VIDEO: The Vortex — Priests Ticked at Pope

/in , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

Things are growing tense in and around Rome — not to mention the whole Church — as Catholics on both sides of the Church brace themselves for a heck of a conflict.

That conflict is being fueled in a hundred different ways, including most especially by Pope Francis himself, who seems to have ramped up his own personal attacks and sideways comments about faithful clergy and Catholics.

The crew and I were barely off the plane at the Rome airport and some priests approached us — at the airport — and thanked us for our work at Church Militant.

We expected they were friendly, owing to their cassocks, and they were.

They also didn’t hesitate to express their unhappiness and frustration at the Pope’s latest swipe at tradition-minded clergy when he blasted them for wearing cassocks and hats known as saturnos — traditional garb for priests.

He said of them, “Have you never seen young priests all stiff in black cassocks and hats in the shape of the planet Saturn on their heads? Behind all the rigid clericalism there are serious problems.”

This is not the first swipe at traditional faithful clerics from the Pope who asks “who am I to judge?” — and those clergy are getting pretty sick and tired of their holy father insulting them and suggesting they have mental problems while at the same time he appoints men to the College of Cardinals who are walking heretics.

Men like Matteo Zuppi from Italy who support homosexuality and women’s ordination; or men like Brazil’s Cdl. Cláudio Hummes, the Pope’s point man for this shipwreck of an upcoming synod, who is pushing for veritable heresy to be instituted.

Hummes appeared at Bergoglio’s elbow on the loggia in Rome the night he was elected in 2013, and Francis credits Hummes, a supporter of the condemned liberation theology, for choosing his name as Francis.

The truth is the synod is little else than a collection of Marxist and theologically anti-Catholic ideas being promoted by a rogue gallery of Churchmen who have little faith, if any, and who have been condemned by other Churchmen for flirting with heresy, apostasy and schism.

So you can forgive the little group of tradition-minded clergy for being ticked off that Pope Francis goes after them with such abandon at nearly every turn.

Apparently, the condemnations against judging and being gossipy and divisive are lifted when speaking of traditional clergy and faithful.

The same concerns are being heard more and more commonly by tradition-minded faithful as well, who are also growing increasingly embittered by the constant insults emanating from Rome, including the Pope.

When the Holy Father freely tosses around the word “schism” and says he doesn’t really care and is unafraid of it, that’s a nuclear bomb going off among faithful Catholics, faithful Catholics who are sick to death of watching devils roam freely around the Church.

That was the underlying cause of the silent witness of prayers this past Saturday near the Castel Sant’Angelo where 200 Catholics stood silently praying, staring at St. Peter’s, and offering Pope Leo’s prayer to St. Michael for exorcism.

Church Militant participated in the event and was happy to do so. Even the Rosaries we prayed on were specially produced by cloistered Carmelites who understand that there are devils swarming the Church who need to be exorcised.

Saint Michael stands atop the medieval fortress next to the Tiber, the fortress which has always been identified with defending the papacy.

During the reign of Pope Gregory the Great in the late sixth century, a devastating plague broke out in Rome and Gregory made a public invocation to St. Michael to end the plague.

Saint Michael appeared over the top of Castel Sant’Angelo and the plague ceased.

For this reason, the statue was of the archangel was erected here and St. Michael became the official protector of Rome.

Saint Michael is being implored again, throughout the Church, to come once again and protect not just Rome and not just from a physical malady, but the entire Church from a spiritual infestation of devils.

Even Pope St. John Paul had strongly recommended that the prayer to St. Michael be reinstituted and offered at the end of every Mass.

In the spirit of starting small, perhaps we can all ask St. Michael to intervene and ask him to stop Pope Francis from attacking good priests and calling them names.

It’s going to be a wild ride here in Rome for the next few weeks, and it hasn’t even officially gotten underway yet.

Coming to you from Rome in preparation for the Sin-od on the Amazon.

RELATED ARTICLE: Abortion Activists Try to Burn Down Catholic Church During Protest, But Catholics Stop Them

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

VIDEO: Where the House Judiciary Actually Got Things Right

/in , , , , , , /by

While there was plenty wrong with Wednesday’s House Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1296, the proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.), there were some shining moments for those who still support the Second Amendment.

First, there were the two women who testified in opposition to the latest attempt at banning America’s most popular rifles.

Amy Swearer, the Senior Legal Policy Analyst for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, used an effective combination of statistics, research, analytical thinking, and anecdotal evidence in her testimony [below] to point out the massive flaws with enacting a revised version of the failed 1994 Clinton gun ban.

From a statistical standpoint, Amy explained that the firearms targeted by H.R. 1296 are used in a fraction of all firearm-related crime. She explained that Americans are four-times more likely to be stabbed to death than to be killed by a criminal wielding one of these firearms.

And while many in the gun-ban community continually ask why anyone “needs” a semi-automatic rifle, Ms. Swearer pointed out that these so-called “assault weapons” are particularly suited for civilians to use for personal protection, especially at times when the government is “unable or unwilling to defend entire communities from large-scale civil unrest.” Amy stated that in 1982, during the Los Angeles riots, many business owners and private citizens used such firearm to protect their lives and their property from rampant looters when the police were nowhere to be found. Similarly, during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, these firearms were again utilized by law-abiding citizens for lawful, defensive purposes.

Amy drove home her point about the suitability of guns like the AR-15 for personal protection by relating the story of taking her mother, who was not familiar with firearms, to the range to teach her how to safely use a gun. Ms. Swearer related that her mother, like many handling firearms for the first time, had difficulty with using a handgun accurately and effectively. When she switched to an AR-15, however, Amy said her mother was able to control the firearm far more easily than a handgun, and her accuracy improved vastly.

“That is why law-abiding citizens buy millions of these firearms,” Amy said. “When accuracy and stopping power matter, they are simply better.”

Pointing out that firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for personal protection between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times a year, Ms. Swearer closed by hoping politicians do not strip her mother of the ability to use the most effective firearm possible for ending threats to her safety.

Dianna Muller, a retired 22-year police veteran, spoke next [below]. A professional competitive shooter who has represented the United States in competition, Mrs. Muller also works with The DC Project, a nonpartisan educational initiative that seeks to bring 50 women, one from each state, to the nation’s capital to promote gun rights.

Mrs. Muller pointed out that gun rights are women’s rights. She stated that she is particularly vulnerable to violent criminal attack because she is likely smaller and “less equipped for violence” than someone who may seek to do her harm, especially if she is outnumbered. “My firearm is the great equalizer,” Dianna testified, “and levels the playing field.”

Also addressing the question of why someone “needs” an AR-15, she stated hers is her preferred firearm for home defense, and that her husband also uses one for hunting. Mrs. Muller also pointed out that if legislators want to look at reducing firearm-related fatalities, rather than demonizing gun owners, they should look at promoting several programs she mentioned that have already had an impact, and would be more effective than adding restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Among the programs she highlighted were NRA’s Eddie Eagle and School Shield.

Outnumbered by five anti-gun panelists, and facing a hostile majority in the House Judiciary Committee, Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller did an outstanding job representing the views of those opposed to banning guns.

Several staunch defenders of the Second Amendment who serve on the House Judiciary Committee also exhibited their strong support of law-abiding gun owners.

U.S. Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, reminded people that calling semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 “assault weapon” is designed to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms. He pointed out that some attribute the creation of the term to anti-gun extremist Josh Sugarmann, the founder and Director the Violence Policy Center. Sugarmann, Collins pointed out, stated, “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Collins also pointed out the hypocrisy of those who promote banning guns like the AR-15 in order to allegedly save lives. While those opposed to these firearms keep trying to tie them to an “epidemic of gun violence,” the ranking member pointed out that rifles of ANY kind were used in 403 murders in 2017. Semi-automatic rifles that fall under the restrictions of H.R. 1296 would be only a fraction of those homicides.

By comparison, he pointed out that in 2017, knives were used in 1,591 murders, and hands and feet in 696. The “epidemic” would seem to be far worse in areas unrelated to semi-automatic rifles.

Ranking Member Collins also pointed out that speeding was the stated cause in 9,717 fatalities in 2017, and further pointed out that nobody is seeking to limit automobiles to a maximum top speed of 70 MPH.

During the period when committee members could question the panelists, Collins asked Dianna Muller—who was on the police force before, during, and after the Clinton gun ban—if the ’94 ban had any discernible effect on her as a law enforcement officer. She said it had zero effect.

When Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) had a chance to speak, Amy Swearer related that the official report on the effectiveness of the 1994 gun ban found that renewing it would likely have no measurable effect on violent crime.

When it was time for Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) to speak, he pointed out that the discussion of banning so-called “assault weapons” focused on cosmetic features, rather than how a firearm functions. After stating that hunting with a semi-automatic rifle is legal in most states, he asked the panelists if hunting rifles should be banned. Only Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller stated they should not.

Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) used part of his time to point out that, when President Barrack Obama asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to look at existing research on gun violence, they found that “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” and that “semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly used in self-defense, especially in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they’re easier to control than handguns.”

It was during Representative Biggs’ questioning that Dianna Muller made what was possibly the most widely reported comment during the hearing. When speaking about the proposed ban on semi-automatics being discussed, Mrs. Muller stated, “I will not comply with the ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan (R) was the next Second Amendment supporter to speak, and he succinctly summed up what the legislation would ban, stating, “Semi-automatic weapons, with a magazine capacity of ten rounds or more, with scary features….”

During his questioning of Amy Swearer, the two discussed the fact that the “scary features” don’t have any impact on how the firearms function, and would not benefit criminals intent on doing harm. Both seemed to agree that those law-abiding citizens who follow the law will be less able to effectively defend themselves or their loved ones from violent criminals.

In fact, Ms. Swearer expressed concern that, should the bill become law, “You’ll see millions of law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for having scary looking features on firearms.”

As the two discussed the commonly understood fact that criminals try to avoid armed victims, and that the bill would only disarm law-abiding citizens, Rep. Jordan made another simple, but powerful point.

“Bad guys aren’t stupid, they’re just bad,” he said.  “They’re just evil. They’re not going to follow the law. What this legislation will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding people like you, like all kinds of folks, to protect themselves when some bad guy is bent on doing something wrong.”

Florida Representative Greg Steube (R) pointed out that those promoting the ban on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, if successful, will eventually look to banning other guns until they are all banned. He also attempted to ask Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall Brackney to clarify an earlier remark about banning all firearms. Chief Brackney seemed unwilling to either clarify or walk back her earlier statement.

Other Republican committee members also spoke out in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to the bill, including Representatives Ken Buck (Colo.), Ben Cline (Va.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), and Tom McClintock (Cal.).

Our thanks go out to all of those who spoke in support of law-abiding gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms, especially considering they were in a hostile committee where pro-gun panelists were outnumbered 5-2.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

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

Ukrainian Corruption is Socially Acceptable Democratic Privilege

/in , , , , , /by

“Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.” –  Hannah Arendt

“Ours is a government of checks and balances. The Mafia and crooked businessmen make out checks, and the politicians and other compromised officials improve their bank balances.” – Steve Allen

“That is the problem with this rich and anguished generation.  Somewhere a long time ago they fell in love with the idea that politicians, even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates, were real heroes and truly exciting people.  That is wrong on its face.  They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children.” –  Hunter S. Thompson

The whistleblower who accused President Donald Trump of pressuring Ukraine’s president to interfere in the 2020 presidential election is a CIA employee who was detailed to the White House.  Exactly who detailed a CIA agent to the White House, and why didn’t the Secret Service expel the person?  The “whistleblower” has since returned to the CIA.

