Sharyl Attkisson is an Emmy award winning investigative journalist, host of Sinclair’s Sunday morning news program “Full Measure,” and author of the New York Times bestsellers: “The Smear” and Stonewalled.” Ms. Attkisson has compiled a complete collusion against Donald J. Trump timeline and published it on her website. This timeline is most valuable as it connects-the-dots from 2011 to the present.
I highly recommend you visit Ms. Attkisson’s collusion against Trump timeline to understand the who, what, where and why of what is now become known as “Spygate.”
Ms. Attkisson writes:
t’s easy to find timelines that detail Trump-Russia collusion developments. Here are links to two of them I recommend:
On the other side, evidence has emerged in the past year that makes it clear there were organized efforts to collude against candidate Donald Trump–and then President Trump. For example:
Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties.
But it’s not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these events.
Here’s a work in progress.
(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a correlation.)
As you are aware, some of our video is being used as evidence in several court trials of Disrupt J20 protesters. This is the video where we caught them planning to chain trains and put butyric acid in the ventilation system of the National Press Club. Right now, the protester’s lawyers are trying to get this damning evidence disqualified – which is the role of defense lawyers in cases like this.
What’s so terrible is the way the mainstream media is handling this – turning the legal issues into a propaganda campaign against us. Although we turned over the full video to law enforcement officials, Esquire, the Daily Beast and other outlets are twisting words to suggest or insinuate that we deceptively edited the video, even though this is the exact opposite of the truth.
Watch this video to see me challenge them for accusing us of deceptively editing video when we provided them the full footage. You will also want to watch this video to see me call them out and debunk their propaganda.
Can anyone tell me the last time a mass school shooter left a manifesto, a comment on social media, or a video where they said they were inspired to commit their atrocity … by a firearm. Name one. I’m sure you can’t and neither can I.
Because as much as the media love to pivot the conversation after a mass school shooting to gun control, the pen is still mightier than the sword. These kids aren’t being inspired by an innate hunk of plastic and metal laying on a table, they’re inspired by the infamous glory of past shooters who they relate to … and no entity on the planet does a better job whether directly or indirectly, of glorifying these killers, and thereby providing the inspiration for the next one … than our mainstream media.
You may hate guns and want to ban every single one of them, but even you know what I just said is true.
Attention seeking in this country is at an all time high and if social media has proven one thing, it’s that there are people out there willing to do anything for attention, even if it means slaughtering classmates they hate but letting the ones they like live so that they can tell their story to every mainstream media news outlet who are itching like fiends to be the FIRST to do a deep sea dive into the killers’ background.
As they see it, they get to leave a legacy of carnage, and the higher the body count the better—and we all know Wolf-Blitzer will be right there with the death toll counter keeping score.
While they’re doing all of that, the next mass shooter is quietly watching in envy as the guy who was just like him gets his name etched into the history books as he’s showered with attention and even love letters from women who would otherwise never acknowledge his existence. And this kid will be inspired to not only do the same thing, but to outdo the last kid and get as one high school student once said to me, “a higher score.”
It’s time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings, because it is killing our kids. It’s time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on our mainstream media’s ability to report on these school shootings.
There’s no need to cover these shootings for two weeks straight plastering the kids’ face over and over and over again. Pass a law stopping the media from reporting the killer’s name or showing his face.
You can still report on the shootings … we just need reasonable laws that place limitations on the glory and fame you give to these killers and their twisted motivations…
You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right.
That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment. Hearing me advocate for the government’s ability to limit anyone’s First Amendment rights, including the media, should anger all of you watching this video, the same way it should anger you when anyone tries to use the same limitations on the Second Amendment.
Here’s the thing. I do believe our mainstream media news outlets should hold themselves accountable in the way they cover school shootings. They should take into account how over reporting on school shootings inspires other shooters.
I honestly believe ignoring shooters and not giving them any attention will do more to stop school shootings than any gun control measure ever will.
However, I vehemently disagree with the government infringing on the media’s First Amendment rights the same way I don’t believe the government should infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
The solution to the problem we all want to solve will only come with a firm commitment to all of our rights—not just the ones you think are important.
The enigmatic Internet sensation never holds back or stays between the narrow lines of political correctness. As a NRA Commentator and the host of NOIR, his mission is to spread the facts about guns and hopefully change some minds. The practicing attorney, urban enthusiast and new face of gun culture didn’t pick up a firearm until later in life, and wasn’t pro-gun until the day he went to a range. “It was an eye-opener,” he said. The reality behind a firearm is, “It doesn’t have a soul, it isn’t evil, it’s just an inanimate object.”
Keep an eye out for new episodes of Colion’s show NOIR dropping year round here on NRATV.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/MSM.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2018-05-25 22:02:482018-05-25 22:12:18VIDEO: How to Stop the Media From Inspiring Killers -- #NoMSM
If you think it’s tough speaking up as an adult in today’s culture, try being a kid. Christian teenagers are swimming against a strong tide these days, but that hasn’t stopped Alexis Lightcap. The Boyertown student wants every classmate to feel safe — even if it means fighting school leaders to guarantee it.
Going to the bathroom at school shouldn’t be a life-changing experience – but that’s exactly what it became for Alexis the day she walked into girls’ restroom and saw a man’s face in the mirror. “My body went into immediate shock,” Lightcap writes in her new op-ed. “My first thought was to get out.” So she did. She raced down the hall to a teacher and didn’t look back.
“The teacher told me to tell the principal, so I did. And the principal did nothing.” Instead of listening to her concerns she said, “they made me feel like I was the problem for feeling uncomfortable, unsafe, and vulnerable with a boy in the bathroom.” Alexis couldn’t believe it. Neither could her parents — who, like most Boyertown families — had no idea the policy was in effect. The Lightcaps’ attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Christiana Holcomb, explained that the only ones that did seem to know were a couple of students who identified as the opposite sex.
“It felt like a specific group of people were protected while the rest of the population was not,” Alexis said. And thinking about her little sister having the same experience made her realize: if the school didn’t care, she had to make them. “You have a say in this world, and you need to speak up,” she remembered her adoptive parents telling her. “In that moment, I knew I had to do something.”
