U.S. ISIS Strike Named in Honor of Christian Martyr

/in , , , , , /by


Kayla Mueller: “by God + by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall.”

by Anita Carey  •  ChurchMilitant.com

WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – President Trump is honoring a Christian martyr by naming the mission to kill a top ISIS leader and her captor after her.

In an address at the White House on Sunday, Trump announced that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a special forces raid in Syria while he and his security team watched.

Also on Sunday, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the mission was named in honor of  Kayla Mueller, captured in Syria in 2013 while working with humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders. Mueller spent 18 months in captivity at the hands of al-Baghdadi before she was murdered in 2015.

“Think of the things he did to Kayla,” Trump said in his address. “She was a beautiful woman, beautiful young woman, helped people. She was there to help people.”

Trump added, “And he saw her and he thought she was beautiful and he brought her into captivity for a long period of time and then he killed her. He was an animal. And he was a gutless animal.”

In his address to reporters, Trump described al-Baghdadi’s final moments. He “died like a dog,” Trump said, “whimpering and crying and screaming,” like a coward.

According to a report in the Military Times, no Americans, except a military canine, were hurt in the raid. The ISIS leader was chased down a dead-end tunnel, dragging three of his own children with him. Before American forces could reach him, al-Baghdadi detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and the three children.

The canine is recovering from its injuries and is back on active duty.

The ISIS leader’s capture was a top priority for the Trump administration — proof of that was the $25 million bounty the U.S. was offering for al-Baghdadi’s capture.

Several witnesses to Mueller’s treatment by her captives testified to her strength, selflessness and unwavering faith.

During almost all of her 18-month captivity, she was kept in solitary confinement. During one six-week period in 2014, she was held with other Western hostages in an abandoned oil refinery in Syria.

In an interview with ABC News, those witnesses detailed Mueller’s abuse. She suffered prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, stress positions, forced labor, verbal abuse and sexual assault. She was reportedly raped repeatedly by al-Baghdadi himself.

At one point, Mueller was paraded in front of the Western male prisoners as an example of a Muslim convert. One of those hostages, Daniel Rye Ottosen, a Danish photographer, said he was surprised by her response.

Speaking to ABC News, he relayed what his captors said: “Oh, this is Kayla, and she has been held all by herself. And she is much stronger than you guys. And she’s much smarter. She converted to Islam.”

Ottosen said she refused, saying, “No, I didn’t.”

The release of ISIS hostages is often negotiated on an individual basis with their government and many of the hostages Mueller was detained with were eventually released or escaped. One of these was able to smuggle out a letter she wrote to her parents.

Kayla wrote that she could only write the letter to her family a paragraph at a time because “just the thought of you sends me into a fit of tears.” She wrote:

If you could say I have “suffered” at all throughout this whole experience it is only in knowing how much suffering I have put you all through; I will never ask you to forgive me as I do not deserve forgiveness. I remember mom always telling me that all in all, in the end, the only one you really have is God. I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our creator b/c literally there was no one else…. + by God + by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall. I have been shown in darkness, light + have learned that even in prison, one can be free. I am grateful.

I have come to see that there is good in every situation, sometimes we just have to look for it. I pray each day that if nothing else, you have felt a certain closeness + surrender to God as well + have formed a bond of love + support amongst one another.

While in captivity, Kayla attempted to arrange support for her family and told them they weren’t responsible for negotiating her release:

None of us could have known it would be this long but know I am also fighting from my side in the ways I am able + I have a lot of fight left inside of me. I am not breaking down + I will not give in no matter how long it takes.

Kayla ended her letter with: “Please be patient, give your pain to God. I know you would want me to remain strong. That is exactly what I am doing. Do not fear for me, continue to pray as will I + by God’s will we will be together soon.”

Mueller was confirmed dead in February 2015. ISIS claimed she was killed by a Jordanian airstrike in Syria, but American officials were unable to confirm the circumstances of her death.

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

Loss of Religion is Society’s Loss

/in , , , /by

Pew Research Center recently wrote about “the decline of Christianity” at a “rapid pace.”

Pew stated:

“More than eight-in-ten members of the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) describe themselves as Christians (84%), as do three-quarters of Baby Boomers (76%). In stark contrast, only half of Millennials (49%) describe themselves as Christians; four-in-ten are religious ‘nones,’ and one-in-ten Millennials identify with non-Christian faiths.”

Some scholars, like Byron Johnson of Baylor, object that some Americans described as “nones” actually attend non-denominational churches, but are misclassified as if they are unbelievers.

Still, regardless of the statistical details, it does not bode well for society that Christianity is losing it influence.

In 1798, Timothy Dwight, the president of Yale, warned, “Where there is no religion, there is no morality…With the loss of religion…the security of life, liberty and property are buried in ruins.”

The scary thing about Christianity losing influence in society is what it means to morality in America—and thus to freedom. As William Penn once noted, “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.”

Yet our cultural elites do so much to banish any vestiges of religion in the public square.

Even as I write this, the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), is dealing with a case involving a retirement center in Florida, where residents display all sorts of lawn ornaments—oh, but there is a 12 inch white cross on one couple’s lawn. The cross is not allowed. Everything else is.

Because of so many liberal judges and so few Christian ones, the courts have sometimes gone to ludicrous lengths to keep any kind of religious—no, I should say Christian—expression out of the public arena. Perhaps the situation is moderately improving, since there are fewer justices on the high court who are legislating from the bench than in previous eras.

However, even to this day, we are still dealing with the damage caused by these court cases which have driven expressions of Judeo-Christian religion out of the public square.

