Amazon Synod Roster Packed with Leftists

Environmentalists, liberation theologians, LGBT advocates dominate participant list.

VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) – The Amazon Synod’s leftist ideological bent is coming into sharper focus.

On Saturday, the Vatican released its official roster of synod participants — a list heavy with leading Church liberals.

Pope Francis will serve as synod president, while Cdl. Lorenzo Baldisseri will serve as secretary general.

Baldisseri has willfully cooperated with the Vatican’s homosexual network. He used his position as lead organizer of the 2014 and 2015 Synods on the Family to push Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, as well as liberalization of Church teaching on homosexuality.

During the 2015 gathering, Baldisseri personally intervened to block Cdl. Raymond Burke and other faithful cardinals from distributing Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a book reiterating Church teaching on marriage on the grounds that they would “interfere with the synod.”

Baldisseri was also responsible for inserting the term “LGBT” into the working document for the 2018 Youth Synod — an unprecedented concession to the pro-gay movement.

He also approved publication of the document, which suggested that Church teaching on contraception, abortion and homosexuality are up for debate and sought to legitimize young Catholics who choose to live homosexual lifestyles while still wanting “to be close to the Church.”

Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, archbishop emeritus of Sao Paulo and president of the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network (REPAM), will serve as relator general. As early as 2014, Hummes was pushing the idea of married priests as a solution to the shortage of clerics in the Amazon region.

Cardinal Pedro Ricardo Barreto Jimeno, archbishop of Huancayo in Peru and REPAM vice president, will serve as one of three president delegates. Jimeno is an avowed environmentalist.

During a 2005 synod, he asserted that the bread and wine offered during Mass are compromised if the land that produces them is poorly cared for.

“I said that if we offer bread from land that’s contaminated, we are offering God a contaminated fruit. And the same for the wine,” he recalled in a Crux interview earlier this year.

Attendee Cdl. Pietro Parolin, secretary of state for the Holy See, is a principal architect of the September 2018 Vatican accord with China in which the Holy See recognized seven “bishops” of the Communist-backed “patriotic” Catholic Church. The agreement has been slammed by Cdl. Joseph Zen as a betrayal of faithful Chinese Catholics and warned it could be “the death of the true Faith in China.”

Parolin is also accused of covering up clerical sex abuse.

Earlier this year, Vatican whistleblower Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò alleged Parolin “knows the names of a number of priests in the Curia who are sexually unchaste, violating the laws of God that they solemnly committed themselves to teach and practice, and he continues to look the other way.”

Parolin has tried — unsuccessfully — to silence faithful Catholic opposition. Under his direction, in 2017, the Vatican hired a pro-gay law firm to try to shut down conservative Spanish website InfoVaticana after it voiced alarm over the growing homosexual current in the Church.

Synod member Cdl. Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, also has connections to McCarrick.

Though sharing a house with McCarrick for years, Farrell denied any knowledge of the disgraced ex-cardinal’s crimes: “I was shocked, overwhelmed; I never heard any of this before, the six years I was there with him. And never, no indication, none whatsoever, nobody ever talked to me about that,” he insisted after the abuse revelations came to light. “So, I really don’t have any knowledge or anything to add to about more than that.”

Farrell is also accused of minimizing clerical sex abuse during his time as bishop of Dallas from 2007–2016. In one case, after failing to report abuse, Farrell allegedly told a victim that his abuse at the hands of an older priest was “consensual.”

Synod member Cdl. Reinhard Marx, head of the German Bishops’ Conference, is well-known for promoting heterodoxy — instituting Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried in Germany, pushing for admission of Protestants to the Eucharist and advocating for married priests.

In recent weeks, Marx has led the Church in Germany to the edge of schism, insisting on pressing forward with a controversial “Synodal Assembly” to re-examine Church teaching on clerical celibacy, women’s ordination and sexual morality.

Synod member Cdl. Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, has voiced support for ordaining women to the diaconate and praised active gay unions.

“[T]hey share their joys and sufferings, they help one another,” Schönborn said in his defense of “stable unions” for gay couples. “It must be recognized that this person took an important step for his own good and the good of others.”

The cardinal also reinstated an active homosexual to an Austrian parish council after he was removed by a faithful priest for causing scandal.

Synod member Abp. Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, made headlines in 2017 for admitting a pro-abortion Protestant philosopher to the pro-life institute. In what has been described as a “coup” in July, Paglia dismissed a raft of leading pro-life theologians from leadership at the academy.

Representing the United States at the Oct. 6–27 synod is Cdl. Sean O’Malley of Boston and Bp. Robert McElroy of San Diego.

Cardinal O’Malley has been accused of turning a blind eye to the Church’s gay subculture.

In July 2018, The New York Times revealed that O’Malley had been contacted as early as 2015 about Theodore McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians but did nothing to expose the serial homosexual predator.

In the wake of that allegation, an ex-seminarian accused O’Malley of whitewashing an investigation into rampant homosexual activity at St. John’s Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts.

Bishop McElroy, a leading climate change apologist, has distinguished himself as one of the most pro-LGBT prelates in the United States.

The bishop has described faithful Catholics as a “cancer” in the Church, and in October 2018, McElroy made headlines by ejecting young orthodox Catholics out of a series of “listening sessions” after they questioned him about homosexuality in his clerical ranks.

Like O’Malley, McElroy was also made aware of McCarrick’s sexual predation of young men but did nothing to stop it. In 2016, clerical sex abuse expert Richard Sipe notified McElroy that he had personally interviewed 12 seminarians and young priests who reported being abused by McCarrick. McElroy did not respond to Sipe’s outreach.

Other prominent leftists featured on the synod’s roster include Cardinal-elect Michael Czerny, undersecretary of the Migrant and Refugees Section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, and Cardinal-elect Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg and president of the Commission of Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union, both of whom favor open-door migration policies, as well as Cdl. Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Cdl. Oswald Gracias, archbishop of Bombay, both of whom openly back the LGBT agenda.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope taps Radical Pro-LGBT US Bishop to be Synod Father

Alarming Lay Involvement in Upcoming Amazon Synod

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

WATCH: New Ad ‘Is It Fair?’ on Women’s Sports

In an email Terry Schilling. Executive Director of Campaign for American Principles, wrote:

As you may know, the Kentucky gubernatorial race is expected to be one of the most competitive and closely watched statewide races this year.

This morning, the Campaign for American Principles released a new ad in Kentucky attacking Democrat gubernatorial candidate Andy Beshear for his stance on allowing biological males to compete on women’s sports teams.

The ad can be viewed in its entirety below.

