145 companies just made it official: Leftist claptrap is more important than the U.S. Constitution

The United States’ Founders understood that law-abiding, decent people must be able to protect themselves from criminals and governments. They enshrined this right into the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Regretfully, leaders of 145 of America’s corporations – some of them industry and cultural leaders – just decided that sucking up to the “woke” leftist crowd is more important than human rights, constitutional guarantees, and evidence.

Complete cluelessness

From Twitter to Levi’s to Edelman and Eventbrite, these CEOs and co-founders wrote a letter demanding that Congress step in to restrict firearm ownership rights. They urged background checks and increased ability for law enforcement to restrict the rights of people interpreted as potentially dangerous – “red flag” laws.

Here’s the problem: Government has often missed obvious signs with current laws, never mind ones which put more responsibility on faceless bureaucrats and law enforcement officers. As we discussed earlier this month, the recent Odessa, Texas shooting happened a month after police were called about the alleged shooter threatening a neighbor with a rifle. Police never showed and the shooter never should have owned a firearm in the first place, according to media reports.

This is a common occurrence – the same government which these CEOs want us to trust to stop shooters completely missing obvious signs of future violence.

What about abuse of power?

Gun ownership is not a problem in America. The 2ndVote Gun Cam proves that a gun under constant surveillance NEVER commits a crime on its own, and the data shows that justified self-defense is a greater cause of gun deaths than homicide.

But these CEOs don’t get that. They want government to step in to stop crimes before they take place – thought-crime that can be valuable in keeping society safe, but can also easily be abused…especially if the citizenry is disarmed.

Take action

America’s corporations are increasingly taking an anti-constitutional approach to firearm ownership. We urge you to contact Twitter’s, Levi’s, and Eventbrite’s CEOs. Tell them to respect the human and constitutional right to self-defense by sticking to business instead of poking their noses into the morass of politics.

VIDEO: Never Will Masada Fall Again!

Join us on the top of Masada to better understand the importance of the pledge every Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldier takes.

The IDF pledge on Masada states, “Never will Masada fall again.”

Dr. Wexler took us on a journey to 70 AD when a small number of Jewish fighters and their families refused to surrender to a more powerful Roman army. Rather than surrender their wives and children to a future of rape, slavery, and torture, these fighters took the lives of their loved ones and then their own. When the Romans eventually breached Masada, there was no one alive to take as a prisoner. The Jewish fighters denied Romes victory by taking their own lives. What choice would you have made? Now fast forward to WWII.

Few people realize how close the Nazis along with their Muslim allies, nearly conquered North Africa and what is now Israel. The Nazis allied with Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني‎; c. 1897 –1974.) al-Husseini was said to be more Nazi than his Nazi masters when it came to the murder of European Jews. Adolf Hitler and al-Husseini formed the Muslim SS Handscar Divisions tracking down and killing enemies of the Nazis. In return, Hitler was to give al Husseini the concentration camps to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child living in the Middle East. Dr. Wexler explains the importance of the allied victory at the second battle at Alamein in 1942. This battle stopped the advancement of the Nazis into North Africa and the Middle East.

The defeat of the Nazis at Alamein was monumental.

Before the victory, it was expected the allies would lose North Africa, and Hitler would get the oil and diesel fuel he desperately needed to win the war. Alamein was one of the pieces of the puzzle that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. The 650,000 Jews living in what is now Israel declared Mt. Carmel to be the spot where they would make their final stand. Resulting in the story of Masada replaying itself on the high ground of Mt. Carmel.

Watch this short video, as Dr. Wexler connects the dots of history not taught anywhere in the West.

On Domes and Drones

Will the growing use of drones by the Gaza-based terror groups make the billion dollar Iron Dome and anti-tunnel barrier useless—or at least irrelevant?

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (The more things change, the more they are the same.)Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, French novelist (1849).


Departing briefly from the upcoming elections, Sunday’s media headlines conveyed the news that a drone, launched from the Gaza Strip, had attacked an IDF position near the border, with an explosive charge. This incident follows a similar one, several months ago, when a Gazan-based terror group, Islamic Jihad, attempted to drop an explosive device on an IDF tank.

“Unrealistic” realists?

Although fortunately, the damage caused in these attacks was negligible, it would be a grave error to dismiss the scope and scale of the prospective threat that drones could present.

Of course, compared to the menace of massive barrages of rockets/ missiles on the one hand, and infiltration by bands of heavily armed commandoes via underground tunnels, on the other, the danger posed currently by drones may seem relatively minor.

However, we should recall that this was much the case for those very perils back in 2005, when Israel undertook the ill-advised unilateral abandonment of Gaza. Back then, when the most destructive weapon at the disposal of the terrorist organizations was a primitive rocket with a range of 5 km and an explosive charge of 5 kg, today’s situation seemed inconceivable!

Indeed, had anyone then predicted that, a little over a decade later, Israel would be faced with an arsenal of missiles with ranges of over 100 km and warheads of over 100 kg, with a warren of underground attack tunnels and with nascent naval forces, they would have been dismissed as unrealistic scaremongers. Sadly, of course, recalcitrant realities would have proved them right! (No pun intended.)

Accordingly, Israel has been forced to spend literally billions of dollars to devise defensive countermeasures (such as the Iron Dome missile defense system and the subterranean anti-tunnel barrier) to contend with threats that were barely imaginable less than a decade and half ago.

Aggressive measures & defensive countermeasures

Moreover, I have long been at pains to underscore that no matter how successful Israel’s defensive countermeasures may prove to be, there is little doubt that the Palestinian-Arab terror groups will eventually devise some offensive measure to circumvent it.

Indeed, six years ago I cautioned: “Defensive weapon systems, however, sophisticated and effective, inflict no cost on determined adversaries and hence can never deter them from attempting to devise methods to circumvent or overwhelm those defenses.”

In similar vein, almost five years later I wrote: “Every time the Gazan terrorists developed some offensive tactic, Israel devised some countermeasure that was designed to thwart the attacks, rather than prevent them being launched in the first place.”

I detailed the sequence of aggressive measures and defensive countermeasures that have emerged hitherto: “Thus, suicide attacks resulted in a security fence and secured crossings; which led to the development of enhanced rocket and missile capabilities; which led to the development of the multimillion dollar Iron Dome; which led to the burrowing of an array of underground attack tunnels; which led to the construction of a billion dollar subterranean barrier; which led to the use of incendiary kites and balloons that have reduced much of the rural South, adjacent to the Gaza border, to blackened charcoal”.

