Read the White House’s official response to Speaker Pelosi and Democrat leaders

/in , , , , , , /by

This evening, the White House sent an eight-page letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrat leaders, responding to the unprecedented, unconstitutional “impeachment inquiry” launched against President Donald J. Trump.

The letter, written by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, lays out how Democrat leaders designed a politically motivated inquiry that violates the constitutionally mandated due process protections:

You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives—under the control of either political party—taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

The facts are clear. The House Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry,” undertaken without a single vote of authorization by the full House—an astonishing breach of precedent—is constitutionally invalid and violates both basic due process rights and the separation of powers. By the admission of its own advocates in Congress, it plainly seeks to reverse the election of 2016 and to influence the election of 2020. Not only is there no legitimate basis for the inquiry, but the committees’ actions in pursuing it themselves raise serious questions that demand full transparency with the American people.

Read the White House’s full response to Speaker Pelosi and Democrat leaders.

How President Trump is securing our border—without Congress’ help

At a White House briefing today, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Mark Morgan announced the fourth straight month of a sharp decline in illegal immigrant apprehensions along America’s southwest border.

In September, just over 52,000 apprehensions occurred—a stunning improvement from the 144,000 in May.

 Acting Commissioner Morgan: The President’s actions are working.

How did this happen? It’s not because Congress finally stepped up after decades of broken promises and inaction. Instead, President Trump combined stricter enforcement of long-neglected laws with tough negotiations between the United States and its neighbors to the south. Today, for example, Mexico is helping to address the flow of illegal caravans that had been marching unimpeded through Mexico to the U.S. border.

Part of this renewed enforcement, of course, includes building the wall.

The work is far from finished, however. The underlying cause of our country’s immigration crisis—incentives in our laws to circumvent America’s safe, legal, and fair immigration system—are still there. If Congressional Democrats continue to insist on outsourcing control of our borders to criminal smugglers and cartels, both American citizens and migrant families will suffer.

“The bottom line: We still need Congress to pass meaningful legislation to address our broken legal framework when it comes to immigration,” Acting Commissioner Morgan said. “And while Congress has failed to bring a single piece of meaningful legislation to the floor, this President and this Administration is doing exactly what he promised to the American people.”

Watch: The media won’t report it, but our Border Patrol officers are saving lives!

 Mile by mile: We are building the border wall.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left’s Real Impeachment Wish

Ukraine Whistleblower Appears to Skirt Law by Going Straight to Rep. Adam Schiff’s Office

Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, says “I’m not siding with anybody”

/in , , , , , /by

It is foolish in the extreme, and ultimately self-defeating, to keep troops anywhere indefinitely, with no end point, no plan for victory, no clear goal — that just saps the nation’s resources and produces no good result. Anytime we leave Syria or anywhere else, anti-American elements will do their best to capitalize on our absence. But if the answer to this is to keep troops everywhere, then they will never come home, and we will need to send them into many more countries than those they’re currently in.

That way lies madness. And destruction. What is needed instead is a massive reevaluation of the basic assumptions of U.S. foreign policy, so that our energies, and our armed forces, are directed much more efficiently than they are now to blunting the force of the global jihad. We can hope that with the withdrawal from Syria, that reevaluation is on the horizon.

“Trump says he’s ‘not siding with anybody’ with Syria withdrawal,” by Kathryn Watson, CBS News, October 7, 2019:

Washington — President Trump didn’t let intense Republican criticism of his decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria rattle him Monday, insisting he made the right call in deciding to leave the unstable region to Turkey and other actors.

Experts and the president’s own allies like Senator Lindsey Graham fear the decision to withdraw from the region will endanger Kurdish allies there, with Turkey threatening to overwhelm them. Mr. Trump, asked why he’s siding with authoritarian Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan over Kurdish allies, insisted he’s not siding with anyone and is adhering to his campaign promise of “America first.”

“I’m not siding with anybody. We’ve been in Syria for many years. You know, Syria was supposed to be a short-term hit,” the president said in the Roosevelt Room, where he signed two trade agreements with Japan.

The president said he’s leaving the region in the hands of Turkey, Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria — which is exactly what allies fear. Mr. Trump explained that he campaigned on pulling the U.S. out of needless wars in the Middle East, and noted the worst part of his job is writing to families of American soldiers who died….

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

Pope installs new cardinals who “share his vision for social justice, rights of immigrants and dialogue with Islam”

/in , , , , /by

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

“Pope Francis installed new cardinals…. putting his stamp on the future of the Roman Catholic Church with men who share his vision for social justice, the rights of immigrants and dialogue with Islam.”

The Pope has been a powerful promoter of Islam, going so far as advance theological reforms in Catholic schools to promote a “common mission of peace” with Islam. He largely ignores the gross human rights violations against Christians, women, minorities and apostates that are justified by normative Islam. He has not called on the leaders of Islamic states and mainstream Islamic leaders to condemn the Islamic texts that sanction such abuses. Instead, he has stated that “Christianity and Islam have more in common than people think…and the two religions defend common values that are necessary for the future of civilization.” Meanwhile, he turns a blind eye to the genocide in progress against Christians in Africa and the Middle East, and advocates that “it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence.”

On issues of suicidal immigration policy, the Pope has been “guilt-tripping Christians into accepting mass Muslim migration into Europe while ignoring the history of Islam.”

Fortunately, not all cardinals are working alongside the Pope in all this. Cardinal Robert Sarah — prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments — compared “the modern influx of Muslim migrants to the invasions of barbarian tribes that ultimately brought down the Roman Empire in a.d. 475.” Cardinal Sarah also asserted that “it is a false exegesis to use the Word of God to promote migration.”

Clerics who have fought for social justice and defended the rights of the poor and immigrants were also prominent among the new cardinals.

We can all approve of fighting for genuine social justice and the rights of the poor and actual refugees; but this does not require putting free nations at risk through open-door, unvetted immigration in the midst of the global jihad. The Pope has yet to tear down all walls around the Vatican and refuse his own personal security, but that is exactly what he expects from the citizenry.

“Pope installs new cardinals to set future direction of church,” by Philip Pullella, KFGO, October 5, 2019:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Francis installed new cardinals on Saturday, putting his stamp on the future of the Roman Catholic Church with men who share his vision for social justice, the rights of immigrants and dialogue with Islam.

Ten of the 13 bishops elevated to the high rank are under the age of 80 and so are eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope from their ranks.

Francis has now appointed more than half of the 128 cardinal electors, increasing the possibility that the next pope will continue his progressive policies.

Over six years he has appointed more cardinal electors than those still alive who were named by former Pope Benedict and the late Pope John Paul combined.

At a ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica, known as consistory, Francis gave the new cardinals their trademark red biretta, or hat, and asked them to always be compassionate with others and loyal.

The geographical distribution of the new cardinal electors reflects Francis’s desire to give more clout to small national churches outside of Europe and North America, countries on the periphery of world political power. Nearly 50% of the cardinal electors now come from the developing world.

“I think that the pope wanted to make visible the churches that were almost invisible,” said Cardinal Cristobal Lopez Romero, of Rabat, the capital of Morocco, which is overwhelmingly Muslim.

Romero, 67, is one of four new cardinal electors who are steeped in experience with Islam.

The others are Cardinal Miguel Angel Ayuso Guixot, 67, the Spanish head of the Vatican’s department for inter-religious dialogue; British Cardinal Michael Fitzgerald, 82, one of the Church’s foremost experts on Islam and the Koran, and Cardinal Ignatius Suharyo Hardjoatmodjo, 69, the archbishop of Jakarta in Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Moslem population.

Clerics who have fought for social justice and defended the rights of the poor and immigrants were also prominent among the new cardinals….

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

Pelosi Hasn’t Really Started the Impeachment Process

/in , , , , , /by

Does an impeachment inquiry require a vote of the full House of Representatives? President Donald Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., maintain that it does. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claims that it doesn’t.

Pelosi is correct that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly require it. It simply gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment.” But the gravity of even considering impeachment, fundamental principles of fair and impartial justice, and preserving our republican form of government, do require it.

Pelosi alone announced on Sept. 25 that the House was opening an impeachment inquiry, directing six different committees to investigate the president. This is radically different, and much more partisan, than how this serious step was taken in the past.

In 1974, like today, a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled the House. On Feb. 6, the full House voted 410-4 to authorize an impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon by the Judiciary Committee. Similarly, on Oct. 8, 1998, the full House voted 258-176 for the Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment investigation of President Bill Clinton.

Pelosi’s claim that there is no “House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry,” therefore, is simply false.

Other than declaring war, there is no more serious undertaking by the House of Representatives in our constitutional republic. Why? Because through impeachment, the House is charging a president with misconduct so serious that he should immediately be removed from office. In other words, the House is effectively seeking to neutralize the choice—and the votes—of the American electorate.