Learn more by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLE: LGBT Activist Reveals Goal to “Completely Smash Heteronormativity” Through Education

EDITORS NOTE: This video is republished with permission. Copyright © 2019 American Principles Project, All rights reserved.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Disinformation: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

A friend of mine from high school, a well-intentioned and impassioned gallerist in Washington, D.C., sent out the following evite superimposed on an original oil painting depicting a pack of menacing rabid dogs:

We’re inviting America’s artist to help prevent the spread of Trump’s dystopia and the contagious HATE it causes…and needs to survive.

The invitation to participate in the juried show was followed by a red/white/blue poster asking the following question:

When your grandchildren ask you what you did to rid the body politic of Trump’s dystopia in 2019 and 2020 before it was too late What will you tell them?

I like and respect this very kind, intelligent, and considerate man even though our world views are diametrically opposed to one another. I simply could not ignore the radical leftist political assumption of his question. So, I answered my friend:

I will tell them I write to fight.

I will tell them that I fought with every word on every page to insure an informed electorate in 2020.

I will tell them that they and their parents were subjected to a most vile disinformation campaign that began with Jimmy Carter and the establishment of the Department of Education in 1979 run by leftist radicals intent on collapsing America and replacing our free market capitalism with socialism.

I will tell them that the regressive pressure to ignore facts and focus on feelings is a deliberate effort to infantilize the nation and indoctrinate its children to accept collectivism and cradle-to-grave dependence on the government. A dependent society, unaware and compliant in Hillary’s own words, is easy to control.

I will tell them that indoctrination is revolution without bullets because disinformed children grow up and vote for collectivism. The leftist propaganda machine has been stunningly successful – just look at the Democrat candidates and how their anti-America platform has bifurcated the country.

I will tell them that the 2009 Climategate scandal exposing the fraudulent science of manmade climate change was deliberately buried by the colluding mainstream media under Obama’s watch.

I will tell them that the same fraudulent science continues to disinform the public with politically useful manmade climate change hysteria in advance of the 2020 election.

I will tell them that manmade climate change is the big lie of the 21st century designed to redistribute wealth and collapse America’s industrial economy in a sinister effort to bring the United States into the new world order of one world government.

I will tell them that many intelligent, well-intentioned, good-hearted liberals were duped into participating in their own destruction.

I will tell them I fought the good fight for their freedom because free stuff is NEVER free – you pay with your freedom.

I will tell them the dystopia is and always was the globalist will to power and a regressive return to feudalism.

I will tell them that President Donald J. Trump was the existential enemy of globalism and that the leftist Democrat party were the useful idiots of the globalist elite.

I will tell them that the United Nations was the vehicle for imposing one world government and that America’s children were deliberately indoctrinated with the the globalized education of Common Core in public school and dummied down to accept its anti-American content.

I will tell them that failed educational policies of sight words and new math deliberately confused and frustrated them to the point of academic failure and negative behavior.

I will tell them that I tried to save our beloved country from the jackals at the door who fully intend to enslave them after ceding our national sovereignty to an international body politic.

I will tell them that no stranger ever seduced a child with spinach, and that the leftist Democrat offer of eternal childhood and free stuff is the candied invitation to get them inside the car.

I will tell them I love them and that freedom is the most important value. I will tell them that there is no freedom in the centralized governments of collectivism. No American has ever risked his life on a raft to get to Cuba – the escapes always sail toward Miami and freedom.

I will tell them to listen to the dissidents who have lived the collectivist lives they are being promised, and to ignore the lies of the mainstream media’s paid political pundits who are lackeys to their globalist bosses.

I will tell them I love them and hope that they listened.

RELATED ARTICLE: If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria to Adults, Try Kids

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Sting Sex Trafficking at the Source . . . Its Buyers

Authorities have arrested more than 100 people in a massive child sex trafficking sting in central Ohio. Yes, you heard correctly: 100 people, in the state of Ohio, for child sex trafficking. The Homeland Security special agent in charge of the investigation warned, “We are just scratching the surface… it’s that way across the country.”

Human trafficking, particularly for sex, is a global enterprise — and the United States is, unfortunately, the leader in driving demand. Because human trafficking is no small business, this Ohio sting operation involved more than 30 law enforcement agencies.

As reported by The Columbus Dispatch, “[a] report commissioned for the city of Columbus last year found that the National Human Trafficking Resource Center in 2015 received 1,066 trafficking calls from Ohio, the fourth-highest volume in the country. Central Ohio rescue groups have served more than 700 human-trafficking victims since 2008; girls between the ages of 12 and 18 are at the highest risk.”

The child sex-trafficking ring outed by this particular sting was not operated on the streets or in dark alleys as one might expect but on the internet. The perpetrators defied stereotypes as well. Among the arrested suspects were an emergency room doctor and a church youth director! Traffickers and predators can be anyone.

In his remarks relating to the sting, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) acknowledged the “real dangers on the internet for children.” He continued, “[c]riminals involved in trafficking other human beings prey upon those individuals that are already at risk, subjecting them to prostitution and addiction. . .. Predators who seek to harm our children and grandchildren are not hiding in the bushes, they’re lurking on the internet.”

In this sting operation, law enforcement officers posed as the underage boys and girls with whom the predators initiated online chats. But the sting was not focused merely on “internet predators, but human traffickers and the men who feed the sex trade with their dollars.”

In a bipartisan effort to target the buyers of sex, Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently introduced the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act, which would amend the minimum standards of combating sex trafficking (contained in the current Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to include language prohibiting the purchase of sex.

Without buyers, you lower the demand for sex trafficking. Buying human beings should be unacceptable behavior, and one way to make it unacceptable is by penalizing said behavior. Passing the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act would paint a clear line between what is ethically right and what is wrong and would be a great step in the right direction for our culture. You can read more about the bill here.

Of the 104 arrested, there were 24 male suspects (ranging in age from 20 to 59) accused of attempting unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and importuning, 43 women accused of selling sex, 36 men accused of trying to buy sex, and one man accused of promoting prostitution.

Thanks to years of human trafficking advocacy, our society knows so much more about the realities of the business of sexual exploitation than we once did. Thankfully, the 43 women arrested for selling sex are now in what Ohio calls CATCH Court (Changing Actions To Change Habits), a two-year treatment-oriented program and specialty docket for women in the system who are victims of human trafficking. No matter what kind of spin liberal activists may use, “pimp” and “prostitute” are erroneous and outdated terminology for what we now know as the business of sex trafficking. Arresting the victims is not the perfect system, but at least for now, it has proved to be the most effective means of getting the trafficked away from their traffickers and into safety. (Oftentimes victims do not see themselves as victims due to the manipulative grooming of the trafficker).

