Don’t Say They Didn’t Warn You: Left Leaning Voices Question Democrats’ Anti-Gun Proposals, Fervor

/in , , , , , /by

If the 2020 Democrat presidential primary is any indication, that party’s base and donor class will accept nothing less from their nominee than commitments to sweeping gun control. And the contenders appear happy to accommodate them.

No one doubts that the political hard left is unified around the idea of gun control in principle. But some in that camp are expressing concern that the pathway to the presidency may not lie in promising to criminalize otherwise law-abiding gun owners and to seize firearms that were obtained lawfully and never misused by their owners.

Honesty, in other words, is not the best policy when it comes to infringements of the right to keep and bear arms.

Leftist political pundit and talk show host Bill Maher claims to be a reluctant firearm owner, but no one would mistake him for a Second Amendment advocate. “[T]he Second Amendment,” he has repeatedly said, “is bull-[expletive deleted].”

Nevertheless, he is among the seemingly dwindling number of those on the far left who still maintain some awareness that America is a big country and that its politics are not necessarily defined by its most “progressive” coastal enclaves.

Last Friday, Maher used a panel discussion on his cable show “Real Time” to caution fellow opponents of Donald Trump that many Americans like guns. “Lots of people do,” he said, “and their view is, ‘Yes, there is a violence problem with guns, but not me. And you’re going after me.’”

Referring to the Democrats’ gun control proposals, Maher continued: “And I’m just saying, some of their solutions, all of the solutions, I don’t know if it would solve the gun problem.”

Maher went on to remind his guests that “we’ve lost elections before on this issue, which is not a winning issue for Democrats.” He also said that “liberals should learn more about guns” and noted that primary contender Cory Booker – who recently invoked the Virginia Beach murders to argue for gun control – did not answer the questions of CNN’s Jake Tapper about how his own proposals would have prevented those crimes.

Maher’s advice, unsurprisingly, was not well received by his guests. Charles Blow, a writer for the New York Times, insisted that “journalists have to stop asking that horrible question.” Blow indicated that picking out one incident to focus on is unfair, given the broader scope of firearm-related deaths in America. “The framing of the question is wrong,” Blow lectured.

Blow might have had a valid point, but for the fact that Booker and his fellow candidates essentially demand these inquiries by constantly bringing up rare but infamous and highly-publicized mass murders that account for a tiny fraction of firearm-related deaths, most of which are suicides.

Commonplace firearm-related homicides, meanwhile, very often occur in cities with strict gun control and involve repeat offenders who ignore the laws already on the books and undoubtedly would do the same to any additional laws that were imposed.

To his credit, Maher himself seems to recognize this. “You really don’t think it’s that simple?” he asked Blow. “It’s complicated. If you did everything that the Democrats wanted – and I support all of that – I still think you would have this problem, because it’s much more complicated than just the guns … or the type of guns.”

Later, Jake Tapper would find himself fending off a social media mob incensed that he would ask an embarrassing, if obvious, question of a left-leaning politician who favors gun control. “Booker changed his speech in CA to talk about the Virginia Beach shootings and need for more gun laws,” Tapper tweeted the Sunday after the Maher piece aired. “Asking what laws would have prevented/mitigated the specific tragedy he wanted to discuss was a natural question and a sincere one too.”

Maher and Tapper are hardly the first on the left to recognize the conundrum of gun control advocates who exploit the victims of mass murders to promote their agenda without actually offering any responsive proposals.

Mark Glaze was a founding figure and executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire, Everytown for Gun Safety. Glaze stepped down from that position in 2014, telling the Wall Street Journal at the time: “Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

Later, Glaze would become an advisor to another gun control group, Guns Down America, which aims to “take down the NRA, ” “reduc[e] the number of guns in circulation,” and “[m]ake guns significantly harder to get … .”

Glaze, in other words, can at least take satisfaction in now being more honest about his intentions. It’s not a question of preventing unpreventable crimes. It’s simply a question of doing everything possible to get rid of guns and to silence those who advocate for the right to keep and bear arms.

The real problem for anti-gun Democrats and gun control advocates, however, isn’t how they package their message.

It’s that they want to take away the hard-won freedoms of a freedom-loving people.

And while their occasional moments of self-reflection may not be making much of a dent in the fanaticism the hard left has for gun control, voters who support the Second Amendment should pay close attention.

Because when the oversharing of the primary ends and the real presidential campaign begins, the eventual nominee may well heed Maher’s advice and take a much more moderate (and misleading) tone on guns.

Yet the Democrat hopefuls have by now expressed all that needs to be said to betray their true designs on your Second Amendment rights.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pittsburgh Mayor Presents DICK’S CEO an Award for Gun Control Advocacy

Advice Columnist Tells Father to Evict Daughter from His House for Owning a Gun

Bloomberg Course: Ineffective Policies and Non-Existent Technology

New Jersey “Smart Gun” Law Gets an F Grade

Obama Lies about Guns… Again

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

For those concerned about Leftism taking over in the church, this was a sad week.

/in , , , , /by

Judd Saul is the producer of the film Enemies Within the Church.

Judd wrote in an email:

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) voted to affirm Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality as analytical tools.

Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality are Leftist frameworks for dividing society.

From these theories come the terrible ideas you hear about on a daily basis:

  • Microaggressions
  • White privilege
  • Victimology
  • Identity politics

… The list doesn’t stop there:

  • Oppressors/oppressed
  • Rejecting “color-blindness” in judging people’s character
  • Institutionalized partiality
  • Race-based reparations

This week, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, made its first tepid resolution to allow the Devil’s foot in the door.

Though the wording included qualifications, the resolution nevertheless will be seen as a huge victory for the growing contingent of Leftists intent on re-writing the Bible and dressing up Cultural Marxism in a clerical collar.

The SBC endorsed the idea that these wicked postmodern theories can work within Christianity.

This is what we have been working to warn people about. We know you see it. It’s time to wake up our friends and our churches.

That’s why we’re creating the film Enemies Within the Church.

What the SBC did this week is just the tip of the iceberg. We are going to name the names. We are going to expose the bad actors.