That is an extraordinary action, especially in a system of government based on the people electing their own leaders. And it’s also the reason that impeachment alone cannot remove the president; that requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate (67 senators). Neither of the presidents who were impeached—Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999—were convicted and, therefore, stayed in office.

In an Oct. 3 letter, McCarthy asked for a vote of the full House. He reminded Pelosi that the Judiciary Committee report on the Clinton impeachment investigation said:

“Because impeachment is delegated solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, the full House of Representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”

An investigation to determine, in the words of the Clinton resolution, “whether sufficient grounds exist” for impeachment should be authorized by the body with the “sole Power of Impeachment”—the House of Representatives. Moreover, such a resolution should, as it did for the Clinton impeachment investigation, outline the rules under which it will be conducted.

McCarthy asked important questions that Pelosi’s announcement did not answer. Will the ranking minority member of the investigating committees have the authority to issue subpoenas and to question witnesses, or simply be ignored by the majority? Will the president’s lawyers be able to attend all hearings and depositions; to present evidence; to object to the admittance of evidence; to cross-examine witnesses; or to recommend witnesses to be interviewed?

As McCarthy says, if Pelosi says “no” to these questions, then she will be “denying the president the bare minimum rights granted to his predecessors.” Doing so would indicate that Pelosi and these committees do not intend to provide the fundamental due process rights we extend even to those accused of wrongdoing in our courts.

All Americans have an interest in the integrity of our government and the legitimacy of its actions. Departing from precedent; single-handed directives; freewheeling roving investigations by multiple committees; and running roughshod over the minority undermine that interest.

On the other hand, that interest is served by the entire House considering and authorizing an impeachment inquiry; a transparent investigation; authority for both the majority and minority committee members to investigate, subpoena, and call witnesses; and outlining the scope of the investigation.

America’s Founders did not put impeachment into the Constitution as a partisan tool to be used for overturning an election. How this process is conducted today will reveal who in the House of Representatives agrees with them.

Originally published in Fox News.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ukraine Whistleblower Appears to Skirt Law by Going Straight to Rep. Adam Schiff’s Office

Pelosi Facing Down Ejection from House Under Article 1, Section 5 of US Constitution

The Left’s Real Impeachment Wish

Trump White House To Democrats On Impeachment: We’re Not Cooperating, So Come And Get Us

End Impeachment Secrecy

The Unfairness of the Left’s Impeachment Push Against Trump

How a Michigan Democrat’s Voter Fraud Was Caught

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

MSNBC’s Las Vegas Anti-Gun Rally

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

On Wednesday, anti-gun news outlet MSNBC, along with their partner organizations Giffords and March for Our Lives, hosted nine Democrat candidates for President for what was billed as a “Gun Safety Forum.”  Most of the time was spent by candidates and anti-gun activists railing against guns, NRA, and occasionally, President Donald Trump.

As one can imagine, there really wasn’t much new discussed, as candidates continued to try to convince Democrat voters that each is the most anti-gun choice.  At times, it seemed like a fight might break out over who had the most outrageous scheme to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Everyone seemed to agree on “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and that there is an “epidemic” of gun violence in our country.  But as each candidate took the stage for their individual allotted time, most tried to separate themselves from the others.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the higher polling lower tier candidates, started things off, trying to draw a connection between passing new gun laws and combatting “white nationalism.”

Buttigieg also promoted gun licensing, as well as “red flag” laws and “universal” background checks.  Attacking NRA, he made the patently false allegation that our association represents the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than our 5 million dues-paying members.

Mayor Buttigieg also talked about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, making the confusing statement that such things should not be sold “anywhere near an American school or neighborhood.”  He seemed to clarify later that he was not talking about limiting where gun stores could operate, but meant he wanted to ban these popular rifles.

While trying to sell the constitutionality of banning some of the most commonly owned firearms in America, he made two bizarre comparisons.  First, he said that people can own slingshots, but not nuclear weapons, followed by stating that water balloons are legal, but predator drones are not.  It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous comparison than one between children’s toys and actual weapons of war while discussing the Second Amendment.

His support of banning AR-15s, however, did not, at this time, include support for the type of confiscation scheme that has been promoted by one of the other candidates.  More on that later.

Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro was next. He promoted increasing the tax on ammunition to further drive up its cost and supported the banning of so-called “assault weapons,” but fell short of calling for their confiscation.  Instead, he promoted a voluntary “buy-back” scheme, followed by registering those not turned in and tracking their future transfer, similar to the way fully-automatic firearms are currently regulated.  While he did not mention fully incorporating them into the National Firearms Act (NFA) protocols, that seemed to be where he was heading.

Next was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.  He stated support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms, pushed so-called “safe” storage laws, and promoted his scheme to implement a federal licensing program for gun owners.  He went so far as to call out all of his opponents that don’t support his position, claiming anyone who does not support licensing “should not be a nominee from our party.”  He then went on to pat himself on the back for pushing “the most ambitious” gun plan.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been leading the pack in some polls, then spoke.  She promoted the idea of limiting firearm purchases to one-a-month, and also suggesting a 7-day waiting period before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm.  She also threatened a federal investigation of NRA—a clear attempt to quash our right to free speech, and that of our more than 5 million members.

Following Warren was former Vice President Joe Biden. While Biden had been the favorite in the race, at one point commanding a lead of more than 25-points over his closest rival, his advantage has all but disappeared.  Biden again raised his make-believe idea on gun control—mandating guns that can only operate utilizing “biometric markers.”  He also pushed a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and similar rifles, coupled with regulating those that are currently owned under the NFA.  This scheme has been promoted by representatives of Giffords, one of the sponsors of the event, so Biden was clearly playing to the audience.

His presentation was marked by the usual rambling, odd tangents, and self-promoting hyperbole to which we’ve grown accustomed.  At one point he stopped in the middle of praising those behind March for Our Lives to clumsily transition to talking about the federal restrictions on hunting migratory waterfowl; pointing out that there is a limit of three shells in your shotgun when in the field.  That brought him to discussing putting limits on the number of rounds one can have in other firearms.  Biden seems to be struggling with determining an arbitrarily acceptable limit on ammunition capacity, so maybe he’s now testing out the idea of using three.

Former Texas Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke, who self-identifies as “Beto,” took the stage after Biden.  He specifically called out Mayor Buttigieg for not supporting his gun confiscation idea, all but calling him a coward.  He seemed to imply the same about Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) for their questioning the level of support for the disarmament scheme.

O’Rourke also pushed the popular lie among the anti-gun crowd that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war.”  He even made the outrageously false claim that such firearms are “sold to the militaries of the world.”  Of course, this is just an evolution of what gun-ban advocate Josh Sugarmann began promoting in the late ‘80s, when he wrote about so-called “assault weapons”:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Of course, millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic rifles, while fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated under the NFA, and are what is actually “sold to the militaries of the world.”

He also claimed that, when the Second Amendment was ratified, it took “three minutes to reload a musket.”  In fact, someone in the 18th century who was familiar with their musket could fire and reload it two- to three-times a minute.  While that fact has little to do with the debate over gun control, what O’Rourke ignores is the more relevant fact that those privately owned muskets were no different than the muskets used by those in “the militaries of the world.”

The bottom-tier candidate waited until near the end of his time to break out two of the shticks for which he has become somewhat famous; profanity and high school-level Spanish.

Another bottom-tier candidate, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, was next, although she didn’t really bring anything new to the discussion.  She mostly echoed the same, tired gun-control ideas promoted by those who came before her.  Perhaps that is why she has been struggling throughout most of her campaign to generate more than 1% support in the polls.

Businessman Andrew Yang, who can’t seem to achieve much more than mid-single digit support in spite of promising to give people “free” money, had some curious ideas.  He appeared to support Biden’s “biometric markers” idea, and mentioned expanding on the Booker notion of licensing by promoting a multi-tiered licensing program, although he didn’t offer real details on that while on stage, other than there would be different licenses for different guns.

Yang also mentioned wanting to keep track of people who own multiple firearms, but also offered no details on accomplishing this to the audience.

Two particularly odd ideas stood out.  First, in order to counter the impact of organizations like NRA, he suggested giving every American $100.00 of what he referred to as “Democracy Dollars.”  People could give this money to lawmakers and candidates to help influence their votes, which sounds a bit like buying votes.  While we do not support the notion of buying votes, perhaps Mr. Yang did not consider the fact that NRA has five million members.  Does he really want to add more than half-a-billion dollars that could be used to support the campaigns of candidates that support the Second Amendment?

His other odd idea, which may be better described as troubling, was the suggestion that gun manufacturers be fined every time one of their lawful products is used by a criminal.  One presumes he is not suggesting the same penalties for the makers of any other lawful products commonly used by criminals.  If he did, then he would likely be accused of trying to bankrupt the entire manufacturing industry, rather than just those that manufacture firearms.

