Silicon Valley is known as a mecca for left-wing progressives but evidence keeps growing that Big Tech really despises conservatives.
A crisis of conscience prompted Zach Vorhies, a Google senior software engineer, to go to James O’Keefe at Project Veritas – first anonymously, but now publicly – with hundreds of documents that prove the anti-conservative bias at the search engine behemoth.
Vorhies told O’Keefe that conservative news sites have become the latest target.
“This is a blacklist,” he said of the targeted sites, “one of many blacklists that are at Google.”
Google’s influence on the Internet is staggering — it averages a couple hundred million searches per hour — but the rogue Google engineer advised that blacklisting blocks websites such as The Christian Post and The Daily Caller beneath the Google search bar.
Among other organizations targeted are The Gateway Pundit and LifeNews, and conservative talk hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Google is also playing god with the Left, too, restricting access to liberal groups such as Media Matters on the basis that it promotes only “mainstream” news organizations via its Google News service.
If any liberalism survives, we need to return to classic liberalism that stood on the liberal exchange of ideas
For America to survive, we must conserve our once liberal thought: a freedom of sharing information and advancement of civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.
Google obviously does not believe enough in the persuasive power of its own side’s ideas enough to promote those ideas. Rather, Google chose to blacklist political commentators, bloggers, and news organizations who seek the truth rather than cover for Democrats. Luckily, there is a whistleblower at Google and several honest news outlets available through Project Veritas and Christianity Today, who provided the blacklist.
Once you have seen the list, you might consider how Google’s side includes gaffe machine Joe Biden, wild-haired Bernie, and Lie-a-watha — then you might start to understand why Google chose to undercut the competition rather than try to argue for their own side.
Although I will always forcefully advocate for Christianity, I will also fight for everyone else’s freedom to err. I am following my God and my God is a gentleman who does not force Himself on the unbelieving. Unlike Google and advocates of Sharia law, I will follow God’s model.
Radical Muslims said they just wanted a place at the American table, but now they want to eliminate Jews and those who do not believe in Islam
Report: Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib display more anti-Semitism
Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) both reportedly shared an antisemitic cartoon by an artist who participated in Iran’s Holocaust denial contest on their respective Instagram accounts on Friday, according to Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon.
Ungar-Sargon noticed that Omar and Tlaib had each shared the image on their Instagram “stories.” Both were barred from entering Israel Thursday because of their support for the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement. Tlaib then applied for a humanitarian visa so she could visit her grandmother in a Palestinian village, promising not to promote boycotts of Israel while traveling there. Her request was granted, but she then turned down the offer Friday, claiming that Israel was trying to silence her.
The cartoon Omar and Tlaib reportedly shared shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his hand over Tlaib’s mouth, and U.S. President Donald Trump with his hand over Omar’s mouth. Both leaders are shushing the congresswomen. A Star of David — the symbol of the Jewish faith — appears in the center of the image, implying that Jews are responsible for the act of silencing.
The image is antisemitic on its face. The theme of Jews controlling world leaders, who in turn do their bidding, especially in suppressing criticism, has been a common theme in antisemitic propaganda since Nazi Germany, and remains a frequent feature of antisemitic cartoons in the Arab and Muslim world. The New York Times faced criticism for a similar antisemitic cartoon it published in its international edition in April.
Making matters worse, as Ungar-Sargon pointed out, is the fact that this particular cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, won second place at a contest held by Iran in 2006 at which contestants drew caricatures denying the Holocaust. The contest was held in response to a Danish newspaper’s contest to draw images of Mohammed, which is prohibited by Islamic law, to challenge the self-censorship of Western media. Iran has promoted Holocaust denial as official policy; its president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was notorious for his habit of denying the Holocaust.
If bad company corrupts good morals, what will the bad company of Hamas supporters and Miftah (who proudly praised female suicide bombers and pushed the medieval blood libel). Why haven’t we heard of the pride of Miftah, one of whom killed 13 Israeli children on a bus or another who killed multiple children in an Israeli pizza parlor? Since this is the group that would have led both you (Tlaib) and your friend (Omar) on your tour, why haven’t we heard of this group?
Also don’t forget how she refused to back down from her first tweet and added in a response to a detractor:
Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.
In February, she tweeted (but subsequently deleted) “It’s all about the Benjamin’s, baby” in reference to her false claim that a pro-Israel group was bribing Congress. Later, she tweeted a complaint that she should not have to “pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” (To this, I would remind the woman that it is in the interest of this republic to support the only democracy in the Middle East. Additionally, we benefit from ongoing friendliness toward us — as opposed to the antagonism of Syria, Iran, and other Islamic states — and their prosperity.)
Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a fo… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
One fact reportedly “whitewashed” by the mainstream media in all its coverage about the trip Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) planned to Israel is that it was sponsored by an Islamic terrorism-supporting group.
The two Muslim congresswomen did not plan their trip via the conventional bipartisan route.
“The most important element of the story is the fact that two American congresswomen shunned a bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel to go on an independent trip to Israel sponsored by vicious anti-Semites,” National Review reported. “Another important element of the story is that – as of [Friday] – the mainstream media have whitewashed Omar and Tlaib’s vile associations.”
The Washington Examiner reported that only one of seven Associated Press reports on the Omar-Tlaib Israel visit mentioned Miftah, with the six others merely calling it a Palestinian advocacy group – similar to reports by the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post both referred to Miftah as “a nonprofit organization headed by Palestinian lawmaker” with the latter associating it to “longtime peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.” Reuters, ABC News and Yahoo did not mention Miftah’s anti-Semitic nature and Bloomberg News omitted its mention entirely.
The group celebrates terrorists, including an evil woman who helped murder 13 Israeli children. In an article titled “Let Us Honor Our Own,” a Miftah contributor describes Dalal Al Mughrabi as “a Palestinian fighter who was killed during a military operation against Israel in 1978” and as one of the Palestinian people’s “national heroes.”
The so-called “military operation” is more widely known as the “Coastal Road Massacre,” a bus hijacking that resulted in the deaths of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
Al Mughrabi is hardly the only terrorist Miftah celebrates. It described female suicide bomber Wafa Idrees as the “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” It singles out for recognition Hanadi Jaradat, a woman who blew herself up in a restaurant, killing 21 people (including four children).
The founder of Miftah herself, Ms. Ashrawi, excused jihadist violence by telling an interviewer that “you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist.”
And of course Miftah published an article asking whether Israel was a proper homeland for the Jewish people:
Under the heading "Is Israel the Only Possible Homeland for Jews?", this article questioning the appropriateness of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
We can never allow murder to be glorified, no matter what the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say regarding killing of unbelievers — Christians must never abandon grace when dealing with offenses against ourselves. Although I believe that we have a duty to protect the defenseless (as shown in Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 24:11-12 and 31:8-9; and Matthew 7:12 and 18:14 [and many other verses]) and are given liberty to protect ourselves (as shown in Luke 22:36), we must primarily be ministers of grace.
The gay community once said that they just wanted to have an equal seat at the table, but now they require everyone to agree with them
Teacher’s rejection of student’s gender identity prompts training
Teachers and staff in a Florida school district will be given additional diversity training after a high school math instructor refused to call a transgender student by her chosen gender identity.
First Coast News in Jacksonville reports that teacher Thomas Caggiano wrote in an email to the student “I will NOT refer to you with female pronouns … If this is not acceptable for you, change classes.”
Caggiano wouldn’t comment to the television station.
Sandalwood High School Principal Dr. Saryn Hatcher promised to “handle” it and wrote to the student that her wishes would be honored.
Duval County Public Schools spokeswoman Laureen Ricks says the teacher’s behavior is inconsistent with the district’s policy and expectations. She calls it a teachable moment and says staff will undergo additional diversity training.
The ink on the Obergefell versus Hodges decision in the Supreme Court had hardly dried and so, therefore, the “right” of gays to marry had only recently been recognized when Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Never mind that there were numerous counties across Kentucky where marriage licenses were being handed out.
So, it comes as no surprise that teachers are being sent to re-education for not toeing the gay line.
Antifa never wanted to negotiate — they just wanted to put their opponents under the table. Now Oregon police arrest Prayer leaders
Joey Gibson, Patriot Prayer leader, turns self in to jail
Oregon Live reports in a 17 August 2019 article how Joey Gibson, a leader at Patriot Prayer, turned himself in to jail because he has been linked to a fight outside of a Portland bar.
Before entering the Multnomah County Detention Center, Gibson held a news conference outside the jail drawing about two dozen people. Wearing a hat with a label that read “what goes around comes around” and a t-shirt with Bible verse “John 3:16”, Gibson told spectators that he believed he was being unfairly targeted and he was innocent of engaging in or inciting any violence on May 1 outside of Cider Riot.
“I stood on a sidewalk and was assaulted numerous times,” Gibson, 35, said. “This is without a doubt an attack on the First Amendment.”
He also urged people to attend Saturday demonstrations in downtown Portland, to not engage in violence, and if they’re arrested, to do so while in the midst of peaceful protest.
Gibson said he was on the fence on whether to attend before learning of his riot charge Thursday. He was being held in jail on $5,000 bail and released after posting bail at 3:50 p.m., jail staff said.
He is scheduled to be arraigned in court Monday.
“Patriot Prayer and their affiliates showed up, and started pepper-spraying people on our property,” said Cider Riot owner Abram Goldman-Armstrong.
As Joey Gibson (Freedom & God activist) was walking the streets of Portland trying to get to his ride, antifa spots him. Within minutes an entire mob surrounds him. Some are polite, some are not.
Joey Gibson is being politically charged with a felony for exercising his right to stand on a public sidewalk and record people at the Antifa bar called “Cider Riot!”. Cider Riot fundraises, recruits, and hosts events for Rose City Antifa and other organizations that advocate for violence against Christians and conservatives. He stood there and recorded while the bar employees and customers pepper sprayed Gibson. None of them were arrested.
Reuters reports in a 14 August 2019 article that “paramilitary” forces have moved to the border of Hong Kong (in stark violation of the agreement made with Britain when Hong Kong was surrendered as a British colony).
Hong Kong braced for more mass protests over the weekend, even as China warned it could use its power to quell demonstrations and U.S. President Donald Trump urged his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to meet with the protesters to defuse weeks of tensions.
Hundreds of China’s People’s Armed Police (PAP) on Thursday conducted exercises at a sports stadium in Shenzhen that borders Hong Kong a day after the U.S. State Department said it was “deeply concerned” about the movements, which have prompted worries that the troops could be used to break up protests.
Trump told reporters on Thursday he did not want to see a resort to violence to quell the protests in Hong Kong and reiterated that he wanted to see China “humanely solve the problem.”
“I am concerned. I wouldn’t want to see a violent crackdown,” Trump said, speaking in Morristown, New Jersey. “If he (Xi) sat down with the protesters – a group of representative protesters – I’d bet he’d work it out in 15 minutes. … I know it’s not the kind of thing he does, but I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea.”
Patriots, think about these things regarding the mainstream media and how they frame this conflict
In the United States of America, “paramilitary” brings up images of overweight guys in worn-out fatigues bought at the Army Surplus store. These guys likely spend some part of their weekends shooting holes in cans or putting meat on the table by hunting small game.
Truthfully, although I have never belonged to any paramilitary group, I support the overall goals of such groups. I support the freedom afforded by the Second Amendment. I support those who put in the time needed to be prepared to defend against threats against their families. Additionally, I support the patriotism and other elements of preparedness often associated with these groups.
However, the “paramilitary” that the American “news” agencies refers to seems to come equipped with hundreds of vehicles with turrets and what seem to be guns.
This should be a reason for pause.
Even though this might just be a threat against the Hong Kong protesters, these “paramilitary” forces might be deployed against people who have no guns and no body armor. These Hong Kong citizens definitely do not have military-grade rifles or side arms.
Therefore, with the power of words, the American press has equated six-wheeled tanks and armored personnel carriers with non-professional weekend warriors. Reuters wants the headline readers to believe that little threat is offered against the brave people standing up for what little rights they have left.
Think about this the next time a Democrat calls for the American people to be disarmed and the press paints a sad picture in support of the Democrat.
President Donald Trump late Wednesday seemed to conflate the protests in Hong Kong with the U.S.’s trade war with China. “Of course China wants to make a deal. Let them work humanely with Hong Kong first!” he tweeted. If Trump thought wielding the Hong Kong protests as leverage in the ongoing U.S.-China trade war would prompt concessions from Beijing, he seemed to have miscalculated—by a large margin.
Trump turned his Twitter attention to the growing unrest in Hong Kong on Wednesday, when he urged those involved to “be calm and safe” amid reports that the Chinese government was amassing troops on the border with Hong Kong. He later picked up the thread, looping the ongoing trade war into the matter.
“I know President Xi of China very well,” Trump tweeted. “He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a ‘tough business.’ I have ZERO doubt that if President Xi wants to quickly and humanely solve the Hong Kong problem, he can do it. Personal meeting?”
Trump’s decision to link the protests in Hong Kong with the trade war negotiations may have been a misstep, as it plays into China’s narrative of what the demonstrations are all about. Over the past two months, Beijing has repeatedly accused the U.S. of stirring up unrest in Hong Kong in order to serve the White House’s trade agenda. State media now runs news stories alleging that white foreigners attending the Hong Kong protests are actually CIA operatives instigating turmoil. The protesters themselves, meanwhile, cite demands for greater democratic freedoms as the reason for taking to the streets.
Think about how President Trump introduced this narrative
Although the press seems to want to downplay this narrative, President Trump bypassed them by putting the information out in a tweet (below).
I know President Xi of China very well. He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a “tough business.” I have ZERO doubt that if President Xi wants to quickly and humanely solve the Hong Kong problem, he can do it. Personal meeting?
When a projectile struck a Hong Kong woman in the eye this week as protesters clashed with the police, China responded quickly: Its state television network reported that the woman had been injured not by one of the police’s bean bag rounds, but by a protester.
The network’s website went further: It posted what it said was a photo of the woman counting out cash on a Hong Kong sidewalk — insinuating, as Chinese reports have claimed before, that the protesters are merely paid provocateurs.
The assertion was more than just spin or fake news. The Communist Party exerts overwhelming control over media content inside China’s so-called Great Firewall, and it is now using it as a cudgel in an information war over the protests that have convulsed Hong Kong for months.
In recent days, China has more aggressively stirred up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment using state and social media, and it has manipulated the context of images and videos to undermine the protesters. Chinese officials have begun branding the demonstrations as a prelude to terrorism.
Only a few observations regarding the review of the expected at the New York Times
First, for the most part, the violent images of the Hong Kong protests have been excised from our media because they don’t want to reflect badly on another socialist society (remember, Venezuela shot and killed its own unarmed citizens).
Second, this comes from the outfit (the NYTwits) that still accuses the Trump administration of treasonous acts performed in conjunction with the Russians despite the findings in the Mueller report.
Just as China has made westernization a boogeyman here, many of the New York Times articles depend on demonizing a person or groups. One prime example might be summarized as “Orange man bad.” Another might be the habit at the New York Times of associating Christians with Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.
Our sympathy and respect for the Philadelphia police who were fired upon
Our assumed respect for those who are in positions of power (such as this mayor)
The desire of many to be within a perceived majority (that is, we would also like to be with those who “joined growing calls”)
Our assumed fear of scary-sounding weapons (“semi-automatic rifle and several handguns”)
Additionally, it gives primacy to the Democrat talking points by mentioning them first and more fully. The first six paragraphs (160 words) support the Democrat line of “reasoning.” Only after that is there any discussion of President Trump’s suggestion of more jail time for this repeat offender (two paragraphs encompassing 37 words).
Nonetheless, the BBC does not consider the following issues with their line of reasoning:
The shooter was a drug dealer with previous drug and gun-related convictions. It was already illegal for him to own the guns. Adding more gun laws would not have stopped this criminal from committing this crime.
It is illegal to try to kill or attempt to kill an officer of the law. This criminal had already determined to disobey this law when he pulled together his arsenal and began firing on the police.
The American flag has become a symbol of resistance against China in the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, prominently waved throughout the city this past weekend as police fired tear gas and rubber bullets into the peaceful crowds.
Millions of Hong Kong residents have participated in rallies since early June against a bill proposed in the city’s legislature that would have allowed China to extradite anyone present in Hong Kong by accusing him or her of breaking Chinese law. Under the “One Country, Two Systems” policy China agreed to when the U.K. handed Hong Kong over in 1997, Hong Kong must abandon any claims to sovereignty in exchange for China not imposing communist laws on the city. The protesters objected that the extradition law would violate that policy.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam claimed the bill was “dead” this month, but protesters astutely noted that lawmakers had tabled the bill, allowing them to revive it any time. Protesters are demanding that the Legislative Council withdraw the bill entirely.
With the protests being peaceful so far, the Hong Kong security forces have still daily cleaned blood from the streets. Therefore, I have to ask whether this will be like the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? If it turns that direction, what can America do? What will we do?
Our response to American politicians
To put a more introspective turn on this story, what must we do to prevent this from happening in America?
For one, we must not give up our First Amendment free speech rights to a left-leaning corporation such as Google or Twitter.
Second, we must not lay down our Second Amendment rights to the feel-goodism of a red flag law.
Hong Kong Protesters Wish They Had The Second Amendment
While Americans are a major exception, most people throughout the world don’t have a built-in, government-protected right to own guns.
The Second Amendment is uniquely American, and something many protesting for basic human rights would love to have. Those protesters include residents of Hong Kong, who say they are fighting the oppression of China’s communist party and its new extradition law.
Some protesters have even been flying American flags to signify their desire for freedom.
Look at these images and listen to these sounds. Think of looking down the barrels of rifles of the Communist army. Then tell me you still want to surrender your right to own a gun.
Hong Kong protesters embrace unexpected Christian anthem: ‘Sing Hallelujah to the Lord’
An 18 June 2019 Fox News article explains how a Christian hymn became a rallying cry in Hong Kong (where only 10$ of the population is Christian).
A hymn sung by Christian groups participating in the anti-extradition Hong Kong protests has caught on and become an unlikely anthem for the movement of millions in the streets.
For the past week, “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” has been heard almost non-stop at the main protest site in front of the city’s Legislative Council, and at marches and tense stand-offs with police, Reuters reported.
Although only 10 percent of the population is Christian, church groups quickly rallied after being alarmed by reports of police brutality to make a safe haven for protesters as the government said it had to crack down on “organized riots.”
“As religious assemblies were exempt, it could protect the protesters. It also shows that it is a peaceful protest,” Edwin Chow, 19, acting president of the Hong Kong Federation of Catholic Students, told Reuters. “This was the one people picked up, as it is easy for people to follow, with a simple message and easy melody.”
In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion. Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement. This manifesto will cover the political and economic reasons behind the attack, my gear, my expectations of what response this will generate and my personal motivations and thoughts.
In short, America is rotting from the inside out, and peaceful means to stop this seem to be nearly impossible. The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history. The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations. I could write a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused, but here is what is important. Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to win nearly every presidential election. Although the Republican Party is also terrible. Many factions within the Republican Party are pro-corporation. Pro-corporation = pro-immigration. But some factions within the Republican Party don’t prioritize corporations over our future. So the Democrats are nearly unanimous with their support of immigration while the Republicans are divided over it. At least with Republicans, the process of mass immigration and citizenship can be greatly reduced.
In short, immigration can only be detrimental to the future of America. Continued immigration will make one of the biggest issues of our time, automation, so much worse. Some sources say that in under two decades, half of American jobs will be lost to it. Of course some people will be retrained, but most will not. So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here. Invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America. In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs. Joblessness in itself is a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.
Even though new migrants do the dirty work, their kids typically don’t. They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees and fill higher-paying skilled positions. This is why corporations lobby for even more illegal immigration even after decades of it of happening. They need to keep replenishing the low-skilled labor pool. Even as migrant children flood skilled jobs, Corporations make this worse by lobbying for even more work visas to be issued for skilled foreign workers to come here. Recently, the senate under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas. Corporations need to keep replenishing the labor pool for both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep wages down. So Automation is a good thing as it will eliminate the need for new migrants to fill unskilled jobs. Jobs that American s can’t survive on anyway. Automation can and would replace millions of low-skilled jobs if immigrants were deported. This source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people have to get better credentials by spending more time in college. It used to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted.
This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but are not the sole cause of it.
The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over harvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl create s inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
Main gun: AK47 (WASR 10) – I realized pretty quickly that this isn’t a great choice since it’s the civilian version of the ak47. It’s not designed to shoot rounds quickly, so it overheats massively after about 100 shots fired in quick succession. I’ll have to use a heat-resistant glove to get around this.
8m3 bullet: This bullet, unlike pretty much any other 7.62×39 bullet, actually fragments like a pistol hollow point when shot out of an ak47 at the cost of penetration. Penetration is still reasonable, but not nearly as high as a normal ak47 bullet. The ak47 is definitely a bad choice without this bullet design, and may still be with it.
Other gun(if I get one): Ar15 – Pretty much any variation of this gun doesn’t heat up nearly as fast as the AK47. The round of this gun isn’t designed to fragment, but instead tumbles inside a target causing lethal wounding. This gun is probably better, but I wanted to explore different options. The ar15 is probably the best gun for military applications but this isn’t a military application.
This will be a test of which is more lethal, either it’s fragmentation or tumbling.
I didn’t spend much time at all preparing for this attack. Maybe a month, probably less. I have do this before I lose my nerve. I figured that an under-prepared attack and a meh manifesto is better than no attack and no manifesto
Statistically, millions of migrants have returned to their home countries to reunite with the family they lost contact with when they moved to America. They come here as economic immigrants, not for asylum reasons. This is an encouraging sign that the Hispanic population is willing to return to their home countries if given the right incentive. An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will provide. This will remove the threat of the Hispanic voting bloc which will make up for the loss of millions of baby boomers. This will also make the elites that run corporations realize that it’s not in their interest to continue piss off Americans. Corporate America doesn’t need to be destroyed, but just shown that they are on the wrong side of history. That if they don’t bend, they will break.
Personal Reasons and Thoughts
My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn’t exist. The job of my dreams will likely be automated. Hispanics will take control of the local and state government of my beloved Texas, changing policy to better suit their needs. They will turn Texas into an instrument of a political coup which will hasten the destruction of our country. The environment is getting worse by the year. If you take nothing else from this document, remember this: INACTION IS A CHOICE. I can no longer bear the shame of inaction knowing that our founding fathers have endowed me with the rights needed to save our country from the brink destruction. Our European comrades don’t have the gun rights needed to repel the millions of invaders that plaque their country. They have no choice but to sit by and watch their countries burn.
America can only be destroyed from the inside-out.
If our country falls, it will be the fault of traitors. This is why I see my actions as faultless. Because this isn’t an act of imperialism but an act of preservation. America is full of hypocrites who will blast my actions as the sole result of racism and hatred of other countries, despite the extensive evidence of all the problems these invaders cause and will cause. People who are hypocrites because they support imperialistic wars that have caused the loss of tens of thousands of American lives and untold numbers of civilian lives. The argument that mass murder is okay when it is state sanctioned is absurd. Our government has killed a whole lot more people for a whole lot less. Even if other non-immigrant targets would have a greater impact, I can’t bring myself to kill my fellow Americans. Even the Americans that seem hell-bent on destroying our country. Even if they are shameless race mixers, massive polluters, haters of our collective values, etc. One day they will see error of their ways. Either when American patriots fail to reform our country and it collapses or when we save it. But they will see the error of their ways. I promise y’all that. I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems. Also because it’s completely unnecessary and selfish. 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics form interracial unions at much higher rates than average. Yet another reason to send them back.