The Secret Service provides physical security for the White House Complex, the neighboring Treasury Department building and the vice president’s residence.  They ensure the safety of the President, the Vice President, their immediate families, former presidents, their spouses, etc. Link  The Secret Service is a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security.  So, where was the Secret Service when a CIA Agent was in the White House spying on the President?

Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make demands or offer promises.  The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to spies or other unelected officials in the executive branch.  A constitutional-law attorney’s analysis of the Trump phone call exposes the fraudulence of this entire charade.

Whistleblower Law Firm

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow commented on the “whistleblower” complaint alleging President Trump urged Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to probe former Vice President Joe Biden.  The complaint was filed on rumors and riddled with gossip and blatant falsehoods; the whistleblower stated he had no firsthand knowledge.  Research by Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) indicates that dirty cop James Comey planted spies inside the White House.

Sekulow called the probe into alleged Trump wrongdoing a “faux investigation” over something that would not be admitted in court, hinting at a conspiracy because the complaint appears to have been “written by a law firm.”

The whistleblower’s lawyer, Andrew Bakaj interned for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Hillary Clinton in the fall of the same year, according to Bakaj’s LinkedIn page. More recently, Bakaj has worked as an official in the CIA and Pentagon and specializes in whistleblower and security clearances in his legal practice.

Bakaj told the Times that “any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way.”  Doubtful that this CIA agent would undergo the same treatment as Edward Snowden, Julian Assange or William Campbell.

The whistleblower sprinkles throughout his document footnotes referring to a publication with the initials OCCRP. One guess who funds OCCRP, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.  Soros’s dirty money is all over this story.

The ICWPA Law Changed

The original Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) defined the parameters of an “urgent concern” complaint as an abuse or violation of law “relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.”  The president’s conversation with a foreign leader does not seem to fall under this whistleblower definition.

However, a week before this whistleblower’s hearsay document allegedly prepared by his CIA lawyers, Pelosi’s Congress passed a bill changing the whistleblower law to include “hearsay.”

The Federalist’s Sean Davis discovered that the intel community secretly changed the rules governing whistleblowers, including amending the required form, in order to allow 2nd hand information to suffice. This happened just days before the Trump-Ukraine whistle-blower filed his complaint.

Isn’t that just too convenient?

CIA Director Gina Haspel

Just who would know about the ICWPA changes?  Why the CIA Director of course.

Upon her nomination for Director by President Trump, more than 50 former senior U.S. government officials, including six former CIA Directors and three former directors of national intelligence signed a letter supporting her nomination.  They included former Directors of the CIA, John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Michael Morell, former Directors of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden, and James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence.

A group of 109 retired generals and admirals signed a letter expressing “profound concern” over Haspel’s nomination due to her record and alleged involvement in the CIA’s use of torture and the subsequent destruction of evidence.

In 2013, John Brennan, then the director of Central Intelligence, named Haspel as acting Director of the National Clandestine Service, which carries out covert operations around the globe.  However, she was not appointed to the position permanently due to criticism about her involvement in the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program.

Brennan called on an unlimited number of deep state spies to use the new, secretly altered whistleblower complaint form to report Trump.  On September 28, 2019, he tweeted, “A reminder to federal officials: There is no limit on the number of individuals who can use the whistleblower statute. If you think you were involved in unlawful activity as a result of a directive from Mr. Trump or someone doing his bidding, now is the time to report it.”

Bidens and Ukraine

Hunter Biden, that upstanding and righteous son of former VP and Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden certainly has a jaded and nefarious past.  His older brother, Beau Biden, died of cancer in May of 2015.  Hunter divorced his wife, mother of his three children, and moved in with his deceased brother’s wife, Hallie, for three years before their separation.

A U.S. official told NBC News that Hunter Biden was kicked out of the Navy Reserve in 2014 after he failed a drug test which showed positive for cocaine.  The Wall Street Journal first reported the incident.

A couple months later, Hunter Biden was on the Board of the largest gas and oil company in the Ukraine, Burisma Holdings, making $50,000 a year, an exorbitant amount for a Board member at any company.  The largest oil and gas company hired a practicing drug addict only a few months after the addict was removed from the U.S. Navy for doing cocaine.  This makes no sense unless this individual was the son of the Vice President of the U.S., Joe Biden.

In 2006, Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin, in his investigation of corruption involving Burisma Holdings, a natural gas company, identified Hunter Biden as the recipient of over $3 million from the company.  Joe Biden didn’t want this corruption exposed, so as the VP of the U.S., using loan guarantees of a billion dollars as hostage, he demanded the Ukraine fire Victor Shokin, and then he bragged about doing this at the Council on Foreign Relations.  He said he told Ukrainian President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, “We’re not giving you the billion unless you fire Shokin.”  Ultimately, he was fired.

The well-heeled Biden Democratic socialist family has problems, especially with drugs, when father Joe is allegedly anti-drug.  Like her brother, Ashley Biden allegedly had problems with cocaine and marijuana.  Caroline Biden, daughter of Joe Biden’s financier brother James Biden, dodged jail despite a $100K credit card scam.

Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz and Devon Archer

According to a Time’s article, in May 2014, David Leiter, a former Senate chief of staff to Secretary of State John Kerry, signed on to work as a lobbyist for Burisma about a week after Biden announced he was joining the company.

Included was a second new board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry’s son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity company. 

The three friends, Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz and Devon Archer established a series of related LLCs. The trunk of the tree was Rosemont Capital, the alternative investment fund of the Heinz Family Office.

Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities secured a series of exclusive deals often with those same foreign governments.  Profitable deals were struck with foreign governments on the heels of crucial diplomatic missions carried out by their powerful fathers.

Often those foreign entities gained favorable policy actions from the United States government just as the sons were securing favorable financial deals from those same entities.  There is even a huge China connection via the Thornton Group run by infamous mobster Whitey Bulger’s nephew, James Bulger.

See the NY Post article by Peter Schweizer, author of Secret Empires.

Democrats and Ukraine

Ex-lobbyists won’t be indicted for Ukraine work, including Tony Podesta’s firm, the Podesta Group, and Mercury LLC.  The question facing government investigators was whether the Podesta Group and Mercury knew their work for the Ukrainian nonprofit was in fact being directed by the Ukrainian government. Podesta and former Minnesota Republican Congressman Vin Weber, Council on Foreign Relations member and Aspen Institute Trustee, violated a law that requires U.S. lobbyists for foreign governments to register as foreign agents and disclose their work to the DOJ.

Obama White House counsel Greg Craig was acquitted in another case stemming from the probe into whether a group of Washington consultants improperly hid from U.S. authorities their work for the Ukrainian government around 2012.

In 2013 Ukrainian Igor Pasternak held two different fund raisers for Rep. Adam Schiff asking for contributions between $1,000 and $2,500.  Pelosi and Loretta Sanchez have also used Pasternak.  He is an arms dealer and has sold arms in places like Syria.

In the WSJ analysis of Clinton Foundation disclosures, Ukraine became a vast pool of U.S. taxpayer-funded “aid” that poured into that long-corrupt nation and then saw piles of kickbacks returned to powerful and politically-connected recipients.  Joe Biden grabbed some of that Ukraine stash for his family but chances are it wasn’t anywhere near what the Clintons did – and all with the blessing of President Obama.  Between 1999 and 2014, Ukraine leads in contributions to the Clinton Foundation by individuals of donating more than $50,000.

Meanwhile, Paul Manafort rots in prison.

DOJ Press Release

The mainstream media is not telling America that the DOJ press release issued the day the transcript of the President’s conversation became public, makes explicit that the president never spoke with AG Barr about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former VP Biden or his son or asking him to contact Ukraine on any other matter…including the fact that the AG has not communicated at all with the Ukraine.

The press release also contains the fact that the DOJ team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counter-intelligence investigation directed at the 2016 Trump campaign.  Certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.

In Andrew McCarthy’s new book, Ball of Collusion, he suggests that during the 2016 campaign, the FBI tried to get evidence from the Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. Link

Conclusion

The left’s hatred for President Trump has become psychotic to the point where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump despite the fact there are no grounds.  Pelosi is also claiming, without evidence, that Russia had a hand in the Trump-Ukraine call.

Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is incensed with the lies told by Adam Schiff regarding President Trump’s Ukrainian phone call, that he has introduced a motion to condemn and censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) for performing a fabricated conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  Schiff did this during his opening statement at a panel hearing the morning of September 26th, 2019.

Biden’s presidential campaign made an extraordinary request to executives of top news channels on Sunday, September 29th, asking them to no longer book Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on their programs.

As New York City Mayor, Giuliani took on the mob.  The mainstream media Democratic comrades may acquiesce to Biden’s request, but no one will ever muzzle a scrapper like Rudy Giuliani.

RELATED ARTICLE: Former CIA official on whistleblower: ‘How could this be an intelligence matter?’

© All rights reserved.

DOJ Supports Catholic Archdiocese that fired a teacher who is in a same sex marriage

/in , , , , /by

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in support of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, which is being sued by a teacher because he was in a same-sex marriage in contradiction with church teaching.

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of religious institutions and people to decide what their beliefs are, to teach their faith, and to associate with others who share their faith,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, September 27, 2019

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Indiana Lawsuit Brought by Former Teacher Against Archdiocese

The Justice Department today filed a Statement of Interest explaining that the First Amendment protects the right of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis to interpret and apply Catholic doctrine. The lawsuit was brought against the Archdiocese by a former teacher who was fired from a Catholic high school within the diocese because he was in a same-sex marriage in contradiction to Catholic teaching on marriage. The Archdiocese indicated that the school had to terminate the teacher, or the school would forfeit its Catholic identity, which would have led to several repercussions for the school.

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of religious institutions and people to decide what their beliefs are, to teach their faith, and to associate with others who share their faith,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “The First Amendment rightly protects the free exercise of religion.”

“If the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses stand for anything, it is that secular courts cannot entangle themselves in questions of religious law,” said United States Attorney Josh Minkler.

This case stems from a directive issued by the Archdiocese to Cathedral High School, a Catholic school in Indianapolis. The Archdiocese told Cathedral that the school’s continued employment of a teacher in a public, same-sex marriage in contradiction to Catholic teachings on marriage would result in Cathedral’s forfeiture of its Catholic identity. After much deliberation, the school terminated the teacher. The teacher then filed suit against the Archdiocese, claiming the directive to Cathedral interfered with his employment and his contractual relationship with the school.

The government explains in the Statement of Interest that the First Amendment prevents courts from impairing the constitutional rights of religious institutions. The former teacher’s lawsuit attempts to penalize the Archdiocese for determining that schools within its diocese cannot employ teachers in public, same-sex marriages, and simultaneously identify as Catholic. Supreme Court precedent clearly holds that the First Amendment protects the Archdiocese’s right to this form of expressive association, and courts cannot interfere with that right.

The Statement of Interest also makes clear that courts cannot second-guess how religious institutions interpret and apply their own religious laws. Supreme Court precedent explains that the First Amendment forbids courts from engaging in “quintessentially religious controversies.” Instead, as the Statement of Interest explains, “the legitimacy of the Archdiocese’s decision as a matter of Catholic law” is committed exclusively “to the judgment of the Archdiocese.”

In July 2018, the Department of Justice announced the formation of the Religious Liberty Task Force. The Task Force brings together Department components to coordinate their work on religious liberty litigation and policy, and to implement the Attorney General’s 2017 Religious Liberty Guidance.

Attachment(s):

Download payne-elliott_usa_statement_of_interest.pdf

RELATED ARTICLE: The U.N. Has Never Had a Pro-Life Champion Like Trump

© All rights reserved.