We are going to tell the truth about where the America church went wrong, who sold out the church to postmodernism, and how the deed was done.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How socialism violates all Ten Commandments

Abortion, gay Christians and critical race theory: The statements Southern Baptists made at their annual meeting

Southern Baptist Convention To Officially Affirm Marxist Critical Theory as Viable | Reformation Charlotte

Why I Left the Southern Baptist Convention

UK: Muslim Conservative leader compares Boris Johnson to ‘Hitler’, vows to quit if he becomes PM

/in , , , , /by

Boris Johnson has been “compared to Adolf Hitler by a Muslim leader in the Conservative Party. Mohammed Amin blasted the Tory leadership frontrunner for not having the “basic morality and integrity” to be PM. And the Conservative Muslim Forum chairman vowed to quit the party after 36 years” if Mr Johnson becomes Prime Minister.

Islamic supremacists are obsessed with Hitler. Take the following instances:

  • In a Palestinian Authority TV sermon it was declared that “Hitler was sent by Allah to punish the Jews”
  • 4 Muslim men shouted to terrified Jewish teens in NYC recently:”Allah Akbar, do you know Hitler? We Love Hitler”
  • The President of the British Pakistani Youth Council came out in praises of Adolf Hitler killing Jews
  • Egyptian Researcher Mohamed Gad El-Zoghby said “We should erect a statue of Hitler for what he did to the Jews”
  • A CAIR official declared: “i wish hitler was alive to f*** up the jewish ppl and add more to the 6 million he killed”
  • In Canada, in the Greater Toronto Area, Scarborough-Agincourt New Democratic Party candidate Tasleem Riaz was caught praising Hitler online and openly shared pro-Nazi memes while accusing Canadian soldiers of war crimes.

Hitler is quite often exalted and praised for his evil against the Jews, after-all, it was the joint alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem–Mohammed Amin al-Husseini–and Hitler that created the Holocaust and despite it, there is still widespread Holocaust denial among jihadist leaders, including Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Yet, when there is opposition to Islamization, all of a sudden, certain Islamic supremacists deride Hitler in comparing their target to Hitler.

Boris Johnson was once threatened to be sent by his party to “diversity training” over face veil comments he made in which he refused to apologize for, amid loud shouts of “islamophobia”.  Johnson’s resistance to the Islamization of Britain has infuriated Islamic supremacists.  On the good news side, Amin has vowed to quit if Johnson becomes Prime Minister. Johnson has emerged as “‘the bookmakers’ favorite choice” to replace Theresa May in leading the UK, so if this happens, good riddance to Mr. Mohammed Amin.

“Boris Johnson compared to Adolf Hitler by Conservative Party Muslim chief”, by Dan Bloom, UK Mirror, June 14, 2019:

Boris Johnson was today compared to Adolf Hitler by a Muslim leader in the Conservative Party.

Mohammed Amin blasted the Tory leadership frontrunner for not having the “basic morality and integrity” to be PM.

And the Conservative Muslim Forum chairman vowed to quit the party after 36 years if Mr Johnson reaches No10.

The comments are a devastating attack on the favourite to be Prime Minister after he compared veil-wearing Muslim women to letterboxes and bank robbers.

Mr Johnson won 114 MPs’ backing yesterday , more than his three closest rivals combined, and polling shows he should win a final vote of 160,000 Tory members.

But told Mr Johnson was popular, Mr Amin told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There are many horrible people who have been popular.

“Popularity is not the test.

“The test is, ‘is this person sufficiently moral to be Prime Minister’. And I believe he fails that test.”

Told many Tory MPs say he’s the right man to sort out the country, Mr Amin replied: “A lot of Germans thought that Hitler was the right man for them.”

Told that was a shocking comparison he added: “Yes.

“I’m not saying Boris Johnson wants to send people to the gas chamber. Clearly he doesn’t, he’s a buffoon.

“But he as far as I’m concerned has insufficient concern about the nature of truth for me to ever be a member of a party that he leads.”

Mr Amin claimed Mr Johnson mocked Muslim women in his infamous “letterboxes” newspaper column for his own political purposes – knowing they’d be harassed on the street…..

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Europol report warns: “female jihadis are as ideologically motivated as their male counterparts”

Muslim migrant in Toronto: “Canada is a white supremacist, racist project. I don’t consider myself to be Canadian”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Trevor Loudon documentary on ANTIFA, a worthy use of one’s time

/in , , , , , /by

Published by Eeyore.

RELATED ARTICLES ON ANTIFA

The Humanitarian Hoax of Black-Only College Graduation Ceremonies: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , /by

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.

The humanitarian hoax of black-only college graduation ceremonies is a classic example of destruction disguised as altruism. Let’s examine how resegregation has become fashionable.

Martin Luther King Jr. was the icon of the civil rights movement in the United States from 1955 until his assassination in 1968. Dr. King advocated nonviolence and civil disobedience similar to Gandi’s nonviolent activism. At the legendary 1963 March on Washington Dr. King delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech which exhorted Americans to judge each other by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. His impassioned speech facilitated the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, is considered the most comprehensive civil rights legislation since Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that abolished slavery in 1865. What happened?

The 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were legislative remedies designed to achieve the Constitutional principle that all men are created equal. Black Americans, white Americans, brown Americans, red Americans, and yellow Americans – one united American family indivisible by color. Being American is the foundation and common denominator of equality.

In a shocking 5.16.19 article written by Drew Van Voorhis, he reports the findings of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) study of Neo-Segregation, the voluntary racial segregation of students. WHAT??

Neo-Segregation is the consequence of social scientists eliminating the merit system in favor of racial quotas. Racial quotas in the 60s resulted in elite universities like Yale, admitting under-qualified minority students who were doomed to fail. Over a third of the students dropped out, and those who remained were bitter and angry.

It is important to remember that had an equal number of under-qualified white students been admitted they would have suffered the same failure rate. This was always a qualification issue and not a racial issue even though it was race-based.

Instead of learning from the failure rates and emotional misery that failure inevitable brings, the social scientists doubled down and provided remedial classes for under-qualified students in another ill-advised attempt to level the playing field.

The result, according to the NAS study, was that students turned to each other for emotional support and found inspiration in black nationalism. Radical and militant black groups on campus offered a new separatist ethic that rejected integration in favor of identity politics.

The NAS report states:

“On campus after campus, black separatists won concessions from administrators who were afraid of further alienating blacks. The pattern of college administrators rolling over to black separatists demands came to dominate much of American higher education. The old integrationist ideal has been sacrificed almost entirely. Instead of offering opportunities for students to mix freely with students of dissimilar backgrounds, colleges promote ethnic enclaves, stoke racial resentment, and build organizational structures on the basis of group grievance.”