A shocking and classic example is when the Supreme Court declared that the Ten Commandments were not allowed in the classroom. In the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, the high court sided with the secularists in a Kentucky case involving privately-funded copies of the Decalogue of Moses that were displayed in some public schools.

Justice William Brennan wrote the decision, striking down public displays of the Ten Commandments with these chilling words: “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

Imagine that. Children obeying the Ten Commandments. How awful.

In a recent television interview, Christian attorney David Gibbs III of the National Center for Law and Liberty told me, “Now, shockingly, we live in a day where unfortunately school shootings and other things dominate our news at levels that are heartbreaking. And I think many American citizens would disagree with the Supreme Court and say, ‘You know what? We would like to see some principles and some values, where the young people of our nation would be taught that there is a right, there is a wrong, that thou shalt not kill.’”

Gibbs continued, “Why is murder against the law? Well, it’s against the law, because the Bible teaches that life has value and that God condemns. When you look at many of the things that we put into our legal system that we might consider core, you know, in terms of the safety and protection of people, it was all Bible-based. “

In the mid-1800s, the former Speaker of the House, Robert Charles Winthrop (descendant of John Winthrop), wisely warned us, “All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

A professor at Harvard Business School shows in a 90 second video the same idea: the less internal morality, the greater the need for external policing and vice versa.

This is a sober message as so many Americans seem to be entering a “brave new world,” and leaving God—and therefore morality behind—and thereby our freedom as well.

Video Proof Google Censors Conservatives

/in , , , , , /by

In a email William Gheen of ALIPAC wrote:

I just sent a note and link to CNET reporter Queenie Wong because her article titled “Is Facebook censoring conservatives or is moderating just too hard?”
excluded all but 2 of the 71 conservatives on ALIPAC’s tracking list who are facing censorship by Silicon Valley companies.

Then I tested to see what position our list titled List of Conservatives Censored by Silicon Valley (Review Here) to see how we rank on the search engines.  In the process, I captured video evidence Google is censoring conservatives and ALIPAC!

ALIPAC then published the commentary and video below on its YouTube channel:

Google is censoring ALIPAC’s List of Conservatives Censored by Silicon Valley collection by burying the list needed by journalists, lawmakers, and American voters on the bottom of page 7 search results for the exact title of the post. Bing and DuckDuckGo have the List of Conservatives Censored by Silicon Valley as the top search result on page 1!

How can Americans make informed decisions when Google / Youtube and other Silicon Valley global corporations like Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter censor American Republicans, Trump voters, conservatives, Constitutionalists, and non-socialists and then hide trackings lists documenting their foul play!?!? Here is the list Google is working hard to hide… https://www.alipac.us/f31/list-conser…

EDITORS NOTE: This column and video was published by ALIPAC. © All rights reserved.

Trump releases photo of ‘the wonderful dog that did such a GREAT JOB in capturing and killing the Leader of ISIS’

/in , , , , , /by

Watch for Dana Shell Smith and other Leftists to be enraged that Trump allowed a dog to be set on al-Baghdadi, since dogs are unclean in Islam; it was disrespectful, and above all, we must show respect to those who would destroy us.

“Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, ‘We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.’” — Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50

“Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” — Sahih Muslim 3811

“Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.” — Sahih Muslim 551

“President Trump releases photo of hero dog injured in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi raid,” by Liam Quinn, Fox News, October 28, 2019 (thanks to John):

Who’s a good boy?

President Trump answered that question Monday afternoon when he tweeted a photo of the U.S. military dog injured in the raid that claimed the life of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The hero dog — name still a mystery — was unveiled in a tweet, reading: “We have declassified a picture of the wonderful dog (name not declassified) that did such a GREAT JOB in capturing and killing the Leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi!”

The photo was released hours after Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters during a briefing Monday that the dog “performed a tremendous service” and was “slightly wounded” but is now “fully recovering.”

President Trump released a photo Monday of the military dog injured in the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi raid over the weekend.

The dog has “returned to duty” and is back “with its handler,” he said.

Trump first revealed Sunday that military dogs chased al-Baghdadi down a dark underground tunnel before the terrorist leader detonated a suicide vest….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State spokesman also killed in separate US raid (but they still have the Washington Post)

Al-Baghdadi Dead, Leftists Crestfallen

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer speaks about Islamic doctrine on the Truths That Transform program

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

The Gun Grabbers Mislead Us

/in , , , , /by

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The law’s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers.

Today’s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15.

By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

Let’s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in its 2018 report on crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles.

A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club, or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred and seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot, or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders—6,603.

What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buy-back plan, which Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating knife control, hammer control, and feet and fist control.

Gun controllers’ belief that “easy” gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase.

With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here’s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today?

That’s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.

Let’s examine some elements of this decline.

If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today’s America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn’t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn’t believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors.

During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn’t believe that we’re now debating whether teachers should be armed.

Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation’s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they’ve eliminated our means to defend ourselves.

Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them.

After Fidel Castro’s demand for gun confiscation, he said, “Armas para que?” (“Guns, for what?”) Cubans later found out.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

Ben Carson Rejects Political Correctness as Fatal to the Nation

/in , , , , /by

“This whole concept of political correctness … it’s going to destroy our nation.” That was the no-nonsense response of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson last week to Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va.

Wexton was trying for a “gotcha” moment in a congressional hearing when she asked Carson if he would “apologize” for being quoted for expressing concern over “big, hairy men” trying to gain entry to an Alaska women’s homeless shelter.