Levin interviews Peter Schweizer author of ‘Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends’

/in , , , , , , /by

Mark Levin interviews Peter Schweizer author of  the #1 New York Times best selling book “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.”

America is still suffering from the Obama legacy of socialist government. 

Peter Schweizer has been fighting corruption―and winning―for years. In Throw Them All Out, he exposed insider trading by members of Congress, leading to the passage of the STOCK Act. In Extortion, he uncovered how politicians use mafia-like tactics to enrich themselves. And in Clinton Cash, he revealed the Clintons’ massive money machine and sparked an FBI investigation.

Now he explains how a new corruption has taken hold, involving larger sums of money than ever before. Stuffing tens of thousands of dollars into a freezer has morphed into multibillion-dollar equity deals done in the dark corners of the world.

An American bank opening in China would be prohibited by US law from hiring a slew of family members of top Chinese politicians. However, a Chinese bank opening in America can hire anyone it wants. It can even invite the friends and families of American politicians to invest in can’t-lose deals.

President Donald Trump’s children have made front pages across the world for their dicey transactions. However, the media has barely looked into questionable deals made by those close to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, and lesser-known politicians who have been in the game longer.

In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want to curry favor with their influential parents. This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. But for relatives of some prominent political families, we may already be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

Deeply researched and packed with shocking revelations, Secret Empires identifies public servants who cannot be trusted and provides a path toward a more accountable government.

Watch this compelling interview with Peter Schweizer:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Campaign Demands TV Executives Stop Booking Rudy Giuliani On Shows…Or Else

Hey Democrats, Impeach This!

Pelosi: It Doesn’t Matter If Dems Lose The House Over Impeachment

© All rights reserved. Video from Life, Liberty  & Levin.

RAMBO LAST BLOOD — Stallone Hit’s the Target in this all American film

/in , , , , /by

I have been a fan of Sylvester Stallone since his 1982 American action film directed by Ted Kotcheff, and co-written by Sylvester, who also stars as Vietnam War veteran John Rambo. Stallone knows how to tell the story of Vietnam veterans who served their country honorably but were hated by some factions in America.

Even today his hatred of our veterans and military hangs over America like a dark and evil cloud.

Stallone’s latest film by Rambo Studios and Lionsgate “Rambo: Last Blood” carries on the ideal that every veteran took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In the case of “Rambo: Last Blood” the enemy is foreign — Mexican cartels that deal in sex trafficking.

Watch the trailer:

John Rambo is trying to live a normal life on a farm in Arizona. Then, like most things, life challenges him, once again. The story is about a Hispanic family that Rambo adopts and becomes the father figure to a young girl .

The story line is Vietnam War veteran John Rambo tries to find some semblance of peace by raising horses on a ranch in Arizona. He’s also developed a special familial bond with a woman named Maria and her teenage granddaughter Gabriela. But when a vicious Mexican cartel kidnaps Gabriela, Rambo crosses the border on a bloody and personal quest to rescue her and punish those responsible.

John Rambo, like many along the U.S./Mexican border understand the dangers they face daily, as do our ICE agents who try to defend American citizens against these gangs like MS13.

This is a must see film because it shows that the duty to protect one’s family and country requires courage and self-determination. This film is about American sovereignty over its citizens. Justice must be served, at any price. So it is with Vietnam veteran John Rambo.

IndiWire’s Zack Sharf wrote:

Many “Rambo: Last Blood” reviews called out of the film for perpetuating dangerous Mexican stereotypes. The movie opened to $19 million at the box office and continues to play in theaters nationwide.

I’m not sure if Zack has met with any Angel families whose love one’s were viciously raped and murdered by these “Mexican stereotypes (a.k.a. illegal aliens).”

BTW, forget the movie reviews, the people love Rambo: Last Blood. It’s the people that count, not the movie critics.

© All rights reserved. Rambo Last Blood trailer by Lionsgate.

VIDEO: The #JEXIT Story — Time for Jews to Exist the Democrat Party!

/in , , , , , /by

Tom Trento interviews Michelle Terris the founder of #JEXIT.

#JEXIT is a National Movement dedicated to educating and encouraging American Jews who are currently members of the Democratic Party to EXIT the Democratic Party and join President Trump who is a great friend to Jewish people and the state of Israel. Stand with us against anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party because anti-Semitism is anti-American.

Tom Trento discusses with #JEXIT leaders, Sofia and Michelle, why it’s time for Jewish Democrats to leave the Democrat Party.

QUESTIONS: Does the Democrat Party still affirm the basic principles held by President John F. Kennedy or has the Party taken a hard turn to the Marxist Left? Are there unapologetic Jew-haters now serving in the U.S. Congress with complete impunity? Is Donald Trump the most supportive President that Israel has ever seen?

EDITORS NOTE: For more information please contact Alexandra Levine at Alexandra@jexitusa.org

PODCAST: Despite Liberal Media’s Narrative, His Community Is ‘Very Conservative,’ Black Strategist Says

/in , , , , , /by

Raynard Jackson is fed up with how conservatives approach black Americans. The political strategist, columnist, and president and CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates says conservatives need to try something new, because while there’s a lot of shared values between conservatives and African Americans, that’s getting lost right now.

“Until Republicans … and the conservative movement deal with this issue of race, they will never ever get a massive amount of black support, period,” Jackson says. Read the lightly edited transcript, posted below, or listen on the podcast:

Rob Bluey: I’m joined by Raynard Jackson. He’s the president and CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, a great political strategist in Washington, D.C., and a longtime friend of our president, Kay Coles James, and The Heritage Foundation.

Raynard Jackson: Thank you, Rob. Thanks for inviting me.

Bluey: You and I got to know each other at a meeting that we both attended on Capitol Hill and the thing that I loved about you is you are always bringing new ideas to the table, particularly about how conservatives can do a better job of communicating and taking their ideas into the black community.

Congress is trying to ramrod through increased gun laws upon the American people. But will that really stop the rise of gun violence? Find out more now >>

You’ve written a piece for The Daily Signal about this. You recently had a meeting at the White House about this. So I’m hoping that we can spend some time here in this interview hearing some of your ideas and how conservatives can do a better job.

Jackson: I look forward to it. Thank you.

Bluey: So you write for The Daily Signal. Your first column that you’ve written for us says that the black community is naturally conservative. What do you mean by that?

Jackson: Within the black community, despite what the liberal media projects us to be, we are very conservative, very church-going. And I’m telling you even today, Rob, there is a strict sense of discipline in the black household, whether it’s a traditional family or a single parent. Black women, they don’t play with their kids. If you get out of line, you’re going to get spanked, period. And the black family is the key to the strength in the black community.

I remember when growing up as a kid, I would be sitting on my grandmother’s lap and she would sit up there and talk about what’s right, what’s wrong, what to do, what not to do, family history. And so when I was in college, I would come home on a weekend and my parents were fine with me going out with my fellows, hanging out at the club and all that stuff. But come Sunday morning, eight o’clock is like, “Boy, or are you ready for church?” Not, “Boy, are you going to church?” There was no option. So yeah, I could hang out all night, seven, eight in the morning if I want to, but come eight o’clock we going to church, period.

Bluey: I think those values that you get from having that belief in faith and going to a religious organization like a church [are] definitely in alignment with the traditional American values that conservatives seem to embrace.

Where do you see the challenge then that conservatives face in terms of breaking through and communicating to members of that community?

Jackson: Well, it’s very simple. When you say “conservative” to black folks, what we hear is “Strom Thurmond,” “Jesse Helms” back in the day. And for [the] audience who may not be familiar, … Strom Thurmond ran on a states rights, on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948 for president. Jesse Helms was a senator of North Carolina. Strom Thurmond’s a senator from South Carolina, segregationist, racist, but both of them over a period of years, they kind of left that legacy and they became very supportive, for example, of historically black colleges, which you have several of them in South [Carolina] and North Carolina. But that’s what we hear.

So what I tell conservatives [is], as opposed to using the word “conservative,” a better term in a black community is “traditional values.” Because again, that transports you back when you were a little kid sitting on grandma’s lap. And that’s kind of a verbal nuance that conservatives need to understand.

Bluey: That’s a great point. Thank you for sharing that. But I want to ask you, because, historically, going back to Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party for its at least early history, was associated in many ways with the abolitionist movement and helping, obviously, to fight the Civil War and to give blacks and African Americans those rights. And then all of the sudden, today it’s the complete opposite.

So where did the Republican Party now, I’d separate that from conservative specifically, go wrong?

Jackson: No. 1, they decided to throw away the black vote in 1968 with the adoption by President [Richard] Nixon of the Southern strategy, which meant they decided that it was worth more for them to go after white Southern Democrats, the old Dixiecrat in the South, at the expense of the black community who had been the most loyal voting block up until that time for the Republican Party.

How blacks are today for the Democrats, we were that same type of loyalty to the Republicans back in the day. And even with that, Nixon got a third of the black vote. So until Republicans, Rob, and the conservative movement deal with this issue of race, they will never ever get a massive amount of black support, period.

Bluey: But you’re taking it head-on. You went to Florida. You worked for Gov. Ron DeSantis, then-candidate Ron DeSantis, and you made significant inroads, and really in that close election were able to, I think, make up the difference. So tell us what happened in Florida and how you were able to do that.

Jackson: Yeah. Gov. DeSantis is the good friend and when he was in congress last September, a year ago this month matter of fact, he called me after he became the nominee and asked me to come down and serve as one of his senior advisers, and of course I agreed to it.

He said, “hey, I want you to go and just do what you do. I know the kind of work you can do. And you let me know what you need from the campaign and we’re going to make sure we get it to you.”

We were polling at 2% of the black vote then. We ended up getting 17% of the black vote.

Bluey: Wow.

Jackson: The two issues that resonated were entrepreneurship and school choice and vouchers. And then our opponent, Andrew Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee at the time, two of his campaign platforms were to raise taxes on small minority businesses and to get rid of the school choice voucher program in Florida. And … DeSantis said, “No, those are the two of my strongest points.” As a result of that, we got just enough black support that that was his margin of victory.

If we can replicate that across the country and within the conservative movement, blacks will support a conservative candidate, but no one goes into the community and asks for their support.

Bluey: More recently you were at the White House with a number of other black Americans who went to the press secretary, went to the vice president’s communications director and others and talked about the importance of making sure that the message is getting out.

I want to ask you two parts. I want to hear more about the meeting and why it was so significant. I understand that a meeting like this didn’t take place when President [Barack] Obama was in the White House. And secondly, I want to hear your assessment of President [Donald] Trump and his policies and how they have impacted the black community.

Jackson: Well, two interesting questions. The National Newspaper Publishers Association, [the] NNPA—that’s a consortium of the over 200 black newspapers in the country—their executive board was in town two weeks ago for some other meetings.

So, they have been complaining to me because they syndicate my weekly column to over these 200 newspapers about access to the administration. When their reporters are trying to do stories, they can’t get calls returned because no one knows who they are. And a lot of time, let’s face it, Rob, conservatives and Republicans, when they get a call from a black media outlet, their default position is going to be a hit piece. So, therefore, we don’t return their call, and that’s garbage.

I called the White House and me and Pastor Mark Burns, a close supporter of the president’s, and the White House, Stephanie Grisham, Hogan Gidley and Darin Miller from the vice president’s press office, they were so excited. They said, “Can we get a meeting with them this week while in town?” And we said, “Yeah.” And they moved heaven and earth on their schedule to sit and spend an hour with us to talk about what these newspaper publishers’ issues were, and we got a lot of work done. And that issue of access, they committed then that that would no longer be an issue.