One thing is certain: we need to arrest more of the buyers of sex. The law needs to continue driving a long, hard stake into the ground with a sign that reads: our women, boys, and girls are not for sale.

COLUMN BY

Patrina Mosley

Patrina Mosley serves as the Director of Life, Culture and Women’s Advocacy at the Family Research Council. Her writings and research examine the sanctity of life and women’s dignity issues in policy and culture.

Specifically, Patrina specializes in advocating for women in matters of abortion, sex trafficking, and pornography. From her policy analysis to cultural commentary, her goal is to motivate others to action from a biblical worldview.

Her commentary has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Examiner, The Hill, Townhall, The Federalist, The Daily Signal, The Christian Post and more. She has also testified in state legislatures on fetal pain in abortion, and the influence pornography has to normalize violence against women as well as its effect in increasing the demand for sex trafficking.

Before her current role, Patrina served as Family Research Council Action’s Assistant Director where she walked alongside state and federal campaigns for endorsement. Combining her passion for elections and educating voters, she oversaw numerous grassroots projects to lead endorsed candidates of faith, family, and freedom to victory.

Before joining FRC, Patrina directed Concerned Women for America’s collegiate initiative, Young Women for America. In training the next generation of women to be leaders in public policy, she grew YWA’s campus reach across the country while at the same time pioneering biblically based educational curriculum on policy issues such as abortion, family and marriage, support for Israel, and sexual exploitation.

Patrina is a graduate of Liberty University with a Bachelor of Science in Religion with a specialization in Biblical Studies and a Masters in Public Policy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UNCompromising: Trump Steals the Show with Religious Freedom

The Remains of an Abortionist’s Day

Scalise Brings Born-Alive Push to VVS

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement

Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.

On September 12, a visibly deranged Beto told the viewers of an ABC News Democratic primary debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” As has become custom among the more frivolous candidates, the Beto campaign was selling a t-shirt with the intemperate statement later that evening. According to the Associated Press, on September 19 Beto stated that he is open to broadening his plan to include all semi-automatic firearms.

Beto’s comments have drawn criticism from some Democrats. However, it is instructive that the Democratic criticism appeared to be more about the former congressman’s strategy than the substance of his plan; they prefer confiscation that is well-cooked instead of raw.

Sad that Beto’s candor might foil his more subtle approach to identical gun control efforts, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns,” adding, “We need to focus on what we can get done.” CNN quoted a “Democratic aide” as saying that Beto’s debate statement “only feeds into the NRA’s narrative that Democrats are going to take away your guns.”

In other words: Stop it Beto. You’re spoiling the ending.

Beto’s bombastic delivery of their confiscation agenda even shamed the legacy media, who have long been complicit in obfuscating gun control advocates’ political aims. In response, the media was forced shine unwanted light upon the gun controllers’ confiscatory plans. As the editors of the National Review noticed, “For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible.”

The National Review editors appreciated what NRA members already know: confiscation has long been apparent to those paying sufficient attention. The only surprise for Democrats was Beto’s failure to follow their long-standing script. Others seem to be slipping in kind:

In May, former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did something similar while writing an op-ed for USA Today in which he described his plan to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Making clear that he would imprison those who did not comply, Swalwell wrote, “we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

Later that month, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called for gun confiscation during an interview with CNN. When asked by anchor Poppy Harlow if that meant that otherwise law-abiding Americans would be imprisoned for failing to comply with his confiscation plan, Booker merely responded, “[w]e should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.”

In September, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. At an appearance on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris called confiscation “a good idea” and told the audience that “we need to do it the right way.”

The gun controllers’ refrain is international. In reaction to the March 15 terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took unilateral measures to restrict firearms and Kiwi lawmakers enacted legislation to ban possession of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. The country’s gun control scheme provided for the confiscation of lawfully-possessed firearms.

U.S. anti-gun politicians cheered Ardern’s confiscation effort. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stated via Twitter, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.”

In recent years, gun control rallies have been littered with signs calling for firearms confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment. The great and good have written countless thought pieces calling for gun confiscation or an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. The New York Times used a frontpage editorial to call for gun confiscation.

Of course, the gun confiscation agenda didn’t start with the 2020 election cycle.

In 2015, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation. When asked about Australia’s confiscation scheme at a town hall in Keene, N.H., Clinton noted, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” Clinton added, “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

In 2013, President Barack Obama pointed to Australia and the UK’s confiscatory gun control regimes in calling for a “transformation” of American gun laws. In 2014, Obama again pointed to Australia as an example for America during a Tumblr Q&A session. After describing his failure to enact gun control as the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, Obama stated, “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting… And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

Decades ago, gun control advocates were just as explicit about their confiscation goals as many of the Democratic presidential candidates are today. They refuse to accept the benefits of gun ownership, and yet they’re the ones attacking the stubbornness of the Second Amendment?

In a 1995 interview with 60 Minutes, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. While discussing the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban, Feinstein stated, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

In the 1970s, groups like National Council to Control Handguns (later named Handgun Control, Inc. then Brady) openly called for a ban on the civilian possession of handguns. NCCH Chairman Pete Shields went so far as to explain how gun control advocates would bring about confiscation. In a 1976 interview with the New Yorker, Shields stated,

I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest… So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.

An understanding that gun control advocates seek firearms confiscation must inform the entire gun control debate. As Shields pointed out, gun control measures build upon each other and facilitate the more extreme controls that anti-gun advocates have admitted they seek to enact.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed this out during a recent appearance on ABC’s This Week while explaining why gun rights supporters oppose so-called “universal” background check legislation. Cruz stated,

As soon as you have every person private to private transaction. If you have a grandfather giving his grandson a shotgun to go bird hunting. If you have a federal government background check for that, what you will see the next step to be is the only way to enforce that is a federal gun registry, and a gun registry is the step you need for gun confiscation… you know we now have three of the ten Democratic presidential candidates actively advocating for gun confiscation. They are saying the federal government is going to come forcibly take your gun.

Cruz’s analysis of the situation was spot on. Gun control legislation that requires all private firearms transfers to take place pursuant to federal government interference is a necessary component for facilitating anti-gun politicians’ confiscation plans.

Gun control advocates have made themselves clear. Their efforts are not about “background checks,” or keeping guns away from “dangerous” individuals, or any other so-called “commonsense gun safety” measures.

They are not operating in good faith.

The gun control movement is about civilian disarmament through firearms confiscation. Beto simply let their cat out of the bag.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules NRA-Supported Second Amendment Case for Argument

Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

The Hopkins Hypocrite: Michael Bloomberg Touts Free Speech While Another Bloomberg Entity Degrades It

Andrew Who?

