Win or Lose, What will happen after the Election?

/in , , , /by

Something concerns me as we approach the 2020 election; specifically, the ramifications of the outcome. I do not believe President Trump will lose, but what if he did? And what would happen if the Democrats lose?

Assuming the Republicans lose and the Democrats take control of the White House and Congress, there is little doubt they would push their Socialist agenda, something abhorrent to every red-blooded Republican, as well as a lot of independents and moderate Democrats.

Over the last three years, we have watched the Democrats resist the President. We have seen numerous attempts of obstruction, delays in appointments, false accusations and charges, and tying up executive action in the courts. We all know where the president had hoped to be by this time, and he has accomplished many things, but the fact remains the Democrats have successfully slowed his agenda. In so doing, they have provided the Republicans with a blueprint on how to push back against the Democrats’ agenda. Should the Democrats win, the Republicans will likely push back by giving the Democrats a taste of their own medicine. This, of course, will cause the Democrats to cry “foul.”

Nevertheless, the country will have to experience four more years where nothing will be accomplished, just as it has under the current 116th Congress. This should disturb everyone as there is still an enormous amount of things to be addressed, such as infrastructure, immigration, health care, the federal debt, and much more. None of which is being addressed by the 116th Congress (or the 115th for that matter).

The biggest difference between the Democrats and the GOP is the news media, which has formed an unholy alliance with the Democrats and will do their bidding for them. If the Republicans win, the media will continue their attacks on them; should the Democrats win, they will still attack the GOP and hold the Democrats blameless for everything.

A Republican win means the Democrats will continue their policy of harassment, but their spirit will be somewhat broken as the party will certainly not be unified, and fractured between the far-left and moderates. I am also concerned we might see more violence from such groups as Antifa and others. Should the Republicans lose, I cannot imagine anyone from the party allowing the 2nd Amendment to be subjugated, and will resist giving up their weapons. All of this could turn rather ugly.

I guess what I am driving at, regardless of who wins next year, the policy of harassment will continue unabated. Obviously, this is not what we sent politicians to Washington, DC to do.

What concerns me is that we have been conditioned to believe this is an acceptable form of operating a government. As an old systems man, I can tell you authoritatively, it is not. This is “The Swamp” the president has been talking about for quite some time, and it needs to be drained.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my new books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

RELATED VIDEO: Facebook rejects Biden campaign’s request to remove Trump ad.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Liberals Ruin Everything

The Rise of Young Black Conservatives

House Freedom Caucus to Speaker Pelosi: Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff Has Got to Go

What’s Next After Trump?

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

The Human as Guest?

/in , , , , , /by

Robert Royal: At the Synod, humans are termed “guests” on earth. In fact, we are God’s creatures, meant to be here as much as any created thing.

Synods almost always move within established boundaries and the subjects they take on, the very language they use, are largely predictable. But a new term popped up at the Amazon Synod in the last few days that may be significant. Various sources say that the synod participants have been talking about changing our mentality from thinking of ourselves as the lords and masters of nature to our (allegedly) true position – as “guests” in the world.

As with much else that happens in discussions of ecology, this has its positive and negative sides. The positive side, a very positive side, is that it repudiates a centuries-old view that corrupted the Scientific Revolution at the very start. Rene Descartes spoke of making ourselves “masters and possessors of nature.” Francis Bacon went even further advising we “put nature on the rack for the relief of man’s estate.”

Now, needless to say, these assertions are naked brutality, not a Christian view. The false belief that the Bible – and not the early stages of the Enlightenment – sanctioned such callous supremacy has for more than a half-century now led a significant segment of environmentalists to think Christianity is responsible for environmental degradation, and should therefore be repudiated.

A Biblical view of nature begins at the beginning, with Genesis, where we are told “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (1:28)

The Hebrew word for “dominion,” the Bible scholars say, is pretty strong, the kind of rule a king – a good king – has over his realm. But it’s worth reminding ourselves that, prior to the advent and spread of modern technologies, nature was not always a loving mother to our race, but a stern foe. To this day, some people seem to think it’s unnatural when there are floods, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, bizarre weather patterns. The truth is those things have been part of conditions on the earth since long before we ever came on the scene.

*

So the dominion of which the Bible speaks maybe be strong, but it is the strength of the steward who will make the desert bloom, cultivate the land, care for the animals, as he or she must do if we are to live on earth at all.

I have no idea where this notion of “guest” – the Italians have been saying ospite – came from. It seems to aim at humility and deference towards nature, which would be fine in and of itself. But the fact is that we are not guests here; we’re not like someone staying in a hotel or private home at the forbearance of the owners. We are meant to be here – we Christians and Jews believe, on the basis of divine revelation – and therefore we have an essential role to play.

I have said here before: the Amazon synod is not wrong to raise questions about the human treatment of nature because nature is not the purely materialistic thing (matter and energy interchanges) that the technological/scientific worldview presents to us. It’s useful at times to look at nature that way in order to achieve various goods. But that kind of science, which is not all of science by any means, cannot say anything about what’s central to human life: free will, intelligence, purpose – and finally, love.

So when synod participants talk about shifting from a technocratic paradigm to an ecological one, they’re actually harking back to a true Biblical perspective.

That’s if – and it’s a large if – we do not think of ourselves as some sort of encrustation on the land, as the more radical environmentalists seem to believe. Unfortunately the Vatican has largely drawn on the most radical environmental figures – not exclusively, but a lot – in developing ideas about our relationship with the Creation. It’s often turned to population controllers who advocate contraception and abortion, and – so far as anyone knows – has not much sought to help develop currents of thought and practice that do not regard us as a guest in the world – if not a pest.

It pains me to say this but some of our best intentioned Catholics seem to be so weighed down by abstract kinds of guilt (not the guilt that once existed over personal sins) that they only see Christian culture and the Western civilization to which it helped give rise as toxic, toxic all the way down. Poisoned by “dominion” in the Bible,  poisoned by colonialism, racism, sexism, slavery, genocide – all terrible things to be sure. But it is because of our Christian roots that we know that many things that have happened in Western culture, as in other cultures, are not exactly sterling examples of virtue and benevolence.

It would only compound those errors if we were now to regard ourselves as a mere “guest” on this planet. God has not told us that such is our lot in the world. Rather, it’s our responsibility to be his stewards, as I argued here the other day, until the true king comes again.

It will be worth watching if this talk of being guests continues to rise in prominence over the next week because, under the guise of humility, it tends toward yet another ideological distortion of human life on this planet.

We are not guests, we are creatures, God’s creatures, as much meant to be here as the rivers, the rainforests, the mountains, and the seas. More than they are, in fact. It’s a challenging prospect, but we should not shrink from, but embrace it.

COLUMN BY

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cardinal Sarah: Ideological push in Amazon synod an ‘insult to God’

Key Synod Father: Pan-Amazon Synod ‘Maybe a Step to’ Women Catholic Priests

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

INTEL REPORT: Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey-Syria w/Analysis

/in , , , , /by

IRAQ

This past week, Arab Spring-like protests have been taking place in Baghdad and numerous other Iraqi cities.  The protests have been mainly against corruption, which is rampant in Iraq.  Other issues mentioned by protesters are lack of jobs, defects in public services, and the excessive Iranian influence.  Iraqi Shi’a have been the primary movers in these protests.

In the early stages of the protests, al-arabiyya TV reported that the Iranian-supported Iraqi Shi’a militia the heshd sha’bi (Popular mobilization) was firing upon the demonstrators.  Later reports had it that the Iraqi army had fired upon the protesters.  Other reports had the Iraqi army protecting the demonstrators from the heshd sha’bi.

More credible reports have recently come out or Iraq that snipers placed on roof tops have been picking off the demonstrators.  The identity of the snipers has yet to be determined.

Iranians have called the protesters “American agents,” among other things.  In this context Iran has threatened to send 7,500 of its own troops into Iraq to protect Iranian pilgrims to Shi’a holy sites during an up-coming Shi’a ritual called the hussayniyyah.

ALGERIA

As reported previously in this series, the Arab Spring 2.0 has been on-going in Algeria for the past half-year resulting in the fall of the Boutiflika government.  However, the protesters believe that cronies of the old regime are still calling the shots.  This belief has stymied the holding of elections to select a new government.

In this environment a group called mujtem’at-il-silm (Society of Peace) might well be  poised to make gains in any upcoming Algerian elections, should such elections actually take place, according to a 39 Sept. report on al-arabiya TV.

The “Society of Peace” group, BTW, is the Algerian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood

TUNISIA

Meanwhile in Tunisia, the Muslim Brotherhood branch there, the an-nahdhdah (renaissance) party, after having fallen (according to popularity polls) from 34% down to 8%, also was poised to pick up ground in the 15 Sept. elections.  This is because one of the two remaining candidates for the presidency has been charged with fraud and money laundering.

As a result, the an-nahdhah party gained the most votes (plurality) in the 15 Sept. parliamentary elections, and is now looking for partners to form a new government.

TURKEY/SYRIA

As predicted with Trump’s controversial withdrawal of American forces from Syria, Erdogan has invaded northern Syria east of the Euphrates.  The Turkish goal is to create a “safe zone” all along Turkey’s border with Syria.  This will be accomplished by way of ethnic cleansing these areas of Kurds, Christians, and Yazidis just as they did in the Afrin region last winter.

