be convicted this day.
In other words: presenting the “religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in a factually accurate manner may constitute “denigration,” if that religion happens to be Islam.
It was clear from the moment the second charge was added that the Austrian state needed to convict me of something, anything, to set an example so that other “Islamophobes” would be warned.
In The Unknown Deal Ayn Rand wrote, “The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial.”
If Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is anything she is a person who supports everyone’s right to disagree. We can’t say the same for Austria.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-11-21 09:58:352019-11-21 14:05:52BOOK REVIEW: ‘The Truth Is No Defense’ by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff [+Video]
If the last 24 hours have proven anything about Chick-fil-A, it’s this: It was never about the chicken. For millions of Americans, there was a much deeper significance behind every decision to pull in the parking lot and walk through those doors. It wasn’t about the menu. It wasn’t even about the service. It was that every time someone ate there, they were making a cultural statement. Chick-fil-A was a business, yes. But it was also a giant rebuttal of everything the bullies stood for. Until it wasn’t.Maybe that’s why people are in such denial. They don’t want to believe that the place where they felt at home, the place they’d put on a pedestal and invested so much personal capital, betrayed them. Deep down, I think we all want to explain away Chick-fil-A’s decision. It’s a lot easier than the alternative, which is accepting and grieving the fact that this company — a brave holdout for so many years — is running away from the people and principles that made them who they are.Pushing that under the rug may feel better in the short-term, but it’s not an option for anyone who understands the long-term implications of waving a white flag on God’s truth. For us, this isn’t a gray area. The decision to desert these groups is a radical departure from biblical teaching. Now, some of you might argue that walking away from the Salvation Army or Fellowship of Christian Athletes isn’t an endorsement of an LGBT agenda. But it is exactly that. And here’s why. Chick-fil-A didn’t just switch their giving practices, they broadcasted it. They made a conscious choice to draw attention to this very public divorce from two Bible-believing charities. And then, in a calculated move, announced their support was going to an organization that, on its website, openly and proudly supports everything about the LGBT community.
“Their defense is that they haven’t changed anything,” Governor Mike Huckabee told listeners on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch,” but, “I’m just going to be blunt,” he said. “That’s not honest. Because when you turn from Salvation Army and you go to organizations like Covenant House, you’ve made a big statement about who you want your friends to be, who you are willing to affiliate with, and what your priorities are.” This isn’t about loving and serving the people who identify as LGBT, which the Salvation Army has done — and we’re all called to do. This is about affirming the LGBT identity and the politics that go with it. Those are two very different things. As Christians, we’re called to love — not affirm. God didn’t celebrate our sin, He loved us enough to save us from it. And that’s the difference here.
Romans 12 warns us not to “conform to the pattern of this world — but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” This kind of capitulation doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a slow and gradual erosion. When Jesus told us to pick up our cross and follow Him, He said “daily.” That’s a struggle for anyone, let alone Christians under constant attack. Standing for truth in the face of withering criticism isn’t easy, especially not for one of the biggest targets of the Left. I’m sure the executives at Chick-fil-A were sick of being ostracized by the rest of the corporate class. “I would bet money,” Rod Dreher wrote, “that this is not about markets, but about its executive leadership class getting tired of… being stink-eyed by fellow rich and upper middle-class peers…”
But the road to man’s acceptance is always paved with compromise. “Chick-fil-A made a huge mistake thinking they can appease these people,” Mike said, “because they can’t.” “You and I both know — because we’ve been in this battle now for a long time… the Left [will never be] satisfied until we’re completely out of business. And if Chick-fil-A believes that the Left is now going to start patronizing Chick-fil-A and saying wonderful things about them, they’ve got to be kidding. It’s not going to happen.” Sometimes it takes learning this lesson the hard way: When Christians put the praise of man over the glory of God, they earn neither — and hurt a whole lot of people in the process.
Of course, one of the saddest parts of this is that Chick-fil-A didn’t just compromise their witness. They dragged thousands of godly men and women into the pit with them — owners, employees, and franchisees who never signed up for this. They’re the ones the company abandoned.
“I think a lot of the managers of local Chick-fil-A are also deeply hurt, because these are good people,” Mike said somberly. “They have to work really hard to be a manager of a Chick-fil-A… They have an opportunity to do well financially if they manage one effectively. But most of the time they’re very committed Christian people who really buy into the philosophy of Mr. Truett Cathy, the founder… who built his business unapologetically on Christian principles. He served everyone [and always] said, ‘We’ll take any customer, and we’ll treat them with dignity and respect.’ And they’ve done that. But I don’t think he would have surrendered.”