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Andrew Who?

It’s no secret that the legacy media in America is struggling to maintain a certain level of trust with the general public. Polls show that Americans often feel that there is a great deal of bias permeating the nation’s newsrooms, with one survey even showing there is less confidence in the press than there is in Congress or the Executive Branch.

Considering most people form their opinions about Congress and the White House based on reports from the media, and since government officials from across the political spectrum regularly question media reports, it’s no wonder that these three institutions reside in the basement of rankings based on public trust.

But politicians are expected to exhibit bias: that’s why we have different political parties, as they tend to embrace different ideological positions. To promote your platform, it is only natural to have bias.

The media, on the other hand, is supposed to be neutral; at least when it comes to simply reporting the news. Many don’t feel that is the case, with most (if not all) in the pro-Second Amendment community convinced that media outlets tend to present a distinct anti-gun bias.

Which brings us to this article’s titular question, “Andrew Who?”

Andrew Pollack is a man who likely warrants media attention. But the stridently liberal arm of legacy media appears to not be aware of the man, or is going out of its way to keep the general public from hearing his story.

Now, those who read our alerts regularly are likely aware of Mr. Pollack. Sadly, his daughter Meadow was one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Even those who don’t read our material, and don’t support the Second Amendment, may have heard of him last year, when the media also seemed to know him. Numerous stories on the aftermath of that horrendous murder-spree[CB1] [KK2]  by a deranged former student of the school ran in the weeks and months following.

Andrew Pollack was one of the grieving parents, along with several students, invited to the White House for a listening session, where President Trump heard from some of those most directly impacted by the tragedy. Media coverage spoke of Mr. Pollack’s passionate demands that something be done.

“How many schools, how many children have to get shot? It stops here with this administration and me. I’m not going to sleep until it is fixed. And Mr. President, we’ll fix it. Because I’m going to fix it. I’m not going to rest,” Mr. Pollack stated.

Since that meeting at the White House, though, the legacy media seems to have forgotten who Andrew Pollack is.

Or is he being avoided?

Ever since Parkland, there has been a tremendous amount of coverage of some of the people impacted by the shooting. But those receiving the vast majority of the coverage have been promoting gun control as their response, which tends to coincide with what most in the media promote. Andrew Pollack, on the other hand, does not support that response.

In fact, Meadow’s dad decided to dig much deeper than simply looking at the type of firearm the gunman used, or how he obtained it, which has long been the standard reaction to these types of rare, but horrific events.

Banning guns, or increasing regulations on law-abiding gun owners, has always been the “easy” response to violent crime involving firearms. This approach doesn’t require looking into far more complicated matters, such as what drives someone to want to kill others, what are the warning signs of such intent, and what systems can be put into place to prevent someone from actually following through with their murderous intentions.

Andrew Pollack wasn’t looking for the “easy” response; he was looking for an effective response. This led to a partnership with Max Eden, a senior fellow in education policy at the Manhattan Institute. The two met when Mr. Eden visited Parkland to do his own investigation for an article. They became friends, and decided to collaborate on a book, “Why Meadow Died: The People and the Policies that Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students,” which was released this month.

While this isn’t intended as a review of the book, we will say that it is a well-researched, thorough treatise on Parkland. Most who have followed this tragedy are aware that there appeared to be not just warning signs about the shooter’s potential for committing the heinous act he committed, but missed opportunities to take action that would have prevented him from doing what he did.

That’s putting it mildly.

The investigation by Mr. Pollack and Mr. Eden revealed innumerable missed warning signs and opportunities. On second thought, it is likely more accurate to say the warning signs and opportunities were “ignored,” rather than “missed.” It is truly shocking how little was done to address such an obvious growing threat, and the book strongly supports Mr. Pollack’s assertion, “Parkland was the most avoidable mass shooting in American history.”

A book addressing a horrific tragedy that gripped the nation, written by a grieving father searching for answers, would seem to be newsworthy. But for some reason, most of the media are ignoring it. A cynic might posit that this is because the book doesn’t advocate banning guns and ratcheting up restriction on law-abiding gun owners, which is what the media likes to promote. But maybe they just aren’t aware of the book.

Lack of awareness, however, doesn’t seem to be the issue.

In fact, the authors told us that CNN had initially booked Mr. Pollack for an appearance, but cancelled the appearance, claiming “timing conflicts.” Again, a cynic might think someone wanted to do a segment on a book by a father who lost his daughter in Parkland, but once they realized the book was contrary to CNN’s usual anti-gun narrative, the powers-that-be instructed the segment be cancelled. Perhaps they will rebook him in the future, just to prove the cynics wrong.

Of course, CNN isn’t the only news outlet. On cable, MSNBC is also ignoring Mr. Pollack, as are print media giants, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Fortunately, some are paying attention. Fox News has had Andrew Pollack on its programs a number of times, including a segment discussing the fact that others in the media seem to be ignoring him. Considering the fact that Fox News has long dominated the ratings when it comes to cable news, if only one outlet is going to cover your book, that’s the one you want.

We hope that the lack of coverage is only temporary, and other outlets start booking Mr. Pollack. He and his co-author have done compelling research that should not be ignored. This grieving father should be heard, even if his message might run contrary to a particular outlet’s political agenda. News, after all, is still news, and should be covered by news outlets. That’s how an open and free media should work.

At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules NRA-Supported Second Amendment Case for Argument

Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement

The Hopkins Hypocrite: Michael Bloomberg Touts Free Speech While Another Bloomberg Entity Degrades It

EDITORS NOTE: The NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Could Make History With A Religious Bill Of Rights For The Americas

President Trump has the chance to make history in one of the most memorable ways today and tomorrow at, of all places, the United Nations by making the case for religious freedom worldwide, but specifically for calling for a Western Hemisphere Religious Bill of Rights.

The President is sponsoring an event today (Monday morning) at the UN Headquarters in New York entitled a Global Call To Protect Religious Freedom. The goal is to highlight increasing religious persecution around the world and claim the high moral ground for all civilized countries to commit to liberty for all religious adherents. This is something that has not been done by previous U.S. presidents and in breaking this mold, he is doing a marvelous thing.

The religious liberty event is at the same time as another in the endless line of politicized climate change panels that are unceasing. The media will hyperventilate and bring out children to teach us all about having only 18 months before some climate changes are irreversible. But it will all be meaningless gibberish because there is zero consensus on action, because, in truth, the evidence of both severity and cause are just not strong enough.

Not so with religious liberty. The evidence is overwhelming. Here are some stats from the 2019 Open Doors USA report, which tracks Christian persecution — the most persecuted religion in the world.