Expect this region, along with the previously conquered Afrin region, to be “Turkified” and added to Erdogan’s nascent neo-Ottoman Empire.  Expect more of the same to follow once these gains have been consolidated.  Erdogan has already been making military incursions into the Kurdistan regions of northern Iraq.

Turkish propaganda claims that their current operation in Syria is aimed at combatting “terrorism” specifying the Kurdish PKK (which the U.S. has declared to be a terrorist organization), and ISIS.  This is the line that Erdogan used to gain Trump’s agreement to withdraw and “leave the fighting to us.”

Unfortunately, what Turkey identifies as PKK are all Kurds, including those of the YPG who provided the troops for the “Syrian Democratic Army” that we trained, equipped, and fought side-by-side with in the war against ISIS.

Media reports in the West have Turkey’s military incursions into Syria aided by “Syrian rebels,” as a way to sort of legitimize Turkey’s invasion.  After all, isn’t that what we were doing? . . . supporting Syrian rebels against the Assad regime?

Problem is, the “Syrian rebels” that Erdogan is using are left-over ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood types—which puts the lie to Erdogan’s claim to be going into Syria to put down ISIS.  Middle Eastern sources, Arab and Israeli alike, fear that Erdogan, instead of stamping out ISIS, will free them from the many camps where ISIS survivors are being held.

Most pertinent in this respect is the large camp of 70,000 in northern Syria which here-to-fore “our” YPG Kurds / Syrian Democratic Army have been guarding.  Previous reports out of the Arabic media claimed that ISIS had thoroughly taken over that camp, 50,000 of whom are children.  The adult ISIS males are armed with AK-47s.  The fear in the Middle East is that Erdogan will recycle these 10,000 or so armed ISIS males into their “Free Syrian Army,” while allowing, and encouraging, the adult females to continue raising and brain-washing their children with ISIS propaganda (a process that is already underway in all of the camps where ISIS members are being held.

These children, 50,000 strong (along with the thousands of others from other camps), will then become the next generation of shock troops for Turkey’s continued Jihad expansion and resurrection of the old Ottoman empire—a process to continue long after Erdogan’s passing from the scene.

ANALYSIS

Erdogan’s grand plan for reconstituting the old Ottoman Empire that was dismembered by European powers during the 19th and early 20th centuries, culminating in WWI, includes allying itself with the Muslim Brotherhood association branches which are present in every single Arabic-speaking country.

This alliance of the largely Arabic Muslim Brotherhood (MB) with the political/military ambitions of Erdogan have been blessed by the current ideological leader of the MB, Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, who currently resides in the MB-supporting country of Qatar.  I find it significant that just as Turkey is making military gains in the Kurdish areas of Syria and Iraq, Turk-friendly MB parties have been making political gains (just this past week) in Tunisia and Algeria, among other regions.

A more detailed special report on Trump’s withdraw from Syria and its long-term ramifications will follow in a few days.

President Trump is protecting Americans from Big Government

/in , , , , , , , , /by

During the Obama Administration, it became common practice for Federal agencies to target and penalize American families and small businesses. They got away with it by hiding behind vague, often secret interpretations regarding how ordinary citizens should comply with the government’s own maze of bureaucratic regulations.

When President Donald J. Trump took office, he pledged to turn the page on Washington’s regulatory overreach, giving the American people a government that’s finally accountable to its citizens. Building on that promise, the President signed a pair of Executive Orders today to ensure that the abuses that took place under the last Administration can never happen again.

Americans will no longer be kept in the dark.

First, Agencies will have to place their guidance documents on easily searchable public websites, allowing any American access to them. The government will be required to permit citizens to give their input on these guidelines, and they will have the ability to ask agencies to withdraw guidance they believe is wrong. Second, agencies will be strictly prohibited from enforcing rules that have not been made publicly known.

These common-sense changes come alongside the President’s historic efforts to cut burdensome red tape. In his first week in office, he issued a challenge to his Administration: For every new regulation introduced, 2 old ones must be cut.

That goal has been met—to say the least. As of today, the tally is 14 regulations that have been cut for every significant new one implemented. That makes for the largest deregulatory push since Ronald Reagan was President.

Unlike Obama, President Trump is protecting Americans from Big Government.

Acting OMB Director: “Trump Keeps Promise to Tame Bureaucracy That Runs Roughshod Over Americans”

President Trump signs ‘game-changing’ trade deal with Japan

During the U.N. General Assembly last month, President Trump continued to fight for fairer trade deals for American workers. The results of that hard work came to light Monday, when the President signed a pair of groundbreaking deals at the White House.

“These two deals represent a tremendous victory for both of our nations,” President Trump said. “They will create countless jobs, expand investment and commerce, reduce our trade deficit very substantially, promote fairness and reciprocity, and unlock the vast opportunities for growth.”

President Trump: This is a groundbreaking achievement for the U.S. and Japan

America’s farming community is the big winner from the first of Monday’s agreements, which dramatically expands their market access. Before this deal, Japan was already America’s third largest agricultural export market—accounting for $14.1 billion in food and agricultural exports last year. The terms are even better now, as Japan will eliminate or reduce tariffs on approximately $7.2 billion in U.S. agricultural goods.

Once the agreement goes into effect, more than 90 percent of American agricultural imports into Japan will be duty free or receive preferential tariff access.

“In the United States, these deals are a game-changer for our farmers and our ranchers . . . [they] will now be able to compete fairly in Japan against major competitors worldwide,” the President said.

The second deal signed on Monday focuses on digital trade, setting the same “gold standard” digital trade rules that are found in the President’s landmark United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Vital online commerce will now be expanded, which brings a significant boost to the already roughly $40 billion worth of digital trade between America and Japan. It ensures America will remain a global leader in digital.

The President’s deal with Japan is a win for American farmers and businesses.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘There can be no reward’: Beto O’Rourke supports punishing religious institutions for views on sexuality

© All rights reserved.

Stalin Planned America’s Collapse — It’s Underway

/in , , , /by

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: it’s patriotism, it’s morality, and it’s spiritual Life. If you can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” — Joseph Stalin.

Joseph Stalin made the statement above about America was made seventy years ago in Moscow. What Stalin had in mind, I experienced seventy years later in America, when immigrating in 1981. And I am horrified, because Stalin’s design has almost come to fruition in 2019 due to this incredible “achievement” of the KGB. I am emphasizing the significance of the KGB, because it represents Russia today and I am using the term KGB meaning the entirety of Russian Intelligence Services. The Ukrainian scandal is an intimate Russian one.

Ukraine and Its Socialist Mafia

Ukraine is a beautiful country with vast areas of very fertile land and plenty of hard-working and freedom-loving people. The country was under the regime of the Stalinist Socialist mafia for seventy years and the Ukrainians suffered enormously all those years. In the 1930s Stalin prosecuted a man-made starvation in Ukraine in which 7-to-10 million people perished: every family was devastated and memory of this tragedy has been confirmed by the history. Ukraine proclaimed its independence immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus started the fight with the Stalinist Socialist mafia…

My colleague, a defense attorney in Moscow, Arkady Vaksberg, wrote a book-documentary and titled it—The Soviet Mafia, St. Martin Press 1991. He details the organized, systematic corruption and crime institutionalized in the Soviet Union since Brezhnev’s day, and how it involved the Communist Party leadership and organized crime. You would not want to read this book, as there are thousands of murders described and thousands of unpronounceable Russian names. Here are my analyses on the book taken from my book: What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction Xlibris, 2012, p. 153:

There are three main concepts in the book. First, the evil empire may be dead, but not the evil that drove it—the Soviet mafia. Second, the book gives us a new definition of political forces and their leaders previously known as the Communists, the KGB, and the Soviets. Vaksberg redefines those old terms with a new collective identity: the Soviet mafia, the nucleus of an organized crime syndicate. Third, the Soviet mafia is a multinational political force, not limited to any ethnicity, religion, or race. Considering the arguments presented above, I believe that Islam and Jihad are instruments of the Soviet mafia used against the West—it unites all the countries of holding to Soviet Fascism with a common agenda aimed against the West…

The book was written in the 20th century, I have learned a lot since. It was the Soviet mafia spreading Soviet Socialism across the globe and creating Socialist mafia worldwide. Today we are dealing with the result of that: The Axis of Evil under Russian supervision with a common agenda aimed against Western civilization. Ukraine is part of this war: the Socialist mafia was in power for a long time in Ukraine and it will continue its dirty deals under new Ukrainian government until exposed. Remember the definition of the Soviet mafia left by Arkady Vaksberg–it is today Socialist mafia spread worldwide including the United States of America…

Biden’s Influence-Peddling

It is not the Biden Probe, it is the Washington Swamp, the Deep State, where America’s Socialist mafia collaborates with Ukrainian Socialist mafia to accomplish the Russian design against Trump, which started with Trump/Dossier, produced by the KGB. Knowing the Obama/Putin conspiracy, a coup d’état against Trump, with the active participation of the CIA and FBI, the sought for resolution can be achieved, as it is the same anti-Trump Witch Hunt—round 2.0.