The danger of drones

In this context, I issued repeated warnings as to the use of drones to thwart existing missile defenses and anti-tunnel barriers—see for example here , here and here–and pointed to the danger they may entail: “…it takes little imagination to envisage the deployment of future modes of Judeocidal assault on the Jewish state and its citizens—such as a possible drone swarm carrying explosive—perhaps even some non-conventional—charges, to be detonated on, or over, some luckless Jewish community .”

Fortunately today, there appear to be some signs of greater awareness regarding the potential perils posed by the drone threat and a sense of greater unease as to what they may portend. Thus, following the previously mentioned attempt, several months ago, one military analyst—echoing my earlier concerns—wrote: “Security agencies will overlook the minor impact of the device …and will instead focus on the implied threat that a larger or more ominous payload would represent.”

Following the latest attack, a well-known military correspondent commented:

“…terrorist groups in the blockaded coastal enclave are continuing to innovate and find new weapons to attack Israel’s military…The drone attack over the weekend was a dangerous escalation”, and warned that: “This weekend’s attack is a wake-up call that Israel must take seriously because drones, like rockets, pose threats not only to troops but to the thousands of residents who live in communities near the border… both need to be met with an iron fist.”

Eliminate Hamas; re-garrison Gaza?

Under the headline “Israel must launch a campaign in Gaza to counter dangerous drone threat”, another leading pundit expressed similar sentiments: “UAVs operated from Gaza that can drop explosives endanger not only IDF troops but Israeli communities bordering the Strip as well.”

Counselling a robust response, he wrote: “Israel must act as vigorously against this threat from the coastal enclave as it does against similar attacks from the north… The real solution to this challenge, like other threats originating from Gaza, is to restore Israeli deterrence and change the policy of containment.”

Sadly, none of these generic endorsements of assertiveness actually provided a prescription, even in broad outline, of actionable policy that could break the deadly cycle of aggressive measures and defensive countermeasures.

Expressing his frustration at this, one exasperated talk-backer wrote: “Why Israel allows Hamas to continue to up its threat is beyond understanding.” Astutely he diagnosed: “The cost of constantly countering Hamas attacks is far more than Hamas’ cost to conduct them” and advocated “Israel …must act decisively and boldly to eliminate Hamas once and for all…Eliminate Hamas and re-garrison the Gaza strip.”

Doubtless, at first glance such a stark proposal may seem overly extreme. However, eschewing it for over a quarter-century has allowed what was once a terrorist nuisance to develop into an emerging strategic threat.

The harsh dilemma

It is, of course, quite plausible that Israel will eventually find some (probably very expensive) measure to counter the drone threat. But it is no less plausible, that the Gaza-based terror groups will develop some measure to overcome, or by-pass it—until the Jewish residents, who live in the South, find they no longer can—or wish to—continue to subject themselves and their families to the ongoing trauma of unending terror attacks. Then Israel will find itself confronted with a harsh dilemma: There will either be Arabs in Gaza or Jews in the Negev, but in the long run, there will not be both!

To avert the specter of the depopulation of the South by Jews, Israel must come to terms with the grim realities that prevail in Gaza—and realize:

(a) The population of Gaza is not the victim of its leadership, but the crucible in which that leadership was formed and from which it emerged.

(b) The only long-term solution for Gaza is not its reconstruction, but its deconstruction.

(c) The only way Israel can ensure who rules Gaza is to rule it itself.

(d) The only way Israel can rule over Gaza without ruling over “another people” is to remove that “people” from the area over which it is imperative for it to rule.

(e) The only way Israel can remove the Gazan population from Gaza without forcible expulsion is by a largescale initiative for the incentivized emigration of the non-belligerent population and afford them an opportunity of a more secure and prosperous life elsewhere.

Could anything be more compelling?

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: John Bolton Out — and the Consequences, unveiling what’s at stake for U.S. national security.

Why My Democrat Acquaintance May Change Parties

I was talking to an acquaintance yesterday who is a lifelong Democrat. He’s having real problems with the Democratic Party. It sounds more and more foreign to the party he’s always been a part of. I told him there is an alternative party and smiled.

He actually was open to the idea when he never, ever thought he would be. I was truly surprised. He’s clearly not a Trump fan, but the Democrats are not sounding like his party anymore and he thinks the Trump hysteria is overblown. I don’t know how widespread this is, but looking at the debate last night, possibly more than is realized — and more than will be captured in polls where people supporting Trump are not as likely to admit it as others.

Last night’s debate gives us insights as to why my acquaintance is considering what, for him, is a pretty drastic step.

Joe Biden, the frontrunner, is more than a gaffe machine, as everyone says. His mental capacities are waning as is his stamina. So at one point he said he wants social workers to come into your home to help you raise your kids, and turn on the radio, um, TV, um no, phones, no, listen to record players, “to hear words.” Literally play records and hear words. What the what? Nobody could figure what he was bungling towards. Research shows that when parents read to their kids and listen to classical music, the kids do better in school. Is that what Biden was trying to say? Unclear.

If so, that was badly mangled, and that is a constant. He keeps calling Bernie Sanders the President. He wants you to dial Joe 0101.com or something. He really doesn’t know. Actually, the list is long and expanding daily. It is clear that his mental capacities, never his strength, are diminishing. If you are a Democrat, you’d have to be very worried about him as your standard-bearer a year from now. If you are just an American, you’d be even more fearful of him as President.

My acquaintance cringes at Trump, agrees with some policies and really not some policies, but he agrees with fewer of Biden’s as the candidate moves leftward. Can he even trust that Biden will be capable to hold the office in January 2021?

More from the debate.

Elizabeth Warren wants to spend more and more of your money every debate. (Now it’s a $200 increase for Social Security beneficiaries.) This is just brazen vote-buying with your tax dollars. Her budget-busting Medicare For All plan is one signature move (along with free college and so many more giveaways of your money) but she refuses to answer the question on how she will pay for it except to wave the magic wand of rich people. Not enough, and she knows it and the media knows it. So even the Democrat media moderators pushed her on whether middle class taxes will go up. She refused to answer for the umpteenth time. They will. A lot. She is a tax and spend and tax more and spend more candidate. My friend is looking for fiscal responsibility, but getting the opposite in his party.

Bernie Sanders is like Warren, spending more and more of your money, but he’s a true believer somewhere between Socialist and Communist. (He’s also never had a real job except politics, but he did honeymoon in the Soviet Union — literally praising its glories. That sort of thing does not sit well with Democrats like my acquaintance.) He admits straight up that he will raise middle class taxes. Even with tax hikes, these programs will not be sustainable. He would be a wreck.