Cultural and racial diversity is largely temporary. Cultural diversity diminishes as stronger and/or more appealing cultures overtake weaker and/or undesirable ones. Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each race. This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territory(s).
My death is likely inevitable. If I’m not killed by the police, then I’ll probably be gunned down by one of the invaders. Capture in this case if far worse than dying during the shooting because I’ll get the death penalty anyway. Worse still is that I would live knowing that my family despises me. This is why I’m not going to surrender even if I run out of ammo. If I’m captured, it will be because I was subdued somehow.
Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll your super soldier COD fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.
My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.
Many people think that the fight for America is already lost. They couldn’t be more wrong. This is just the beginning of the fight for America and Europe.
I am honored to head the fight to reclaim my country from destruction.
A few correlations that need to be made
Just as the El Paso shooter predicted, Trump has been blamed for the shooting.
Connor Betts, the Dayton, Ohio mass shooter, was a self-described “leftist,” who wrote that he would happily vote for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, praised Satan, was upset about the 2016 presidential election results, and added, “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”
Betts’ Twitter profile read, “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” One tweet on his page read, “Off to Midnight Mass. At least the songs are good. #athiestsonchristmas.” The page handle? I am the spookster. On one selfie, he included the hashtags, “#selfie4satan #HailSatan @SatanTweeting.” On the date of Republican Sen. John McCain’s death, he wrote, “F*ck John McCain.” He also liked tweets referencing the El Paso mass shooting in the hours before Dayton.
Twitter has now suspended the Twitter page, removing it. It was up for several hours after the mass shooting.
Politicians’ statements that may have incited hatred
Already you have members of your cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants. We have protesters taking up at their house who are saying, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’
When can we expect an apology from Maxine Waters? How many attacks against both Trump supporters (like the boy at a Whataburger, the shop owner mentioned below, and other instances), conservative politicians (like Ted Cruz in the restaurant, Mitch McConnell at home, and others), or the general public (like the San Diego, Garden Grove, and other cities) will occur before those on the Left ratchet down the rhetoric?
You see, I don’t see the problem as being guns. I see the problem as originating in the hearts of men.
Biden suggests starting ‘physical revolution’ to deal with Republicans
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden appeared to suggest using violence against Republicans on Monday in response to a question about how he as president would deal with opposition to his agenda in the Senate from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Biden, currently the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, made the remarks at the Moral Action Congress of the Poor People’s Campaign in Washington, D.C.
MSNBC’s Joy Reid asked Biden: “How would you get past either a majority Republican Senate in which Mitch McConnell was determined to kill all of these ideas or even a Mitch McConnell in the minority who repeated the consistent filibustering when you were vice president and anything that came from the Obama-Biden administration Mitch McConnell considered dead on arrival?”
“Joy, I know you’re one of the ones who thinks it’s naive to think we have to work together,” Biden responded. “The fact of the matter is if we can’t get a consensus, nothing happens except the abuse of power by the executive.”
“There are certain things where it just takes a brass knuckle fight,” Biden continued, later adding: “Let’s start a real physical revolution if you’re talking about it.”
As I mentioned in the reply to Maxine Waters’ screed, I think that the problem is in the tendency of all people to act on their baser motivations, to consider their immediate situation, and to sin.
Things do not get better when “leaders” advocate violence.
Although the following Prager University video does not tell us where or when Liz Warren turned the corporations of America into boogeymen, it does show her saying:
My message is: You got things broken in your life? I’ll tell you exactly why. It’s because giant corporations (billionaires) have seized our government and — for decades now — they have been making that government work for a thinner and thinner slice at the top. And they do it mostly on the headlines: just a little tilt here, just a little shift there, just a little exception, until — over time — they’ve gotten richer and richer and richer and richer. And everybody else is left eating dirt.
As demonstrated by this little speech, Liz Warren carries at least a little in common with the El Paso shooter who so idolized her.
New York Teens react to Waters’ words
Intolerance in New York
Fox 5 in New York reports that a MAGA-hat wearing shop owner was beaten by a group of teens.
A New York City art gallery owner says he was viciously beaten in Manhattan by a large group of teens for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.
Jahangir “John” Turan, 42, says it happened Tuesday evening on Canal Street. He was wearing the MAGA hat that he had purchased earlier in the day at Trump Tower.
“I love President Trump. I think he’s doing a great job,” Turan said.
He says the group of about 15 “kids” yelled “F*** Trump” and stomped on him. One of them smashed his head into a scaffold. Turan says he suffered a fracture in his cheek and a badly swollen eye. He’s awaiting an eye specialist to determine if there is any permanent damage to his sight.
The 44 names Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) tweeted late Monday have at least two things in common: They’re all constituents in his district, and they all donated the maximum amount to President Trump’s campaign this year.
The congressman and brother of presidential hopeful Julián Castro said the people listed — including retirees, business owners and other individuals whose names are public record — were “fueling a campaign of hate.”
“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of @BillMillerBarBQ, owner of the @HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc.,” Castro wrote. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as invaders.”
Castro, who also serves as chairman for his brother’s presidential campaign, spent much of Tuesday deflecting intense criticism from GOP lawmakers and others. They contended that Castro was “targeting” the listed donors by tweeting their names to his thousands of followers, a serious accusation in the aftermath of two weekend mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, that left 31 people dead and many more wounded.
Hackett could have added that the Obama campaign did the same in 2012 without much objection from the media, except for a few conservative journalists, such as John Nolte of Breitbart News or Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal.
It was an election year, and Obama was already going in heavy against the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. The president’s reelection campaign erected a website, called “Keeping GOP Honest,” and had been using it to “truth check” Republican statements. But on that April 20, it broke new territory. In a post entitled “Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney’s donors,” the president’s team publicly named eight private citizens who had given money to the Republican, accusing them all of being “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”
The site bluntly claimed that all eight men were “betting against America.” They were then each singled out, subjected to slurs and allegations.
As Strassel documented at the Journal, one of those eight, Frank VanderSloot, soon found himself the target of private investigators — and the federal government:
Mr. VanderSloot has since been learning what it means to be on a presidential enemies list. Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.
Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been “selected for examination” by the Internal Revenue Service.
Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.
Others, such as the voter integrity organization True the Vote, were also targeted. Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service was also targeting conservative non-profit organizations — a fact that only became public after the election.
So, no matter how much the true believers of Saint Obama want to believe that there were no scandals within the Obama administration (despite their ignorance of Fast and Furious, the NSA scandal, the IRS being weaponized against the Tea Party, and other issues) — here is another fly in their ointment.
Hollywood steps in on the side of hateful Democrats
Leftist Netflix’s ‘Dear White People’ Depicts Trump Supporters as KKK Members
The race-baiting Netflix series Dear White People has debuted its third season, and this year the show portrays supporters of President Donald Trump a racists and KKK members.
In the season’s third episode, Chapter III, a family of Trump voters is being given a makeover by a group of gays in a parody of the Netflix series Queer Eye called the U.S. of Gay.
The episode portrays the family as thoroughly low brow, slow-witted, and racist. They have Confederate flags posted around their home and property and have Trump signs in their yard. One member of the pro-Trump family — a bearded, bandana-wearing, bumpkin — asks if they can “make it so that only some people feel more welcome” at their home as the camera focuses in on the only black member of the gay crew. The “joke” was clearly stating that the family is racist.
Nothing to see here. Nothing but the rantings of a Leftist lunatic in full Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I mean, really. Just read the paragraph and imagine the scene the Netflix has created. This is hyperbolic racism against what they see as lower-class Whites. This doesn’t deserve any more time than to jot down a note and promise to never pay for Netflix.
‘Elites’ Kill ‘Deplorables’ In New Horror Film ‘The Hunt’
“Did anyone see what our ratfucker-in-chief just did?” one character asks early in the screenplay for The Hunt, a Universal Pictures thriller set to open Sept. 27. Another responds: “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.”
In the aftermath of mass shootings within days of one another that shocked and traumatized the nation, Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire. The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals.
They claim that commentary from Rush Limbaugh pushes radicals into committing murder, but movies like this (along with “news” shows like theirs and other “entertainment”) does not have any effect. This doesn’t pass the smell test.
Republicans react to the El Paso shooting
Texas Lt. Gov. tells Antifa to ‘stay out’ of El Paso after Walmart shooting
President Donald Trump on Monday mistakenly referred to a shooting in Toledo, Ohio — instead of Dayton — in his address on a pair of mass shootings that occurred over the weekend.
“May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo, may God protect them. May God protect all of those from Texas to Ohio. May God bless the victims and their families,” the president stated in his remarks that he read from a teleprompter at the White House. It is unclear whether President Trump’s prepared remarks included Toledo or if he deviated from the speech as written. He correctly referred to Dayton during other parts of his remarks.
The president misspoke toward the end of his 10-minute speech in which he offered condolences to those affected by the “barbaric slaughters” in Dayton and El Paso, Texas, and condemned “white supremacy.”
“In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy,” he said. “These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America, hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul.”
In the wake of shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, the president and Congress are discussing laws blocking access to firearms for people considered an imminent threat. But here in Texas, bills that would do that have made little traction.
President Trump called for reforms to keep guns out of the hands of “mentally unstable” people on Wednesday, addressing reporters outside of the White House as he left for visits to Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, where two mass shootings have left at least 31 people dead and dozens more injured.
This is the second time this week President Trump has brought up possible reforms to gun laws. In a speech addressing the nation on Monday, Trump called for law enforcement to do “a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,” citing warnings to the FBI about a potential school shooting before a shooter killed 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida last year. Trump said that people who pose a “grave risk” should not be able to access firearms and there should be “rapid due process” for the weapons to be taken from such people who already have them.
“That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders,” Trump said.
Red-flag laws, which in most cases allow judges to temporarily seize an individual’s firearms if that person is considered an imminent threat, have faced a rough path in the Texas Legislature. At a 2018 committee hearing on gun proposals, law enforcement and gun rights advocates opposed such measures, citing worries that a progressive or unethical judge could take guns away from innocent people, or bend to the will of disgruntled family members or divorcees who may seek the order out of spite.
I do not agree with the use of red flag laws. I believe that we should be held accountable for our actions and not for our potential acts.
Just as Ezekial 18:20 says The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself..
Armed customer likely deterred potential shooter at Mo. Walmart
In the wake of the recent Texas and Ohio mass shootings that took more than 30 lives, a “good guy with a gun” reportedly kept a man at a Walmart in Springfield, Missouri, from possibly unloading his assault rifle into unexpecting shoppers.
Exact details of the incident are still under investigation, but police arrived at the scene as a courageous bystander – an off-duty fireman holding a concealed carry permit for his firearm – was holding the threatening shooter at gunpoint and given credit for stopping the suspect – Dmitriy Andreychenko, a 20-year-old white mail – from carrying out a potential mass killing just five days after two horrific mass shootings took place across the country.
“[H]is intent was not to cause peace or comfort to anybody that was in the business,” Springfield police stated about the would-be shooter, according to KOLR 10 TV. “In fact, he’s lucky to be alive still, to be honest.”
The one thing not mentioned by either the Left or Right
In all the recriminations from the left and the right, nothing has been mentioned of a primary factor shared by the more recent, non-Muslim shooters: the breakdown of the family.
Dylan Roof, the racist shooter at the Charleston church, was a product of a divorced union. Likewise, the shooter at Santa Fe and other shooters.
Although mental illness also figures in the cases of the Sutherland Springs shooter and the Parkland shooter, these might also have been effected by the breakup of the family and the destabilizing effects of the current direction of morality within our society.
Why the Right does not mention the problem
Guys (and probably gals) on my side probably do not mention this problem because of our tendency to focus on ourselves. That is, we’ve been offended and we want our divorce now (without thinking of the repercussions). While this may be a condition shared by all humanity, it does not excuse the creation of the problem.
Why the Left does not mention the problem
As much as the Left would like to just be all-loving and all-forgiving, there have to be standards. Not every sexual desire that pops into a human head can be justified. Additionally, breaking the natural order the way the current trends push has consequences.
What the Bible says
Put others first
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:44)
Know that the Bible requires us to protect the weak
Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)
Know that Christ died for us
But God demonstrates His own love toward us I that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6)
A federal judge dismissed a $250 million defamation suit Friday, which Covington student Nicholas Sandmann filed against the Washington Post.
Judge William O. Bertelsman, whom President Jimmy Carter appointed to the bench, ruled that the seven Post articles and three tweets about the 17-year-old could be defined as opinion protected by the First Amendment:
The lawsuit accused the Washington Post of libelous coverage, saying the outlet should pay $250 million in damages for publishing “a series of false and defamatory print and online articles” about Sandmann.
But the judge ruled that the articles mentioning Sandmann must be “more than annoying, offensive or embarrassing” to be considered defamation.
“Few principles of law are as well-established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in libel actions,” Bertelsman wrote in court documents.
Bertelsman also noted that the Post had a right to slant its coverage on the story from Philips’ perspective, adding that Sandmann’s defamatory claims were focused on the students as a whole.
This proves the 1980’s pitch line provided by American Express: “Membership has its privileges.”
At least for the swamp-dwelling, insiders with multiple billions to contribute to the political sphere, it does. Or do you think that this federal judge (ideological brother to Jimmy Carter) seems to prove this.
Doug Collins: Why do you change your testimony on collusion and conspiracy?
The full transcript was extracted from NBC News (except for the transcript for Representatives Roby and Cline, who NBC ignored) and then compared to the audio provided by CSPAN.
This exchange between Representative Collins and Mr. Mueller showed how even the definitions of words within the report could be bent by the true author of the report to benefit Democrats and confuse the purported author of the report.
In your press conference you said any testimony from your office would not go beyond our report. “We chose these words carefully. The word speaks for itself. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.” Do you stand by that statement?
Since closing the special counsel’s office in May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information in your role as special counsel?
In the — in the — in the wake of the report?
Since the — since the closing of the office in May of 2019.
And the question was, have we conducted…
Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?
And you can confirm you’re no longer special counsel, correct?
I am no longer special counsel.
At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
Were you or your team provided any questions by members of Congress (inaudible) the majority ahead of your hearing today?
Your report states that your investigative team included 19 lawyers and approximately 40 FBI agents and analysts and accountants. Are those numbers accurate?
Could you repeat that, please?
Forty FBI agents, 19 lawyers, intelligence analysts and forensic accountants; are those numbers accurate? This was in your report.
Is it also true that you issued over 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records and 50 pin registers?
That went a little fast for me.
OK. In your report — I’ll make this very simple — you did a lot of work, correct?
Yes, that I agree to.
A lot of subpoenas, a lot of pin registers…
A lot of subpoenas.
OK, we’ll walk this really slow if we need to.
A lot of search warrants.
All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough.
In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?
Thank you. Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation — given the questions that you’ve just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.
So that would be a yes.
That would be a yes.
Thank you. Isn’t it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged (ph) Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?
I will leave the answer to our report.
So that is a yes. Is that any (ph) true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in election interference activity, Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?
Thank you. Yes.
Yes. Thank you. Although your reports states, “collusion is not some (ph) specific offense,” — and you said that this morning — “or a term of art in federal criminal laws, conspiracy is.” In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms?
You’re going to have to repeat that for me.
Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in the federal criminal law. Conspiracy is.
In the colloquial context, known public context, collusion — collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?
If no, on page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371.”
You said at your May 29th press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states?
Well, what I’m asking is if you can give me the citation, I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is actually…
OK. Let — let me just — let me clarify. You stated that you would stay within the report. I just stated your report back to you, and you said that collusion — collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer, was no.
In that, page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, it says, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 USC 371.”
Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?
Not when I read it.
So you would change your answer to yes, then?
No, no — the — if you look at the language…
I’m reading your report, sir. These are yes-or-no answers.
(inaudible) Page 180?
Page 180, Volume 1.
This is from your report.
Correct, and I — I — I — I leave it with the report.
So the report says yes, they are synonymous.
Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. One last question as we’re going through: Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the Russians’ interference into our election? Were other countries investigated…
… or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?
I’m not going to discuss other matters.
All right. And I yield back.
John Ratcliffe: When did the US standard change from “innocent until proven guilty?”
One place where a defendant had to be proven innocent that we could consider was Bernie Sander’s honeymoon spot: good old Soviet Russia. However, since this investigation was supposed to be laser-focused on only things that would either indict or embarrass the Trump administration, then we won’t mention that.
Good morning, Director. If you’ll let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning, you said in Volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. And then in Volume 2, for reasons that you explained, the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. Is that fair?
All right. Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: “The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Now, I read that correctly?
All right. Now, your report — and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
Can you repeat the last part of that question?
Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can — let me make it easier. Is…
May — can I — I’m sorry, go ahead.
… can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated…
I — I…
… because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
I cannot, but this is a unique situation.
OK. Well, I — you can’t — time is short. I’ve got five minutes. Let’s just leave it at, you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why: It doesn’t exist. The special counsel’s job — nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC opinions. It’s not in the Justice Manual. And it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully — respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it “authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel.” That’s the very first word of your report, right?
Here’s the problem, Director: The special counsel didn’t do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn’t follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, “Write a confidential report about decisions reached.” Nowhere in here does it say, “Write a report about decisions that weren’t reached.” You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully — respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, “Donald Trump is not above the law.” He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.
James Sensenbrenner: Why did you drag the investigation out if you started with a determination not to prosecute a sitting president?
Representative Sensenbrenner gets Mueller to recognize the fact that the investigation was dragged out beyond the point where he determined he would not prosecute the President.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by which you were appointed. It reads, quote “At the conclusion of the special counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declamations decisions reached by the special counsel,” is that correct?
OK. Now when a regulation uses the words “shall provide,” does it mean that the individual is in fact obligated to provide what’s being demanded by the regulation or statute, meaning you don’t have any wiggle room, right?
I’d have to look more closely at the statute.
Well, I just read it to you. OK, now Volume 2, page 1, your report boldly states, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” is that correct?
I’m trying to find that citation, Congressman.
Director, could you speak more directly into the microphone, please?
Well, it’s Volume 2, page…
Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry.
Yeah, it’s Volume 2, page 1. It says, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”
That’s right at the beginning. Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you couldn’t prosecute a sitting president, meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is talking about when you know that you weren’t going to prosecute him?
Well, you don’t know where the investigation’s going to lie, and OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president.
OK, well if you’re not going to indict the president then you just continue fishing. And that’s — you know, that’s my — my observation. You know, sure — sure you — sure you — my time is limited — sure you can indict other people but you can’t indict the sitting president, right?
OK. Now, there are 182 pages in raw evidentiary material, including hundreds of references to 302, which are interviews by the FBI for individuals who have never been cross-examined, and which did not comply with the special counsel’s governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declamation decisions reached, correct?
Where are you reading from on that?
I’m reading from my question.(LAUGHTER)
That — could you repeat it?
OK. If — you have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302s who are — never been cross-examined, which didn’t comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declaration — declination decisions reached.
This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss…
OK, then let… … and would direct you to the report itself for what…
… 182 pages of it. You know, let me switch gears. Mr. Chabot and I were on this committee during the Clinton impeachment. Now, while I recognize that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he, in a number of occasions in his report, stated that the — “President Clinton’s actions may have risen to impeachable conduct, recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable.” You never used the term “raising to impeachable conduct” for any of the 10 instances that the gentlewoman from Texas (inaudible) — did. Is it true that there’s nothing in Volume 2 of the report that says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct?
Well, we have (inaudible) kept in the — the center of our investigation the — our mandate. And our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct, our mandate goes to what — developing the report and putting the report in to the attorney general.
With due respect, you know, it — it seems to me, you know, that there are a couple of statements that you made, you know, that said that, “This is not for me to decide,” and the implication is this is — this was for this committee to decide. Now, you didn’t use the word “impeachable conduct” like Starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the words “impeachable conduct.” And I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said, and that is is that even the president is innocent until proven guilty. I — my time is up.
Steve Chabot: If you focused on the Trump Tower meeting on 9 June 2016, why didn’t you focus on the Russian lawyer/Fusion GPS meetings on 8 June and 10 June?
Representative Chabot gets stonewalled by Mr. Mueller on questions as to why the Democrat-led team could not devote the same interest on the meeting on 8 and 10 June 2016 as they did on the 9 June meeting.
Thank you. Director Mueller, my Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of he was (ph) — why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn’t, so their strategy had to change. Now they allege that there’s plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the president, but the American people just didn’t read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That’s what this is really all about today. Now a few questions: On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced, quote, “the firm that produced Steele reporting,” unquote. The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
And you’re on page 103?
103 (ph), that’s correct, Volume 2. When you talk about the — the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
Yeah, I — I’m not familiar with — with that. I (inaudible)
(inaudible) It’s not — it’s not a trick question, right? It was Fusion GPS. Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document wide — widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA (sic) was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are — are you familiar with…
This is outside my purview.
OK. Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448-page Mueller report, was he?
Well, as I — as I say, it’s outside my purview and it’s being handled in the department by others.
OK. Well, he — he was not. In the 448 pages the — the owner of Fusion GPS that did the Steele dossier that started all this, he — he’s not mentioned in there. Let me move on. At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Probison (ph), which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?
It’s outside my purview.
OK, thank you. One of the key players in the — I’ll go to something different. One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was Natalia Veselnitskaya, who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are — are you aware of that?
Outside my purview.
Thank you. But you didn’t mention that or her connections to Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in — in your report at all. Let — let me move on. Now, NBC News has reported the following: quote, “Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly-incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats from none other than Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner.” You didn’t include that in the report, and I assume you (inaudible).
This is a matter that’s being handled by others at the Department of Justice.
OK, thank you. Now, your report spends 14 pages discussing the June 9th, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. It would be fair to say, would it not, that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting?
Well, I’d refer you to the — the report.
OK. And President Trump wasn’t at the meeting…
No, he was not.
… that (ph) you’re aware of (ph)? Thank you.
Now, in stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn’t mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn’t investigate Fusion GPS’ connections to Russia (ph).
So let me just ask you this. Can you see that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS’ involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign’s own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president?
Well, I’ll tell you, this is still outside my purview.
All right. And I would just note, finally, that I guess it’s just by chance, by coincidence that the things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the president?
Martha Roby: If you worked together with Attorney General Barr on the redacted report, why did you complain about the redacted report?
First, Representative Roby confirmed that Mueller did work with Attorney General Barr to redact the Mueller report. Then she asked why Mr. Mueller complained about the tone of his own work.
Director Mueller, you just said in response to two different lines of questioning that you would refer as it relates to this firing discussion, that I would refer you to the report in the way it was characterized in the report. Importantly, the President never said, “Fire Mueller” or “End the investigation,” and one does not necessitate either. McGann in fact did not resign, but stuck around for a year and half. On March 24, Attorney General William Barr informed the committee that he had received special counsel’s report.– It was not until April 18 that the attorney general released the report to the congress and the public. When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to congress and the public without delay (pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing)?
I am not getting engaged in discussion of what happened after the report was prepared.
Had the Attorney General asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?
We worked on the redacted versions together.
Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?
I cannot get into details.
Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?
That’s not in my purview.
(Video and audio loss) … Rule 6c material. Why did you not take a similar action? So Congress could view this material?
We had a process that we were operating on with the Attorney General’s office.
Are you aware of any Attorney General going to court to receive similar permission to unredact 6c material?
I’m not aware of that being done.
The Attorney General released the special counsel’s report with minimal redactions to the public and any even lesser redacted version to Congress. Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly?
No. We did not have tbat expectation. We wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by the statute and would go to the Attorney General for further review.
