VIDEO: FL State Senator Joe Gruters’ bill would prohibit businesses from discriminating against a customers’ COVID vaccination status

/in , , , , , , , /by

Florida’s State Senator Joe Gruters (R-District 23) has introduced legislation that would prohibit businesses from requiring customers to show proof of having been vaccinated against covid and/or from discriminating against would be customers who cannot and/or will not show such proof.

Watch the Cape Coral TV news blurb:

What you say? I do not support government intrusion into how a private business is operated.

  1. This bill would stop, in its tracks, attempts by Government to require the general citizenry to show proof of being vaccinated during the course of their normal day-to-day activities.
  2. This bill would stop, in its tracks, attempts by Government to, “under the color of law”, force businesses to become the “vaccination police”

That said, I would rather see legislation that prevents the State of Florida from imposing ANY sort of “must show proof” requirements and let businesses make their own decisions on the matter.

Then, again, when I walk into a bank lobby and some minion tells me I must wear a mask and then, using their bare hands (God only knows where their hands have been), from an open box (God only knows where it has been), hands me an unsealed mask (God only knows who has handled them) and demands that I put it on my face?

Let’s just say that we need something along the lines of Gruters’ bill and we need it damn soon.

Read the Bill here:https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/364

©Tad MacKie. All rights reserved.

150 House Democrats sign letter backing Biden to reenter Iran Nuclear Deal

/in , , , /by

Totally frightening. The JCPOA guarantees that Iran will be able to build a nuclear arsenal in the next few years. In addition, the JCPOA provides Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, that Iran will use to finance Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, and Assad’s brutal regime in Syria. There is no reason to do this. The economic sanctions that President Trump has imposed on Iran have been working beautifully. Why re-enter an agreement that would guarantee death, destruction, and war in the Middle East?

150 House Democrats sign letter backing Biden to reenter Iran nuclear deal

“We strongly endorse your call for Iran to return to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States to rejoin the agreement, and subsequent follow-on negotiations.”

By Jerusalem Post, December 24, 2020

A letter backing President-elect Joe Biden’s plan to reenter the Iran nuclear deal without any new conditions has garnered 150 signatures from House Democrats — enough to block any congressional bid to block the move.

The sentiments in the letter are in direct contradiction to the urgings of the Israel lobby group AIPAC, others in the center-right pro-Israel community and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Those groups want Biden to at least renegotiate components of the deal, if not forge a new one, before rejoining the 2015 pact. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action relieved sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions, monitored by outside observers, on the country’s nuclear program.

“We strongly endorse your call for Iran to return to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States to rejoin the agreement, and subsequent follow-on negotiations,” says the letter, which concluded its signature-gathering phase on Wednesday and is set to be sent to Biden.

The intended effect of the letter is to reassure Biden, who was vice president under President Barack Obama when the deal was negotiated by the United States and others, that he can rejoin the agreement without fear of pushback. The letter surpasses 146 names, the number needed to break the two-thirds majority that opponents of reentering the deal would need to override Biden’s veto of any legislation aimed at blocking reentry.

Biden says he wants to renegotiate some components of the deal once the US is back in, including the dates when restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment lapse. He also wants to negotiate limits on Iran’s missile development and its adventurism in the region while addressing Iran’s concerns about the actions of American allies.

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

New Legal Memo Outlines Path to Victory For Trump Supporters

/in , , , , , /by

Christmas gift or miracle, joy to the world.

New Legal Memo Brings Hope to Trump Supporters This Christmas

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney, December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Round Two:  The United States Must Enter the Fray

Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.

When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.

The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.

The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.

Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas

In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.

That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.

Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

150 House Democrats sign letter backing Biden to reenter Iran nuclear deal

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Radical Hater Warnock in New Ad

French Police Arrest 4 More Muslims in Charlie Hebdo Islamic Terror Attack

Notorious Nazi Student Group – Students Justice Palestine- SJP FAILS in Legal Effort to Overturn Ban at Fordham University

China Uses Zoom To Spy on Americans, Zoom Shared US User Data With Beijing to Ensure Chinese Market Access

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

U..S. Sanctions Iran’s International Network of Islamic Seminaries, Accuses them of Jihad Recruitment

/in , , , , /by

As the West continues to be duped by Muslim Brotherhood-linked lobbies, pushing the “Islamophobia” subterfuge which serves as a cover to advance the jihad, Iran continues to expand its operations worldwide via its proxies, and is eager for a Biden administration to further facilitate its ambitions.

Some background about Al-Mustafa International University:

In February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini and a group of clergymen attached to him, seized the power in Iran. From the onset, Khomeini’s regime utilized all the means and tools in its disposal to establish and fortify its brand of fundamentalism in Iran and export it throughout the Islamic world….Al Mustafa international university founded in 2007 is one of the most important among these organizations.”

Aside from Islamic indoctrination at the university, thousands of “high value individuals” from Pakistan and Afghanistan were courted by the regime’s elite Quds Force to be recruited as jihadists, and “multiple students from the university have been killed fighting in Syria.” In a characteristic deception, the university earlier in December claimed that “it promoted “peace, friendship, and brotherhood among nations” and “slammed the U.S. decision as ‘hegemonic.’”

“U.S. Sanctions Put Spotlight On Iran’s International Network Of Religious Seminaries,” by Frud Bezhan, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,December 22, 2020 (thanks to Henry):

Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran’s clerical establishment has used religious organizations to expand its clout abroad.

Key among them is the Al-Mustafa International University, a network of religious seminaries based in the Shi’ite holy city of Qom that has branches in some 50 countries.

The university claims to teach Shi’ite Muslim theology, Islamic science, and Iran’s national language, Persian, to tens of thousands of foreign students across Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America.

But Tehran’s adversaries say the university has been involved in espionage and recruited foreign fighters for Iran’s proxy war in Syria.

For years, experts have documented the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) recruitment, training, and deployment of thousands of Shi’ite fighters to Syria to defend the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, Tehran’s key ally in the brutal civil war that erupted in 2011.

‘Recruitment Platform’

The United States imposed sanctions on the massive university network on December 8, alleging that it was involved in the recruitment of Afghan and Pakistani students to fight in the Syrian conflict.

The U.S. Treasury Department said Iran’s elite Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of the IRGC, used the university’s foreign branches as a “recruitment platform” for “intelligence collection and operations,” including recruitment for pro-Iranian militias.

The Treasury Department alleged that the Quds Force used the Al-Mustafa International University as a “cover” to recruit Afghans for the blacklisted Fatemiyoun Brigade, a pro-Iranian militia that fought in Syria.