Obama delegated Joe Biden as a point man to Ukraine in 2014. Biden traveled to Ukraine with his son Hunter, whose activity deserves explanation. There is a direct connection between Biden’s family and an oligarch in Ukraine— ”Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of Ukrainian energy … According to The New York Times, Hunter Biden helped assemble the company’s legal team, … Burisma is led by an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky.”

Ukrainian Mykola Zlochevsky, founder of Burisma Holdings Company, on whose board Hunter Biden in 2014 was appointed, while at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Ukraine. Zlochevsky was a Minister of Energy in the Yanukovych government, which means he is the Russian asset, like Yanukovych himself, who fled to Russia to escape the wrath of the Ukrainian people.

Zlochevsky is the subject of several closed cases now under audit by the Ukrainian prosecutor general. “We are now reviewing all the cases that were closed or split into several parts or were investigated before, in order to be able to rule to reverse those cases where illegal procedural steps were taken.” Americans can’t even imagine the scale of monumental corruption in Ukraine, it is Soviet style corruption. There is a very peculiar situation within America’s Socialist mafia, I mentioned in my column Face to Face with Fascism in America, in this magazine September 28, 2019:

“To investigate the Ukraine scandal, knowledge of Russia’s KGB is a must. For your information the KGB loves to fish in a murky waters and pre-election Ukraine was that exact location of murky waters. Putin’s desire to have Ukraine back will never change: the KGB has a lot of sleeper cells in Ukraine, a country of enormous corruption. This current scandal has very intriguing kinds of people involved: the top Dems Joe Biden, the KGB agent George Soros, four Dems Senators, and some even more questionable persons—a knot of possibilities that may even lead to uncover the long-term Obama/Putin conspiracy that I have written about for many years.” I have already identified two possible conduits, perhaps Obama decided to create the third one in Ukraine: Biden-Burisma-Putin…

Obama/Putin force has initiated digging dirt on Trump in Ukraine in 2016 before his inauguration. Yes, to investigate the Ukraine scandal, knowledge of Russia’s KGB is a must. Our Constitutional Republic is at stake, because 90 percent of pundits do not know the subject matter Russia or Ukraine and arrogantly discuss them anyway. I am not talking about CNN, I am talking about Fox News. What do Juan Williams and Chris Wallace know about Obama/Putin conspiracy and the ties between Putin’s KGB and former Ukrainian President Yanukovych? What do they know about the ideology of Soviet Fascism to destroy Western civilization? They never read my books or columns, because the FBI’s Socialist mafia submitted my name to the FISA Court to make me a foreign agent and ban my writings.

The KGB’s Brotherhood-American Style

I had a reason, in my above mentioned column, in which I presented you with the Stalinist crimes in 1937 Russia. Stalin politicized and weaponized the entire Russian Intel and use it against the Russian people: Show Trails, Purges, investigations, and so on. In 21st century American style, Socialist-Obama also politicized and weaponized the American Intelligence against the Republican Party and later against Trump. “…we did what Obama told us to do,” a member of Intel had described the situation.  And as we know now a Communist lover, the CIA’s John Brennan is a key member of the Deep State, who actively helped Obama to dig dirt on Trump, and also traveled to Ukraine—it was America’s Socialist mafia in action.

Look at the impeachment led by Socialist mafia of the House of Representatives—a total fraud and waste of time and money a-la Soviet Socialism, which corrupts everything it touches. The market is hurt by impeachment debates, yet American’s Socialist mafia reinforces the effort to get rid of Trump at any cost and destroy a unique political system left to us by our Founding Fathers. Obama Intel purposely or due incompetence did not inform Trump that Turkey President Erdogan is working with Putin for the last three years: watch now how the Axis of Evil deceives us. Who is the beneficiary of this political chaos in America??  The answer is Obama/Putin’s Deep State, the KGB, and America’s Socialist mafia—the KGB’s Brotherhood American style…

All of this also reminds me of the Soviet Union’s pattern of lies and fraud used by Socialist mafia there. The picture is so similar to contemporary America, that I constantly recall Stalin’s order for Communists: Never admit any crime you committed, but accuse the opponent in this exact crime. You will see in the upcoming investigation of the Ukraine scandal how Joe Biden follows that exact recipe—he will accuse Trump in the actions he himself had committed. Stalin is very popular among leaders of Socialist mafia: I recognized the Soviet style of propagandist-manipulator Adam Schiff, the epitome of Stalinist Political Correctness: lies and fraud. In the absence of due-process, he is constantly lying using the essentials of Stalinist Political Correctness: he is a witness, investigator, and judge in the partisan impeachment circus, acting secretly like in Stalin’s regime. I am not sure he knows that Stalin is the author of Political Correctness used by Dems’ Socialist mafia.

Don’t be surprised by the appearance of numerous Dems whistleblowers. They are being produced by our Intel and in the Soviet Union they were called informants. When I left the country in 1980, the KGB had over 20 thousand informants. Socialist mafia is a multinational political force, not limited to any ethnicity, religion, or race—mafia is mafia fighting for power worldwide using Stalinist Political Correctness. Let me remind you my definition of Political Correctness: “… Political correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of a quintessential system of lies, fraud, and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization to create of One World Socialist Government under Kremlin’s rule.”

The GOP is missing the elephant in the room: Socialist Revolution is happening right now in America–The Brain-Washing War on America’s Mind and Soul. We are dealing with the army of aggressive international Socialist mafia aimed at turning the Constitutional American Republic into the Union of Socialist American States. The Dems’ are leading this fight not only to revenge a losing election, the main reason of the fight for power is to cover-up the sinister crime of TREASON that they have committed over several decades. This crime committed by the leadership of Dems’ Socialist mafia should be a major topic in the November 2020 election.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com and at www.drrichswier.com/author/spipko/.

© All rights reserved.

Minnesota Attorney General Ellison: Religious Freedom Just a ‘License to Discriminate’

/in , , , , /by

In an op-ed at the StarTribune last week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison swore to fight a court’s ruling upholding the right of wedding videographers to create videos in accordance with their faith beliefs about marriage.

As reported by Breitbart News, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled in favor of St. Cloud Christian videographers Carl and Angel Larsen, who claimed the right to create videos consistent with their faith beliefs about marriage between a man and a woman.

Religious freedom doesn’t sit well with the Muslim Ellison, who announced he will go back to trial to prove that “LGBTQ discrimination is not free speech” — accusing the Larsens of using their faith as a front for discrimination against LGBT individuals.

“Business owners’ free speech and beliefs are already fully protected under the First Amendment,” Ellison conceded, but then claimed that what the Larsens want “is a license to discriminate against LGBTQ folks.”

Keith Ellison

110 Known Connections

In September 2017, Ellison spoke at a panel discussion about immigration reform and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an executive action by which former president Barack Obama had permitted most DREAM Act-eligible individuals to gain temporary legal status, work permits, access to certain publicly funded social services, and protection from deportation. “[A]s many as three million DACA recipients live with someone who is a citizen of the United States,” said Ellison. “Add that to the people who work with a DACA recipient. Add that to people who are the parents of a DACA recipient. Add that to people who are parents of American citizens. You are literally talking about over 100 million Americans who are in some way — way more than 100 million, maybe well over that — who are deeply connected to people who have immigrated to the United States, some with official papers, some with not.” Reasoning from the premise that Americans have a moral obligation to provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens, Ellison then likened modern-day illegals aliens living in the United States to Jews who lived in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and ’40s: “If you ask yourself, ‘What I would I do if I was a gentile in 1941 if my Jewish neighbors were under attack by the Nazis, would I give them sanctuary?’ You might be about to find what you’d do. Will you pass that moral test, or will you fail it?”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

RELATED ARTICLE:  ‘There can be no reward’: Beto O’Rourke supports punishing religious institutions for views on sexuality

PODCAST: The Radical Feminists Who Are Fighting the Transgender Movement

/in , , , , , /by

As a leader of the radical feminist organization group Women’s Liberation Front, Natasha Chart doesn’t agree with conservatives on much. But when it comes to the transgender movement and protecting children from transgender ideology, she’s standing side by side with conservatives.

Chart spoke Thursday at The Heritage Foundation’s Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization. On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we sit down with her to find out why.

Plus, we take on the issue of deepfakes—the technology that enables you to transpose one person’s face over another’s, making it seem like that person is doing or saying something they are not—and how it’s becoming a bigger problem, particularly for women.

We also address Teen Vogue’s claim that Gen Z is the most progressive and politically independent, Demi Lovato’s apology for taking a celebrity birthright trip to Israel, and the now-infamous courtroom hug between Brandt Jean and Amber Guyger, the police officer who had killed his older brother.

And we leave you with Ellen Degeneres’ special message about George W. Bush.

Lauren Evans: Virginia and I are back in studio today with Natasha Chart of the Women’s Liberation Front.

Natasha, thanks for joining us.

Natasha Chart: Hey. How’s it going, Lauren? Thanks for having me on.

Evans: So happy to have you. Natasha, can you tell our listeners a little bit about who you are and what you do at WLF?

Chart: Sure. I’m the board chair of the Women’s Liberation Front, also commonly referred to as WLF. We are an all-volunteer organization of radical feminists.