And pursuant to the special counsel’s regulations, who is the only party that must receive the charging decision resulting from the special counsels investigation?
With regard to the President or generally?
The Attorney General.
At Attorney General Barr’s confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he intended to release your report to the public. Do you remember how much of your report had been written at that point?
I do not.
Were there significant changes in tone or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made available to Congress in the public?
I can’t get into that.
During the Senate testimony of Attorney General William Barr, Senator Kamala Harris asked Mr Barr if he had looked at all the underlying evidence that the special counsel’s team had gathered. He stated that he had not. So I’m gonna ask you. Did you personally review all of the underlying evidence gathered in your investigation?
Well, to the extent that it came through the special counsel’s office, yes.
Did any single member of your team review all the underlying evidence gathered during the course of your …
(interrupting) As as has been recited here today, substantial amount of work was done whether it be be search warrant or …
(interrupting) My point here is that there is no one member of the team that looked at everything.
That’s what I’m trying to get at.
(interrupting)It’s fair to say that in an investigation is comprehensive is your’s, it is normal that different members of the team would have reviewed different sets of documents amd few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the underlying.
Thank you, yes.
How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the special conference – do you attend personally?
On March 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the Attorney General essentially complaining about the media coverage of your report. You wrote (and I quote) “the summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work in conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department n the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about the critical aspects of the result of our investigation.” Who wrote that March 27th letter?
I can’t get into who wrote the internal deliberations …
But you signed it?
What I will say is a letter stands for itself, okay?
Why did you write a formal letter, since you had already called the Attorney General to express those concerns? Did you authorize the letters release to the media or was it leaked?
I can’t get into that. Internal deliberations.
Did you authorize the letters release to the media or was it leaked?
I have no knowledge on either.
Well, you went nearly two years without a leak. Why was this letter leaked?
I can’t get into that.
Was this letter written and leaked for the expressed purpose of attempting to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report and was anything in Attorney General Barr’s letter referred to as “principled conclusions?”
Answer the question, please.
Repeat the question.
Was anything in attorney general bars letter referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated, March 24th innaccurate?
I am NOT going to get into that.
Matt Gaetz: Was the Steele dossier part of the Russian disinformation program?
Representative Gaetz probes to find why Mr. Mueller did not look to see whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation program.
Director Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia’s disinformation campaign?
No. I said they – my opening statement that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.
Yes. I mean, Paul Manafort’s alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them, and a matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the attorney general and he didn’t have any problem answering the question when Senator Cornyn asked the attorney general the exact question I asked you, Director. The attorney general said, and I’m quoting, “no. I can’t state that with confidence, and that’s one of the areas I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative.”
Now, something is not entirely speculative that it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign. Now, Christopher Steele’s reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures among with other – along with other Russia’s told him that there was a – and I’m quoting from the Steele dossier – “extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin.”
So here’s my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI?
Let me back up a second if I could and say as I’ve said earlier, with regard to Steele, that’s beyond my purview.
No it is exactly your purview Director Mueller and here’s why. Only one of two things is possible, right? Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia’s interference but you weren’t interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele and if Steele was lying then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report.
Meanwhile, Director, you’re quite loquacious on other topics, you write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya. You write on page 103 of your report that the president’s legal team suggested and I’m quoting from your report, “that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting.” So I’m going to ask you a very easy question Director Mueller, on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson who is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?
Well what I think is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation and — elsewhere…
I get that…
And if I could finish, sir. And if I could finish, sir. And consequently it’s not within my purview, the Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue.
It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before, the day after the Trump Tower meeting and yet that’s not something you reference. Now Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?
As I said before and I’ll say again, it’s not my purview. Others are investigating what you…
It’s not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It’s not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele? And it’s not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting so I’m wondering how — how these decisions are guided. I look at the inspector general’s report. I’m citing from page 404 of the inspector general’s report. It states, “Page (ph) stated, Trump is not ever going to be president, right? Right?” Strzok replied, “No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Also in the inspector general’s report there’s someone identified as “Attorney Number 2.” Attorney Number 2, this is page 419 replied, “Hell no,” and then added, “viva la resistance.” Attorney Number 2 in the inspector general’s report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn’t they?
Pardon me, can you ask…
They both worked on your team didn’t they?
I heard Strzok. Who else are we talking about?
Attorney Number 2 identified in the inspector general’s report.
OK. And the question was?
Did he work for you? The guy who said, “Viva la resistance.”
Peter — Peter Strzok worked for me for a period of time, yes.
Yes, but so did the other guy that said, “Viva la resistance.” And here’s what I’m kind of noticing Director Mueller, when people associated with Trump lied, you threw the book at them. When Christopher Steele lied, nothing. And so it seems to be when Simpson met with Russians, nothing. When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words. And maybe the reason why there are these discrepancies in what you focused on because the team was so biased…
Time of the — time of the gentleman has expired.
… (inaudible) resistance, pledged to stop Trump.
Tom McClintock: Were political facts left out of your report in order to cast the President in a negative light?
Representative McClintock questions whether Mueller used political facts to cast the President in a bad light.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mueller, over here. Thanks for joining us today. You had three discussions with Rod Rosenstein about your appointment as special counsel May 10, May 12, and May 13, correct?
If you say so, I have no reason to dispute that.
Then you met with the president on the 16th with Rod Rosenstein present. And then on the 17th, you were formally appointed as special counsel. Were you meeting with the president on the 16th with knowledge that you were under consideration for appointment of special counsel?
I did not believe I was under consideration for counsel. The — I had served two terms as FBI director…
We consider (ph) the answer’s no.
The answer’s no.
Gregg Jarrett describes your office as the team of partisans. And additional information’s coming to light, there’s a growing concern that political biased caused important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast the president unfairly in a negative light.
For example, John Dowd, the president’s lawyer, leaves a message with Michael Flynn’s lawyer on November 17 in 2017 — November 2017. The edited version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly asking for confidential information, and that’s all we know from your report expect that the judge in the Flynn case ordered the entire transcript released in which Dowd makes it crystal clear that’s not what he was suggesting. So my question’s why did you edit the transcript to hide the exculpatory part of the message?
I will answer and I will agree (ph) with your characterization as we did anything to hide…
Well, you omitted — you omitted it. You quoted the part where he says we need some kind of heads up just for the sake of protecting all of our interests if we can, but you omitted the portion where he says without giving up any confidential information.
Well, I’m not going to go further in terms of discussing the…
Well, let’s go on.
… what’s — what the (ph)…
You — you extensively discussed Konstantin Kilimnik’s activities with Paul Manafort. And you described him as, quote, “A Russian/Ukrainian political consultant,” and, “longtime employee of Paul Manafort, assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence.”
And again, that’s all we know from your report, except we’ve since learned from news articles that Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source, yet nowhere in your report is he so identified. Why was that fact omitted?
I don’t — I don’t necessarily credit what you’re saying occurred.
Were you aware that Kilimnik was a — a… (CROSSTALK)
I’m not going to go into the…
…State Department source?
… ins and outs — I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of what we had in the — in the course… (CROSSTALK)
Did you interview…
… in the course of our investigation.
… did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
I can’t go into the discussion of our investigative moves.
And — and — and yet that is the — the — the basis of your report. Again, the problem we’re having is we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and we’re starting to find out that’s — that’s not true.
For example, you — you — your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet, at a hearing on May 28th in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when, in court, you’ve been unable to produce any evidence to support it?
Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I — than I already have.
But — but you — you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that it — it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you’re called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.
Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that — in that proceeding.
In — in — in fact, the judge considering — considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after your hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms.
Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?
What was the question?
The — the question is, did your May 29th press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence?
Now, the — the — the fundamental problem is — is that, as I said, we’ve got to take your word, your team faithfully, accurately, impartially and completely described all of the underlying evidence in the Mueller report.
And we’re finding more and more instances where this just isn’t the case. And it’s starting to look like, you know, having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran.
I don’t think you reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us.
Then — then why is contradictory information…
(CROSSTALK) The time of the gentleman has expired…
… continuing to come out?
Guy Reschenthaler: Although our legal system is built on innocent-until-proven-guilty and the right to face our accusers, haven’t you smeared the President and prevented him from facing his accusers?
Representative Reschenthaler points out how Mueller seems to have smeared the President without allowing him to face his accusers.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller. I’m over here, I’m sorry. Mr. Mueller, are you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It’s a statue under which Ken Starr was appointed.
That Ken Starr did what? I’m sorry.
Are you familiar with the independent counsel statute?
Are you talking about the one we’re operating under now or previous?
No. Under which Ken Starr was appointed.
I am not that familiar with that but I’d be happy to take your question.
Well the Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr’s investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton’s A.G. Janet Reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement and I’ll quote A.G. Reno. She said, “On one hand the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases be made public only if there’s an indictment and prosecution not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry and it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over investigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned.”
Again, Mr. Mueller, those are A.G. Reno’s words. Didn’t you do exactly what A.G. Reno feared? Didn’t you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target’s dirty laundry without recommending charges?
I disagree with that and …
OK. Did any — did any of your witnesses …
Can I finish?
… have the chance to be cross examined?
Can I just finish my answer on that?
Quickly. My time…
We operate under the current statute not the original statute so I’m most familiar with the current statute not the older statute.
OK. Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined?
Did any of the witnesses in our investigation?
I’m going to answer that.
Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?
I’m not going to get into that.
Given that A.G. Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?
Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public, did that alter contents would you include it?
I can’t speak to that.
Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. In other words, evidence favorable to the president correct?
Well, I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory (inaudible) as well…
(inaudible) got into that with you where he said there was — you said there was evidence you left out.
Well, you make a choice as to what goes into a indictment.
Isn’t it true — Mr. Mueller, isn’t it true that on page 1, Volume 2 you state when you’re quoting the statute the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute?
Well, generally that is the case.
Although most cases are not done in the context of the president.
In this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?
No. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.
So essentially what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?
I can’t agree with that characterization.
OK, well what you did is you compiled a nearly 450 — you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation who happens to be the President of the United States and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be made public.
Mr. Mueller, as a former officer in the United States JAG Corps I prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a Baghdad courtroom. I cross-examined the Butcher of Fallujah in defense of our Navy SEALS. As a civilian, I was elected a magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania, so I’m very well-versed in the American legal system. The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution frankly flies in the face of American justice and I find those facts and this entire process un-American. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Jim Jordan.
Jim Jordan: When Mr Mifsud lied three times to the FBI, why didn’t you charge him the way you charged people associated with the Trump campaign who lied once?
Although they charged Trump-related individuals for lying to the FBI, they did not charge the guy who started it all who lied three times to the FBI. Why is this allowed?
Director, the FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on February 10th, 2017. In that interview, Mr. Mifsud lied. You point this out on page 193, Volume 1, Mifsud denied, Mifsud also falsely stated. In addition, Mifsud omitted. Three times, he lied to the FBI; yet, you didn’t charge him with a crime. Why…(CROSSTALK)
Excuse me — are…
… Why not?
… did you say — I’m sorry, did you say 193?
Volume 1, 193. He lied three times, you point it out in the report, why didn’t you charge him with a crime?
I can’t get into internal deliberations with regard to who or who would not be charged.
You charged a lot of other people for making false statements. Let’s remember this — let’s remember this, in 2016 the FBI did something they probably haven’t done before, they spied on two American citizens associated with a presidential campaign.
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year. With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn’t go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds of — from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you’ve got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places.
The FBI even sent — even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azmiturk (ph), even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is talking to a foreign diplomat and he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton. That diplomat then contacts the FBI and the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact. You point this out on page 1 of the report. July 31st, 2016 they open the investigation based on that piece of information.
Diplomat tells Papadopoulos Russians have dirt — excuse me, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I’m wondering is who told Papadopoulos? How’d he find out?
I can’t get into the evidentiary filings.
Yes, you can because you wrote about it, you gave us the answer. Page 192 of the report, you tell us who told him. Joseph Mifsud, Joseph Mifsud’s the guy who told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works at — teaches in two different universities.
This is the guy who told Papadopoulos he’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime. You charge Rick Gates for false statements, you charge Paul Manafort for false statements, you charge Michael Cohen with false statements, you charge Michael Flynn a three star general with false statements, but the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all for three years we’ve lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him. And I’m curious as to why.
Well I can’t get into it and it’s obvious I think that we can’t get into charging decisions.
When the FBI interviewed him in February — FBI interviews him in February, when the Special Counsel’s Office interviewed Mifsud, did he lie to you guys too?
Can’t get into that.
Did you interview Mifsud?
Can’t get into that.
Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?
Can’t get into that.
A lot of things you can’t get into. What’s interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one’s ever heard of, no one’s ever seen, no one’s ever going to hear of them, no one’s ever going to see them, you can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him. I think that’s amazing.
I’m not certain I — I’m not certain I agree with your characterizations.
Well I’m reading from your report, Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation July 31st, 2016.
And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country’s been put through this and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don’t hunt him down and interview him again and you don’t charge him with a crime.
Now here’s the good news, here’s the good news, the president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10 month investigation and James Comey when we deposed him a year ago told us at that point they had nothing. You do a 22-month investigation, at the end of that 22 months you find no conspiracy and what’s the Democrats want to do, they want to keep investigating, they want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started, maybe it’s to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI. And here’s the good news, here’s the good news, that’s exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That’s exactly what the attorney general and John Durham doing, they’re going to find out why we went through this three year…
The time of the gentleman…
…three year saga and get to the bottom of it.
Ben Cline: How many of your team’s witch-hunt tactics have been overturned on appeal?
Representative Cline rightfully asks how many of the team’s tactics have been turned over on appeal.
Thank You Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Mueller, we’ve heard a lot about what you’re not going to talk about today. So let’s talk about something that you should be able to talk about: the law itself (the underlying obstruction statute and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in Volume 2, particularly an interpretation of 18 USC 1512 C). Section 1512 C, is an obstruction of justice statute created as part of auditing and financial regulations for public companies.
As you write on page 164 of Volume 2, this provision was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding and to read the statute:
“Whoever corruptly alters destroys mutilates or conceals a record document or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in a fit in an official proceeding or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under the statue or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.”
Your analysis and application of the statute proposes to give Clause C2 a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First, your analysis proposes to read Clause C2 in isolation: reading it as a free-standing, all-encompassing provision prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an improper motive. Second, your analysis of the statute proposes to apply the sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding. So, Mr. Mueller, I would ask you, in analyzing the obstruction you state that you recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. Correct?
You’d agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statute. Correct?
I’m not going to be involved in the discussion on on that at this juncture.
In fact, the Attorney General himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?
I leave that to the Attorney General to identify.
You would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct?
I would have to agree with that one.
… and members of your legal team, in fact, have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?
I don’t know to what you advert. We’ve all (CROSSTALK)
Well, in time, … (CROSSTALK)
… in the trenches. We have all had one of those cases.
Well, let me ask you about one in particular. One of your top prosecutors Andrew Weissman obtained a conviction against auditing firm Authur Anderson in lower court which was subsequently overturned in a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weissman, correct?
Well, I’m not gonna get into delve into …
Let me read from that.
May I just finish?
I’m not going to be involved in a discussion on that. I will refer you to that citation that you gave at the outset for the lengthy discussion on just what you’re talking about and to the extent that I have say anything to say about it. It is what we have already put into the report on that.
I am reading from your report when discussing this section now. I’ll read from the decision of the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mr. Weissman, when he said, “Indeed, it’s striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed as conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly’ such that it covered innocent conduct.”
Let me just say …
No. Let me move on. I have limited time. Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision in applying it to the president’s official acts and I’m concerned about the implications of your theory for over criminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens alike. So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want to ask you about a few examples. On October 11, 2015, during the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, President Obama said, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem.” And he later said “I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn’t President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice?
Well again, I’d refer you to the report, but let me say with Andrew Weissman is one of the more talented attorneys that we Haven’t have on board.
Well, I’ll take that
…over a period of time. He is run a number Units
I have very little time. In August 2015, a very senior DOJ official called FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. The DOJ official was apparently “very pissed off.” McCabe questioned this official asking “Are you telling me I need to shut down a vallidly predicated investigation?” to which the official replied, “Of course not. This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence an FBI investigation.” So, under your theory, couldn’t that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?
I refer you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues as it appears in the at the end of the report.
Mr Mueller, I argue that it says above the Supreme Court “equal justice…”
Greg Steube: Multiple times, you call the Steele dossier “unverified.” When did you determine it was unverified? When did you become aware that the unverified Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page?
Representative Steube asks Mueller why he based his investigation on what was known to be an unverified dossier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mueller, over here. Mr. Mueller did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel?
My understanding I was not applying for that job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you’re talking about.
So you don’t recall on May 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job?
I interviewed with the president and it was about…
Regarding the FBI director job?
…it was about the job and not about me applying for the job.
So your statement here today is that you didn’t interview to apply for the FBI director job?
So it – did you tell the vice president that the FBI director position would be the one job that you would come back to – for?
I don’t recall that one.
You don’t recall that?
OK. Given your 22 months of investigation, tens of million dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence at all that any American voter changed their vote as a result of Russia’s election interference?
I’m not going to speak to that.
You can’t speak to that after 22 months of investigation, there’s not any evidence in that document before us that any voter changed their vote because of their interference and I’m asking you based on all of the documents that you reviewed…
That was – that was outside our purview.
Russian meddling was outside your purview?
But the impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies.
OK, you stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the Steele Dossier. However multiple times in Volume 2 on page 23, 27 and 28 you mentioned the unverified allegations. How long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified?
I’m not going to speak to that.
It’s in – it’s actually in your report multiple times that its unverified and you’re telling me that you’re not willing to tell us how you came to conclusion that it was unverified?
When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
I’m sorry, what was the – what was the question?
When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was intended – was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
I’m not going to speak to that.
Your team interviewed Christopher Steele, is that correct?
Not going to get into that. I said it – I…
You can’t – you can’t – you can’t tell this committee as to whether or not you interviewed Christopher Steele in a 22 month investigation with 18 lawyers?
As I said at the outset, that is one of those – one of the investigations that is being handled by others in the Department of Justice.
Yes but you’re here testifying about this investigation today and I am asking you directly did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course of your investigation.
And I am not going to answer that question, sir.
You had two years to investigate, not once did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation in that way (ph)?
I do not accept your characterization of what occurred.
What would you – what would be your characterization?
I’m not going to speak any more to it.
So you can’t speak any more to it but you’re not going to agree with my characterization? Is that correct?
The FISA application makes reference to Source 1, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele Dossier. The FISA application says nothing Sources 1’s reason for conducting the research into Canada 1′ (ph) ties to Russia. Based on Source’s 1 previous reporting history with FBI, whereby Source One provided reliable information to the FBI. The FBI believes Source One’s reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the FBI’s representation that Source 1’s reporting was credible to be accurate?
I’m not going to answer that.
So you’re not going to respond to any of the questions regarding Christopher Steele or your interviews with him?
Well as I said at the outset this morning, that was one of the investigations that I could not speak to.
Well I don’t understand how if you interviewed an individual on the purview of this investigation that you’re testifying to us today that you’ve closed that investigation, how that’s not within your purview to tell us about that investigation and who you interviewed.
I have nothing to add.
OK well the – I can guarantee that the American people want to know and I’m – and I’m very hopeful and glad that A.G. Barr is looking into this and the inspector general is looking into this because you’re unwilling to answer the questions of the American people as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the president and the very basis of this individual who you did interview, you’re just refusing to answer those questions.
Can – can’t the president fire the FBI director at any time without reason under the Article I of the Constitution?
That’s correct. Can’t he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?
I believe that to be the case.
Under Article II.
Well hold on just a second, you said without any reason, I know the Special Counsel can be fired, but I’m not certain it extends to for whatever reasons is given.
Well then you’ve testified that you weren’t fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?
I’m not going to add to what I’ve stated before.
Kelly Armstrong: Why did you assemble a team of 18 Democrats that included the lawyer who destroyed Hillary Clinton’s mobile devices?
Here, Representative Armstrong asks Mr. Mueller why only Democrats (especially those who had formerly worked for Hillary) investigated on this team.
Mr. Mueller, how many people did you fire – how many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?
How many people…
Did you fire?
I’m not going to discuss that.
You fired – according to inspector general’s report, attorney number two was let go and we know Peter Strzok was let go, correct?
Yes, and there may have been other persons on other issues that have been either transferred or fired.
Peter Strzok testified before this Committee on July 12, 2018 that he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence. Do you agree with this testimony?
Say that again if you could?
He said he was fired at least partially because you were worried about – concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel’s investigation. Do you agree with that statement?
And the statement was by whom?
Peter Strzok at this hearing.
I am not familiar with that.
Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?
No. He was transferred as a result of instances involving texts.
Do you agree that – do you agree that your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence but to operate with the appearance of independence as well?
Absolutely. We strove to do that over the two years.
Part of that was making certain that…
Andrew Weissmann’s one of your top attorneys?
Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?
He had some role but not a major role.
Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?
I don’t know when I found that out.
On January 30, 2017, Weissmann wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, “I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the president.” Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the team?
I’m not going to talk about that.
Is that not a conflict of interest?
Not going to talk about that.
Are you aware that Ms. Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State?
Did you know that before she came on the…
Aaron Zelbley, the guy sitting next to you, represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton’s mobile devices, and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton. I’m not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other democrats, just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation.
Can I speak for a second to the hiring practices?
We strove to hire those individuals that could do that job.
I have been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity.
But that’s what I’m saying, Mr. Mueller. This isn’t just about you being able to vouch for your team. This is about knowing that the day you accepted this role you had to be aware no matter what this report concluded half of the country was going to be scheduled – skeptical of your team’s findings, and that’s why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceive bias for this very reason.
28 United States code 5218 (ph) specifically lists not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It’s just simply not enough that you vouch for your team.
The interest (inaudible) demand that no perceived bias exists. I can’t imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have every appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated.
Let me one other fact that I put on the table, and that is we hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. Of those 19 lawyers, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in the Department of Justice. Only five came from outside, so we did not have…
And half of them had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you were investigating, and that’s my point. I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was change but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump.
If Peter Strzok has texted those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump’s parties instead of Clinton’s, I don’t think we’d be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation.
My colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and we couldn’t trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the president of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of aiding and embedding with that conspiracy, and with that I yield back.
Mike Johnson: Why did your team include 14 Democrats and 0 Republicans? Why did you hire Democrat bundlers who raised $60,000 for the Hillary campaign?
Finally, Representative Johnson asked why each of the Democrats hired for Mueller’s team each raised at least $60,000 for Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Mueller, you’ve been asked — over here on the — on the far right, sir — you’ve been asked a lot of questions here today. And to be frank, you performed as most of us expected. You’ve stuck closely to your report and you have declined to answer many of our questions on both sides.
As the closer for the Republican side, I know you’re glad to get to the close, I want to summarize the highlights of what we have heard and what we know.
You spent two years, and nearly $30 million taxpayer dollars and unlimited resources to prepare a nearly 450-page report which you describe today as very thorough. Millions of Americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work, in large part, because of the infamous and widely publicized bias of your investigating team members, which we now know included 14 Democrats and 0 Republicans.
Campaign finance reports later showed that team… (CROSSTALK)
… Excuse me, it’s my time. That team of Democrat investigators you hired donated more than $60,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates. Your team also included Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which have been discussed today, and they had the lurid text messages that confirm they openly mocked and hated Donald Trump and his supporters, and they vowed to take him out.