Moreover, Treasury said the Quds Force also used Al-Mustafa’s campus in Qom “as a recruitment ground” for Pakistani students to join the blacklisted Zeynabiyoun Brigade, a militia that consisted of Pakistani Shi’a.

Treasury added that “multiple students from the university have been killed fighting in Syria.”

In a statement on December 9, the university said it promoted “peace, friendship, and brotherhood among nations” and slammed the U.S. decision as “hegemonic.”

‘High-Value Individuals’

Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington who has closely monitored IRGC activity in Syria, said that, according to his database from January 2012 to December 2020, 3,059 Iranian and allied foreign fighters were killed in combat in Syria.

Alfoneh says of those, only three were students or graduates of the Al-Mustafa International University — known as Jamiat al-Mostafa University in Iran.

“This indicates that Jamiat al-Mostafa has never served as the primary recruitment ground for the IRGC’s war effort in Syria,” he says.

The IRGC recruited thousands of Afghan migrants and refugees within its own borders and covertly drafted hundreds of Shi’a inside Afghanistan. The same strategy was used to recruit Pakistanis.

Alfoneh says the “three individuals identified appear to have been in command, intelligence, or political-ideological indoctrination positions.”

That means, he said, that the IRGC perceived the graduates or students of the Al-Mustafa International University as “high-value individuals.”…

COLUMN BY

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

Book Criticizing Cancel Culture Gets Canceled Because Author Criticized Islam

/in , , , /by

You may have thought the public discourse couldn’t get any more absurd. Think again. Apparently oblivious to the titanic dimensions of the irony, the publisher Little, Brown just canceled a new book, Welcome to the Woke Trials: How #Identity Killed Progressive Politics by British journalist Julie Burchill because of an “Islamophobic” twitter exchange Burchill had with Muslim writer Ash Sarkar. So you see, it’s fine to stand up for freedom of speech, but some lines must not be crossed. And what was Burchill’s crime? Did she use racial slurs? Did she call for genocide or violence against innocent Muslims? No, apparently all she did was note the readily demonstrable fact that according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad married a child. But telling the truth is a dangerous enterprise these days.

According to The National, the Hachette group, which owns Little, Brown, announced that Burchill’s book “has been scrapped by her publisher for what it said were Islamophobic comments.”

The book, according to the report, “was promoted as a ‘characteristically irreverent and entertaining’ indictment of the ‘outrage mob.’” But the outrage mob was not outraged by anything in the book itself. It was evidently outraged because Burchill asked Sarkar, “Can you please remind me of the age of the Prophet Mohammad’s first wife?”

Burchill is clearly speaking about Muhammad’s child bride Aisha, not his first wife, Khadija, who was fifteen years older than he was. But that’s just a detail. Commenters raked Burchill over the coals for her supposed hypocrisy for ignoring child marriage in British history and claiming that Mary was a child when she married Joseph. Yet none of that was on point. No one would care about Muhammad’s child marriage were his behavior not normative for Islamic law and imitated by all too many Muslims even today. So what Burchill said, aside from mixing up the order of Muhammad’s wives, was entirely based on fact.

Now, there is a possibility that Burchill’s child marriage remarks were not the “Islamophobic comments” in question. It may be that there were other exchanges between Burchill and Sarkar that Twitter has deleted. The National fastidiously refrains from telling us what egregious thing Burchill is supposed to have said. But it is bitterly ironic that Burchill’s book on cancel culture has now been canceled for whatever it is she said. That rather proves her point, doesn’t it?

Sarkar egged on the outrage mob, writing: Ms. Sarkar tweeted: “Julie Burchill, who once I suppose was a well-regarded journalist, has quite openly subjected me to Islamophobia on here. I’m a big girl – it’s not going to upset me – but I do find it strange that none of her colleagues or friends in the industry seems to have a problem with it.”

“Her colleagues and friends in the industry” accordingly jumped to show how broad-minded and non-Islamophobic they were, and quickly threw Burchill under the bus. Little, Brown’s statement is a repugnant stew of self-contradiction, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy: “We will no longer be publishing Julie Burchill’s book. This is not a decision we have taken lightly. We believe passionately in freedom of speech at Little, Brown and we have always published authors with controversial or challenging perspectives – and we will continue to do so.”

No, Little, Brown, you don’t believe in the freedom of speech. Clearly there are controversial or challenging perspectives you don’t dare publish. Claiming to believe in the freedom of speech while canceling a controversial book is like claiming to be a little bit pregnant. You either believe in the freedom of speech or you don’t. And you don’t.

Little, Brown continued: “While there is no legal definition of hate speech in the UK, we believe that Julie’s comments on Islam are not defensible from a moral or intellectual standpoint, that they crossed a line with regard to race and religion, and that her book has now become inextricably linked with those views.”

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting. The charge of “hate speech” is a tool of the powerful to silence the powerless. This ugly incident shows vividly how it is used to stifle dissent. Burchill’s question should have sparked a debate about child marriage, and about Sharia and its relationship to British law. Instead, Burchill’s book is canceled, signaling that such discussions are not to be tolerated. Little, Brown’s action shows how much the West has already accepted and internalized the Sharia prohibition of criticism of Islam. Britain’s protracted demise as a free society continues apace.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim migrant ‘already known for acts of violence’ stabs man in random knife attack

France: Muslim migrant who stabbed 9, killing one, because ‘they do not read the Qur’an’ may not stand trial

Germany: ‘Moderate’ migrant imam recommends removal of women’s clitorises to reduce their sexual desire

France: Muslima tells hospital staff, ‘I will burn everything, on the Qur’an. I’m going to cut off your head’

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

GOP Blocks $2,000 Stimulus Payments, House To Hold Roll Call Vote On Proposal Monday

/in , , , , , /by

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault.”  – President Donald J. Trump

House Republicans blocked legislation Thursday that would have sent $2,000 in direct payments to Americans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

House Democratic and Republican leaders met early Thursday morning in a pro forma session and held a unanimous consent vote on the direct payments proposal, according to CNBC. Republican leadership voted the measure down, which required all lawmakers present to unanimously vote in favor for it to pass.

“Today, on Christmas Eve morning, House Republicans cruelly deprived the American people of the $2,000 that the President agreed to support,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “If the President is serious about the $2,000 direct payments, he must call on House Republicans to end their obstruction.”

Pelosi said during a press conference that the House would hold a recorded roll call vote on the measure Monday, Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram reported. If succesful, the measure would alter the the omnibus bill Congress passed Monday night by changing stimulus checks sent to Americans from $600 to $2,000.

Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman attempted to get the House to vote on reconsidering the much-criticized foreign aid included in the omnibus bill, according to CNBC. Democrats blocked that proposal.