In the top 50 World Watch List of countries persecuting Christians the most, nearly a quarter billion Christians experience high levels of persecution for their faith; 1 in 9 Christians worldwide experience high levels of persecution; 14% more Christians experience high levels of persecution than did in 2018; 4,136 Christians were killed for being Christians; 1,266 churches or Christian buildings were attacked; In 7 out of the top 9 countries in the World Watch List, the primary cause of persecution is Islamic oppression (the other is North Korea); 11 countries now score as “extreme” for their level of persecution of Christians, compared to only North Korea five years ago.

This is a true crisis. The world’s Jewish population is experiencing it also.

According to the World Jewish Congress:

“…the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)’s December 2018 second comprehensive report on discrimination and hate crimes against Jews in the EU, found that an overwhelming majority… — 89 percent — feel that antisemitism is getting worse…The 2018 report also found that 79% of those who experienced antisemitic harassment in the five years prior to the survey did not report the most serious incident to police, indicating an even darker reality than the official national crime numbers. More than one-third of all respondents said they had considered emigrating in the five years preceding the survey because they did not feel safe as Jews in the country where they live.”

The United States has a long history of being the global leader in freedoms in general, but specifically in religious freedom — critical, as that has been the lever of most of the world’s atrocities. America is a known refuge for the religiously persecuted and sought to export the concept for many years. But we abdicated that role to the deification of “multiculturalism” where the left paralyzed American leaders’ ability to say our way was better.

Yet our way of religious freedom for all, enshrined in the 1st Amendment, is undeniably superior to any that do not have such protections. People like former President Obama and today’s Democrats are largely incapable of saying even that.

But Trump is fearless on such matters and will thumb his nose at the self-appointed elites in the U.S. and Europe for whom religion is just a pile of myths leveraged to violently oppress. Living in the 13th century apparently, they see white Christians as the primary religious threat.

Here’s where the political incorrectness must come out, and it is backed by daily news accounts and Open Doors USA’ data: The giant source of religious intolerance and persecution today comes from Muslim dominated countries. In the past 50 years, Christians have been eliminated via forced conversion, displacement and massacre in large swaths of the Middle East. The region is becoming almost 100 percent Muslim, when it was the birthplace of Christianity. This is true in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere.

And it is the rub at the United Nations, because part of the worthlessness of that body is that almost every scoundrel nation out there is a member. There are 47 Muslim majority countries that are part of the U.N., including those who are the worst persecutors of Christians. They are not all scoundrels, but that weight, along with Europe’s growing return to anti-Semitism, is one of many reasons for the rank anti-Semitism evident in the endless denouncements of Israel, but never of Palestinian terrorists.

Not only do none of those countries have a 1st Amendment, they do not even acknowledge such a concept as good. A resolution would have a hard time at the U.N. But that doesn’t matter because it would be as meaningless as most resolutions at the U.N. Those only have value when powerful and influential countries sign on and agree to enforce them — such as economic sanctions against places like North Korea and Iran.

But by laying the foundation for religious freedom, Trump can not only claim the high moral ground, but can also begin an entirely new effort that encompasses the Western Hemisphere — North and South America. This would be a sort of Western Hemisphere Bill of Religious Rights. Countries that sign on, enact and enforce religious freedom laws could get more favorable relationships with the rest of the Hemisphere, most notably the United States.

This is actually doable in this Hemisphere because there is not much religious persecution at this moment in North or South America, and most of the nations are Catholic, Protestant or maybe secular in the case of Canada. The persecution that does exist, is not by adherents of a different religion, but by militant political leftists operating in countries without a 1st Amendment (again, see Canada.)

Let leftists, including those in the United States, oppose a Bill of Religious Freedoms, a majority of which will encompass “brown” people.

This may be more than Trump is going for this week. According to the White House statement:

“The President is working to broaden international support for ongoing efforts to protect religious freedom in the wake of increasing persecution of people on the basis of their beliefs and a growing number of attacks on and destruction of houses of worship by state and non-state actors.  The President will call on the international community to take concrete steps to prevent attacks against people on the basis of their religion or beliefs and to ensure the sanctity of houses of worship and all public spaces for all faiths.”

Religious intolerance always ends in terrible places. Using the United States as a model, President Trump could try something totally unique in world history.

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump Leads the United Nations Event on Religious Freedom.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In UN Address, Trump Makes International Call: ‘End Religious Persecution’

Trump’s Focus on Religious Freedom at the UN Should Lead the Way

Envy Is the Root of Many Modern Evils

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Greatest Threat to our Republic is America’s Spiritual Deficit

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

“Morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”George Washington

“Americans know that in a world where others seek conquest and domination, our nation must be strong in wealth, in might and in spirit.” – President Donald J. Trump, remarks at the 74th Session of the United Nations – September 24, 2019.


America is in a “spiritual recession.” America has a “national deficit of spirituality.”

This spiritual recession, the lack of morality and religion, is getting worse by the minute. Churches are failing to bring about the revival of spirituality for fear of losing their congregants or, God forbid, their non-profit status if they are bold enough to endorse moral candidates for public office. Churches fear publicly addressing the social issues that are the basis of our Republican form of government – the chief among them is a moral and religious body politic.

Voting into office men and women who are moral and religious is critical to maintaining the Republic. But today, many Americans struggle to define their values or even articulate their religious beliefs. So how can Americans effectively pick those who will represent them?

It is the “moral capital of the human spirit” that must be used to end our spiritual deficit.

Why is Spirituality important?

In the November 16th, 2012 article “Spiritual and Religious: The Benefits of Being Both” James Martin SJ wrote:

Overall, being spiritual and being religious are both part of being in relationship with God. Neither can be fully realised without the other. Religion without spirituality becomes a dry list of dogmatic statements divorced from the life of the spirit. This is what Jesus warned against. Spirituality without religion can become a self-centred complacency divorced from the wisdom of a community. That’s what I’m warning against. [Emphasis added]

In a February 27, 2013 article in Psychology Today titled “Why Be Spiritual?”  Ryan T. Howell Ph.D. listed five characteristics of spiritual people:

  1. Spiritual people are gracious.
  2. Spiritual people are compassionate.
  3. Spiritual people flourish.
  4. Spiritual people self-actualize.
  5. Spiritual people take time to savor life experiences.

In order for America to be great we must “make America moral again.” Only a spiritually moral and religious people can keep the Republic alive and well.

A Republican Form of Government

Without moral and religious people America is no longer a Republic, we will devolve into a Democracy.

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor John Adams wrote,

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Today politicians constantly use the word Democracy to describe America. There are actually political parties called Democratic Socialists and the Democratic Party. John Adams would be shocked to learn this.