I could not have said it better. On the most recent edition of “Washington Watch,” Carson—or Dr. Politically Incorrect, as I’ve called him—joined me to make it clear he will not kowtow to political correctness.

“It’s foolishness because, you know, the First Amendment guarantees people freedom of speech,” he said. “What political correctness does is it makes people afraid to express themselves. So coming in the back door, it actually suppresses the First Amendment. And we need to be very, very wary of anything that takes away our constitutional rights.”

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

Carson went on to nail the consequences of caving into the left’s tantrums:

Anything that doesn’t agree with them is a hateful word, and that’s what I mean when I said we need to be more mature than that. That’s what I might expect from a third-grade playground. If we make everything such a sensitive subject and everybody has to sit down and filter everything that they say, and we’re listening carefully to their words instead of what their meaning is, what do we become as a society and as a people?

We’ve got to nip it in the bud before it gets to the place where everybody just is silent. And they can’t say anything because it’s going to offend somebody.

Carson is speaking up for what is a commonsense policy: Sexually assaulted and abused women seeking shelter should not be forced to sleep next to men who think or act like they are women when they are biological men.

But he is also speaking up for free speech and freedom of religion. The left portrays the Trump administration as lacking compassion for people who need housing, but the opposite is true.

It is the Department of House and Urban Development under Carson’s leadership that has expanded access to people who need housing because the agency is once again allowing faith-based organizations to partner with the government after they were excluded during the Obama years. This inclusion of faith-based organization helps meet the needs in local communities all across America.

The Obama administration required faith-based groups to leave their faith at the door and pushed bizarre policies that put men in women’s homeless shelters. Thankfully, we have a HUD secretary who understands the principle that has guided America for centuries—equal rights for all, special rights for none.

That’s what makes America work, not political correctness.

Originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

COMMENTARY BY

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

What It’s Like to Lose Your Children to the ‘Transgender Cult,’ From a Mom Who Knows

3 Big Wins for Religious Liberty Indicate Tide Is Turning

The False Hope of the Transgender Language Police

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

Over 99% of Americans Have Access to Health Coverage

/in , , , , , /by

Last month’s Census Bureau report on the uninsured overlooked an important point: More than 99% of Americans have access to health coverage, regardless of their income or medical condition.

The overwhelming majority of those lacking insurance could have obtained coverage but did not enroll.

Many of those with lower incomes may not sign up for subsidized coverage because they know they can receive care at little or no cost to themselves even if they remain uninsured until they arrive at a clinic.

Those in the top two income quintiles may remain uninsured because government intervention in health insurance markets has created a menu of unattractive products at unattractive prices.

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

Either way, Americans across the income spectrum deserve a better approach to health care.

Understanding the Challenge

It’s critical that policymakers understand the distinction between lack of coverage and lack of access to coverage.

A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of last year’s Census Bureau report found that, of the estimated 27.4 million non-elderly people who were uninsured in 2017:

  • 6.8 million (25%) were eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but not enrolled.
  • 8.2 million (30%) were eligible for Obamacare subsidies but did not enroll.
  • 3.8 million (14%) declined an offer of employer-sponsored coverage.
  • 1.9 million (7%) were not eligible for subsidies because they had income more than four times the federal poverty threshold, which put them in the top two income quintiles.
  • 4.1 million (15%) were ineligible for subsidies because they were not lawful U.S. residents. Their situation is a matter to be settled by immigration policy, not health care policy.
  • 2.5 million (9%) were under the poverty line but ineligible for federal assistance. They represented just 0.7% of the population.

These 2.5 million lawful U.S. residents ineligible for federal assistance lived in states that had not expanded Medicaid eligibility to non-elderly, non-disabled adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level.

Here, it is important to draw a second crucial distinction: between access to coverage and access to care.

These 2.5 million individuals are eligible for free care at 3,000 federally-funded health centers in the nonexpansion states and 11,000 nationwide. In addition, all public and nonprofit hospitals are required to have programs to provide free or low-cost care to low-income patients.

These hospitals can enroll low-income people in Medicaid when they show up for care, which is another reason some Medicaid-eligible people wait until they need to see a doctor to sign up for their free coverage.

Flawed Laws Make It Harder for the Uninsured to Get Covered

The federal government has not done a good job of covering those who are eligible for assistance.

A recent Heritage Foundation report examined the Kaiser study and another by the Department of Health and Human Services. Heritage found that while 8.2 million people claimed Obamacare subsidies in 2017, an additional 8.2 million people who were eligible for those subsidies remained uninsured.

That means that only half the people eligible for subsidies claimed them. The heavily regulated individual policies are unattractive to millions of people, even at steeply discounted prices.

Things are even worse among the unsubsidized, who have dropped individual coverage at an alarming rate. Between 2015 and 2018, the number of unsubsidized people with individual coverage fell by half, from 7.9 million to 3.9 million.

Millions remain uninsured, not because the federal government is doing too little, but because it is doing (and spending) a lot and doing it badly.

Americans Deserve a Better Approach to Health Care

Advocates of expanding government control of health care take the Census Bureau’s estimate of the number of uninsured out of context. They use it as a call for government to do more.

Some advocate government takeover of health care financing, as in “Medicare for All.” Others seek further expansions of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies. Still others will call for the creation of a “public option,” a government-run insurance company that “competes” with private insurers.

But these are all line extensions of an already-failing approach.

A new approach is needed, one rooted in a better understanding of the problem.

Working together, dozens of health care analysts and policy leaders have developed such an approach.