It’s called the narrow road for a reason. Only a few find it, Scripture says. And maybe Chick-fil-A will find it again. As believers, we can pray that management sees the light and returns to the values that inspired us. But it takes courage in this culture to own up to a mistake of this magnitude. Courage I’m not sure the leadership at Chick-fil-A has.
Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-11-21 07:40:432019-11-21 07:43:25PODCAST: Chick-fil-A Orders Values to Go
If you’re finding it difficult to keep up with all the noise surrounding House Democrats’ ever-changing impeachment saga, you’re not alone. Democrats themselves are having a tough time keeping their stories straight lately.
First, the left had an alleged “quid pro quo” in mind. When that argument didn’t poll well, Democrat leaders changed the accusation to “extortion.” Next came “bribery,”—then back to the original “quid pro quo” catchphrase this morning.
Yes, it’s dizzying. Democrats in Congress right now are throwing every accusation they can think of at the wall, crossing their fingers that something finally sticks. That isn’t a new trick: It’s actually been their only real action item since Election Day 2016.
Today turned out to be a bad day for Democrats and their media echo chamber to resurrect the old “quid pro quo” narrative. In lengthy testimony before Congress today, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland put that false accusation to rest.
When Rep.Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to put words in Ambassador Sondland’s mouth, the Ambassador was crystal clear:
“President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question—as I testified previously, ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’—his answer was, ‘I want nothing.’”
No matter how the left tries to spin it, that is the only relevant takeaway from today’s sham hearing. Why? First, because it’s based in fact, not third-party conjecture. Second, it was stated under oath by the only person in these hearings who has ever even spoken directly to President Trump. The other witnesses could only offer opinion and speculation.
And just like that, the Swamp’s carefully choreographed narrative collapsed—again.
The big problem for House Democrats is that after weeks of testimony, they still have no actual evidence to justify effectively shutting down Congress to put Americans through this charade. New polling out today from Marquette University Law School shows that Americans in Wisconsin, for example, now oppose impeaching and removing President Trump by double-digit margins.
But Democrats from Impeachment Czar Schiff to far-left “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) already promised their base that they would impeach President Trump—so no matter what the facts or evidence say, the show must go on.
Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi is beginning to sense how bad this looks for her party. In a desperate letter to colleagues, she encouraged Democrats to stick with the plan—and put in writing that it would be a “weak response” to wait until next year’s election to let the American people decide for themselves who their President should be.
Democrats have told us repeatedly they have no interest in a fair, impartial hearing. It’s time to take them at their word. Fortunately, a majority of Americans may already have.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2019-11-21 07:32:112019-11-21 07:32:11NEW poll today: The more Americans see, the more they oppose impeachment
The latest assault on Christians is happening in Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park. A Christian man has been told that he can no longer display his banner, which declares nothing more than “The blood of Jesus Christ.” Whether this ban on signage is a new law that will be applied to any and all posters being hung by every religious denomination, as well as the rest of the speakers who pontificate at the park, remains to be seen.
As a victim of homophobic abuse from a bunch of Muslim regulars at Speakers’ Corner, which I reported to the police at the time of occurrence, I was told that had the death threats against me happened just metres from where I was standing (outside the park), then the police could make arrests. Speakers’ Corner, as it happens, is outside the law of the UK, according to the Met police. Anything goes, they told me. Anything except a declaration of an allegiance to Jesus. Call for jihad in the name of Muhammad and it’s fine, but make calls for people to come together in Christ and that’s a step too far for the cops in Hyde Park.
This isn’t the first time we’re seeing double standards by the police in relation to Christian preachers here in the UK. Three men were arrested and charged in Bristol for the offence of reading from the Bible on a public street. Meanwhile, dawah stalls litter a large number of streets in London, from Dalston Junction to Woolwich, over to Kilburn and beyond. There is a permanent one set up in Leicester Square which blasts music (noise pollution) and hands out free Qurans and bad advice. These men never get tackled by police or shut down or asked to move along. They certainly don’t get arrested. Lee Rigby’s killers were free to walk around Greenwich park distributing extremist Islamic material with no complaints from the public, and no arrests made by the police. The three Christian men in Bristol, however, were mocked by the public, and the police were applauded and cheered when they made the arrests. It’s a scene that replicates the mocking of Jesus during his arrest, trial and punishment on his way to the cross.