To understand one must read the U.S. Constitution, Article 4 – The States; Section 4 – Republican Government:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this UnionRepublican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Every state of the union is a Republic. Therefore Americans, according to the Constitution, are all Republicans. To think otherwise is pure folly.

Destroying the Republic

“Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” – John Adams

Today we see unbridled human passions at every level of government. Passions that are not tempered by morality and religion. Here in is the problem that our Founding Father foresaw.

Dr. Richard Beeman, professor of history and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, in a column titled “Perspectives on the Constitution: A Republic, if you can keep it” wrote:

If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health. [Emphasis added]

On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020 the people will decide if we will keep our Republican form of government or commit suicide.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump Leads the United Nations Event on Religious Freedom.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump Defends Religious Freedom at UN, Announces Campaign to Protect Churches

In UN Address, Trump Makes International Call: ‘End Religious Persecution’

Trump’s Focus on Religious Freedom at the UN Should Lead the Way

Envy Is the Root of Many Modern Evils

5 Facts about the U.S. Constitution

VIDEO: Red Tide Rising

Yesterday, a protest was held in Aurora, Colorado demanding abolishment of (1)  U.S. borders and (2) the Immigration & Customs Enforcement administration. Over the last three years, thousands of similar anti-ICE, anti-border demonstrations have been held across America, all of which have been supported by leading Democrats.

Here is a link to a video posted by a group known as the Party for Socialism and Liberation/Denverone of the many Democrat front groups that took part in the protest. To make sure its Marxist ideology doesn’t go unnoticed, PSL/D’s Facebook reads “building a worker’s party in the heartland of world imperialism.” The group’s name incorporates the word socialism, but the communist flag flown at its protest shows that to this anti-American group, socialism and communism are heads of the same snake.

The demonstration was also attended by other openly communist Democrat front groups, including Rocky Mountain Antifa and Denver Communists. In this short video, a member of Denver Communists affirms that the protesters are demanding elimination of U.S. borders and an end to enforcement of U.S. immigration law.

A screengrab of Denver Communists Facebook shows members of the group carrying a banner demanding no borders and no nations. A borderless world without nations represents the culmination of the communist dream of a world united under the banner of the hammer and sickle. For that dream to be realized, the sovereignty of the United States must be yielded to an international governing body run by the UN, an organization dominated from top to bottom by communists.

Occupy Denver is another anti-capitalist group that participated in the demonstration. Hundreds of Occupy affiliates are active in cities towns and campuses across America. Like other Democrat identity politics groups, Occupy affiliates are openly pro-communist—Occupy Denver’s Facebook contains an image of the Raised Fist, one of communism’s most recognizable call to arms. When Occupy protests burst on the scene in 2011, President Obama (“We are on their side”) and Nancy Pelosi (“God bless them”) openly supported the nationwide movement, as did the rest of the Democratic Party.

The people shown in the images above—and millions more like them—have three things in common:

►They all are Americans.
►They all are revolutionary communists committed to overthrowing America’s two-party capitalist system.
►They all fully support, and are fully supported by, the modern Democratic Party. I do not say that to be inflammatory; I say it because it is true.

The red tide of communism is rising in America. Whether it succeeds in overwhelming our constitutional republic will be determined by the 2020 elections. Click here to see the stark choice voters will face.

How you vote matters.

Democrats’ and Medias’ Evil Mission to Divide Americans

Watching this year’s 9-11 remembrances on TV, it was heartwarming to hear commentators repeatedly use “we” and “our” when referring to Americans and America. Commentators said on September 11, 2001, “our” country was viciously attacked by Islamist terrorists. They said, “we” came together as a nation. A WWII vet said the unity of our nation on 9-11 felt the same to him as it did during WWII.

Rather than unifying Americans, each 2020 Democrat presidential candidate is campaigning on dividing us into bogus victimized voting blocs. They seek to convince every American that they are a victim in one way or another; a victim of racism, sexism, white privilege, environmental racism, income inequality and so on. The tag team of Democrats and fake news media are promoting the insane lie that the earth will be uninhabitable in 12 years unless we elect a Democrat president.

Delusional Democrats and fake news media actually believe they can win the White House by dividing Americans, encouraging blacks to hate whites, women to hate men and homosexuals to hate heterosexuals.

Democrats believe it is immoral to refer to America as “our” country. We have allowed old hippies to teach our children the lie that America ravaged the world for our prosperity. Therefore, it is only fair that we abandon borders, sharing our ill-gotten wealth with the world. Democrats also believe allowing needy unskilled people to freely invade our country will increase Democrat voter registration.

My wife Mary and I moved to a tiny town in West Virginia, population 500, which we have affectionately nicknamed, “Trump Country USA”.

In honor of 9-11, Main St in our town was decorated with American flags. The marque of the small public library read, “Never Forget 9-11”. Students were encouraged to come to school attired in red, white, blue and American flags. Students were taught history lessons about patriotism. This is the polar opposite of California schools banning American flag attire on Mexican holidays because it is offensive to illegal alien students. Democrats and fake news media say displays of patriotism are insensitive, racist and hateful. Shockingly, the U.S. flag was not seen on stage during the televised ABC Democrat presidential debate. Democrat controlled schools divide Americans by teaching black students to resent white students, absurdly claiming whites are “born racist”. Students are taught to hate their country.

In their ongoing evil mission to demonize America and divide Americans, Democrats and fake news media say the election of president Trump proves that widespread racism is alive and well, particularly in rural America. As I stated, Mary and I live in a tiny town. We are a black/white interracial couple, married over 40 years.

Because our home internet is not working, we took our laptops to the local country store to use their internet. The store was filled with white hunters and country boys. Thirty years ago, I might have felt uncomfortable. Neither Mary nor I felt an ounce of racial tension at our country store.

Clearly, America has come a long way baby in regards to race relations. Americans elected Obama two times to prove our nation has moved beyond widespread racism. And yet, Democrats and fake news media persist in selling their insidious lie that everyone who voted for Trump and supports his make America great again agenda are white supremacists. Because I am a black outspoken supporter of Trump and his America First agenda, Democrats and fake news media brand me a self-loathing Uncle Tom. See how these evil people seek to divide us folks?

I wore my “Trump 2020” cap to a local church flea market. I saw a white guy wearing a “Trump 2020” cap. I said, “Sir, you must be a racist white supremacist?” Seeing my cap, he burst into laughter as we spontaneously embraced in a bear hug.

Americans crave to be unified. Before singing my “American Tea Party Anthem” at a tea party rally in 2008, I told the audience, “I am not an African-American!” I am Lloyd Marcus, American!!!” The audience of 6,000 erupted in thunderous applause. After the rally, several audience members thanked me with tears in their eyes.