That “something” was joining a high-profile lawsuit against the school. Months earlier, a male classmate – known only as Joel Doe — had taken Boyertown to court. He was just as horrified as Alexis had been when he walked into the boys’ locker room and saw a biological girl in a sports bra and shorts. The administrator he talked to told him to “tolerate it” — to “make it as natural as possible.” Did they really think everyone would enjoy the surprise and just embrace this idea, Alexis asked? “No one prepared us, warned us, counseled us,” she wrote.
According to the people on the blogs and at the microphones, those of us who object to finding ourselves in private spaces with people of the opposite sex must be bigots, or religious extremists, to deny our peers who identify with the opposite sex their choice of restroom. I guess it’s always easier to label people than to think about where they’re coming from.
Alexis could have fought the policy anonymously. Instead, she decided, “I have a chance to speak up. I’m a representative for all those people who don’t have a voice.” No other girl, she vowed, should have to go through what she did. “It’s common sense that boys shouldn’t be in girls’ locker rooms, restrooms, and shower areas. Every student matters and schools should put our privacy, safety, and dignity first.”
Unfortunately for Alexis and the other 1,649 kids in Berks County, the courts don’t agree. This week, her case with Joel Doe made it all the way to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where, to everyone’s amazement, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Alexis and Joel didn’t prove that school was infringing on their “bodily privacy.” In an unusual move — rare enough that every newspaper covering the story seemed to notice — the court took less than an hour to rule. A stunned ACLU attorney on the other side told reporters, “We were not expecting a decision when we walked in the door today.”
Thanks to our friends at ADF, it may not be the last one. Although Alexis and her co-plaintiff are weighing their options, odds are the group will appeal to the full Third Circuit court. “The school administrators failed her,” Holcomb said. “She reported her concerns. She brought it to the adults in the room — the adults who should have been protecting her — and they ignored her.” One of the biggest problems in districts like Boyertown, she explains, “is that the policies are tailored to a small group of students at the expense of every other student at the school.” What families want are policies that protect everyone’s privacy, everyone’s dignity.
Meanwhile, if you want to know why President Trump’s judicial confirmations matter, kids like Alexis are exhibit A. Back in November of last year, the Senate sent reinforcements to the Third Circuit in the form of Judge Stephanos Bibas, the first White House pick to fill a vacancy on that bench. Two more are waiting in the wings — Paul Matey and David Porter, both strict constructionists who are waiting for their turn on the fast track of Senator Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) committee. Once they make it through the process (which, given the lightning-quick pace of this Senate’s confirmations, could be any day) maybe they can help inject some common sense into Alexis’s case.
In the meantime, we applaud ADF and these courageous students, who may be half the school administration’s age, but they sure have twice the wisdom!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been so ineffective at recovering species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has fabricated a record of success.
That’s the finding from Robert Gordon in a Heritage Foundation report.
New Heritage Foundation report highlights failures of Endangered Species Act
“The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been so ineffective at recovering species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has fabricated a record of success.”
Robert Gordon, The Heritage Foundation
Revealing a stunning record of failure and fabrication over nearly half-a-century, a new report by Robert Gordon of the Heritage Foundation calls for sweeping administrative reforms of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Enacted in 1973, the ESA has managed to “recover” only 40 species, or slightly less than one species per year.
“If not one more bird. beetle, or bear were added to the list of federally endangered or threatened animals and plants and somehow species recovered at 10 times that rate,” the report notes, “It would take well over a century-and-a-half to work through the current list. There is, however, no indication that the list of regulated species will stop growing.”
“Federally Funded Fiction”
Even worse, almost half of the “recovered” species – 18 out of 40 – are what Gordon calls “federally funded fiction.” It turns out that these 18 “recovered” species were never endangered in the first place and were placed on the endangered species list due to poor data. This, however, has not kept the Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) from trumpeting their “recovery” as a success.
“This deceitful practice portrays mistakes as successes, distorting the most important measure of the program,” Gordon writes. “It also triggers other mandatory actions further wasting taxpayer dollars, serves as a justification for the adoption of more restrictive land management practices by other agencies, obscures significant problems with the data used to justify listing species, and erodes the overall credibility of the Service and the program.”
Were it not for the incompetence and dishonesty of the FWS, the examples of phony recoveries cited in the report would be comical. The Concho water snake found itself on the endangered list, because the FWS determined that the construction of a reservoir would destroy its habitat. After the reservoir was created, the snake slithered right in, and its numbers thrived. Also, the FWS found that it had grossly underestimated the size of the snake’s range. In touting the success of the snake’s “recovery,” the FWS said the creature had faced “habitat modification and destruction” but refused to acknowledge that the water snake was never threatened.
Johnston’s Frankenia, a plant found only in a few counties in southern Texas, was put on the endangered species list in 1984. At the time, the FWS claimed there were only five population with about 1,000 plants and that they were facing “grazing pressure.” Subsequent surveys found about 4 million plants by one estimate – and over 9 million by another. While the estimate of 4 million was available by 1999, it took the FWS another 17 years to delist the plant.
Then there is the Maguire daisy, an example of taxonomic error. In 2011, the FWS triumphantly announced the delisting of the daisy in a press release titled. “[A]n Endangered Species Success Story,” stating that the “population of the daisy was known to number seven plants when it was listed as endangered in 1985 but now numbers 163,000 plants with 10 populations….It is the 21st species to be delisted due to recovery.” Gordon points out, however, that the larger numbers reflects more thorough surveys and “the fact that the Maguire Daisy and another plant that had been believed to be distinct were in fact the same species.”
Impact on Landowners and Businesses
“Even if a species should never have been listed, while it is listed, landowners or businesses whose actions might unintentionally harm a member are potentially subject to the ESA’s fines and penalties,” Gordon writes. The report’s appendix provides information on 100 listed species that were or may have been erroneously listed but remain regulated under the ESA as well as a number that are possibly extinct.