Beto O’Rourke wants to confiscate AR-15s and all the rest, and the crowd cheered wildly when he said it. Just the stupid Constitution written by white males stands in his way. He, along with others, say that we literally have a “white supremacist” in the White House. This line is akin to everyone to the right of center is a Nazi. It’s old, it’s a lie, and fewer and fewer outside the Democratic base and anti-Trump hysterics are buying it — even more so when Democrats wink and nod at actual, outright anti-semites and terrorist sympathizers in their party in Congress. My acquaintance is not at all onboard with this.

Pope Pete Buttigieg lectures Christians that if you don’t agree with his politics, your a bad Christian or not a Christian. The Bible is pretty clear that Christians aren’t supposed to do that. But then, he does this from a position of being married to a man and supporting abortion up to the second of birth, so he may not actually know what’s in the Bible, which will not stop him from virtue lecturing us.

Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro and the pack are all in tune to some degree with radical, anti-liberty, giant spending programs that will drag the country downward. They are favoring de facto open borders. Their foreign policies will almost certainly allow for the creation of another Al-Qaeda (which happened under Democrat Bill Clinton) and ISIS (which happened under Democrat Barack Obama) while distancing ourselves from stalwart allies such as Israel. They will let China run rampant in Asia and steal our technologies and business, and maybe do another “restart” with Russia so Putin can take more land as he did under Obama but has not under Trump. More money may be sent to the Iranian Mullahs and they would cripple the U.S. with some version of the loony and disastrous Green New Deal.

The last, least insane candidate left is Sen. Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, and even she says some pretty radical things (for the Democratic Party of 10 years ago.) She also has zero chance at being nominated. The media (major nominators) ignore her and the base probably wonders if she’s a secret Nazi white supremacist.

I understand my acquaintance’s misgivings. He’s far from alone. And it may matter a lot in 14 months.

RELATED ARTICLE: Socialism Offers ‘Security’ of State Control But Demands Surrender of Individual Responsibility

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

VIDEOS: Some material on the DOJ IG report on FISA abuse

Posted by Eeyore

DOJ watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to AG Barr

AG Barr has received draft report on FISA abuse allegations

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz on prosecutors moving forward on charges against McCabe

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Climate Crisis? Green New Dealers vs.energy facts and ICE Treats Illegals to soccer.

Sharron Angle co-hosts with Dr. Nasir Shaikh discussing CNN’s ‘Climate Crisis Town Hall’ with Democratic Candidates. Green New Dealers need to face some hard energy facts. ICE Detention Facility treats illegals to soccer field with guests Marlo Lewis, Paul Driessen, and Chris Chmielenski.

GUESTS:

Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.   Marlo has been published in The Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, TechCentralStation, National Review, AMONG OTHERS.  He has appeared on various television and radio programs, and his ideas have been featured in radio commentary by Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.  Prior to joining CEI, he served as Director of External Relations at the Reason Foundation. During the 106th Congress, Marlo served as Staff Director of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. TOPIC…Climate Crisis Town Hall’ with Democratic Candidates!

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.  TOPIC…Green New Dealers need to face some hard energy facts!

Chris Chmielenski serves as the Deputy Director of NumbersUSA, the nation’s largest grassroots immigration-reduction organization with more than eight million participants in all 435 congressional districts.  NumbersUSA provides a civil forum for Americans of all political and ethnic backgrounds to focus on a single issue, the numerical level of U.S. immigration. Chris joined NumbersUSA in October of 2008 and now serves as the Deputy Director.  He previously worked as an educator and journalist and has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Broadcast Journalism from Syracuse University. TOPIC… ICE Detention Facility Treats Illegals to soccer field!

PODCAST: 152 Ways Trump Is Changing America

They call the Senate the “deliberative body” — and it’s been deliberate all right. This week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had the honor of presiding over President Trump’s 150th (and 151st and 152nd) judicial confirmation hitting the milestone at record speed — and cementing this administration’s place as one of the most influential court-shapers in history.

It’s not a story the media will want to tell, but the impact that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have had on the courts is one of the greatest stories of the 45th presidency. The mark, which puts this administration ahead of Obama’s by more than 50 at this point, is astounding. It means, experts say, that by the end of his term, President Trump may have shaped as much as 30 percent of the bench — a historic legacy that will reverberate through America for generations to come.

McConnell, who has quietly plowed through the nominations at break-neck speed, is most proud of the kind of people Republicans have played a part in elevating. “[The judges] we’ve been nominating believe in the simple, quaint notion that maybe the judges ought to follow the law. I’m amazed that that’s controversial…” he said on Fox News. “We are making an important difference for the country that will last for a very long time and my motto for this Congress is: ‘leave no vacancy behind.'”

Thursday, on “Washington Watch,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) had nothing but praise for the president — not just for keeping his promise on the courts, but well surpassing it.

“It’s an amazing number. One hundred and fifty judges in just three years — less than three years. It’s really, really extraordinary. It’s a testament to this administration. President Trump took a pledge. He said, ‘I’m going to nominate conservative, pro-Constitution, pro-life judges to the bench. And he’s done exactly that… And given the history of what the courts have been used for by the Left… this is so significant. And it has generational impact.”

Still, Hawley said, there’s no reason to stop now. “There’s still a lot of work to do. There are still almost 100 open seats on the federal courts at all levels. That’s a bunch of seats. That’s a bunch of judges. We need to fill those with pro-Constitution men and women.” He believes, and we agree, that this is something that will matter for America and for our country — not just for the next two or three years, “but for the next 30 and 40 and 50.” President Trump is going to have the chance to appoint something like a quarter or a third of the entire federal judiciary.

“And… look, [the] judges in our country are extremely powerful. I mean, if you look around the world, we’re kind of an anomaly. Judges in the country have more power for better or for worse than in a lot of other places. So who sits on the bench for those lifetime appointments? Who makes decisions about what our Constitution means and how to interpret it?”

Someday, very soon, Americans will find out for themselves just how significant the president’s investment in the courts has been. Until then, we agree with Senator Hawley: keep it up!

[Begin listening at the 10:53 mark.]


Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Lib Syncing on the 2020 Agenda

San Diego Library Renews Drag Fight

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

New Faces GOP PAC runs ad featuring AOC — Fighting Fire with Fire

“As a woman, a minority, and a conservative millennial, I am a fresh new face for the Republican Party and someone who will stand up to socialism in America.” – Elizabeth Heng


The New Faces GOP PAC website states:

Our mission is simple: Help elevate the next generation of Republicans so that we can not only survive as a party, but expand beyond the boundaries we’ve set for ourselves. Identify the new faces of the GOP who will lead us into tomorrow.

On Thursday, September 12th, 2019, the New Faces GOP PAC ran its first political ad (below) during the Democratic presidential debate in Houston, Texas.