“Speaker Pelosi tried to use the American people as leverage to make coronavirus relief contingent on government funding – which includes billions of foreign aid at a time when there are urgent needs at home,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement Wednesday night.

The coronavirus stimulus relief bill hangs in the balance after President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he wouldn’t sign the bill Congress passed. Trump criticized both the $600 direct payment, saying they were too small, and the foreign aid, saying it was wasteful.

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault,” Trump said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Didn’t Make The Pardon A Political Tool, It Always Has Been

Trump Says He Won’t Sign Coronavirus Stimulus Into Law Without Major Changes On Direct Payments And ‘Wasteful Items’

Feds Say Latest US Government Hack ‘Poses A Grave Risk’ To National Security. How Might They Respond?

Trump Already Has A Successful Model For ‘MAGA TV’ — And It Might Give Him A Run For His Money

‘The High Priest Of The COVID Cult’: Tucker Carlson Pans DC Mayor’s ‘Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day’ Declaration

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: How the 2020 Election was Presented to Us vs. How It Really Was

/in , , , , , /by

A demonstrator stands with supporters of President Donald Trump outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center where votes are being counted, on Nov. 6, 2020, in Philadelphia.

WATCH: How the election was presented to us vs. how it was.

RELATED ARTICLE: POLL: 78% Of Republicans Believe Presidential Election Was Fraudulent

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog entry was posted in Leftist election rigging by Eeyore. ©All rights reserved.

Has the Democrats’ push to depose Biden begun?

/in , , , /by

The contour lines of an approaching scenario in which Biden, exposed as both frail and mendacious, is forced to step down & concede the presidency to his radical Vice President, are gradually coming into focus. 

 A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted…Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast— Patience D. Roggensack, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, December 14, 2020. 

 …a majority of this court unconstitutionally converts the…Elections Commission’s mere advice into governing “law,” thereby supplanting the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature and defying the will of [the state’s]citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to uphold the law, and stands by while an unelected body of six commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government is subverted—Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, December 14, 2020.  

Investigators have been examining multiple financial issues, including whether Hunter Biden and his associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China…Some of those transactions involved people who the FBI believe sparked counterintelligence concerns, a common issue when dealing with Chinese business…—CNN, December 10, 2020.

The November 2020 elections were an extraordinary event in which the bizarre—even the outlandish—became an integral part of the everyday humdrum routine.

The implausible and even more implausible?

This is not a politically partisan observation—for it is valid no matter which side of the Democrat/GOP political divide one might happen to be. After all, it is difficult to know what is more implausibly far-fetched:

(a) that—as the Republicans claim—there was pervasive electoral fraud on a scale so massive that it determined—indeed, inverted—the outcome of the ballot; or
(b) that—as the Democrats claim—as a lackluster and lackadaisical candidate, perceptibly frail and aging, Joe Biden genuinely managed to amass the highest number of votes ever in a presidential election, surpassing Obama’s previous 2008 record by almost 12 million votes.

Making this latter scenario even more difficult to accept at face value is that Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, was hardly an electrifying voter getter, having being forced to drop out quite early on in her own party’s primaries for its choice of a presidential candidate. Indeed, Biden’s choice of Harris as his prospective vice president was, in itself, more than a little incongruous, as she had viciously excoriated him during the primaries for his record on race relations, complicity with segregationists, and sexual impropriety, adamantly proclaiming that she believed the women who had complained about his unwanted sexual advances.

“Many doubt the fairness of November elections…”

Indeed, in light of his anemic, largely “no-show” election campaign, in which he studiously avoided articulating his position on a number of crucial issues, Biden’s apparent electoral achievement is even mor bewildering. Indeed, referring to the Biden campaign, one media channel observed dourly: “There is no surge of feeling, zero passion…Instead, the closest thing to enthusiasm…among voters is resigned, faint praise. ‘He’s a decent man’…but you can’t move the needle of history with flaccid decency.”

Another channel noted: “Biden’s performance [in exceeding Obama’s 2008 record] is incredible considering the voter enthusiasm – especially among young people – that his former boss had…”.

Accordingly, the sentiment expressed by the Chief Justice of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, Patience D. Roggensack, was hardly surprising when she warned that, “A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted.” 

These words were part of Roggensack’s dissenting opinion in a hearing on several challenges by Donald Trump to Wisconsin’s election results. Although the motion was rejected by a 4-3 vote, at least one of the majority justices is on public record as being vehemently inimical to Trump, and the decision was severely criticized by the dissenting minority as being judicially unsound.

Thus, Justice Annette Ziegler, wrote, “The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier…That has never been the law, and it should not be today.”

Abdicating constitutional duty in the most important election of our time? 

Disapprovingly, she chastised: “It is a game of “gotcha.” I respectfully dissent, because I would decide the issues presented and declare what the law is.”

Accusing the majority of “abdication of its constitutional duty”, she lamented: “Unfortunately, our court’s adoption of laches as a means to avoid judicial decisionmaking has become a pattern of conduct. A majority of this court decided not to address the issues in this case when originally presented to us … In concluding that it is again paralyzed from engaging in pertinent legal analysis, our court, unfortunately, provides no answer or even any analysis of the relevant statutes, in the most important election…of our time.” 

Ziegler was at pains to underline: “To be clear, I am not interested in a particular outcome. I am interested in the court fulfilling its constitutional responsibility.”

Expressing grave concern over the majority’s indecision, Ziegler chided: “While sometimes it may be difficult to undertake analysis of hot-button legal issues——as a good number of people will be upset no matter what this court does——it is our constitutional duty. We cannot hide from our obligation under the guise of laches.”

Accordingly, she concluded that: “the rule of law and equity demand that we answer these questions for not only this election, but for elections to come.”

Indeed, given the relative proximity of the court hearing to the actual ballot process, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, in order to comply with the majority conditions for the motion to be heard on its merits, the Trump legal team would have had to submit its case against the alleged infractions before those infractions were committed! 

Covering corruption…or not?

The apparent judicial reluctance to deal with allegations of widespread fraud leads us to another manifestation of partisan reticence, that of the mainstream media in their pre-election coverage of news highly pertinent to the voters’ decision at the ballot box—which seems to have drastically subsided in the wake of the elections.

Arguably, this was best capsulated in the December 10th headline in an established Tennessee daily: “Uninterested before the election, national media now find Hunter Biden story worth mentioning.”

The ensuing editorial shrewdly observes: “Too late to help the voting public form an objective opinion about their presidential choice, the national media has suddenly decided that the Chinese business dealings of Hunter Biden are worth mentioning.”