The Health Care Choices Proposal would convert the $1.6 trillion in Obamacare entitlement spending into grants to states. States would use these fixed allotments to establish consumer-centered programs that make health insurance affordable regardless of income or medical condition.

It also would: expand health savings accounts, which help people save tax-free for routine medical expenses; write into law Trump administration regulations that expand consumer choices; and address high medical costs through choice and competition.

And it would require states to establish programs that concentrate public resources on people with pre-existing medical conditions. In states that have obtained federal waivers to establish such programs, people have seen substantial premium reductions.

The proposal would enhance health care choices for all Americans, including those with low incomes. And it would reduce premiums for individual policies by up to one-third.

The Health Care Choices Proposal represents a commonsense approach to solving an uninsured problem that is poorly understood.

Originally published in National Review.

COMMENTARY BY

Doug Badger

Doug Badger is a former White House and Senate policy adviser and is currently a senior fellow at the Galen Institute and a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Jamie Bryan Hall

Jamie Bryan Hall is a senior policy analyst in empirical studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren’s address to J Street — A group that has condemned Israel

/in , , , , , /by

Elizabeth Warren sent a video to the J Street National Conference held  October 26-29, 2019. J Street fully supports the two state solution and has condemned Israel. Discover the Networks reports that in October 2013, Knesset Member Ayelet Shaked said the following about J Street:

“J Street has taken upon itself the role of Israel’s loudest critic. Among its actions are the leading of a media campaign against the placing of sanctions on Iran by the U.S. Congress; denunciation of the Cast Lead operation and its definition as ‘an illegitimate and even criminal operation’; defining the takeover of the [Free Gaza Movement‘s ship, Mavi] Marmara, as ‘brutal and cruel’; support for the U.S. administration’s demand to freeze construction in Jerusalem; pressure on the U.S. administration not to veto the proposal by the Palestinian Authority to denounce Israel for construction in Judea and Samaria and more.”

Watch Warren’s message to the J Street National Conference 2019:

Discover the Networks on it’s J Street profile states:

In March 2012, Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett was a major presenter at J Street’s 3rd annual conference. Also at this conference, J Street held panel discussions where leading BDS advocate Mustafa Barghouti was not challenged in any way regarding his insistence (at the event) that a Palestinian “right of return” would have to be a part of any future Arab-Israeli peace agreement, or regarding his description of Israel as an apartheid state.

Click here to learn more about J Street.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The J Street Democrats

Homosexual Bishop Funneled Millions from Hospital for Gifts, Personal Use — Vatican Cdl. Kevin Farrell and others benefited from Bp. Bransfield’s largesse

/in , , , , , , , /by

by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.  •  ChurchMilitant.com.

WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) – A disgraced homosexual bishop diverted millions of dollars from a hospital into his charity, used to send cash gifts to others — including a top Vatican cardinal who received nearly $30,000.

$21 Million Funneled From Hospital

An exposé published in The Washington Post Saturday reveals that Bp. Michael Bransfield, formerly of the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston in W. Virginia, sent two checks of $14,000 and $15,000 each to Cdl. Kevin Farrell, head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

His reasons were to help furnish his Rome apartment.

“I fixed that room up for him,” Bransfield told The Washington Post.

Farrell was among 130 clergy who benefited from the bishop’s largesse, totaling $350,000 in cash gifts.

The news outfit’s investigation revealed that Farrell’s money derived from $21 million diverted from Wheeling Hospital, which is owned by the diocese, to a charity founded by Bransfield in 2014, called the Bishop’s Fund. Bransfield served at the time as chairman of the hospital board.

Emails reveal that Bryan Minor, a hospital board member and diocesan director of human resources, arranged the transfers of money from the Bishop’s Fund into Bransfield’s personal bank account, for use as gifts to others.

“Hey there,” begins an email dated May 12, 2017. “Just a note that I need to order a check from The Bishop’s Fund, payable to DWC [Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston], to cover a check as a gift to Abp Kevin Farrell at the Vatican.”

A total of $321,000 of Bishop’s Fund money was sent by Bransfield out of West Virginia, in spite of the charity’s purpose as being “to provide for the pastoral care of the diocese” and the “charitable care of the people of the diocese.”

Bransfield remains unapologetic, justifying his checks to Farrell as “funds that I had raised,” and refusing to answer other questions by The Washington Post.

While Minor claims the transfers to Bransfield’s personal bank account were legal, at least two members of Wheeling Hospital’s board say they don’t remember ever approving such large transfers of money.

The Department of Justice has been conducting an ongoing investigation into Bransfield’s spending “as part of a lawsuit that accuses the hospital of defrauding the federal government of millions of dollars by filing false claims for Medicare reimbursement.”

The hospital denies any wrongdoing.

Tax filings and hospital audits show that a total of $21 million were funneled from Wheeling Hospital through the diocese or various non-profits, eventually to wind up in the Bishop’s Fund, and a chunk of it ultimately landing in Bransfield’s own bank account.

The transfers were a deliberate attempt to get around the Internal Revenue Service, whose files show that the Bishop’s Fund was to be used exclusively to helping those in need in W. Virginia.

“I thought that was legal and, according to accounting, that we could make a grant to the diocese and that the diocese could make a grant as a pass-through to a Catholic entity,” Minor said.

Among beneficiaries of the Bishop’s Fund was the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which received $60,000 for renovation work on its dome.

Bransfield was former rector of the Shrine, handpicked by Theodore McCarrick, whose successor, Msgr. Walter Rossi — also handpicked by McCarrick — is currently under investigation by two dioceses for complaints of homosexual misconduct and harassment.