Elizabeth Heng (@ElizabethHeng) tweeted, “This is the face of socialism and ignorance.  #DemDebate.” and linked to the New Faces GOP PAC ad.

Vox’s wrote:

One of the most shocking moments of ABC’s Democratic debate came during the commercial break.

A picture of progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s face burst into flames on screen to reveal a pile of human skulls and dead bodies, victims of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge genocide. A woman’s voice intoned, “This is the face of socialism and ignorance. Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know the horrors of socialism?” [Emphasis added]

Representative Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, in response to the New Faces GOP PAC ad, the following:

“Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire to convince people they aren’t racist. Life is weird!”

“Know that this wasn’t an ad for young conservatives of color — that was the pretense. What you just watched was a love letter to the GOP’s white supremacist case.”

Notice how Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t answer the question about the horrors of socialism? AOC resorted to name calling.

BTW. Elizabeth Heng is neither white nor a supremacist.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Woman of Color to AOC: ‘Are You Accusing Me of Racism?’

Lib Syncing on the 2020 Agenda

Leftists doxxing New Faces PAC donors after powerful anti-socialism AOC ad

VIDEO: The Vortex — Left Lane Merge

TRANSCRIPT

In the near past, Church Militant has talked about the parallel tracks of the political left and the theological left.

That was owing to the obvious shared agenda items between liberal-socialist politicians and liberal-socialist theological types.

Well, given the current climate in the country, it’s time to amend or update that analogy of parallel tracks.

The two tracks or lanes have now merged into just one giant “Left Lan,” with socialist politicians and socialist clergy now indistinguishable from one another.

When America was more religious-minded than the nation currently is, Democratic strategists would often complain that their party positions in favor of abortion, for example, had ceded “God” to the Republicans.

Indeed, the campaigns of Ronald Reagan were all about religious values and wrapping the cross up in the American flag.

And it worked — spectacularly.

Americans of all stripes who had an innate sense that the underlying issue with America was not economic but rather moral began heavily migrating to the GOP and locking down all sorts of political races.

But that was more than 30 years ago.

While religious-minded Americans were basking in the glow of victory, the long march through the institutions by the socialist-Marxist crowd was laying the groundwork for the overthrow of religion in America.

The college education system in the 80s had only just begun to pervert and convert the minds of the young.

More and more people attended college and ran up massive debt while colleges became correspondingly wealthier with American taxpayer dollars.

But the colleges themselves were putting the finishing touches on a complete ideological takeover by Marxist-styled professors.

Thirty-plus years since then, two generations of Americans who went to college have now essentially abandoned belief in God and their ranks are swelling every year.

And it doesn’t matter if it’s a Catholic college like Notre Dame which long ago betrayed the Faith or a public college, a college degree is almost a guarantee you don’t believe in God in any substantive manner or, at the most, are indifferent.

Now the Marxist college crowd with their millions of alumni have set about on a course to completely co-opt religion as a political issue.

No longer do Democratic Party strategists sit in back rooms lamenting the GOP stranglehold on the so-called “values voters.”

They are making an aggressive pitch for them and giving their Marxist ideology cover as being somehow religious or moral in the process.

So-called man-made climate change — originally called global warming until that proved not true — is now dressed up not just as a scientific issue, but in the end, a moral issue.

Greedy Americans are causing hurricanes, which then go on to wipe out poorer nations; therefore, Americans who support Trump are evil and sinful — that’s how the narrative goes.

And the moment you get to inject the “morality” issue into politics, all the liberal clergy get to start spouting off.

It’s kind of funny, you know, because this was the same crowd back in the 1980s and 1990s under serial abuser Bill Clinton who kept telling religious-minded Americans that you can’t legislate morality.

Now, that’s all the Marxist Democrats want to do — in fact, they can’t stop talking about it.

And they are joined by a full-throated effort of the U.S. bishops and every liberal priest, lesbian nun, and professional Catholic in the country.

Every single Democratic talking point is dressed up in high moral terms: equal rights for sodomites; free will to be able to kill your child at whatever stage you want; banning guns because guns kill; proven serial killers being exempt from the death penalty; illegal immigrants having the same rights as legal immigrants.

You name it, there is not one single Democratic Party talking point that does not have considerable theological heft behind it, and a large part of that heft is coming from the U.S. hierarchy and the James Martins of the world.

The entire process has been usurped and reversed.

It used to be that natural law truths — like abortion is killing and homosexual acts are depraved — were the basis for political laws. The morality informed the political process and the laws agreed.

Now, with religion on a steep decline in America, and things only growing worse, the exact opposite is the process.

People decide they want to live an objectively immoral life, so they get politicians elected who will pass laws which correspond to their immorality.

And they bring along equally immoral clerics who provide all the cover the guilty need to feel good about their actions of undermining morality in America.

There is no longer any need to distinguish between the political left and the theological left. Those two lanes have merged and are now the same — just, the Left.

America has arrived at this place in history because this is the natural result of pluralism, especially in the arena of religion.

The Marxists saw an opening, a chink in the armor that could be exploited, and they have moved in for the kill.

As demographics change and trends follow, election 2020 may very well be the last election where authentic religion is anything but an afterthought, a historical footnote. This is why the Marxist Democrats are trying, and largely succeeded, in seizing the high ground on the “morality” issue.

They are this close to dispatching religion and God from the political scene; and what better strategy to do so than to present a picture that religion can be approached in all sorts of different ways?

But then again, all they needed to do was to have just read the writings of the homopredator Cdl. Joseph Bernardin back in the 1980s who even then was part of this plan to rid America of religion.

It was Bernardin, after all, that blazed the trail for Marxist theologians with his proposal that the pro-life issue was not just about abortion, that there was a consistent ethic of life, making homelessness or being unemployed just as significant as being murdered in the womb as Blase Cupich, Bernardin’s worthy successor in Chicago, has publicly stated.

This complete collapse you see around you, the merger of theological and political socialism was first engineered by a homosexual dominant Catholic clergy, many of whom poisoned young minds at hundreds of formerly Catholic colleges for decades and have the stage for the downfall of religion in America.

Election 2020 will either be the last hurrah, or it will be the ushering in of a completely new America which will grow increasingly violent toward authentic religion.

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

The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change II – Debunking the Bunk

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

The humanitarian hoax of climate change is so enormous and far-reaching that one article on the subject is simply not enough.

My first article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 4, was published two years ago on 7.21.2017. The second, The Riddle of Climate Change, published on 2.27.19 continued the discussion. Now it is necessary to explore the ever-expanding climate change hoax and examine the progress the hucksters have made in advance of the pivotal 2020 elections.

Let’s begin with huckster-in-chief Barack Obama and his recent staggeringly hypocritical purchase of a 15 million dollar waterfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. Why would Obama purchase a waterfront mansion doomed to sink underwater in twelve years? He wouldn’t. Let’s review.