More that 76 of the 173 universities studied by the National Association of Scholars, a whopping 44%, host black-only graduation ceremonies. Even Harvard University hosted its first black-only graduation ceremony in 2017.

What would possess university administrators to surrender to black separatists demands and implement black-only study lounges, black-only clubs, black-only housing, black-only classes, black-only scholarships, black-only student associations, and black-only graduation ceremonies? Why has segregation become desirable again?

If you want to know the motive look at the result. Race based distinctions foment racial divisiveness and are antithetical to racial harmony. Leftism preaches unity but its policies foment racial tension. Can anyone imagine if these same universities held white-only graduation ceremonies or had white-only study lounges and housing?

Reverse discrimination is the wrong answer to the right problem, and is as egregious as the original discrimination. Harvard disingenuously describes its segregated graduation ceremony in lofty terms as being, “designed to celebrate their unique struggles and achievements at the elite institution that has been grappling with its historical ties to slavery.” REALLY?

If the nation’s goal is racial inclusion and harmony, then graduation ceremonies would be expected to celebrate the shared value of student achievement regardless of the color of their skin. Graduations would honor white students, black students, Asian students, Indian students, and Latino students experiencing student life together. It would recognize the social value of studying together, and the commonality of learning together, achieving together, and graduating together.

Young children on playgrounds naturally fulfill Martin Luther King’s dream effortlessly because they naturally focus on character and not on race. Students at leftist colleges unnaturally focus on race instead of character. What happened?

Why did resegregation become fashionable? Because the left realized that racism is a useful and powerful political tool to create divisiveness and social chaos in America.

Race-based policies are not only an admissions debacle, they are a threat to the productivity of America. Lowering academic standards and course requirements collapses the integrity of universities and results in many useless degrees. Caps and gowns become costumes of competence that do not reflect actual competence.

Under-qualified students who cannot compete in the classroom cannot compete in the workplace either. This creates more anger, bitterness and simultaneously makes America less productive. It is the merit system that drives the engine of a fair, successful, competent, independent, productive America. In the real world, competence is the mother of self-esteem.

It is the acquisition of skills and competence that actually make students proud of themselves – not the social engineering of leftist sociologists disingenuously insisting that performance, achievement, and merit are oppressive constructs of the white man. The blame game is a destructive, regressive, and deceitful strategy calculated to foment racial discord because the leftist leadership understands that anger fuels the revolution.

Social chaos is the prerequisite for seismic social change. The regressive left is inciting divisiveness, discord, and violence to make America ungovernable in its quest to make America socialist. Leftism has a lot of help these days from Islamists and globalists who have common cause to join the “resistance” and destroy America from within.

Neo-Segregation is a deliberate and alarming return to the fractious, divisive, hateful, era of racial conflict before Martin Luther King.

The racism and black separatism that has torn college campuses apart is now embraced by New York public schools K-12.

Consider the “white-supremacy culture” training program for school administrators being promoted by New York City Department of Education and Schools, Chancellor Richard Carranza. His shockingly racist slide show presentation is derived from “Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups” by Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun.

These are the dirty dozen hallmarks of “white-supremacy culture” that school administrators are directed to avoid:

1. Perfectionism
2. Sense of Urgency
3. Defensiveness
4. Quantity over Quality
5. Worship of the Written Word
6. Only one right way
7. Paternalism
8. Either/or thinking
9. Power Hoarding
10. Fear of Open Conflict
11. Individualism
12. Progress is Bigger, More
13. Objectivit
14. Right to Comfort

Chancellor Carranza’s openly race-based perspective is explosive. His 14-point mandatory training program assumes “implicit bias” and “white privilege.” His directive creates reverse discrimination and a doctrine of “toxic whiteness.” Instead of embracing Martin Luther King, Chancellor Carranza has chosen civil rights activist Malcolm X to emulate. Malcolm X, a black separatist and supremacist, advocated against racial integration. Instead of supporting an American family of equality, integration, and equal opportunity, Malcolm X indicted the white community and blamed “whitey” for the failures in the black community.

In a letter addressed to Dr. King on July 31, 1963, Malcolm X describes the power of racial tensions saying, “A racial explosion is more destructive than a nuclear explosion.” Malcolm X, minister of Muhammad’s New York Mosque at the time, sarcastically acknowledged the “minor” differences between his own approach and that of Dr. King.

Failed university policies of racial divisiveness are being repeated in New York schools by Chancellor Carranza, and are supported by his leftist boss Mayor Bill de Blasio. De Blasio, a radical socialist/communist, understands the long game of social chaos that racial divisiveness necessarily generates.

Race-based policies will fail in K-12 just as they failed in universities. Instead of Dr. King’s dream of harmony and respect, Carranza’s racial policies encourage the nightmare of racial divisiveness and anarchy.

America is based on equal opportunity – not equal outcome. Competence is the mother of self-esteem. If administrators want to develop students who become citizens with self-esteem, they must abandon the failed strategy of artificially leveling the playing field and insist upon equal opportunity for all students white, black, brown, or yellow. Only then will America reunite and judge each other by the content of character and not the color of our skin.

Resegregation is not a humanitarian effort that respects the black experience. It is a sinister exploitation of black students that fuels their anger and makes them useful to the revolution. Social chaos is the prelude to tyranny. The humanitarian hoax of black-only college graduations is the deeply dividing intentional fomenting of racism designed to tear America apart and make it ungovernable.

Esegregation is the humanitarian hoax designed to ignite racial tensions that will trigger the nuclear explosion of anarchy that Malcolm X predicted. Anarchy is the leftist strategy for seismic social change designed to make America socialist – the necessary precursor to one world government. Game over.

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

VIDEO: Based on Crime Rates, Pro-2A Advocates Should Control the Narrative

/in , , , , , /by

Anti-gun advocates have claimed that the gun-rights lobby has been running rough-shod over our nation’s gun laws for thirty years. Interestingly enough, though, in those thirty years, gun crime has been on the decline.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mike Weisman: State Senator Smugly Calls for Confiscation

Amy Swearer: Why Gun Control Is Wrong Response to Tragic Virginia Shooting

Anthony Colandro: New Jersey Set To Clamp Down Even More on the 2A

Gun Free Zone Claims Another Victim

Trump’s Coming Blowout Kickoff in Orlando

/in , , , , /by

There’s still something going on with the Trump presidency that is lost on pollsters, the media and Democrats: The white-hot support of his base, which is definitely larger and perhaps hotter than in 2016.