Mr. Ratcliffe asked you earlier this morning, quote, “Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” unquote. You answered, “I cannot.” Sir, that is unprecedented.
The president believed from the very beginning that you and your special counsel team had serious conflicts this is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody. And yet, President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produce more than 1.4 million pages of information, and allowed over 40 witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign.
Your report acknowledges on page 61, Volume 2 that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling many people privately, quote, “The president was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern, and to address important foreign relations issues and even matters of national security.”
And on page 174, Volume 2 your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held, quote, “The president’s removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers — that is, officers who must be appointed by the president and who report to him directly. The president’s ‘exclusive and illimitable power of removal’ of those principal officers furthers ‘the president’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed,'” unquote. And that would even include the attorney general. Look, in spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel’s investigation. Nobody was fired by the president, nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months.
As you finally concluded in Volume 1, the evidence, quote, “Did not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” unquote. And the evidence, quote, “did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in any Russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official,” unquote. Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the president became increasingly frustrated as many of the American people did with its effects on our country and – and his ability to govern.
He vented about this to his lawyer and his close associates and he even shared his frustrations, as we all know, on twitter. But while the president’s social media accounts might have influenced some in the media or the opinion of some the American people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation.
The president never affected anybody’s testimony. He never demanded to end the investigation or demanded that you be terminated and he never misled Congress, the DOJ or the special counsel. Those, sir, are her undisputed facts. There will be a lot of discussion I predict today and great frustration throughout the country about the fact that you wouldn’t answer any questions here about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report.
But as our hearing is concluding, we apparently will get no comment on that from you. Mr. Mueller there’s one primary reason why you were called here today by the democrat majority of our committee. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just want political cover. They desperately wanted you today to tell them they should impeach the president but the one thing you have said very clearly today is that your report is complete and thorough and you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations and all of its content. Is that right?
Mr. Mueller, one last important question. Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?
I’m not going to talk about recommendations.
It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?
I’m not going to talk – I’m not going to talk about that – about that issue.
That’s one of the many things you wouldn’t talk about today but I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I do thank you for your service to the country and I’m glad this charade will come to an end soon and we can get back to the important business of this committee with its broad jurisdiction of so many important issues for the country. With that, I yield back.
AP headline suggests the shooter was white supremacist, but text points elsewhere
Details that we find from MarketWatch point in differing directions (pointing toward a bit of xenophobia around whites and latinos, mentioning an Iranian and Italian heritage for the shooter, and mentioning a book on Social Darwinism).
Before a 19-year-old gunman opened fire on a famed garlic festival in his California hometown, he urged his Instagram followers to read a 19th century book popular with white supremacists on extremist websites, but his motives for killing two children and another young man were still a mystery Monday.
Santino William Legan posted the caption about the book “Might is Right,” which claims race determines behavior. It appeared with a photo of Smokey the Bear in front of a “fire danger” sign and also complained about overcrowding towns and paving open space to make room for “hordes” of Latinos and Silicon Valley whites.
In his last Instagram post Sunday, Legan sent a photo from the Gilroy Garlic Festival. Minutes later, he shot into the crowd with an AK-47 style weapon, killing a 6-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl and a man in his mid-20s.
Under it, he wrote: “Ayyy garlic festival time” and “Come get wasted on overpriced” items. Legan’s since-deleted Instagram account says he is Italian and Iranian.
The postings are among the first details that have emerged about Legan since authorities say he appeared to fire at random, sending people running and diving under tables. Police patrolling the event responded within a minute and killed Legan as he turned the weapon on them.
He legally purchased the semi-automatic assault rifle this month in Nevada, where his last address is listed. He would have been barred from buying it in California, which restricts firearms purchases to people over 21. In Nevada, the age limit is 18.
Legan grew up less than a mile from the park where the city known as the “Garlic Capital of the World” has held its three-day festival for four decades, attracting more than 100,000 people with music, food booths and cooking classes.
It would really be nice if we could read the mainstream media and find all of the unslanted information on a particular subject. Instead of
Having Google send us to articles that have passed their politburo,
Having the New York Times that changes their reporting on the border detention facilities from the Obama to the Trump years, and
Having Twitter shadow ban our links to articles and Facebook block our posts,
We need real journalism.
While the press tells us every time that a shooter has ties to a church or (in this case, has read a book popular with Social Darwinists — aka “white nationalists”), they often don’t tell us the full story.
While we know that Islam is not synonymous to Iranian (in fact, the Iranian Christian Church has been growing), more Iranian Muslims exist than Iranians of any other religion. Additionally, no other religion so strongly advocates the murder of those who do not convert. Finally, since the left-leaning press loves to cover the misdeeds of anything it sees as a challenge to Christianity, the possible “hidden facts” in this case don’t seem too completely hidden.
Gilroy gunman posted online minutes before mass shooting - MarketWatch.
Shooter upset at incoming Latinos and whit… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Ted Cruz Exposes How Google Swung Millions Of Votes Toward Hillary In 2016
In a 18 July 2019 Freedom Outpost blog post (but, curiously, no mainstream newspaper article), the testimony of a Google expert before Senator Ted Cruz showed how Google shifted somewhere between 2 and 10 million votes to Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Robert Epstein, who researches the impact of Google, explained at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that “upwards of 15 million votes” were in jeopardy in the 2020 election.
He also told Senator Ted Cruz that in 2016, Google gave at least 2.6 million votes to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, “through bias and search results.” He stressed that was the lowest number.
“The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive they were in using the techniques that I’ve been studying, such as the search engine manipulation effect, the search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect, and a number of others. They control these and no one can counteract them. These are not competitive. These are tools that they have at their disposal exclusively.”
Senator Ted Cruz shocked by this responded: “If any headline comes out of this hearing, that should be it.”
During the 2016 election, Google was active in getting out the vote in minority communities that historically voted Democratic. In 2020, all stops will likely be removed unless we dismantle the tech giants (much in the mold of how we cut up AT&T into the Baby Bells).
Google Blacklists Free Speech Platform Gab’s Latest App
Tech giant Google has blacklisted the free-speech focused social media app Gab from the Google Play Store, joining Apple in banning Gab users from accessing the platform using Gab-branded smartphone apps.
Silicon Valley tech giant Google has reportedly banned the free-speech focused social media platform Gab from the Google Play Store. According to a screenshot posted by Gab to Twitter, Google banned the app from the store for “Violation of User Generated Content (UGC) Policy.” Essentially, it appears that Gabs refusal to censor users’ content is what resulted in the app being removed from the store.
The tweet posted by Gab can be seen below, along with a number of links to similar apps that are still active in the Play Store and work with Gab’s servers. Because Gab shifted its platform to a decentralized and open-source architecture, it can be accessed by other apps still available on both Android and Apple smartphones, some with nearly identical code to the blacklisted Gab app.
Just as the Gab app hit the #1 trending top spot on the Google Play Store, Google banned it. Will this potentially… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Still, I encourage everyone to go around that Apple Store and Google Play Store and get free speech apps like Parler and Gab.
The following video shows both Dennis Prager and Google VP testifying before the U.S. Senate on Tech Censorship
The meeting began with the some of the following words from Senator Ted Cruz:
This past April, this subcommittee held a hearing on social media bias with witnesses from Facebook and Twitter. As I noted then, any inquiry into big tech censorship practices must take an especially hard look at Google. That’s what we’re doing here today.
Google’s control over what people hear, watch, read, and say is undprecedneted. Almost 90% of Internet searches in the United States use Google. Google’s domination of the search engine market is so complete that “to Google” is now a commonplace verb.
With that market power, Google can (and often does) control our discourse.
Sometimes, tech companies talk about their products and the effects of those products as though they are forces outside of Big Tech’s control. As we’ve heard, time and time again, Big Tech’s favorite defense is “It wasn’t me. The algorithm did it.”
But Google’s search engine isn’t some supernatural force. It’s a computer program written and maintained by people. So every time we search on Google, we see only the web pages that Google decides we should see in the order Google decides we should see them.
Type a few letters into the search bar and Google will tell you what you should be looking for.
The same is true of Google’s subsidiary, YouTube (the second-most visited web page in existence). When you search on YouTube, programs written by people at YouTube provide you with the results. When you watch a video, a program written by the people at YouTube suggests what you should watch next. When you submit a video, people at YouTube determine whether you’ve engaged in so-called “Hate Speech” (an ever-changing and vague standard meant to give censorship an air of legitimacy).
This is a staggering amount of power: to ban speech, to manipulate search results, to destroy rivals, and to shape culture.
More and more, Americans are demanding accountability from Big Tech for that massive power. One thing is certain: Congress never intended to empower large technology companies to control our speech when it passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That provision, Section 230, gave tech companies special priviliges that nobody else gets. If the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal were to publish an op-ed that libeled a private citizen, they can be held responsible. This is the case even when those organizations don’t write the content that breaks the law. They can be held responsible merel for publishing it. Not so for companies like Google and YouTube. If someone uses one of those services to commit slander or to transmit classified material or to traffic guns or drugs, far too often, Google is off the hook. Section 230 makes it immune.
Big Tech gets a perk — a subsidy — that no one else does (not Fox News, MSNBC, or anybody else).
This immunity, however, was part of a deal. It was a trade. Section 230, the text of it, refers to the Internet as “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” That was the trade at the heart of Section 230. This is because we expected tech companies, in the business of carrying other’s speech, wouldn’t favor any side when they did so. There wouldn’t be a conservative Internet and a liberal Internet. There would just be the Internet.
That bargin, today, is falling apart. Big Tech continues to reap the benefits of this Section 230 subsidy, but the American people do not. The American people are instead subject to both overt censorship and covert manipulation. I think it’s time to re-think that deal.
At 1:42:57, Dennis Prager makes the following tongue-in-cheek comment regarding Google’s having restricted his video on the 10 Commandments.
Google mentioned that a reason that it would be on the restricted list was that it contains mentions of “murder.” So I was thinking. I have a solution that I think will appeal to Google. I will re-release it as the “Nine Commandments.” That should solve the problem of including “murder” in my discussion of the Ten Commandments.
And, as regards to the swastika, yes, there is a swastika. It is, again, in the commandment of “do not murder” wherein I show that murder has sometimes been acceptable to some people. There are people who believe murder is all right even today. I use the swastika and the hammer and sickle as two examples. I would think that you would want young people to associate the swastika with evil. That was why I had a swastika.
During the presentation by Dennis Prager, he mentions (near 1:47:55) that 56 of the 320 five-minute videos are restricted by Google. This is insane, because the subject-matter experts who present themselves through these videos include notable people in their field like the late Charles Krauthammer, a great journalist. This censorship has to end.
Tom Cotton Grills Facebook on Financial Blacklisting, ‘Libra’ Currency
In s 16 July 2019 article by Breitbart, questions were raised about the possibility of financial blacklisting that might start to accompany the current evidence of censorship.
During a recent hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) grilled a representative from Facebook about online censorship, financial blacklisting, and its Libra currency. He questioned what the progressive tech giant would do when a consumer wished to use Libra to subscribe to Breitbart News as opposed to a left-wing publication.
During a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton grilled Facebook executive David Marcus over the company’s new Libra cryptocurrency and how it could be used as a tool for censorship. Cotton noted that Silicon Valley, in general, tends to lean to the left and questioned how conservatives can ensure that their rights are protected when using Facebook’s new currency.
Cotton addressed Marcus stating: “Mr. Marcus, thank you for your appearance and your testimony. Your CEO in testimony before Congress referred to Silicon Valley as, “an extremely left-wing place.” That’s why so many center-right voices have concerns about censorship on platforms like Facebook but also Twitter, Google and so forth. I worry about the possibility that a digital wallet and digital currency like Libra could extend that into the payment system.”
He continued: “There is reason to worry about that because Democrat members of this committee have made it a habit of contacting major financial institutions and encouraging them not to do business with say, gun-manufacturers or with government contractors who serve ICE or the Customs and Border Patrol. What safe-guards, if any, will Libra have to ensure that you treat on par people with views that may be disfavored in an extremely left-wing place like Silicon Valley?”
Marcus responded by stating: “I appreciate your question Senator, and you’re right that Silicon Valley tends to have a bias, but I want to reaffirm that Facebook is a technology company where ideas across the political spectrum are welcome and treated equally. And as far as Libra and the Libra wallet is concerned, we wanted to ensure that people, as long as they have a legitimate use of the product, can do what they want with their money. Of course, there are some restrictions and regulated products, but my commitment to you is we will be thoughtful in writing those policies, and we will be happy to follow up with you when we get closer to finalizing those policies.”
Cotton argued that Facebook’s promise doesn’t seem like much of a guarantee stating: “So that doesn’t sound like much safe-guard to me, other than a commitment before you come into pressure from Democrats—and just wait until tomorrow when you go before the House Financial Services Committee. If you think the Democrats in this committee have hounded banks, wait until you see what you’re in for over there.”
Cotton then pointed out that Facebook, which already has a history of censorship against conservatives, will face pressure to financially blacklist conservative organizations like Christian bakers and Breitbart News when consumers want to use the Libra currency with such organizations.
Let’s see. If a company has a record of favoring one side of a debate between liberal and conservative ideas, then should we expect the same favoritism for liberal causes (and the same punishment of conservative works)? Chances are that these liberal big-tech powers will get more powerful if we don’t break them up. Likewise, they will get exponentially more powerful if we start attaching them to a source of money.
Please note that, if you are a conservative, do not take the chance of eating or drinking while you listen to this video. If you do, you will gag when you hear the representative from Facebook claim that Facebook is a company where “ideas across the political spectrum are welcome and treated equally.” (That would be news to the pro-life groups who sought to advertise in Ireland and had their ads blocked by Facebook — an item bragged about by Mark Zuckerberg.) Likewise, that would be news to the many conservatives who have had their content blocked by Facebook.
Google VP Denies ‘Blacklists’ of Search Results After Leaks Showing Their Existence
A representative from Google denied to Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that the company operates search blacklists during a Senate hearing today, despite the fact that leaked emails published by Breitbart News have exposed the tech giant for doing exactly that.
In response to a line of questioning from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Google VP for government affairs and public policy Karan Bhatia denied that the company, which also owns YouTube, uses blacklists.
“We don’t use blacklists [or] whitelists to influence our search results,” said Bhatia.
A few seconds later, he reiterated his response.
“As I said, per your previous question, we do not utilize blacklists or whitelists in our search results to favor political outcomes … that’s not — doesn’t happen.”
Yet just a few months ago, in January, Breitbart News published internal discussions from Google proving that YouTube, the video hosting platform owned and operated by Google, maintains a file called “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist.” When a search term is added to the file, it causes the top search results on YouTube to be restricted to pre-approved “authoritative” videos, usually from left-leaning and mainstream media outlets.
According to the discussion published by Breitbart News, blacklisting isn’t an uncommon activity at Google:
In the leaked discussion thread, a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source.
“We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”
Employees at the company have added all manner of politically charged search terms to the list, including “abortion,” “David Hogg,” and “Maxine Waters.” Project Veritas also revealed that Google added over a hundred search terms related to the referendum to decriminalize abortion in Ireland, shortly before the vote.
Occasional Cortex Slams Trump: ‘Weak Minds Challenge Loyalty to Our Country’ … then …
As shown in a 15 July 2019 Breitbart article, AOC pokes at Trump by saying “Weak minds challenge loyalty to our country.” Additionally, the article reports:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to President Donald Trump inferring she and other far-left Democrat congresswomen should leave the United States, saying his remarks were the mark of a “weak mind” attempt to avoid policy debates.
“Weak minds and weak leaders challenge loyalty to our country to avoid challenging and debating policy. This president does not know how to defend his policies, so what he does is attack us personally,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a press conference while flanked by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
The New York Democrat made the remark during a press conference with her fellow “squad” members on Capitol Hill after President Trump tripled down, challenging them to emigrate from the U.S. if they continued their repeated attacks on American life.
However, when The Rebel asked AOC to condemn the Antifa firebombing of an ICE office
This, along with the following tweets, seems to push forward the idea that this woman does not love the nation nor is she patriotic.
On an Instagram session, she compared the border detention camps to concentration camps
Despite the fact that she had denied the existence of any crisis at the border (saying that it was “Trump’s manufactured crisis”), AOC claimed that separating criminal aliens from their family members amounted to the creation of a concentration camp. Never mind that Democrats have focused on allowing abortion during up to 9 months of pregnancy, she wants to make the focus the families breaking into the USA. Never mind that, as of June 2019, 24 immigrants had died in the camps (including suicides) — in contrast to the millions killed in the real concentration camps.
AOC was among the Democrats who voted against funding the detention centers
As reported by ABC, AOC, Omar, Pressley, and Tlaib voted against relief for the detainees at the camps. This is likely the reason for her starting the diatribe equating detention camps with concentration camps.
AOC denies that her reference to concentration camps also refers to the Nazi extermination camps
To top that off, AOC tried to deny that she had referred to the concentration camps (aka “extermination” camps).
The statements and actions of AOC that prompted the President
During the first seek of July 2019, AOC alleged that America ran concentration camps on the southern border.
The statements and actions of Rep. Ilhan Omar that prompted the President
In one of her earliest anti-Semitic statements (now deleted, but resurrected through screen captures), Omar intoned the help of her god by asking him to awaken the people to the evil of Israel. Likewise, she
The FBI found that her district was a hotbed of recruiting for al Qaeda, but she had no plans to combat that recruitment
PJ Media discovered an FBI report stating that the district of Rep. Omar was the center of recruitment for al Qaeda. When their reporter asked what measures Rep. Omar had taken to stop such recruitment, no answer came forth.
The Muslim muppet makes anti-Semitic remarks and, in a second video, brushes over the Muslim involvement in 9/11 (“somebody did something”) so that she can focus on how she feels Muslims are being mistreated:
Los Angeles MS-13 gang members were charged Tuesday with the “medieval-style” slayings of seven people, including a rival gang member who had his heart cut out of his chest.
The federal RICO indictment with the murder charges targets an MS-13 group in the San Fernando Valley and spells out other acts of violence prosecutors say were committed on behalf of the notorious transnational gang, which President Trump has vilified for its wanton violence in New York and other places.
In announcing the indictment against 22 individuals, Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna credited a collaborative law enforcement effort with solving several murder cases and dealing “a severe blow to members of the gang who engaged in acts of brutality not seen in the region for over 20 years.”
“Taking violent offenders off the street should send a message to MS-13 members and their associates that medieval-style violence and senseless murder will not be tolerated in Los Angeles,” said Paul Delacourt, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office.
Hanna released photos showing MS-13 members displaying a machete, gang signs and guns in various poses.
The victim whose heart was cut out was identified in the indictment as “J.S.” Prosecutors said MS-13 suspected he’d crossed out MS-13 graffiti.
On March 6, 2017, he was driven to Angeles National Forest, where six MS-13 gang members attacked him with a machete, killing him, the indictment claimed.
Border Patrol arrests in Maine sparked renewed calls for Congress to address the immigration crisis, and the agency highlighted the necessity for public cooperation.
While performing routine duties in Auburn, Maine, Border Patrol agents arrested three individuals who had entered the U.S. illegally — two were Mexican nationals and the third was from Honduras, Customs and Border Protection revealed to the Daily Caller News Foundation. Two of them illegally crossed into the U.S. through El Paso and Rio Grande City, Texas in 2019 and 2018. The two travelled across Texas and Florida before finally reaching Maine.
The third individual illegally entered the country through Douglas, Arizona. Immigration officials later learned that the alien had been arrested twice in 2006 for driving without a license and driving under the influence in California. It’s not immediately clear if Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer request, or if such a request was ignored by local California authorities.
“These arrests further illustrate the value of information provided by the public,” Jason D. Owens, chief patrol agent of the Border Patrol in Maine, said in a statement obtained by The DCNF. “With our limited resources, we rely on the public to assist us by reporting suspicious activity.”
All three illegal aliens were processed at the Rangeley Border Patrol Station and transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations custody, where they are undergoing the deportation process.
Agencies under the Department of Homeland Security were given much needed relief when Congress passed a supplemental funding bill in June. The bill allocated $4.6 billion in funds for the southern border crisis — helping agencies buckling under the weight of record-setting illegal immigration numbers.
However, government officials are still calling on Congress to address the loopholes in the U.S. immigration system — loopholes that aliens continue to exploit.
With a hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show, the following video provides an illustration of real racism. Additionally, it reminds us that (since this was likely prompted by either AOC’s comments equating the detention centers with Nazi concentration camps or by Trump’s response) the tendency of people is to escalate.
One of the Bible’s first limitations on our behavior (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” — Exodus 21:24) recognized our tendency to escalate our response to damage done to us. Therefore, it started by limiting our response to an equal response.
However, Christ raised the bar for our personal response to personal attacks (not to be confused with attacks against the defenseless) when he told us to “do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Matthew 5:39).
This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you’re going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office. If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.
If racism can be defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others,” then Rep. Pressley requires racism.
We have to go outside of America’s press to a 12 July 2019 article in The Irish Times to find out that a Christian was cut from the US Women’s Soccer Team because she declined to wear a rainbow jersey.
The curious case of Jaelene Hinkle.
In June, 2017, she was called into the USA women’s squad ahead of a two-match tour of Scandinavia. With eight full caps already and the World Cup two years away, it looked the perfect opportunity for the then 24-year-old to confirm the growing consensus that she was the country’s best left-back.
Shortly after US Soccer announced the team would wear special jerseys in Europe, emblazoned with rainbow numbers in support of LGBTQ Pride month, Hinkle pulled out of the squad, initially citing “personal reasons” before later going into more detail.
“I just felt so convicted in my spirit that it wasn’t my job to wear this jersey,” she said.
“I gave myself three days to just seek and pray and determine what He was asking me to do in this situation . . . I knew in my spirit I was doing the right thing. I knew I was being obedient. If I never get another national team call-up again then that’s just a part of His plan, and that’s okay. Maybe this is why I was meant to play soccer, to show other believers to be obedient.”
The religious justification for her withdrawal came during an interview for The 700 Club, the most popular and incendiary show on the Christian Broadcasting Network, the go-to channel for fundamentalists across America, an outfit that regularly denounces the gay lifestyle.
When Hinkle’s North Carolina Courage visited the Portland Thorns in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) shortly after the broadcast, opposing fans waved Pride flags and booed her every touch, something supporters of other teams soon began to copy.
Considering all of the praise heaped on the captain of the team and recognition of her lesbian lifestyle, it would seem that the high standard of acceptance required of everyone when it comes to her lesbianism would also require acceptance (on co-captain Megan Rapinoe’s part) of other people’s point of view.
However, the always-inclusive crowd (at least the one at Slate) lobbied to have Jaelene Hinkle removed from the US Women’s Soccer Team in 2018 because they saw her presence as an affront to the LGBTQ2 community. I was not able to find any letters to the editor written by any Women’s Soccer Team member in support of Jaelene Hinkle, but what can you expect? For liberals, tolerance usually only goes in one direction.
Christian Student Kicked out of Uni for Gay Marriage Views Wins Latest Court Battle
A Christian who was expelled from his university for expressing a biblical view on marriage has celebrated winning his latest legal battle, calling it a victory for freedom of speech and religious conscience.
In 2015, Felix Ngole had defended U.S. state official Kim Davis, who had refused to register same-sex marriages in her state of Kentucky, writing on an open Facebook page: “Same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words.”
Mr Ngole at the time had been studying for a Master’s degree in social work at the University of Sheffield, but two months after the Christian student stated the biblical position on marriage he was informed by university administrators that his comments were being investigated. After a professional fitness to practice (FtP) hearing, the university panel deemed Mr Ngole’s comments “derogatory of gay men and bisexuals” and he was expelled from the course.