In Obama’s first inaugural address 1.20.09 he pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.” In his second inaugural address 1.21.13 he affirmed climate change saying: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagreed with his assessment saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

The overwhelming judgment of science?? Why did Obama ignore the damning 2009 Climategate scandal, NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s 2010 book, and later the 2014 Senate testimony of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore? Let’s find out.

Climategate is the scandal that erupted on 11.19.09 when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the global warming theory. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history.

It’s findings revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. For instance, it was discovered that the reported warming trend in New Zealand over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by manmade adjustments of the temperature data.” WHAT?

The Climategate emails showed how all the data centers worldwide, including American NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.

Climategate occurred in the first year of Obama’s first term. Climategate’s stunning revelations showed that the “settled science” of climate change was completely fraudulent and politically motivated. Yet, the mainstream media attempted to bury the story for years and continued to push for passage of Obama’s Paris Accord during his second term.

Obama committed his second term to promoting the fiction of manmade climate change, and implementing regulatory environmental policies through the Environmental Protection Agency. New York Times writers Stevenson and Broder compared Obama’s environmental efforts in their 1.21.13 article, Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage. “The approach is a turnabout from the first term, when Mr. Obama’s guiding principle in trying to pass the cap-and-trade bill was that a negotiated legislative solution was likely to be more politically palatable than regulation by executive fiat.”

Executive fiat is an executive order – a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law. The Paris Agreement aka Paris Climate Accord was enacted by Barack Obama during his second term by executive order. The Paris Agreement was made with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, never ratified by Congress, and effective 11.4.16. Remember the date.

Doomsday articles warning of cataclysmic flooding and drought began appearing. The narrative of manmade climate change hysteria was launched to support Obama’s executive order limiting emissions, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media kept repeating the narrative incessantly. The problem, of course, was that unbiased scientists continued challenging the narrative and climate “science” of the the United Nations. Let’s review.

The climate changes, but “manmade” climate change is the deliberately misleading narrative that human behavior is causing cataclysmic changes to the Earth’s climate. The Climategate scandal exposed the fraudulent “research” that supported its politically motivated claims and exposed the hoax.

Former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives saying, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international key to unlock the New World Order.” Gorbachev was referring, of course, to the new world order of an internationalized world community administered under the auspices of the United Nations. Oh my!

Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist, author, and former NASA senior scientist helped debunk the bunk being foisted on an increasingly worried American voting population in 2010. Dr Spencer explained that climate sensitivity is the critical issue in finding the truth of climate changes. “Climate sensitivity is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing,’ of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.”

Political science and climate change huckster extraordinaire Al Gore claimed climate sensitivity is very high. Dr Spencer relied on satellite evidence that suggest climate sensitivity is very low. He made the claim for natural climate change and that climate change happens with or without our help.

Dr Spencer’s 2010 book, The Great Global Warming Blunder presented stunning new evidence that warming is not the fault of humans, it is the result of chaotic internal natural cycles that have been responsible for fluctuating periods of warming and cooling for millennia. The book reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect of cloud behavior and fallen prey to group-think acceptance of misguided political global warming policy proposals.

Dr Spencer’s analysis is atmospheric science not political science – he completely discards the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that greenhouse gases are all that are needed to explain global warming. Spencer shows that a natural, internally generated climate variability called “climate chaos” that is generated by clouds is responsible. Spencer exposes the political motivations of the United Nations IPCC reports saying, “The IPCC process for reviewing the science of global warming and climate change has been a peculiar perversion of the usual practice of scientific investigation. Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.”

Of course it is. Dr Spencer discovered the IPCC politicization of science saying,

“As I wrote this book, I found myself increasingly criticizing the IPCC’s leadership and the way it politicized my scientific discipline, atmospheric science, in order to promote specific policies. The truth is that the IPCC doesn’t actually do scientific research. It is primarily a political advocacy group that cloaks itself in the aura of scientific respectability while it cherry-picks the science that best supports its desired policy outcomes, and marginalizes or ignores science that might contradictory the party line. It claims to be policy-neutral, yet it will not entertain any science that might indicate there is no need for policy change on greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the IPCC’s relatively brief Summary for Policymakers is not written by hundreds of scientists, but by about fifty handpicked true believers who spin the science of climate change to support specific policy goals.”

The United Nations IPCC goals are unapologetically stated in United Nations Agenda 2030 – the manifesto for imposing the new world order of one world government. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals reaffirm the United Nations globalist stance that planet Earth and its ecosystems are “our common home and that ‘Mother Earth’ is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.” This is all Orwellian doublespeak to rationalize imposition of a new world order of one world government under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Nazi Joseph Goebbels infamously remarked, “If you repeat a lie often enough people believe it.” That is exactly what happened with manmade climate change. Let’s recap.

Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama presented himself as your children’s advocate who is altruistically implementing policies for their safety. The presidential huckster issued executive orders that seriously restricted the emissions you are told are killing your children and the planet. The lie was told so often by so many that the general population started believing it, and then began ostracizing and shaming anyone who didn’t believe the lie.

Apostate Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore told a US Senate Committee unequivocally on 2.25.14, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

Patrick Moore exposes the lie of “settled science.” He explains how environmental science has been completely co-opted by political science. There is not a shred of credible evidence that manmade climate change exists – but no matter. The truth never stops a determined huckster. Moore explains:

“When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, they are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it — build a better mousetrap type of idea.”

Patrick Moore described the details of the climate change hoax and the green movement:

“And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children.”

Shaming is a powerful tool used and abused by humanitarian hucksters to promote their manmade climate change narrative, and to silence any opposition to their false claims of “settled” climate science.

The manmade climate change hucksters continue to perpetrate their monstrous hoax through fear and guilt. Fear is a powerful motivator for behavior change. If parents can be convinced that catastrophe will strike their children unless they change their own behavior, their guilt will motivate parents to change and the big lie of manmade climate change becomes generational.

Children are being indoctrinated to believe the lie by their parents and by the collaborating educational curriculum courtesy of Obama’s Common Core and UN Agenda 2030. More on that later.

The big lie continues today. A recent bill proposed by Democrat Senator Edward Markey (MA) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a “Climate Change Education Program.” This legislation deceitfully denies that manmade climate change is a disputed scientific theory and, instead, presents its disinformation as undeniable.

Markey, like his fellow Democrats, ignore Patrick Moore’s emphatic warning, “The narrative of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming or ‘climate change’ is an existential threat to reason:

It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.

So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method.

But this abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” declared Moore. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened to science in the history of science.”