The ESA has been a mess for decades, wasting public and private resources while doing precious little for the plants and animals it is supposed to protect. In the absence of a thorough congressional overhaul of the broken law – something that is as desirable as it is unlikely – Gordon makes several recommendations for dealing with the ESA’s flaws administratively.
Among other things, he recommends having the Interior Secretary issue an order directing the FWS to accurately identify the data that form the basis for removing or downlisting a species. Also, the FWS should correct the record by identifying and revising the basis of delisting for those species that the FWS has wrongly declared to have recovered. In addition, FWS should be directed to aggressively pursue the delisting of species listed using erroneous data or that are extinct.
The meticulously researched Heritage report provides an overview of the sham that is the ESA. Bureaucrats at the FWS can spend a lucrative 30-year career overseeing the “recovery” of a grand total of two species while imposing land-use restrictions throughout rural America that harm humans and do next to nothing for wildlife.
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/DEAD-FISH.jpg406638Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2018-05-24 12:00:162018-05-24 12:00:16Endangered Species Act Fail
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper spilled the beans on Tuesday in an exchange with Joy Behar on The View that will undoubtedly make its way into the history books.
The question was whether the FBI had ordered undercover agents to “spy” on the Trump campaign in the spring and summer of 2016, well before Donald Trump had won the Republican nomination for president.
Here is the transcript:
Behar: … So, I ask you, was the FBI spying on Trump’s campaign?
Clapper: No, they were not. They were spying on, a term I don’t particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage and influence which is what they do.
Behar: Well, why doesn’t he like that? He should be happy.
Clapper: Well, he should be.
Clapper’s admission – for that’s what it was – was astonishing: the FBI had in fact infiltrated the Trump campaign and was spying on the candidate and his team.
That’s a first. And it’s on the record.
Remember all the indignation from the deep state when Trump claimed that the FBI had “wiretapped” Trump Tower? While Trump might not have used the term of art, he was right. He and his campaign were the targets of hostile U.S. government surveillance.
Clapper has tried to wrap himself in the flag, spinning his monumental admission as an effort to “protect” the Trump campaign from nefarious influence from bad Russian actors.
But such claims fall flat for one simple reason: whenever the FBI discovers through a counter-intelligence investigation that an American has been targeted by a foreign power, they almost always inform the American to warn them off.
I know. It has happened to me. (More on that below).
So when did the FBI warn the Trump campaign of the hostile Russian attempts to penetrate the campaign?
Certainly not in the spring of 2016, when the FBI detected the first effort to penetrate the Trump campaign by a suspected Russian agent, Joseph Mifsud.
How do we know this? Because in their cockamamie indictment of George Papadopolous, Robert Mueller’s legal team told us that a suspected Russian agent, code-named “the Professor,” twice approached Papadopolous in London with an offer to provide damaging information on Hillary Clinton obtained by the Russian government. Papadopolous then blabbed about the stolen emails at a bar with an Australian diplomat, an event the FBI claims “triggered” the investigation into the Trump campaign.
The next attempt to penetrate the Trump campaign came soon afterwards, when Stefan Halper, a long-time CIA asset, again dangled the Clinton emails to a Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page. As we learned on Wednesday, Halper also met with top Trump advisor Sam Clovis, in a failed attempt to insinuate his way into the campaign.
But Halper wasn’t acting on behalf of the Russians. As we learned just recently, he was an FBI mole.
Clapper wants us to believe that the intelligence community was protecting the Trump campaign and that the President should thank them.
But the truth is just the opposite. Once the intelligence community detected some type of approach by Mifsud – possibly by a Russian agent, possibly not –- they took no steps to notify Donald Trump or anyone involved in his campaign in order to “protect” our political process. Instead, they launched a classic undercover operation in an attempt to entrap campaign workers, and hopefully the candidate himself, into accepting Russian offers to help them against candidate Clinton.
But this also failed, because there never was any Russian offer. The Russia-collusion spin, jinned up in January 2017 by Clapper, Comey and Brennan, was just a sham, a deception to take our eyes away from what had really been going on.
They wanted to hide the sting operation. And no wonder: it’s called treason, a series of overt and covert acts aimed at overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States.
Who was behind the plot against Trump?
Clearly Clapper was involved; he has admitted as much. Senior officials at the FBI and the DoJ also were involved, but according to their accounts, not until they filed the first wiretapping request with the FISA court in late July 2016.
So what other U.S. intelligence leader would have the power and the authority to engage covert assets operating overseas in an operation against an American political campaign? Only one: CIA director John Brennan.
Both Brennan and Comey have been furiously attacking Trump in recent weeks, as Congressional investigators and the Department of Justice Inspector General gets closer to revealing their illegal acts. I believe they both should be indicted for treason.
In 1996, I was reporting on the Gore-Chernomyrdin commission, which the U.S. and Russian governments established to exchange information on (then) alleged Russian assistance to Iran’s ballistic missile programs.
One of my sources at the time was a Russian diplomat, ostensibly a press officer, who offered hard information on the Russian companies helping Iran that he said had been presented by the Russian government to Vice President Al Gore.
I suspected my “source” was an intelligence officer. But I was able to corroborate his information and found it to be genuine—if embarrassing to Al Gore, who was trying to downplay Russia’s involvement in Iran.
I was not terribly surprised when I got a call from an FBI agent, who asked to meet me in a public park in Georgetown. He proceeded to tell me that the Russian was an intelligence officer the FBI was keeping tabs on, and that I should be careful about his efforts to cultivate me.
I thanked the agent, and promised to let him know if the Russian ever pumped me for information (he did not). The Russian was later targeted by the FBI in March 2001 for his alleged involvement in the Robert Hansen case and quietly left the United States before he could be expelled.
That’s how the FBI is supposed to work. Under Jim Comey and his merry band of partisan hacks, it went woefully astray.
RELATED VIDEO: The latest edition of Inside Judicial Watch–with special guest Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) to discuss Robert Mueller’s career working in law enforcement–from the U.S. Attorney’s office to the special counsel investigation into alleged Trump/Russia collusion.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/170530080137-james-clapper-newday-5-30-e1527176187809.jpg360640Kenneth R. Timmermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKenneth R. Timmerman2018-05-24 11:37:002018-05-24 19:10:33Clapper Spills the Beans on 'SPYGATE’ -- It was all a set-up from the get-go!