Bluey: Let me make sure our listeners know you wrote about this meeting directly in LifeZette. I encourage our our listeners to check out a your piece. It’s called “Trump’s White House Does More for Black Media Members than Liberal Press Will Ever Tell You.” Also, Fred Lucas, our White House correspondent at The Daily Signal, covered the story as well. Its headline is, “Trump White House Pledges to Boost Outreach to Black Media Outlets.” So we encourage our listeners to check out both of those stories to learn more.

Tell me a little bit about the Trump administration and the policies. You and I got to know each other during the tax cut push back in 2017, of course that was a big initiative and the president’s first year. You help take that message to new communities. It’s obviously had a tremendous impact on the economy overall. We also see that black unemployment is at record lows. Is President Trump getting the credit that he deserves for the policies?

Jackson: Of course not. The liberal media is not going to do it for sure and within the black media—and we talked about this at the White House, and I was over there last week talking with them as well as a follow-up on some other issues. We, … the administration and Republicans and conservatives, we need to do a better job of effectively communicating the successful legislation that this administration has done that’s benefiting the black community.

This administration had done a lot to help the historically black colleges. The story has not been effectively told. And so then when the president goes to his town hall and rallies across the country and talks about the low unemployment in the black community, those are great statistics. But as I told the White House, we have to breathe life into those statistics, put meat on those bones, and we have to show the human face of those statistics and we have to start bringing out human faces and putting a face with those statistics.

And they want to have another conversation next week about what that means on a practical level. What I told them, for example, when the White House talks about the tax cuts in 2017 that we worked on, “Wouldn’t it be great for the president to have two or three black entrepreneurs to talk about how their firm has benefited from the tax cuts and as a result of those tax cuts, they’ve had to hire more people and how their revenues have increased as a result?” Now we got something to work with. We got a visual and we got the facts … Republicans and conservatives [are] great at statistics, horrible at weaving a story.

Bluey: Those sound like great stories that we’d like to tell at The Daily Signal. So let’s keep in touch about that. We’ve done several already about the tax cuts and I think that there are certainly more that have gone untold, so [I] would like to know more about them.

Now, we’ve talked about some of the economic pieces, obviously HBCUs is … another piece that you brought up. What are some of the other policies that you think President Trump might not be getting credit for that have had an impact positively on the black community?

Jackson: Oh, religious freedom. Not only just overseas, because that’s a big issue. Christians are being persecuted, for example, in Northern Nigeria, and no one talks about that. Boko Haram is there, and if they find out you are a Christian, they will put a car tire around your neck, set it on fire, and torture you. And they force little girls who say they’re Christian either to renounce their Christianity, [or] they rape them and then kill them. That’s going on right now.

And then domestically, a lot of black churches are very frustrated until President Trump comes along, because some of these churches are getting federal money, but then being told, “If you take federal money, you cannot talk about Christianity and faith because you took federal money.”

And President Trump has said, “No, we want you to take federal money if you’re impacting your local community. And we know that your success is predicated on your Christian faith and values instilling in those constituents you’re working with. So it’s foolish to deny you opportunity because of faith, because faith is the one that keeps these people off of drugs and out of being homeless. And so the federal government wants you to stop preaching the solution? Really?” And he’s getting a lot of credit for that in a black church. That story has not been told.

Bluey: That’s great to know.

The thing I love about your columns is that you’re very honest. You tell it like it is. You’re not afraid to pull punches and whatnot. And you’ve tackled some tough topics. You’re not afraid to call out people when you think that they’ve done something wrong.

So tell me, how do you approach writing your column and choosing the topics that you do? And what kind of feedback do you get when sometimes, maybe, you touched on a more controversial issue?

Jackson: Well, Rob, thanks a lot for helping me out with this. Good thing you’re not a publicist, man.

You know what’s funny is, and a lot of my clients are in music, because [I’ve] had to work a lot with R&B artists, and we’re in the studio talking and they are amazed that my writing is the same as they’re writing songs. There’s really no difference because a lot of times, I sit down at the keyboard, I may have in my mind I’m going to write about “subject matter A,” but then my fingers just kind of take a life of their own. And what I originally sat down to write about has nothing to do with what I just wrote.

So a lot of time, I just stream of consciousness and I have no idea what I’m going to write until I actually sit at the keyboard and I see the finished product.

And as I go back over some of the columns I’ve written, it’s like, that came out of you? I’m stunned. And so yeah, you’re right, Rob. I’ve been accused of being blunt and very honest, but I’m just at a point in life, Rob, where I just don’t have time to be all touchy-feely. If you ask me a question or if I take a position, everything I’ve ever written in the column, I believe. So it’s not like I’m writing for effect or to cause controversy. If I write it, I believe it, period.

… What’s amazing is I get so many emails saying, “I’m glad you said that.” … And I’ve had some people in the party, to be honest with you, Rob, called me and said, “Hey, if you toned down some of your writings, we can help you with more opportunity within the party.” And my response is, “My integrity is not for sale. My columns are for sale, but not my integrity.”

And yes, I probably have been denied some opportunities because of some of the bluntness in my column. But I challenge anyone who reads my column, Rob, to argue with me about the truthfulness of what I wrote.

Now, you may not like what I wrote, you may not like the verbiage I use, but you’re not going to argue with my facts. Those are true and they’re verifiable, and so, I’m willing to live with the consequences.

Bluey: It takes a lot of courage to have strong opinions, and I certainly appreciate sitting across from somebody who does and has the integrity to do that. So thank you.

I want to ask you about one of the recent ones because I found it so enlightening: “Donald Trump Is the Dennis Rodman of Politics.” Tell me how you came up with that.

Jackson: Wow. It’s funny. MSNBC was doing a slam piece on the president, as they usually do, and something popped on my computer screen about Dennis Rodman. And I like, that’s interesting. Donald Trump is the Dennis Robert of politics, meaning a lot of people think Dennis Rodman was crazy, he was a fool, he was a buffoon. But then when you stop to think about it, he was so good at what he did …

Bluey: Yes.

Jackson: Not one person in the NBA would have turned down the opportunity to have Dennis Rodman on their team. Dennis Rodman played for the Chicago Bulls and the San Antonio Spurs and a few other teams.

… A lot of people had a problem with his antics off the court. Remember when he wore the wedding dress? Most people didn’t realize he got paid $10 million to wear that dress. You offer me that, Rob, I’m in a dress tonight. OK?

But the thing about it is, … he was named seven times in a row NBA player of the year. He was a rebound leader for seven to 10 years in a row. So when he got on the court, he delivered the goods.

So it is with President Trump. You may not like some of his tweets. You may not like how he responds to him being attacked by opponents. But if you go to war, you want him in the foxhole with you, because if you lose, the guy that won is going have blood all over them.

And that’s what conservatives like about this president. He fights for the conservative agenda. And so, with the president comes a lot of theatrics and drama, like Dennis Rodman. But there’s nobody privately who’s going to say, “I wouldn’t want this president on my side.” And that’s how I connected the two.

Bluey: That’s certainly true. … Raynard Jackson, you’re a Pulitzer Award-nominated columnist. You can find your most recent work at DailySignal.com. What haven’t we talked about that you’d like our listeners to know about you?

Jackson: Most people are shocked when they find I went to Oral Roberts University and I’m from St. Louis. … I used to work with Oral for four years, I used to be one of the camera men for the TV show, and he would always tell me, “Go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need.” And I’ve never forgotten that.

Any student there remembers that. They may forget their mother’s name, but they’re not going to forget that statement Oral Roberts used to say.

Back in the day, when I moved up here in the early ’90s, Rob, I would be walking down the street like on K Street, like K and 9th and 10th, 11th, 12th Street, which is all upscale now. Back in the day, you used to have prostitution and drug dealers and all that.

So I may be walking down the street with a friend and you would have prostitutes calling me by name. And my buddies would look at me like, “Whoa, these girls actually know your name? Are you patronizing?” I said, “Heck no.” But what I found interesting … go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need. I would go into the red light district where the prostitutes were. I just wanted to hear their story.

And you know what, Rob? Most of these women who were on the street corner were not dumb people. A lot of them had college degrees, but they fell on various levels of hard time and they did what they had to do to make it.

… I just found when you make choices, I don’t have to agree with your choice to … just sit down and talk with you, to find out what your story is. And a lot of them I ended up helping out. They transitioned to getting back on their feet.

But people tend to believe that if a person doesn’t agree with you somehow you should have nothing to do with them. And I’m just the opposite. And people are amazed when I walk into a Democrat event, which I go to a lot of them, and they’re like, “Wait a minute, I thought you were Republican?”

“Yeah, I am very Republican, but my buddy’s hosting this event, so I’m coming out to support him. I don’t agree with a doggone thing he’s saying politically, but he’s my buddy.”

Bluey: That is a theme it seems we keep touching on on this show and it’s really important for our listeners to remember, as you said, meet people where they are. You don’t necessarily have to agree with everything that they believe in. But there are a lot of things that we can do, particularly conservatives can do, to make inroads if we show up and engage in conversation.

Jackson: And see, Rob, it’s interesting you said [that.] This is the opportunity, I think, that this president, The Heritage Foundation, and the conservative movement all have in common, that black folks are allies already. But we just never get invited to the party, No. 1.

The other thing, and maybe we can talk about this at a future date, Rob, one thing conservatives really need to understand is, when they talk to the black community, they force us to make a Hobson’s choice. Meaning, they ask us, “Which are you? Are you black or are you Republican? Are you black or are you conservative?” As though you can’t be both.

So a lot of times, and I think you and I talked about this, sometimes Republicans and conservatives do and say things that we in the black community find offensive and we call them out on that. That doesn’t mean we’re not good party people and good conservatives, but we can’t have credibility in our community and try to ignore and justify an indignity done by someone in the movement.

A lot of times when I’ve criticized the party in my columns, like you indicated, I’ll get emails from influential people in the party, in the movement saying, “Well, we thought you were on our side and you criticize.” It’s like I don’t have to give up my blackness to be a part of the movement. I can be both, but wrong is wrong. And that doesn’t mean because I criticize my party that I’m not a good supporter.

The reason I stay in this party, Rob, when part of me tells me to leave this party because of some of the things we go through as blacks, the easy part would be for me to leave the party. The sign of a true leader is one who stands in the middle of difficulty and tries to make it better from within.

That’s why when a lot of my Democratic friends say, “Why do you not leave this party with the racist rhetoric coming out?” It’s like, yeah, that’s easy for me to do. And then what?

But if I stay engaged and keep speaking out using the media platform that I have, Rob, with The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation and other outlets, I can make change on the inside and make the movement and the party better for all of America. And that’s what my goal is.

Bluey: As a fellow American, I applaud you for taking the harder course and not the easier path because we really need you out there advocating for these ideas and … using media effectively. I think that that’s so important and that’s one of the reasons we created The Daily Signal and why [we are] so proud to have you as a new contributor to our team.

So, Raynard Jackson, how do our readers go and find more about you if they want to follow you on Twitter or social media or other places?

Jackson: Raynard1223 is my Twitter [handle]. Just Google me, all my social media pops up. Black Americans for a Better Future is my 527 super PAC, BAFBF.

Rob, thank you so much for having me. It’s been fun. And time has gone by too fast, but maybe you’ll have me back again over the next 30 or 40 years.

Bluey: We certainly will. Hopefully a lot sooner than that.

Raynard Jackson has been my guest. Thanks so much.

Jackson: Thanks, Rob.

PODCAST BY

Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Conservatives Must Understand About Black Americans

‘An Uprising From the Strangest Places’: Sen. Tim Scott on Diversifying the Conservative Movement

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Tragedy of Greta Thunberg

/in , , , , , /by

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.