Moore concluded, “It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

Obama’s Paris agreement deceitfully ignored the Climategate scandal, Dr Spencer’s theory, and Patrick Moore’s testimony. It required individual countries to comply with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance starting in the year 2020. The contribution required of each participating country were labelled “nationally determined contributions.” What happened?

President Donald J. Trump defeated Obama’s legacy candidate and fellow manmade climate change huckster Hillary Clinton. One of the first things President Trump did was withdraw the United States from the egregious Paris Agreement. WHY?

The climate change hoax is being perpetrated worldwide by globalists in charge of global education and the United Nations Agenda 2030. The hucksters do not care about Climategate and that their “science” is demonstrably false. They continue to perpetrate the lie with confidence that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough it will be believed. So it is with climate “science.”

Manmade climate change hysteria has reached epic proportions in advance of the 2020 elections. America-first President Donald Trump recognizes the humanitarian hoax of climate change being perpetrated by the enemies of American sovereignty, and stands firm on his decision to withdraw from the deceitful Paris Accord.

The Paris Accord is an anti-America humanitarian hoax designed to transfer the wealth from industrialized countries, especially the United States, to non-industrialized countries. The purpose of the climate change hoax is to de-industrialize the United States of America and collapse her economy in preparation for one world government.

American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government with President Donald Trump as America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama is exposed as a con man it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and socialism with his “resistance” movement. The globalist elites who fund the leftist humanitarian hucksters are using them as useful idiots to facilitate climate alarmism and the great humanitarian hoax of climate change worldwide. It is a deliberate plan to create the overwhelming social chaos necessary to impose their own special brand of a new world order.

Debunking the bunk of the humanitarian hoax of climate change exposes its sinister objective to return the world to the feudal system of one world government. Obama ignored Climategate, Dr Spencer, and Patrick Moore because he knew they were all telling the truth. Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama, his 15 million dollar waterfront mansion, and his family are all safe because manmade climate change is bunk.

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change and the Democrats

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

Prominent Christians Falling Away

Recently, we have been hearing about some well-known professing Christians leaving the faith.

What causes a seemingly solid Christian to walk away from the faith? In some cases, it could be temporary discouragement. In others, it could be a result of burnout. We all need breaks. Even Jesus even took time for rest. God has even built into the week one day off—the Sabbath. If we burn the candle from both ends, we can suffer the consequences of burnout.

In still other cases it can be the result of perhaps a terrible experience, like a brutal church split. I once experienced a church split—I told people this is as close to a divorce as I ever hope to get.

In some cases, those who fall away may have done so because they associate pain with the faith. Christian apologist Alex McFarland wrote a whole book, 10 Answers for Skeptics (Bethany House, 2011), where he dissects the unbelief of many modern-day skeptics and provides answers to their objections.

Alex told me, “In medicine, physicians sometimes speak of a patient’s ‘presenting problem,’ which may be different from their actual problem. Some diagnostic questions and a thorough examination help the doctor determine the true source of an illness. In apologetics and evangelism this is also very much the case. The objection that a skeptic presents may not at all be the actual reason that they have rejected God, or have turned away from Christianity. “

For his books, McFarland spent a lot of time interviewing 34 professed atheists. He said to me, “Surprisingly, 28 of the atheists I interviewed were ex-Protestants. 100% of the people I interviewed answered affirmatively that they had or still do occasionally pray. In fact, immediately after a radio debate with one atheist (during which he had vehemently defended his unbelief), off air he asked me to pray for his wife who had cancer.”

What are we to make of this? McFarland sheds further light: “For years I said, ‘emotional pain is often the starting point for intellectual skepticism.’ I now modify that to say, ‘The road to skepticism always begins with emotional pain.’ It is the default position of the human mind to believe in God. Atheism is a learned pathology. It is counter-intuitive on so many levels. However, many skeptics resolutely train themselves to see the world through the eyes of unbelief because of disappointment with God through some past experience.”

Finally, McFarland noted, “As I interviewed atheists, my heart went out to so many of them who tearfully told about their perception of unanswered prayers, loved ones who weren’t healed of terminal illnesses, toxic experiences in church, and respected ‘Christian leaders’ who in some way let them down.” Painful indeed.

Meanwhile, Christianity is based on some bedrock facts of history. And no amount of disbelief voids those facts of history.

In a different context, John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” The facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus are solid. He was crucified publicly in the Roman Empire, and then soon after reports popped up all over the place of Him appearing to various people—mostly His disciples. But in two cases, He appeared to skeptics, who became converted—Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul the Apostle, and James, who later became the Bishop of Jerusalem.

The most important consideration is that even if millions of professing Christians fell away, it still would not undermine the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Luke was a first century physician. He was a companion and fellow traveler with the Apostle Paul. Luke wrote one of the four Gospels, and he followed it up with the first chronicle of the early church, the Acts of the Apostles.

Early in that book, Dr. Luke states, “To these [the apostles] He [Jesus] also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3, NASB)

The original skeptics of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead were the apostles themselves. Jesus manifested Himself as alive over and over, providing them with “many convincing proofs.” Those apostles were so convinced they went out to the four corners of the earth (“Doubting Thomas” as far as south India) to proclaim Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead. Most of them were martyred for this proclamation.

There are solid historical reasons for believing that Christianity is true, and Alex McFarland has written many books demonstrating this.

It is tragic to see Christians fall away from the faith, but ultimately the loss is theirs. For the Bible notes, “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Republicans Sweep North Carolina Special Elections — Sign of 2020 KAG Landslide?

The Democratic National Campaign Committee has for the past several months  made the Congressional special elections in North Carolina a referendum on the Trump administration and its policies.

Well, the results are now in. Both Republican candidates won handily.

Sign of KAG 2020 Landslide?

According to the Daily Caller’s Capitol Hill reporter Henry Rodgers:

North Carolina Republican candidates Dan Bishop and Greg Murphy won the state’s special elections on Tuesday in the ninth and third Congressional Districts, after continued support from President Donald Trump.

Bishop, a state senator defeated Democrat Dan McCready with 50.47 percent of the vote compared to McCready’s 48.9 percent, with 86% of the vote counted, after millions of dollars were spent on this election. This comes after one of the largest pro-Trump super PACs backed Bishop in the special election, spending over $200,000 in independent expenditures on the Bishop campaign.

Read more.

Valor America’s Joseph Arlinghaus in an email stated:

Despite almost $10 million in money from the outside for the Democrat in the suburbs of Charlotte and Democratic attempts to make him sound moderate, Republican Dan Bishop has won tonight by more than a 2% margin. That’s excellent.

And along the Outer Banks, Dr. Greg Murphy crushed his opponent by a 24% margin.