Mr Ngole took his case to court to have the university’s decision overturned, stating that the decision was a violation of his right to freedom of thought and speech. In 2017, deputy high court Judge Rowena Collins Rice sided with the university.
However on Wednesday, three Court of Appeal judges overruled that judgement, saying Sheffield University’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that the institution should reconsider its decision through another FtP hearing, reportsThe Guardian.
The university had ruled that because Mr Ngole was taking a “professionally qualifying degree” in social care, the openly-shared comments may be of offence to people he may encounter or work with in the future.
“This is great news, not only for me and my family, but for everyone who cares about freedom of speech, especially for those working in or studying for caring professions,” the 41-year-old from Barnsley, south Yorkshire, said.
“As Christians we are called to serve others and to care for everyone, yet publicly and privately we must also be free to express our beliefs and what the Bible says without fear of losing our livelihoods,” he added.
Despite expressing regret that four years of his life were lost to battling his case for religious freedom and freedom of speech, Mr Ngole said: “…I feel overwhelming joy that what I have lost will be so much gain to Christians today and in the future as a result of this important ruling for freedom.”
So, as long as you toe the liberal line, you can stay at the university. Prove me wrong in my belief that liberals will accept tolerance only when it goes in one direction.
Christian student group sues university for ‘equal access,’ alleges religious discrimination
As illustrated by a 12 July 2019 Fox News article, we see that not only have public universities become hotbeds of liberalism, but they have become exclusionary of any other type of thought (particularly Christian thought).
A prominent Christian student organization has sued its university, claiming the group was targeted because of its religious beliefs.
In 2017, Wayne State University kicked Intervarsity Christian Fellowship off campus because it required its leaders to be Christians. It was only when the student group, which had been on campus for 75 years, threatened to sue in March 2018 that the Detroit school reversed its decision, according to a federal lawsuit.
The university claims the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is just trying to use this case to “set a precedent.” But Becket, the civil liberties firm hired by the student group, argues the school still stands by its original interpretation that claims InterVarsity is “discriminating in violating of the law and could be kicked off at any time.”
“We are proud of and love our university, so we were saddened in fall 2017, when Wayne State deregistered our group, canceled our meetings, kicked us out of campus group events, and made us pay thousands of dollars to use campus space that other groups got for free, all simply because we asked that our student leaders believe our Christian faith, just as we have for over 75 years before,” Deaunai Montgomery, a student from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, said Wednesday outside the courtroom.
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a student group at Wayne State University, is suing the Detroit, Mich. school in federal court alleging unfair and unconstitutional treatment. (Becket Law)
“As a Christian, we need our leaders to sincerely believe that what they teach us about Jesus is true,” Montgomery added. “To be clear, we want everyone to feel welcome to attend our group, but why should our Bible studies, prayer, and worship be led by someone who doesn’t believe those things?”
A native Canadian who has witnessed his country’s leftward turn over time is warning about First Amendment freedoms in the United States if the Equality Act ever becomes a federal law.
Dr. Charles McVety, who leads Canada Christian College, tells OneNewsNow that the U.S. Senate and President Trump must stop the Equality Act after its passage in the Democratic-led House.
In March, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the Equality Act with unanimous support from fellow Democrats and some support from a few Republican lawmakers. The measure passed 236-173 in May and set up a fight in the GOP-controlled Senate.
McVety tells OneNewsNow his country passed a similar national law in 2010, which added sexual orientation and gender identity to Canada’s federal hate crimes law.
Days before the U.S. House passed the controversial bill, OneNewsNow reported how Democrats and LGBT allies were claiming the Equality Act seeks to end employment and housing discrimination. But missing from the floor speeches and press releases was the issue of women and girls forced to shower and undress with transgender women — biological men. That concern, in fact, led to some feminists to publicly oppose the measure.
Also missing from Democrats’ talking points was the legal issue of Colorado baker Jack Phillips (pictured at right), and other Christian business owners, whose orthodox views about marriage and sexuality are clashing with state-level non-discrimination laws that mirror the federal Equality Act.
Phillips, who won a narrow Supreme Court victory, is now fighting the demands of a transgender attorney who is harassing the bakery business with requests for a “gender transition” cake, a second cake with a Pentagram, and a third cake with graphic, obscene decorations.
A doctor has claimed he was sacked because his Christian beliefs stopped him addressing transgender claimants by pronouns relating to their chosen sex.
Disability assessor Dr David Mackereth said he wanted “the right to practise medicine as a Christian doctor”.
He claims the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) breached the Equality Act and his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The DWP said it could not comment due to an ongoing employment tribunal.
Speaking outside the tribunal in Birmingham, Dr Mackereth, 56, said: “Last year I was training to do medical assessments for the Department for Work and Pensions and because of my Christian convictions I felt I couldn’t use pronouns – the words ‘he’ and ‘she’ – in an arbitrary manner.
“I said that in good conscience I couldn’t do that. The Department for Work and Pensions took some time to think about it and decided then that I wasn’t fit to do the job because of, I would say, my Christian convictions.
“So I am coming to court today because I want the right to practise medicine as a Christian doctor in the way that I always have.”
Dr Mackereth, from Dudley, whose case is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, said he believed “we have to show compassion to all our patients whatever their background”.
But he said he hoped the court would see he could not be forced to use language “that I consider to be dishonest and against my Christian faith”.
First they came for the photographers, and I did not speak out — because I was not a photographer.
Then they came for the bakers, and I did not speak out — because I was not a baker.
Then they came for the County Clerks, and I di not speak out — because I was not a County Clerk.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
A warning about the extremist threat of 1930’s Germany
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I di not speak out — because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me. Martin Niemöller
Human Traffickers, Corrupt Clergy Target Pakistani Christian Girls For Chinese Grooms
Human traffickers are paying corrupt clergy to lure impoverished Christian girls from Pakistan to China in order to sell them into marriages with older Chinese men, human rights groups said.
Pastors, Pakistani government officials, and brides who escaped their Chinese husbands said “marriage brokers” began targeting girls from poor Christian families in Pakistan in late 2018 in response to a mounting demand for foreign brides in China, according to The Associated Press.
Traffickers have sold up to 1,000 Pakistani girls into sexual slavery thinly veiled as marriage since October of 2018, aided by what activists claim is the apathy of immigration officials and the greed of corrupt priests.
“This is human smuggling,” Ijaz Alam Augustine, human rights and minorities minister for the Punjab province of Pakistan, told the AP. “Greed is really responsible for these marriages … I have met with some of these girls and they are very poor.”
Human traffickers have enlisted the help of corrupt clerics who offer poor Christian families thousands of dollars in exchange for allowing their daughters to be sold into marriage to Chinese men who, they are told, are wealthy converts to Christianity. The lure is especially enticing to Pakistani Christian families, as Christians in Pakistan have little political support and are among the poorest people in the country.
Pakistani custom holds that a bride’s family must pay a dowry to the groom. The husband and his family will often mistreat the bride if her family is unable to pay what they believe to be an adequate dowry. Daughters, therefore, are often seen as burdens to Pakistani families, especially those in poverty. The offer from a rich, Christian, foreign national to pay for all wedding expenses, along with the recommendation of a local priest or pastor, appears too promising for poor Pakistani Christian families to deny.
Muqadas Ashraf, who said she was 16 years old when her family sold her into marriage, said the offers aren’t true.
“It is all fraud and cheating. All the promises they make are fake,” Muqadas told the AP.
Her mother, Nasreen, said she has yet to see a penny of the approximately $5,000 she was offered to allow Muqadas to be married to a Chinese groom.
Local Christian activist and journalist Saleem Iqbal claimed human traffickers have sold an estimated 750 to 1,000 Pakistani girls into marriages with older, often abusive Chinese grooms since October 2018. Iqbal also runs a refuge that provides shelter to brides who escape their Chinese grooms.
Augustine and Munch Morris, a pastor in the city of Gujranwala, claimed dozens of pastors and priests work with marriage brokers who pay them to find brides for Chinese grooms. Morris reportedly knows of a group of such pastors in his city, one of whom is a pastor at his own church who tells the faithful “God is happy because these Chinese boys convert to Christianity. They are helping the poor Christian girls.”
With all of the emphasis on the #MeToo movement, you would think that there would be at lease a story or two in the mainstream media about the predicament of these poor girls. However, like the girls getting sold into prostitution in the human trafficking trade at the American southern border, these girls do not fit the liberal narrative.
After Attacks On Assyrians, Northern Iraq’s Christian Minority Recommits To A Homeland
Christians in Iraq continue to be exposed to violent attacks and oppression at the hands of various armed groups.
On May 13, assailants broke into an Assyrian Christian home and attacked two elderly women, a mother and daughter, in the Iraqi town of Bartella. The women were repeatedly stabbed with a knife and their gold and money were stolen. The two victims were then hospitalized in Mosul. The daughter, who sustained a violent head injury, remains in critical condition.
Two men who were arrested for the crime are from Shabak, a Shia group that is supported by Iran alongside the Shia Hashd al-Shaabi militia, reported the human rights organization, International Christian Concern (ICC).
Bartella is a town in the Nineveh plain in Iraq, the ancient Assyrian heartland, where Assyrian Christians still constitute a demographic majority and have for years sought autonomy or self-governance. However, since the defeat of ISIS, Bartella has been occupied by the Brigade 30 militia under the Hashd al-Shaabi. And the number of Shia Shabak people is increasing in the southern towns of Nineveh.
Susan Patto, an Assyrian living in Baghdad, told the Daily Caller, “the attack on those elderly women is not just a crime of theft; it’s a message to Assyrians that you are not safe in your homes and towns.”
“The fragile security situation in Nineveh Plain, where different sides control security, and most of them are not even people of that area, is creating more problems, and also increasing the fear of people to go back to their towns,” Patto added.
Harper’s magazine has devoted its December cover story to shining a spotlight on the persecution of Christians, especially the plight of Christians in the Middle East.
“In the summer of 2014, the Islamic State occupied Christian cities and villages across northern Iraq, appropriated Christian homes, and destroyed farms of Christian families,” reports the second oldest magazine in the United States, founded in 1850.
When Islamic State commanders separated men from women and imposed jizyah, or extortion taxes, their purpose was extreme: they meant to subjugate the Christians or drive them away from the land,” states Janine di Giovanni in her essay.
The report, titled “The Vanishing: The plight of Christians in an age of intolerance,” chronicles the systematic elimination of Christians from the Middle East, as wave after wave of persecution has sent them from their homes.
In Mosul, for example, Iraq’s second-largest city, more than one hundred thousand Christians have been displaced from their homes, Harper’s notes. Soldiers from the Islamic State went from house to house, “marking the doors of Christians with the letter n, an ancient reference to Nasrani, or followers of Jesus of Nazareth” in an effort to intimidate those who remained.
And while over the centuries Middle Eastern Christians have endured “invasions by Persians, Kurds, and Turks,” they have recovered after each persecution, but this time may be different. “We’re worried,” says a 30-year-old local Christian. “Even with ISIS gone, there’s another big threat: there is no work for us. Our enemy is emigration. People are leaving every day.”
The majority of Iraqi Christians are ethnic Assyrians, who belong to the Catholic Chaldean denomination and whose roots in the region go back two thousand years, the essay notes. Some claim that “they can connect their family trees with the apostle Thomas, who came to Mesopotamia to evangelize during the first century.”
While the persecution of Christians in the region began as early as the thirteenth century, the article states, “in recent years it has reached a tipping point, setting off a mass exodus.” In 2002, there were some 1.4 million Christians in Iraq yet today the number has plummeted to between 250,000 and 300,000, a drop of a stunning 80 percent.
When the Islamic State captured Mosul in 2014, “Christians were told to leave or die,” the article states. And as the head of political and military affairs for the Assyrian Democratic Movement said at the time: “It’s a cleansing of all Christians from the region.”
I don’t know how we might help the Christians in the region without stepping into the role of police of the world. While we cannot be police of the world, we can direct funds to relief groups like the Free Burma Rangers and we can pray.
With the help of groups like the Free Burma Rangers, civilian lives have been saved from the crossfire created when ISIS retreated from Russian and Syrian advances.
Report: Christian Persecution in India Jumps by 57% in 2019
Hate crimes and targeted violence against Christians in India during the first two months of 2019 showed a jump of 57 percent over the same period in 2018, a new report revealed.
During January and February, 77 incidents of “hate and targeted violence against Christians” were documented in India as compared with the 49 cases recorded during the same period last year, according to the Religious Liberty Commission of the Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI).
The EFI report said that the official figures are invariably low, because most cases of persecution go unreported, either because the victim and witnesses are too frightened to speak out, or because the police ignore the harassment and fail to file mandatory First Information Reports.
The sharp rise in Christian persecution for 2019 had already been forecast by Release International, a U.K.-based charity that helps persecuted Christians around the world, which warned in early January that persecution against Christians would rise this year, particularly in a few key nations, including India.
“These are countries that have long been on the list but we’re seeing an upwards curve, an alarming rise in persecution,” said Andrew Boyd, spokesman for Release International, underscoring India’s “militant Hinduism.”
The acts of persecution and harassment in January and February include the murders of two Christians last month, one in Odisha state and the other in Chhattisgarh state. The Christians — one of whom was a convert — were killed by Maoist rebels, known as Naxalites, after villagers hostile to the Christian faith falsely reported them to the rebels as police informants.
“We have reasons to believe that both men, who were in their 40s, were killed because of their faith,” said the Rev. Vijayesh Lal, general secretary of the EFI. “We have recorded cases where Christians have been facing social boycott and have been excommunicated from their villages, and in a few instances have had to flee to save their lives.”
Other cases of harassment involved abuse by law enforcement officials.
Sad to hear this, but it can be expected when the dominant religion of Hinduism finds itself physically battling extreme Islam along with extreme Hindu groups seeking the purity of their own positions.
We must pray for Christians whose tradition may date back to Thomas the Apostle and his purported trip to Kerala.
Pastor charged in Toronto, Canada confrontation released on bail, cannot attend Pride
A pastor who was charged with disturbing the peace while preaching with a loudspeaker in the Church-Wellesley Village on Tuesday night is out on bail, and says he is the victim of state discrimination against Christians.
Police responded to a call about a disturbance in the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday evening.
Video posted online shows pastor David Lynn speaking into a microphone at Church and Wellesley streets and saying that he is “coming out as a Christian.”
Through nearly two hours of footage, Lynn is seen saying that he doesn’t hate anyone, that some people hate Christians and that some people want him to “stay in the closet” as a Christian.
He begins approaching various people to ask if they would tolerate him. When one man asks him to go away, Lynn calls him a bigot.
When others approach to tell Lynn that he is disturbing them, he calls them “hateful.”
After more community members arrived, Lynn was seen arguing with them and his supporters, before police eventually arrested Lynn.
After his release, the 39-year-old pastor said being at Church and Wellesley was just another stop on his map of Toronto, and he and his supporters had been at Kensington Market and Queen and Sherbourne earlier.
“I didn’t know this was the start of the pride month…I didn’t say anything specific to the LGBTQ community, it’s all on live stream,” he told reporters at College Park.
He said he feels as if he is being discriminated against for being Christian.
“It’s unfortunate that I am subject to this kind of discrimination and bullying and marginalization simply for saying God loves you, there is hope for you, I accept you and tolerate you. I shouldn’t be in this position, I didn’t do anything illegal.”
He said that he was assaulted during the encounter Tuesday but police at the scene refused to hear his complaint.
“It looked as though they had an event waiting for me, and they had some form of hatred against me,” Lynn said.
It seems that this pastor took the reasoning of the LGBTQ crowd and applied it to himself. Rather than seeing this as a point of common suffering, the LGBTQ crowd took this as a message they did not want to hear.
Now the crowd that has often complained about being arrested for doing nothing but being LGBTQ decided to have the Christian arrested for being himself and exercising the degree of free speech allowed to Canadians. However, all it got him was arrested.
London Police Change Their Story on Arrest of Christian Street Preacher
The Met Police have changed their narrative on the arrest of a Christian street preacher last month after an investigation was launched into their conduct.
While police originally claimed they had walked the preacher some 200 meters away and then let him go, they now admit that they drove him away in a car, dropping him off several miles away.
“As the man indicated that he wished to continue his activities at Southgate tube station, officers felt it necessary to take the man some distance from the station in order to prevent a breach of the peace at that location,” police stated.
On February 23rd, police arrested Oluwole Ilesanmi, a Pentecostal Christian who was preaching outside the Southgate underground station, handcuffing him and confiscating his Bible. They later let the man go without charging him for any crime.
Mr Ilesanmi claimed he was driven to an unfamiliar place far away and left without money to get home, a claim the police originally denied.
Fulani Muslim militants launched raids on eight villages in central Nigeria this week, burning alive a Christian pastor along with his wife and three of their children.
In the village of Abonong in Plateau State, the Islamic raiders, armed with machetes and AK47 rifles, looted and destroyed 95 houses, along with farmland and three churches. They killed Pastor Adamu Gyang Wurim and his family by setting fire to their house while they were inside and shot the pastor’s wife in the bathroom. The assailants killed two other villagers as well, wounding several others.
The attack, which began Tuesday evening around 8:00 p.m., lasted over four hours before security personnel finally arrived on the scene. By then the attackers had razed much of the villages of Abonong and Ziyat, and stolen valuables including electronics, mattresses, food, and livestock.
The incident occurred just 24 hours after a two-day peace summit in Jos organized by the Christian Association of Nigeria with the theme, “Sustainable peace and security in Northern Nigeria as a panacea for development.”
A local lawyer, Dalyop Solomon Mwantiri, spoke with one of the three surviving children of the pastor, who was away at the University of Jos at the time of the attack and learned of it on Facebook.
“When I called a friend to find out about the situation, the report I received was very devastating,” the young man said. “I couldn’t believe that all my family members have been engulfed in the pogrom. On reaching home, I saw my daddy and younger ones burnt beyond recognition.”
“The three of us left don’t know what to do, especially now that we are still students who have nothing to hold on [to],” he said.
One witness, Mr. Gwom Pam Dusu, who works at a Roman Catholic Church in the area, said that local security had received information about an impending attack planned by Fulani herdsmen and their hired mercenaries but failed to act.
Despite the information, “security personnel stationed at Bek of Foron District didn’t do anything to avert the terror attacks,” Mr. Gwom claimed.
Why haven’t we heard one word of this in the mainstream press? Why were we subjected to two weeks of stories about those murdered by one madman in New Zealand and have not heard of the tens of thousands murdered by Muslims in Nigeria?
‘National Disgrace’ – UK Home Office Rejects Syrian Christians, Refugee Intake 100 Percent Muslim
The British government has admitted that no Christians were taken among the Syrian refugees flown into Britain recently, with the Home Office rejected the handful of non-Muslims selected for resettlement by the United Nations.
Despite the persecution of Christians at the hands of Islamic extremists in Syria having been declared genocide by the U.S., the European Union (EU) and even British MPs themselves in a 2016 parliamentary vote, the 1,112 Syrians that Britain resettled in the first three months of 2018 consisted only of Muslims.
The Barnabas Fund, an aid agency which supports Christians persecuted for their faith, obtained the figures via Freedom of Information requests after “a protracted tussle with the Home Office”, The Sunday Timesreports.
According to the data, 1,226 (90 percent) of the 1,358 individuals recommended by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for resettlement in the United Kingdom during the first three months of this year were Sunni Muslims, who comprise around 65 per cent of Syrians.
While Christians are estimated to make up just over 10 per cent of the country’s population, only four — none of whom were approved by the Home Office for resettlement — were among refugees recommended by the UN, along with one atheist and 127 (9.5 per cent) people from Shi’ite and other non-Sunni strands of Islam.
The campaign group, which last year accused the UNHCR of unfairly prioritising Sunni Muslims over persecuted minorities when recommending refugees for resettlement in the West, stressed it was not requesting special treatment for Christians but for people to be selected “on the basis of vulnerability”.
Martin Parsons, head of research at the Barnabas Fund head of research, said the charity believes a “cultural problem” lies behind the scarcity of Christians among refugees recommended for resettlement, pointing to UN criteria which counts disability and sexual orientation as markers of vulnerability, but not the targeting of people for their religious faith.
“If someone is gay, the penalty under sharia is death, but if someone converts from Islam to Christianity, the penalty is also death,” he told the Sunday Times, adding that last week’s deadly attack in Sweida illustrated that religious minorities are still very much a target for Islamic militants.
The northeastern African nation of Eritrea is continuing its tradition of persecuting any type of Christianity not authorized by the state.
Recently more than 30 Pentecostal Christians were arrested by the country’s security forces for praying.
The religious rights group Berhane Asmelash of Release Eritrea told the BBC the Christians were arrested at three different locations around the capital city of Asmara.
Eritrea’s government outlawed all Pentecostal churches 17 years ago and only recognizes four faith groups, including Orthodox Christianity, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Eritrea.
Authorities say other religious groups are illegal because they are alleged to be instruments of foreign governments.
One recent report reveals government authorities are even conducting raids targeting citizens in their own homes.
“Police officers carry out continuous raids in private homes where devotees of unrecognized religions, especially Pentecostal Christians, meet for community prayer,” the report said. “They are released only if they disavow their faith.”
There is also increasing friction between the church and the government. The government demands complete control of all religious organizations including private schools, medical clinics, and orphanages, according to the report. The government then interferes in the organizations’ efforts to help the country’s people of which 66 percent live below the poverty line.
A few weeks ago, police arrested 141 Christians, including 23 men, 104 women, and 14 minors, from Asmara’s Mai Temenai area.
Eritrea, located on Africa’s Red Sea coast, is known by persecution watch organizations as the “North Korea of Africa” for its brutal regime led by President Isaias Afwerki.
A grim new report on Christian persecution around the globe suggests that rather than improving, the situation of Christians worldwide is worsening, a fact whitewashed by mainstream media.
“Christians are the victims of at least 75 percent of all religiously-motivated violence and oppression,” declares the 2015-2017 report from Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), and moreover “the extent of this persecution is largely ignored by our media.”
In their report titled “Persecuted and Forgotten?”, ACN noted that in Iraq more than half of the country’s Christian population have become internal refugees, while in the Syrian city of Aleppo, the Christian population has fallen by more than 75 percent. Up until 2011 Aleppo was home to the largest Christian community but in just 6 years numbers have dropped from 150,000 to just over 35,000.
“In terms of the number of people involved, the gravity of the crimes committed and their impact, it is clear that the persecution of Christians is today worse than at any time in history,” said John Pontifex, the Report’s editor.
In the 13 countries where Christians suffer the most intense persecution, the situation has worsened in all but one—Saudi Arabia—in the last two years, and conditions there have stayed the same.
“In almost all the countries reviewed,” the report reads, “the oppression and violence against Christians have increased since 2015 – a development especially significant given the rate of decline in the immediate run-up to the reporting period.”
In communist North Korea, for example, Christians have undergone “unspeakable atrocities,” the report states, “including extra-judicial killings, forced labour, torture, persecution, starvation, rape, forced abortion and sexual violence.”
According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, documented incidents against Christians include “being hung on a cross over a fire, crushed under a steamroller, herded off bridges, and trampled underfoot.” One estimate suggests that three quarters of Christians in the camps die from the harsh punishments inflicted on them.
But the second part of the report’s title—“forgotten”—is also key to understanding the situation of persecuted Christians worldwide. Particularly in the Middle East where Christians have been undergoing a systematic genocide, virtually no help has been forthcoming from Western (predominantly Christian) countries or from the United Nations.