We formed up in order to challenge the Obama administration’s directive ending single-sex spaces in federally-funded educational institutions because we thought someone should challenge that in court, and no one else seemed to be stepping up to do it, so we did.

Virginia Allen: What is the type of work that WLF is now pursuing?

Chart: We’re still doing the same kind of legal advocacy. Many other suits have been brought over this issue, [so] our resources are scarce. We don’t have any paid staff at all, so we’ve been mainly filing amicus briefs, friend-of-the-court briefs in other cases to advance our ideas of how the law should be interpreted and work from a radical feminist perspective.

We’ve been de-platformed in the media. The progressive press tries to pretend that we absolutely don’t exist, to the extent that they can, although that’s becoming harder for them now.

One of our rationales was, “Well, you can’t de-platform us from the court.” You’re not going to protest the federal court and be like, “We can’t allow this brief in.” Then, they’ll say, “Oh, well, this brief is very problematic, and we will reject it on that ground.” They don’t do that. We’re like, “Well, if we can’t be heard anywhere else, we can be heard in court, like everybody else.” There you go.

Evans: That’s a great approach to take. Natasha, you brought up that women’s-only spaces is one of the motivating factors for your group. Can you explain to our listeners why women’s-only spaces are important?

Chart: In our view, one of the most important things to feminism as a practice, as a process issue, is that women are discouraged from expressing solidarity with each other, across all kinds of lines.

And as part of our work, that seams over and over again, and it’s just reinforced every time there’s some round of fighting or argument or discussion over some new factional split, to encourage women to try to relate to each other in solidarity, to stand with each other, and to say, “We may not have everything in common, but we can agree on this, and I’m going to support you.” Or, “Even if I don’t want to be part of what you’re doing, I’m not going to try to tear you down.”

That’s just the foundation of any successful political movement, where you have to bring in a lot of people, and you can’t just rely on the tiny number of people who agree with you. There’s never going to be some huge, vast majority that agrees with you. This is a nation of … roughly [330] million people. You’re never going to get everybody to say, “Oh, yes. We all agree on this one thing.”

You can’t even get dentists to all agree on sugared gum, as they say. You can’t get that. You have to work. Women are discouraged from having that kind of solidarity with each other, that’s common to every successful political movement. You have to cultivate that. That’s the biggest stumbling block. Encouraging women-only space, it’s not a high, complicated concept, but it has transformative properties.

Allen: Natasha, groups like the Women’s March typically end up intertwining feminism and transgender issues, but WLF takes a different stand. Why?

Chart: Because gender identity is about men saying that they’re women. To some extent now, you have more women saying, “Oh, well, I’m really not like the other girls. I am actually a man,” for a number of reasons. That strain of activism would not have had so much success if it wasn’t men insisting that they have the right to be treated, in all aspects of the law and society, as women.

This is not only impossible—if you’re someone who has a commitment to speaking the truth, and relying on the facts, it’s intellectually offensive. It’s also offensive to feminist principles, which is about women expressing solidarity with each other.

Here are these men coming in and saying, “We need to be at the center of your movement. We need to be at the center of your concern. We are the most oppressed, most vulnerable women.” It’s some white guy [who’s] a married dad, and he’s an executive at a bank. That is not the most vulnerable, oppressed woman in the world. I’m sorry. That’s just not true.

It’s not feminist, and we can’t support it. A lot of women on the left, like in the Women’s March, they will not be allowed to do the other work that they want to do at all on the left because all of the men on the left have decided to say to these other men, “Oh, well, if you want to dress like that, and if you want to call yourself that, well, I guess you’re not a real man after all.” Which is pretty sexist of them, frankly. “You go off and be with the women.” That’s not our problem. We didn’t come up with that.

If men are worried about how effeminate men are treated, men should deal with that. Apparently, everybody agrees that men’s bathrooms are some terribly scary violent place. I don’t know what those guys are doing in there. Seriously, sort yourselves out. That’s not women’s problem to deal with.

Or, they’ll bring up, “Oh, well, these feminine-presenting men are treated badly in men’s prisons.” A lot of men are treated badly in men’s prisons. Men who are gay, young men, someone who’s just not very physically as strong as the other guys. Maybe the real issue that needs to be addressed there is that men’s prisons are terribly unsafe. Deal with that problem for everybody.

That’s its own issue. It deserves its own strain of advocacy. It deserves its own people speaking up strongly who’ve been affected by it. Lumping it in by saying, “This is a women’s issue. Just put this section of men who are affected in the women’s prison.” That doesn’t address the problem. It just puts it off on women. That’s not fair.

Evans: Natasha, you have been very busy this week. You are speaking about the Harris Supreme Court case that was heard on Oct. 8, which is the case where an employee of a funeral home transitioned from a man to a woman, transitioned from identifying as a man to identifying as a woman. Because they would not wear the men’s dress code for the funeral home, the funeral director fired the employee. Now, the employee is suing him for discrimination.

Can you tell us what were you doing, what were you speaking about, and why this case is so important to you?

Chart: Part of what I was speaking about yesterday is the intimidation tactics that have been levied against women on the left, the sexual harassment, the firings.

It’s like so many of the people who were with the ACLU demonstration were like, “Well, LGBT people have the right to work.” I agree with this, that those folks have the right to fair employment and nondiscrimination, all of us.

I’m like, “Yeah, and I’m over here, as a bisexual woman, standing in solidarity with my lesbian sisters,” many of us who’ve been fired, sexually harassed, received death threats, etc., for just saying, “No, men can’t be women. That’s not a real thing.” Where’s our right to be employed, and to have our opinions?

The thing about the Harris case, is it’s been presented very dishonesty, and in some cases, by ACLU staff, as being about sex-based dress codes. That was never a question before the court. If you read through the documents, it says that. That’s not under issue.

There’s a line in the petitioner’s brief the ACLU wrote for Amy Stevens, the plaintiff, that is talking about how Stevens would have been fine following the women’s dress code. That’s at the heart of this. That sex-based dress codes weren’t the thing. It’s their insistence on presenting sex itself as a stereotype of sex, which you can’t have a stereotype of something that has no objective definition.

A stereotype has to refer, at base, a real thing in the world that has some material definition that we can all recognize and wrap our heads around. It’s about saying not that you’re discriminating against me because I’m a man, and I want to wear a dress to work, and men should be allowed to wear dresses at work. Totally different question. He’s saying, “I am a man, I have the right to be treated as a woman, under the rules for women.” That would reinterpret sex in all of federal law.

I believe that even in the oral arguments the justices teased out that if this challenge wins, suits on all of these other issues where there are sex-based distinctions would almost certainly follow, and quite rapidly.

Then, at some point, you can’t make any distinction in the law on sex. The law is forbidden basically to see sex at all and recognize it. That simply erases women’s rights.

We would still have the right to vote, I’m sure, but anything that would be there as a redress for centuries of discrimination is just wiped out. It’s no longer for women. It’s not a women’s team if there are men in it. Then, it’s a mixed-sex team. That’s what it is.

It’s not a women’s locker room if there are men in it. Then, it’s a coed locker room, and a lot of women are going to stay back from things like that, so they’re not subject to indecent exposure, voyeurism, or in the case sports, so they’re not subject to injury. They’ve made the women’s amateur rugby teams in the U.K. mixed-sex, basically on the grounds of gender identification.

There was a story just out in The Times U.K. about this last week, that the coaches are quitting because they’re worried about women getting their bones broken in rugby matches with these guys.

It’s a very aggressive, very physical sport, and they’re worried about physical injury. They’re just basically being told, “Well, it’s the equalities law. We can’t do anything about it.” … It’s not fair.

Allen: At WLF, and for you personally, how do you define who a woman is?

Chart: A woman is an adult human female—the dictionary definition that Posie Parker over in the U.K. has made infamous with her T-shirts, stickers, and billboard campaigns.

That definition has just become terribly controversial, where people are saying, “Well, this is violence and transphobic.” It’s like, “This is just what women are.” It’s a biologically determined objective fact that we observe about people. It’s not assigned, you see someone’s sex. You don’t interpret that.

[For] 99.98% of people, it’s blatantly obvious whether they are male or female at birth. It doesn’t take any kind of specialty training to find this out. That something so basic has been made offensive and unsayable has had this massive cascade of problems.

If you got to see the rally yesterday—just like in sports and employment law, all kinds of nondiscrimination law, in terms of whether or not you can say when you go to the doctor and you’re a woman, “I would like a woman to perform my exam,” or, “I would like a woman to chaperone my exam, if there’s only a male doctor available.”

Even something so basic to your bodily privacy and sense of safety as that is under question, and it’s all because there’s this one lie that has to be defended at all costs now. That lie is that people can change sex by an act of will. No matter how many laws you make saying that that’s possible, it’s just not possible.

Evans: Natasha, I want to—I guess transition is a bad word to use—but I want to switch topics. You spoke yesterday at [The Heritage Foundation], at the Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization. What is your biggest concern when these gender identity issues not just affect adults, but they affect our children?

Chart: The most blatant problem with that is the physical impact on the children who are transitioned, which is that a lot of them are irreversibly and permanently losing all aspects of adult sexual function.

Some of these children, and pardon for the blunt language, but they will never be able to have an orgasm their entire life. They will never experience this because their sexual organs have been removed by the time they were of majority age to be able to make these kinds of decisions.