Fr. Gerald E. Murray writes that the resignation of Chile’s bishops reminds us that removal of abusers from the priesthood is a necessary and unmistakable rebuke.
The surprise announcement by all the bishops of Chile of their submissions of resignations to Pope Francis is a stunning development. I did live television commentary for the Brooklyn Diocese’s NET TV of Pope Francis’ January apostolic voyage to Chile and Peru. At that time, we discussed, at length, the pope’s strong rebuke of people who accused Bishop Juan Barros of having enabled the sexual abuse of minors by his friend and mentor Fr. Fernando Karadima.
Five months later, the entire Chilean Bishops’ Conference, after a three-day meeting in Rome with Pope Francis, concluded that their collective departure would please him, and would allow him the greatest freedom to rebuild the confidence of Chilean Catholics by installing new bishops throughout the country. How did we arrive at this point?
At the press conference announcing the mass resignation, Bishop Fernando Reyes, the Secretary General of the Chilean Episcopal Conference, said:
In this context of dialogue and discernment, various suggestions were presented as to how to deal with this great crisis, and furthermore the idea developed that, in order to be more in tune with the will of the Holy Father, it was appropriate to declare our absolute readiness to place our pastoral charges in the hands of the pope. In this way, we were able to make a collegial gesture of solidarity to take responsibility – not without sorrow – for the grave things that occurred, and so that the Holy Father could freely decide how to proceed regarding all of us.
The Chilean bishops seem to have thought that the pope wanted their resignations. This turn of events was unthinkable back in January. What happened? Outrage by victims of sexual abuse and by ordinary Catholics exploded in Chile, combined with persistent media coverage of this conflict.
The pope took to heart the vehement reactions to his dismissive comments. He sent two outside investigators to Chile to gather evidence and report back. Then he called the Chilean hierarchy to Rome.
He then laid out the evidence gathered by his investigators in a letter (later leaked to the press) given to the Chilean bishops when they arrived in Rome. The manifest wrongdoing cited by the pope rings true, given similar experiences in other countries: destruction of evidence; transfer of accused priests without concern for the minors who would come under their influence; delaying tactics and superficial or non-existent investigations of complaints received, pressure put upon those carrying out the canonical investigation of alleged crimes; and the placement by bishops and religious superiors of priests suspected of being active homosexuals in seminaries and novitiates.
The investigators, it’s no surprise, discovered this familiar pattern in Chile. The self-reporting to Rome by the Chilean hierarchy in these matters was gravely deficient and even deceptive.
The lesson here is clear: if the Holy See wants to root out the sexual abuse of minors by clergy, and also put an end to the associated cover-ups by senior clergy and bishops, then it must use the same means in other places that it used here. Vatican designated investigators with no ties to the local church under investigation should be sent to gather evidence when complaints of sexual abuse and cover-ups are received.
The self-policing and self-reporting system has been shown to be completely inadequate in the Chilean case. The effectiveness of canonical provisions governing the handling of accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests depends on the full and vigorous cooperation of the local hierarchy. Absent that co-operation justice is not done. Such co-operation is often absent.
The sad reality is that the exposure of the crime of sexual abuse of minors and the widespread efforts by bishops and religious order superiors to hide the facts from the public was not the result of actions initiated by the Church herself. That exposure came by way of the police, the courts, and the media in various countries.
In the case of Chile, victims of sexual abuse only got a fair hearing in Rome by insisting on the truth of their claims in the face of both episcopal and papal rejection. Pope Francis decided to have another look at the matter and what he discovered is that he had not been given the complete story.
He should also review the record of the various Roman curial departments that were involved in monitoring the situation in Chile for the past thirty years. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith found Fr. Karadima guilty in 2011 of the sexual abuse of minors. He was forbidden to exercise priestly ministry and commanded to lead a live of prayer and penance. He is reported to still claim his innocence. Was this enough?
By not removing him from the priesthood and returning him to the lay state, the gravity of his crimes was not sufficiently recognized. As in the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel, who also was not removed from priesthood despite his multiple and grave crimes, a life of prayer and penance becomes the functional equivalent of forced retirement and does not deprive the sexual predator of the state of life that allowed him to have easy access to his victims.
Removal from the priesthood unmistakably rebukes him for the grave offense he has given to Christ and to Christ’s little ones, and also clearly communicates to the whole world that the Church considers him to have completely forfeited his right to exercise the office of the priesthood that he so badly misused.
Roman action on Chile was necessary and purgative. The Church’s mission is to uphold the Gospel. That includes doing all that is possible to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. This is not vengeance. This is justice.
And now is the time to take a similar look at other countries where there remain similar questions about the proper handling of accusations of sexual abuse and cover-ups.
Fr. Gerald E. Murray
The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.
The producer of the children’s film, “Show Dogs,” has pulled the film from theaters around the world and will recut it, removing two scenes that seemed to groom children for sexual abuse. This film is about a dog that goes undercover at a dog show competition – harmless enough except for the story arc where the only way for him to win and save the day was to allow unwanted touching of his genitals, while his coach practiced it with him and encouraged him to just go to his “zen” place. Yes…I know…it is hard to believe this was in a children’s film, to begin with. [Emphasis added]
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered. [Emphasis added]
The following is a graphic from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults” breaks down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In 2011, an astonishing 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 were from “gay” sex:
How pedophilia is becoming mainstream
We have reported on efforts by groups such as B4U-ACT and the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to indoctrinate children into believing that sex with men by children is not only normal but encouraged (watch the two videos below for a history of these groups).
Alfred Kinsey’s ongoing sexual anarchy campaign has no end in sight.
Matt Barber, associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, and I attended the “B4U-ACT” pedophile conference Aug. 17 . To eliminate the “stigma” against pedophiles, this growing sexual anarchist lobby wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation of “Minor-Attracted Persons.”