In a just world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead, she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely broken world on the precipice of disaster. This is a tragedy.

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” Thunberg lectured the world. And maybe she’s right. We’ve failed her by raising a generation of pagans who’ve filled the vacuum left by the absence of faith, not with rationality, but with a cultish worship of Mother Earth and the state. Although, to be fair, the Bible-thumping evangelical’s moral certitude is nothing but a rickety edifice compared to the moral conviction of a Greta Thunberg.

It’s not, of course, her fault. Adults have spent a year creating a 16-year-old because her soundbites comport with their belief system. It was “something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear [that] turned this girl from invisible to global,” says CNN in a news report about a child with a narrow, age-appropriate grasp of the world.

It should be noted that “blunt-force fear” is indeed the correct way to describe the concerted misinformation that Thunberg has likely been subjected to since nursery school.

There probably isn’t a public school in America that hasn’t plied the panic-stricken talk of environmental disaster in their auditoriums over and over again. New York City and other school systems offered millions of kids an excused absence so they could participate in political climate marches this week, as if it were a religious or patriotic holiday.

We’ve finally convinced a generation of Americans to be Malthusians. According to Scott Rasmussen’s polling, nearly 30% of voters now claim to believe that it’s “at least somewhat likely” that the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out over the next 10-15 years. Half of voters under 35 believe it is likely we are on the edge of extinction. Is there any wonder why our youngest generation has a foreboding sense of doom?

It’s the fault of ideologues who obsess over every weather event as if it were Armageddon, ignoring the massive moral upside of carbon-fueled modernity. It’s the fault of the politicians, too cowardly to tell voters that their utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is fairy tale.

It’s the fault of media that constantly ignores overwhelming evidence that, on balance, climate change isn’t undermining human flourishing. By nearly every quantifiable measure, in fact, we are better off because of fossil fuels. Though there is no way to measure the human spirit, I’m afraid.

Thunberg might do well to sail her stern gaze and billowing anger to India or China and wag her finger at the billions of people who no longer want to live in poverty and destitution. Because if climate change is irreversible in the next 10-12 years, as cultists claim, it can be blamed in large part on the historic growth we’ve seen in developing nations.

China’s emissions from aviation and maritime trade alone are twice that of the United States, and more than the entire emissions of most nations in the world. But, sure, let’s ban straws as an act of contrition.

Boomers, of course, have failed on plenty of fronts, but the idea that an entire generation of Americans should have chosen poverty over prosperity to placate the vacuous complaints of privileged future teenagers is absurd. No generation would do it. Until recently, no advanced nation has embraced Luddism. Although these days, Democrats who advocate for bans on fossil fuels and carbon-mitigating technologies such as fracking and nuclear energy are working on it.

Climate activists could learn something from Thunberg’s honesty, though. She argues that “money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth” have to come to an end. The emission cuts that environmentalists insist are needed to save the earth would mean economic devastation and the end of hundreds of years of economic growth. This is a tradeoff progressives pretend doesn’t exist.

And Thunberg’s dream for the future means technocratic regimes will have to displace capitalistic societies. We can see this future in the radical environmentalist plans of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, one supported by leading Democratic Party candidates. It’s authoritarianism. There is no other way to describe a regulatory regime that dictates exactly what Americans can consume, sell, drive, eat, and work on.

One imagines that most Americans, through their actions, will continue to reject these regressive ideas. One reason they should is so that Greta Thunberg’s generation won’t have to suffer needlessly.

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

American Thinker: The Cynical Plot Behind Global Warming Hysteria

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

INTEL UPDATE: Egypt

/in , , , , , /by

Friday, 27 September, al-Jazeera Arabic reported that the call for demonstrations against President as-Sisi asked for the people to hit the streets after the Friday prayers.

That has already happened early Friday morning U.S. time.

In the meantime the security services blocked off all the streets and bridges leading to midaan at-tahreer (Cairo’s center plaza which was the focus of the January 2011 Arab Spring demonstrations that brought Mubarrak down).  Other areas of the city were also locked down.

This seemed to stifle the demonstrations at first, but then it seemed like the numbers picked up as the day went on as people began to gather in side streets to demonstrate.  There were also demonstrations in a number of other cities in Egypt.

Since the only major Arabic news entity reporting on these events is al-Jazeera, which has an anti-President as-Sisi bias, and al-Jazeera’s only video feed are images from participators’ cell phones, It is difficult to judge exactly how extensive these demonstrations are and how numerous the demonstrators.  (Note, all western news entities mentioning the demonstrations in Egypt are relying on the accounts coming out of al-Jazeera.)

My gut feeling though, is that it is not as big a deal as were those last Friday.  Meaning that the heavy hand, and the lock-down of Cairo, may have succeeded in dampening the protests to some extent–in spite of al-Jazeera’s wishes.

The arrest count from last week’s protest is now at 1900 and includes people from all walks of life.  There is no word yet as to the numbers arrested today, although tear gas has been used in some areas.  There is some video feed of people burning pictures of as-Sisi.  Unlike last week, there seems to be a lot more children and African immigrants participating in these protests.

Talk show host ‘Amru Adeeb reported on his al-hakaya (the Story) show that Muslim Brotherhood members who fled to Turkey have called for the formation of a new group which would be able to get the people out onto the streets to protest the regime.  This new group is needed, according to the MB, because the regime has penetrated the previous groups it has formed.

(Note:  Since the Egyptian government has declared the MB to be a terrorist group, it has been banned in Egypt.  Therefore, they tried to get around that by forming new groups such as al-hasm, and al-murabitoun.  Note also that the above-mentioned talk show host ‘Amru Adeeb is reputed to be close to the regime in general, and close to Egyptian intelligence in particular.)

Issues related to the current demonstrations (other than those delineated in previous reporting) include:

  • The government’s oppression.
  • The never-ending war in the Sinai which the protestors claim the government is intentionally extending so they can use the excuse of “the War on Terror” to keep the country virtually under martial law.
  • The “renaissance dam” in Ethiopia which Egyptians fear will cut off the flow of the Nile, Egypt’s only source of water.  They blame as-Sisi for signing a protocol with Ethiopia allowing Ethiopia to go ahead with the dam’s construction.
  • General corruption in the regime, but more specifically:
  • The appointment of as-Sisi’s son, Mahmoud, as the head of Egyptian General Intelligence (EGI).  The EGI includes all intelligence functions, foreign and domestic.  In U.S. terms it would be like housing the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NSA all in the same agency headed by the same bureaucracy.  President as-Sisi appointing his twenty-something son Mahmoud as head of the DGI would be like Donald Trump appointing Ivanka as head of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and DHS all at the same time.  Imagine the uproar that would cause.

ANALYSIS:  One of the major conundrums for U.S. policy makers with regards to the Middle East, is that in the Islamic Middle East it seems that the only choices for government are either a corrupt Monarchy (such as Saudi Arabia), a corrupt military dictatorship (such as Mubarak, Assad, Saddam, Qadhafi, etc.), or an equally corrupt Islamist regime such as the one Khomeini set up in Iran when the Shah was pulled down, or the MB regime in Egypt that took over when Mubarrak was pulled down.

The military dictatorships tend to become family mafia fiefdoms.  We saw that in Saddam’s Iraq as he was grooming his two sons to take over.  Syria is in the second generation of a family mafia rule, with both the father and the son appointing their brothers to head up Syria’s intelligence organization.

One of the final straws that broke the Mubarrak camel’s back was Mubarrak grooming one of his sons to take over after him.   So, now we see as-Sisi making the same mistake by appointing his “still wet behind the ears” son to head the EGI.  

President as-Sisi, on paper, has done a lot for his country.  In the foreign policy arena he has developed good relations with virtually every country on the planet from the wealthy oil countries of the Gulf to the great powers of the north:  Russia, Japan, China, U.S., and Europe  (regardless of their antagonisms towards each other).  He has good relations with both Pakistan and India, as well as both Koreas.  Egypt, under as-Sisi, is at odds only with the Islamist regimes of Turkey, Iran, and Qatar.

President as-Sisi’s foreign policy successes have led to a massive uptick in foreign investments in Egypt allowing him to beef up the country’s infrastructure.  This in turn has led to a roaring economy producing a Chinese-esque 5% annual GDP growth.

The carrot and stick approach as-Sisi has used to keep his people both happy and under control seemed to boost his actual popularity for awhile.  However, I believe that the turning point came when he had the constitution changed Putin style allowing him to remain in office until the mid-2030s.

After the dethroning of the MB president Mursi in 2013 the new constitution that was voted in, and signed by as-Sisi after his assuming the office of president in 2014, called for the office of president to be up for election every four years, with a term limit of just two terms, as in the United States.  President as-Sisi “won” re-election in 2018 (in an election in which all credible candidates were disqualified), meaning that based on the constitution he would still have to step down in 2022.

But, then (perhaps over-estimating his popularity with the folks) he had the constitution changed to make the presidential term six years, instead of four.  Then, because the rules of the game were changed he had a judicial decision made that since he had never had the opportunity to run for a six-year term, he had to be granted that opportunity, i.e. to start all over under the new system with a blank slate.

Translation:  When his current four-year term ends in 2022, he will now legally be able to run for one of the new six-year terms beginning in 2022, which would take him until 2028 at which time he could run for a second six-year term taking him to 2034 before he would have to retire—barring any additional changes to the constitution—and you can just imagine how “fair and legitimate” the 2022 and 2028 elections are going to be.

This move towards a Putin-esque “president for life” situation was so blatant that it embarrassed even his staunchest supporters, and no doubt poured fuel on the fire of his critics.

Thus, the appointment of his son to head the EGI may turn out to be the final straw to break the back of as-Sisi’s camel.  His carrot and stick policy may have won this current round of Arab Spring 2.0, but my advice to U.S. policy makers is: don’t put all of your chickens in the pot in terms of as-Sisi’s long term survival.

Antifa: The Terrorist Group Exposed

/in , , , , /by

In August 2019, a masked and body-armor-wearing Antifa supporter brought a .223 rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition to Ned Peppers Bar, a nightspot in the Oregon District of Dayton, Ohio. It was shortly after midnight and not long before closing. Patrons were gathered outside the restaurant on the sidewalk.

The gunman first fatally shot his sister and her companion, then proceeded to fire on the crowd at large, killing nine patrons and wounding 27. “I’m going to hell and I’m not coming back,” wrote Connor Betts on his social media account before the killing. “I want socialism. And I will not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.” Though most of the mainstream media ignored Betts’ affiliation with the radical leftist group Antifa, it did not go unnoticed by the New York Post.

With an article by Andy Ngo, the Post ran this attention-grabbing headline:

Dayton shooter Connor Betts may be Antifa’s first mass killer

Ngo wrote, “His case … makes clear that Antifa’s violence goes far beyond the street hooliganism it has become infamous for. The group espouses the belief that liberal democracy is irredeemably oppressive — fascistic, even — and must be thoroughly destroyed.”1

Andy Ngo knows all about the violence being perpetrated against conservatives by Antifa. In July he was attacked and beaten by Antifa members while covering a protest in Portland, Ore. Ngo was hospitalized with bruises, cuts and scratches. He even suffered a brain injury. As if that wasn’t enough, his attackers also robbed him.

“The most serious injury to me was my brain in the course of the mob beating,” he told The Hill. “So going forward I will be having various forms of neurophysical therapy and speech therapy to address some of the neurological challenges that I’ll be having.”2

Antifa’s Origins

The name Antifa is a contraction of “anti-fascist.” The first Antifa group was formed in Germany in 1932, where it was known as “Antifaschistische Aktion” or Anti-fascist Action. At the time, it was involved with the Communist Party of Germany. The group operated on the assumption that the Nazi party would never have come to power if there had been more aggressive opposition in the streets in the 1920s and ’30s.