The Democrats threw everything but the kitchen sink at North Carolina and they came up short. Surprisingly short from their perspective. This is a momentum booster for the President and for candidates for Congress nationwide who wonder if they should stand close to Donald Trump.

These victories come two days before the third Democratic presidential primary debate in Houston, Texas. These wins were a test of the ability of the Trump campaign’s strategy to win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020.

President Trump has shown the ability to fire up his base and get Republicans elected to Congress.

VIDEO: Donald Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina for Dan Bishop – #GlobalNews.

The Key Issues in 2020

It is becoming more and more apparent that there are three key issues that will shape the 2020 election: immigration, the economy and the Second Amendment. All three are to the advantage of the Republican Party.

While there is still over a year before the Presidential election on Tuesday, November 3rd these wins were important for both parties. The Democrats lost, the Republicans won. It’s as simple as that.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sure Democrats Will Lose in 2020, But They Are Dangerous Now, And Must Be Stopped!

Breitbart: Donald Trump Celebrates NC Victories

Detailed Results

Local TV: Big Trump Victory

France Betrays U.S. With $15 Billion Iran Bailout

France slapped the U.S. in the face with its $15 billion Iran bailout offer, which would serve to undo all the progress made by the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on Iran. What should the consequences be?

Listen to Clarion’s National Security Analyst and Shillman Fellow Ryan Mauro discuss this on I24 News as well as the latest reports that Hezbollah has now moved its precision missiles intended for Israel into civilian areas.

Israel’s response to the Iranian and Hezbollah missile build up in Syria and Lebanon is now being publicly defended by Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

Amid the missile build ups by Iran and Hezbollah have come the disclosure by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran performed experiments of nuclear weapons at a previously undisclosed site.

Watch here:

RELATED STORIES

Shocking Update: US Offers Bribe to Captain of Iranian Oil Tanker

Clarion EXCLUSIVE Report: Foreign Influence Ops on US Universities

Ditching Zarif: The Dramatic Story of the Iranian Reporter Who Defected…

Pompeo Blasts Iran For Attack On Saudi Oil Field: This Is Your Fault

18 Years After 9/11 the Threat of Terror Attacks Continues

Looking back to 1998, the dots were connected — and then ignored.

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred nearly 18 years ago yet the impact still reverberates around the world.

It is disconcerting that Americans who are now coming of age to vote were born after the attacks of 9/11 and what they know or don’t know about those attacks depends on what they have been taught by teachers who are not being “Politically Correct” but actually provide lessons that conform to Orwellian Newspeak as does the mainstream media.

On August 30, 2019 The Hill reported, Trial for men accused of plotting 9/11 attacks set for early 2021.  That report begins with this excerpt:

The trial for men charged as plotters of the 9/11 attacks was set Friday for Jan. 11, 2021, The New York Times reported.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men are set to be charged for their alleged role planning the 2001 terror attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Mohammed has been accused of being the mastermind behind the strike.

While the media typically attributes the death of approximately 3,000 innocent victims to the attacks, in reality the actual death count is much higher and victims of those attacks continue to suffer and die because of their exposure to the toxins that were released as a result of the attacks.

As we approach the 18th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 terrorism-related stories are still making news, underscoring the irrefutable fact that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over our heads, not unlike the Sword of Damocles.  However, the lunatic Left seeks to leave America defenseless.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks there was no shortage of politicians who stood behind podiums festooned with forests of microphones in front a television cameras and pounded those podiums, demanding the answer to the question, “Why didn’t anyone connect the dots so that the attacks could have been prevented?”

In reality, however, the “dots” had been connected on numerous occasions fears before September 11, 2001 because there had been a number of terror attacks committed by aliens who had gamed the immigration system to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities around the United States so that they could go about their deadly preparations.

In 1993 the United States suffered two deadly terror attacks conducted entirely by radical Islamist aliens who had managed to enter the United States thus enabling them to carry out those deadly attacks.

In January 1993 a Pakistani by the name of Mir Aimal Kansi stood outside CIA Headquarters with an AK-47 and opened fire on the vehicles of CIA officials reporting for work on that cold January morning in Virginia.  When the smoke dissipated, two CIA officer lay dead and three other were seriously wounded.  Kansi fled the United States and was ultimately brought back to stand trial.  He was found guilty and executed for his crimes.  He had applied for political asylum.

Just one month later, on February 26, 1993 a bomb-laden truck was parked in the garage under the World Trade Center complex and detonated. The blast nearly brought one of the 110 story towers down sideways. As a result of the explosion, 6 innocent people were killed, over one thousand people were injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damages were inflicted on that iconic complex of buildings located just blocks from Wall Street.

That attack was also carried out by alien terrorists who managed to not only game the visa process in order to enter the United States and get past the inspections process at ports of entry, but game the immigration benefits program as well.  This enabled them to remain in the United States and embed themselves as they went about their preparations to attack the United States and cause massive casualties.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first Congressional hearing. That hearing was predicated on those terror attacks and was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the topic: Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.”

On February 24, 1998 The Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, Foreign Terrorists In America: Five Years After The World Trade Center.

One of the senators who participated in that hearing was none other than Dianne Feinstein.  She discussed a number of issues but then turned to deficiencies in the immigration system and focused on the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (at the time of the hearing the Visa Waiver Program had not yet been made permanent).

Feinstein also identified the dangers inherent in providing visas to aliens who are citizens of countries that are associated with terrorism, providing education to students from such countries with education in STEM courses of study who could then use their new-found skills and education to create weapons of mass destruction and even noted how aliens who had gamed the political asylum program had subsequently gone on to commit crimes.

Some of the information she provided was truly startling.

Here are some of the excerpts of her prepared statement at that hearing conducted more than 21 years ago and more than 3 years before the terror attacks of 9/11.

Consider this excerpt:

There are also a number of glaring loopholes in our immigration laws. As I serve on the Immigration Subcommittee, I just wanted to spend my time touching on some of them.

I have some reservation regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist-supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents, as you pointed out, through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

The Richmond Times recently reported that the mastermind of Saddam Hussein’s germ warfare arsenal, Rihab Taha, studied in England on a student visa. And England is one of the participating countries in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which means, if she could have gotten a fraudulent passport, she could have come and gone without a visa in the United States.

The article also says that Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” that her professors at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, speculate that she may have been sent to the West specifically to gain knowledge on biological weaponry.

What is even more disturbing is that this is happening in our own backyard.

The Washington Post reported on October 31, 1991, that U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq discovered documents detailing an Iraqi Government strategy to send students to the United States and other countries to specifically study nuclear-related subjects to develop their own program. Samir AJ-Araji was one of the students who received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, and then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear weapons program.