The arresting of Christian preachers can be contrasted with the way the UK police interact with Muslim preachers on the streets. The police generally stand there, impotent, whilst taking a belly and an earful of verbal abuse from yet another angry Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” at them. The police, in these instances, in a bid to save face in the eyes of the public, are shamed into making a reluctant arrest. And any arrest of a Muslim preacher is not made without the fear of violent reprisal towards the arresting officers. The cops know this, and so they pick on the easy religious targets such as truly peaceful Christians.
The banners that are normally on display in the very small section of Hyde Park that is known as Speakers’ Corner generally verge on the ridiculous. The Blood of Jesus Christ pales in comparison to the rest of the posters and banners which generally tell of the end of the world being nigh, advocate for socialism, claim that meat is murder, offer free psychic healing and hugs, as well as tell tales of extraterrestrial life forms sending radio signals to interfere with our brains. The most offensive sign that I’ve seen at Speakers’ Corner, and on the majority of dawah stalls, are those that tell me Jesus is a Muslim. No, Jesus is not a Muslim. As a Christian, I would not get away with putting up a poster stating that Muhammad was a Christian. I’d be met by a braying mob before being swiftly arrested. The Blood of Jesus is not an offensive statement; it is the very heart of Christianity. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that we drink it in the Communion wine, with Christ’s body being found and ingested in the wafer.
The Christ energy invigorates the Western world. You could be forgiven for thinking that He is the blueprint for liberalism and leftist ideals — love thy neighbour, welcome the other, communal eating with outcasts, giving of your own wealth to help those in need, and reserving judgement of others whilst here on earth, but His words and deeds are different from big government taking your money from you and redistributing it without your permission. All of that just for starters. The blood of Jesus is understood to be salvific to the Christian mind. It is healing and redemptive. Why is Jesus’ death becoming a dangerous thing to the UK police? It’s baffling to me why our authorities and the general public seem to be siding with Islam rather than Christianity. What has gone wrong with us as a people and a nation that the blood of Christ is becoming a dirty thing in the eyes and minds of the public?
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-11-21 07:11:522019-11-21 07:11:52The blood of Christ is now offensive in the UK
Not surprising, Florida is a preferred destination for tourists in winter and retirement. We offer plenty of warm sunshine, sports and attractions, golf and tennis, boating and fishing, fine restaurants, comfortable living, no state income tax, southern charm, and aside from the occasional tropical storm, a safe and comfortable environment. People are coming to Florida in droves, either to vacation or live. It is the #1 state where people are moving to. Not surprising, we have a construction boom here.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, over 221.5K people moved to Florida in 2018 alone. The top states where residents are migrating from include:
These people flee their states for a variety of reasons including: inclement weather, jobs, high state taxes, political culture, etc. Some people see themselves as economic refugees escaping from states facing financial instability. In the 2018 Mercatus State Fiscal Rankings, it examined the financial stability of the fifty states, plus Puerto Rico. The report considered debt and financial obligations, as well as state pension programs and health care benefits. From the list above, the following states were ranked at the bottom of the Mercatus study, including: IL (#50), NJ (#48), MA (#47), NY (#41), and PA (#35). As an aside, tiny Connecticut was rated #49 and, even though it had smaller numbers, saw migration to Florida jump 63% in 2018. By the way, Florida is #4 on the list.
Interestingly, I came across another report from the Census Bureau indicating the lion’s share of people coming to Florida are seniors. The Bureau reported the proportion of Florida’s population that is 60 and older is growing more rapidly than other components of the population. They estimate 32.5 percent of Florida’s population will be 60 and older by the year 2030, an increase of 34 percent from 2012.
This means nearly a third of the populace will be seniors thereby creating a voting block to be reckoned with, even beating the Millennials. They also have a better voting turnout record than the youngsters.
Of course, seniors include both Democrats and Republicans, but they generally do not like Socialism and will not vote for it. As much as I would like to believe seniors are predominantly conservative politically, there are many who have gravitated to liberal causes as they grow older. The point is, we will start to see politicians cater more to the interests of seniors, and less toward younger generations. In other words, a shift is in the offing.