Adhering to the Kinsey principle of lulling “straights” into a false sense of security, pedophile dress was largely conservative – short hair, jackets, some ties and few noticeable male ear piercings.
Matt Barber and I sat in the back of the meeting room among roughly 50 activists and their “mental health” attending female enablers. “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies,” keynoted “Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., as founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic.”
However, the sex clinic was initially founded by John Money, Ph.D., to give judges “leeway” to keep child molesters out of jail. Money (deceased), a pedophile advocate, also called for an end to all age-of-consent laws. Dr. Berlin was his disciple.
Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek writes that God does not make us sin, although He permits us to choose sin. And our sins are the reason for the Incarnation of Christ.
Pope Francis is reported to have told a homosexual, “God made you that way and loves you.” In the last six months, I have responded to the miscarriage of a three-month-old baby, the sudden death of a hospice nurse due to an aneurism, and the terminal diagnosis of a middle-aged husband and father. In these situations, I have continually insisted on God’s love and providence. I have never said God made it happen.
One of the most astonishing features of the Biblical creation account is that the entire cosmos is declared “very good.” This flies in the face of human experience. In fact, the creation myths of many cultures hold that good and evil are inherent elements of human nature and the world order. It is the way things are made.
Genesis corrects this error by revealing that evil is not rooted in creation, but in humanity’s abusive decision to turn away from God, one another, and God’s created order through sin. At the same time, the account of the Fall of Adam and Eve unfolds in the context of God’s continual love and providential care in the face of sin and the evils unleashed by it.
The Scriptures tell the story of God opening a path to salvation that frees us from the effects of personal sin and the evils that befall us so that we might fully share His divine life through nuptial union with Christ. In Jesus, we discover that God foretold this saving union when He created the human race as sexually differentiated persons united in indissoluble marriage. (Mt. 19:56, Gen. 2:24, Is. 62:5, Eph. 5:31-32)
Despite the fallen nature of the human race and the cosmos, therefore, we can still affirm that God created us and loves us. But we cannot simply say, “God made me this way.” If “this way” refers to the image and likeness of the Trinity and the calling to be a member of the body and bride of Christ, then the statement is true. If “this way” refers to the ill-effects of the messed-up world or of our personal sin, then the statement is false.
God loves sinners, the handicapped, the sick, the mentally ill, the imprisoned, the enslaved, the abused, the starving, the doubting, the grieving, the dying, etc. In some cases, these people contributed to their situation, in others they did not. God loves them all, but He has not made them that way.
It can be said truly that God tolerates these situations since, evidently, He chooses not to enter into history to prevent these particular wrongs from happening. The nature of this toleration, however, warrants our careful attention. It is not indifference, acceptance, or welcoming. It is a “bearing with” (Latin: toleratio) or a “suffering with” (Latin: compassio).
The full revelation of God’s compassionate toleration of sin and the effects of evil is found in the passion, death, and glorification of Jesus. Precisely because Jesus loved us with the Father’s love, He carried in his humanity the burden of all the ill that we do and that we bear. In doing so, He made our innocent and culpable sufferings a place of encountering God and his love, that is, a place of conversion, healing, and communion.
God brings about our salvation, our “well-being” (Latin: salus), not by preventing, denying, or eradicating evil at each moment, but by fundamentally altering our relation to it through our union with Christ. He thereby enables us to carry and suffer every form of evil that afflicts us and others without entering into further sin.
This is the Good News we have been sent to live and to proclaim: “God did not make us the way we are and He loves us. That is why He carried the burden of the sins and evils that distort our lives and invites us to carry that burden with him. He wishes to espouse us to himself so that we might share his divine life now and forever. And I love you enough to tell you this.”
Experiencing same-sex attraction, being divorced by a spouse, feeling a compulsion to abuse others, having an addiction, and the myriad of other troubles of body, psyche, and soul that we face as members of the fallen human race are not made better by being declared the handiwork of God. Nor, of course, are they helped by being treated as sins if we have not deliberately willed them or if we have repented of the sin that gave rise to them.
What is helpful, indeed the only thing ultimately able to sustain us, is the truth about our fallen, sometimes sinful, condition and the union that God offers us in Christ. That union requires, as Jesus said, that we take up the Cross daily. We do so by acknowledging our sins, our distorted inclinations, the burden of evil in our lives and the lives of those we love, and by carrying those with Christ who first carried them for us. Because of this union, we can carry these burdens without yielding to sin.
That is the Gospel. It is not something to hide or to evade. We are called to announce it unambiguously to the world. Consequently, when our witness to Jesus is misunderstood we are obliged to take reasonable steps to offer a correction.
Were a priest to be misquoted about the Gospel in the local paper or by a parishioner publicly recounting a private meeting, the priest would need to remedy the error. I have myself faced this situation.
The solution is simple and involves no accusation of deception or violation of confidence. A priest need only say, “The position attributed to me is mistaken. It mischaracterizes (or contradicts) the Gospel of Christ that I profess. I regret any misunderstanding and am happy to clarify the matter.”
To do less would harm those misled by the report. Besides, my brother, a priest, would charitably but firmly insist on it.
Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek
Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, STD has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently pastor of parishes in Gatesville and Hamilton. His doctoral studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Lorenzo_Lotto_-_Christ_and_the_Woman_Taken_in_Adultery_-_WGA13709-e1527154003250.jpg401638The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2018-05-24 05:27:192018-05-24 05:36:44Good News: God Didn’t Make This Mess
Before resigning to run for Congress, the mayor of America’s fifth-largest city gave a political open-borders ally millions of taxpayer dollars to complete a job in an area it suspiciously has zero experience in. Under the shady deal, the radical La Raza group Promise Arizona (PAZ) will receive $2.4 million from the city of Phoenix to conduct “Business Assistance” during construction of a light rail extension.
Some Phoenix City Hall insiders believe it’s a payoff by the outgoing mayor, Greg Stanton, to support his upcoming congressional run. Stanton, who will resign on May 29, and PAZ Director Petra Falcon are close political allies fiercely opposed to immigration enforcement and border security.