It continues: We have long believed— and said — that the younger Biden’s business dealings, and his father’s major or minor role in them, was at least a disqualifying criterion for the elder Biden’s presidential election. It is clear, after all, that the younger Biden would not have been involved with various businesses in the Ukraine and China over the last decade had his father not been vice president at the time.”

Indeed, it is clear!

In a grave reproach of the mainstream media, it asserted: “National media outlets knew before last month’s election that federal prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, but they did not pursue the story.” 

In a stinging rebuke, it charged: “They also refused to further investigate the New York Post pre-election story about emails allegedly contained on the younger Biden’s laptop pointing to shady dealings between Joe Biden and Ukraine…In truth, they withheld critical information from readers and viewers so that Biden might beat President Donald Trump, the man they l[o]ve to hate.” 

“Too disgusting to repeat…” 

For example, leaked recordings exposed CNN’s president and political director blocking coverage of the New York Post’s explosive exposé on Hunter Biden’s shady business dealings overseas.

Thus, on October 14, political director David Chalian was heard on a conference call, instructing: “Obviously we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden.”

Just two days later (October 16), CNN’s president, Jeff Zucker informed his staff that: “I don’t think that we should be repeating unsubstantiated smears just because the right-wing media suggests that we should.”

On October 22, in a televised discussion, CNN anchor Jeff Tapper told his colleague Bakari Sellers, that, “…the rightwing is going crazy with all sorts of allegations about Biden and his family. Too disgusting to even repeat here.”

The Media Research Center (MRC) conducted a review spanning the period October 14-22 of ABC, CBS, NBC’s evening and morning shows and their Sunday roundtable programs, as well as ABC’s and NBC’s townhall events with Joe Biden and President Trump.

According to MRC: “Out of a total of 73.5 hours of news programming, there were less than 17 minutes (16 minutes, 42 seconds) spent on the latest scandals involving Joe Biden’s son.” To be precise, the media watchdog found that ABC devoted zero (!) seconds to the reported Hunter Biden scandals, NBC just 6 minutes, 9 seconds, while, CBS led the broadcast networks with a “still-measly 10 minutes and 33 seconds.” 

All-pervasive “Russian disinformation” 

Moreover, even when the Biden story was mentioned, it was, by and large, denigrated as “Russian disinformation” (see for example here and here). 

On October 19, Politico published a report, dramatically headlined Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.

It commences with the following unequivocal pronouncement: “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’.”

However, in the letter itself, the “former intel officials”, who—unsurprisingly—included the ardently pro-Biden and fervently anti-Trump John Brennan (former CIA Director), and James Clapper (former Director of National Intelligence), seem to be far less unequivocally clear-cut and strident. Indeed, they were at pains to insert a paragraph, clearly formulated to protect their professional “rear-ends”: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post… are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement…[However] there are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.” 

This, of course, leaves the reader to puzzle over that if the “former intel officials” had no clue whether or not the emails were, in fact, authentic or the product of “Russian involvement”, how could they possibly make the determination that they were—and why would they lend they names and reputations to create a politically partisan impression, which, by their own admission, they could not substantiate?

Or were they counting on the assumption that few ever read beyond the headlines and the opening paragraph?

Abrupt change of heart

With the election over, there seems to have been a perceptible shift in the media attitude towards the allegations of malfeasance in the Biden family’s overseas business activities.

For example, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, seems to have undergone an abrupt change of heart as to the gravity of these allegations, having, prior to the election—as we have seen—dismissed them in the strongest possible terms. However, several weeks after the presidential election, with Biden preparing to become the 46th president, Tapper apparently had few qualms in raising the subject publicly and the Biden family’s business ties began to be gradually emerging as fair game to him (see here).

A similar shift in journalistic sentiment was evident in other media channels.

Take for example, the Los Angeles Times (LAT). As early as March 6, it ran an editorial headlined The GOP’s Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is a charade — and they know it, proclaiming that the entire probe into the Biden’s far-flung business dealings was little more than flimsily disguised political shenanigans.

However, soon after the elections, this changed markedly.

On December 9, LAT ran a report headlined Hunter Biden tax inquiry examining Chinese business dealings. It disclosed that: “The Justice Department’s investigation scrutinizing Hunter Biden’s taxes has been examining some of his Chinese business dealings, among other financial transactions.” 

Abrupt (cont.) 

The report continued: “…The investigation was launched in 2018, a year before his father, Joe Biden, announced his candidacy for president”—i.e. months before the LAT editorial board dismissed GOP claims regarding the existence of such a probe as “a charade.”

Indeed, a little over a month after the polls had closed, it conceded that, “The younger Biden has a history of business dealings in a number of countries, and the revelation of a federal investigation puts a renewed spotlight on the questions about his financial dealings that dogged his father’s successful White House campaign.”

Three days later (December 12), LAT again raised the subject in a piece entitled

“Hunter Biden subpoena seeks information on Burisma, other entities” stating that, “A subpoena seeking documents from Hunter Biden asked for information related to more than two dozen entities, including Ukraine gas company Burisma…”  Significantly, it added: “The breadth of the subpoena, issued Tuesday, underscores the wide lens prosecutors are taking as they examine the younger Biden’s finances and international business ventures…”

The harbinger of far-reaching political change? 

This post-election metamorphosis of media mood could also herald the onset of a far-reaching political shift within the Democratic party.

After all, in contrast to the accusations against Trump of colluding with Russia and conniving with Ukraine, which were based largely on third party hearsay and innuendo, the evidence accumulating against the Biden family seems far more solid and compelling—including first-hand witness accounts and emails, whose authenticity has yet to be denied.

As coverage on the alleged Biden scandal continues—and certainly if it turns out that Biden has been untruthful over his complicity in his family’s questionable business operations—his continued incumbency is likely to be increasingly challenged until it is no longer tenable and he is compelled to transfer power to his radical Vice President, Kamala Harris.

Of course, there will be those who discount this possibility as being beyond the bounds of probability.  However, they would do well to bear in mind that the overwhelming preponderance of the ideo-political energy in the party comes from the more radical Left-wing, which has already proven that it can assert its will on the party apparatus in the past.

Recently, rumblings for changes in leadership within the party have begun, with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling for a structural change in the party and for the old guard to be replaced with younger legislators to promote the radical policies she advocates. Indeed, she has even called explicitly for the replacement of the party’s Congressional leadership–of both Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House…

Will frailty & mendacity ensconce Harris as president?

The contour lines of an approaching scenario in which Biden, exposed as both frail and mendacious, is forced to step down and concede the presidency to Harris, are gradually coming into focus.