Cdl. Kevin Farrell Linked to Theodore McCarrick

Farrell, who left Dallas in 2016 when Pope Francis appointed him to head the Vatican’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, lived on the same floor for six years with housemate Abp. Theodore McCarrick, now laicized after being exposed as a serial homosexual predator.

Farrell was widely mocked by Catholics after he told Catholic News Service he had been “shocked” last year on hearing the allegations against McCarrick.

“I was shocked, overwhelmed; I never heard any of this before, the six years I was there with him,” Farrell claimed. “And never, no indication, none whatsoever, nobody ever talked to me about that.”

Farrell was appointed to a key Vatican role last year by Pope Francis, who named Farrell Cardinal Camerlengo, a central position that involves formally pronouncing the end of a pope’s reign and directing preparations for the conclave. The camerlengo becomes the de facto ruling sovereign of the Church until a new pontiff is elected. During such time he serves as executive director of the Holy See, and answers to the College of Cardinals.

As a member of the papal household, the camerlengo also oversees the real estate and revenue of the Holy See.

According to a new apostolic constitution issued by the pontiff this summer, the camerlengo position will be handed over to Cdl. Reinhard Marx, president of the German Bishops’ Conference.

Farrell left Dallas in 2016 when Pope Francis appointed him to head the Vatican dicastery. Befo lived on the same floor for six years with housemate Abp. Theodore McCarrick, now laicized after being exposed as a serial homosexual predator.

He was widely mocked by Catholics after he told Catholic News Service he had been “shocked” last year on hearing the allegations against McCarrick.

“I was shocked, overwhelmed; I never heard any of this before, the six years I was there with him,” Farrell claimed. “And never, no indication, none whatsoever, nobody ever talked to me about that.”

Farrell had issued similar denials when asked about the predatory behavior of Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, of which Farrell was a member. Maciel was later exposed as a serial sex abuser who fathered children with multiple women and even raped his own sons.

“I never knew anything back then,” he told the Irish Times in 2016. “I worked in Monterrey, and maybe I would have met Maciel once or twice, but I never suspected anything. … I left the Legionaries because I had intellectual differences with them.”

But one longtime friend and former Legionary is contradicting his words. J. Paul Lennon, among the first group of Irish-born members of the Legion and close friend of Farrell’s brother Brian (a former Legionary who now works as secretary for the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity), claims Farrell was far closer to Maciel than he lets on.

“Kevin did know Fr. Maciel on a personal basis,” Lennon told Church Militant. “When Kevin was working in Connecticut as a Legionary priest, before he left the community circa 1984, Kevin did spend time with Fr. Maciel when he would visit that ‘front.'”

“I have been told that on at least one occasion Kevin and other Legionaries participated in a pillow fight to entertain Fr. Maciel (the sex pervert),” he added.

Viganò: Bransfield Perfect Example of ‘Corrupt Gay Mafia’

“Bishop Bransfield is a perfect example of what I was referring to,” Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò said in remarks published by Vaticanista Marco Tosatti, referring to a “corrupt gay mafia” running the Church.

Bransfield was suspended last fall after allegations of homosexual misconduct and financial misdealings. A detailed Vatican investigation revealed that Bransfield harassed and assaulted seminarians and priests, and also misappropriated millions of dollars in diocesan funds for personal expenses, including thousands spent on alcohol, flowers, flying first class and sending cash gifts to fellow prelates.

“It is important to note that, before being appointed bishop, he was rector of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. and was president of the [Board of Trustees] of the Papal Foundation, both linked to McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl,” Viganò explained.

The Papal Foundation, with assets worth $206 million, was co-founded by McCarrick in 1988, Bransfield serving as the first president of its board of trustees.

Controversy engulfed the Pennsylvania charity when three stewards resigned from the audit committee in 2018 after Wuerl pushed for the Vatican to receive $25 million — the largest single grant ever given by the foundation. The money was going toward the Istituto Dermopatico Dell’Immacolata (IDI), a scandal-ridden hospital in Rome investigated and indicted by Italian authorities for embezzlement and tax fraud of nearly a billion euros.

The Vatican investigation revealed that Bransfield had sent $350,000 in cash gifts to various cardinals and bishops, including $10,500 to Abp. William Lori — the very man appointed to carry out the investigation. Other beneficiaries include Cardinals Wuerl, Timothy Dolan, Raymond Burke and Viganò himself, who donated the money to charity.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Married Clergy, Amazonian Rite, Ecological Sins Make It Into Final Synod Document

Catholic Activist Group Keeps Up The Pressure on MI Bishop

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

FLORIDA: The Real Fate of Childhood Sexual Abuse Whistle Blowers

/in , , , /by

If you doubt for a moment that whistleblowers on childhood sexual abuse, like Sarasota’s school resource officer Kimberly Whyley, are not retaliated against, you severely underestimate the indifference to predators by school administrators, clergy, law enforcement, judges, medical professionals, and others in positions of authority. You severely underestimate the appalling epidemic numbers of predators and their enablers in our midst.

What really happens when a conscientious adult reports childhood sexual abuse? I know and am still living the aftermath of my reports made in Indiana, with tentacles here in Florida.

The immediate repercussions of my eyewitness reports about a 350-pound adult male counselor lying on top of a child pinned beneath him on the floor against a wall were for me to be put under surveillance by the Indianapolis Jewish Community Center, where the attack occurred. My husband’s boss, attorney Robert W. York, later issued an ultimatum that my husband would be fired if he did not silence my reports.