“Governments in the West and the UN failed to offer Christians in countries such as Iraq and Syria the emergency help they needed as genocide got underway,” ACN’s website relates. “If Christian organisations and other institutions had not filled the gap, the Christian presence could already have disappeared in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.”
Thankfully, this does not happen in America; however, we need to prepare for that eventuality. Considering the vehemence of the pro-abortion people, the importation and breeding of Islam in America, and the power of anti-Christian groups, it seems this is an eventuality.
Doctor in Argentina convicted of refusing to abort 23-week-old baby
An OB/GYN in Argentina was found guilty on Monday of refusing to carry out an abortion after a woman who was 23 weeks pregnant took the abortion pill. Dr. Leandro Rodríguez Lastra is the head of gynecology at Pedro Moguillansky Hospital and is said to have saved the woman’s life.
Abortion is legal in eleven Argentinian provinces, but only in cases of rape, endangerment to the mother’s life, or when the mother is mentally disabled and is the victim of sexual abuse. The majority of gynecologists in Argentina are conscientious objectors, but Rodríguez Lastra was not registered as one, and therefore, the prosecution says he was obliged by law to commit the abortion.
According to CitizenGo, Rodríguez Lastra was charged and found guilty of failing to carry out his duty as a public official in 2017, when he refused to finish the abortion of the viable child whose 19-year-old mother was a victim of rape. It is important to note that the mother was in agreement with his plan to save her life and that of the child, according to CitizenGo. It is not the mother who has taken Rodríguez Lastra to court, but Representative Marta Milesi, a pro-abortion activist.
The young woman first went to the Fernandez Oro hospital where she was referred to Pedro Moguillansky Hospital for an abortion, but doctors from the initial hospital admitted in hearings that they told her to go to the feminist NGO “La Revuelta,” and never gave complete health information to doctors at Pedro Moguillansky Hospital. According to LifeSiteNews, the woman arrived at Pedro Moguillansky Hospital in severe pain, stating she had been given Misoprostol to induce an abortion and asking for the doctors there to complete the abortion. According to CitizenGo, she had been given the abortion pill at nearly six months pregnant by a non-medical organization. Taking the abortion pill after 10 weeks increases the risks to the mother’s health.
Rodríguez Lastra determined that she had an infection and was in danger of septic shock. She was at risk of losing her uterus and of dying. An obstetric expert testified that this diagnosis was correct, and that Rodríguez Lastra saved the woman’s life.
“This case confirms that the intention of the promoters of the legalization of abortion is that it can be practiced without limit in the time of pregnancy,” said Rodríguez Lastra.
Rodríguez Lastra, the mother, hospital management, neonatologists, psychologists, and social workers all agreed to treat the woman and not allow the abortion to be completed. The plan was to perform a C-section at 35 weeks, giving the child and mother both a chance to live. The Ministry of Health and the Family Judge agreed with this decision. The baby was born and placed for adoption.
Although this happened some time ago, I applaud this doctor and support anything we can do to support him.
The struggle of Pakistan’s Christians
In a more focused video by France24 published in 2009, the systemic discrimination against Christians within Pakistan. It shows how Christians have been isolated, made second-class citizens, and forced into a slave-like situation.
From their walled-off enclave, these Christians live in dirt, collect scraps from their Muslim neighbors, and cannot elevate themselves out of their former “untouchables” ranking.
“When you besiege a city a long time, to make war against it in order to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them; for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?
This verse reminds us to stay on topic — to not cut down trees that might bear future fruit.
Have an eternal perspective despite carnal issues
And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.
If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
Teen Who Said There Are Only Two Genders Expelled from School, GoFundMe Shut Down
Breitbart reports through a 4 July 2019 article that a 17-year-old Scottish boy has been suspended and given a final expulsion. “For what?” you might ask. He was expelled for recording his teacher tell him he could not say “There are only two genders” in class.
A Scottish 17-year-old who was suspended for filming his teacher telling him that he could not say in class that there are only two genders has been told he cannot return to his school.
UPDATE: YouTuber I, Hypocrite has launched a new <fundraising page on Fundly to support Murray.
I've set up a new fundraiser page for Murray, I'll do a quick video after work tonight with all the updates and dev… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The Aberdeenshire pupil, named Murray, had shared the video to social media because, according to a friend, he wanted to expose the left-progressive, anti-scientific ideologies being taught at Scottish schools, and expressed concern that telling very young children that “boys are girls and girls are boys” is “a very dangerous thing”.
The viral footage revealed that the teen had been removed from class for stating that there are only two genders, with the teacher telling him that whilst the boy was entitled to his “opinion”, he could not share it at school because “the authority” and school policy dictated that there are many genders and to assert otherwise was “not acceptable” and tantamount to discrimination.
“I know what you think, and I know what the authority thinks, I know the authority’s point of view is very clear,” the teacher is heard saying.
Murray had been suspended for one week, according to the school on grounds of sharing the footage of his teacher without his consent, later tripled to three weeks. Now, the pupil has been told that he will not be able to return to Mearns Academy to finish his education, the Evening Standard reports.
10-year-old girl suspended for asking to be exempted from LGBT school lesson
According to a 1 July 2019 article at LifeSiteNews, a young woman stood up, asked to be exempted from a pro-LGBT lesson and (for that) was suspended along with a classmate (Farrell) who also stood against the indoctrination.
A 10-year-old who was suspended from school for a week after asking her teacher permission to be excused from participating in a “Pride Month” LGBT lesson has gone on the record to explain the real dangers of the invasion of LGBT ideology in her school.
“Before anybody knew what LGBT meant, everybody knew what gender they were,” explained Kaysey, who, along with her classmate, Farrell, was suspended from the Heavers Farmer Primary School, located in Croydon, South London.
“But now people are confused,” continued the precocious 10-year-old, “and they’re saying that they’re bisexual and trans because they’re confused.”
“Before this happened, they were completely confident of who they were but now they’re not,” she added.
“It’s really affecting other kids,” explained Kaysey, “because now they’re losing confidence in [them]selves and looking at [them]selves and asking, ‘Why am I this person? Why can’t I be someone else?’”
“Before all this happened, people knew who they were,” said Kaysey. “School children are now facing the choice of what gender they are by the age of four.”
Thank God for this young woman’s stand. I can see a job in some phase of communication for this young woman’s future, since she has such an ability to see and point out the inconsistencies in the system.
Over 11,000 have supported the Christian kids suspended for resisting LGBT indoctrination
In yet another LifeSiteNews article (this one published on 3 July 2019) documents the great number of people who have supported the kids suspended for resisting LGBT lesson plans.
A LifeSiteNews petition supporting two British children suspended from school for their Christian faith has attracted more than 11,000 signatures.
Ten-year-old Kaysey and Farrell are both pupils of Heavers Farm Primary School in Croydon, a neighbourhood in South London. Last month, the children, a girl and a boy, asked their teacher if they could be excused from a lesson in which they were asked to color in LGBT “Pride Month” material. Although the children cited their religious objections, he refused and afterward allegedly accused them of “homophobic language.”
According to Christian Concern, a legal advocacy group, Farrell was accused of having said “LGBT sucks and LGBT’s dumb,” which he denies. The teacher asked the children if they wanted LGBT people to die, and they said that they didn’t. They said, however, that in their countries of origin they would be punished for being gay.
Millenials are growing less tolerant of LGBTQ individuals
Through the lens of USA Today. it seems that the number of millennials supporting the LGBT movement have dropped.
Young people are growing less tolerant of LGBTQ individuals, a jarring turn for a generation traditionally considered embracing and open, a survey released Monday shows.
The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016.
Driving the dilution of acceptance are young women whose overall comfort levels plunged from 64% in 2017 to 52% in 2018, says the survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD.
“We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant,” John Gerzema, CEO of The Harris Poll, told USA TODAY. “These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.”
The mainly Muslim parents said they were furious that homosexuality was being “aggressively” taught to their children.
Parkfield Community School in Birmingham, England, has now suspended its ‘No Outsiders’ classes until after Easter, while a consultation takes place with parents.
RTreports: Tensions between the school and parents have escalated due to a row surrounding LGBT lifestyles being taught in classrooms.
The ill-feeling from angry parents has even boiled over into threats against the assistant headteacher Andrew Moffat MBE, who is gay. He claims to have received “nasty emails” including one which warned he “wouldn’t last long.”
The primary school, which has around 740 pupils, is located in a predominantly Muslim area. It has come under fire from Muslim parents for implementing an LGBT programme which seeks to challenge homophobia, because homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam.
According to Alum Rock Community Forum, children were removed from classes over the school’s “undermining of parental rights and aggressively promoting homosexuality.”
The forum added that despite repeated petitions, protests and dialogue instigated by parents, they have been “arrogantly ignored.”
In a letter to parents, the trustee board of Excelsior Multi Academy Trust, which runs the school, confirmed lessons would be halted until the end of April.
Moffat had been piloting the programme, which had been running in parallel with sex and relationship education (SRE) lessons.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said migrant women held in a Customs and Border Protection facility were told to drink water out of toilets, but an agent has directly refuted the allegation and she has yet to clarify if she actually saw such an action occur.
“Officers were keeping women in cells w/ no water & had told them to drink out of the toilets. This was them on their GOOD behavior in front of members of Congress,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Monday after visiting her first CBP detention center that day. It was her first accusation that women in the Texas facility were being explicitly told by agents to drink water from toilets.
Ocasio-Cortez later spoke to reporters outside the facility, and her comments suggested she personally saw women drinking out of a toilet.
“These women were being told by CBP officers to drink out of the toilet. They were drinking water out of the toilet, and that was them knowing a congressional visit was coming. This is CBP on their best behavior,” the New York Democrat stated Monday. However, she did not provide an answer when a reporter asked if she personally witnessed this.
A CBP agent who was reportedly close by as Ocasio-Cortez toured the facility said the congresswoman is purposely misconstruing a story she heard.
“So this is what happened with the migrant and drinking water from toilet: She wanted water, didn’t know how to use the faucet in the cell and drank from the toilet. She never told AOC that we made her drink from the toilet. AOC, of course, changed it. … This was when she [the migrant] was apprehended and brought into the facility,” according to an unnamed agent who spoke with the Washington Examiner.
Considering all of the other stupid statements AOC has been able to get away with (for the time being), it would not surprise me to see her walking away from this fiasco (aided by the mainstream media).
On the other hand, had this been a Trump administration official who had made these comments …
AOC: Trump running ‘concentration camps’ at border
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Monday evening ratcheted up her attacks on the Trump administration’s immigration policies, referring to President Donald Trump as a “fascist” operating “concentration camps” on the U.S.-Mexico border.
“That is exactly what they are. They are concentration camps,” Ocasio-Cortez said of migrant holding facilities during a Q&A live-streamed on Instagram. “The fact that concentrations camps are now an institutionalized practice in the Home of the Free is extraordinarily disturbing and we need to do something about it.”
The self-avowed Democratic-socialist then voiced her eagerness to connect with others “who are concerned enough with humanity to say that ‘never again’ means something.”
The expression “never again” is strongly associated with Holocaust remembrance.
During another part of the live-stream, the 29-year-old freshman lawmaker warned her followers that “we are losing to an authoritarian and fascist presidency.”
“I don’t use those words lightly,” she continued. “I don’t use those words to just throw bombs. I use that word because that is what an administration that creates concentration camps is. A presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist, and it’s very difficult to say that.”
“The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the home of the free is extraordinarily disturbing, and we need to do something about it,” she added.
In November, Ocasio-Cortez faced blowback after comparing asylum seekers to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany during World War II, attempting to make the point that neither was a “crime.” “Asking to be considered a refugee and applying for status isn’t a crime,” the congresswoman wrote on Twitter. “It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America.”
Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly screamed at federal law enforcement officers Monday while visiting the U.S.-Mexico border.
The freshman Democrat screamed at law enforcement agents “in a threatening manner” during a visit to a U.S. Border Patrol facility in El Paso, Texas, according to The Washington Examiner’s Anna Giaritelli, and also reportedly refused to tour the facility.
SCOOP: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., screamed at federal law enforcement agents “in a threatening manner”… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Too bad that AOC is offended that officers should choose to laugh in front of her. However, this might fall within their free speech rights.
Hispanic pastors tour border facility lambasted by AOC and say they are ‘shocked by misinformation’
We find through a 2 July 2019 Fox News article that a group of Hispanic pastors have come out to stand against the lies of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez was “full of indignation” when he saw the reports and heard from politicians about the deplorable and inhumane conditions for illegal immigrants at an El Paso County, Texas migrant detention center. But what he saw at the same facility toured by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. with a group of pastors was “drastically different.”
The president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the world’s largest Hispanic Christian organization, and senior pastor of New Seasons Christian Worship Center in Sacramento shared his firsthand experience touring a migrant detention center during a press briefing Monday.
“I read the reports, saw the news clips. I just wanted to see what was actually happening in order to better enable our efforts to find a fair and a just solution to our broken immigration system,” Rodriguez, who has advised President Trump and both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush on immigration reform, noted. “To my surprise, I saw something drastically different from the stories I’ve been hearing in our national discourse. Even as a veteran of immigration advocacy in the U.S., I was shocked at the misinformation of the crisis at the border.”
The group of pastors saw a very different picture described by Ocasio-Cortez and other politicians and media outlets.
“We found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities,” Rodriguez remarked, adding he specifically asked border agents if they staged the facility in response to the negative press. “They unequivocally denied it — we were witnessing the identical conditions the attorneys saw when they toured the facility days earlier.”
In fact, some told him the sources from whom the negative coverage originated “never toured the areas of the facility that we toured” and speculated they might have had political motivations.
I don’t know about you, but I trust border patrol agents and pastors more than I trust Democrats.
I’m not that sure, but there is probably not anyone who I would believe less than AOC.
House sends Trump $4.6B border bill, yielding to Senate
In a 28 June 2019 Associated Press article, we are shown how the resolve of the American people against the Democrat inaction resulted in the passage of a relief package for a crisis at the southern border.
The Democratic-controlled House voted Thursday to send President Donald Trump a bipartisan, Senate-drafted, $4.6 billion measure to care for migrant refugees detained at the southern border, capping a Washington skirmish in which die-hard liberals came out on the losing end in a battle with the White House, the GOP-held Senate and Democratic moderates.
The emergency legislation, required to ease overcrowded, often harsh conditions at U.S. holding facilities for migrants seeking asylum, mostly from Central American nations like Honduras and El Salvador, passed by a bipartisan 305-102 vote. Trump has indicated he’ll sign it into law.
“A great job done by all!” Trump tweeted from his overseas trip.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reluctantly brought the Senate bill to a vote by after her plan to further strengthen rules for treatment of migrant refugees ran into intractable opposition from Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence. Many moderate Democrats split with Pelosi as well, undercutting her earlier efforts, which faded shortly after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would swiftly reject them.
The legislation contains more than $1 billion to shelter and feed migrants detained by the border patrol and almost $3 billion to care for unaccompanied migrant children who are turned over the Department of Health and Human Services. It rejects an administration request for additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds, however, and contains provisions designed to prevent federal immigration agents from going after immigrants living in the country illegally who seek to care for unaccompanied children.
The funding is urgently needed to prevent the humanitarian emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border from worsening. The government had warned that money would run out in a matter of days.
The Senate bill passed Wednesday by an 84-8 vote, with Democrats there pleased with the deal they cut with Republicans controlling the chamber.
Of course, this is the bill that AOC and other Democrats spent over three months (17 times) blocking while they claimed that all of this was a “manufactured crisis.” However, now that they need something to run on, this now turns into a crisis.
You forgot the part where R’s asked for a vote on humanitarian aid 17 times before today.
Stop misleadi… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The immigration chief in Costa Rica announced that the three ISIS terror suspects sought by international authorities have been caught in Nicaragua. The three men are expected to be sent back to Costa Rica and interviewed by international authorities.
The announcement came from by Costa Rican Immigration Police Chief Steve Madden Monday evening during an interview with multiple local news outlets. During the interview, Madden said the three ISIS terror suspects had entered Costa Rica on June 9 as part of a group of migrants that traveled north from Panama. Authorities allowed the three men into Costa Rica and then allowed to continue their journey after several biometric searches concluded the men were not wanted fugitives or sought by any country, Madden told Costa Rica’s Columbia newspaper. The three men have since been detained by Nicaraguan authorities where they denied the suspects permission to enter the country.
Nicaraguan authorities confirmed the arrests of four, not three ISIS terror suspects who entered the country as part of a migrant group with Costa Rican travel documents. Three of those men are the individuals Breitbart News first reported on, regarding an international alert from U.S. law enforcement agencies.
The Nicaraguan Army arrested the four men this week at an irregular crossing point known as Guacimada, Costa Rica’s Teletica reported. During questioning, the men presented migrant travel documents given to them by the Costa Rican government.
Mexican authorities are on high alert regarding three ISIS-linked terror suspects who are believed to be making their way from Central America to Mexico and potentially the U.S. border. Authorities were warned the suspects could try to enter Mexico within a large migrant group or with the help of human smugglers.
Breitbart News exclusively confirmed that Mexican Federal Police are on alert, preparing to encounter or arrest Ahamed Ghanim Mohamed Al Juburi from Iraq, and Ibrahim Mohamed and Mohamed Eissa from Egypt. The three men are believed to have entered through Panama in May, crossed through Costa Rica on June 9, and could be headed to Mexico, a leaked internal security memo revealed. The documents make reference to BITMAP, the U.S. Homeland Security Investigations’ Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program, a collection of databases on “special interest aliens, violent criminals, fugitives and confirmed or suspected terrorists encountered within illicit pathways.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden campaigned Wednesday on a horrific photo of a migrant father and daughter who drowned in the Rio Grande river while trying to cross into the United States.
“This image is gut-wrenching,” Biden wrote on Twitter. “The cruelty we’re seeing at our border is unconscionable.”
Biden blamed their deaths on Trump administration border enforcement officials rather than the open border policies promulgated by Democrats.
“History will judge how we respond to the Trump Administration’s treatment of immigrant families & children—we can’t be silent,” he wrote. “This isn’t who we are. This is not America.”
The image will likely be a top theme of the Democrat 2020 primary debate on NBC on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, a native of El Salvador, was swept away as he tried to cross the Rio Grande with his 23-month-old daughter.
The family appeared to be economic migrants, according to an interview with the man’s mother.
“I begged them not to go, but he wanted to scrape together money to build a home,” she told the Associated Press. “They hoped to be there a few years and save up for the house.”
The family left El Salvador on April 3, spending about two months at a shelter before attempting to cross the border on their own.
At least 170 migrants have been found dead in 2019 because of their journey to cross the southern border, according to the International Organization for Migrants’ Missing Migrant Project.
Because the trek to the USA is not safe, the most compassionate suggestion might be to tell these people to obey the law.
20 Times Breitbart Reported on Migrant Deaths During Obama-Biden Years and No One Cared
According to a 26 June 2019 Breitbart article, there have been at least 20 articles published by Breitbart during the Obama-Biden administration that chronicled illegal aliens who died crossing the border while no mainstream media batted an eye.
Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted an image of a migrant father and daughter who had died on the U.S.-Mexico border and he attempted to link the deaths to cruelty from President Donald Trump. However, Breitbart News consistently reported on the deaths of hundreds of migrants along the border during the Obama-Biden administration — horrors that then-Vice President Biden never spoke about during his time in the White House.
During the Obama-Biden administration, 535 migrants died in one Texas county alone — Brooks County. The county is located about 80 miles north of the Texas-Mexico border and is home to the Falfurrias Border Patrol Checkpoint on U.S. Highway 281.
Although I would love to re-publish their list of articles published and the included links, that seems too close to intellectual theft. Therefore, let me encourage you to read the list at Breitbart.
John Matze, the founder and CEO of free speech social network Parler, says that Apple has given him an ultimatum — ban “offensive” content off Parler or the Parler app will be banned from the App Store. Matze says he refused and now Apple is preventing Parler from updating its app.
Matze gave an update on the situation in a Parler post.
Investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released hidden camera videos showing a Google executive explaining how preventing Trump and similar leaders is at the top of the monolithic corporation’s list of priorities.
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that,” said Jen Gennai, who works as Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation.
Project Veritas notes that Gennai is in charge of the division of Google that is responsible for implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. This includes making sure that political outcomes unfavorable for liberals cannot be reached.
“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again,” Gennai added.
“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?” she asked.
Gennai is proud of her organization’s push for thought control, and the “Machine Learning Fairness” guidelines that have been introduced following Donald Trump’s presidential victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it,” Gennai said.
So, as long as the Left can control your opinion, they will let you make legitimate inquiries.
Is this any way to conduct a free society that depends on continual education?
How did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?
In a 22 June 2019 US News article, this stalwartly left-leaning branch of mainstream media informs us of Google’s tendency to block information (instead of providing it, as most would expect of a major search engine).
Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.
The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.
Because I respect good reporting at mainstream media outlets when I do see it, I have to praise their enumeration of the nine blacklists created and used by Google. You really need to look at it.
Nonetheless, after you look at the nine ways Google daily blocks us from news, maps, and other information, you should watch the grilling Senator Ted Cruz gave to the Google representative. Hopefully, his passion will be translated into a law or hearings that will see the breakup of the social media giants.
Like Hitler’s Brownshirts, leftists often revert to attacks
Eight instances of intolerant Trump haters harassing high-profile conservatives
Secret Service took a Chicago restaurant employee into custody Tuesday evening after she spit on President Trump’s son, Eric Trump. However, that is far from the first time a radical leftist has lashed out at a prominent Trump-associated figure.
There has been a rash of instances of the “tolerant” left lashing out and mistreating Trump’s immediate family, members of his administration, and those merely associated by ideology.
Google whistleblower exposes Big Brother attempts to wipe out conservative voices
In a 24 June 2019 article, the Washington Times reveals some findings of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas: a Google whistleblower has exposed executives saying that they want to prevent another “Trump situation” in 2020.
A top Google executive was caught on hidden camera declaring that the federal government should not break up the tech giant — because then it would be more difficult to prevent “the next Trump situation.”
A Project Veritas undercover video released Monday shows Jen Gennai, head of Google’s Responsible Innovation team, which seeks to ensure “fair and ethical outcomes” via artificial intelligence, disputing Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s antitrust push.
“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google,” Ms. Gennai said. “And like, I love her but she’s very misguided. That will not make it better, it will make it worse, because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation.”
She added, “It’s like a small company cannot do that.”
The video, part of a Project Veritas sting operation into Silicon Valley, provided fodder to conservatives who have long charged Google with manipulating its search engine to promote a left-of-center political agenda.
Although I have been pulling together a collection of other articles proving our need to break up Facebook, Twitter, and Google — this was too much to keep to myself.
These social media platforms have gone beyond their bounds as platforms and have become partisan publishers. They must be held to accounts. This means bringing them down to a level where they can be more accounable to the people that they should serve (rather than lord over).
Internal emails released this week show members of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN-05) 2016 Minnesota House campaign committee attempting to “shut down” a story “as we do with the Strib.”
“Strib” refers to the nickname used for The Star Tribune, Minnesota’s largest newspaper. The shocking emails were obtained by Powerline from the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, which discovered the emails during its investigation into Omar’s campaign finance violations.
As Powerline notes, the emails were written following the outlet’s publication of an August 12, 2016 story questioning Omar’s marital status—the first story discussing Omar’s alleged marriage to her brother.
In response, Omar’s campaign committee temporarily hired Ben Goldfarb as a crisis communications manager.