One other odd statement he made, but also didn’t go into any real details about, was implying that criminals who use firearms to kill others are somehow victims.  This line of thought deserves no additional commentary.

Finally, California Senator Kamala Harris spoke, offering nothing substantively new.  She reiterated her desire to use executive action to implement many of her schemes.  Perhaps hoping to avoid the ire of O’Rourke, she made clear that she supports his approach to banning and confiscating AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms.  Some of the candidates who took the stage mentioned their version of supporting the Second Amendment included, at least to some extent, the right of self-defense.  Harris, however, spoke only of respecting the Second Amendment as it relates, in her mind, to the tradition of hunting.

Ultimately, this anti-gun rally produced what would be expected of an event run by an anti-gun news outlet and anti-gun organizations.  The same gun control ideas that have been promoted ad nauseum by radical extremists for years, or even decades.  It was at least slightly interesting to see at what lengths candidates will go to try and out-anti-gun one another, especially considering the controlled environment where there was no chance of facing any sort of push-back.  Especially from citizens who still respect the Constitution, individual freedom and our right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Mayor Waffles on NRA “Terrorist” Group Designation

Federal Court Entertains Bizarre Legal Theories That Threaten Gun Owners, Rule of Law

Violent Crime Dropped in 2018

NRA’s Adaptive Shooting Program Aids Disabled Hunters

Member Spotlight: Meet the Police Officer Who Told Congress She ‘Would Not Comply’ with a Gun Ban

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

Ambushed! Acting Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Shouted Down; Walks Out of Georgetown University Event

/in , , , , /by

Shame on Georgetown Law School for permitting the ambush!
Protesters wouldn’t even let Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan speak to the tony group gathered today at Georgetown Law School at the annual Migration Policy Institute confab of the elite ‘thinkers’ in the field of Washington DC immigration policy.I’ve been to the conference a couple of times over the years to have a look at the players in the Open Borders movement that includes the Catholic Legal Immigration Network.

(See my report at RRW from the 2015 gathering. I’m still chuckling about it first because the elephant in the room was the prospect of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States!  And, secondly because Jim Simpson kept asking embarrassing questions until they finally refused him a microphone!)

Make no mistake about where most of them are on the issue of US immigration policy—the more migrants (aka Dem voters!), the better!

However, this stunt today clearly takes away any idea they may have of at least pretending that they believe in free speech and are moderate thinkers on the subject!

Look at this story from CNBC.

If the Migration Policy Institute and Georgetown Law School was so keen on hearing what McAleenan (the invited keynote speaker!) had to say, why didn’t they just call in security and throw the protesters out the minute they opened their big mouths. Then bring the room to order and let him speak.

Acting Homeland Security chief Kevin McAleenan walks out of immigration conference after multiple attempts to speak over protesters

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan on Monday walked out of an immigration conference in Washington after multiple attempts to speak over protesters.

McAleenan, who was a keynote speaker at the conference, was met with protesters in the crowd who yelled, “When immigrants are under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!”

Protesters yelled the statement multiple times before McAleenan had a chance to speak at the podium. McAleenan said he would like to discuss the challenges the agency has faced over the past year with the immigration crisis, “above the politics and the daily news cycle.”

Good for you Mr. McAleenan!

But after persistent shouts, McAleenan walked off the stage without delivering his speech.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement: “Unfortunately the Acting Secretary and the audience did not get the opportunity to engage in a robust dialogue this morning due to the disruptions of a few activists.”

DHS added that the attendees would have learned about the agency’s “successful strategy to work with international partners to reduce unlawful migration and end the exploitation of children by smugglers and cartels.”

The conference was organized by the Migration Policy Institute and Catholic Legal Immigration Network and held at the Georgetown University Law Center on Monday.

Cry me a river!

“We very much regret that the keynote address Homeland Security Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan was to deliver today at the 16th annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference was disrupted by protestors and could not occur,” said Andrew Seele, president of MPI, in a statement, and that “we very much regret” protesters disrupted McAleenan’s speech.

What a joke! The venerable Georgetown University is “committed to free speech!”

Georgetown University, in a statement, said, “We share our partners’ regret that the audience did not get to hear from the Secretary and engage in a dialogue through the Q&A session that was scheduled to occur following his remarks. Georgetown Law is committed to free speech and expression and the ability of speakers to be heard and engage in dialogue.”

If you are as disgusted with Washington, DC, as I am, this is just one more example of what a swamp it is filled with elite snobs too weak to even stand up to fascist agitators!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Citizens Speak Out Against Florida’s ‘Red Flag Law’ and ‘Risk Protection Orders’

/in , , , , /by

I want to thank and congratulate the 12 members of WH 912 (3 of which are also LARC Members & 4 of which are Members of Polk REC) who came to the annual FL Congressional Delegation forum open to the public on October 7, 2019 at the Polk State Campus in the PCSO complex.

Seven made 3 minute testimonies on the unconstitutional provisions of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Public Safety Act (hereafter referred to as SB 7026) and five more supported us for a total of 12 activists in attendance.

Many thanks and kudos to our lineup of speakers – in order of appearance they were Patti Zelsman, Jack Zelsman, Danny Krueger (nominated for this years WH 912 Oscar), Royal Brown III, Glynnda White, Kay Mijou, and Manny Brito. All were well rehearsed and completed their presentations within 3 min limit or a few lines (seconds) past 3 minutes. We also appreciated those present to support us – Roy and Nancy Pearce, Linda Adams, Jane Thomas, and Dy Soldwedel-Krueger.

We spoke before five of the six members of the Polk County Congressional Delegation who were Senators Albritton and Lee and Representatives Burton, Tomkow and Bell. Sen. Stargel was not present, Her Legislative Asst. Chad Davis was the recorder for the Delegation.

Glynnda White wrote the narratives for each of our 7 speakers and submitted them to Chad Davis in advance so that we would be pre-scheduled in a sequence that built upon each other and reinforced all the major points we wanted to get across. Among important points made were as follows:

  1. MSDHSPSA (SB 7026) is unconstitutional and violates our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights and, in certain circumstances may also violate our 1st and 5th Amendment Rights – each of the testimonies drove this point home with specific examples of how our rights are/can be violated.
  2. School Safety and Gun Control should have been considered in two separate bills/laws and not cobbled together in one rushed 3 week time frame after the Parkland shootings.
  3. The Risk Protection Order (RPO) codified within SB 7026 prescribes Ex Parte petitions resulting in seizures of firearms, ammo, accessories & permit without a Hearing which comes 14 days later at which time the respondent must prove he/she is not a threat. This is a clear violation of Due Process Rights and the Legal Precedent of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” for law abiding citizens who might be served with an RPO. This and other provisions are not only troubling to law abiding gun owners (especially those who have undergone background checks, have no criminal record, received CCW training and issued carry permits) but are fraught with many dangers that can result in violations of our Constitutional Rights (see attachment which was given to all the Congressional Panel Members).
  4. Age restrictions on owning, possessing, purchasing long guns clearly violate the 2A rights of 18-20 year olds.
  5. Bottom line recommendation was to support, co-sponsor Rep Mike Hill’s HB 6003 or sponsor a companion Senate Bill to HB 6003 which will revoke the RPO and 2 A age restrictions. Reconsider a much different and constitutional Bill for potential emergency situations where firearm seizure procedures may be appropriate.

This is the kind of Grassroots effort we must all support if we want to retain our rights and not live in fear of the possibility of an unconstitutional seizure of our firearms, ammo, accessories and permit.

BACKGROUND: Risk Protection Order in SB 7026 Violates Many Rights

Stands Due Process on Its Head – RPO takes away our Due Process Rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the Fl Constitution Sec 1, Art 9 and infringed upon our 2nd Amendment (2A) rights including FL Constitution Sec 1, Art 8.

Ex parte seizure of firearms, accessories, ammo, permits (if issued), etc. before a hearing for the respondent

Triggered by False Allegations/Weak Investigations –   Allows possibility of being triggered by false accusations and possible less than thoroughly investigated information by very busy and often overworked law enforcement.

Reverses legal precedent of being innocent until proven guilty since the respondent must prove they are not a threat rather than the court proving they are in the “after the fact” (post seizure) final RPO hearing.

Premonition Not Fact – Judges making decisions to seize property based on premonition of what might happen in the future – to do so opens very dangerous avenues to ignore our rights – trading rights for safety

Impact on Innocent Respondent  – Current procedure could lead to law abiding gun owning citizens being put through the embarrassment of seizure, personal cost to hire an attorney, loss of the means to defend themselves and their families and bureaucratic nightmare of being placed on state & federal criminal data bases and the difficulties of clearing their names.