Following the collapse of Nazi Germany at the end of World War II, the group went mostly dormant. It would not become publicly visible again until the 1970s and ’80s, and especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991, when neo-Nazism began gaining significant strength in Germany. Antifa also became visible in America during that time period, forming as a group called Anti-Racist Action (ARA).

The name highlights how controversy surrounding racism in America, brought into the public eye by the speeches and demonstrations led by Dr. Martin Luther King, gave Antifa a cause upon which to piggyback in the United States. The group knew that it could not gain supporters in America by opposing neo-Nazism (which barely existed in the U.S.), but racism could serve as a valuable recruiting tool to draw supporters to its socialist and anti-capitalist causes.

During the decades that followed, Antifa would broaden its outreach program to recruit anyone opposed to conservative politics or traditional Biblical values. By the time Antifa became a household name after the inauguration of President Donald Trump in 2017, the group held the position that anyone opposed to same-sex marriage, unfettered illegal immigration, abortion, socialism, gender-fluidity or government-funded healthcare and “free” college tuition was a white supremacist, fascist, Nazi or a hatemonger.

Antifa organizer Scott Crow told CNN: “The idea in Antifa is that we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate speech is not free speech. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don’t believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.”3

Antifa Makes American Headlines

I was aware of Antifa years before they made national headlines in America, shortly after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. I met them three years earlier, as did our film crew, during our filming of Europe’s Last Stand, a documentary that detailed the aggressive rise of Islam in Western Europe.

At every demonstration opposing the Islamic infiltration of Western Europe, Antifa members by the hundreds would show up as counter-protesters. They would always outnumber demonstrators, would wear masks, and would shout epithets like “Nazi scumbags” at the anti-Islamic-takeover demonstrators. Antifa members would also throw rocks, fireworks and trash cans at those they opposed, physically beating those they could get their hands on.

At most rallies police managed to keep the competing demonstrators apart, though this was not always the case. We met them in France, England and Demark. Some members allowed us to interview them. Every Antifa member we put on camera took the position that discrimination, in any form and for any reason, was a display of fascism and Nazism. They also agreed that violence was a justifiable means to combat “fascism,” anywhere and everywhere.

It came as no surprise, then, when on January 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration, Antifa formally introduced themselves to the American people by causing an outbreak of violence in the nation’s capital. Six police officers were injured, with one taken to the hospital. Some 217 protesters were arrested, many of them for throwing bricks and rocks, smashing windows, setting fire to trash cans and destroying a limousine. The incident caused more than $100,000 in damage in Washington, D.C. The nation’s capital was not alone in the Antifa violence of that day. Riots also broke out in New York City, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago and Portland. The Antifa protesters shouted, “Nazis go home,” and “No Nazi USA.”

One Antifa member explained the purpose of the mayhem. It was to display opposition to President Trump’s “sexism, Islamophobia, his bigotry and nationalism.”4

Six Antifa members would go on trial. A lawyer for Oliver Harris, one of the men arrested, told the jury, “These folks were engaged in protected speech.” Apparently the jury agreed, acquitting all six.5

Antifa: Who are they?

Most Antifa members are relatively young, between 20 and 29 years of age. During our undercover investigation into a branch in Pennsylvania, we discovered the majority of Antifa members were homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or “gender-fluid.” Typical Antifa members live at home with their parents, go to college and communicate with fellow members and leaders through cellphone encrypted-messaging apps like Signal.

There is no known top-down command structure to Antifa. The organization does not have a national headquarters, an official spokesman or even a known bank account. That does not mean, however, that Antifa lacks funding, organization or communications. There are approximately 200 groups in the United States that either claim to be Antifa or show up in support of Antifa-led demonstrations.

Left-wing Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros has been linked to the funding of Antifa. Researcher and author Matthew Vadum said Soros gave $100,000 to the Alliance for Global Justice, which in turn gave $50,000 to Refuse Fascism, an Antifa group that formed shortly after President Trump’s election.6

Still, little is known about Antifa’s national funding, though local groups often raise money through website donations, online social campaigns, silent auctions and special events. Funding aside, Antifa has been tremendously successful at captivating America’s attention, especially among those in the media, academic and political circles and law enforcement. Almost all of that attention has grown from their unashamed and unapologetic embrace of violence, destruction and obstruction.

On the lighter side (if there is a lighter side to this malevolence), Antifa will use human bodies to block major highways in an effort to send a threatening message. In 2018, when Antifa blocked highway traffic in downtown Portland, Ore., it almost started a riot. “Protesters started a riot in downtown Portland,” tweeted videographer Brandon Farley after 100 Antifa members not only blocked traffic but struck people’s car windows, attacked a man in a wheelchair and called another driver a “little white supremacist” because he had North Carolina license plates.7

“Go back to North Carolina! We don’t need your KKK,” the North Carolinian was told.

In a campaign called “The Nightmare Must End: The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go!” Antifa members blocked heavily traveled Highway 101 in California to publicize an upcoming November, 2018 event. The staged demonstration took place on Sept. 26, 2018, with eight Antifa activists standing in the middle of the highway for 20 minutes during rush hour to hold up signs reading, “Nov 4 It Begins.”

Antifa has proven itself to be more about violent confrontations than blocking traffic, however. This was made abundantly clear during a violent protest at the University of California at Berkeley on Feb. 1, 2017. Nearly 150 Antifa supporters participated in a demonstration against the school to shut down a scheduled speech by high-profile Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulous. Just as they did during the violence at Trump’s inauguration, Antifa set fires on the streets and smashed windows, causing over $100,000 in damage to the university. The police took a “hands-off” approach and made only one arrest (for a minor “failure to disperse” offense).

Most importantly, Antifa achieved its goal: UC Berkeley canceled Yiannopoulous’ speaking engagement that night. The Berkeley riot has come to encapsulate, define and demonstrate the strength and essence of Antifa. Antifa is less about promoting its own message and more about using violence and intimidation to silence messages with which they disagree. The group’s goal is quite literally to shut down free speech.

Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, said on Fox & Friends, “They are a anti-First Amendment, ultra-violent terror group that wants to silence people’s free speech.”8

Clubs, Rocks, Molotov Cocktails

Antifa is less successful when it organizes demonstrations that try to advance a political message. Members tend to shy away from such rallies, the media presence is typically small and even liberal politicians keep a noticeable distance.

The “strength” of Antifa is not in promoting their own radical socialist agenda, but rather in their demonstrated ability to use counter-protests to shut down opposition views. Virtually every pundit — both liberal and conservative — would agree that Antifa’s Nov. 4, 2018 “nationwide rally” to topple the Trump/Pence “regime” was a miserable failure, with very few members showing up at designated rallying points.

The main problem with that event — for Antifa — was that there was no one to club over the head, spit on, throw things at, threaten, insult or belittle. With no visible enemy in sight at the rallying points, the event simply fizzled. Antifa activists are not interested in simply holding placards and shouting for change. They want to swing those placards at human heads. This is why the name Antifa and “black bloc” are often synonymous.

“Black bloc” is a tactic in which a group’s protesters dress in black while wearing ski masks, scarves, motorcycle helmets or other protective headgear. The main purpose is to protect themselves from injury and conceal their identities from the police. “We’re covered in black so when we attack these guys we can’t be prosecuted,” Jon Crowley, an Antifa member, said in an interview with the Boston Herald.9

Beyond the black clothing and protective gear, Antifa will show up at rallies with clubs, bricks, homemade slingshots, chains and Molotov cocktails. They have also been known to throw feces and urine at opponents. Because Antifa paints everyone who disagrees with their politics as either Nazi or fascist, it has become easy for them to embolden and inspire their members to carry out acts of violence against their perceived enemies.

One high-profile Antifa member explained it this way to The Hill, a newspaper and website that covers the daily dealings of Congress: “The justification for the use of violence is that Nazi ideology at its very core is founded on violence and on wielding power by any means,” said Mike Isaacson, one of the founders of Smash Racism D.C., an antifa organization in Washington. “There is the question of whether these people should feel safe organizing as Nazis in public, and I don’t think they should,” Isaacson said.10

That is, label your opponents as some of the worst criminals in recorded history, then proceed to practice violent vigilante justice against them. Targets of Antifa’s violence have been mainstream conservatives, white supremacist groups, neo-Nazis, Trump supporters, Trump’s White House staff and its employees and even conservative talk-show hosts, all lumped together.

Beyond targeting individuals and groups whom they label as Nazis, Antifa also targets government institutions they consider “racist,” such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. Sixty-nine-year-old Willem Van Spronsen left a manifesto to his friends claiming, “I am Antifa,” before he left for an ICE detention center in Tacoma, Wash. on July 13, 2019. In Spronsen’s manifesto, posted just before he left his home armed with a rifle and incendiary devices, he said he wanted to take action “against the forces of evil.”11

Once he arrived at the Northwest Detention Center at around 4 a.m., Spronsen started throwing his incendiary devices and attempted to burn buildings. He set vehicles on fire and tried to ignite a propane tank. He even blew up his own car, which his daughter had loaned to him. When police arrived they shot and killed him. After his death, an Antifa group praised Spronsen. Seattle Antifascist Action called him “a good friend” who “gave his life to the struggle against fascism.”

Fear and Intimidation to Silence Conservative Free Speech

Of all the political objectives on Antifa’s docket, none is more threatening than their determination to silence conservative free speech. Because Antifa labels all conservative speech as hate speech, Antifa members feel they have just cause to employ threats of violence, and actual violence, to shut down conservative speakers and events.

The Berkeley riots proved the effectiveness of that strategy when Antifa managed to compel the university — through violence — to cancel the speech of Milo Yiannopoulous. It is Antifa’s modus operandi to make conservatives feel scared for their lives if they hold a public speech or event, or even appear on a public television or radio program. And now they know it works.

In November 2018, some 20 protesters descended on the D.C. home of Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson. Carlson was at work at the time, but his wife was home alone. Antifa members pounded on the front door, shouting, “We will fight. We know where you sleep at night.”12

The out-of-control group of radicals banged tambourines, waved posters, shouted through a megaphone and chanted “racist scumbag, leave town.” Carlson’s wife, Susie, was so scared she locked herself up in a pantry closet. “They were threatening me and my family and telling me to leave my own neighborhood in the city that I grew up in,” Carlson would say.13

In another incident, in Pitman, N.J., Antifa managed to get a conservative conference shut down by threatening to set the venue on fire and burn those attending alive. In August 2019 a group called Minds of New Jersey wanted to host a 20-speaker conference to talk about “racism, violence and authoritarianism.” Antifa declared that the speakers were “well-known fascists and their sympathizers.”14

To stop the event, Antifa not only hijacked and held hostage the Twitter account of the hosting venue, the Broadway Theatre, but also told management that they were considering “locking them in and lighting a fire.” As a result of the threat, the conference was canceled.