With an ever-more critical press and an ever-more radical intra-party opposition, we may well be on the cusp of a new American (or rather unAmerican) revolution—a revolution in which a cardboard cutout president is driven from office by people imbued with a  political credo, forged by figures and ideas not only different from, but entirely contrary to, those that made America, America.

It is indeed, a scenario that risks transforming America into a de-Americanized post-America—an unrecognizable shadow of its former self.

That will be the terrible price the American electorate has inflicted on itself for submitting to the fit of puerile and petulant pique that molded its choice this November.

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Fitton: Justice Department engaged in effort to protect Joe Biden.

I Saw Mommy Beheading Santa Claus: Another Precarious Christmas in the Age of Jihad

/in , , , /by

Another Christmas is upon us, and it’s the same old story: in Muslim lands, Christians are oppressed and in constant danger of violent jihad attacks. And in the lands once known as Christendom, jihadis threaten new jihad massacres.

And so it was no surprise when International Christian Concern reported Wednesday that “security forces in Pakistan reportedly stopped a major terror attack planned to take place on Christmas Day in Peshawar. In a raid on a house in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Khyber district, four terrorists, including the leader of a banned militant outfit, were arrested.” Among those arrested was Zakir Afridi, the commander of the jihad terror group Lashkar-e-Islam.

“Along with the terrorists,” International Christian Concern reported, “security forces seized three suicide jackets and six improvised explosive devices.”

If this plot wasn’t inspired by a call from the Islamic State to murder Christians on Christmas Day, it certainly had the same goal in mind. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported that “on December 12, 2020, online supporters of the Islamic State (ISIS) distributed an audio clip of a new nasheed (Islamic religious chant) titled ‘Coldly Kill Them With Hate And Rage.’” The jolly folks who “released the song on Telegram included a poster featuring a Christmas tree with a bomb attached to it, and the caption: ‘Just Terror 2020. Here are their holidays at your doorsteps, and we are here too! And we are about to enter them with you!’ The post also includes the hashtag #MerryChristmas, suggesting it be used on social media to disseminate the song.”

The charming ditty includes these lyrics: “They fought Islam day and night/Killed many Muslims all in one time/Vengeance fill the hearts and minds/Coldly kill them with hate and rage/Stab them, shoot them or a blast/Make their media cry and broadcast/The khilafah [caliphate].” Well, it ain’t exactly “The First Noel,” but at least they tried.

Meanwhile, OpIndia reported Monday that an old video from the renowned Islamic apologist Zakir Naik has gone viral this year. In it, Naik, who has been accused of ties to jihad terror activity, answers a young man’s question about whether or not it is permissible for Muslims to wish Christians a merry Christmas: “To reach your goals, you cannot use wrong means, brother. What is Haram [forbidden] to them is also Haram to you. When you are wishing Merry Christmas to them, you are agreeing that he is the son of God and that is Shirk [the grave sin of associating partners with Allah in worship]. Because they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Irrespective of whether they are practising Christians or not, they celebrate the day because of His birthday…Is saying Merry Christmas wrong? I am telling you it is wrong. It is 100% wrong according to me….If you don’t know what Christmas stands for and happen to wish someone, Allah may forgive you. If you drink alcohol, mistaking it for Pepsi, Allah may forgive you. But if you are doing it to build a relationship after knowing what Christmas stands for, you are building your place in Jahannam (Hell). Therefore, for reaching good means, you never have to follow bad means. You have to follow the guidance of the Quran and the Sunnah (literature based on life and deeds of Prophet Muhammad).”

In a similar vein, the German-language site Philosophia Perennis site reported Saturday that another old video has gone viral there, featuring a Muslim preacher, Abu Maher, declaring: “Christmas is an insult to Allah!” The video was published by the Deutschsprachige Muslimische Gemeinschaft e.V. (“German-speaking Muslim Community, DMG) which describes itself as “an association in Braunschweig that has existed for many years” and states that “we represent Islam according to the understanding of the first three generations after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and want to convey Islam – based on the Qurân and Sunna (path of the Prophet) and its pure message – to our fellow human beings and society. It is important to us to enable all interested parties to get to know the values ​​and norms that Islam imposes on people.” The DMG adds: “As a Muslim community, we represent a part of the local society. We respect the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, but at the same time insist on our basic rights, such as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and want like every citizen and let every citizen live and live in peace and mutual tolerance.”

In light, however, of its denunciation of Christmas, its call for peace and tolerance appears to be in reality a call for peace and tolerance on the basis of the submission of non-Muslims to Muslims.

None of this is new, or surprising. It’s just another Christmas in the age of jihad.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Police Arrest 4 More Muslims in Charlie Hebdo Islamic Terror Attack

Notorious Nazi Student Group – Students Justice Palestine- SJP FAILS in Legal Effort to Overturn Ban at Fordham University

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

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Radical Hater Warnock in New Ad

/in , , , , , , /by

A Radical’s Radical: Raphael Warnock is too radical for Georgia

Thank you, CUFI. Raphael Warnock is a dangerous and radical anti-Semite, and he must not be elected to the United States Senate.

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Warnock in New Ad

By Washington Free Beacon, December 23, 2020

The political arm of the largest pro-Israel membership group in the United States launched an ad campaign Wednesday targeting Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic candidate for Senate in the Georgia runoff.

The 30-second spot from Christians United for Israel Action Fund takes aim at both Warnock’s record of statements critical of Israel and his recent attack on evangelical Christians, traditionally a staunchly pro-Israel denomination.

The ad calls him “Radical Raphael Warnock” and says he is “preaching a gospel of hate.” The voiceover says “Warnock demonized Christians who stand with Israel,” a reference to his sermon after the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem in 2018 in which he accused “mealy-mouthed evangelical preachers” of being “responsible for the mess that we found ourselves in … misquoting and misinterpreting the Scripture, talking about peace.”

A spokesperson for the group said the ad is backed by a six-figure digital and social media buy targeting pro-Israel voters in Georgia, where the organization has approximately 500,000 members, according to the spokesperson.

Last month, Pastor Jay Bailey, CUFI’s Georgia state director, published an op-ed criticizing Warnock’s “condemnations of Israel” as “disgusting.”

The organization announced this week it had reached 10 million members.