Civil Procedure Treated Like Criminal Law – Since the RPO is a civil procedure, Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Weak Rules of Evidence  – An RPO based on a premonition should at least be supported with beyond reasonable doubt evidence not the nebulous clear and convincing evidence of a threat as stated in the law.

2A Privilege Not Right– Hearings being held after the fact of seizures has the effect of turning the 2A from a right to a privilege.

Legal Representation – During the final RPO Hearing the court is represented by prosecution/attorney(s) representing Law Enforcement (LE) petitioners whereas the respondent is not entitled to Public Defense.  If they want (and probably should retain) legal representation, the respondent must hire an attorney without reimbursement compensation should their case be vacated.

Vague language of the RPO is open to varying interpretations by different legal jurisdictions, Judges, LE.

Duty Judges – Reliable sources have reported where large numbers of RPOs are being issued, the load is too great for assigned judges to review petitions and hold hearings so case assignment can go to duty judges with little knowledge of the RPO procedures.

Contract Lawyers for LE are being hired to represent LE petitioners with an incentive for pay based on cases leading to issuing of Final RPOs.

Judges Removed  – In at least one Court Jurisdiction, the Judge assigned to RPO cases was replaced by the Chief Judge of that Jurisdiction because of complaints by LE petitioners that he was turning down too many LE petitions he judged to not be clear and convincing and did not issue an ex parte RPO.

Property Treatment – There are no specifics in the RPO process as to the condition of how the seized property of the respondent is to be handled, stored, maintained and returned nor are there stipulations within what timeframe to return property should the ex parte RPO or final RPO be overturned or vacated.  This can lead to damaged property being returned without compensation and bureaucratic delays in returning properties.

3rd Party Transfer – The time frame of the option whereby a respondent can transfer property to be held by a 3rd party is also not determined nor prescribed.  There are unanswered questions about the strict conditions (such as passing a background check) required of the 3rd party transferee.

  •     For example if the 3d party is a CCW permit holder is this enough proof that a background check has been performed or does a new check have to be made and by whom?  Transfer requires a  sworn statement that the 3rd party will not allow respondent access during RPO period – will the LE officer serving petition take this statement or does the 3rd party or if not who/where do they go?
  •     Based on the lack of specifics on the transfer process, it appears this transfer won’t happen before the seizure but afterwards/post seizure.  This then leads to more bureaucracy and time delays.  The transfer should be conducted before seizure so as to preempt the need for LE to take possession, store, maintain and return property e.g. this function should take place between respondent & 3rd party at the same time the petition is served to the respondent and LE conducts inventory.  This would save LE resources as well.

Unequal Penalties – The fact that an accuser found to have rendered a false statement can only be charged with a misdemeanor whereas a search warrant can be issued to determine if any of the prohibited items are in the respondent’s residence and if the respondent is found to possess any firearm or related item after the final RPO (including one firearm bullet), they can be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony. This is also absurd, amounts to a civil search and unbalances the scales of justice.

Other Rights in Jeapordy – We are concerned these violations of our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment rights by SB 7026 could lead to other violations such as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

  •   1st Amendment Rights – Sen. Galvano’s coordination with FDLE to identify hate groups and hate speech could lead to RPOs being issued to members of these groups even though no such correlation exists in past mass shootings.
  •   What will be the criteria/sources used to determine that a group is a terrorist group and that they are a threat?  Surely not the uber leftist SPLC who has placed most conservative groups on their list of terrorists?
  •   Who will determine what is hate speech ?  This is fraught with the possibility of politicizing hate speech and using it against political opponents and seems more like the tactics of the Communist KGB or Nazi Gestapo than USA law.
  •   There are leftist groups such as the SPLC who have falsely classified most conservative groups as hate groups.  Others have now stated the NRA is a terorist group and all members of the NRA are racists.  These types of action like the RPO run the risk of turning certain agencies of the FL Govt into “speech police” which could further jeopardize our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Weakening Self Defense Laws: Then there are the intended or unintended consequences in RPOs weakening our Self Defense laws and Stand Your Ground rights – law abiding citizens will be concerned about using their firearms under lawful conditions for fear of then having an RPO issued against them while a determination of immunity from prosecution for shooting takes place.

  •   Acceptance of large donations from gun control groups like Everytown USA  to PACs helping Republican Senators get re-elected also smacks of a conflict of interest and definitely conflicts with Republican values.

Civil Law Process Treated Like Criminal Law.  Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Conclusions – All of the above stacks the deck against the respondent in an RPO case especially if the respondent has no prior criminal record, is law abiding and is the target of someone’s vendetta, anger, political attack or other such lies and distortions to make LE petitioner and Judge wary that they might be a threat and then err on the side of perceived safety rather than individual liberty.

Brennan Questions ‘Stability’ of the U.S. Under Trump

/in , , , , , /by

On NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, former CIA Director John Brennan said “there is a real question about the stability” of the United States under President Trump .

Asked how the CIA would assess the stability of the American government right now as if it were a foreign power, Brennan replied, “We would look at it as a very corrupt government that is under the sway right now of this powerful individual who has been able to just corrupt the institutions and the laws of that country.”

Asked if the U.S. was a stable democracy, Brennan answered, “I think it’s no longer a democracy if an autocrat has it in his hands… Given the tremendous political instability here which is consuming the government now, it’s not able to take care of the issues that it need to address, whether it be on the domestic front or the foreign policy front. Yes, there is a real question about the stability.”

The country would be a great deal more stable if Deep State subversives like Brennan hadn’t spend Trump’s entire term attempting a coup.

John Brennan

17 Known Connections

In a March 2015 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Brennan refused to refer to the Islamic State (ISIS, a.k.a. ISIL) terror group as an “Islamic” entity. Said the CIA director:

“[Q]uite frankly I am amused at the debate that goes on [that] unless you call it [Islamic terrorism] what it is, you don’t know what you’re fighting. And let’s make it very clear that the people who carry out acts of terrorism, whether it be Al Qaeda or the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant [ISIS], are doing it because they believe it is consistent with what their view of Islam is. It is totally inconsistent with what the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout the world [believe]. And so by ascribing it as a Muslim terrorism or Islamic extremism — I think it does really give them the type of Islamic legitimacy that they are so desperately seeking, but which they don’t deserve at all. They are terrorists, they’re criminals. Many of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers, who use a religious concept and masquerade, mask themselves, in that religious construct. And I do think it does injustice to the tenets of religion when we attach a religious moniker to [ISIS]. The Muslims I know … The people I’ve worked with throughout the Middle East most of my career find just disgraceful that these individuals present themselves as Muslims…. The words we use can have resonance … [W]hat they [ISIS terrorists] do has no basis in any upstanding religions.”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

RELATED ARTICLE: John Brennan Traveled to Ukraine On Fake Passport, Was It To Get Dirt On Trump?

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

PODCAST: CrowdStrike and the Impeachment Frenzy, Ukraine reopened the Burisma-Biden probe in 2018, Minimum Wage Has Trade-offs . . .

/in , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

Ryan Young, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). His writing has appeared in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Hill, Investor’s Business Daily, Forbes, Fortune, and dozens of other publications. He is a frequent guest on radio programs, been interviewed by outlets including The Huffington Post and Voice of America, and been cited in media outlets including ABC News, CNN, and London’s City AM. He formerly hosted the CEI Podcast, and writes the popular “This Week in Ridiculous Regulations” series for CEI’s staff blog.

TOPIC: Minimum Wage Has Trade-offs

George Parry Contributor to The American Spectator, The Federalist, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. George is a former federal and state prosecutor. George served as: Special Attorney for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, U.S. Department of Justice 1972-1978; Unit Chief, Investigations Division, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office 1978-1983; Special Organized Crime Prosecutor, Blair and Cambria counties (central Pennsylvania) 1983-1992; Legal Analyst, KYW-TV 1988-1998; George now has a private trial practice in Philadelphia.

TOPIC: CrowdStrike and the Impeachment Frenzy

Robert Romano, Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. He grew up in a suburban Long Island township, Rocky Point, where he graduated from high school. He studied and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Stony Brook University with the Class of 2008. In his free time, he composes music on piano, paints oil on canvas, and writes fiction. TOPIC China Tariffs.

TOPIC: Ukraine reopened the Burisma-Biden probe in 2018

For the Soul of America, “Shifty” Schiff Must Go

/in , , , , /by

Folks, I do know about you, but I am extremely annoyed. I grew up believing in Superman’s America which stood for truth, justice and the American way. But when I see blatantly corrupt politician Adam Schiff in charge of a bogus investigation to impeach our obviously innocent president, something has gone terribly wrong in our country. My heart is heavy for my beloved country and the rule of law.

Allow me to recap for soccer moms and dads who are busy earning a living. Fake news media and Democrats launched another lie-filled treasonous silent coup to remove Trump from office.