I thought I had made great headway in convincing my black relatives that Democrats and fake news media are lying about America’s police routinely murdering blacks. I was taken aback when a relative who I assumed knew better, helped to spread an initiative on Facebook to stop “trigger happy cops” from murdering young black men.

Stats confirm that cops are the greatest defenders of black lives. The greatest threats to black lives are black men and Planned Parenthood. Racist Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate Negros. Planned Parenthood disproportionately aborts blacks with 70% of their dead-baby-body-parts-chop-shops located in black neighborhoods.

My deceived relative confirms that we must remain diligent in our efforts to educate misinformed Americans.

Folks, I could go on and on with examples of Democrats’ and fake news medias’ evil mission to keep Americans divided, in fear and at war with each other.

Instead, I wish to leave you with an inspiring act of random unifying patriotism. In Denver, a flash mob performed “God Bless America” with brass instruments. Please enjoy.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: What is the connection between Socialism, World War II and Shrinking Markets? Watch and learn. . .

published two videos on its YouTube channel that connects the dots on Socialism. Here they are:

The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to start WW2.

Why they don’t tell you about Hitler’s “Shrinking Markets” problem.

RELATED ARTICLE: The False Promise of ‘Democratic’ Socialism

EDITORS NOTE: Videos courtesy of TIK© All rights reserved.

Florida’s Congressional Delegation not helping lower electricity bills

In an email, Thomas J. Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, released its Energy Scorecard. Pyle noted:

Major pieces of legislation get the spotlight and shape the national debate. But each year, Congress considers hundreds of smaller measures that have a big impact on our country and our lives.

That’s where the American Energy Alliance comes in.

AEA analyzes and tracks these bills, including what they do and who co-sponsored them — and shares those summaries and key points with supporters like you. When it comes time for a vote, AEA tracks that, too, and includes it all in a scorecard for each Member of Congress.

With the AEA Energy Scorecard, you can see — at a single glance — where your representatives stood on the most important energy votes of the year … and who the true energy champions are in Congress.

The higher the score on the AEA Energy Scorecard, the more you can count on that elected official to advance a Pro-American energy agenda.

Electricity Local reports:

Residential electricity bills in Florida

  • Residential electricity bills in FL [1]
    • The average monthly residential electricity bill in Florida is $123, which ranks 9th in the U.S.
    • This average monthly residential electricity bill in Florida is 14.95% greater than the national average monthly bill of $107.
    • Average monthly residential electricity bills in the U.S. range from approximately $75 to $203.

Residential electricity rates in Florida

  • Residential electricity rates in FL [1]
    • Residential electricity rates in Florida average 11.42¢/kWh, which ranks the state 22nd in the nation.
    • The average residential electricity rate of 11.42¢/kWh in FL is 3.87% less than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh.
    • The approximate range of residential electricity rates in the U.S. is 8.37¢/kWh to 37.34¢/kWh.

Residential electricity consumption in Florida

  • Residential electricity consumption in FL [1]
    • Residential electricity consumption in Florida averages 1,081 kWh/month, which ranks 13th in the U.S.
    • This average monthly residential electricity consumption in FL is 19.71% greater than the national average monthly consumption of 903 kWh/month.
    • Monthly residential electricity consumption in the U.S. ranges from approximately 531 kWh/mo. to 1,254 kWh/mo.

How do the members of the Florida delegation vote on energy legislation? Here are their voting records:

State Results: Florida

STATE 
DISTRICT 
NAME 
PARTY 
SCORE 

It appears that the Florida delegation, especially the Democrat Party members, are not interested in helping lower the electric bills of Floridians.

Conservatives prefer WalMart and NASCAR. Why are they partnering with CAP?

The Center for American Progress is one of the nation’s most influential liberal think tanks. It supports abortion until birth, wants to reduce gun ownership, and has fully endorsed the high-tax, open-borders, and LGBT agendas of the Left.

So why are WalMart (1.3 – liberal) and NASCAR (2.7 – lean liberal) betraying their conservative customers by joining hands with CAP’s liberal agenda?

Taking your guns by force

Last week, 31 U.S. Senators backed a bill to restrict your gun rights. The Keep Americans Safe Act bans high-capacity firearm magazines, authorizes firearm buyback programs, and authorizes certain federal agencies to destroy high-capacity magazines, among other provisions.

CAP backed the bill, along with a number of left-wing gun control groups like Everytown and March for Our Lives. Buyback programs are especially problematic because they would force citizens to give up their arms and their right to self-defense – potentially at the point of a government gun.

Slippery slopes

A logical 2ndVote American would say that it’s time to take a stand for the Second Amendment. However, NASCAR is banning advertisements with certain kinds of weapon images. WalMart just banned open carry in their stores and further limited what they will sell. These are private-sector decisions which are able to be made in a free market – and 2ndVote Americans can reply in kind.

But will these corporations know when to stop kowtowing to the Left? Nearly 150 corporate leaders signed a letter pushing for “red flag” and other anti-gun laws which are bound to be abused by governments. Since WalMart already funds the Left through its corporate donations, we know they are only a short distance from formally standing behind these atrocious violations of your human rights to self-defense and defense of loved ones.

Corporations must stick to business

2ndVote’s GunCam shows the fact that guns don’t kill people. They are simply tools, like cars or airplanes. Nobody – except for The New York Times – thinks they have agency. People have agency. America’s laws are already strict enough; corporations should stick to business. Citizens and elected officials must ensure that law-abiding, mentally sound people have the ability to be legally armed for self-defense, the defense of loved ones, and defending the helpless.

We urge you to contact NASCAR and WalMart to tell them to stop butting into our business instead of sticking to their own. They should not be buying into CAP’s agenda – their only agenda should be providing their services and products to customers.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

New Video: My Gift To Climate Alarmists

On September 21st, 2019 Tony Heller posted the below video with comment on Real Climate Science.

This is my most concise expose of the climate scam.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

Chinese Totalitarianism and Catholic Witness

Thomas F. Farr: The Vatican’s charism in China is not diplomacy but witness to the truth about God and man. 


The current assault on religion in China under President Xi Jinping is the most comprehensive attempt to manipulate and control religious communities since the Cultural Revolution.” Or so I argued in congressional testimony last fall. Part of Xi’s plan is to force “fundamental alterations in Catholic doctrine and witness.”

The 2018 Sino-Vatican Provisional Agreement on nominating and ordaining bishops must be assessed in the harsh light of Xi’s policy. Bishops are critical to the well-being of Catholics and the Church. They are simultaneously shepherds and public witnesses to the truths taught by the Church. If they are deceivers, history and contemporary events make abundantly clear that everyone suffers except opponents of the Church. If they are holy and courageous men, willing to witness the truth as taught by the Church, Catholics and non-Catholics benefit. This is as true in China as it is in any other country.