“PAZ has zero experience in business anything,” said a veteran Phoenix official. Another Phoenix government staffer called it a prime example of race-based political payback. “PAZ is no more qualified to provide economic development input than a fox is fit to provide chicken and egg care for a henhouse.” Judicial Watch reached out to Stanton’s office for comment, but messages went unanswered.
PAZ’s mission and accomplishments indicate that it is not qualified for the Phoenix job. The $2.4 million are supposed to go to an organization or firm that assists businesses along the new rail line with building and marketing strategies.
“The grant will fund comprehensive, proactive business assistance that will include business owner workshops, detailed inventories and needs assessments of the businesses in the corridor, and development and implementation of individual business assistance plans,” according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
“In addition, the grant provides the resources to engage and work with the community to gather extensive input and understand perspectives on the current and desired conditions of the station areas to generate a long-term vision for the corridor. The visioning work will be captured through interactive design workshops that will yield conceptual urban design plans for the areas surrounding each station.
The community engagement, visioning, urban design work, and an action plan will be documented in a TOD policy plan specific to the South Central corridor, which will serve to attract, guide, and prioritize strategic investments in infrastructure, housing, economic development, and other areas to achieve the shared vision for the future.”
PAZ’s specialty is “building immigrant and Latino political power” that it claims brings hope, dignity and progress. In fact, the “who are we?” question on is website is answered like this: “Promise Arizona has been at the forefront of the fight for immigrant rights for 5 years.”
The organization strives to promote and harness the power of the Latino community in Arizona, according to its website. “Promise Arizona aims to unite the millions of Arizonans who reject the divisive politics of immigrant-baiting, millions who believe in treating their neighbors with fairness and dignity,” the group proclaims. Among its goals is “training businesses and individuals about the values of open borders, sanctuary cities and divisive race-based politics.”
PAZ recently sued the federal government to keep an Obama amnesty program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Its website openly recruits young Latino and immigrant leaders who are ready for action, grounded in a history of social movements. When Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled recently that DACA illegal aliens could no longer receive discounted in-state tuition at public universities and colleges, Falcon said “this ongoing assault on immigrants is destroying our communities, especially our vulnerable immigrant families, and it has to stop.”
There’s no other sensible explanation for PAZ receiving the “Business Assistance” grant other than its director’s close political ties to Stanton, who steered the public funds her way. There is a stark difference between PAZ and the other company, Callison RTKL, that submitted a bid for the grant money to help businesses through the rail construction.
Callison’s expertise includes architecture, brand building, change management, workplace strategy and environmental graphic design. The reputable firm’s projects include revitalizing a neglected area in Shanghai, overcoming challenges in a Washington D.C. office building, the transformation of a northern California medical center and a multitude of national and international projects.
There is no comparison between Callison and PAZ. Nevertheless, led by Mayor Stanton the Phoenix City Council passed a measure last week to give PAZ $2.4 million to perform a job it clearly isn’t qualified to do.
Last year Judicial Watch exposed another outrageous allocation of taxpayer dollars by the city of Phoenix. In that case public funds helped pay for a controversial billboard depicting President Donald Trump as a Nazi. The massive billboard caused a ruckus when it was unveiled in downtown Phoenix Arizona last year because it features a menacing portrait of Trump surrounded by mushroom clouds—in the shape of laughing clowns—and swastikas modified as dollar signs.
A pin of a Russian flag appears on the president’s lapel. Judicial Watch uncovered records that show the billboard was commissioned by an “arts advocate” who gets thousands of dollars in grants from the city, in part to organize an annual art event where the offensive billboard made its debut. The publicly funded annual art celebration is touted as having “a diverse slate of activities created by local artists and art venues to celebrate the growing, vibrant Phoenix arts scene” and is described as “…one of the most important events in Phoenix’s calendar” by Mayor Stanton.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Greg-Stanton.jpg361640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2018-05-23 18:06:592018-05-23 18:06:59Phoenix Mayor Gives La Raza Ally $2.4 Mil Before Leaving to Run for Congress
One of the more despicable Congress-critters is Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a man with utter contempt for Truth. He was on Tucker Carlson Tonight Monday evening pushing for confiscation of AR-type rifles and spinning like a dervish with rocket boosters. But let’s forget that while Swalwell wrote an op-ed calling for gun confiscation, it’s not really confiscation, according to Swalwell. Let’s forget that what he labels “assault weapons” are just semi-automatic rifles that happen to have a military-style appearance (much like putting a Porsche body on a Hugo chassis). Let’s forget that he claimed his AR-species confiscation plan would “keep kids safe,” ignoring that the most recent shooting, in Santa Fe, was perpetrated with a .38 pistol and a shotgun. Most significant is that, amidst his pseudo-Machiavellian babbling, he contradicted himself and refuted his own argument.
Pointing out the congressman’s more-equal-than-others status, host Tucker Carlson repeatedly asked Swalwell if he would restrict his own bodyguards, the Capitol Hill Police (CHP), to the same weapons to which he’d limit Joe Six Pack. Practice what you preach, right?
Aside from using the spurious diversionary argument of saying that Carlson was “denigrating” the police by likening them to bodyguards (hmm, in doing so, wasn’t the congressman denigrating bodyguards?), Swalwell also repeatedly said that he wouldn’t agree to limit the CHP because he, the man passionately proclaimed, doesn’t want our cops “outgunned.”
Did you get that?
Question: If outlawing AR-type rifles actually could get them out of bad guys’ hands, then how could the police be outgunned without them?
Perhaps Swalwell knows in his heart (and head?) that his proposal wouldn’t suffice to deny these weapons to criminals. It’s as if he’s tacitly admitting that he’s just a lying, power-hungry sack of excrementitious ambition and hot air. Below is the Tucker Carlson Tonight segment with the congressman.
Of course, another explanation is that such contradictions inevitably occur when, instead of seeking Truth while formulating opinion, you play games and just disgorge whatever sophistic argument you think will work at the moment. And as the above segment evidences, Swalwell is the epitome of this demagogic practice.
In reality, gun grabbers have completely departed from reality. I’m old enough to remember when the Left’s gun-control obsession involved banning handguns. I disagree with doing so, but at least that proposal has some relationship to crime: Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders in 2016 as all rifles combined.