On TV, Adam Schiff lied to the world, claiming that during a phone call Trump threatened the president of Ukraine. Schiff said Trump told the Ukraine president that if he did not dig up dirt on Joe Biden, he would hold back funds from Ukraine.

To the horror of Schiff, Democrats and fake news media, Trump made the unprecedented decision to publicly release the transcript of the phone call between him and the Ukraine president. The transcript proved that everything Schiff reported Trump said was a lie.

In an America in which truth and justice rule, Schiff would be politically tarred and feathered and run out of Washington DC on a rail.

Incredibly, Schiff is celebrated by fake news media and Democrats. Ignoring the truth in the transcript, Democrats are still leaving Schiff in charge of their investigation to impeach Trump which is based solely on Schiff’s fabricated version of Trump’s phone call. Not only is this insane, it is infuriating.

This is not our America folks. We cannot and must not allow Shifty Schiff to arrogantly go unpunished and wreck havoc on Trump’s presidency. At the very least, Schiff must be fired from leading his bogus impeachment investigation.

News coverage of fake news media and Democrats’ insane campaign to impeach Trump is like watching the Emperor’s New Clothes. Knowing the Emperor was naked, all his subjects pretended to love his new outfit. A confused little boy spoke the truth, yelling, “The Emperor is naked!”

Washington DC knows Schiff’s impeachment investigation is based on lies. And yet, fake news media, Democrats, never-Trump Republicans and Conservatives are behaving like Schiff has evidence to impeach Trump. Where are the Republicans with the courage to stand up for truth and justice? In essence, yelling, “Schiff is naked!”

Despite Trump’s actual words during the phone call published for the world to see, fake news media and Democrats are behaving like the transcript does not exist. Atrociously, they are promoting Schiff’s made-up version of what Trump said, hoping to deceive voters.

Fake news media and Democrats are attempting to establish a new precedent. I realize fake news media and Democrats have always spun the words of Republicans. But Schiff writing his own version of what Trump said during the phone call and boldly presenting it as the president’s actual words is a whole new level of arrogant evil deception on the American people.

Be of good cheer folks. God promises evildoers will get their just rewards. Shifty Schiff and his treasonous homeys will fail again in their never-ending campaign to destroy our president.

Trump will be reelected in 2020. However, we must remain engaged, each of you doing your part to insure victory in 2020. It can be as simple as sharing with your neighbor a few of the long list of great things Trump has achieved for America. It is crucial that we counter fake news media and Democrats’ lies and non reporting of Trump’s unprecedented achievements.

Trump has our economy booming. The Labor Department reported that unemployment is 3.5%, a 50 year low. Wages are skyrocketing. Hispanic unemployment continues to plummet to historic lows. Black unemployment is at its lowest ever. 

Your fellow patriots joined me, lending their singing voices to enthusiastically sound the rallying cry for our president. The Trump Train 2020 Song website is LIVE! Enjoy the song. Here is the link to the Facebook page. Please like and share.

So, I jumped into my car to run to the post office. Over the radio, ABC News reported that Trump said the call for impeachment is a sham. The reporter continued saying, “But the allegations are backed up in the record of the phone call.” That is a blatant lie. The transcript (record of the phone call) exonerates Trump. Do you see the massive coordinated campaign of deception and lies against our president?

The battle for 2020 is on! Let us, “Trust in God and keep your powder dry.” Oliver Cromwell.

© All rights reserved.

Video: Robert Spencer speaks at the Sullivan County Republican Party, New Hampshire

/in , , , , /by

After a great deal of controversy from the fascist Left and viciously biased “journalists” Kevin Landrigan of the New Hampshire Union Leader and John Gregg of Valley News, I spoke for the Sullivan County Republican Party of New Hampshire on Friday evening, October 4. My topic was the controversy itself, and what it reveals for the state of our response to jihad terror and the health of our society in general.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Movement leadership penetrates Trump White House

UK: Holocaust memorial removes references to Jews, highlights Muslim role in saving people

Canada: Antifa thug who harassed elderly lady trying to attend conservative event is Muslim migrant

RELATED VIDEO: Rasmus Paludan mobbed by communists and muslims in Nørrebro posted by Eeyore

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

What You Need to Know About the Transgender Case at the Supreme Court

/in , , , , , , /by

This interview, which is lightly edited, originally aired on “Problematic Women.”

Lauren Evans: Welcome back. Virginia and I are in the studio today with religious liberty superstar Emilie Kao. Emilie is an attorney and director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation and has spent the past 14 years fighting for religious liberty. Welcome to the show, Emilie.

Emilie Kao: Thank you, Lauren.

Evans: There’s a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court where a man who identifies as a woman is alleging sex discrimination after being fired from their job at a funeral home. Can you tell us more about this case, Emilie?

Kao: Yes. The Harris Funeral Homes case originated when a male employee of a funeral home wanted to start presenting as a woman. He wanted to start dressing as a woman, and the funeral home has a sex-specific dress code, which is legal.

The funeral home owner, Thomas Rost, was very concerned, not only about his employees, his female employees, who might have to share bathrooms with the male employee, but also about the effect on the people whom the funeral homes serve. Because these are people who are grieving at a time when they’re very focused on their emotional loss, and it could be very distracting and even disturbing for them to see a man dressed as a woman.

So when the employee refused to comply with the dress code according to his sex, they decided to part ways with him and offered him a severance package.

What happened next was that the employee and the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, got involved and sued the funeral home. And the case has percolated up through the courts. They lost in the lower court and now it’s gotten to the Supreme Court.

Virginia Allen: Emilie, I want to ask you just to provide a definition for sexual discrimination.

Kao: The correct way to understand discrimination on the basis of sex—it is when one person is treated more disfavorably than a person of the other category.

So if you have a person who is male who is treated worse than a person who’s female because of their sex, that is sex discrimination. If you have a female who is treated worse than a male, that is sex discrimination.

Sex discrimination is not merely when you treat two people differently because we treat males and females differently all the time. That’s why we have some of the other sex-segregated spaces and events that we’ve talked about before. That’s why we have sex-segregated bathrooms. We have sex-segregated sports. Because the courts and the American people have realized men and women are different, and so there’s nothing discriminatory about having sex segregation in appropriate ways, sex-segregated spaces, sex-segregated events that involve a person’s physical capacity.

But what the people in the Harris Funeral Homes case are arguing on behalf of the employee who is identifying as transgender is that he was treated more poorly because of his status as a person who identifies as transgender.

He’s a male who wants to dress as a female. He’s a male who wants to use female restrooms. But that is not sex discrimination because the funeral home would have treated somebody of the opposite sex the same way if they manifested in the same way that this employee is.

So if you were a female employee of that funeral home and you wanted to identify as a male and use the male restroom and wear the male clothing that’s required by the dress code and be referred to as a male, the treatment would be the same of that female employee. So that’s why this case does not actually qualify for the sex discrimination category.

Evans: What was crazy to me about this case is that no laws were technically broken, correct?

Kao: Well, the claim of the EEOC and the employee is that the funeral home owner has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

The whole theory of the transgender-identifying employee is that sex actually means gender identity, which there’s nothing in the text that says gender identity. But they have a theory that sex should mean gender identity.

So they’re essentially saying that the EEOC can redefine sex, and they now want the Supreme Court to redefine sex. And the Supreme Court should stay in its own lane, which is to interpret the law, not make the law, which is Congress’ duty.

Allen: So, Emilie, this case is going to come before the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, where it will decide, hopefully, whether federal civil rights law that bars job discrimination on the basis of sex protects transgender people. What do you think we can expect?

Kao: I think you can expect from the funeral home side that they will say Congress should stick with the original public meaning of what the word sex meant in 1964. And that is it established a way of interpreting the law that the court should refer to the original public meeting, which means, what did a regular person in the general public understand sex to mean, not what did a particular member of Congress think?

I think everyone pretty much agrees that in 1964, the word sex meant biological sex, male or female, not a person’s subjective self-perception of their gender, which is what gender identity means.

So I think that there will be a lot of discussion about the procedural part, which is, what is the correct role of the Congress versus what is the correct role of the courts?

As your listeners may know, the Congress has actually been trying to amend the Civil Rights Act recently through the Equality Act to add the classes of sexual orientation and gender identity. So the fact that the Equality Act is being introduced in Congress sort of begs the question, “Well, if sex already meant gender identity, why would you have to add it through this legislation?”

We also know that through the decades, Congress has actually dealt with the question of gender identity. Sometimes they have added it to legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, but sometimes they have declined, they have projected the addition of the term gender identity. So the historical record’s pretty clear. Congress knows that gender identity and sex are two different things.

Allen: So if SCOTUS rules that gender identity does not apply to federal civil rights law, will that create a roadblock for Congress to move forward with the passage of the Equality Act?