One thing I have observed about seniors is that more thought goes into who or what they will vote for. They are active, experienced, inquisitive, and not afraid to debate issues in a calm manner. Seniors are much less impetuous and boisterous than Millennials.
Bottom-line, the face of Florida politics is getting grayer, and the Millennials better watch out.
“They are searching for every haystack they can possibly find in hopes that there’s a needle somewhere that they can bring forward and say, ‘A-ha, we have something to impeach him,’” says Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga. “And the American people are seeing it for what it is.” Read the lightly edited transcript of the interview, posted below, or listen on this bonus episode of the podcast:
Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Congressman Jody Hice, who represents Georgia’s 10th Congressional District. Congressman Hice, thank you so much for being with us today.
Rep. Jody Hice: Always great to be with you. It’s an honor. Appreciate you having me.
Del Guidice: Well, we love having you. So, last week, House Democrats finished holding their first impeachment hearings on impeaching the president. We heard from Bill Taylor, he’s the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs; and Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>
So, looking at last week’s hearing, what all did you see from those hearings, and has any kind of information or answers been gleaned? What are your takeaways?
Hice: Yeah, I mean, [there’s] two things really that stand out to me from last week. No. 1, again, it’s all hearsay. No one had direct communication with the president. And that’s really what this whole thing is being built on.
It’s a trial in search of a crime, and there’s no evidence to substantiate any of it at this point. And that’s totally what we had last week. And I thought one of the highlights from last week was when [Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas] specifically asked the witnesses, “Why are we here? What is the impeachable offense?” And none of them had an answer.
There’s absolute stunned silence. And that just reiterated the reality that the majority, the Democrats, are moving the goal post on even what the impeachable offense is. And of course, now it’s gone from “quid pro quo” to extortion to bribery.
And I mean, they’re bouncing all over the place themselves, trying to convince the American people of a crime that didn’t happen. And so they’re trying to fabricate a crime. And that was really what came out from last week to me.
Del Guidice: So, you’ve criticized this impeachment process as a sham. Can you talk a little bit about that and why you see it as a sham?
Hice: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, something as important as an impeachment inquiry impacts our entire nation. It’s something that, if we’re going to go down this path, then it needs to be done honestly. It needs to be done openly. It needs to be done with transparency, and with an authentic desire to find the truth.
That has not been the case in this sham. And that’s exactly what it is. For two months, we were in the basement of the Capitol with no transparency. No even attempt seriously to find the the truth.
[House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.] only allowed individuals to come testify who he thought would have damaging testimony toward the president. The president was not able to defend himself.
We were not able to call forth any of our witnesses as the minority party. It was all a one-sided show. We were limited. Members of Congress were not permitted to participate unless you were on certain committees, and even then it was very difficult to get transcripts, and yet none of it was classified information.
What it ended up being is, really, two months of an audition for Schiff to determine who he thought would be the best witnesses to go public. Which is what he’s now trying to do. But again, it is an unfair process of not genuinely seeking the truth.
It’s all the left Democrats, who hate the president, who want to turn the 2016 election around, and they are trying to do everything they can to discredit and disenfranchise the voters of 2016.
Del Guidice: So, on Tuesday, House Democrats started the second week of open impeachment hearings. And so far we’ve heard from Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman. He’s the top Ukraine specialist at the National Security Council. He testified, as well as Jennifer Williams, who’s a foreign service aide in Vice President [Mike] Pence’s office who listened to a call between Trump and the Ukraine’s president.
What did you think of both of their testimonies, of Vindman’s testimony and Williams’ testimony?
Hice: Still, it’s nothing new. It’s more of the same old, same old. … Look, in this whole thing, there’s only one person who matters, and that is the president of the United States.
What did he say? And we have that transcript, that transcript is readily available for anyone and everyone to read. And it says what it says. And the president of Ukraine, President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, took it just the way the president, President Trump, said it was.
There was no quid pro quo, there was no conditions to the aid. Ukraine was not even aware that any aid was being withheld. And so how do you formulate an impeachable offense that didn’t happen?
And so what we have are individuals giving testimony of their opinion. We have people giving testimony who don’t like the foreign policy of the president. What is the president’s job, to submit foreign policy? And if they don’t like it, that’s their prerogative. But it certainly is not an impeachable offense if they don’t like the president’s foreign policy.
So it’s more of the same old argument that the Democrats continue to bring forth, … charges with absolutely zero evidence to substantiate the charge.