After firing my husband, Robert York was appointed as a hearing officer for the Indiana Supreme Court, paid scores of thousands of dollars, and worked directly under Indiana Justice Steve David. As a trial court judge, Steve David had fined me $60,000 for attempting to have the mother of a convicted violent childhood sexual predator answer questions under oath about her son, who was one of many predators frequenting the Indy JCC, including Subway’s infamous Jared Fogle, finally imprisoned for his sexual crimes against children around the world.

When I repeatedly gave proof of Robert W. York’s frequent commission of the unlicensed practice of law in Florida to numerous Sarasota and Manatee County judges and to Florida’s Attorney Generals, their indifference was stark. The simple lesson is that crimes against children are met with indifference, and crimes of intimidation and retaliation (and unlicensed practice of law) by predators and their enablers meet the same fate.

We must all strongly support the courage it takes to blow the whistle on predators, whose fate is protected; while child-victims are abandoned and betrayed by those entrusted and empowered to shelter them from irreparable harm inflicted upon them in classrooms, churches, and community centers.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sexually Explicit Books Were Put in These Virginia Classrooms. Parents Want Answers.

EDITORS NOTE: © All rights reserved. The opinions of the author are hers solely and not those of this publication.

Kamala: Racism, Sexism Impacting My ‘Electability’

/in , , , , /by

In an interview with Axios on HBO, presidential hopeful Kamala Harris suggested America is not morally evolved enough to elect a “woman of color” to the White House.

“Talking about what I describe and believe to be the elephant in the room about my campaign,” said Harris, who has fallen to at least fourth or fifth place among her fellow Democrat competitors. Asked what that elephant is, Harris replied, “Electability. Electability. Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?”

Much like Hillary Clinton blaming sexism for her own failed presidential runs, Harris wants to shift the blame from herself to the perceived racism and sexism of American voters. The question she should be asking herself is: Is America ready for a power-hungry radical leftist woman of color to be President?

“There is a lack of ability or a difficulty in imagining that someone who we have never seen can do a job that has been done, you know, forty-five times by someone who is not that person,” she added incoherently.

Kamala Harris

On January 21, 2018, Harris announced that she was launching a campaign for the presidential election of 2020. Six days later, she kicked off her campaign with a speech before thousands of supporters in Oakland, California…

Harris enumerated a series of uncomfortable “truths” about American life. Among them were the following:

  • “Women are paid on average 80 cents on the dollar. Black women, 63 cents. Latinas, 53 cents.”
  • “Climate change is real and it is happening now. From wildfires In the west to hurricanes in the east, to floods and droughts in the heartland, we’re not gonna buy the lie. We’re gonna act, based on science fact, not science fiction.”
  • “Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia are real in this country. They are age-old forms of hate with new fuel. And we need to speak that truth so we can deal with it.”
  • “[T]oo many unarmed black men and women are killed in America. Too many black and brown Americans are locked up. From mass incarceration to cash bail to policing, our criminal justice system needs drastic repair.”

After laying out her description of a nation where racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and all manner of hatred and intolerance were ubiquitous, Harris proceeded to condemn the “powerful forces trying to sow hate and division among us.”

To learn more about Kamala Harris, click on the profile link here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

NRA & Gun Owners Win. Bloomberg / Everytown Lose.

/in , , , , , , , /by

Montana Supreme Court finds localities cannot go rogue and enact extreme gun control

FAIRFAX, Va.–  The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded a decision by the Montana state Supreme Court protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in that state. In an NRA-backed case, the justices held, in a 5-0 decision, that the City of Missoula’s attempt to impose extreme gun control measures was a clear violation of state law.

“This is a huge victory for Montana gun owners and everyone who cherishes freedom in Big Sky Country,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The unanimous ruling from Montana’s Supreme Court confirms that politicians cannot usurp a constitutional framework by contemptuously enacting gun control at the local level.”

Montana, like more than 40 other states, has a preemption law restricting local governments from passing gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law. Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from dealing with a confusing patchwork of laws that can make it nearly impossible to carry a firearm for home and self-defense.

The City of Missoula’s gun control ordinance would have criminalized virtually all private firearms transfers in the city, even between relatives, friends, and co-workers.

Earlier this month, in an NRA-backed case, a Washington court similarly ruled that the state preemption law prohibits local governments from regulating the storage of firearms.

The NRA has led the fight to enact state preemption laws across the country to ensure uniformity in state gun laws.

“These cases underscore the peoples’ need for judges who will faithfully interpret the law in defense of their freedom,” Ouimet concluded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NRA Member spotlight: Meet the Man Who Helped Turn an Anti-Gun Townhall into a Pro-gun Rally

Washington: Court Upholds State Preemption in Legal Victory for NRA & SAF

Veteran Criticizes Police Practices, Gets Guns and Firearm License Seized by Chief of Police

Of Course Shannon Watts and Everytown are Anti-gun and Hate the Second Amendment

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

No Labels to Host Largest Gathering of Undeclared New Hampshire Voters in 2020 Cycle

/in , , , /by

MANCHESTER, N.H. /PRNewswire/

WHAT: In the midst of a heated presidential primary, the No Labels Problem Solver Convention is coming to Manchester, New Hampshire on Sunday, November 3, 2019. This event will feature members of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, nationally renowned pollster Frank Luntz, No Labels national chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman and several presidential candidates. It will offer an unprecedented opportunity for reporters to take the pulse of the 1,500 New Hampshire voters in attendance, who are likely to be decisive in the February New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary.