Kao: I think it will clarify what the current understanding of the Civil Rights Act should be, and I think it will make it more difficult for the EEOC to continue to politicize these cases. But I don’t think it will make it more difficult in a procedural sense for Congress to try and pass something like the Equality Act.

However, I do think it could make the public support for something like the Equality Act change. Because I think one of the interesting things about this case is that it will bring to the forefront some of the issues that we’ve talked about, how gender identity essentially erases women as a coherent category in the law.

We’ve seen the manifestation of this in several cases like the homeless shelter in Alaska. They were sued because they would not allow a man into a space that was reserved for women who’d been battered, and abused, and trafficked. The whole theory behind the male plaintiff’s case was that he was being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity.

So we see from that case that when you introduce the idea of gender identity, it erases the protections in the law for women, for their safety, and privacy. And there are a number of other cases with women’s sports and with, unfortunately, a girl in a public school in Georgia being sexually assaulted after the school adopted a transgender bathroom policy.

Allen: Emilie, I’m glad that you brought up the Alaska case about the homeless shelter. I want to get into that for a moment. Let me just give a little bit of background to our listeners if they’re not familiar.

The Hope Center is a Christian nonprofit women’s homeless shelter in Anchorage, Alaska. Right now, we have some great news that we just received this week that they are now free to continue serving homeless women without the threat of looming legal action or even being shut down.

The reason why that threat arose to them was in January 2018, a drunk and injured man dressed in a pink nightgown tried to gain access to the Hope Center. During the day, the center does serve men and women by providing them with meals, laundry, and shower services, job skills training, and clothing. But in order to provide a safe space for homeless women, the shelter at night does only house women.

So when this intoxicated, biological man identifying as a woman came knocking on the center’s door after hours, the Hope Center sent the individual to the hospital to get the care he needed. They even paid for the taxi. But then the Hope Center faced a complaint from the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission claiming that the center had discriminated against this individual because of his gender identity. This appeared to be an attempt to attack the center’s Christian beliefs.

At that point, the Christian nonprofit legal defense firm Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in to help and they filed a lawsuit in federal court on the center’s behalf. In August, that court issued an order that temporarily stopped the city from misplaying this law against the Hope Center.

So, Emilie, I want to ask you, how big of a win is this, and do you think this is actually the end of this case or will there be maybe an appeal?

Kao: I think it’s a very big win, not only for the Hope Center but for similarly situated women’s shelters and other spaces for women around the country. I think it’s a great precedent. My understanding is that there was a settlement. So if there was a settlement, I don’t expect that this will be relitigated.

Evans: One thing that I’ve learned since this case has come out is that Anchorage actually has a higher than normal population of women who have been sex trafficked because it’s kind of a middle point between Russia and the United States. So … these women, they need a safe space.

How unique is this case, and are faith-based women’s homeless shelters under attack pretty much everywhere?

Kao: Unfortunately, this is not a totally unique case because we’ve also seen a case in California called Poverello House, I believe it is a secular women’s shelter, where the women were forced to shower with a man who was apparently making, they allege, lewd comments toward them in the showers.

It was actually the women in that case who sued because they did not want to be housed with a man and have to share intimate facilities with a man.

So I think that, unfortunately, wherever we see these laws that have sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to the other protected categories, there is the possibility that women’s safety and privacy will be compromised in spaces that used to be for their protection.

Evans: The name of the act is the Equality Act, and it puts, I think, our listeners and people who believe in religious liberty in a hard place when somebody is like, “Man, why aren’t you for equality?”

So what is kind of misunderstood about this case, and what are some talking points that our listeners can use when put in this hard place of wanting to love all people but wanting to protect women?

Kao: I think the term equality has been misused. I think that one basic thing you can say is that all people have dignity and deserve to be treated with respect. All people have equal status, but not all ideas have equal status. And we don’t have to agree on all ideas.

What the Equality Act would do is basically adopt a government orthodoxy on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, those two categories are distinct from many of the other categories that are protected in the Civil Rights Act. So if you think of race and sex, those are both biological and immutable traits. Gender identity is a person’s subjective perception of their own sex, which people have the freedom to believe that, but people also should have the freedom to disagree with that, to say, “Well, I think you actually are either a male or a female,” and they don’t believe in gender fluidity.

Then, the category of sexual orientation, again, that also involves a person’s behavior or their conduct, which we are free to have different opinions about behavior and conduct. That is not an immutable characteristic. So, unfortunately, what the Equality Act would do is it would lead to a government orthodoxy, and that will lead to the punishment of dissenters.

Some of those dissenters will be people who have religious convictions. Some of those dissenters will be people with moral convictions. And some of those dissenters, as we’ve seen from the women who oppose the Equality Act, their objections are based on science and based on concerns for women’s safety, and privacy, and equality.

So, unfortunately, the Equality Act would establish a nationwide orthodoxy and punish disagreement.

Allen: Emilie, with cases like the Hope Center case, do you see this as the left weaponizing anti-discrimination law and then using that to attack faith-based organizations?

Kao: I think that the treatment of people of faith over the past few years by the left, especially by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and actually some members of Congress, has been incredibly intolerant.

You look at some of the rhetoric, the way that they describe people like Jack Phillips, the baker from Colorado. In Colorado, some of the government officials compared him to a Nazi and a slave owner. When you look at the targeting of organizations, businesses like his, with boycotts and picketing and not only that but death threats, harassing phone calls.

That’s, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. We’ve seen that with many of the wedding vendor cases, many of the cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity. There’s been verbal harassment, and economic threats, boycotts, and also sometimes threats of physical violence.

So, unfortunately, I think our culture is at a point right now that the left’s intolerance of religious beliefs about sexuality, and marriage, and even sex differences is increasing. So the use of these laws to punish people for disagreement, I think, is part of an overall picture of increasing intolerance toward people who simply hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman and that there are two sexes, male and female.

Evans: Emilie, we talk a lot on the show about the Equality Act and these transgender issues, but at the end of the day, we’re blessed in the United States to have the First Amendment that protects our right to religious liberty. A lot of people in the world don’t have that First Amendment protection, and you [look at] a lot of issues talking about international religious freedom. And I know President Trump made a speech … at the U.N. about international religious freedom.

Can you give our listeners kind of an update about what’s going on around the world with these religious freedom issues?

Kao: President Trump gave a landmark speech and elevated religious freedom at the U.N. General Assembly to a level that it’s never been elevated before, which is very critical because the U.N. tends to downplay the importance of religious freedom even though over 80% of the world’s population lives under serious restrictions of religious freedom. So it really put the U.N. on notice and many of the countries that are the worst violators of religious freedom on notice.

I thought a particularly interesting part of the event that he held was to spotlight the survivors of religious persecution, and some people who were there had family members who are still in prison in places like China and Iran.

So I think that the Trump administration has added at the U.N. General Assembly to the work that it’s been doing for the past few years with the International Religious Freedom Ministerial Summit that Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback have hosted.

They’ve done a great job on building multilateral cooperation. Their summits have brought together government leaders from over 100 countries, and it has fostered more cooperation in places like the Middle East, and Asia, and Europe to combat religious freedom violations.

Allen: Emilie, I want to take just a moment to let you share a little bit about an event that’s happening at The Heritage Foundation next week. Earlier in the show, Lauren and I took some time to talk about the epidemic of child abuse through child pornography. And there is an event that you’re hosting next week at Heritage that addresses this crisis. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?

Kao: Thanks, Virginia. Yes, we are very concerned about this growing epidemic of children being sexualized by adults through culture, and education, and health care. Sometimes, this is actually as a result of government-led initiatives, which means that it is actually the use of taxpayer money.

So we will be looking at issues like pornography and trafficking, also the introduction of comprehensive sexuality education in public schools, the introduction of sexual orientation, gender identity curriculum, the transgender policies, and private facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms, and the increasing politicization of health care for children with gender dysphoria that’s leading to harmful treatments of testosterone and surgeries on children. So we will be bringing together thought leaders from around the country to discuss these issues with one another.

Hopefully, this will be a great way for parents to learn about what they can do. We’ll be introducing the national parent resource guide on the transgender trend, which is a very helpful tool for parents, gives them practical steps that they can take if a transgender policy is being introduced in their school district, ways that they can talk to their school, and it tells them what their rights are.

So we’re really looking forward to bringing together all of these experts from around the country to find solutions to this growing epidemic.

Allen: When is the event taking place, and how can people register?

Kao: The event is Wednesday, Oct. 9 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. They can watch online, and they can register on the Heritage website. We will have three panels on culture, education, and health care, in that order.

>>> On Wednesday, Oct. 9, The Heritage Foundation and Family Policy Alliance will co-host a Summit on Protecting Children from Sexualization to examine these issues in-depth. The summit also will debut the National Parents Resource Guide on the Transgender Trend. RSVP for the event or watch the livestream here.