This is demonstrated in rally after rally he holds, which all the talking heads told us was going to peter out. My gosh these people are wrong a lot. Consider what is happening in the lead up to Trump’s official campaign 2020 kickoff next week in Orlando.

The President tweeted Wednesday:

“Wow! Just got word that our June 18th, Tuesday, ANNOUNCEMENT in Orlando, Florida, already has 74,000 requests for a 20,000 seat Arena. With all of the big events that we have done, this ticket looks to be the ‘hottest’ of them all. See you in Florida!”

These numbers will overwhelm the Amway Center’s capacity of 20,000 for an NCAA basketball crowd maximum. Center stage concerts hold 19,700 while end-stage concerts hold about 16,000. Of course Trump frequently draws more than his venues can hold. He also did this as a candidate in the primaries. Are any Democrats anywhere near this? No. Polls do not capture this.

Orange County GOP Chair Charles Hart told the Orlando Sentinel that the extraordinary request-to-availability ratio for tickets to the kickoff is “epic even for his rallies…This is a phenomenally hot ticket.”

The campaign will likely set up outdoor screens for people to watch it live with others even if they cannot get inside Amway.

If the venue held 150,000 (and there is not such a thing) it’s possible Trump could fill it in Florida. Republican clubs from The Villages, Sarasota, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami and other Florida areas have chartered buses to take people to the event.

But here’s the deal. A lot more Republicans would go if they thought they could get in. Most are aware that the Amway Center is overwhelmed and have decided not to go to Orlando because their chances of getting in are minimal. Anecdotally, I was in a group where several said they were planning to go until they realized they probably could not get in. It’s a lot to go through just to stand outside and watch it on large screens.

And yet tens of thousands will likely do just that — knowing that is what they will be relegated to.

That displays a level of support you don’t see in any other candidates, or really in any candidates in recent memory. Obama at his peak did not come close to swamping major venues. And he was going to be the one to lower the seas!

In addition, it shows the level of organization now in the Florida Republican Party. The Party was split organizationally and financially between Rick Scott forces and the statewide party during Scott’s governorship. But that is all united now under Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida GOP Chair Joe Gruters. DeSantis and Gruters were both early and strong supporters of Trump.

The simple reality is that the state is more unified and organized than it was in 2016.

And that shows in events such as Trump’s kickoff. The President picked Florida because of course it is the largest swing state and critical to victory. But also because the Party is healthier, and no state has a stronger economy right now.

These are positive trends you will not see reported in the mainstream media or typically reflected in these broad national polls. But they can make all the difference in 2020.

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

VIDEOS: Black Pigeon Speaks on the State of Things on YouTube

/in , , , , , /by

BY Eeyore

There is also D tube, where a lot of our videos are now being uploaded.

Once the migration to Bitchute hits a point where it is also a threat to the tyrants and crony-capitalists, they will implement DNS poisoning like they have in Australia so people cannot see Bitchute without a VPN, or learning how to change DNS.

D Tube, and whatever the people at bit.tube are cooking up, is a genuinely distributed system and its an excellent alternative to single server platforms which seem to be vulnerable in a lot of ways, to the new crop of tyrants.

(I know nothing about PJW’s new platform, but I would go with D Tube, Bitchute, Bit.tube and Jordan Peterson’s new venue when it launches. These have track records and the technology will defeat censorship for now.)

RELATED ARTICLE: Social Media Drops The Hammer On Conservatives Crowder, Rose, Beck

VIDEO: The Vortex — ‘Corrupt Mafia’

/in , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

Archbishop Viganò has come right out and said that a corrupt mafia is running the Church.

That was just one in a string of nuclear charges he set off in his recent interview with The Washington Post.

The full interview is well worth the read, hands down. But we would like to concentrate this Vortex on one specific area the archbishop zeroed in on: the failure of the media to fully expose all this current evil.

Here is what he said in response to a question about  how he thinks the media have done so far investigating all this: “With few exceptions, and those belonging to peripheral organs, the media have failed to tackle the ‘crime behind the crime’ and put the obvious questions to the obvious people.”

He went on to say, “Journalists should be digging for the facts, interviewing the victims, following the money and promotion trails, and uncovering the corrupt networks.”

When I read those words, I was deeply moved. First of all, Church Militant, in comparison to giant secular media outlets — as well as those supported and promoted by a corrupt hierarchy — Church Militant is a peripheral organ.

A few million people each month consume our content, but that is far less than the hundreds of millions who see and read the leftist propaganda of the mainstream media, as well as the public relations machine of the Catholic establishment media.

I’m going to put this question right out there, as a man who has been a professional journalist my entire life, with very minor exceptions, is there another entity in the Catholic media world who has done what Archbishop Viganò says needs to be done more than Church Militant?

I was deeply moved because here, from the shadows from his hiding place, was a complete and total vindication of all that we do here from the very man who sees everything going on in the Church.

And not just vindication for reporting for the last year, but for what we have been reporting for nearly 10 years now and have been crucified for by multiple bishops and their staffs and their sycophants, that the institutions of the Church are controlled by a corrupt mafia fueled by a homosexual current.

We have been shouting that from the rooftops since Obama went to Notre Dame in 2009.

We said in multiple reports from Rome and the Vatican, from all over the United States in dozens and dozens of talks, in hundreds of Vortex episodes, in scores of various investigations we have done over the years.

We don’t care about being pilloried for reporting facts. We have a very thick skin.

What we care about is that the motivation behind the attacks, even from fellow Catholics in the establishment media, has been to keep the truth from being revealed. Sorry, but we don’t play that.

As Viganò himself said in his original testimony last August, we have to stand before Almighty God when we die and give an account of what we have done, but also what we have not done.

That goes for every one of us, including current influencers in the Catholic establishment media. Why do establishment so-called “reporters” get interviews with the various bishops? The answer is obvious.

The bishops know they will never get a hard question, a probing question, a follow-up question that lays bare a lie.