Warnock is locked in a tight race with incumbent senator Kelly Loeffler (R.). The runoff election will take place on Jan. 5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newt Gingrich: Warnock is ‘most radical’ candidate ever nominated for U.S. Senate

GA. Democrat Candidate Raphael Warnock’s Involvement in Child-Abuse Case at Church Camp Which Led to HIS Arrest

Video Leaks of U.S. Senate Candidate Warnock’s Encounter With Police After BEATING HIS WIFE

Georgia Democrat Senate Candidate Raphael Warnock Under Investigation

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

U.S. Nuclear Submarine enters Persian Gulf after Pompeo blames Iran for Rocket Attack on U.S. Embassy in Baghdad

/in , , /by

Tension is heating up in the Persian Gulf following a rocket attack on the American Embassy in Baghdad that left a civilian dead.

The nuclear sub sends a clear message to Iran, but clearly Iran has been emboldened by its expectation of a Biden administration that will enable billions to flow once again into its coffers, facilitate its nuclear arsenal build-up, expand its influence in the Middle East, and further enable it to terrorize its targets abroad, including Iranian dissidents who should be safe in the West.

“Israeli Submarine Reportedly Crossed Suez in ‘Message’ to Iran as US Warships Enter Persian Gulf,” by Svetlana Ekimenko, Sputnik News, December 22, 2020:

A US nuclear-powered submarine entered the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz on 21 December as part of Washington’s latest deterrence mission against Iran as tensions spiked after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iranian-backed militias for a rocket attack on the American Embassy compound in Baghdad on Sunday.

An Israeli Navy submarine visibly crossed the Suez Canal above water last week in what is being seen as a show of force aimed at Iran, Kan News, a public broadcaster, reported on Monday night.

Arab intelligence officials had reportedly confirmed to Kan News that the IDF Navy submarine surfaced and faced the Persian Gulf, which lies on the other side of Saudi Arabia, in a deliberate act, approved by Egypt, and purportedly intended to ‘send a message’ to Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

There has not been any official comment from the Israel Defence Forces, with the IDF saying it does not respond to “reports of this kind.”

Earlier, on 21 December IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi voiced a warning to Tehran against attacking Israel, vowing that the Jewish state would retaliate forcefully against any aggressive moves.

“Recently, we have heard increased threats from Iran against the State of Israel. If Iran and its partners, members of the radical axis [Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups], whether in the first circle of states or the second, carry out actions against Israel, they will discover their partnership to be very costly,” Kohavi was quoted by The Times of Israel as saying at a military ceremony. He added:

“The IDF will forcefully attack anyone who takes part, from near or far, in activities against the State of Israel or Israeli targets. I am saying this plainly and am describing the situation as it is — the response and all the plans have been prepared and practised.”
‘Message to Iran’

The reported move by the IDF Navy comes as a similar manoeuvre was undertaken on Monday by a US submarine. The US Navy confirmed that the guided-missile submarine USS Georgia entered the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz on 21 December, accompanied by two American warships, the guided-missile cruisers USS Port Royal (CG 73) and USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), amid heightened tensions with Iran.

​A US Navy official confirmed to Fox News that the latest movements in the Persian Gulf had been “long planned” ahead of the approaching anniversary of the killing of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force, in Iraq on 3 January 2020 by an American drone.

According to the American official, the manoeuvres were not in response to the rocket attack on the US Embassy compound in Baghdad on Sunday.

According to a statement from the US Navy, accompanied by photos of USS Georgia at the surface, the vessel can carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 66 special forces soldiers.

The Navy warned that the military move seeks to demonstrate “the United States’ commitment to regional partners and maritime security with a full spectrum of capabilities to remain ready to defend against any threat at any time.”

US military officials have been apprehensive of a possible attack by Iran to avenge the assassination of Soleimani in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport in Iraq in early January.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Chief Commander, Hossein Salami, said in September on the guard’s website that Tehran will avenge the US killing of its top commander General Qasem Soleimani by targeting those involved, in an “honourable” retaliation.

Spike in Iran Tensions
The show of force in the Persian Gulf comes amid heightened tensions with Iran after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid the blame with Iranian-backed militias for a rocket attack on the US Embassy compound in Baghdad on 20 December.

The attack left at least one local civilian dead, while no embassy personnel were killed or injured, according to NPR, which cited US diplomatic sources….

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

EU ministers back return to Iran nuke deal under Biden

Mufti of Jerusalem: Temple Mount ‘is Islamic and Only for Muslims’

Sudan: Muslims burn temporary worship structure for fifth time, threaten to kill Christians if they put up another

UK: 37,000 migrants abscond, Home Office has no idea where they are

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

Americans in Name Only (AINO)

/in , , , /by

Who am I?

Identity is the universal conundrum of the human experience. We want to know who we are, where we came from, and if our lives have meaning. So, who are we?

We begin with our most basic identity. “It’s a boy!” “It’s a girl!” After sexual identity comes family identity, national identity, religious identity, educational identity, professional identity, and so on. Our identity gives us standing. We have identification cards that verify our identity. We have passports, licenses, diplomas, marriage certificates, and so on.

We verify our identity because we value our identity personally, and because ordered liberty requires verification that we are who we say we are. We trust that a hospital board certified surgeon is operating on us. We trust that a licensed pilot is flying our plane. We trust that those entrusted with our health and safety are trustworthy. American life is based on the ability to verify identity, and has established strict penalties for violating identity verification.

American jurisprudence is rooted in the motto “Trust and verify.” We give sworn testimony with an oath. “I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Intentionally lying under oath is the crime of perjury – a felony punishable to up to five years in prison.

Identity is an integral part of the universal human experience because it defines reality. We either are, or we are not, who we say we are. In politics and international affairs, identity has both domestic and international implications.

National identity is the universal conundrum of world politics. We want to know who we are, where we came from, and if our lives have meaning. The 2020 American presidential election is redefining our national identity. What does it mean to be an American?

The three supporting pillars of American life, family, faith, and flag are being challenged. The traditional two-party system of Republicans and Democrats no longer represents patriotic disagreements on best policies and practices to preserve and protect our constitution and founding principles.

Today, the division is between globalism and American sovereignty. Our national identity as a sovereign constitutional republic is being challenged by globalists whose objective is planetary governance. The Democrat party is represented by corrupt, China-centric globalist Joe Biden. The Republican party is represented by populist, America-first patriot President Donald J. Trump.

RINO, the acronym for Republican in Name Only, has become part of everyday political language in America today. RINOs reject President Trump’s America-first agenda, and embrace Democrat China-centric globalism. I propose a new acronym, AINO, American in name only.

America is being convulsed by massive voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election designed to defeat Americanism and impose globalism. It is a redefinition of what it means to be an American. If the AINO coup d état succeeds, our national identity as Americans will be surrendered and replaced by a new identity as global citizens.

The ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu, teaches that war is deceit. The ruling Communist Chinese Party (CCP) is at war with America today, its goal is to make America its proxy.