No Labels is a ground-breaking movement of Democratic, Republican, and Independents dedicated to breaking the gridlock in Washington, D.C. and bringing our leaders together to find common-sense, non-partisan solutions to our toughest challenges. It inspired the creation of the first of its kind House Problem Solvers Caucus, which features 48 members, evenly divided between the parties, working to forge solutions.

The convention will feature polling expert, Frank Luntz, conducting the nation’s largest in-person focus group and straw poll of the entire assembled audience, a panel discussion with members of the Problem Solvers Caucus and remarks from No Labels leaders and some 2020 presidential candidates.

Last month, a representative statewide poll conducted by No Labels revealed that 53% of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters are currently “undeclared,” meaning they have no party affiliation. But New Hampshire allows these voters to register in either party’s primary as late as Election Day, meaning they could shake up the race in a way no one sees coming.

In the wake of the 2016 election, where everything we thought we knew about the election was wrong, the Problem Solver Convention will be the one place for enterprising reporters to hear the voice of independent voters, who are flying under the radar now but will certainly be heard on New Hampshire’s primary day.

WHO:

  • 1,500+ New Hampshire Citizens
  • Select Presidential Candidates including John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Bill Weld, and Marianne Williamson
  • Members of the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus
  • No Labels Chairman Former Sen. Joe Lieberman
  • Focus group expert Frank Luntz
  • And Others

WHEN: Sunday, November 3, 2019 on location from the Doubletree Hotel in downtown Manchester, NH – LIVE and taped TV satellite interviews and radio interviews available from 7:00 AM – 4:00 PM ET.

Young Adults Fed Up with Social Justice Warrior and LGBTQ Tyranny

/in , , , , , , , /by

The new Batwoman TV series featuring an openly lesbian Batwoman is failing big-time. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that young adults are turned off by the show’s extreme woke and SJW (social justice warrior) politically correct messaging. “Woke” means you are aware of social and racial injustice. “Woke” also means straight white men are the source of all evil and must be punished. Women and minorities are perfect in every way. Woke culture says anyone who dares criticize a woman or a minority hates women and minorities.

Batman fans are outraged over the new Batwoman TV series trashing Batman and its in-your-face trashing of men. If there were such a thing as a woke-a-meter with a range of 1-10, the new Batwoman TV series would receive an 11.

It was a pleasure to learn that young adults are fed-up with SJW Hollywood writers and producers destroying their favorite movie franchises. The 2016 Ghostbusters movie bombed, losing $70 million, infected with woke. SJW has infected Star Wars and various superhero movies. Angry fans say, “Get woke, go broke!” Hollywood has declared that SJW, diversity and gender-swapping in movies is more important than entertaining stories.

Critics rave about movies that check all the right SJW boxes; must praise homosexuality, women and minorities while trashing straight white men. Meanwhile, fans avoid such movies in droves.

It blows my mind that despite losing mega-millions Hollywood is undeterred, hellbent on cramming SJW political messaging down our throats. As a Christian, I believe a spirit of anti-Christ is driving Hollywood’s financially illogical behavior. Hollywood producers love to poke fun of and demonize Christians. They freely use Jesus’ name in vain. And yet, they would never dare to use Muhammad’s name in vain.

In response to the failure of the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, the filmmakers attacked the fans, calling them woman-hating trolls. The star of the Batwoman TV series, Ruby Rose, attacked viewers for the show’s plummeting ratings. Rose said the show is not for old white men.

Clearly, Hollywood’s SJW writers and producers have disdain for average Americans. Loyal fans of various movie franchises say they feel crapped upon. Ignoring fan’s rejection, Hollywood pushes full-speed ahead on creating a new America in which wholesome traditions, biblical principles and values are burned on the alter in worship to their god of debauchery.

Democrats and fake news media shares Hollywood’s agenda and hatred for average Americans. Average Americans love president Trump. This is why Americans of all stripes begin lining up at venues two days before Trump rallies. Democrats and fake news media attack Trump voters for rejecting their SJW politics. Hollywood attacks the public for rejecting their SJW propaganda movies.

SJW culture is destroying women’s sports. Even leftist feminists are outraged that men who identify as women are dominating women’s sports. Feminist leaders say not only is mainstream media blacking out their opinions, these women fear for their lives for saying it is crazy to allow men to compete as women in women’s sports.

A part of me feels like saying, “Don’t come crying to us. You repeatedly vote for Democrats who are hellbent on cramming the LGBTQ agenda down the throats of mainstream Americans.” Over 95% of the population is heterosexual. Why have Democrats, fake news media and Hollywood made forcing the LGBTQ agenda upon America the most important issue of our times?

Leftist feminists and my brain-dead black relatives typically side with Democrats against their best interest. Trump has black unemployment at historic lows. And yet, idiots in my extended family hate Trump simply because their Democrat plantation slave masters tell them to hate him. They choose to ignore the truth that Trump has been awesome for blacks. Yes, their stupidity annoys me.

Folks, I am elated that hip young adults who are not particularly political are finally complaining about SJW culture being injected into everything.

Hollywood’s laser-focus on promoting SJW has created a huge void for quality entertainment. We have a golden opportunity to fill that void. Perhaps, this is why well-crafted Christian movies are doing so well at the box office.

Conservative filmmaker Robert Kirk is seeking funding to produce his full length feature film comedy which skewers the deep state. Film festival audiences laugh hysterically at Robert’s award-winning short version of his film. Not only is Robert’s film hilarious, he exposes the traitors who planned a silent coup against our president.

Please check out Robert’s 3 minute trailer of his award winning comedy, Alien Anthropologists. Here is the link to his website. Your assistance in acquiring funding is greatly appreciated.