Del Guidice: So, you mentioned the fact of zero evidence. … Looking ahead to hearings later this week, we’re hearing a lot of the same old, same old, as you mentioned, and nothing impeachable has been raised so far. So what do you foresee as happening if none of that evidence actually surfaces?
Hice: Well, this thing is collapsing day by day, literally moment by moment, as they continue to proceed forward with it, because there is no evidence there. And the American people, as this is becoming public, as people are watching it, they’re getting fatigued, quite frankly, from a hearing that has nothing to support the so-called impeachable offenses, which even the Democrats themselves can’t even define what that offense might be. And so, the American people are seeing firsthand that this is a hoax.
It is a continuation of a witch hunt that began three years ago, when the president was inaugurated. Within days after his inauguration, there were [some] saying already that they were going to impeach him. And he hadn’t even had time to get in the office and get started. Yet, this has been an undertaking of the Democratic Party for three years.
They are searching for every haystack they can possibly find in hopes that there’s a needle somewhere that they can bring forward and say, “Aha, we have something to impeach him.” And the American people are seeing it for what it is.
Del Guidice: So, you sit on the [House Oversight and Reform Committee], and you attended several of the closed-door depositions that happened. I’m curious if there’s anything you can share from what you observed. And as a second point to that, have Democrats even been following proper procedure when it comes to the impeachment process?
Hice: They’ve been making the rules up and the procedure up as they go. And that’s one of the frustrating things with us. The goal post has been moving all along the way. And so, I cannot get into specifics, because we are strictly forbidden from speaking about what happened in those depositions.
But I can say from a general perspective that it has been the most unfair treatment that I’ve ever seen.
I’m shocked that this type of trial, which is really what it is, is taking place in the United States, where we have only one side permitted to speak, only one side permitted to call forth witnesses, and the other side … during those depositions was not able to do anything.
The president unable to defend himself, and we [being] unable to bring forth witnesses from our side of the equation, has been the most unfair thing I’ve ever seen in my life. And I just hope that as this becomes more public, that the American people will recognize that and will reject this attempt by the Democrats to destroy and harm the president.
Del Guidice: So, looking ahead to the rest of the hearings this week, I believe Fiona Hill is scheduled to testify, she was the top Russia specialist at the National Security Council, as well as David Holmes, who’s a State Department official. Do you have any forecasts of what you expect to see, or just more of the same?
Hice: Yeah, expect more of the same. It would be kind of foolish for me to try to speculate what any of them are going to say or testify. So I won’t try to go down that hypothetical route, but, again, would say that the only conversation that matters is the conversation that President Trump had with President Zelenskyy. And that conversation we have. And in that conversation is absolutely nothing impeachable.
There was nothing of demands. There were no preconditions put upon the funding. In fact, this president has funded the Ukraine with lethal weapons to defend themselves against Russia. Something that President [Barack] Obama never did.
And … just a couple of months ago, the Democrats were accusing President Trump of colluding with Russia. And yet President Trump is the one who is providing aid, lethal aid, to Ukraine to defend themselves against Russia.
And so, that is the conversation that matters. The one that the president had with President Zelenskyy, and everything else is just opinion and presumption, made-up opinions, as to what the president really meant. When what he said is right there in clear view. And what he said is exactly the way President Zelenskyy interpreted it.
Del Guidice: President Trump has also said he’s open to contributing his own testimony to Democrats’ impeachment hearings. Do you think he should testify? What is your perspective on that?
Hice: Well, my perspective is he already has. He was not forced to provide the transcript and he did. He voluntarily put it out there. This past week, [he] came out with the second conversation he had with President Zelenskyy. Again, he was not compelled to do so. He is being transparent and open with the conversation that he had. And you know, what he decides to do beyond that is a decision I’m sure that he and other advisers around him will make.
But in my opinion, the president has already exhibited tremendous transparency and a willingness to cooperate. And providing the transcript itself is evidence enough of that.
Del Guidice: One of your colleagues in the House, Congressman Jim Jordan, he had tweeted something early this week that I feel like laid out the situation really well. And he had said that “in the 55 days that aid to Ukraine was delayed, President Zelenskyy had five calls and meetings with high-ranking American officials. And in every one of those meetings, there was never a discussion of linking aid to investigating the Bidens.”
If this is true, and we’ve seen the transcripts, you’ve been talking about that, why isn’t this being discussed in these hearings?