When American companies started manufacturing in China they did it for cheap labor/increased profits – their interests were economic. But manufacturing in China means being in business with the CCP. China’s interests were always political. The CCP is a replacement socio-political system that exploits American greed to achieve its political objective of world dominance.

Short-term American greed is being exploited for long-term Chinese gain. It is the same short-term/long-term interests and thinking that distinguishes east from west. Multiculturalism requires mutual respect – replacement systems are singularities.

President Trump and his legal team are exposing the international and domestic conspiracy to fraudulently award Joe Biden the presidency.

Greedy technocrats, corporatists, mainstream media moguls, corrupt Congressional Republican RINOs, and Democrat AINOs have finally found common cause and come together in a unified attempt to stop POTUS from exposing them all! The bipartisan political corruption of the Washington swamp is so massive and so deep, it is positively staggering.

Patriotic Americans embrace their national identity as citizens of a sovereign constitutional republic. Patriotic Americans reject the political class and their globalist reset of enslavement. The reset that the majority of Americans voted for in 2016 and yes, again in 2020, is the draining of the treasonous, China-centered political swamp.

Sun Tzu was right – war is deceit. American identity is the core contention of the 2020 election and war on America. American patriots must stand with President Trump and fight the war of deceit, disinformation, and coup d état to preserve our American identity because we are Americans, not Americans in name only.

See Linda’s Pundicity page and website. Contact Linda at info@lindagoudsmit.com

©Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

Payment Processers Escalate War on Digital Army

/in , , , /by

RedPill78, a “citizen journalist” operating in Washington DC, was banned from YouTube back in October. That was part of the coordinated assault by big tech on the so-called QAnon journalists. But QAnon is an inexact term, used by the establishment to push dissident journalists into a box: “Conspiracy theorists (as if conspiracies don’t exist) who think the Democratic party has been taken over by satanic, baby-eating pedophiles.”

This is a gross mischaracterization, designed to discourage anyone from paying attention to the work of the Q collective.

What RedPill78, and tens of thousands of citizen journalists like him are part of is better described as a digital army. They are a threat to the establishment because they are doing investigative work that controlled mainstream journalists in America have neither the time nor the permission to conduct.

For now, RedPill78 has not been silenced, because he has migrated to Rumble, DLive, Pilled, Odysee, and others. Alternative, constantly proliferating video platforms working on distributed servers, theoretically, can continue to broadcast online unless the whole internet is shut down. To take them down, that is, you might have to take down everything.

There are many ways the empire can strike back, however, and kicking dissidents off of the major video platforms is only one of them.

On December 17, in the middle of a live show, RedPill78 learned that PayPal had terminated his account. Without providing examples of how his content had transgressed, and providing only innocuous, vague explanation, PayPal took away RedPill78’s ability to accept donations or subscription payments.

This represents a major escalation in the ongoing assault on free speech, and like video deplatforming, it is being rolled out slowly but systematically. What RedPill78 has experienced is just the beginning. Laura Loomer has been banned from riding Uber, solely because of her political opinions. Lana Lokteff has been banned from having any bank accounts, again solely because of her political opinions.

None of these victims of financial deplatforming have violated First Amendment principles. “Hate speech” and “misinformation,” besides being highly subjective concepts, are protected forms of speech. If you listen to RedPill78’s body of work, there is nothing to justify censorship, much less financial aggression.

RedPill78 is a threat because he is investigating fraud and corruption, and connecting the dots. Listen to his findings. See for yourself how close he and others are getting to truths, which if spread far and wide, could be very inconvenient for America’s ruling class.

The Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency is considering a new rule that would bar banks from denying service for non-financial reasons, such as a customer’s political views. This could be implemented without approval of the U.S. Congress, but could be rescinded if Biden takes over the executive branch.

The Leftist dominated establishment should be careful what it wishes for. The instruments of repression they are perfecting with their big tech allies could be used against them, if enough Americans take the Red Pill.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Sensing Their Moment. The rise of the atheists.

/in , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

So a Catholic, a Jew and an atheist walk into a Congress. It has all the ingredients of a bad joke, but this is no laughing matter for the faithful. Three U.S. congressmen — the Catholic Jerry McNerney from California, the Jewish Jamie Raskin of Maryland and the atheist Jared Huffman of California — are intent on destroying all elements of religion in American public life.

And their plan may play out a lot smoother than many people think. They each belong to an organization called Secular Democrats of America, and they advocate for expunging religion from all aspects of the culture (except in the privacy of your own home, at least for now).

These three U.S. congressmen have submitted a 28-page proposal to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris asking them to eliminate religion from American public life by “re-educating Christians” in such a manner so that they keep their “religious dogma” to themselves and within their own homes.

First, you can certainly see that such a proposal would get a very friendly hearing in a Harris-Biden administration, if that comes to pass. After all, a Harris-Biden administration is essentially Obama 2.0 — with almost the entire anti-God gang back in place and ready to go at 10 minutes after noon on Jan. 20, less than a month away.

Of course, if that comes to pass, they will have cheated like Hell, literally, to get to that point. But, hey, what’s a little cheating to a man like Biden, who cheated his way through law school, plagiarizing a paper, which nearly got him kicked out? (Too bad it didn’t.) And, as a quick aside, this is what happens when someone is allowed to get away with stuff because they aren’t properly disciplined. Biden should have been expelled; now he’s on the verge of becoming president.

But back to the main issue — there are two things worth noting here: First, the welcome reception such a proposal would receive, and second, how these three anti-God freaks have things completely wrong. Recall that Obama was the most anti-God, anti-religion president ever, especially when it came to Christianity.

He proudly announced to the world that “America is no longer a Christian nation.” His entire administration, of course, was populated with staffers who hate religion and God and want it all swept away. Now, it appears those same people will be back, and this time with a venegence. When Trump won and they were all leaving their jobs, they had glum looks on their faces.

Well, they’re back, and since everybody now knows where everybody else stands, “Let the flood gates open” will be their mantra. The SDA (Secular Democrats of America) announce on their website that the future of America is with the irreligious — those who have no religion and want no religion. They even have pretty graphics trumpeting this, where they show (correctly) that 17% of Americans reject religion and 70% of those are Democrats — not exactly news there.

The SDA also lay out their goal in pretty clear terms — the bad guys always do, just for the record. Scroll down a little bit and there it is: “No one has the right to harm others in the name of religious belief.”

Now, while many Democrats in Congress and an incoming Biden administration may not be card-carrying, dues-paying members of SDA (although more than a dozen congressmen are), that agenda is embraced by a huge number of them. Recall that Kamala Harris just last year introduced a bill in the Senate saying the exact same thing. Of course, it got nowhere in the GOP-controlled Senate, but that’s not the point.