Threats have also been directed at conservative Christians. Not long after a professor at Iowa’s Kirkwood Community College, Jeff Klinzman, told local media, “I affirm that I am Antifa,” it was learned that he had previously written about Evangelical Christians: “Kill them all, and bury them deep into the ground.”15

Antifa: A Terrorist Organization

As a result of Antifa’s violence against individuals and institutions, and the expressed intent to harm people with whom they disagree, some politicians are now demanding that the group be declared a domestic terrorist organization. President Trump said, “Antifa, in my opinion, is a terrorist organization. You see what they’ve been doing.”16

He also Tweeted in July 2019, “Consideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA, the gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting (only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats, a major Organization of Terror (along with MS-13 & others). Would make it easier for police to do their job!”17

Legislation in both the Senate (Sen. Res. 279)18 and in the House (H.R. 4003)19has been introduced that would designate Antifa as a terrorist organization and impose heavy fines and imprisonment for Antifa-related violence. Sen. Ted Cruz told The Daily Caller: “Violence and the threat of violence for political ends isn’t right, and the fact that 36 ANTIFA protesters were arrested — including nine for assault and battery on a police officer and five for carrying or assault with a dangerous weapon — is yet another indication that ANTIFA is an active domestic terrorist organization.”20

RELATED ARTICLE: Antifa Update: More Evidence of Democratic Collusion

RELATED VIDEOS:

ANTIFA ATTACKS elderly woman at a crosswalk. – Brandon Tatum

VICE talks to a German ANTIFA “Nazi hunter”

REFERENCES:

  1. New York Post
  2. The Hill
  3. Seurth, Jessica (August 14, 2017). “What is Antifa?”. CNN.
  4. CNN
  5. Newsweek
  6. George Soros donated $50,000 in 2004 and $50,000 in 2006 to Alliance for Global Justice. Source
  7. Daily Caller
  8. Newsweek
  9. Boston Herald
  10. The Hill
  11. Buzz Feed
  12. FOX5 DC
  13. DailyMail
  14. Tockify
  15. KCGR
  16. Daily Signal
  17. Twitter
  18. Sen.Res.279
  19. H.R. 4003
  20. Daily Caller

Do Democrat Loyalists Really Know their Party?

/in , , , , , , , /by

Do you find yourself scratching your head wondering why your intelligent, moral, and Christian relatives and friends continue to support the Democratic party despite its amoral, anti-Christian and anti-American agenda? A part of the problem is for decades Republicans and Conservatives have brought an olive branch to a gun fight, allowing progressives free reign to demonize Republicans and Conservatives in the minds of many Americans. Trump is a rare Republican who understands the viciousness of our enemies-within and is fighting back appropriately.

No matter how hard I try to educate relatives and friends about the benefits of conservatism and voting Republican, some persist in viewing me as an Uncle Tom black man betraying his people. Stenciled on their brains is the lie that Conservatives and Republicans are selfish, rich and racist white men who abuse and exploit everyone. Thank God for the #WalkAway Campaign, the Jexit Movement and Blexit Movement which are youths, white and black, who have finally seen the light and are exiting the Democratic party with its decades of lies and broken promises.

Still, there are Democrat walking brain-dead zombies who reject the truth that their party has been hijacked by hate-filled anti-Christian and anti-American progressives. The Bible speaks of unfortunate souls who prefer to embrace a lie rather than the truth. We must pray for them.

However, there are Democrat loyalists who simply do not realize what their “working man’s” party has become. For example: A lifelong Democrat senior relative is excited about voting for Joe Biden for president.

This relative has no idea that Biden and his fellow Democrat presidential contenders demonically seek to legalize murdering babies after the child is born. In their perverted definition of women rights, Democrats say a woman has the right to murder her healthy born baby. I pray for the right time to tell my senior relative the truth about Biden and her beloved Democratic party.

Progressives are extremely good at keeping their extreme assaults on our culture off evening news broadcasts and front page of the New York Times. Consequently, few Democrat voters know their party supports LGBTQ ideology being taught is schools beginning in pre-k. The LGBTQ curriculum in public schools mandates that students read, “I Am Jazz” about a boy whose insane parents began his sex change at 3 years old. The Pope and pediatricians say teaching transgender ideology is child abuse. Hellbent on making the perverted sexual behavior of less than 3% of the population mainstream, Democrats seek to make it illegal to counsel anyone troubled by their same sex attraction.

I doubt that average Joe, Democrat voter, knows his presidential candidates welcome the invasion of illegals while promising them free healthcare, along with numerous other benefits unavailable to Joe and his fellow American citizens. Do loyal Democrat voters know Democrat sanctuary cities protect illegals who rape and murder Americans?

San Francisco is a Democrat controlled sanctuary city. A Democrat relative’s eyes almost popped out of her head as I told her about the poop maps distributed in San Francisco to help tourists avoid the piles of human excrement left by vagrants defecating on the streets. She knew nothing about the swiftly expanding massive tent cities, rat infestation and resurgence of old diseases due to filth. She had no idea that rather than reversing their policies which are destroying the once beautiful city by the bay, Democrats are tripling down on their insane policies.

As I stated, progressives are masters at hiding their war on all thing wholesome and good. I chatted with a Christian pastor at his church’s picnic. He never heard of the Equality Act which Democrats have already successfully passed in the house.

The pastor said in response to SCOTUS redefining marriage, his church wrote in their by-laws that they will not perform homosexual weddings nor rent their facilities for homosexual weddings. I explained to the pastor that the deceptively titled, Equality Act, will force his church to abandon their biblical convictions; making it illegal not to surrender to every demand of LBGTQ anti-Christian terrorists. A member said about 40% of that church’s congregation is Democrat. I doubt those Democrats are aware of their party’s war on their religious liberty.

How many blue collar Democrat voters know their party’s Green New Deal will kill jobs and destroy Trump’s booming economy? Within the next 12 years, their insane Green New Deal includes eliminating 99% of cars; eliminating air travel; banning affordable energy; banning meat; gutting and rebuilding every building in America and numerous other outrageous environmental wacko demands.

A gentleman probably in his 90s was in front of me in the checkout line at the dollar store. The pleasant gentleman struck up a conversation with me about the weather. He said the unusual humidity is the result of us not taking care of the environment. He said the Arctic icebergs are melting.

I thought, “Why bother trying to educate him. He is probably an old guy, stuck in his ways.” And yet, I felt guilty for not sharing the truth with the misinformed senior.

As we exited the store, I succinctly said, “Sir, we cannot control the weather. Everything you are hearing in the news about us destroying the environment is a political attempt for government to take more control of our lives.” To my surprise, he replied, “I think you’re right.”

This is what we all must do folks. We must begin speaking up rather than assuming we have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. My wife said because she does not possess expert knowledge of every issue, she is reluctant to speak-out when someone parrots Democrat and fake news media lies. I encouraged her to confidently share what she does know about an issue. Remember, God uses ordinary people. Your little becomes much when you place it in the Master’s Hand. Spread truth and trust God to reap positive results.

Fifty-Five Years of Mainstream Media Lies

/in , , , , , /by

“When the Supreme Court moved to Washington in 1800, it was provided with no books, which probably accounts for the high quality of early opinions.”  – Robert Jackson, former Supreme Court Associate Justice

“Once the Supreme Court in 1973 decided that infanticide could be legal, it not only ended America’s ‘inalienable right to life,’ it threw the Golden Rule right off the shores of this continent.” – Actor Michael Moriarty

“I don’t think we need political activists on the Supreme Court or any other level of court.” – Dick Mountjoy, Republican, California State Senate

Recently Rush Limbaugh was talking about the latest lies by the NYTs against Justice Kavanaugh, and people were calling in asking what to do.  I know Limbaugh knows about the 1964 Supreme Court case, NYTs v. Sullivan because he’s spoken about it before; yet he never mentioned it.  This was the 1964 decision by the liberal Warren Court, the same court who eliminated prayer from our schools in 1962, and has caused a precipitous decline in academic achievement, a rise in out of wedlock pregnancies, a rise in drug use, a rise in juvenile crime and deterioration in student behavior.

The 9-0 decision in NYTs v. Sullivan should be overturned as it has allowed the mainstream media to lie with impunity about government officials and later public figures for over 55 years, and today the result is just as heinous for our society as the 1962 Engel v. Vital decision.  There is no truth from mainstream media, only propaganda.

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964), extended the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech to libel cases brought by public officials. The Supreme Court sought to encourage public debate by changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state law and state courts.

It was Justice Brennan who created the “right to be wrong,” the speech and press rule stipulating that even false statements about public officials should be entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States unless “actual malice” could be demonstrated.

In order to prove libel, a “public official” must show that the newspaper acted “with ‘actual malice’ that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth.  And just how does one prove that?  The mere fact that the federal government via the Supreme Court removed states’ rights for libel and slander in the NYTs ruling and follow-up cases is what Justice Clarence Thomas believes “were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

Again, to prove actual malice under the Sullivan decision, a libel plaintiff must show that the writer knew the disputed statement was false or had acted with “reckless disregard.” That second phrase is also a term of art. The Supreme Court has said that it requires proof that the writer entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.

In the past 55 years, media has gone from lies of omission (Douglas Edwards and Walter Cronkite) to outright falsehoods about public figures they disdain as treacherous to the elites’ globalist agenda.  Prime targets of the media are President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh.

Socialists Seek to Impeach Justice Kavanaugh

Ridiculous as it may seem to law abiding Americans, the socialist left now believes you are guilty via accusation if you are a Republican or conservative icon.

Elizabeth Warren tweeted, “Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.” Kamala Harris tweeted, “Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached.”  These attorneys accuse the Justice of lying, yet there isn’t a scintilla of proof regarding the accusations.

Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings were not even believed by Ford’s best friend, Leland Kaiser who was pressured by Ford’s allies to change her story.  Kaiser was threatened regarding cooperation and told if she didn’t cooperate, “bad things would happen to her.”  Keyser’s son Alex Beckel and her former husband Bob Beckel, a prominent Democrat, are both on record stating that she “was pressured by Blasey Ford allies to lie during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings about the incident.”

The entire “rush to judgement” circus was brought forth by Diane Feinstein.  Yet, we never saw Eric Holder impeached for his gun running, or Hillary for Benghazi, or Ted Kennedy for leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die in his car off Chappaquiddick Bridge.  Liberal icons rarely suffer for misdeeds.

The socialist left uses the same modus operandi every single time they make accusations, and then they go to their comrades in the mainstream media to spew their lies with impunity, thanks to the 1964 Supreme Court decision.  This is why there is a massive decline in the trust of American media.

The New York Times Piece

Robin Pogrebin, a culture reporter for The New York Times, and Kate Kelly, a Wall Street reporter for the same paper, got together to write The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.  They debuted their new book in a NYTs article wherein they left out the pertinent information related in their book that the woman they claimed was assaulted by Kavanaugh had brushed away this claim, had no recollection of such a claim, and had refused to speak with them.

Pogrebin and Kelly’s New York Times piece also failed to tell us that their source, Max Stier, had been Bill Clinton’s lawyer. Kavanaugh had worked for Ken Starr on impeachment while Stier had worked to defend Clinton against impeachment.  The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway noted in a piece that during those proceedings Stier had “worked closely with David Kendall,” who would later defend Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information.

In addition to defending the Clintons during Whitewater, Stier also married U.S. Attorney Florence Yu Pan.  Pan was a Democrat donor who was nominated for a federal judgeship under Barack Obama.  The Republican Senate blocked the appointment.  Payback is always behind the scenes.

And once again, shortly after Pogrebin and Kelly debuted an article promoting their book with another freshman year sexual allegation against Kavanaugh, three 2020 Democrats called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

As Daniel Greenfield said in a recent article, “The manufactured Kavanaugh scandals are subsidiary to the manufactured Trump scandals.”

Liberal Hacks Blame NYT’s Editors

President Trump said Justice Kavanaugh should sue both the New York Times and the authors of the article debuting their attack book on Justice Kavanaugh.  But they quickly covered their backsides by appearing on several talk shows and blaming the editors of the newspaper.