Hice: You know, you’d have to ask the Democrats that. I think the Republican side has done a great job bringing up those facts in this whole thing. Not only were there no preconditions in the phone call, but as you just mentioned, in the five meetings that took place afterward, there was no mention of any conditions in order for aid to come forward.
And so again, this is all nothing but individuals’ opinions, basically saying what we know, the funds went, but what the president really meant was to hold up those funds until we had the investigation on the Bidens or until we had whatever that they claim.
But the fact is, none of that holds up to what actually happened in those meetings that took place following the phone call. Again, our factual evidence that there was no intent for preconditions in the funds that were going to Ukraine.
Del Guidice: So, impeachment definitely has overtaken all of Washington right now and especially Congress in the House as they’re holding these hearings. Is there anything Congress should be doing other than holding these impeachment hearings?
Hice: Well, the first thing we should do is close the door on these impeachment hearings. It’s an absolute hoax in every way.
But yeah, I mean, the Democrats have been so focused on destroying the president and proceeding with this impeachment inquiry that they have accomplished absolutely nothing since they have been the majority here in the House. And there are multiple issues that need to be addressed.
I mean, we haven’t even funded the government, and now that is hanging over our head. We haven’t funded the military. We have drug pricing that needs to be addressed. We have trade deals, the USMCA, that needs to be addressed.
There are multiple issues that are extremely important to the well-being of our country and to every one of our constituents, be it Republican or Democrat. But they have been so focused on one single item, and that is to impeach the president, that they have shown their absolute inability to legislate and do what the American people sent us here to do.
Del Guidice: Final question: What do your constituents in Georgia think about all these impeachment hearings?
Hice: You know, we’ve got 750,000, 800,000, and there are different individuals, different parties that are represented, but overwhelmingly, the people in the 10th District of Georgia are fed up with this impeachment inquiry. They see it for what it is. They want it to come to a stop.
They see the actions of this president and the policies of this president are working in our economy. They’re working in reestablishing the strength of our military. They’re working across the board, impacting individual lives.
They appreciate this president stands for life. He stands for religious liberties. And they want us to continue supporting this president, and they want this impeachment inquiry to come to an end.
I believe, at the end of the day, this is going to prove to be an absolute disaster for the Democrats, and in my opinion, well, it should be.
Del Guidice: Congressman Hice, thank you so much for joining us today on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Hice: Always an honor to be with you. Thank you so much.
Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.
As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.
We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.
The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?
The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-11-21 06:27:432019-11-21 07:23:31PODCAST: Impeachment Inquiry Is ‘a Trial in Search of a Crime,’ Rep. Jody Hice Says
I love cars. I grew up during the era of Detroit’s dominance in the car industry. I grew up during a time of “muscle cars” like the Corvette Stingray and Shelby Cobra. I grew up when there were more cars on the road with a stick shift than an automatic transmission. I grew up before the panic of CO2 emissions. I grew up when cars were exclusively run on gasoline, not electric batteries.
BTW, I once owned a 1966 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray convertible. I loved that car.
I was excited when I heard that a film was being made by 20th Century Fox about Ford and Ferrari. When it came out of course I went to see it. Here’s the official 20th Century Fox trailer.
If you love racing you will like this film. However, I believe the film should have been titled “Carroll Shelby vs. Ford’s Bureaucrats.” Here’s why:
Racing is all about winning. Ford’s bureaucrats were more interested in global marketing than winning.
Racing is all about having the best drivers. Ford’s bureaucrats were more interested in having “Ford drivers” rather than having the best drivers.
The 24 Hours of Le Mans is all about drivers and cars that are both durable and dependable. I’m not sure that Ford’s bureaucrats cared about either after watching the film.
Finally, I found the film was not true to the legends of Carroll Shelby and his two drivers, Ken Miles and Denny Hulme.
Why didn’t the best men, Ken Miles and Denny Hulme, win the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1966?
Carroll Shelby tells all in this never-before-seen, newly released, raw & uncut interview. Shelby talks openly about his childhood, passions, early race career, Henry Ford II & Ford Motor Company, Ford v. Ferrari, Mustangs, Cobras, GT40s, Daytona Coupe, winning the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans, Lee Iacocca, Ken Miles, Don Frey, John Wyer, Ray Geddes, Hal Sperlich, Pete Brock, Fred Goodell, and living in Africa.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-11-20 10:33:472019-11-20 12:14:32Film ‘Ford vs. Ferrari’ should have been titled ‘Carroll Shelby vs. Ford’s Bureaucrats’
On International Men’s Day, November 19, Clarion makes a plea to empower our boys so they will grow up to be productive members of society and not fall into the trap of extremist groups.