We saw the case of Jazz Jennings. The whole country saw that. You can say, “Well, it’s horrible to talk about a child like this.” I didn’t put that on television, this poor kid celebrating the physical removal of one’s healthy body parts. That’s the biggest impact.

I honestly don’t know why that wasn’t the moment where a whole bunch of people watching that show, and patting themselves on the back for being inclusive, didn’t stop and think to themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. What’s going on here? What are we celebrating here? What if that was my kid celebrating a really serious operation like that to themselves, a cosmetic procedure?”

I feel like it’s a huge lack of empathy, that again, society will see a boy who maybe acts in a way that we consider effeminate, and like, “Well, it doesn’t matter what happens to him. I guess he’s not a real boy. He’s not a real man. Whatever happens to his body, we don’t care.” I don’t understand why that didn’t stop it.

The other problem is that these kids are being presented as having the adult capacity and agency to be able to make decisions like that. That is very much in contradiction to, for instance, a lot of the advocacy groups that used to speak to me, but now will no longer do so, would talk about the school-to-prison pipeline. One of the concepts that’s really important to that is that it dehumanizes children to present them as fully capable of making moral decisions on the same level as adults.

If you have a child, and this happens very often to black and brown children in the school system, where they do some stupid kid thing. Like most people, you remember back in your life, you did some kid thing, probably a lot of us. I know for sure, I look back and I think, “Oh my God, I’m so glad nobody saw that, and I didn’t have to face consequences as an adult for that because that was really dumb, and I didn’t understand.”

Most of us had the grace from society for the adults around us to be like, “Kid, you messed up. Let me tell you about it. Let’s work on it. Let’s not do it again. … You’re still young enough to figure this out.”

These kids are having that protection entirely stripped away from them. They’re being allowed to make very serious decisions that they don’t understand, that they haven’t experienced, because they haven’t gone through puberty.

There are these girls who are being put through menopause before they’ve had puberty. … Menopause is physically awful, as many, many women can attest, although this is not a thing you talk about a lot. But putting a 14-year-old through it on purpose, she’s never gone through having all those feelings and developmental experiences that they’re unpleasant.

Nobody likes that. Nobody has a good time. Nobody looks back and thinks, “Oh, puberty. That was the best time of my life. I miss the acne. I miss the aching, and the weirdness, and the feeling awkward all the time, and not knowing where your arms and legs are because all of a sudden, they’re like 6 inches longer than they were last year.” You’re like, “Oh my God, what am I doing?”

Nobody liked that, but it’s important for your formation, as an adult person, to go through that, and to be protected from the consequences of just being that unsettled in yourself, and going through all of that with your peers.

These children are being denied that, and they’re being dehumanized by people treating them like adults too soon. My heart aches for these kids.

Allen: As Lauren mentioned, you spoke on the Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization. That whole summit can be found on the Heritage Foundation YouTube page. I want to ask, how did WLF end up getting connected with The Heritage Foundation? Did you ever see yourself aligning so closely with conservatives?

Chart: Wow. Well, we’re part of the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition. It’s an informal discussion network of women from, like, every political perspective. There are liberal pagan goddess worshipers in there, and there are conservative Christians of almost every description. I would still consider myself politically, my personal ideas, I’m a fairly mainstream to progressive Democrat.

We’re all represented in there but there’s a woman whose child was convinced that they were the opposite sex, and has been pushing hard to take steps to transition. She tried for four years to get someone, anyone, to please talk about this issue, and to raise it in public in a venue where policymakers and the media would start to understand that behind all this happy talk about inclusion and affirmation, there are real harms being done to real people.

There are physical injuries. There is destruction of family relationships going on. People’s hearts are breaking, and they feel like they can’t speak out at all.

She tried for so long. The only people who answered her, and were willing to give her a platform to talk about this, were the folks here at Heritage.

She invited us to come because we were all getting all of this flack already for being public about opposing gender identity under our own names. She asked if we could help supply speakers because the parents of these children can’t come out and talk. They can’t say this stuff.

For one thing, they have concerns about their children’s medical privacy. … Some of the parents came to the summit, and were talking with us before that. One couple was talking about how they felt they couldn’t talk to anyone in their church. Or, how they feel ostracized, and they have to hide things from people in local political groups, where they had once felt very welcome.

This issue has made them feel entirely cut off from their communities, and they’re afraid of significant public ostracism, of being cut off from other networks. They asked us to give voice to this.

The beginning of that panel is my colleague on the board, Jennifer Chavez, reading a number of parents’ stories, parents who could not come out and do that themselves.

That was how that happened. I wouldn’t have predicted that that would have happened five years ago. I probably would have said a number of terribly unpleasant and uncollegial things about the idea of even walking in the door here, but here we are.

Evans: We’re glad that you’re here.

Chart: Thank you.

Evans: I do want to plug … a short documentary [we did] on Hands Across the Aisle, and I did get to meet a lot of your members. It was just a incredible experience. I’ll make sure to put that documentary in the show notes, if any of our listeners want to learn more about the group.

Natasha, we ask pretty much all of our guests this question: [Do] you identify as a feminist? … I imagine you would, so I’m going to change the question a little bit, why is identifying as a feminist so important to you?

Chart: It’s because of … what I was saying at first about solidarity with other women, there are certain policy positions that I do think are at the heart of feminism in an outward way. Primarily, it’s about standing up to say, “I am a woman who puts other women first, to whatever extent that I can, wherever I can.”

I do get people asking, “How can you be a feminist and talk at The Heritage Foundation?” It’s like, “Well, I am a feminist. If I show up at The Heritage Foundation, I’m going to do whatever I can while I’m there to be putting women first in whatever way makes sense, in whatever way I can advance those interests that are common to all of us. That’s just what I’m going to do, wherever I am.”

The women in Iran are working on, “How can we be allowed to go out in public without having to wear religious headgear?”

Women in Saudi Arabia are working on, “How do we have the right just to be in public at all, on our own recognizance, as adult citizens?”

Women in the U.S., there are women alive today who remember when they could not get a line of credit in their own name, when they wouldn’t have been allowed to buy a house, when most colleges were closed to them, when most professions were closed to them entirely.

You just work on whatever makes sense at the time, with the resources you can. That goal is always women acting in solidarity with other women. There are women everywhere, so you can be a feminist everywhere that you are.

Evans: Natasha, we really appreciate your time, and that you joined us on the podcast today. Thank you so much.

Chart: Thank you so much for inviting me. It’s been a delight. Take care.

COMMENTARY BY

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia producer for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: .

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is the Administrative Assistant for Communications at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Mom Fights for Justice After Her Daughter Claims Gender Fluid Child Assaulted Her in Bathroom

Actress Fired for Christian Views on Homosexuality

‘There can be no reward’: Beto O’Rourke supports punishing religious institutions for views on sexuality

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

DHS, Microsoft working to “assess and mitigate impacts” of Iranian hacking in 2020 presidential campaign

/in , , , , , /by

There are the Left’s fantasies and fabrications about Russian interference in our elections on behalf of Trump, and then there is reality, which is the Islamic Republic of Iran working for the same goal as that of the Left: to defeat and destroy Trump.

“Microsoft claims Iranian hackers targeted US 2020 presidential campaign,” Silicon Republic, October 7, 2019:

The US Department of Homeland Security said it was working with Microsoft to ‘assess and mitigate impacts’ of an Iranian hacking operation targeting a US presidential campaign.

Microsoft has said that hacker group Phosphorous, which has been linked to the Iranian government, has targeted a US presidential campaign, as well as government officials, media targets and prominent expatriate Iranians.

Overall, the hackers attempted to access 241 accounts – four successfully – though none of those penetrated were associated with presidential campaigns or current or past US officials, Microsoft said.

The announcement is the latest sign that foreign governments are looking for ways to potentially disrupt the 2020 presidential election. US intelligence officials have sounded the alarm about the risks for months.

Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, as well as the subsequent leaks of emails during the 2016 election, hurt Clinton’s electoral hopes and was a focal point in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

The disruption caused by Russia’s attack has heightened awareness and prompted fears that other nations will try to follow Russia’s example.

US president Donald Trump recently withdrew the US from a nuclear agreement with Iran and stepped up sanctions against the country.

The US Department of Homeland Security said it was working with Microsoft to “assess and mitigate impacts”. Chris Krebs, director of the department’s cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, said much of the activity is likely “run-of-the-mill” foreign intelligence service work.

However, he continued: “Microsoft’s claims that a presidential campaign was targeted is yet more evidence that our adversaries are looking to undermine our democratic institutions.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Official report claims “far right” only speaks out against oppression of women to target Muslims

When Paris jihadi praised jihad massacre, his colleagues were questioned, none wanted to file an official complaint

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

CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski tries to get Interior Department official fired for opposing jihad mass murder

/in , , , /by

So it turns out that the acting director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, William Perry Pendley, has denied the Left’s “climate change” mythology, and opposes jihad violence and illegal immigration. CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski is out for blood, trying to get Pendley for heresy, that is, for his dissent from Leftist orthodoxy.