Can you imagine Donald Wuerl or Blase Cupich or Joseph Tobin sitting down for an interview with Church Militant? The entire agenda would be exposed instantly, and they know it.

Heck, James Marin would not even agree to a debate with us, which we have extended multiple times. Three times he told Fox News he would not appear on air with me when producers proposed it.

Church Militant will never back off telling truth, no matter how many people don’t like the style, no matter how much filth is revealed. What is being covered up is resulting in death — death of the body and the soul.

Homosexual priests, active in their mortal sin, are being kept in active ministry all over the country.

Your children and grandchildren are being exposed to these letches, these devils and the prelates who protect them. This death grip of evil, which has driven a good archbishop into hiding for fear of his life, this death grip which is destroying souls must be exposed and defeated.

What Viganò says is true. Every single point he has put forward has been proven true.

And among the “peripheral” media organs, Church Militant is devoted to the investigations, asking the hard questions, following the money trail, getting our hands on the document.

The Faith is being twisted and perverted, and any Catholic who has a hope to attain eternal life had better step up right now at this time and place in history.

Let the consequences be damned — which is eternally preferable to being damned ourselves.

Thank you, Archbishop Viganò.

Cato and St. Paul

/in , , , , /by

Note: Many people think that the Church in America is in crisis because of sexual abuse by priests and bishops going back decades. That’s true, but after the bishops’ meeting in Baltimore this week, at least beginning to be resolved. A deeper and perhaps more long-lasting crisis is the Church’s weakness in proclaiming Catholic faith and morals in a hostile world, as David Carlin explains today. Sinners we will always have with us, but the failure of courage and faithfulness and holiness ultimately does far more damage everywhere, inside and outside the Church. Speaking truth is one our primary missions at this site and we’re not shy about doing so. But we also need support – spiritual, social, and financial – from you if this mission is to continue. I’d like to wrap up this campaign but that depends on our receiving the resources we need. Please, if you are a faithful reader, do your part in making sure that not only TCT but the Catholic thing that has shaped our whole civilization remains present in a world sorely in need of what we can give. – Robert Royal

David Carlin: Modernist Catholicism is tainted by the very widespread reluctance to denounce homosexuality as the Church traditionally has.

We all remember the ancient Roman Cato the Elder and how he was in the habit of concluding every speech he made in the Roman Senate, regardless of the subject matter, with the words, “Carthage, it seems to me, must be destroyed.”

Well, it seems to me that every Catholic priest in America should end every homily he gives, regardless of the subject matter, with the words, “Our Catholic religion regards homosexual behavior as a great sin, and has always regarded it as a great sin since the time of the Apostles.” (You might even say, “Since the Jews gave us the law of Moses.”)

Why do I make this suggestion?  Because in the United States, Catholics are on the verge of forgetting this ancient moral truth.  Increasingly, the average Catholic feels that homosexual conduct is at worst a minor sin or perhaps no sin at all.

Consider some of the evidence.

1. Although nobody is quite sure how widespread homosexual practice is among our clergy, almost everybody agrees that it is far more common than it is among the general population.

2. Rare is the priestly sermon denouncing homosexual practice. I myself, an old man, have heard homosexuality mentioned only once in a sermon; and in that case, not to remind the congregation of the Catholic teaching, but to remind us to treat gays and lesbians with respect (okay, so far as that goes).

3. The likelihood is great that a priest who gives a sermon of denunciation would annoy, or even infuriate, some parishioners. A few years ago, I remember, at a Catholic school not many miles from where I live, a priest got in trouble with parents for telling students that homosexual practice is a great sin.

4. There is a widespread feeling among Catholics that the expression of disapproval of homosexual behavior is un-charitable, hence un-Christian; for such expressions cause pain to gays and lesbians and their atheistic fellow travelers.

5. Among students attending Catholic colleges (many of these colleges today no more than nominally Catholic), it is not easy to find a student who disapproves of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

6. Though Church leaders have been willing to acknowledge that priests and even some bishops have been guilty of sexually molesting minors, they have generally been reluctant to acknowledge that homosexuality has been at the root of about 80 percent of that abuse.

7. Church leaders, while pledging to put a stop to clerical sexual abuse, not just of minors but of “vulnerable” adults (this latter category including adult men well into their twenties), have not pledged to purge the priesthood of its homosexual members. Who can be surprised if many Catholics have come to feel that the official attitude is: We don’t mind if a priest is homosexual provided he doesn’t “abuse” anybody, especially kids.

8. The pro-LGBT book written by the well-known Jesuit, Fr. James Martin, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity, has been a best-seller among liberal Catholics.

9. Martin’s book has received favorable reviews from such Church luminaries as Cardinal Kevin Farrell (a high-ranking Vatican official), Cardinal Joseph Tobin (archbishop of Newark), Bishop Robert McElroy (of San Diego), and Archbishop Wilton Gregory (of Washington D.C.).

10. There is the appalling history of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was allowed to rise to the College of Cardinals despite many high-placed clerics, including bishops, knowing of his homosexual proclivities.

The Catholic Church in the United States, I contend, is on the verge of forgetting that homosexual sodomy is an atrocious sin. That’s how St. Paul (remember him?) evaluated it in the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans.  And that’s how the Catholic religion has evaluated it for the subsequent twenty centuries.

But today’s conventional moral wisdom – a secularist wisdom, be it noted, indeed an atheistic wisdom – tells us that Paul was homophobic, and tells us too that the Catholic religion he did so much to shape has always been a homophobic religion.  In other words, if Catholicism strongly disapproves of homosexuality, it is not because God has revealed his strong disapproval of homosexuality (e.g., in Mosaic law); it is because we Catholics are haters.

And therefore (we are told by the fashionable moral arbiters of our day), our religion contradicts itself; for while proclaiming that love is the greatest of all virtues, Catholicism encourages the practice of hate against LGBTQ persons.

It is not surprising that most American Catholics are more American than they are Catholic.  That was not terribly alarming when America was a predominantly Protestant country.  But that is no longer the case.  America’s opinion leaders, including those who are opinion leaders on questions of morality, are now persons who are atheist or near-atheist in their beliefs and values.  Today, unlike in the days prior to the 1960s, the decade in which Protestant cultural hegemony in America went into decline, if you’re a Catholic who is more American than Catholic, you are strongly tinged with atheism.