Violent extremists exploit our crisis of masculinity to push their ideology toward a vulnerable population of our young men. Here are nine facts on how one of the cornerstones of preventing violent extremism is understanding gender challenges:
The vast majority of school shooters grow up in fatherless homes.
Extremist recruiters use masculine tropes of heroism to lure in new members. This is occurring in a our culture, which offers fewer expressions of traditional masculinity and as boys fall behind in college.
If we want to fix political extremism, we have to look at what’s going on with our young men. Is there a clear path for how to fit in and succeed as a man in this generation? It doesn’t look like it.
Why is suicide for young men on the rise? According to the journal of the American Medical Association, in 2017, suicide claimed 5,016 males compared to 1,225 females between the ages of 15-24 in the United States.
Our society is failing boys, and we need to find out why.
If we can’t come up with a reasonable, achievable track that gives young men status, emotional security, a path to a secure job and stable, loving relationships, more and more young men are going to be drawn into ideologies which are misogynistic and extremist. Both Islamism and white supremacy movements share these ideologies.
Extremists are telling our young men, ‘The system isn’t working for you and doesn’t care if you live or die. But we care, join us.” It’s a powerful message.
If mainstream culture’s response is to sneer, laugh or complain about toxic masculinity, we’re not going to get anywhere. Preventing violent extremism is a men’s issue.
If you look at what Islamist and Far-Right extremists are actually saying, they’re talking in an explicitly gendered way, essentially: “We will offer you the masculinity you have been denied.” We can’t afford to cede the concept of positive masculinity to the extremists.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2019-11-20 08:48:192019-11-20 08:48:19On Int’l Men’s Day: A Plea to Empower Our Boys [+Video]
I have a very good friend named Bob Armstrong. Reverend Bob Armstrong is the founder of Love-Link Ministries, which for three decades has taught leadership principles to 51,000 pastors and leaders in 13 countries, as well as spearheading evangelistic efforts and humanitarian projects across the globe and in the Middle East.
Every year Bob goes to the Middle East to rescue children, women and families from the horrors of ISIS. Reverend Bob is one of the first alumni of Oral Roberts University. He returned to his alma mater to speak at the 2019 Homecoming about what drives him to do what he does. To me Bob is a hero. His life is truly a profile in courage. He doesn’t seek glory, he just praises the glory of God and His Son Jesus.
Please watch as my friend Bob speaks about his work to save Christians and Muslims from ISIS:
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-11-20 08:18:082019-11-20 08:26:08VIDEO of Rev. Bob Armstrong: A Profile in Courage — The Man Who frees women and children from the horrors of ISIS
Whenever leftists are charged with not loving or even with hating America, they respond angrily, labeling the question absurd, mean-spirited, and an example of right-wing McCarthyism.
But there can be little doubt that the left has no love for America, just as there can be little doubt that liberals and conservatives love America. Love of America is one of the many dividing lines between liberalism and leftism. (For a description of six differences between liberalism and leftism, please see my PragerU video “Left or Liberal?”)
Here are six reasons to believe the left hates America:
1. No one denies that the international left—the left in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere—hates America. Therefore, in order to argue that American leftists do not hate America, one would have to argue that on one of the most fundamental principles of international leftism—hatred of America—American leftists differ with fellow leftists around the world: All the world’s left hates the U.S., but the American left loves it.
Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>
This, of course, makes no sense. Leftists around the world agree on every important issue. Why, then, would they differ with regard to America? Has any leftist at The New York Times, for example, written one column critical of the international left’s anti-Americanism?
2. Leftists want to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Five days before the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama told a huge audience in Columbia, Missouri, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
More recently, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced that she plans to “fundamentally transform our government,” that America needs “big, structural change,” and that her proposed Accountable Capitalism Act would bring about “fundamental change.”
Likewise, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said earlier this year, “We’re going to try to transform the United States of America,” and last month he said, “This campaign is about fundamental change.”
Examples are legion.
So, here’s a question: How can one claim to love what one wishes to fundamentally transform?
The answer is obvious: It isn’t possible.