Yet the State Department often does not do in-depth background checks on the students, and once they are in the United States, the INS has no ability to track the students to make certain they actually study the subjects they claim to study and to attend the schools they said they would attend.

Between 1991 and 1996, the State Department has issued about 9,700 student visas to students from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria to attend undergraduate and graduate studies in the United States.

Senator Feinstein went on to note:

The defendants of the World Trade Center bombing are also an example of those coming in through nonimmigrant or employment-based visas or abusing our political asylum process and then committing crimes.

For instance, Nidal Ayyad, one of the defendants in this case, used his position as a chemical engineer for Allied Signal to obtain the chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing.

There is Gazi Abu Mezer, who was arrested in a suspected terrorist plot to detonate bombs in Brooklyn last year. He came in illegally across the Canadian border to Washington State and attempted to seek asylum, but withdrew his application and agreed to leave the country. Once he was released on voluntary departure, he fled Washington to Brooklyn, NY, where he was arrested for plotting suicide-bomb attacks in Brooklyn.

Finally, consider this excerpt:

Mr. Chairman, under the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress requires the INS to create a pilot project to track information on foreign students — where they are, what they are studying, if they commit any crimes, and if they are studying the subjects they planned to study. The act requires INS to submit a report by 2001. The act also tightens up the asylum process by making it harder for aliens to claim asylum fraudulently, and section 110 of the Immigration Act requires an entry/exit system at all ports of entry by September 1998.

As you know, there is a move on this very committee to essentially remove that.

I know there are concerns over the implementation of international student tracking systems and the entry/exit system required by the 1996 law. And I realize it takes time to build the automation systems and the infrastructure necessary to make the requirements work. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of having the ability to track international students, particularly those from terrorist-supporting countries and having an entry/exit system ability so we know who is coming in and out of the country.

In 1998 Feinstein certainly “connected the dots” and supported them with irrefutable facts that point to the clear nexus between failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel identified and connected still more “dots.”

Yet the Democrats create “Sanctuary Cities” and demand the termination of immigration law enforcement while refusing to secure our nation’s vulnerable borders.

On May 5, 2005 the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, New ”Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.  This excerpt from the prepared statement of the then-chairman of that Subcommittee, Republican John Hostettler, will serve as the summation for my commentary today.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Gives Green Light To Trump Administration’s Asylum Rules

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All right reserved.

The Future Of Media Is Reversion To The Past, And That’s Good

For most of the country’s history, we did not have a professional, fair and objective media just reporting the news straight. It was an alien thought to most, and not the purpose.

The media (newspapers for most of that time) was always partisan, from Adams and Jefferson newspapers in the early years of the infant Republic up to the mid-20th century, newspapers were Democrat, Republican, pro-slavery, anti-slavery and overt about it. In fact, some newspapers today still bear that legacy — most Southern states have numerous newspapers named Democrat, such as the Tallahassee Democrat in Florida. There are dozens that retain this heritage, although many dropped the Democrat name in mergers.

Only for a short period after WWII, when there were a lot of anomalies that would not last, we tried this new idea of a professional class, college-trained media that would objectively report the truth in the news. I peg the ending of it to very roughly Watergate, but you could argue before that time. Certainly by the time of the Reagan presidency, the pretense was wearing thin, but you almost had to be in newsrooms (as I was) to realize the depth of the bias. By the 90s, it became much clearer in attempts to smear Republicans and whitewash Democrats and Bill Clinton’s ugly proclivities.

Since that time, the media has been reverting to form as a fully partisan industry. This is acceptable under the First Amendment, and historical, but we for a short time tried the other approach. Now, it never really was unbiased. It turns out Walter Cronkite, that most trusted of all trusted names was a doctrinaire leftist and wielded far, far too much power in influencing the American public against the Vietnam War.

The problem, however, was that all of the media — now known as the mainstream media — was uniformly left-wing. We see it more clearly in hindsight, but it was quite clear then. It’s why the deregulation of the airwaves and dumping of the Fairness Doctrine that opened up the airwaves allowed Rush Limbaugh and then a wave of other conservative voices to thrive where liberal voices could not. Liberals had all the rest of the media. It was conservatives who were hungry for balance. This also explains the launch of Fox News as “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide” was and continues to be hugely successful. There was pent-up demand that was not being met by the unbalanced supply of the mainstream media.

Then we had the rise of the internet and another outlet for conservative voices and worldview takes on the news to further balance out the increasing reversion to the norm of the mainstream media. Andrew Breitbart was a pioneer here, but now the space is full of alternatives. We are continuing to transition back to our country’s historic pattern.

But herein lies the problem with this transition. Most Americans have no context for understanding a bias media (thank you again, public schools.) European media has all along been party organs. Everyone in London knows that with the Guardian they are getting the leftwing view and with the Telegraph they are getting the rightwing view. It benefits by being honest about the bias, something desperately lacking in the American media and driving the basement-level trust numbers.

This almost assuredly is the future for America. We can no longer accept the idea that we have a professional, above-the-fray media, and just give over to the more realistic model of party organs and worldview platforms. It’s not clear we ever strayed all that far from it in the first place.

Pretty much everyone to the right of center (including many moderate Republicans) now realize the mainstream, oldstream media is hopelessly biased and partisan. One good thing that has come from President Trump driving the left off the mental stability cliff is that it has finally and fully unmasked the media partisanship that has existed for decades. Judging by the response I get when talking on this subject, they will not regain our trust. That era has ended. It’s on to the past!

For many, it is hysterically funny that outfits such as the New York Times (building its newsroom around the bogus Trump-Russia narrative, now shifting to bogus Trump racist narrative, according to its executive editor) and the Washington Post (Democracy Dies in Darkness, actually surpassing the Trump’s narcissism) to CNN (once known as the Clinton News Network and now the Democratic Party’s video proselytising arm) all still try to declare they are straight news sources. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming it would crash The Revolutionary Act’s servers.

So what will happen is we will increasingly have on one side of the media the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Breitbart News, the Blaze and other internet outfits as the conservative media, along with Fox News, the New York Post, Washington Examiner, and a few more old mainstream media outlets that are pretty honest in the bias, and then talk radio.

On the other side of the media we will have the Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, Daily Kos, Buzzfeed, Yahoo News, MSNBC (honest about their bias) Media Matters, and weirdly the Daily Show and Colbert (because inconceivably, people on the left claim to get their news there) and a raft of others.

And finally, for an extended period, probably, there will be the New York Times, WaPo, CNN, Bloomberg, NPR and the rest of the entrenched mainstream media around the country, which will also be leftist partisan — but will lie about it.

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