Amazingly, even the Swalwellian New York Timesadmitted this in its 2014 piece “The Assault Weapon Myth.” The paper pointed out that in 2012, only 322 people were killed with rifles of any kind and that even prior to the 1990s Assault Weapons™ ban, such firearms were used in only 2 percent of the nation’s gun crimes (this hasn’t changed). Moreover, credible studies show that the ban did not serve to reduce gun violence, the Times also informed.
The point? Do you think leftists would stop at banning a class of weapons (AR-style ones) used in almost no crimes and not move on to a class (handguns) used in most gun crime? As admitted by Esquire editor Dave Holmes in a recent article titled “Okay, Now I Actually Do Want to Take Your Guns” and by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens when he proposed in March repealing the Second Amendment, the Left ultimately wants all firearms banned. They just plan to accomplish this via incrementalism, stealing away our freedoms inch by inch.
They generally don’t admit this, though, because they’re Swalwellian — which is another way of saying they’re liars.
After a long, cold winter in many states, Americans are ready for summer, anxious to start the season. With picnics, cookouts and pool parties on many calendars, shoppers will be headed to stores to pick up last-minute items, barbecue fare and summer supplies.
AFA is reminding shoppers this Memorial Day week to steer clear from Target, which remains committed to its dangerous and misguided bathroom and fitting room policy.
Last month, AFA marked two years of the highly successful and effective #BoycottTarget initiative, which has garnered the signatures of more than 1.5 million Americans who say they won’t shop at the retailer until it makes restrooms and changing areas safe for everyone, including women and children. After a dismal downturn in revenue, stock prices and foot trafficover the past 24 months – and, more importantly, many traumatic and criminal incidents in Target restrooms – the retailer refuses to change the policy.
Target executives still won’t acknowledge that the powerful #BoycottTarget movement has anything to do with waning business. But we know better. Millions of shoppers and thousands of families no longer spend their hard-earned money at Target. There is strength in numbers and this significant community is making a difference. The refusal of shoppers to patronize Target sends a message to shareholders and Target executives that morals mean more than convenience and safety outweighs personal preference when it comes to shopping at what once may have been their favorite store.
Just as important, besides not shopping at Target for Memorial Day or anytime this summer, we remind shoppers to steer clear from shopping online at Target as well. Clicking through purchases may seem ‘safer’ than entering stores with dangerous bathroom policies, but shopping online still drives revenue to Target. It’s clear that families who have chosen to shop elsewhere – both in-store and online – are making a huge difference.
Help us push the numbers to 2 million! You can take action in several ways:
SIGN—If you haven’t already, sign the #BoycottTarget pledge. If you have signed, keep the commitment not to shop at Target stores or online.
SHARE—Ask family, friends and church members to sign the pledge. One effective strategy is to voice concerns politely but firmly on Target’s Facebook page and other social media sites using #BoycottTarget.
VISIT—Go to afa.net/Target to keep up with news and to read some of the frightening incidents that have occurred at Target.
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/men-dont-belong-in-girls-bathrooms.jpg360640American Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmerican Family Association2018-05-22 18:56:192018-05-22 18:56:19Stay 'Off Target' for Summer Shopping
Rome is “Babylon, the Great, the Mother of Harlots (other false churches) and Abominations” in Revelation 17 with clues that can only fit the papacy in the city of seven hills as a harlot in bed with kings and riding the beast that represents the UN–New World Order, says Dr. Richard Ruhling, author of The Alpha & Omega Bible Code and other books on Amazon.
The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, Lev 18:22, and it calls Babylon (Rome) “the habitation of devils” (worship of Lucifer who was cast out of heaven, seen here–
It is no wonder that the pope calls the Bible “a very dangerous book” (Google) because it unmasks the papacy as a false religion that millions follow in ignorance. “The times of this ignorance God winks at” but a time of judgment is impending when everyone should make their choice in light of the Bible, Acts 17:30. Why not share a link to this article with your email list, it might save a soul
Yes, God loves everyone—gay people included, but He cannot change the rules—He will save those who repent and ask His help to live right, but He cannot overlook or excuse sin as the pope does. This is why the Bible condemns the system so plainly for those who wish to know.
The papacy was foretold as the ‘little horn’ that grew out of the Roman Empire (4th beast in Daniel 7) that changed times and laws (verse 25) For example, the 7th day is no longer the Sabbath in half of the world where Monday is the first day. Sabbath as the day of worship in the 4thCommandment (Exodus 20) This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Daniel 7:25 also shows the little horn (papacy) persecuting the saints. The “auto de fe” (act of faith) was to burn “heretics at the stake”—they claimed it took faith to do the right thing. Christ said, “Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, my brethren, you have done it to Me,” Matt 25:40. God forces no one—Christ died to save all, and He will do so for those who ask Him for help to repent and live well. Paying the priest and seeing him again a week later for forgiveness brings no victory, as the lives of those priests testifies re pedophilia.
Daniel is the only book that Christ recommended when asked about the end of the age in Matthew 24. The book of the Revelation of Christ had not been written yet. For a better understanding of these books, the reader is invited to get a free copy of The Alpha & Omega Bible Code that has mostly 4-5 star reviews–this Saturday, May 26th.
If Saturday, May 26 has an earthquake in the news, it is likely a warning of a larger one to hit May 31 as explained here.
There is an old axiom in poker which says, “When your opponent is sitting there holding all the aces, there is only one thing left to do, kick over the table.” In other words, if you know you cannot possibly win, it is time to change the rules of the game. Coincidentally, this is the philosophy of progressive Democrats as we approach the 2018 mid-term elections, particularly as it applies to voting.
There was a time when we respected the integrity of a citizen’s vote. Originally, only land owners were given the right to do so, based on the premise they would be responsible voters. This changed over the years to allow any citizen to vote, assuming they were registered. This included people of all races and socioeconomic conditions, women, and even youth (18 years of age).