It will get traction in the executive branch when it comes to those vast powers, and if the Democrats win those Georgia Senate seats, look out. A political party that enjoys the support of 70% of those who reject religion and God having total control of the powers of the federal government? Say no more.

And don’t think you’d get a fair shake in the courts if you brought a case. “Fair” walked out the door in the aftermath of the election steal. Their refusal to pursue the vast fraud that this election was tells you everything you need to know. Most judges and justices on the high court have proven themselves to be nothing but go-along losers who find technicalities in the law or “judicial philosophy” to hide behind instead of stepping up and defending truth.

And even if they struck down some anti-religion agenda in some future hypothetical case, how long to do you think it would take the atheist, Party of Death to just pack the court to change the outcome down the road? Probably about 15 minutes.

The atheists (or, as they like to call themselves, “non-theists”) have long despised religion in general, but most especially Christianity — even theologically deficient Protestantism because even a somewhat dim understanding of Christ does not allow for their immoral agenda of child-slaughter, unbridled sex, sodomy, destruction of the family and so forth.

So of course, they want Christians driven back into their homes. If you all want to pray around your fireplace, fine. But leave all that Faith stuff at the door when when you step out into our new America. Faithful Catholics might wonder, as all this is taking shape, just where are the U.S. bishops in response.

Don’t get us wrong: Nothing would delight us more than to see the bishops stripped of the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive in federal money each year. They used that money over the decades to help create the social and political environment where atheists could actually come to power. So, good, take it all away.

Some of that money even went to groups who worked to get Biden illegitimately elected — money from the bishops, just to be clear. Remember, about a quarter of U.S. bishops, maybe more, are Democrats. Don’t forget that. They embraced the Democrat agenda because of the money they got and its support for homosexuality.

They hid all that under the disguise of “social justice,” of course, but any Catholic with two brain cells to rub together knows that was always a ruse. They care about “the poor” about as much as they care about the Faith, which is to say not at all.

My mother, God rest her soul, Mother Vortex had a name for such contemptible men: She called them “wastrels.” So just like the bishops hid their real agenda beneath a thin veneer of protecting the poor, the atheist Democrats are hiding their agenda beneath the veneer of protecting religion from government intrusion.

Sure they are. Sure their interest is in protecting Christians from government intrusion. Thanks, but no thanks. The God-haters are sensing their moment. Rightly or prematurely, they are sensing the wind is at their back and their moment has come.

Maybe they’re wrong. But ask yourself this: When it comes to believers versus atheists, who do you think has all the momentum? A sufficient number of people — believers —did not step up when they should have. So now, there will be a price to pay for that. The only remaining question is, “If people didn’t step up when the going was easy, how many will do so when it gets hard?”

©Church Militant. All rights reserved.

Is Going to Church “High Risk, Low Reward?”

/in , , , /by

Some leftist government officials, in the name of trying to fight the spread of COVID-19, have come down hard on churches.

For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared (5/7/20),

“We’re looking at the science, epidemiology, looking again at frequency, duration, time, and looking at low risk-high reward, low risk-low reward.” [Emphasis added]

He has defined abortion clinics as essential. But churches were categorized as non-essential. Christian legal groups have had to fight with the governor to be able to practice religious freedom, which the Constitution guarantees. Newsom was not alone in his attempt to hamstring the churches.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam mandated that only ten people could attend church. But not to worry, said the Theologian-in-Chief of the Old Dominion state: “For me, God is wherever you are. You don’t have to sit in the church pew for God to hear your prayers.”

In November, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear ordered a halt of in-person worship services—even after having been hit with a federal judge’s restraining order earlier this year for doing the same.

All of this leads to an interesting question: What, if anything, do churches contribute to society? Are churches just “high risk, low reward”?

I spoke recently on the radio with Dr. Byron Johnson, Director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor.

Johnson told me, “Churches are phenomenally important to society. The bulk of volunteering in America is done by people that come from places like churches. Americans give more than a billion dollars a day to charities. A significant portion of that comes from people that sit in pews of congregations.”

What else does church do for society? Since 2001, Gallup polls have conducted annual “November Health and Healthcare Surveys.” The results of 2020 showed a drop in overall mental health for Americans. Not surprising, in light of the lockdown.

Disrn.com reports (12/13/20) that church-goers were one exception: “… frequent church attendees were the only group in the U.S. that did not experience a mental health decline in 2020….Forty-six percent of Americans who regularly attend religious services said their mental health is ‘excellent,’ an increase from last year’s 42 percent.”

The Journal of the American Medical Association-Psychiatry published an article (5/6/20) on the potential impact of church attendance decreasing the number of “deaths from despair.”

The researchers found that church attendance does indeed help lower the frequency of deaths from despair (including from drugs, alcohol, and suicide). They conclude: “…attendance at religious services at least once per week was associated with a 68% lower hazard of death from despair among women and a 33% lower hazard among men compared with never attendance.”

They add, “The findings suggest that frequent attendance at religious services is associated with lower subsequent risk of deaths from despair.” Go to church and you’re less likely to kill yourself. Or others, for that matter.

Of course, the church was founded by Jesus Christ, Whose birth we celebrate at this time. Christmas is a reminder that a manger in Bethlehem 2000 years ago once contained a baby that was fully God and fully man, who went on to live a perfect life and offer Himself as a sacrifice on behalf of sinners, so that those who believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

Being assured of heaven in the next life has a positive impact on how we live this life. Church-going involves offering gratitude and sacrifices of praise for the ultimate Christmas gift—the Savior Jesus Christ.

One man of note personally viewed attending church a high priority in his life, even if his schedule was hectic, and the roads were muddy, and getting there was a challenge.

George Washington, the father of our country, was a devout church-goer, back in a day when it was much more taxing to attend. He normally went to the Anglican/Episcopal Church. However, when the Commander-in-Chief was leading the rebellion against the head of that denomination, King George III, Washington became more ecumenical in his worship practices.

He visited Christian churches of all kinds, including Presbyterian ones. The Morristown Presbyterian Church in New Jersey has a stained glass window of Washington receiving communion at that church, an event that occurred during the War. After the War, until his death, he regularly attended church—making Christ Episcopal Church in Alexandria his home church for the last decade of his life.

In Washington’s case, church attendance may have been “high risk” only in the sense of the difficulty of getting there and back. But as is often the case, it was “high reward.”

If only some of our modern political leaders would learn from George’s example. Contrary to the opinion of today’s secular leaders, church tends to be high reward for the attenders and society at large.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.