My first reaction to this was, So what? The guy is in the Bureau of Land Management. What does that have to do with “global warming,” unless Kaczynski thinks that the sea levels are going to rise and swallow whole cities, including Obama’s new beachfront estate, and we’re all going to be dead in 12 years? What do jihad violence and illegal immigration have to do with land management? Kaczynski here shows that he would have been a terrific Gestapo official: why no, sir, you cannot have a position as a grocery clerk, because you have shown insufficient ardor for the Führer.

And indeed, the Left is increasingly open about its totalitarianism.

Those with dissenting views will not be allowed to hold jobs, even if those jobs have nothing to do with the subject of their dissent. A few years ago I was invited to address an education conference in California that had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; the hate-filled fascist Georgetown University thug Nathan Lean got the cowardly Catholic bishop Jaime Soto, under whose auspices the conference was being held, to cancel my appearance. (I spoke at the conference as scheduled, in a venue outside the bishop’s purview.) And also a few years ago, the Washington Post discovered that the Qur’an-burning pastor Terry Jones was driving for Uber; they duly got him fired. I don’t approve of book-burning, but it is not illegal in the United States, and the idea that a man must be hounded forever and prevented from making a living for views that dissent from the Left’s reveals what Leftists really are.

Among William Perry Pendley’s heresies was that he “has repeatedly pushed hardline anti-Muslim views, including citing an article by anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer in a 2018 tweet to claim Islam was at war with America.”

Here Kaczynski employs the familiar smear of Leftist “journalists,” that opposing jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays and others makes one “anti-Muslim.” That could only be true if all Muslims endorse jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays and others. Does Kaczynski believe that? If so, he should accuse himself of “Islamophobia” and resign in disgrace from CNN. In reality, opposing such things doesn’t make one “anti-Muslim” any more than opposing the Nazis during World War II made one “anti-German.” I’ve only said that about ten thousand times, and have said it directly to Kaczynski in emails. He doesn’t take any note of it, because he is not a real journalist, he is a Leftist propagandist who is not interested in the truth, but only in shaping the world by imposing his narrative upon it. He may succeed for awhile, but all totalitarian thought control breaks down in the end under the weight of reality. And in this case, reality may break on in Kaczynski in a most unpleasant way, when he discovers that the Islamic jihadis he has enabled and run interference for are something less than grateful.

Kaczynski his smear of Pendley with this: “‘Who knew? Islam’s war with America started just up the road in Greeley, Colorado!,’ Pendley tweeted. In the article, Spencer floats unfounded conspiracies about ‘leftists’ allying with ‘Islamic hardliners who adhere to Sharia, a system of laws that would have many of them executed.’”

The article in question details how Leftist were banning the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” which Muslim Brotherhood theorist and Islamic scholar Sayyid Qutb also found objectionable. That wasn’t a conspiracy theory at all. Both the Leftist hatred for the song and Qutb’s similar hatred for it are amply documented in the article and elsewhere. What is ironic here is that Kaczynski claims that I spread “unfounded conspiracies about ‘leftists’ allying with ‘Islamic hardliners who adhere to Sharia, a system of laws that would have many of them executed.’” Yet in demonizing me for opposing jihad terror, he enables those Islamic hardliners. In claiming that the idea that Leftists would ally with Islamic hardliners is a “conspiracy theory,” the hardcore Leftist Kaczynski allies with Islamic hardliners to try to destroy those who stand against jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others. Conspiracy theory?

Kaczynski also objects to Pendley for saying that the Department of Homeland Security should focus on jihad terror rather than “right-wing extremism”; Kaczynski quotes acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan saying that “extremism from white supremacists” is “one of the most ‘potent ideologies’ driving acts violence in the US.” He note that Pendley said this in 2010, but doesn’t bother to inform his hapless readers that few people were worrying about “right-wing extremism” in 2010. Nor does he bother to inform them that the idea that “right-wing extremism” is a greater threat than jihad terrorism is based on studies with numerous flawed premises.

We have just learned regarding the jihad massacre last week in Paris that the jihad murderer Mickael Harpon “had caused alarm among his colleagues as far back as 2015, when he defended the massacre of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper by two brothers vowing allegiance to al-Qaeda. But even though a police official charged with investigating suspected radicalization among the force questioned the colleagues, none of them wanted to file an official complaint.”

Why didn’t they? The answer is obvious. None of them wanted to file an official complaint for fear of the French counterparts of Andrew Kaczynski. They were afraid if they did, articles like this one about William Perry Pendley would be in their future, and their career would be in ruins.

Yes, by stigmatizing and demonizing opposition to jihad terror, Leftist “journalists” are getting people killed. If CNN were a genuine news source, it would fire him and repudiate this article. But it isn’t, and it won’t.

“Senior Interior official denied there was an ozone hole and compared undocumented immigrants to cancer,” by Andrew Kaczynski, Paul LeBlanc, and Nathan McDermott, CNN, October 8, 2019:

(CNN) The acting director of the federal agency responsible for managing one in every 10 acres of land in the United States has repeatedly denied the existence of climate change and falsely claimed in a 1990s speech there was no credible evidence of a hole in the ozone layer.

William Perry Pendley was appointed by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt as the acting director of the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management in July 2019. Prior to his appointment, Pendley was a conservative activist, commentator, lawyer and served as the longtime president of the conservative Mountain States Legal Foundation. …

Comments on Islam

Pendley has repeatedly pushed hardline anti-Muslim views, including citing an article by anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer in a 2018 tweet to claim Islam was at war with America.

“Who knew? Islam’s war with America started just up the road in Greeley, Colorado!,” Pendley tweeted. In the article, Spencer floats unfounded conspiracies about “leftists” allying with “Islamic hardliners who adhere to Sharia, a system of laws that would have many of them executed.”

Writing in a 2010 blog post, Pendley railed against a Department of Homeland Security report that labeled right-wing extremism as a threat, arguing instead the focus should be on “those who embrace radical Islam.”

“(New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Barack Obama) think — if one can call it thinking or anything more than wishful thinking—that Americans should be afraid of terrorist attacks, not from all those who embrace radical Islam, but from their countrymen who hold very strong views on important issues of the day?,” Pendley wrote.

Last month, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan released the department’s counterterrorism strategy, calling extremism from white supremacists one of the most “potent ideologies” driving acts violence in the US….

RELATED ARTICLES:

DHS, Microsoft working to “assess and mitigate impacts” of Iranian hacking in 2020 presidential campaign

UK: Official report claims “far right” only speaks out against oppression of women to target Muslims

When Paris jihadi praised jihad massacre, his colleagues were questioned, none wanted to file an official complaint

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

Why the Syria Pullout Makes Sense — America’s president stands firm for America’s national interest.

/in , , , /by

Washington is awash with dire predictions following President Trump’s “surprise” announcement late Sunday night to pull out the remaining 500 or so U.S. advisors currently in northern Syria.

But as the President tweeted on Monday morning, he was elected to end our “ridiculous endless wars,” which are costing us huge amounts in blood and treasure. Continued U.S. entanglement, according to Trump, can only make Russia and China happy.

So which is it: is the President endangering the United States and our allies by pulling out of Syria? Betraying our allies, the Kurds? Or is he defending America’s national interest?

I have spent a lot of time with the Kurds on the ground, especially in northern Iraq, along the Iranian border. I have also met with Kurdish peshmerga generals in Iraq, as well as the overall Iraqi commander, in charge of the fight against ISIS in Mosul.

That battle is over. And contrary to how MSNBC has been misquoting Sen. Lindsay Graham all day, the United States has indeed utterly defeated the ISIS caliphate.

Graham never said Trump lied about that; he said the administration is lying about defeating ISIS. But he’s wrong. The President acknowledges that ISIS continues to have a presence in the Middle East, and they or their jihadist cousins of one flavor or another will continue to have a presence in the region and in Europe until Muslim leaders rise up and defeat political Islam once and for all.

I suspect that I will see my risen Lord in the Rapture before that happens. I’ll explain why I am confident of that below.

President Trump believes that agents of the Deep State continue to prowl the basements of Washington, DC. His latest evidence of this, of course, is the so-called “whistleblowers” who reported his conversation with Ukrainian president Zelensky.

He looks at the administration of George W. Bush and the war with Iraq, and sees the hand of deep state agents there as well. And guess what? He’s right. I wrote a book about that in 2007. It’s called Shadow Warriors, and it details how a cabal of Bush-hating, pro-Democrat State Department weenies and intelligence community weasels conspired to feed false intelligence on Iraqi WMD to the Bush White House, and then blasted Bush 43 for waging a “war for oil.”

Pretty disgraceful.

The President also argues that the Middle East wars the deep state wants us to fight are primarily tribal in nature. He’s right there as well, up to a point.

Turkey will continue to whack the Kurds for as long as one Kurd remains breathing who demands his freedom and ethnic identity.

The Iranians will continue to wage war against the Saudis until they have toppled the Saudi monarchy, a prospect that is becoming increasingly likely.

Are these battles involving the U.S. national interest?

Again, you can argue both sides. But sending American soldiers to defend the Saudi royal family against its own people, even if they are fully supported by Iran, is not just a losing political proposition, it would be immoral and a betrayal of American military families.

I am convinced this president is not going to do that.