If a man were to confide to you that he wants to fundamentally transform his wife, would you assume he loves his wife? If a woman were to tell you she wants to fundamentally transform her husband, would you assume she loves him? Of course not.
3. Leftists have contempt for the American flag.
I am unaware of a single left-wing individual or organization that has condemned NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand for the flag during the playing or singing of the national anthem that precedes NFL games. To the contrary, on the left, he is universally regarded as a hero. Indeed, Nike anointed him as one, making him its brand model.
Leftists might respond that Kaepernick’s public refusal to stand for the flag and national anthem says nothing about his love for America, as it is only a form of protest against racial injustice. But that is nonsense. Would leftists argue that anyone who publicly refuses to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day really loves Dr. King?
4. Leftists routinely describe America as racist, sexist, xenophobic, imperialist, genocidal, homophobic, obsessed with money, and morally inferior to most Western European countries. No moral person could love such a place. As one person commenting on a Paul Krugman column wrote, “Does loving your country mean you love or ignore the fact that we destroyed Iraq, shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, and waged a brutal war in Asia for reasons that today make no sense?”
5. America is the most successful country in world history—while being the most committed to capitalism and remaining the most religious of all the industrialized democracies. To the extent that America is great, that means two of the institutions the left most loathes—Christianity and capitalism—are also great.
6. Love is, among other things, an emotion. So, here is a question about leftists’ emotions: Do any leftists get the chills when the national anthem is played or when they see the American flag waving as the anthem is played? Given their rhetoric, it is most unlikely. Yet, every person I know who loves America does get a chill at such moments. Do leftists, as opposed to some liberals and conservatives, display the flag on any national holiday? How many leftists even own a flag?
Finally, if leftists do not love America, what do they love?
According to their own rhetoric, they love the planet—Mother Earth, as they frequently refer to it. And they love animals.
They really love power, and they claim to love material equality.
They don’t love Western culture—and they now dismiss praise for it as a euphemism for white supremacy.
Interestingly, while they often claim to love humanity, many don’t seem to love people. They give less charity and volunteer less time to the downtrodden than conservatives, for example. They have much less interest in having children and making families. They are far more likely than conservatives to cut off relations with friends or relatives with whom they differ politically. And if they really loved people, they would love capitalism because only capitalism has lifted billions of people from poverty.
As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.
We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.
The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?
The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-11-20 06:44:072019-11-20 06:49:066 Reasons to Believe Left Hates America
The Washington Swamp often likes to think they alone run our country, with input from voters serving, at most, as a pesky inconvenience. That’s why House Democrats and their “star witnesses” keep claiming, day after day, that President Donald J. Trump is somehow at odds with America’s “stated foreign policy.” By America’s, they mean their own.
Let’s be clear: The President, duly elected by the American people, is the one who sets the foreign policy of the United States. Career bureaucrats and political appointees, while entitled to their own opinions, do not. That’s how constitutional democracies work.
Yet during hours and hours of hearings that have effectively shut down Congress this month, Americans are being treated to just that: opinions. Every single time House Republicans ask the witnesses for any actual evidence of crimes or impeachable offenses committed by the President, none is offered. That’s because those crimes don’t exist.
Today’s hearing followed the same script. Alexander Vindman—who testified for hours on national TV—has never met the President, said that he has no way of knowing what the President was thinking on Ukraine, and admitted that his testimony was based on nothing more than his own personal opinions and feelings.
America learned nothing new. A few witnesses, Vindman included, actually confirmed the accuracy of the White House call transcript between President Trump and President Zelensky. Vindman even acknowledged the corruption surrounding Burisma and that Hunter Biden didn’t appear qualified to serve on the company’s board, leaving the door open for a potential conflict of interest.
Most important for Americans outside the Beltway Swamp, it’s been more than 1,000 days of Democrats’ nonstop impeachment and investigations. Every hour wasted staging TV infomercials for the left is another hour that Congress isn’t passing a budget, isn’t approving USMCA to fix NAFTA for American workers, isn’t addressing our broken immigration system, isn’t working to lower medicine prices, and isn’t working for you.
With that in mind, here are 3 moments that tell you everything you need to know:
Since the day President @realDonaldTrump took office, House Democrats have ignored working Americans to focus on their only real agenda item: impeachment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2019-11-20 06:22:402019-11-21 06:09:273 must-see moments from Impeachment, Day 1,033