We really encourage all parents to tune in at some point to this summit because it will give them an overview of how children are being targeted for sexualization, will give them practical tools to fight back, and it will introduce them to some of the federal and state policies that can help solve some of these problems.

Evans: If you are a podcast person, all Heritage events are turned into podcasts. You can listen to it. It’s almost immediate, usually takes an hour or two for us to get it uploaded. Also, a lot of the participants in the panel will be doing interviews with The Daily Signal, which will run throughout the week and probably into next week.

Allen: Thank you so much, Emilie, for joining us. We really appreciate your time and you sharing your expertise with us.

Kao: Thank you.

COLUMN BY

Lauren Evans

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

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Podcast: What to Expect in the New Supreme Court Term

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex.

Rep. Adam Schiff’s Impeachment History

Reactions to My Tweet Reveal the Ignorant Brutality of Young Socialists and Communists

The President Is Right: We Must Clean Up America’s Cities

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

Will the Queen of Corruption make a 3rd Run for the Presidential Crown?

/in , , , , /by

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” – Albert Einstein

“I like to see the difference between good and evil as kind of like the foul line at a baseball game. It’s very thin, it’s made of something very flimsy like lime, and if you cross it, it really starts to blur where fair becomes foul and foul becomes fair.” – Mystery author, Harlan Coben

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, former Clinton pollster Mark Penn predicted that Hillary Rodham Clinton would run as the “universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994.”  He actually guaranteed that she is going to make a third run for the presidential crown.  (That 1994 universal health care program Hillary dreamed up had a “gatekeeper” which made it rather difficult to get specialty care.  Congressional Republicans opposed the plan, the public saw it as too complex and bureaucratic, and her plan drew strong opposition from the drug and health insurance industries.)  She’s now on the bandwagon for single payer just like Obama and his communist friend from the past, Dr. Quentin Young.

Steve Bannon predicted that Hillary Clinton is running in 2020 and told Fox Business host Trish Regan, “I even think Hillary Clinton or Bloomberg or some centrist comes in here… She’s running. She’s just trying to decide how to fit her way in.”

Hillary has dreamed of being the President of the United States since she was in high school. She just can’t contemplate a life in which the media isn’t clamoring for her opinion.

So, is it just theatre for the masses by the Democratic socialist presidential candidates until Queen Hillary declares her candidacy and runs again?  Will they give up the spotlight for her because she was “cheated” out of the 2016 win?  Will Fauxcahontas Warren, who is now the frontrunner, bow to Hillary’s desire to run again?  Will they all genuflect to the Queen’s third run for the crown?  Or, will they say, “Nuh-uh…you tried twice, you’re done!”

Media attention is being showered on the Clinton women for their latest book, perhaps a perfect time to announce another presidential campaign.

Stephen Colbert Interview

Hillary and daughter Chelsea recently appeared on the Stephen Colbert show promoting their latest book, “Gutsy Women.” I’ve included only two of their many media appearances.  Watch as Hillary cackles through the entire Colbert interview.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful just once to see one of these nighttime hosts ask her about how she managed to make the Clinton Foundation so wealthy via “pay to play?”  And wouldn’t it be interesting to see her response to why she destroyed 33,000 emails with bleach bit?  And how about her destruction of several cell phones with a hammer?

Don’t forget the FBI examination of Clinton’s private home server which found over 100 emails containing classified information that the Chinese hacked in real time, including 65 emails deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret.” An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.

Oh, and don’t forget Donna Brazil feeding Hillary the questions prior to the debates with Donald Trump.  Top it off with her sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia’s Rosatom and FBI Director Mueller actually carrying a sample of same to Russian oligarchs for her.  And of course, there’s Benghazi, and Vince Foster, and Mena, Arkansas, and White Water and on and on and on.  No one in the mainstream media would dare ask her any of these questions.

The Washington Post reported that the probe into Hillary’s email server has just been revived by the State Department.

Watch her eleven-minute interview with Colbert and how she’s lauded by the host and the audience even when she knowingly prevaricates regarding President Trump and his phone conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Hillary claims that everyone has known for a long time that Donald Trump is a corrupt businessman, that he and his campaign asked for aid from Russia, and that the President is putting his own personal and political interests ahead of the national security of the country with the Ukrainian phone call.  This is why there is an impeachment investigation, although Pelosi has never called for a vote, and probably never will.

Colbert produced the document Hillary Clinton wrote regarding the 1974 impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon.  Roger Stone reported in his book, Nixon’s Secrets, that Judiciary Committee staffers confirmed general counsel and chief of staff to the House Judiciary Investigative Committee, Jerry Zeifman’s statements about Hillary.  He claimed that as a 27-year-old staffer, she tried to manipulate the political process and strip President Nixon of his constitutional rights to a fair hearing.  Both American Thinker and World Net Daily claim this is true.  However, leftist web and hoax sites claim Zeifman’s statements are untrue.

Whatever the truth, Hillary learned quickly that it pays to destroy incriminating evidence.

Jane Pauley Interview

On Sunday, September 29th, 2019, Hillary appeared on Jane Pauley’s CBS Sunday morning show.  Watch the 90-second video.

For a woman who lived through a valid impeachment in 1998 during the Clinton administration, she claims that given the latest revelation via the whistle blower, there should be an impeachment inquiry opened.

She contends that President Trump is extorting a foreign government for his own personal purposes.  Whoa!  Excuse me Hillary, but how many foreign governments paid you because you had power as the Secretary of State and could influence their futures? It was VP Joe Biden who actually “extorted” the President of Ukraine.  The record shows that between 2009 and 2013, and while secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is based in Kiev, Ukraine.

Obviously, Hillary believes it was okay for her husband, President Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore to contact foreign governments, i.e., communist Red China, for campaign contributions in exchange for nuclear secrets.  But a legal phone call to the Ukrainian president by Donald Trump is an impeachable offense.

Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make demands or offer promises.  The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to spies or other unelected officials in the executive branch.  President Donald Trump was completely within the powers of his office.

Saul Alinsky Effect

The left lies, and so does the right, but the left has mastered the act of accusing their enemies of doing exactly what they have done.  The old Marxist taught them well.

Saul Alinsky was a community organizer as was our former President, Barack Hussein Obama.  Alinsky claimed community organizers should be among other things, narcissistic, amoral and able to promote things they don’t believe in (in other words good at lying).  Obama learned only too well, and so did Hillary Clinton.  She met Alinsky in 1961 when her Park Ridge Methodist youth minister, Don Jones, took his class to meet Saul.  Alinsky’s methods and philosophy have had a profound influence on the politics of the United States. Recent history would suggest that this influence is just short of catastrophic.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was published in 1971 and is not so subtly taught in universities and colleges today.  Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley College thesis on Alinsky, interviewing him personally for her research.

The core of Alinsky’s method is destruction, destruction of the “system” that allows a disparity of wealth, i.e. individualism. There is little doubt that Alinsky’s idea of a better “system” is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism. The Alinsky end game is a global utopia in which the “people” have “power.” Unfortunately, this utopianism has been the foundation of several uber-violent movements of the last century which have resulted in over 100 million deaths.

Psychological Projection

The Democratic socialists and their comrades in the mainstream media use a tactic taught by Alinsky…to blame your enemy for what you have done.  This is psychological projection, sometimes called dissembling.

Almost everything the left says these days is projection. They accuse Trump of exactly what they’re doing, and Hillary is a master at this.  She said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”  This isn’t a message of unity. It’s a message of hate, and it’s lies.

Hillary Clinton hates Trump and every American who cast a ballot for the blue-collar real estate mogul.  She claims that Donald Trump will not be re-elected, and that many “funny things” happened in the election in 2016.  She says she won’t “accept” him remaining in office.

The entire left, including the mainstream media lies to America on a daily basis.  How many times have we heard that our President is a racist when his entire past proves he hasn’t a racist bone in his body…?  Their constant lies are the propaganda that serves to brainwash Americans.

The Stolen Election

As it stands now, there is not one Democratic presidential candidate who could best Mr. Trump. Hillary still believes the 2016 election was stolen from her; she can’t accept the loss.  In nearly three years after the votes were counted and the states were called, and months after Robert Mueller found no collusion with Russia, she still has the nerve to insist that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”

In 2016, during the third debate when Trump said he might not accept the election results, Hillary went berserk.  “That’s horrifying,” she replied. “Let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position.”

And three years later, who is the one still contesting the results and “talking down our democracy?”  (We’re a Republic, not a democracy.)

Conclusion

Graft, corruption, spying, and cheating were all part of the Democratic Party’s plan to elect Hillary Clinton as President.  The totalitarian actions of those who hated Trump destroyed the once smooth transition of executive power from one party to another.

The hatred for Mr. Trump went beyond anything this nation has ever seen.  The intelligence community, the entire Party of Democratic socialists, and the mainstream media refused to accept the results of the 2016 election and plotted the demise of our duly elected president.