The Iranians are doing their best to provoke a full-fledged war with Saudi Arabia, which they believe they can win. They see it as a repeat of the sucker-punch they delivered to Saddam Hussein in September 1980—except that unlike Saddam, who nearly toppled the Khomeinist regime when he invaded Iran, the Saudis can’t win and they know it.

This explains why President Trump did not respond militarily when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards shot down a U.S. drone a few weeks ago, or launched drones and cruise missiles against the massive Saudi petroleum facility at Ab Qaiq.

These Iranian probes are a trap. My sources in Tehran tell me that the Iranians are hoping to ensnare the President in a war that will be unpopular and ultimately lead to his defeat in 2020.

They have turned to this strategy because U.S. sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy, and continue to pit the Iranian people against the regime.

But there is a big picture the president is not paying attention to, and that is the Russian-Iranian-Turkish military alliance, an alliance that Ezekiel 38-39 tells us will be turned against Israel.

Two years ago, the Iranians opened a land bridge at Abu Kamal on the Iraqi-Syrian border, and sent one of their top Iraqi terrorists with a convoy of military goods to meet up with Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon overlooking the Israeli border.

The idea was for Iran to be able to flow massive numbers of troops and military gear through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon for an eventual attack on Israel. That land bridge is now operational.

We learned just a week ago that Russia is now using the Abu Kamal border crossing to bring down fresh troops and military gear from its Black Sea bases and the Caucuses to the Syrian battlefront along Israel’s borders.

If you remember your Bible prophecy, Jesus will rapture the Church just before the Battle of Armageddon begins that pits the Russia-Iran-Turkey alliance against Israel.

I don’t believe the president is thinking in these terms, but rather doing what he does best: using threats and indirect pressure to weaken his adversaries before he gets them into face to face negotiations.

Trump is serious when he says he wants to negotiate with Iran’s leaders. That they will never sit down with Trump is another matter.  But in the World According to Trump, America wins when we have a powerful military, sitting at home, rested and well-armed, ready to fight if we ever face a serious national security challenge.

Think of this: today, the U.S. Navy is defending our interests overseas with just two aircraft carrier groups: the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is prowling the seas off Oman and Iran, and the USS Ronald Reagan, patrolling the South China Sea. The five other active-duty carriers are currently sitting in their home ports so their crews can prepare for future operations. Another four are in dry dock getting refurbished, and two more are under construction.

I don’t know of any other period in recent history when our military has done so much to defend our national interests with so few forces deployed around the world. And that is the world according to Trump.

RELATED ARTICLE: Don’t Romanticize the Kurds

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

Trump Rids Major U.S. Container Port of Chinese Communist Control

/in , , , /by

Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line—OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.

It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.

The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually. It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers, 62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than 8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.

Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.” The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.” Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region. One troubling analysis points out that “COSCO’s commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing — leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Omar Files For Divorce Five Weeks After Telling Reporter On Video That She Wasn’t…

NewsLink: Judicial Watch’s Background Notes on the Obama State Department’s Lawlessness

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

The Power of Forgiveness

/in , , , , , /by

An atheist group has filed a complaint against a judge in Dallas, Texas who supposedly violated their understanding of church and state relations.

The black judge (Tammy Kemp) presided over the racially-charged trial of the white ex-police officer (Amber Guyger) who was sentenced last week to prison for ten years because she shot and killed an innocent black man (Botham Jean). Guyger thought Jean had broken into her apartment. It turns out she mistakenly was in his apartment.

The victim’s brother (Brandt Jean) publicly and emotionally forgave Guyger in court because of the love of Jesus, which he said he hopes the ex-police officer will find. Judge Kemp gave Guyger a Bible and read to her John 3:16: “For God so loved the world….” And for that, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wants to throw the book, so to speak, at the judge.

Others on the left have also thrown a fit against the judge—and even against the victim’s brother—for offering forgiveness. But forgiveness is a great healer, cutting even through the racial barriers that so divide us.

Every day, as a spiritual discipline, I review in my mind a list of Scriptural truths, including: “God has forgiven me. I forgive others. I walk in forgiveness.”

Yet thoughts of revenge come naturally to us—so naturally that they’re even a point of humor:

  • “I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.” – Clarence Darrow
  • “I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.” – Mark Twain
  • And then there is the famous dialogue between Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Member of Parliament Lady Astor. She said, “If you were my husband I’d poison your tea!” He shot back, “Madam, If you were my wife, I’d drink it.”

All humor aside, in His classic Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus taught His followers to pray using what we call “the Lord’s Prayer,” or the “Our Father.” Many churches, including mine, use this prayer week after week.

It includes this petition, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” or “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”

Jesus elaborated on this particular petition:

“For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

The forgiveness of sins by God is based on the fact that Jesus died on behalf of sinners. Those who believe in Him are forgiven and receive eternal life.

Forgiving others isn’t just good spiritual living. The late Lewis Smedes of Fuller Theological Seminary once said, “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you.” His 1984 book, Forgive and Forget, according to Psychology Today (10/7/19) “has been credited as the catalyst for modern forgiveness research.”

A study reported in the UK Telegraph (7/8/19) compared the difference between those who forgive as opposed to these who hold a grudge. Forgiving is better for your mental and physical health than is “grudge-holding.”

Georgia psychotherapist, Angela Buttimer observes, “When we hold onto grudges and resentment, it’s like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick.”

I find all this fascinating because I maintain that the Bible beat modern psychology by 2000 years when it comes to the importance of forgiving, of letting it go.

There is a fantastic quote in an old book by two psychiatrists. In 1951, J. T. Fisher and L. S. Hawley, wrote A Few Buttons Missing, in which they praised the good psychological principles taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

Wrote Fisher and Hawley:

“If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene—if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage—if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the sermon on the mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison.”

And they add, “For nearly two thousand years, the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here…rests the blueprints for successful human life with optimum mental health and contentment.”

And, of course, included in that blueprint is to experience God’s forgiveness and in turn to forgive others. The brother of the shooting victim and the judge are showing far more healthy behavior than their detractors are.

VIDEO: Breaking News from Rome — Pope Denies Divinity of Christ?

/in , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

If what an aging Italian atheist journalist, a long-time friend of Pope Francis, said is true, Pope Francis has just denied the divinity of Our Lord.

Here is the relevant quote, supposedly from the Pope, as reported by Eugenio Scalfari.

He says, “Francis told me, ‘They are the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once having become a man, was, though a man of exceptional virtues, not at all a God.'”

And further in the article, Scalfari gives his interpretation of what Pope Francis meant, based on what he calls their greatest cultural intimacy: “Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate. Once incarnate, Jesus stops being a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross.”

This is just breaking here in Rome late in the afternoon, and the Vatican communications office is sure to be inundated and publishing some response to international reporters soon.

We will let you know more as soon as we know it.

UPDATE: 

Michael Voris coming to you from Rome with breaking news again, following up on our last breaking news report just an hour or so ago earlier today.

The Vatican has just issued a statement about an article written by long-time friend of Pope Francis and recognized Italian reporter Eugenio Scalfari.

In his account, reportedly published in yesterday’s issue of La Repubblica, Scalfari maintains that Pope Francis denied the divinity of Christ.

Two key quotes here for context; again, this is Scalfari reporting what he says the Pope said to him.

First, “They are the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once having become a man, was, though a man of exceptional virtues, not at all a God.”

Scalfari says that is what the Pope told him.

Then, moving on, Scalfari gives his own personal impression of what the Pope actually thinks, based on their conversation and their long-term friendship.

Scalfari’s words here: “Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate. Once incarnate, Jesus stops being a God and becomes a man until his death on the cross.”

The report has caused an international firestorm in social media — as news begins to spread, speculation that the Pope may subscribe to the Arian heresy.

The Vatican, just moments ago, immediately shifted into high-gear damage control and issued the following statement:

As has been affirmed in other occasions, the words that Dr. Eugenio Scalfari attributes between quotes to the Holy Father during his colloquies held with him cannot be considered as a faithful account of what was effectively said, but represent more a personal and free interpretation of that which he heard, as appears entirely evident from what was written today concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ.

That is the relevant part of the statement, and it, in itself, is now creating its own firestorm because it does not actually deny Scalfari’s characterization, merely hinting at the possibility.

Likewise, it does not affirm in any fashion that Pope Francis does indeed hold the divinity of Christ during Our Savior’s earthly ministry.

So the overarching question has moved from “is what Scalfari reported true?” to “does Pope Francis absolutely and unequivocally declare his full and entire belief in the divinity of Christ while He was present on earth and prior to His death on the cross?”

Scalfari said the Pope does not.

The Vatican, so far, has not responded.

Stay tuned on this one. Given the current climate in the Church, this story appears to not be going away anytime soon.

What is needed from Rome is a flat-out denial of the report, not just a vaguely worded statement left open to interpretation.

Also needed: a clear affirmation of the Pope’s belief in Our Lord’s divinity.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Vatican Stealing Millions. Where’s the money?

/in , , , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Rome, where, in the midst of the controversial Amazon Synod, we are also chasing down other unrelated stories as well.

Each day, we will bring you an update on the synod proceedings, but as we said, there’s much more to report from Rome than just the synod.

One of those stories, which has just been dropped by the Catholic media world, is the ongoing scandal involving the finances of the Papal Foundation.