To encourage people to vote, the political parties helped register voters, as well as provided transportation to get people to their voting precincts, all perfectly legitimate. This started to change though as people began to dig up names from the cemeteries and have the dead vote, or encouraged people to vote multiple times in different precincts, all of which, of course, is illegal. However, such shenanigans are reaching new absurdities as we approach the 2018 mid-term elections. For example:
The electoral college devised by our founding fathers is a brilliant way to balance voting between our rural and metropolitan communities. By doing so, candidates are forced to appeal to both groups, not just one. However, the Democrats do not appreciate this (or understand it) as they blame the college for electing Mr. Trump president, and not Mrs. Clinton who won the national popular vote.
To overcome this problem in the future, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was created to have a state award its electoral votes to the candidate winning the popular vote in the country, not their own state. Even if the popular vote in the state went to one candidate, they would have to award their electoral votes to possibly another candidate winning the national vote. In other words, you are allowing the country to make the decision for you, not the people of your state. If this sounds unconstitutional, it probably is and will likely be challenged in court.
To date, eleven states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation to participate in this program, including: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Yes, these are all strongholds for the Democrats, certainly not Republicans.
I will find this all particularly amusing if Mr. Trump wins the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election, whereby they would be compelled to award their electoral votes to the president, and not the Democrat candidate they voted for.
There is a movement afoot to give felons the right to vote. We have seen evidence of this in New York, Louisiana, and Virginia, but many other states are looking into this, including Florida. The premise is to allow convicted felons, who have been released and are still on parole, to vote. In other words, their sentence is not yet completed, yet Democrats want to give them the right to vote. It’s one thing for the criminal to regain his/her rights following completion of their sentence, quite another to be allowed to vote while under such term of sentence. The Democrats are pushing for this as they believe it will cause the criminals to vote for their candidates.
Voter identification has long been a bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans. Whereas the GOP wants to assure the integrity of the vote, Democrats claim it is a racist attempt to prevent minorities from voting.
One new twist to this recently emerged in Chicago which has produced a new identity card available to anyone, including illegal immigrants, allegedly to allow residents to use public transportation. However, it has been confirmed the new card will be accepted as identification when voting. In other words, you do not need to prove your citizenship in order to vote in the City of Chicago. Watch for other cities controlled by the Democrats to follow suit.
Lowering the Voting Age
Back in 1970, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. The thinking at the time was that if a young person was old enough to serve in the military, he/she should be allowed to vote. At first, this was embraced by young people, but over the years, their voting record can be described as “spotty” at best.
However, a new movement is underfoot with the Democrats attempting to lower the voting age to 16. It is slow in taking root, but the Democrats became inspired following the recent march on Washington in support of gun control by young people.
The big question of course is whether 16 year olds are knowledgeable and mature enough to vote responsibly, or will they just be a pawn of the Democrats and news media. Frankly, I’m surprised they stopped at 16, and didn’t seek the vote of 12 year olds for the same purposes.
Again, this is all being staged to embrace the ideology of the Left and secure votes for Democrats.
Voter Fraud Commission
Shortly after assuming office, President Trump appointed the Voter Fraud Commission chaired by Vice President Mike Pence. The purpose was to investigate voter fraud. Unfortunately, states controlled by the Democrats resisted and refused to hand over data from the 2016 Election to the commission, thereby making it impossible to verify any wrong-doing. So strong was the opposition by the Democrats, one could only suspect something was indeed wrong. Nevertheless, because of their refusal, Mr. Trump cancelled the commission in January.
It appears to be rather obvious the progressive Democrats are desperate for a win in the Fall. As I have said repeatedly, their future is in peril should they lose in either chamber of the Congress this year, which is why they are pulling out the stops and going to any lengths to win. This is so flagrantly obvious, it makes you wonder why there isn’t a national uproar over this.
The left cannot possibly win playing fair, which explains why they have a full court press on to change the rules. As such, they will concoct any scheme to usurp the rule of law and sanctity of the ballot, to win, which is why I refer to this as “Fake Votes.”
They are not interested in winning fairly and squarely, but any way possible, legal or otherwise. In other words, they are willing to kick over the poker table instead of suffering through the embarrassment of another loss.
Let’s hope American voters wake up to this soon before we no longer recognize the American electoral system.
Keep the Faith!
RELATED VIDEO: Democrats’ Desperate Need for Black Slaves.
One of the most egregious examples of bureaucratic overreach occurred in the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Rather than focus on the U.N. General Assembly’s mandate to “promote and protect” the effective enjoyment of fundamental human rights that are in the texts of treaties, this U.N. office launched the Free and Equal campaign.
This highly visible and well-funded global campaign aims to socialize same-sex marriage, criminalize so-called “hate speech,” and normalize transgender ideology, even though the terms sexual orientation and gender identityare not in the text of any U.N. treaties.
This campaign is not only a massive overreach by U.N. bureaucracy, but it threatens to silence public debate on controversial topics like marriage and sexuality throughout the world.
So is sodomy bad when Catholics “systematically” adopt policies allowing priests to sexually abuse thousands of children, but it is perfectly fine when the United Nations “systematically” does the same?
Kao and Melton note:
The United States Supreme Court is currently considering the case of a Christian cake artist whom Colorado ordered to endorse same-sex marriage by designing a custom wedding cake despite his religious objections.
The U.K. Supreme Court is hearing a similar case. None of these individuals turned someone away because they identify as LGBT; rather, the conflicts were all the result of disagreement over the definition of marriage.
No state, much less the unelected U.N. bureaucracy, should compel a person who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman to endorse something they believe is untrue because of pressure from a politically powerful identity group.
Unfortunately, this campaign is just the beginning. Charles Radcliffe, Free and Equal’s founding director, has stated that a dozen U.N. agencies have made public commitments to advance sexual orientation and gender identity policies in individual member states and that more than 100 countries have implemented changes in their domestic laws in response to U.N. sexual orientation and gender identity recommendations.
Should the United States “sanction” the United Nations for its policy in the name of equality to allow the sexual abuse of children globally? You be the judge.
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TWO-FACED.jpg362640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-05-22 06:15:322018-05-22 08:27:28The Two Faces of the United Nations