If you think 2016 and the succeeding years were evil and depraved, if the Queen of corruption once again enters the race, there will be no holds barred.

Trump’s Enemies Keep Forgetting

/in , , , , /by

One of my all-time favorite songs is by my fellow St. Louisian, Michael McDonald, former lead singer of the Doobie Brothers.  “I Keep Forgettin’ (Every Time You’re Near), is from his first solo album which was released in 1982.

The song is about a man who was having a romantic affair with a woman and when it comes to an end; he can’t seem to accept the reality that its over.  He seems to get into an emotional rage every time he sees her or is reminded of her; even though he knows its over, it is hard for him to accept it.

According to the song,

“I keep forgettin’ we’re not in love anymore
I keep forgettin’ things will never be the same again
I keep forgettin’ how you made that so clear

Every time you’re near
Every time I see you smile
Hear your hello
Saying you can only stay a while<

Hey, I know that it’s hard for you
To say the things that we both know are true.”

This song could have very easily been written for the Democrats and never Trumper Republicans after the 2016 presidential election.

They can’t believe that Trump was elected president.  He wasn’t part of the “political” good old boy’s club.  He hadn’t “paid” his dues in either party.  He didn’t play all the conventional games leading up to a presidential candidacy.

And Trump definitely didn’t run on “conventional” issues.  He wanted to control both legal and illegal immigration; he wanted to remove the U.S. from endless wars; he wanted to punish China for stealing from America; and he questioned the raison d’etre of international groups like the United Nations and NATO.

Democrats and never Trumper Republicans keep forgettin’ why Trump was elected president; they keep forgettin’ things will never be the same again. They keep forgettin’ how the American people made it so clear.

Trump promised that he would put the American people first, not foreigners.  Trump promised to remove those living in the U.S. illegally.  Trump promised to greatly reduce the number of work visas that displaced American workers.  Trump promised to get America out of endless wars.  Trump promised to put America and its interest first; without consideration for how others feel.

Somehow, Democrats and never Trumpers keep forgettin’ why he is president.

It had much more to do with the American people’s dislike for Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans Trump defeated during the 2016 primary were pretty much all open borders, for America being the policeman of the world, and had a go easy on China policy.

Trump’s ascendancy was a direct repudiation of the status quo.  Trump’s defeat of Hillary was a totally rejection of the business as usual mindset.

The American people wanted someone who would stand and fight for American values, even if it meant not being popular anymore; even if it meant breaking with conventional norms; and yes, even if it meant going it alone.

In 2016, Americans felt like no one was looking out for the little guy.  Then Trump comes along and says, I agree with you; you have been screwed by both parties.  I understand your feelings.

Vote for me and I will fight for you.

When you look at today’s Democrat primary candidates, they seem to keep forgettin’ that Americans feel alienated; that no one is concerned about the state and quality of their lives.

They hear Democrats putting the interests of those in the country illegally above those who are American citizens.  They hear Democrats offering open borders to foreigners; they hear free healthcare to non-citizens; they hear free college tuition to non-citizens; and they see preferential treatment given to non-citizens in our court system.

So, the Democrats and never Trumpers response is to create phony impeachment charges against Trump.

Not to show American workers that their interest is of primary concern to their candidacy; not to stop supporting the importation of foreign workers to displace American workers; not to secure our borders and remove all those in the country illegally.

This is why Trump’s support is so strong among those who voted for him.  We are not stupid; we are not all bubbas; we are not ignorant and clueless.  We are willing to put up with some of the drama surrounding this president because we see him fighting for our interests.

When you remove those in the country illegally, American worker’s wages go up.  When you put tariffs on Chinese goods and services, it devastates China’s economy, forcing them to the negotiating table.

I can guarantee you that you have not seen one news story about how Trump’s tariffs have devasted the Chinese economy.  Yes, it’s hurting some U.S. businesses, but this is temporary.

So, to my media friends who seem incapable of understanding why Trump’s support is so strong and solid; let me ask you a few questions.

With Trump in the White House, why do you keep forgettin’ America does not want more of the status quo?

With Trump in the White House why do you keep forgettin’ things will never be the same again?

With Trump in the White House why do you keep forgettin’ that voters made that so clear in 2016?

RELATED ARTICLES:

President’s Proclamation Bars Immigrants Who Can’t Afford Health Insurance

Trump Doesn’t Want Small-Ball Nuke Deals. Here Are 3 Reasons He’s Right.

Justices Return for a Momentous Supreme Court Term

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Pagan Prayer and Tree Planting at the Vatican — Where is this all heading?

/in , , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

And yes, controversial is the most apt term to describe these proceedings.

For example, on Friday, which happened to be First Friday, Pope Francis oversaw a tree-planting, Mother Earth-worshipping ceremony in the Vatican Gardens performed by Amazonian natives.

A group of natives opened up a blanket representing Mother Earth and placed various little statues around the perimeter.

Then, a feathered female shaman lifted her hands in the air and began some prayer ritual to some deity, or Mother Earth, or whoever — but definitely not Jesus Christ.

As the female shaman prayed to whoever or whatever, the rest of the group knelt down in prayer or worship — again, not to Jesus Christ, Lord of the Universe.

The entire sham was covered over by saying the ritual was a consecration of the Amazon Synod to St. Francis, on whose feast day this abomination occurred.

The hijacking of St. Francis by the modernists in the Church and turning him into an effeminate garden ornament is one of the greatest spiritual crimes of the century, but that’s for another Vortex.

There was nothing, absolutely zero, Catholic about this pagan rite carried out just yards from where St. Peter was crucified upside down for the Faith, making this sacred ground.

And big-name modernist members of the hierarchy were present — Brazilian Cdl. Cláudio Hummes, leader of this synod, and Philippine Cdl. Luis Tagle, another supporter of the Church having an Amazonian face.

Of course, Pope Francis was present, who looked extremely awkward when the female shaman went over to him and slipped a black ring onto his finger.

That black ring is a tucum ring, and it actually has a double meaning; it’s part of the whole Mother Earth worship system, but it is also associated with liberation theology.

The shaman’s encounter with the Pope wrapped up with a pretty awkward fist-bump-looking exchange.

And if that wasn’t enough, the next woman pagan worshipper, carrying a wooden statue of a naked pregnant woman, didn’t even know how to make a proper sign of the cross.

But hey, if you’re going to have a Church with an Amazonian face, then you don’t need to know how to cross yourself, you just need your rattle and your Mother Earth blanket, as well as a hefty dose of pagan prayers.

Other gods being prayed to on holy ground, officially watched over by the successor of St. Peter, is yet another example of how far from tradition this pontificate has moved.

When a cardinal relayed to us last week that “there is no faith left in Rome,” he actually may have been understating the issue.

If only it was a question of just no faith.

This is pagan faith, worshipping not actually gods, since there are no other gods, but demons, as St. Paul warns the early Catholics in Corinth when the issue arose of eating meat sacrificed to idols: “I mean that what they sacrifice, [they sacrifice] to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons.”

Yet, this is precisely what a Church with an Amazonian face, to quote the non-stop blather emanating from the Vatican, looks like.

The likes of Cláudio Hummes are using the power of the Church to try and destroy the Church.

They have some non-Catholic vision of the Church being not tied to the same principles and truths that have been divinely revealed, or taught throughout the 2,000 years of sacred history, but rather a Church that takes on the appearance and practices of the world and local culture, whatever that looks like.

The Church has oftentimes adopted some local practices or customs from various cultures. The city of Rome itself is a testament to that.

When the Church was freed from persecution by Constantine, and eventually granted the city’s basilicas, which were government buildings, to be used as churches, they didn’t start worshipping the gods of Rome.

Aspects of Roman law and culture and so forth were slowly incorporated into the life of the Church as She emerged from being an underground Church, but She never prayed the prayers to the Roman gods.

What occurred in the gardens of the Vatican this weekend was pagan worship and prayers — period.

And any pretense that it was all fine and OK and no big deal is just that: a pretense.

In a way, it’s more than symbolic, the tree that Francis planted here and then stood in silent prayer before.

It’s a living symbol, a concrete expression of modernism, paganism, worldliness — all of them — boring their roots deep into the Church.

A future pope would be well-advised to grab hold of that tree one day and rip it up by its pagan roots.

Realize that we are going to have to suffer through all of this kind of stuff at least until the next Conclave, which doesn’t itself look too promising to bring any relief.

This past weekend, the Pope made 13 new cardinals, 10 of whom are under 80 and therefore eligible to vote for his successor.

Following Saturday’s elevation, the College of Cardinals is now, for the first time, stacked with a majority of Francis appointees — virtually, although not completely, guaranteeing that Francis II will be who walks out on the loggia at the next papal election.

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