What do I mean by persons who are “near-atheist”? I mean persons who feel a kind of gravitational pull toward atheism.  They find modern-day atheism (which ordinarily sails under the flag of “secular humanism” or “progressivism”) attractive, but they are not quite willing to go all the way, at least not yet.

These near-atheists fall into three categories: (1) agnostics, who are virtual atheists; (2) liberal Protestants, who are virtual agnostics; and (3) liberal Catholics, who are virtual liberal Protestants.

American Catholicism has been significantly tainted with this atheism and near-atheism, and nowhere is this taint more obvious that in the very widespread Catholic reluctance to denounce homosexuality the way St. Paul was in the habit of denouncing it – a reluctance found among both laity and clergy, even among bishops.

Are we modern Catholics wiser than Paul?  Do we understand the nature of Christian morality better than he did?  Are we afraid to say what Paul said?

COLUMN  BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 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.

FLORIDA 3-YEARS AGO: Jihad at the Pulse Nightclub and what preceded it! [Videos]

/in , , , , /by

JIHAD AT THE PULSE NIGHT CLUB, ORLANDO, FL – June 12, 2016

Through The United West’s Research and Investigations… we look back and see 2 very disturbing events that took place around Florida in the prior months leading up to the Jihad attack.  Promoting Jihad and Sharia!  And to clarify… Jihad is NOT a “personal struggle”as is always presented to non-believers (Kafirs).  And Sharia is NOT the superior law to enforce, it is barbaric!

For the Kifir to understand Jihad and Sharia, read their authoritative documentation. One that is approved by Islamic Scholars from Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, Reliance of the Traveller.  It documents the REQUIRED practice of Sharia, and defines Jihad (pg 599 – 605), a requirement of all who follow Islam.

Now on to that Timeline…  Take a look at these events:

April 6, 2016 – JIHAD AGAINST GAYS

Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque – WFTV 9 Orlando Report

The United West attended this event at the Husseini Islamic Center, 5211 Hester Ave, Sanford, FL 32773.  The Husseini IC invited Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar to speak at their Mosque and Dr. Sekaleshfar says the killing of homosexuals is the compassionate thing to do.   Watch this 3 min video.

May 24, 2016 – SHARIA SUPERIOR TO CONSTITUTION

Florida Muslim Professor Defends ISIS Chopping off Hands!

The United West attended this event at the campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, FL.

The university’s Muslim Student Association’s hosted a so-called Islamophobia panel discussion. FAU Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Associate Professor Bassem Al Halabi was included on the panel of these distinguished experts and he made the incredible statement about the case to be made for Sharia Law and it’s provisions of capital punishment, including the cutting off of hands. Watch this 3 min video.

Tom Trento Exclusive – Just After The Attack:

June 12, 2016 –  Florida Democrat Senator ‘Cannot Tell With Certainty’ Orlando Shooting Was Jihad.

Then Senator Bill Nelson of Florida reiterated to reporters in front of Orlando’s Pulse nightclub Sunday night that the shooter responsible for the deadliest mass murder in American history at that club Sunday morning was a “lone wolf,” and he could not confirm “with certainty” that Islamic jihadist ideology led the shooter to perform his crime.

“It’s hard to be 100 percent when you are dealing with a lone wolf,” Senator Nelson told reporters before being approached by Tom Trento of the United West, who asked the Senator plainly whether “the ideology of Islamic jihad” drove Omar Saddiqui Mateen to attack the club during LGBT pride month.

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN FLORIDA?

The 2 events presented to the general public that Sharia is good, along with Islamic examples why… AND, statements made that Gays MUST be killed!  AND nowhere was it referenced that these are only the “extreme actions” of Islam.  Kafirs are continuously told that Islam isn’t violent!  These events were public, think about the private events where Conservatives have  been refused entrance. As well as inside Mosques and Islamic Centers.

Did either of these 2 events have an influence on Omar Mateen?  Maybe not directly, but remember these events are prime examples of what Omar Mateen was taught his entire life!   And the results speak for themselves… the Jihad attack on the Pulse Nightclub!

Florida is NOT the only state holding events like these, just one of many that are allowing Islam to continue to threaten and act on the requirements of Sharia and specifically, Jihad!

BREAKING VIDEO: Pinterest Insider Speaks

/in , , , , , /by

He exposed one of the biggest tech giants in Silicon Valley.

He risked his career to show you censorship of Christians, conservatives, and pro-life groups.

And now — he’s speaking out.

Meet Eric Cochran.  He’s a pro-life activist and a twenty-five year old software engineer in San Francisco.

Last night Eric went on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Show to share Pinterest’s censorship tactics with the world.  Now, he’s sharing his story with Veritas and he’s inspiring more like him to come forward.

“You can do anything.  Willpower is indomitable.  You take that first step then people have your back.  Come to Project Veritas for sure . . . the tech companies can’t fight us all.” 

If you would like support this courageous young man, you can contribute to his GoFundMe Account HERE.

If you work on the inside of tech, education, media or government — you can reach out to Project Veritas HERE.

Be Brave!

RELATED ARTICLE: Texas Town Outlaws Abortion, Declares Sanctuary City for the Unborn

Cuba Implements Food Rationing as Its Economy Enters Crisis Mode

/in , , , , , /by

While it is fashionable to talk about Venezuela and its notorious shortage of basic goods such as toilet paper, flour, and milk, Cuba is now implementing a rationing program to combat its very own shortages of basic goods. A CBC report indicates this program would cover basic items such as chicken, eggs, rice, beans, and soap.

What has caused these shortages has been a subject of debate. Cuban Minister of Commerce Betsy Diaz Velazquez blames the Trump administration’s stiffening of the trade embargo with the island nation. Others contend that decreasing aid from Venezuela has contributed to Cuba’s newly emerging rationing dilemma. Over the past few years, Venezuela has provided Cuba with subsidized fuel and other forms of aid in order to keep its basic infrastructure intact.

Although these explanations do have validity and will be touched upon later, there is another factor that is not being considered. The lowest common denominator in the Cuban economy during the past five decades is excessive government control.

When Fidel Castro took control of Cuba in 1959, the Cuban state maintained an iron grip on the economy. For decades, the country has been a communist garrison state with very little respect for property rights and civil liberties such as free speech. More than 140,000 Cubans perished under the Castro regime, according to certain estimates, while millions of Cubans fled to the United States to start a new life.