“Does anyone on the team have a relationship with Blois?” Goldfarb wrote in an August 15 email, referring to Blois Olson, best known in media circles for his popular newsletter, Morning Take. That morning, Olson had linked to Powerline’s article in his newsletter.
“Someone should probably reach out to talk off the record and shut it down with him as we do with the Strib,” Goldfarb continued. “I don’t know him, but can do it if nobody has a relationship. And we can tighten up the statement today in case it does spread and we feel like we need to broadcast something later today.”
Goldfarb was attempting to craft a statement addressing the allegations against Omar, but admitted in a later email that “it’s impossible without making it even more confusing.”
“It just doesn’t work in writing,” he continued, noting that he’s “talked to the Strib and they are generally in a good place.”
“They get that there are not 2 legal marriages and are not pursuing the brother angle, but have pieced together that the person she is legally married to is not the father of children, on the website, etc. They are asking for confirmation of that,” Goldfarb wrote. “I think this gets us the best result of a closed case in the Strib that we can then point people to and say no more comments.”
Olson addressed the emails Thursday morning in his newsletter, claiming “no one ever reached out” and “we weren’t ‘shut down.”
“This is the type of reporting that other media should be doing, which is why there continues to be fair criticism about local coverage of Omar and others,” he added.
a. New York Ends Religious Exemptions For Required Vaccines
National Public Radio seemingly covers the public-safety side of the issue of requiring people to vaccinate themselves and their children.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill Thursday ending vaccination exemptions based on religious beliefs, the latest attempt to address the growing measles outbreak, the worst the U.S. has experienced in decades.
Cuomo said plugging the loophole should help contain the spike in measles cases in New York, the state hardest hit by the uptick in the contagious virus due to low vaccination rates in ultra-Orthodox communities.
“The science is crystal clear: Vaccines are safe, effective and the best way to keep our children safe,” Cuomo said after signing the bill. “While I understand and respect freedom of religion, our first job is to protect the public health and by signing this measure into law, we will help prevent further transmissions and stop this outbreak right in its tracks.”
The Democratic-controlled Legislature approved the measure, which also eliminates other nonmedical exemptions for schoolchildren across the state.
“We are facing an unprecedented public health crisis,” said Sen. Brad Hoylman, the legislation’s sponsor. “The atrocious peddlers of junk science and fraudulent medicine who we know as anti-vaxxers have spent years sowing unwarranted doubt and fear, but it is time for legislators to confront them head-on.”
Just looking at one side of the equation, it seems easier to say that the need to maintain the public’s health interests.
However, if you look at both sides of the equation (which the National Public Radio does not, but the purportedly “right-wing” Fox News — shown below — does in full measure), then a different picture develops.
b. New York Ends Religious Exemptions For Required Vaccines
Fox News presents both the religious and the public-safety sides of the issue of requiring people to vaccinate themselves and their children.
New York eliminated the religious exemption to vaccine requirements for schoolchildren Thursday, as the nation’s worst measles outbreak in decades prompts states to reconsider giving parents ways to opt out of immunization rules.
The Democrat-led Senate and Assembly voted Thursday to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to cite religious beliefs to forego getting their child the vaccines required for school enrollment.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the measure minutes after the final vote. The law takes effect immediately but will give unvaccinated students up to 30 days after they enter a school to show they’ve had the first dose of each required immunization.
With New York’s move, similar exemptions are still allowed in 45 states, though lawmakers in several of them have introduced their own legislation to eliminate the waiver.
The issue is hotly contested and debate around it has often been emotional, pitting cries that religious freedom is being curtailed against warnings that public health is being endangered. After the vote in the Assembly, many of those watching from the gallery erupted in cries of “shame!” One woman yelled obscenities down to the lawmakers below.
The debate has only intensified with this year’s measles outbreak , which federal officials recently said has surpassed 1,000 illnesses, the highest in 27 years.
“I’m not aware of anything in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran or anything else that suggests you should not get vaccinated,” said Bronx Democrat Jeffrey Dinowitz, the bill’s Assembly sponsor. “If you choose to not vaccinate your child, therefore potentially endangering other children … then you’re the one choosing not to send your children to school.”
Hundreds of parents of unvaccinated children gathered at New York’s Capitol for the vote to protest.
Stan Yung, a Long Island attorney and father, said his Russian Orthodox religious views and health concerns about vaccines will prevent him from vaccinating his three young children. His family, he said, may consider leaving the state.
“People came to this country to get away from exactly this kind of stuff,” Yung said ahead of Thursday’s votes.
Supporters of the bill say religious beliefs about vaccines shouldn’t eclipse scientific evidence that they work, noting the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. During the Assembly’s floor debate, supporters brought up scourges of the past that were defeated in the U.S. through vaccines.
“I’m old enough to have been around when polio was a real threat,” said Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan. “I believe in science…. Your personal opinions, which may be based on junk science, do not trump the greater good.”
If I understand it correctly, the stated need for immunization (to keep the unimmunized public from catching illnesses virtually wiped out by vaccination campaigns) is nothing more than an exercise in Nanny Statism. That is, if vaccines work, then the people (and their children) who are endangered by not being vaccinated are those choosing to honor their religious traditions.
These laws impose an undesired cure to an almost eradicated disease in violation of these people’s religious liberty.
What will be next? Will they impose the Equality Act, requiring all to accept all phases of the trans agenda in violation of religious convictions?
c. Migrant Detention Centers Are Getting Slammed with Mumps, Chickenpox, Measles, TB, …
Unlike American schoolchildren, the children from Honduras, Nicaragua, and other Central American nations do not receive regular vaccinations. Therefore, when they flood our southern border, the possibility of an outbreak exists. Hence, a 4 June 2019 Vice News article reports on how immigrant have been quarantined in over 30 ICE centers for mumps.
Immigrants have been quarantined in over 30 ICE detention centers across the U.S. for mumps and a few cases of chickenpox in recent months, according to a Quartz investigation into information shared by attorneys.
Why it matters: Mumps is from a fast-spreading but relatively mild virus that sometimes causes serious complications. But the people who are quarantined also are not allowed access to their attorneys and cannot attend bond or asylum proceedings, Quartz points out.
By the numbers: Quartz found nearly 300 confirmed cases of mumps in ICE facilities and other immigration detention centers across the country — with the most cases concentrated in Texas, Mississippi, Arizona and Georgia.
Yes, but: Not all state or county health departments monitor disease outbreaks in ICE facilities. Louisiana and California “said they had no data on disease in ICE facilities,” Quartz reports — so the case numbers could be higher.
Where it stands: “Local health authorities tasked with keeping civilian populations in their areas safe said they have no idea how widespread the mumps epidemic is in immigration facilities around the US,” Quartz reports.
This incredibly shallow article on the danger of unvetted illegal aliens and the diseases they can carry at least mentions a few of the diseases common to the ICE facilities.
This article doesn’t mention the numbers at the immigration detention centers who carry tuberculosis, scabies, or other common diseases.
Additionally, just as the previous articles do not explore the “Nanny State implications of requiring people to surrender their religious convictions due to the vaccination requirements of the state — this article does not explore why so many individuals break laws to enter the U.S. and thereby have been interred in detention centers during the Clinton, G. W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.
Pinterest Suspends Pro-Life Organization, Places it on Pornography Blocklist
“LiveAction.org” is the only pro-life website included on Pinterest’s list of banned websites, Centofante said in a tweet.
The nonprofit educates on, reports on, and investigates the abortion industry, according to its webpage, and seeks to inspire others in the pro-life movement.
Project Veritas, an undercover investigative journalism nonprofit, received and published information from Pinterest employee Eric Cochran, revealing the social media platform added Live Action’s website to a list of sites blocked for pornographic content.
The whistleblower has since lost his job at Pinterest and was interviewed Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” about his decision to speak out.
“I saw a big tech company saying quietly behind closed doors that they believe Live Action shouldn’t have a platform to speak. … I want them to have to say this explicitly,” Cochran told host Tucker Carlson.
When the framers of our Constitution created the Bill of Rights, they put the freedom of the press along with the freedom of religion in the First Amendment expecting that extra-governmental forces would work to keep the government honest. Part and parcel of this arrangement was that a free press would expose corruption within government and free churches would keep the populace both honest and demanding honesty from their government.
Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed an abortion bill into law on Wednesday that expands The Prairie State’s abortion rights in profound ways.
The new law strips all rights from unborn children, changes the definition of the viability of a fetus, and legalizes abortions through all nine months of pregnancy, right up to birth.
Supporters of the new law say it’s needed just in case the US Supreme Court overturns its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
But pro-life groups around the country quickly responded with shock, calling the new legislation extreme.
The Thomas More Society called the new abortion law the same as “legalizing the death penalty, with no possibility of appeal, for viable unborn preemies.”
“This law is the most radical sweeping pro-abortion measure in America and makes Illinois an abortion destination for the country,” Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel Peter Breen said in a press release. “The deceptively titled ‘Reproductive Health Act’ gives our state some of the most extremely permissive abortion laws of any state in the nation.”
The group says there are 5 shocking facts about the new law:
All licensing requirements for abortion clinics are abolished, and health and safety inspections ended, despite those inspections shutting down numerous dirty abortion clinics in recent years
Dismemberment abortions of “preemie” babies, who feel pain, without anesthesia, are legalized
Every private health insurance policy, including those for small churches and religious nonprofits, must pay for elective chemical and surgical abortions
Every unborn child, up to and even during birth, will now have NO legal rights in Illinois
Abortion is labeled a “fundamental right,” protected to a greater degree than Free Speech and other First Amendment rights
A Christian school in California is facing a huge battle with the state.
Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is representing River View Christian Academy in northern California. The school was raided earlier in the year, SWAT style, by the state.
According to PJI, the raid was carried out by 16 armed law enforcement from California Highway Patrol, two canine units and 17 social workers. Students and staff were horrified by the sudden and unexpected attack.
The state was misled into thinking that the school was harboring illegal drugs, amassing ammunition, and preparing for doomsday.
RVCA works under the ministry Teen Rescue, which has offered programs for struggling teenagers in need of full-time supervision and redirection since 1989. Students are taught to focus on their education, change destructive behavior and strive for success.
Even though results from the raid did not uncover any apocalyptic, end-times type of scenario, the state has not stopped and is fining the school daily with claims of improper licensing.
The state is now saying that, due to recent legislation, it is no longer possible for a private boarding school to operate without a considerable amount of licensing and oversight by the Department of Social Services.
With the increase in licensing, the Christian school would have to abandon their biblical values. The state requires that licensed facilities allow students to have the right to engage in spiritual and sexual exploration, which contradicts the standards set by RVCA and the morals of many parents, the Pacific Justice Institute said.
PJI attorney Kevin Snider says the school is being targeted because it’s part of a ministry for at-risk youth.
WA Supreme Court Doubles Down to Punish Christian Florist, Despite What US Supreme Court Ruled
We find through a 7 June 2019 Christian Broadcast Network article that the case of Baronelle Stutzman has returned to the SCOTUS queue. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the state and the “progressives” in the Washington state courts have maintained that they did not act with prejudice against Baronelle Stutzman, now the Supreme Court gets to weigh the case a second time.
The case of a Washington state florist who was fined for refusing to make a floral arrangement for a gay wedding in 2013 could go back to the US Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the Washington state Supreme Court stood by its earlier ruling against Baronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers.
As CBN News reported last year, the US Supreme Court had rejected Washington’s previous ruling, ordering the state justices to review their decision against Stutzman and consider whether they violated her religious rights.
“We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court’s question is no,” Washington Supreme Court justices decided on Thursday. “The adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination … by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple.”
Stutzman’s case is similar to that of the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, in which Colorado baker Jack Phillips was accused of discrimination for refusing to bake a customized wedding cake for a gay wedding.
Like Stutzman, Phillips offered to sell the couple his pre-made products. Like Stutzman, he had also provided previous service to LGBT individuals. But they both say their faith prevents them from creating art that specifically endorses same-sex weddings.
The Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ favor because it said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with animus towards Phillip’s religious beliefs and was in the wrong. However, critics of the decision argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling was too narrow, and did not ultimately answer if Phillips can be compelled to produce a product for a customer in violation of his religious beliefs.
The US Supreme Court asked the state court to review Stutzman’s case again to make sure it did not act with religious animus towards her in its ruling.
The state court said Supreme Court gave “full and fair consideration” of Stutzman’s case without “animus toward religion.”
“They did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution,” Thursday’s ruling said.
Now the US Supreme Court has the opportunity to review Stutzman’s case once again to finally settle the unanswered questions about religious freedom in Phillips’ case.
Meanwhile, Stutzman’s attorneys say Washington state did target her unfairly for her faith, pointing to another instance in which the state ignored discrimination against Christian clients, creating a double standard.
That this can be debated for a third time in the halls of the Supreme Court while the First Amendment still reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” while the state of Washington levies its fines on this person’s religious freedom seems quite a contradiction.
A shift in who is worshiped may drive persecution of Christians
Allie Stuckey: Society Has ‘Exchanged the God of Scripture for the God of Self’
In a recap of a presentation at the Young Woman’s Leadership Conference, an interesting perspective of Allie Stuckey has been related through a 7 June 2019 Breitbart article that tells us that America has exchanged the God of Scripture for the god of self.
Conservative commentator Allie Stuckey spoke at TPUSA’s Young Women’s Leadership Summit Friday afternoon and deconstructed society’s embrace of godless narcissism.
Stuckey told the large crowd of young conservatives that women are “probably the most targeted group by deception than any other group” in the country.
We are told in a very dogmatic and bullying way that– not just to be a good person, not just to be a decent human being, but to be a woman– you’ve got to be a die-hard feminist. You’ve got to be for on-demand abortion. You’ve got to be for the radical leftist feminist agenda, or else you’re not a female at all.
She said many women have been fooled by one monstrous lie: “That you are all that matters.”
Far too many women have been sucked into society’s embrace of what Stuckey dubbed “trendy narcissism.”
“We are told that the only thing that matters is that you love yourself,” she said.
“We’re told that there are no rules. There are no principles. There are no standards that you have to abide by,” she continued.
This belief, Stuckey says, is fundamentally flawed and partially responsible for the current state of cultural decline. It is incredibly difficult to have a civil debate with people who have essentially become their own gods, Stuckey said.
When you believe that you are the center of your universe, you believe that you are your own god. And if you believe that you are your own god, that means you determine your own truth– that you determine your own morality, that you determine your own purpose.
“When everything is subjective, things get very confusing,” she added.
Subjective truth is one of the main issues in the modern era, she said. She pressed that too many women have based their reality on their own version of truth, part of which is the mass embrace of selfishness– a hallmark of the feminist left.
“If you live as if your only purpose is yourself– your only purpose is making yourself happy– you will end up lonely and miserable,” Stuckey said.
The state of California is investigating a case in which an elderly widow was reportedly forced to leave her apartment due to her religious convictions and advanced age.
Diana Martin had lived at the Windgate Village Apartments in Hanford for nearly 14 years. Back in February, the 85-year-old was told by the owner John Draxler that she was being evicted. Draxler also serves as the city’s vice-mayor.
Even though Martin had months remaining on her year-to-year lease and her rent was fully paid, the Pacific Justice Institute says Draxler cited her religious activities—sharing her faith and offering to pray for people—as reasons why she must find a new home.
The owner knew Martin was recovering from severe health problems. When she began to cry, protesting that it was winter and she had no children living nearby, Draxler reportedly told her that was not his problem.
During a follow-up conversation with Martin’s son, Draxler allegedly repeated the religious objection about Martin and her age. The widow had moved to the apartments because they had been marketed as senior living dwellings.
Draxler purchased the apartment complex a few years ago and has reportedly brought in younger tenants, removing older ones. Martin reluctantly moved out of her apartment. She then contacted the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) for help.
PJI attorneys were astonished at what they found. Besides the discriminatory reasons offered for the eviction, PJI says the notice given to Martin was clearly defective as to its timing. After talks stalled with Draxler, PJI filed a discrimination charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
The United States Bishops are calling for prayer and action “in support of religious liberty at home and abroad” during Religious Freedom Week, which will run from June 22 to June 29.
“Catholics face challenges both in our current political climate of polarization and within the Church,” said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, the chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty. “Christian child welfare institutions and Catholics in public life are encountering significant obstacles to their work, while our brothers and sisters in places like Nigeria suffer violent persecution.”
In referring to problems “Christian child welfare institutions” face, Archbishop Kurtz was referencing numerous recent legal conflicts regarding Christian adoption and foster care facilities whose traditional understanding of the family has not yielded to contemporary attempts to redefine marriage and family.
Last December, for example, New Hope Family Services, an evangelical Christian adoption agency in Upstate New York, came under fire from child-welfare officials who insisted that New Hope had to agree to place children with same-sex couples, contrary to its religious beliefs and decades-old policies.
Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.
The bishops have also stated that the Equality Act being pushed by the Democrat party, which would add the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the definition of sex in federal civil rights laws, “would devastate the core ministries of a wide range of religious groups, especially those ministries that serve the most vulnerable.”
Kurtz’s mention of “violent persecution” of Christians in Nigeria referred to the slaughter of hundreds of Christians by Islamist radicals in north central Nigeria in the first months of 2019. Despite a mainstream media blackout of the massacres, Fulani jihadists went on a killing spree of Christians, murdering more than 120 in just three weeks and leaving scores more injured.
The United States bishops have called religious liberty “our first, most cherished liberty,” and have said that it is “among the proudest boasts of the Church on these shores.”
The Trump administration has also made a point of restoring conscience protections to religious believers. The president declared January 16, 2018, “Religious Freedom Day” and pledged his ongoing defense of religious liberty.
A former Ph.D. candidate at Purdue University claims that he was forced out of the program for his Christian faith.
In a column for The College Fix, Corey Miller explains how he was forced to leave his Ph.D. program at Purdue University by peers and faculty members who taunted him over his Christian faith.
Miller recalled receiving prank phone calls in the early morning hours. When he picked up the phone, Miller heard his classmates mocking him for his Christian faith. The next semester, a leftist professor accused him of having several mental illnesses.
I entered the PhD philosophy program at Purdue University in 2004. Six weeks in I was shocked that I was receiving prank calls at 3 in the morning from fellow grad students. They were mocking me for my faith. The next semester I recall receiving a permanent note in my file from a Marxist professor who claimed I was schizophrenic. While he was not a clinical psychologist capable of judging me schizophrenic, he believed religion was the opiate of the masses and that my beliefs were delusional.
Standing in the living room of his home — the same space in which he recently led his middle brother Dustin to Christ — Rhyan Glezman, brother-in-law to Pete Buttigieg, lamented the “unfortunate” way a journalist for The Washington Post crafted a recent story that made him seem “homophobic.”
Several weeks ago, sitting in his office at Clio Community Church in Michigan, Rhyan said his phone rang. It was a reporter from the Post eager to talk with him about his brother Chasten’s marriage to the popular 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful.
“I actually talked with them for about 35-40 minutes, shared the whole story,” Rhyan, a pastor, told Faithwire during a phone interview Thursday afternoon. “They took a couple little quotes out of that whole 40 minutes and it obviously was to fit their narrative, just to be honest.”
The 34-year-old minister, who told the Post he is opposed to same-sex marriage, said he felt like the journalist, Ellen McCarthy, was trying to make him come across to readers “like a bigot.”
Rhyan reached out to Faithwire Thursday morning, asking to “talk about the full story that the Washington Post left out.” And according to him, the story the outlet “left out” is quite different from the one McCarthy wrote.
While Chasten recalled to McCarthy a journey fraught with alienation and shame, Rhyan remembers something entirely different. The 29-year-old political spouse said there was a lot of judgement when he came out as gay to his family, claiming to remember one of his brothers uttering, “No brother of mine …” during the conversation with his mom and dad, both of whom are nominally Catholic and were, according to Rhyan, very accepting of Chasten’s orientation. Chasten told McCarthy his parents eventually embraced him.
“That was a long time ago, but that’s not what I would say. That’s not my character, that’s not my brother’s character,” Rhyan said. “Nobody ever rejected him at all. … I would say they embraced him even deeper.”
Chasten also told the Post he was homeless for a season — a claim Rhyan vehemently rebuffed, saying his brother was “never, ever” rejected.
This will only be reported through the mainstream press when it fits their agenda (or when they let pieces of the truth slip out).
Change Your Faith, or Else: Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Equality Act’ Will Make Religious Freedom Less Equal
How the ‘Equality Act’ lifts Transgender Rights and Homosexual Rights over Women’s Rights and the First Amendment
Just days before the midterm elections, now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed from Harvard University to make passing the “Equality Act” one of her top legislative priorities — and she wasn’t bluffing.
The House Judiciary Committee voted last week to advance the deceptively named “Equality Act,” which, according to the conservative legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, “gives people of faith an ultimatum: Change your faith-based practices or face government punishment.”
If the proposal is approved — which isn’t out of the question, given it has 240 co-sponsors — the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act would both be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding and the jury system.
The bill would, among a whole host of other things, reverse the Trump administration’s effort to protect employers who object to covering abortion services on religious grounds, a shift away from a controversial policy advanced by the Obama White House.
Read the first portion (or use the link to the entire article)
Mean Little Pete Buttigieg is so terrible at Christianity he reminds me of a sitcom character, secular Hollywood’s version of a pious prig who continues to put his foot in his own sanctimonious mouth. Actually, he reminds me of Frank Burns. All that’s missing is the laugh track.
I think it’s also important that we stop seeing religion used as a kind of cudgel as if God belonged to a political party. If he did, I can’t imagine it would be the one that sent the current president into the White House.
In the first sentence, the Mean Little Mayor says religion should not be used as a cudgel, and in the next sentence he turns religion into baseball bat spiked with poison nails to bludgeon President Trump with.
This isn’t the first time Buttigieg has pulled this clumsily transparent rhetorical trick. Check this out from last month:
I’m reluctant to comment on another person’s faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president’s actions and believe that they’re the actions of somebody who believes in God. I just don’t understand how you can be as worshipful of your own self as he is and be prepared to humble yourself before God. I’ve never seen him humble himself before anyone.
I’m reluctant to comment on another person’s faith, but let me spend the next four weeks calling everyone a terrible Christian except for me, cuz I’m an amazing Christian who lives like Jesus — and, hey, remember that time Jesus told all those lies about Mike Pence?
Buttigieg fancies himself a Christian, and I’m not here to examine what’s in his heart, his sincerity is unknowable, but he is terrible at practicing the Faith. I mean, truly terrible. Christians are supposed to strive to be like Christ and while we all fall short, through his actions Buttigieg has proven himself to be a lying bully and a total prick.
Did Christ tell Buttigieg to lie about Vice President Mike Pence, a lie so brazen even the phony fact checkers at the Washington Post could not find a way to make it true?
I think you will find Buttigieg’s current diatribes against Pence to be a foreshadowing of how he will treat other Christians. Hopefully, we won’t have to find out what a Buttigieg regime would be like.
Yale Law School Pulls Funding from Students Working with Christian Organizations
Considering that Yale and other Ivy League universities were set up to train preachers for America, the 2 April 2019 report from Breitbart telling us that Yale has effectively made it impossible for students who work with Christian organizations to finish their degrees really disappoints.
Yale University has decided to pull funding from students who work with Christian non-profit legal organizations including the Alliance Defending Freedom.
According to a report from The Federalist, Yale Law School announced a new policy in March that will effectively pull funding from students who work with Christian public interest groups. At law schools around the country, students that work for non-profit legal organizations are often eligible for a stipend from their university. This practice encourages students to pursue noble non-profit work despite the lack of pay.