Church Militant has learned exclusively that board members and the overall membership have been lied to by members of the U.S. hierarchy about a certain $25 million.

Here’s the background first.

Last year, soon after the news of McCarrick broke and grabbed headlines all over the world, it came out that the charitable organization, the Papal Foundation, had been manipulated by McCarrick, in part, to send a $25 million grant to the Vatican.

Directly involved in McCarrick’s plotting was Cdl. Donald Wuerl, the point man in getting the board of directors to approve the loan.

The money was supposedly earmarked for here, the IDI hospital in Rome. IDI stands for the Immaculate Dermatological Institute in Rome.

Owing to the Church’s long-standing presence and involvement in charitable work here in Italy, it is not uncommon at all for the Vatican to have deep involvement with hospitals all over the country.

The problem with IDI is that it has been scandal-plagued for years — massively in debt, hundreds of millions of Euros.

There was a time recently when it was so heavily in the red that employees were not being paid and held a strike in the hospital’s parking lot demanding pay.

So when McCarrick and Wuerl approached the board of directors of the Papal Foundation in the United States to fork over $25 million, many of them balked, concerned that money they had all personally put up to assist the Pope’s personal charities was being misspent.

Eventually, Wuerl was abe to sufficiently twist arms and hoodwink the lay members for the board that they agreed to at first an $8 million grant, and then a second payment of $5 million for a total of $13 million.

That second payment was railroaded through by Wuerl on a secret ballot.

When news started circulating among lay members of the foundation that something iffy was going on, many of them demanded the $13 million be returned to the foundation, especially in light of the breaking scandal of sex abuse cover-up by so many bishops.

One of those bishops was Michael Bransfield of Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia, outed as a homopredator and thief. Bransfield, it turns out, was dipping into not only his own diocesan funds to support a lavish lifestyle but also Papal Foundation monies.

He had access to the funds because he was president of the foundation, and if you are getting the picture that this whole thing seems like one big ripoff scam, you’re not far off.

Bransfield used almost $10,000 of Papal Foundation money to rent a private jet to fly to the funeral of one of the original lay founders of the board. But none of that was disclosed to membership. It has come out in light of the scandal surrounding Bransfield in his home diocese.

Now here’s the gigantic news.

When members demanded at the beginning of this year that the $13 million be returned, they were assured by Wuerl and company that it would be. Months went by and nothing happened.

When members started asking difficult and uncomfortable questions about why the money still had not been returned seven months later, they were told that someone had decided the $13 million would not be returned in whole but converted into a loan.

Who the loan was made to was not made clear. Was the loan directly to IDI hospital which is so far in debt no one in Italy would give them a loan? Or was the loan made to the Vatican, who would then give the money to IDI? To this day, it’s unclear.

But there is a lot unclear about this loan, and members have started asking very uncomfortable questions. In fact, this past August, an email was circulated among a huge number of Papal Foundation members asking some very pointed questions about the “loan.”

Church Militant was eventually shared on the email, which is explosive, revealing what appears to be a “fake” loan.

Close to a hundred members were shared on this email, and it’s causing a stir behind the scenes. These Catholic millionaires want to know where their money is. The email in question reveals a series of questions about the specifics of the loan and the answers are, well, unbelievable.

Question: What is the necessary collateral to justify this loan? Answer: There is no collateral.

Question: Who prepared the load agreement? Answer: Cardinal Parolin’s letter of intent to repay is our only agreement.

Parolin is the Vatican secretary of state, the second most powerful man in the Vatican. That indicates that this scheme goes all the way to the top of the Vatican.

Question: Who is the party responsible for this loan? Answer: The Vatican, we hope, on some level.

Question: Signer on the loan? Answer: None.

Interest rate charged on the loan? None.

When will the loan be amortized, meaning when do payments begin and over what time period?

Answer: Cardinal Parolin stated that they would endeavor to start to repay us in 2022.

What penalty will be assessed if payments are not made? Answer: None.

So what do we have here – total stonewalling from the Vatican about what amounts to a theft of at least 13-million dollars from the Papal Foundation – involving Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin.

No answers; only deflection, lies and/or incomplete, misleading statements.

Members privately tell Church Militant that the board got bamboozled by a fast-talking Theodore McCarrick, a strong-arming Donald Wuerl, a thieving Michael Bransfield, and the whole thing is being nicely covered up and stonewalled by Cdl. Parolin.

And as stated earlier, there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence where this money is.

So one immediate question needs to be asked. Did Cdl. Parolin, in cooperation with members of the U.S. hierarchy, cook up a scheme to essentially steal $25 million from charitable Catholic U.S. millionaires and then divert the funds away from the supposed recipient and just keep the money in the Vatican bank?

It’s a very solid question because the Vatican ran nearly $80 million into the red last fiscal year.

Could this have been a scheme to try and alleviate that debt?

What we do know is the Vatican is bleeding money and all Papal Foundation funds first come here to the Vatican where the Pope’s men then distribute the money. But what if they don’t actually distribute the money?

A shady “loan” is raising all these questions.

Was it a loan? Was there ever a loan? Why was the promise to simply return the money broken and eight months later members informed about the supposed loan?

And perhaps the two most important questions: Where is the $13 million? And is Pope Francis’ number two man involved in a scheme to pilfer millions of dollars from unsuspecting generous Catholics in the United States?

Cardinal Sean O’Malley is now the new president of the Papal Foundation — placed, not elected into that position, by Donald Wuerl.

These are questions he needs to answer.

Members also tell us that all this scandal for the past year is taking its toll.

In years past, the foundation would get two or three new members a year, promising to give a million dollars to the Pope’s charities.

In the past couple of years, only one new member has joined, according to sources.

Likewise, a sizable number of members have simply stopped sending in their annual pledges — understandable.

One line from the email best sums up the entire fiasco: “This is typical of business as usual from the hierarchy of the Church.”

It appears theft can now be added to the list of crimes and immoralities happening here under the Francis papacy — unaccountable, zero transparency, lies, cover-up, deflections.

RELATED ARTICLE: AMAZON SYNOD REPORT — LOTS OF APPLAUSE (FOR REVOLUTION) And it IS revolution.

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

Judicial Watch Uncovers Rosenstein Email to Mueller: ‘The Boss’ Doesn’t Know We’re Talking

/in , , , , , , , /by

Rod Rosenstein, formerly the deputy attorney general, is a key figure in enabling, at a minimum, the Deep State’s seditious attacks on President Trump.

More proof is in new documents uncovered by a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

Specifically, we forced the release of 145 pages of Rosenstein’s communications that include a one-line email from Rosenstein to Mueller stating, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” They also include “off the record” emails with major media outlets around the date of Mueller’s appointment.

We filed a lawsuit to get these documents after the Department of Justice failed to respond to our September 21, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

We were seeking any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.

The time period referred to in this suit is critical. On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. That day, President Trump fired Comey. Just three days later, on May 12, Rosenstein sent an email assuring Robert Mueller that “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” (It is not clear if the “boss” is then-AG Sessions or President Trump.)

In a May 16, 2017, email, sent the day before Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein emailed former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General and current Kirkland & Ellis partner Mark Filip stating, “I am with Mueller. He shares my views. Duty Calls. Sometimes the moment chooses us.”

The next day, May 17, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

During the same period, between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials to discuss wearing a wire and invoking the 25th  Amendment to remove President Trump.

The documents also show that, again during the same time period, Rod Rosenstein was in direct communication with reporters from 60 Minutes, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. In an email exchange dated May 2017, Rosenstein communicated with New York Times reporter Rebecca Ruiz to provide background for this article about himself. Ruiz emailed Rosenstein a draft of the article, and he responded with off-the-record comments and clarifications.

  • In an email exchange on May 17, 2017, the day of Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein exchanged emails with 60 Minutes producer Katherine Davis in which he answered off-the-record questions about Mueller’s scope of authority and chain of command:

Rosenstein: “Off the record: This special counsel is a DOJ employee. His status is similar to a US Attorney.”

Davis: “Good call on Mueller. Although I obviously thought you’d be great at leading the investigation too.”

  • On May 17, 2017, in an email exchange with Washington Post journalist Sari Horwitz with the subject line “Special Counsel,” Rosenstein and Horwitz exchanged:

Rosenstein said, “At some point, I owe you a long story. But this is not the right time for me to talk to anybody.”

Horwitz: “Now, I see why you couldn’t talk today! Obviously, we’re writing a big story about this Is there any chance I could talk to you on background about your decision?”

These astonishing emails further confirm the corruption behind Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller. They also show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media reporters.

Here’s some more background on the incredible finds from this one Judicial Watch lawsuit:

On September 11, we released 14 pages of records from the Department of Justice showing officials’ efforts in responding to media inquiries about DOJ/FBI talks allegedly invoking the 25th Amendment to “remove” President Donald Trump from office and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a “wire” to record his conversations with the president.

On September 23, we released a two-page memo, dated May 16, 2017, by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe detailing how then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire into the Oval Office “to collect additional evidence on the president’s true intentions.” McCabe writes that Rosenstein said he thought it was possible because “he was not searched when he entered the White House.”

As the “coup” targeting President Trump continues through the House impeachment abuse, it is important to remember that its origins are in the Deep State agencies – especially the FBI and DOJ.

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