The doctrines of apostolic succession and Petrine supremacy, and common sense, mandate that the pope choose Catholic bishops. Historically, some popes have made deals granting secular rulers a role in nominating bishops. As late as 1996, Pope John Paul II agreed to a process in which the Vatican forwards three bishop-candidates to the Vietnamese government, which then chooses one of the three. The critical step is the first – Hanoi can delay, but cannot substitute its own candidate.

The Chinese Communist regime under Xi Jinping presents a far greater challenge. The evidence for Xi’s malign intent is unarguable. He is targeting Catholics, Protestants, Uighur Muslims, and Tibetan Buddhists as internal fifth columns, loyal to something greater than the Communist state.

Unlike Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution, Xi understands he cannot simply eliminate religion. But he is heir to Mao’s belief, channeling Stalin, that religion in general, and some religions in particular, pose mortal threats to Communist authority, and must at all costs be harnessed to the state. His strategy is to terrorize, intimidate, and transform.

Accordingly, Xi employs DNA testing and facial recognition technologies to track religious and political opponents. He has installed video surveillance cameras in churches. He has imprisoned over a million Uighur Muslims in “reeducation camps,” which brainwash, terrorize, and threaten. He has pursued China’s goal of emasculating Tibetan Buddhism with population replacement and violence against Buddhist monks and nuns. He has continued the policy of murdering practitioners of Falun Gong and harvesting their organs for sale.

Protestants and Catholics who resist control by the state agencies established for that purpose (the Protestant Three-Self Movement and the Catholic Patriotic Association) suffer imprisonment, torture, and destruction of churches. Two Marian shrines were recently bulldozed. Catholic bishops and priests in the “underground” Church are increasingly targeted. Prior to the Agreement, these men were seen by at least some in the Vatican as the pope’s brigade, the loyal, courageous, suffering ecclesiastical vanguard of the Church’s witness in China, deserving of prayer and support. Such a view seems to have vanished from Rome.

Within the Chinese regime, however, there is a renewed appreciation of the dangers posed by unapproved bishops faithful to Catholic teachings on human rights and religious freedom. The Catholic Patriotic Association recently issued a detailed set of instructions to China’s bishops, priests, and lay Catholics that will render the Church little more than an arm of the Communist Party. Here’s one key passage:

The [Catholic] Church will regard promotion and education on core values of socialism as a basic requirement for adhering to the Sinicization of Catholicism. It will guide clerics and Catholics to foster and maintain correct views on history and the nation and strengthen community awareness.

Xi’s “Sinicization” policy deepens a perennial dilemma for the Church in China. The number of Chinese bishops is declining, especially those capable of speaking the truths about God and man, without which the Church is not the Church.

Since the 1950s, priests and bishops loyal to the pope and the Magisterium have generally been ordained in the underground Church, often clandestinely to avoid arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Others were appointed only with the regime’s approval, and were placed under the Catholic Patriotic Association. As underground bishops aged and died faster than they were replaced, Pope John Paul II began to accept private letters of fealty from some bishops appointed by Beijing. But until the signing of the Provisional Agreement, the Vatican refrained from granting any authority to the Communist government in the appointment of bishops,

Unfortunately, because the text of the Agreement has not been made public, it isn’t entirely clear how much authority has actually been ceded. Some reports indicate the Vatican is allowing the regime a significant role: Candidate-bishops are presented to gatherings of diocesan priests, nuns, and lay Catholics, who then vote. The winner’s name is sent to officials who may accept or reject the elected candidate. If Beijing accepts, the candidate could still be vetoed by the pope.

Such a process raises serious questions. If the Chinese control the choice of candidates, they will inevitably prove harmful to the Church. The Xi regime will certainly nominate bishops who will “Sinicize” the Church, altering its teachings and eroding its influence. A right of papal veto would provide some protection, but vetoes would seem to frustrate the Vatican’s overarching goal of increasing the numbers of bishops, period.

Given that goal, would Pope Francis veto men who were little more than Communist apparatchiks and insist on the ordination solely of holy priests faithful to the teachings of the Church? It’s worth recalling that in signing the deal he acceded to Beijing’s demand that he accept seven official bishops, some of whom had been excommunicated by earlier popes. Some reportedly are sexually promiscuous, have fathered children, and are known for “excessive support for the ruling Communist party.”  In addition, the pope agreed to require two underground bishops, loyal to the Magisterium, to step aside.

There are faint signs that the pope will retain authority to nominate bishops. Last month the first two bishops were ordained under the Agreement. Both were sanctioned by the Vatican in advance – one had secretly been approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010. In both cases, the voting procedure outlined above was followed. Asia News reports that the initial vote took place in a hotel “under the full control of the local civil authorities.” In one case, Catholic voters reportedly assembled under the supervision of 100 police and government officials were told there was only one candidate, and that they must vote for him.

One might quibble over Catholics “voting” for their bishops, and the coercive presence of Communist officials during the vote. If these two ordinations signal, however, that the pope, not the Communists, will nominate bishop candidates, that is a good sign. But that is probably not the case. Given his draconian efforts to harness the Church to his Communist designs, it seems unlikely that Xi would agree to choose among candidates provided by Rome. Only time, or the release of the text, will tell.

In the end, the Provisional Agreement may indicate a return to the Vatican’s failed Cold War “Ostpolitik” diplomacy of the 1960s, before Pope John Paul II changed it. That diplomacy failed from a want of realism about the evil of communism. It deeply harmed the Church in parts of Eastern Europe. The Vatican was not then, and is not now, a secular power capable of changing the behavior of Communist governments through diplomacy.

And yet, the Vatican is arguably the only authority in the world constituted precisely to address the root causes of totalitarian evil, just as Pope John Paul II did in the 1980s in cooperation with President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The Holy See’s role should be now, as it was then, to press for human rights and, especially, for religious freedom for all religious communities in China.

As for China’s Catholics, the Vatican should demand nothing less than libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to witness to its adherents, to the public, and to the regime its teachings on human dignity and the common good.

It is beyond dispute that the Chinese know what they are doing. The Vatican’s charism, on the other hand, is not diplomacy, but witness to the truth about God and man.

COLUMN BY

Thomas Farr

Thomas Farr is president of the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington D.C. He was founding director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom (1999-2003), and of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center (2011-18). He was an associate professor of the Practice of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service from 2007-2018.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. Copyright 2019 The Catholic Thing. All Rights Reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.