Most likely they were told they had to clear their names and claim their article had been edited and left out an important part.  Personally, I don’t believe this for one minute, but the Times realizes they can’t be sued if they claim it was an oversight. They had the women appear on mainstream media and claim it was an error.  The Times put out a correction the Monday after the initial article appeared stating, “The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Both reporters denied that they deliberately intended to mislead anyone and that the editors removed the piece because it had the woman’s name in it, which the Times is loath to use.  In doing so, they “inadvertently” removed the rest of the statement.

The two authors were asked on one program if they hadn’t read the edited copy and they answered that they thought they did, but obviously if they did, they liked the way it read.

These women escaped being sued by backtracking quite quickly, otherwise both they and the Times would have easily been sued for “actual malice.”

Conclusion

The leftwing media didn’t make a mistake.  Their attack on Kavanaugh was purposeful and vitriolic.  They want the President destroyed, and they want other conservative judges to know what it will cost them to be appointed by President Trump.  There really is no journalism at The New York Times.  Their reactionary politics and attacks on the truth itself are disturbingly common.

Mainstream media and their socialist ilk scream impeachment…impeachment of our President and of Justice Kavanaugh.  It’s time we start screaming that NYTs v. Sullivan must be overturned and libel laws returned to the states!

P.S.  NewsWithViews comes into your mailbox daily because of the efforts of our editor, and those who write for him. Maintaining the website is costly, as is the time and effort put into the daily distribution of articles which you will not see in mainstream media. Please support NWVs monthly with any amount you can spare. Your help brings the truth to America.  You can donate here, and tell all your friends to sign up to receive the daily articles in their mailboxes.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Remember When Democrats Tried To Impeach Obama? – Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler on OAN

Amazon Synod Preparatory Document Steeped in Liberation Theology – Declares Eucharist ‘symbolic,’ praises ‘feminist and ecological theology’

/in , , , , /by

BOGOTÁ, Colombia (ChurchMilitant.com) – The impact of liberation theology on the upcoming Amazon Synod is coming into sharper view.

Concerns over the Amazon Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris are being compounded by an earlier preparatory document “Towards the Pan-Amazonian Synod: Challenges and Contributions from Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Uncovered during a recent LifeSiteNews investigation, the 136-page work stems from an April meeting in Bogotá, Colombia, co-organized by REPAM (the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network) and Amerindia, two leading promoters of liberation theology.

The Instrumentum Laboris confirms the significance of the meeting, referring to it as an important part of the synod’s preparatory process.

Rife with heretical statements, the Bogotá document hails ex-priest Leonardo Boff, a leading advocate of liberation theology censured by the Vatican for his attacks on Catholic doctrine.

The document scorns the salvific mission of the Catholic Church, asserting that there is no one, true faith — that all religions are capable of bringing salvation to their followers.

“It is not fair to say that only one religion is true and the others are decadent, for they all reveal the mystery of God and reveal the many ways in which we walk in fidelity and love for God,” the document states.

It adds that the Catholic Church must move “from intolerant exclusivism to an attitude of respect that accepts that Christianity does not have a historical monopoly on salvation” and that “pluralism and diversity of religions are expressions of a wise divine will.”

The work makes no mention of the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Instead, it reduces the Eucharist to a “symbolic” expression of “communal” experience — a blatant modernist heresy condemned by Pope Pius X in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

“In the liturgy, the Church expresses her faith in a symbolic and communal way,” the Bogotá document reads.

Referencing the teaching that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, it declares:

The liturgy is the “summit,” because at the foot of the table is presented the experience of people, the path of the community and the socio-cultural context in which it operates. “Source,” because from the living memory of the love of Christ and from the encounter with sisters and brothers the desire and the capacity for more coherent discipleship and more effective witness are born.

Though paying lip service to fidelity to the Magisterium, the Bogotá document depicts the male priesthood not as a bedrock dogma, but as a pliable “position” amenable to the spirit of the age:

We recommend … that theologians, respecting in a reverent way the data of faith and in profound communion with the Magisterium, may continue with complete freedom the reflection on the priestly ordination of women, enriching their analysis with resources coming from psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy and hermeneutics, in order to be able to discern the presence of the Spirit in that sign of the times which is … the presence of women in public life.

Calling for an end to the “patriarchal perspective” of the Church, the Bogotá document advocates for a “feminist and ecological theology” complete with women priests.

It also praises pagan indigenous traditions, calling for understanding and recognition of “the virtues, knowledge and cosmovisions existing among the ancestral ethnic groups, which still retain the ability to read and conceive nature as the true mother.”

Continuing its praise for indigenous traditions, the document goes on to describe God as a masculine-feminine “Creator-Creatora”:

They have their sacred histories, languages, knowledge, traditions, spiritualities and theologies. All of them seek to build a “good life” and the communion of people among themselves, with the world, with living beings and with the Creator-Creatora. They feel that they are living well in the “house” that the Creator-Creatora gave them on Earth.

Of the 28 contributors to the Bogotá document, four have played key roles in constructing the synod and two are principal authors of the Instrumentum Laboris.

As the contents of both works confirm, these architects of the Oct. 6–27 Amazon Synod are torchbearers of liberation theology. Through prayer and fasting, faithful Catholics are bracing for their impact upon the Church.

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

The Humanitarian Hoax of Impeachment: 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 entire 2020 lineup of leftist Democrats and their Congressional sycophants have assured the nation that impeachment of President Trump is necessary to protect the nation. It is an odd assertion considering that President Trump has been wildly successful by pro-America standards. Let’s review.

In less than three years President Trump has added 6 million jobs to the workforce, unemployment is the lowest it has ever been for the black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. The United States is energy independent and we are now the leading exporter of energy in the world. So, what exactly do the Democrats mean when they say that YOU, the nation, will be safer without POTUS? Let’s find out.

It appears there is pervasive pronoun confusion in the Democrat assertion! The corrupt pay-to-play Democrats would definitely be safer without America-first President Trump in charge, but YOU, the American taxpaying voter, will definitely not be safer. Let me explain.

In 1994, ice skater Tonya Harding stunned the world with her participation in the unprecedented and shocking physical attack against competitor Nancy Kerrigan. Fans were familiar with anabolic steroid doping schemes in athletics, but a physical assault intended to break Nancy Kerrigan’s leg?? The attack was simply beyond the threshold of public tolerance. Fans want a fair fight – a fair competition between athletes who perform and compete fairly for the competition prize – no cheating or dirty tricks allowed.

So it is with politics. The radical leftist Democrat party has pushed the public past the threshold of tolerance. Americans voters want a fair fight – a fair competition between politicians who present their positions and compete fairly for the election prize – no cheating or dirty tricks allowed.

The radical leftist Democrat party under Obama fully expected his legacy candidate Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election. Clinton stupefied the Democrats when she was defeated. Instead of concentrating on providing an electable candidate in 2020, Obama’s Democrat “resistance” movement was immediately launched to disable and destroy President Trump and his America-first policies.

The Democrats have stunned the world with their shocking attacks against President Donald Trump. For the first time in American history a coup was attempted against a sitting president of the United States. Like Tanya Harding’s attack on champion Nancy Kerrigan, the coup failed and President Trump was bruised but not destroyed Uh-oh!

The failed White House coup morphed into the failed Mueller “investigation” that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and two years trying to accomplish the overthrow of a duly elected sitting president. President Trump continued to strengthen the economy and military that Obama had intentionally weakened. What happened?

Yet another coup attempt was launched against President Trump in the form of the media made-for-television Ukraine affair. On cue, the desperate Democrats starring Adam Schiff began their hysterical, unsubstantiated, completely fraudulent calls for impeachment. Here is the problem. The Democrat bag of dirty political tricks are boomerangs that expose their own staggering malfeasance. Let’s review.

The Democrats accuse President Trump of extorting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “manufacture” dirt on Joe Biden. President Trump knows he is innocent and the White House releases the transcript of the conversation that completely exonerates him. No matter. Lying Adam Schiff intentionally misrepresents the transcript and insists that the President has committed an impeachable offense.

In a powerful 9.27.19 article appearing in the World Tribune, writer Jeffrey T. Kuhner correctly titles his article, “Trump’s Real Crime? ‘He’s Serious About Draining the Swamp’” In the article Kuhner explains how the call to President Zelensky was completely appropriate. Zelensky was elected on a platform to crack down on graft and corruption. Plus, we have a treaty with the Ukraine to help each other investigate crimes that would include political corruption.

So, it should come as no surprise that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Kuhner quotes President Trump from the transcript. “’I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike,’ Trump says, referring to the private security firm that examined the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. The DNC refused to hand their server over to be analyzed by FBI forensics experts. Instead, they had Crowdstrike do it. And the company’s server is based in Ukraine — meaning it could shed light on whether Russian intelligence agents really did hack the DNC’s emails.”

Crowdstrike is an American cyber-security technology company and its founder is tied to George Soros through the Atlantic Council, a think tank supported by Soros. Are you surprised?

Kuhner is quite right in his assessment – the Democrats are wildly upset because President Trump is draining the swamp. Consider the Biden boomerang. President Trump released the conversation transcripts and Kuhner explains what it exposed:

“Trump asks Zelensky to look into the firing of the former top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, the natural gas company in which Hunter Biden was on the board. He was collecting $83,000 a month (for doing nothing). In May 2018, Joe Biden publicly bragged that, when he was vice president, he deliberately withheld $1 billion in U.S. aid unless Shokin was pushed out, thereby ending the investigation into Burisma — and of course, shielding Hunter from any prosecution. It was Biden who engaged in sleazy, criminal behavior, using American taxpayer dollars to blackmail a foreign government into allowing his drug addict son to continue enriching himself. In all, Hunter amassed over $3 million in Ukraine (through China his equity firm would collect $1.5 billion — an obscene sum). In short, Biden is one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington. Trump did what he is supposed to do: Investigate Biden’s illicit activity and demand the new Ukrainian government honor its commitment to tackle corruption.”

Video: “I am draining the swamp.”

Everything the swampsters have accused President Trump of doing is precisely what they have done themselves. In psychology it is called projection. In everyday language, what the Democrats have done and continue to do is simply called lying. The Democrats are lying in the service of their political ideology in which the ends justifies the means. It is political cheating on a staggering scale.

The humanitarian hoax of impeachment is that it usurps the will of the American people by pretending to protect America. The globalist elite and their Democrat hucksters are determined to overthrow duly elected President Donald J. Trump. The Democrats, funded by globalists like George Soros, have an elitist operating principle that says, “We are superior to you, we are smarter than you, we know better than you, and we are going to remove the president you elected in 2016 and install our own puppet president against your will – for your own good of course.”

It is the same arrogant elitist operating principle that is subverting the will of the British people who voted to leave the European Union. The globalists and their political puppets in England are refusing to implement BREXIT (British exit). It is the same shocking deep state challenge to the will of the people by globalist powers who fully intend to cheat the English voters and usurp the power of the British people.

The lesson of Tanya Harding is that the international world of figure skating is diminished by cheating. The sport is not better off with an arrogant ends justifies the means attitude, and neither is America. President Donald J. Trump has proven that his America-first policies strengthen the United States domestically and internationally. He is the voters choice and the right choice for America.

President Trump insists on protecting Americans, preserving the American Constitution, our representative republic, free market capitalism, our national sovereignty, and most of all the will of the American people.

We must never allow the humanitarian hoax of impeachment to succeed. It is the dirtiest of Democrat political tricks designed to protect the corrupt Washington swamp, and deny the will of the people who have elected President Trump to drain it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

If The Case For Trump’s Impeachment Is So Strong, Why Are Liberals Lying About It?

Trump: Dems Are Coming After Me Because I’m Draining The Swamp

WATCH: Bill Maher Tears Into Joe And Hunter Biden Over Ukraine Dealings

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