Batman fans “cringed” hearing Batwoman deliver her SJW line that Batman’s suit will be perfect when it is resized to fit a woman. Leftist feminists are outraged that transgender cyclist Rachael McKinnon won the women’s Masters Track Cycling World Championships.

Young adults are fed up with SJW movies and TV shows and LGBTQ tyranny. I say thank you God.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Your Past Is Terrible, And Your Future Is Terrible’: What the Left Tells Young Americans

Was Hillary’s Attack on Tulsi Gabbard Part of a Plot to Destroy Trump?

/in , , , , , /by

On the surface, Hillary Clinton’s “Russian asset” attack last week on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared the rambling of a bitter, perhaps unhinged woman. One observer suggested that Clinton was holding a grudge because the Hawaii Democrat supported Bernie Sanders and opposed her rigging of the 2016 primary process against him. Perhaps so. Or maybe, exhibiting typical leftist intolerance of dissent, Gabbard’s anti-war stance really does make her our time’s Leon Trotsky.

But what if Clinton’s attack is actually part of a plan to defeat President Trump in 2020? What if Clinton’s theory that Gabbard may run third-party is, aside from a deep Democrat fear, precisely what more Machiavellian Dems want?

Consider: The NOQ Report’s J.D. Rucker correctly points out that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Gabbard would draw far more votes from Trump than the Dems. As he explains:

If Gabbard ran, she’d do so by positioning herself as the common sense choice against an “extremist” on the right in President Trump and a “radical” on the left in Elizabeth Warren or whoever wins the nomination.

Sad reality: There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans. The electoral college [sic] degrades this advantage a bit, but if there were no Independents, Democrats would win most elections. If we assume Gabbard will pull mostly from Libertarians and Independents, then that’s an advantage for Democrats. There is no way for the President to win if he doesn’t get the votes of a majority of Independents.

Rucker nails it. Gabbard could appeal to many “undecideds” in the confused middle.

Moreover, the Democrats and their PR team, the mainstream media, would facilitate this by painting Gabbard not only as of a kind with Trump in “doing Putin’s bidding” and retreating from Syria, but as a closet conservative “never really at home in the Democrat Party.” This wouldn’t be hard given the congresswoman’s past positions and the media’s ability to shape narratives. They’d simply pick up on Jacobin magazine’s 2017 warning to “progressives” that “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend.”

Note: This wouldn’t serve to convince most people that she’s actually a “conservative,” but that the “truth” lies between the Democrat and GOP claims — she’s a centrist. Besides, she’d appear another “outsider” alternative to Trump.

Rucker adds that since Gabbard has little money and would need a party behind her, a likely choice is the Libertarians, the country’s third largest party. With a little “tweaking” of her policies she could pass muster, Rucker says, and with a current or former Republican such as ex-congressman Justin Amash for balance, the ticket would appeal to many.

Is Gabbard Already Signaling a Third Party Run?

So what if Clinton & Co.’s goal is to attack Gabbard and alienate and anger her to the point where she does leave the Democrats and run third party? Oh, I’m not saying Clinton is smart enough to have planned this on her own, but that Bill and other crafty figures in her orbit are. But then there’s the kicker:

What if Gabbard is aware of this plot and is either an explicit or, more likely, a wink-and-nod participant?

Either way, the congresswoman may be signaling third-party intent. It’s not just her stated disgust with the Democrats but this: “I’m fully committed to my offer to serve you, the people of Hawaii & America, as your President & Commander-in-Chief,” she tweeted last week. “So I will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2020.”

In other words, she’s going “all in.” But why? Does she seriously believe she can win the nomination in today’s far-left, “woke” Democrat Party? Or does she have another agenda?

Whatever the truth, if Gabbard altered her views — in this case to facilitate third-party ambitions — it wouldn’t be the first time. The congresswoman used to be pro-life, pro-marriage (meaning, one man/one woman) and opposed the special privileges some people call “gay rights.” What changed?

Gabbard says her two Mideast tours of duty caused an epiphany. “I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw,” she wrote — “that it is government’s role to define and enforce our personal morality.”

Uh, okay. But this flash of insight just so happened to coincide with her desire to win a congressional seat in über-liberal Hawaii. And her transformation suggests three possibilities:

  • Gabbard is hardly a thinker and never had principles, only preferences. Her comment’s conclusion is the equivalent of, and is as relativistically nonsensical, as speaking of “personal truth.” If it’s personal, it’s not morality. It then has a different name: taste. (Moreover, all just law reflects morality and is thus “religious,” as I explain here and here.)
  • Gabbard, power-prostitute style, never had principles and will say anything to get elected (conservative suckers for pretty faces, take note).
  • Both of the above.

All this said and in accordance with Occam’s razor, I freely admit that my third-party-plot theory isn’t the most likely explanation here. Leftists are emotion-driven creatures, and Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. So maybe Clinton’s bitterness was again showing. It’s also true that Gabbard claims to have dismissed running third party.

But she has flip-flopped before. Moreover, all the attention such an effort would bring — the media could want to maximize this “centrist’s” exposure — may appeal to Gabbard’s vanity. And, oh, harking back to Rucker’s Libertarian Party theory, note that the congresswoman’s not-“government’s role to define and enforce our personal morality” line is right out of libertarians’ playbook. She’s not exactly an odd fit.

What I am quite convinced of is that a Gabbard third-party run would hurt Trump and that, as the Russia and Ukraine cons evidence, such a scheme would not be an odd fit for the Democrats.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

© All rights reserved.