During this timespan, economic stability was never really an option in Cuba. Because of the economic dislocations caused by state control of many industries, the government has had to provide citizens with Libretas de Abastecimiento (supply booklets) to ration out basic goods like rice, sugar, and matches. This system was established in 1962 in response to the economic sanctions the American government placed on Cuba which caused shortages of food, medicines, and supplies. From a free-market perspective, these sanctions should be condemned. They not only infringe on the rights of Americans who wish to do commerce and travel to Cuba, but they also do very little to topple tyrannical regimes.

But in the case of Cuba’s economic problems, there is a reason to believe they go beyond America’s embargo on the country. Jose Alvarez of the University of Florida does initially concede that “Cuba was forced to establish a rationing system for basic food and industrial products. This has brought serious limitations to consumers and their choice availability” after the initial blockade by the U.S. government.

However, Alvarez adds that solely pinning the blame on sanctions is misguided:

To blame US economic sanctions for the existence of a rationing system of basic food products is not a very sound argument to justify Cuba’s socialist system. It is an admission that Cubans cannot even produce what grows very easily on Cuban soil. If one lists the food products that have been rationed since 1962, it becomes evident that almost all of them were in abundance before the 1959 revolution and were produced domestically.

Alvarez also notes that even with the Soviet Union effectively serving as Cuba’s sugar daddy, the country still had to ration goods and services:

It is interesting to recall that, when the Soviet bloc was subsidizing the Cuban economy to the tune of five billion dollars per year, food was still rationed in Cuba.

U.S. sanctions on Cuba have generally allowed exemptions for humanitarian aid and basic products. The Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 permitted the sale of certain foods and medicine, albeit to a limited extent. Even with sanctions in place, Cubans have found ways to bring goods to the market, but the Cuban state has remained an obstacle.

This was most clear during Cuba’s Special Period when the country could no longer rely on Soviet Union aid to prop it up. The country began to open up its markets to a limited degree by trading with other countries and making lukewarm attempts towards privatization. However, the government still stood in the way of allowing Cuba to have a functioning market, which Alvarez also points out:

Granted, some Cubans have been unable to consume a wide variety of food products because of the high prices under the rationing system, but there have been periods in which the abundance of several products have demonstrated the feasibility of returning to a stable and ample food supply. Examples include the proliferation of FrutiCuba (a chain of government stores) which was devoted exclusively to selling fruits and vegetables in the mid-1960s, free farmers’ markets in the 1980s, the free agricultural markets after 1994, and the new food outlets. These testify to the ability of Cuban farmers to produce abundant food supplies despite US economic sanctions, that could do away with the food rationing system.

The embargo on Cuba only affects current trade relations with America and the island nation. Cuba can still trade with other countries to acquire some of the rationed products. Indeed, Cuba does have a track record of not making debt payments. And when it’s no longer receiving aid from Moscow or Caracas, Cuba’s economic flaws stick out like a sore thumb, which generally makes it an unattractive trading partner.

Cuba’s recent political behavior indicates that the country’s leadership still does not get basic economics. In the midst of Hurricanes Gustave and Ike in 2008, the Cuban government responded with price controls. On top of the damage that the hurricanes dealt with Cuba, these price controls created even larger shortages than expected according to Reuters.

But Cuba’s price control forays did not end there. According to Agencia EFE, Cuba enacted price controls in May 2016 with the aim of increasing the stockpile and sale of highly demanded agricultural products.

Food staples such as plantains, beans, and mangos were covered under these price ceilings. Basic economics demonstrates that price controls cause shortages. When a price ceiling below the market rate is imposed, artificial demand ensues. In turn, suppliers, who look at the government-imposed price, act accordingly by not supplying as many goods to the market, which often causes shortages.Based on its most recent actions, it’s clear that price controls are in the Cuban state’s toolbox of economic tricks and likely won’t be going away anytime soon. The Cuban people will continue to suffer as a result.

The Cuban’s regime despotism is well-documented and merits private condemnation. However, this does not mean that top-down regime change nor sanctions are the best means of getting Cuba on the path towards markets.

Although Cuba’s economic ills are largely self-inflicted, U.S. sanctions aren’t making things better. There are some caveats to consider. Broad-based sanctions like the ones the U.S. has imposed on Cuba provide the regime political cover. They can now scapegoat the U.S. government for all of its problems. Ryan McMaken notes in an article dealing with Venezuela, that non-interventionism, both in terms of military action and economic sanctions, is the best approach to take for enhancing freedom. The same logic applies to Cuba. More meddling will embolden radicals within the regime and give them another boogieman to scapegoat.

When sanctions are taken out of the equation, it becomes clear to the populace and reform-minded figures within the government that their economic malaise is home-brewed. Even China, which featured one of the most heinous cases of democide under Communism, made a decent transition to a nominally capitalist economy in the 1980s under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. However, this would have never started if it wasn’t for Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, which normalized trade and diplomatic relations between the two nations.

America can have a role to play in Cuba’s economic revival, but it will do so by removing sanctions. This will remove any doubt as to whether it’s the U.S.’s punitive economic policies that are making the island nation more impoverished. Getting rid of this confounding variable is key for the country to move forward. More punitive measures, like the “highest level” sanctions that Trump promised to impose on Cuba in April, will reduce the influence of reform-minded individuals within the regime. It’s simply too easy for demagogic leaders to turn to radicals within a government who are eager to scapegoat foreign countries and stoke up the nationalistic sentiment against America.

However, the ball is still in Cuba’s court. After more than 50 years of embracing socialist governance, Cuba will have to learn that it needs to stick to the basic economic principles if it wants to break free from its long-standing cycle of poverty.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Mises Institute.

COLUMN BY

José Niño

José Niño is a Venezuelan-American freelance writer.

  • Sign up for his mailing list here.
  • Contact him via Facebook, Twitter, or email him here.
  • Get his eBook The 10 Myths of Gun Control here.
  • Get his eBook How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mass Homelessness Exposes California’s Political Dysfunction

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

VIDEO: Walls Work – and We Can Prove It!

/in , , , , , , , /by

I recently returned from our trip to Israel to see first-hand what walls can do to keep a country safe from war, invasion and worse.

What I saw was amazing.

Our Israeli hosts took us on a tour of their wall in the south that separates the Gaza Strip from Israel – a wall that has cut terrorists from crossing the border to kill Israeli farmers, families, and government officials by an astounding 99.9%.

I’ve posted a short video on our YouTube channel of our visit to the Gaza Wall – the kind of wall we need on our own border with Mexico to get our illegal immigration crisis under control.

As you may know, Hamas terrorists who control Gaza have been financed and armed by the radical Imams who run Iran – the same Imams who chant “Death to America” as a national motto.

In the north, my team and I went right up to Israel’s border with Lebanon where Hezbollah – also financed by Iran – has launched attacks and rockets into Israel’s interior. Thanks to Israel’s comprehensive border security systems, including the highly effective Iron Dome, these attacks that have been reduced to nearly zero.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah keeps digging attack tunnels under the border and Israel keeps finding and destroying these subterranean roadways into northern Israel communities. Through the direction of Iran, Hezbollah has exported their tunnel technology into Mexico and work with the drug cartels to tunnel into the United States!

This is not acceptable!

And now that the international community led by President Donald Trump has officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved our Embassy there, walls and strict control of border crossing points has shut down efforts by homicide bombers from inflicting terror on civilian populations.

WARNING: The dangers of ‘negative identification’ and the tyranny of blaming others for what you are doing

/in , , , , , , , /by

I came across a very insightful clip of Jamie Glazov speaking about “negative identification.” Please watch:

I found this clip profound in that it explains the sadistic nature we are seeing played out today globally. Rape, incest, sodomy, hate, lies, torture and murder are headline news every day.

In my column Democratic Party Candidates for President Are Promoting the Seven Deadly Sins I noted:

As the Democratic field of candidates for president expands we are beginning to see what policies they are promoting. As we read their public statements of things that they promise they will do if elected it brought to mind that they fit into neat categories. These categories are the the Seven Deadly Sins.

The Seven Deadly Sins are: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Laziness, Wrath, Envy and Pride. Each of these can lead to a state of self negative identification.

Another outcome of those who embrace one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins is “projection.’ Projection is, “a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.”

What we are seeing is words thrown about at the highest level of our government and lowest parts of our street culture that blame others for what one actually does. Whites calling other whites “supremacist”, blacks calling other black “Uncle Tom” because they hold conservative political views and socialists calling others Nazis, when in fact the Nazis were socialists.

As I have written these Seven Deadly Sins have now become public policy, at least in one political party in the United States. Here’s the list:

  • Lust – to have an intense desire or need. Each of the candidates for president has a lust for power over the masses. This lust for power (big government) is demonstrated by the turn of Democrats toward “Democratic Socialism.” In a 1989 television interview Senator Bernie Sanders described himself as a “socialist.” As the author of ‘From a “Race of Masters” to a “Master Race”: 1948 to 1848‘ A.E. Samaan wrote “Democratic Socialism devolves into totalitarian Socialism and eventually into full on Communism as people resist statism.”
  • Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking. Democrats work hard to portray the Republican Party, and President Trump, who support the free market system as gluttony. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said in 2015, “Let me say a word about that. You are looking at a candidate who does not represent the agenda of corporate America. Who does not represent the agenda of the billionaire class.” According to Celebrity Net Worth, as of 2017, Sanders is worth an estimated $2 million. According to Business Insider, “Sanders reportedly owns three homes, including a four-bedroom house in Chittenden County, Vermont, that he bought with his wife, Jane, for $405,000 in 2009.” Senator Sanders is considered one of the poorest of those running for president. For example, according to News Week Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, “O’Rourke had a net worth of about $9 million in 2015…O’Rourke also married into wealth. The woman he married in 2005, Amy Hoover Sanders, is the daughter of real estate tycoon William Sanders, whom The New York Times called a billionaire, but his net worth was closer to $500 million, Forbes estimated in November [2018].”
  • Greed – excessive or reprehensible passion in acquiring money or material things. See Gluttony.
  • Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous. Democrats support two policies that promote laziness. The first is the $15 minimum wage ($15 Now). Raising the minimum wage without merit promotes laziness. Why work harder when a Democratic Party controlled government is going to raise every ones hourly salary anyway? The second is promising a job to everyone. Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., released a plan that would create a pilot job guarantee programs in 15 communities where unemployment is particularly high. NPR reports, “Proposals like a job guarantee, Medicare for all and tuition-free college have moved from the policy fringe on the left toward the mainstream in the Democratic Party, embraced by some of those interested in challenging Trump as the party tries to give voters a clear, memorable outline of what Democrats stand for.” Getting something for nothing is the definition of laziness.
  • Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation. Anger, indignation and hate permeates the Democratic candidates. They cannot fathom that there are Americans who voted to make Donald J. Trump president and will do so again in 2020. Timothy P. Carney in a Washington Examiner column titled “Can Democrats love the voters Hillary hated?” wrote, “Democrats took over the House of Representatives in part by picking up dozens of seats in upper-middle-class suburban districts. The new bragging point for Democrats is that they are the party of the highly educated and the successful. It allows for the self-serving explanation that people who know the real deal vote Democratic, and only the clueless bitter clingers vote Republican.” The use of terms like racist, bigoted, hateful, misogynistic, Islamophobic and homophobic against those who support President Trump are key indicators of how wrathful Democrats and their supporters have become. What is also on the rise is the wrath of the Democratic Party against Jews. Anti-Semitism is now their official policy.
  • Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage. Democrats hate success (see Gluttony, Greed and Wrath). Democratic candidates for president are by all definitions successful people. However, they envy those who are as or more successful than they are. They want to tax those with wealth at a rate of 70%. It is most interesting that Democrats are fully embraced by a litany of Hollywood millionaires, corporate billionaires (CEOs of Facebook, Google, Twitter) and multi-millionaire sports and media personalities.
  • Pride – quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem. Democrats embrace the term “pride” but pride in what exactly? Are they proud to be an American? Do they take pride in making America, and thereby Americans, great? Their stated policies would show that they hate America. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated on MSNBC, “I hear these things about ‘let’s make America great again’ and I think to myself, exactly ‘when did you think America was great’?” Another example of pride is former President Barack Obama referring to himself a record-breaking 392 times in his April, 2019 Berlin speech. Democratic pride in deed and words.

When some say that the November 2020 Presidential Election is about the soul of this nation, they are spot on.