Earlier this year, one of Yale University’s LGBT groups demanded that the law school pull financial support from students who work with Christian public interest groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The push came in the aftermath of a campus event featuring an attorney from ADF who spoke about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which a Christian baker was asked to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Federalist contributor and Yale Law School student Aaron Haviland reported on Monday that Yale had caved to the demands of the students. On March 25, the school announced that students who work with organizations that allegedly discriminate based on LGBTQ identity.
On March 25, one month after the controversy, Yale Law School announced via email that it was extending its nondiscrimination policy to summer public interest fellowships, postgraduate public interest fellowships, and loan forgiveness for public interest careers. The school will no longer provide financial support for students and graduates who work at organizations that discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.”
Haviland argues that the new policy allows Yale to discriminate against Christian public interest groups. He points out that the ACLU, which defends abortion rights, is not impacted by the new policy.
Again, the most educated show their propensity toward their own bogotry.
New York Times Wants to ‘Expose Christian Schools’
According to a 25 January 2019 Breitbart article, the New York Times briefly wanted to expose Christian schools (until they deleted all their tweets on the subject and pretended they never took those bigoted steps).
New York Times reporter Dan Levin is asking Twitter users who attended Christian schools to share their experiences using the hashtag #exposechristianschools:
I’m a New York Times reporter writing about #exposechristianschools. Are you in your 20s or younger who went to a Christian school? I’d like to hear about your experience and its impact on your life. Please DM me.
— Dan Levin (@globaldan) January 24, 2019
Levin tweeted that he wants “to hear about all experiences, including positive stories/impact about your time in school,” implying that likely most responses to the hashtag would be negative:
As the Daily Caller observed, the heightened hostility toward Christians on the social media platform comes in the wake of left-wing activists’ condemnation of watercolor artist Karen Pence, wife of Vice President Mike Pence, who returned to teach art recently at the Immanuel Christian School, which holds and teaches Christian beliefs about human sexuality and traditional marriage between one man and one woman:
Note: Levin’s tweet was deleted before 1 February.
With the abuses from various Christian leaders (now highlighted in the Catholic hierarchy, formerly with other denominations), it seems that this guy was set to take down the church.
From his reaction, it seems he wasn’t ready for thr truth.
LGBTQ Caucus thought they killed the ‘Save Chick-Fil-A’ Bill in Texas
Giving to the Salvation Army, FCA, & a youth house are unforgivable sins to LGBTQ groups
Although conservative forces were able to regroup after this article was written and pass the measure that once seemed doomed, this article shows the level of animus against Christians in the LGBTQ+ caucus.
Nothing matches quite as well as Democrats and liberal, anti-Christian discrimination.
The newly formed LGBTQ Caucus killed a religious freedom bill in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday, which was crafted in response to the San Antonio City Council banning Chick-fil-A from its International Airport over “anti-LGBTQ behavior.”
Republican Texas state Rep. Michael Krause sponsored the “Save Chick-fil-A” bill (or House Bill 3172) to protect “religious beliefs and moral convictions, including beliefs and convictions regarding marriage.” The legislation would have “prohibited adverse actions by government” based on support or membership of religious organizations.
Democratic state Rep. Julie Johnson, one of the five members on the LGBTQ Caucus, used a parliamentary action to delay, then ultimately kill the bill.
“Bills like this are hurtful. They cause pain,” Johnson told CNN Friday. “We can’t allow religion to be a cover for discrimination.”
Krause defended the legislation in April, stating that “it protects Ben & Jerry’s as much as it protects Chick-fil-A.”
“The government should not be penalizing, should not taking adverse action against you for your belief on a marriage,” he further noted during a public committee hearing.
“Our family farm here is very personal to us,” Steve Tennes said in a statement on the ADF website. “One of the things we really enjoy about our family farm here is (that) we are able to raise our five children here at the farm in accordance with our faith.”
In 2017, a federal judge issued a preliminary order forcing the city to allow the Tennes family to participate in the farmers market and said the city most likely violated their religious and free speech rights.
According to NBC News, East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said that temporary ruling only covered the 2017 market season. Meadows also said the city opposes the Tennes’ “corporate decision-making,” not their religious beliefs.
“This doesn’t have anything to do with Mr. Tennes,” Meadows said. “This has to do with the business.”
ADF Legal Counsel Kate Anderson strongly disagrees.
“All Americans should be free to live and speak according to their deeply held religious beliefs without fear of government punishment,” said Anderson. “Yet East Lansing officials changed their market policy to shut out Steve Tennes because they don’t like his Catholic beliefs regarding marriage. Courts have repeatedly rejected these types of practices as unconstitutional discrimination.”
The Justice Department is gearing up for an antitrust investigation of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, a move that could present a major new layer of regulatory scrutiny for the search giant, according to people familiar with the matter.
The department’s antitrust division in recent weeks has been laying the groundwork for the probe, the people said. The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust authority with the department, previously conducted a broad investigation of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action.
President Trump’s State Department will soon mandate that all foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a visa provide their social media accounts to screen out national security threats.
In the Trump administration’s latest immigration directive, the State Department will begin mandating that foreign nationals seeking any visa to the U.S. — including all nonimmigrant, employment, student, tourist, and business visas — disclose their social media accounts if they are on social media.
Should a visa applicant claim that they do not have social media accounts when in fact they do, a State Department official said they would become eligible for a permanent visa ban to the U.S.
The agency’s initiative to increase screening measures of the more than 1.2 million legal immigrants that are admitted to the country every year is part of an executive order signed by the president in 2017, with a senior White House official calling the new rule a “critical step forward in establishing enhanced vetting of foreign nationals.”
“As we’ve seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for terrorist sentiment and activity,” the senior official told Breitbart News. “This will be a vital tool to screen out terrorists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on U.S. soil.”
The lack of mandatory social media disclosure for foreign nationals seeking visas to the U.S. first came to the forefront following the December 2015 Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, when two terrorists murdered 14 people.
One of the terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, was able to enter the U.S. as a legal immigrant through the K-1 visa after State Department officials failed in three background checks to catch the Pakistani national’s social media posts in which she gushed over jihad.
Already, the Trump administration’s travel ban from eight countries that sponsor terrorism has been effective in ending nearly all legal immigration to the U.S. from those regions.
If AT&T had grown too big for the marketplace in 1984 (and it only controlled networks of landlines and newly-developed cell phones), then how can anyone justify the gargantuan reach of Google, Facebook, and Twitter? Since each of these social media giants (especially Google with its YouTube division) controls major swaths of the electronic discourse of the free (and not free – since they have dealings in China) world.
Additionally, in an era when we have seen these social media giants cooperating with the Obama administration to violate American’s rights against unlawful search and seizure (remember Mr. Snowden and Obama’s NSA scandal), my recent reading has indicated that the social media giants have shown an unwillingness to work with the Trump administration in finding foreign threats to national security. They need to recognize that American rights afforded by the American Constitution need to be protected by American companies — maybe smaller American companies that will appreciate the freedoms afforded them.
This is the moment the U.S. technology superpowers surely knew was coming: The U.S. government is preparing to crawl all over Google to figure out whether it is an abusive monopolist. Google parent company Alphabet Inc. and the other tech giants should be quaking in their fleece vests.
Bloomberg News and other news organizations reported late Friday that the U.S. Department of Justice is preparing to open an investigation into Google’s compliance with antitrust laws. If it goes forward, an investigation will no doubt be broad, lengthy, messy, and impossible for Google and its investors to predict.
That should terrify Google and every other big technology company — because there’s no guarantee that the antitrust Klieg light will turn on one company alone.
This isn’t Google’s first antitrust rodeo. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2013 closed without further action its own antitrust investigation into whether Google wielded its dominant web search engine like a cudgel to disadvantage rivals, drive up prices for advertisers and ultimately harm consumers. (Google did agree to some voluntary changes.)
And in recent years, the European Union antitrust watchdog imposed billions of dollars in fines after finding antitrust violations, including over how Google conducted business with its Android smartphone software and its internet shopping service. In the U.S. and elsewhere, politicians from all party stripes have sought to attack Google or other tech giants for various perceived sins, including being too big for the good of industry and consumers. Being Google has meant dealing with perennial regulatory and political nightmares.
It is difficult to show a violation of U.S. antitrust law, legal experts said.
It is not enough for regulators to establish that a company has monopoly power. They must also show anticompetitive conduct – an abuse of that dominant position aimed at bypassing fair competition.
“You can get a monopoly just by being a good competitor and that’s fine,” said Chris Sagers, a professor of antitrust law at Cleveland State University.
Under current precedent, the Department of Justice and the FTC also need to show that consumers are being harmed, something that in recent decades has typically been measured by whether prices are going up and innovation is slowing.
What can the U.S. government do if investigators find an antitrust violation?
The FTC and Justice Department can both file civil lawsuits in federal court and ask judges to order changes to a company’s business model.
The Justice Department can also bring criminal antitrust cases, but those prosecutions usually relate to cartels and price-fixing, making charges against big technology firms unlikely.
Although these writers at Reuters would have us believe that the government is too inbred with those they should be overseeing to faithfully do their job, I don’t think that I fully buy it. If we can light a fire under a conservative or more in the Senate, I think that break-up of the media giants might put the fear of God (or at least the fear of the people) in some of these companies.
Why the Tide is Changing Against Social Media
Here’s The Eye-Popping Amount Of Cash Google, Amazon, And Facebook Dumped On DC Lobbyists In 2018
Google, Amazon and Facebook plowed a record amount of money into Washington, D.C., a year before congressional Democrats announced a wide-ranging antitrust investigation into the Silicon Valley giants.
They dumped a combined $48 million into lobbying in 2018, up 13% from 2017, government disclosures from January show. House Democrats announced a planned probe of Google and Facebook’s business practices Monday, nearly a year after the companies made their contributions.
Google was the biggest spender in 2018, increasing its lobbying contributions 18% to $21.2 million. Facebook’s spending amount grew nearly 10% to $12.6 million. All three companies spent the bulk of their lobbying on in-house lobbying crews. The efforts largely went toward market and data regulation issues, according to the data.
Neither Facebook, Amazon, nor Google have responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about Democrats’ potential probe.
The House’s investigation comes several days after a Wall Street Journal report noted that the Department of Justice is preparing an antitrust probe against Google’s search engine and business model. It would be the first such investigation since the Federal Trade Commission conducted a probe of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action.
When these social media companies were just start ups, they were not a problem. However, now that they seem to have decided that they should eliminate all discussion of anti-liberal ideas (that is, when conservatives, moderates, or liberals offend the sensibilities of their liberal censors, those ideas get blocked), they have become the Big Brother enemy of freedom.
Facebook argues it can’t invade your privacy because you don’t have any
One Facebook lawyer has been quoted in a 31 May 2019 article in The Daily Dot as claiming that Facebook users have surrendered their privacy rights to the company that Zuckerberg helped start.
A lawyer for Facebook argued in court Wednesday that the social media site’s users “have no expectation of privacy.”
According to Law360, Facebook attorney Orin Snyder made the comment while defending the company against a class-action lawsuit over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
“There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,” Snyder said.
In an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out, Snyder further claimed that Facebook was nothing more than a “digital town square” where users voluntarily give up their private information.
“You have to closely guard something to have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” Snyder added.
Although Snyder said that the social media site would be focusing more on privacy in the future, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria reportedly pushed back on Facebook’s argument.
“What you are saying now sounds contrary to the message that Facebook itself disseminates about privacy,” Chhabria said, according to Law.com.
Maybe this might be something that I can incorporate into my life.
YouTube investigating conservative commentator Steven Crowder
The company also confirmed to The Hill that it was investigating in response to Maza’s thread, but declined to comment further.
Maza, the host of Vox’s media literacy series “Strikethrough,” accused Crowder on Twitter this week of “repeated, overt attacks on my sexual orientation and ethnicity.” He said that the pundit has called him “an anchor baby” and “a lispy queer.” He also said that Crowder’s videos have caused him to be the “target of ridiculous harassment,” adding that “it makes life sort of miserable.”
The Vox host told his followers to flag Crowder’s videos and said he did not believe YouTube would take a stand against the commentator. He accused the company of not caring about its LGBT creators.
I've been called an anchor baby, a lispy queer, a Mexican, etc. These videos get millions of views on YouTube. Ever… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Actually, I think the best response to Carlos Maza’s whining comes though Steven Crowder.
Steven Crowder’s response to the ordeal:
This is corporate censorship and this is yet another giant company trying to lean on this channel, your channel, and the content you’ve created. This is a war (I want to make sure that everyone understands) we will fight to the absolute bitter end both legally and publically.
So if you’ve clicked on this video, it’s the exact opposite of clickbait. The title (VOX is Trying to Ban This Channel… | Louder with Crowder), it’s pretty much what you would expect of the host of Vox.
Vox has actively (it’s been brought to my attention) been on a campaign to get this channel banned (removed from YouTube).
By encouraging viewers in massive flagging campaigns to directly communicating with YouTube in order to try and get me and these videos completely removed from the platform. A couple of th tweets read “by refusing to enforce its anti-harassment policy, YouTube is helping incredibly powerful cyberbullies … go to this dude’s videos and flag them?” (sic @gaywonk tweet).
Let me explain the real (the more sinister) context at play here. First, I’ve been accused of playing a part (or this person, Carlos Maza, has accused me in playing a part) in his in his having been doxed. I have always condemned and continue to condemn and discourage any and all forms of doxing or targeted harassemnt of anyone online. Ok. I’ve been consistent, so please don’t do that, here. I know some of you will get mad — maybe a little enraged with the information you are about to hear — but please don’t do that. Be above that.
If there’s any proof that I’ve actively encouraged people to dox this person or anyone, I will profusely apologize. Any proof.
Here’s the thing. Of the tens of millions of cumulative plays of our rebuttals to Vox on this channel, every single one of them is about criticizing their ideas or incorrect assumptions. Every instance has been about fighting bad information with better information.
Now, Carlos Maza is upset.
Ok, have I ever called you “Carlos, the gay, Latino host at Fox?” Yes, of course. But it’s friendly ribbing and you know I genuinely wouldn’t consider you being that upset about it considering your Twitter handle is “@gaywonk.”
Did I ever offhandedly use the term “lispy queer?” I really don’t remember it, but it sounds like me. Why? because you speak with a lisp and you refer to yourself as a queer. That, along with the LGBTQ moniker, has made me think that “queer” is one of the more suitable terms. If not, I don’t understand the rulebook. Please, please correct me.
Note: the following graphic came up during the video, showing screen captures from Carlos Maza’s Instagram account which use the “offensive” terms.
Also, by the way, it’s funny and this is a comedy show. “Let’s be queer” is harmless and I enjoy saying it. You’re not alone. Quarterblack Garrett, half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond. I won’t apologize for it just like I won’t apologize for the “Socialism is for Figs” shirt which thay now want to have actively removed (available at CrowderShop.com).
If using your words, taken directly from the acronym you regularly tout is not Hate Speech — no one can understand the rules. And that’s kind of the point isn’t it.
… (There is much more.)
Considering the corporate sponsorship Vox enjoys (starting with $200 million from NBC Universal) and the self-funding of the Louder with Crowder show (where they fund themselves by selling their “Mug Club”), I really can’t wait for Google, Vox, Facebook, and Twitter to be diced into bite-sized bits. I want to see Carlos Maza eat more than his fill of the bits of Alphabet.
Comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube victory in the wake of a deplatforming campaign was short-lived due to a “continued review” by YouTube.
The social media giant, which rejected calls by Vox host Carlos Maza to terminate Mr. Crowder’s channel for alleged “harassment,” returned to the issue on Wednesday by demonetizing the channel.
“Update on our continued review — we have suspended this channel’s monetization,” YouTube wrote. “We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies.”
Fans of the conservative comedian thought he was in the clear on Tuesday after YouTube said an “in-depth review” of his channel showed zero violations of its rules.
YouTube has begun a purge of what it calls “hate” and “misinformation” from the platform, as well as a push to strip ad revenue (“demonetize”) channels that “brush up” against the platform’s increasingly draconian speech codes. The move follows a pro-censorship campaign led by Vox Media reporter Carlos Maza.
YouTube also pledged to push more “authoritative” content from “trusted” sources to users — mainstream media like NBC and CNN fall into this category.
The channels that have been demonetized include independent journalist Ford Fischer, libertarian anti-globalist news channel Press For Truth, SJW critic Sinatra_Says, and conservative comedian Steven Crowder.
The latest purge followed a relentless pro-censorship campaign led by far-left Vox Media reporter Carlos Maza, who objected to content produced by Steven Crowder. YouTube has now targeted not just Crowder, but a range of independent video creators.
“As an independent news producer, I don’t have any salary whatsoever. I live in DC and travel the country covering activism because I think it’s important — especially in this political moment — to have raw documentation of everything that goes on” said Ford Fischer, a former production assistant at Fox News. “Good, bad, or ugly, we as press have an obligation to film it as impartially as we can.”
“It’s true that the mainstream media covers many of the same issues that I do, and they never seem to encounter the same censorship” Fischer continued. “There are numerous examples, but as a simple one I’d note that Vice has embedded with neo-Nazi organizations many, many times. I’ve worked alongside them in doing so, and I’ve licensed [reports] to them about a dozen times for their coverage. Vice will probably never find itself on the chopping block.”
“The demonetization of my work on Youtube effectively cuts my bottom line livelihood in half” said Fischer.
Black conservative author and media personality Jessie Lee Peterson claimed on social media that YouTube demonetized his account after he condemned “anti-Jewish hatred by whites and Muslims.”
YouTube demonetized my channel right after taking down videos *condemning* anti-Jewish hatred by whites & Muslims!… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Twitter has suspended the account of Eoin Lenihan, a researcher who mapped out connections between mainstream journalists and the violent far-left Antifa movement on Twitter, following a mass-reporting campaign by left-wing activists.
Lenihan published the results of his research at Quillette, where he explained the twofold objective of his project — first, to discover the journalists who were most closely linked to Antifa via social media. Second, to discover if those journalists covered the extremist movement favorably or negatively.
In October 2018, my research partner and I decided to investigate the truth of this impression by using a mix of network mapping and linguistic analysis to see which prominent journalists who covered Antifa also were closely connected to leading Antifa figures on social media. We then inspected the Antifa-related stories these journalists had written.
We created a data set of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts. Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts down to 962 accounts. This represents a core group of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified—of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national-level news outlets.
The journalists included contributors to The Guardian, The New Republic, Al Jazeera, and the Huffington Post.
Mark Zuckerberg’s personal security chief has been placed on administrative leave amid allegations that he made racist and homophobic remarks about people including the Facebook founder’s wife.
Liam Booth allegedly made the remarks about Zuckerberg’s wife, Priscilla Chan, and some of the employees at their household, Business Insider reported earlier, citing legal letters from the former household staff. A spokesman for the Zuckerberg and Chan family office said Booth has been placed on leave while an outside law firm investigates. It didn’t confirm the precise nature of the allegations published by Business Insider.
“The family office takes complaints of workplace misconduct very seriously,” the spokesman told Bloomberg News in an email. “The allegations against Liam Booth were brought to the office’s attention for the first time by the Bloom Firm after both former employees had left employment by the family office and engaged legal counsel.”
Lisa Bloom of the Bloom Firm confirmed by email that she represents “the two individuals who have raised claims.” She declined to identify the people involved or share details on the allegations.
Booth is a former Secret Service officer, according to his LinkedIn profile. He didn’t immediately reply to a message outside of U.S. business hours.
The Spirit of the Parkland Shootings lives in Houston Democrats
Suspect Tosses Gun Out Car Window & Is Cited For Littering As DA Refuses Gun Charges
Our friends at Blue Lives Matter report in a 21 May 2019 article how Democrat District Attorney Kim Ogg (elected with the aid of George Soros) has refused to charge two suspects despite incriminating evidence on more than two separate badge cams.
Houston police charged an 18-year-old woman who threw a pistol out of a car window with “littering with gun” because the Harris County prosecutors refused to authorize weapons charges.
The incident occurred on Sunday when two Houston police officers on patrol initiated a traffic stop in the 7200-block of Tobruk Lane, according to an internal Houston Police Officers’ Union memo obtained by Blue Lives Matter.
As they were attempting to stop the vehicle, both officers witnessed the passenger throwing a pistol out of the car’s window.
Once they had the vehicle stopped, the officers detained the male 17-year-old driver and his 18-year-old female passenger and located the weapon where it had been tossed, according to the confidential memo.
The driver told the officers that he had given the gun to his passenger and told her to throw it out the window.
All of the admissions were captured on the officers’ bodycams so it should have been an easy slam dunk to charge both the driver and his passenger, but that isn’t how it works in Harris County.
Law enforcement officers in Harris County are required to contact the district attorney’s office for permission to charge before they actually arrest a suspect, Houston Police Officers’ Union Vice President Doug Griffith explained to Blue Lives Matter.
“We are the only county in the state that does this,” Griffith said. “We have to contact the DA’s office and ask permission to file the charge. It’s always been that way.”
What’s different now is that current Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg has quickly earned herself a reputation as a friend to the Houston criminals by refusing to charge anything but the most violent of crimes.
“In my 28 years with the Houston Police Department, this is the first district attorney who has actively refused charges on good hard criminals where we have body camera evidence,” Griffith told Blue Lives Matter. “It’s truly sickening that our officers put themselves in harm’s way and then turn around and have a DA refuse all charges.”
We do not need to repeat Obama’s failures again, thank you.
Democrats’ open borders have consequences again
Illegal alien living in stolen truck robbed & killed elderly woman inside her southwest Houston home
As shown by the 22 May 2019 Houston Chronicle article, a Houston woman lost her life due to Democrats’ refusal to recognize our crisis of illegal border crossing. From the account provided by the Chronicle, it sounds like the only sin that Etta Nugent committed was opening the door and being sick, old, and unable to fend off a bully from Mexico.
A teenager has been charged with capital murder in the death of a beloved southwest Houston grandmother who he is accused of stabbing after she was unable to help him fix his truck, according to police.
The broken-down vehicle across from Etta Nugent’s home and the 19-year-old living in it over the weekend had caught the attention of the tight-knit neighbors on tree-lined Neff Street next to the St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church soccer field.
Sunday was when Ninfa Palazzolo’s husband first saw him, she said. The suspect, identified by police as Marco Cobos, stood out among the mass of cars parked along the church property for a baptism ceremony.
“My husband saw him sitting in a truck with the car door open, and he saw him again yesterday,” said Palazzolo, who had lived near the Nugents for three decades.
Court records show Cobos was born in Mexico and homeless. The truck he had been sleeping in had been reported stolen, police said.
Cobos sought help from 75-year-old Nugent to fix his vehicle but she was unable to “because of her age,” police said. The 6-foot, 230-pound suspect then forced his way into her longtime home and stabbed her to death. Police did not say when Cobos broke into the home.
Another neighbor, Sharon Shanahan, said she last saw Nugent on Sunday.
Nugent had been home alone for most of May as her husband recovered from a medical procedure at a convalescent care facility, Shanahan said. She was supposed to visit her husband on Monday morning but never showed. Calls to her phone went unanswered.
Now, because some illegal alien demanded money to get a stolen truck fixed, a woman who once worked as a church secretary at a local Catholic church has died a painful death.
Illegal alien murders as many as 12 elderly women
As shown by a 16 May 2019 Daily Caller article, an illegal alien from Kenya has killed elderly women 12 times. This illegal alien and former male nurse seems to have targeted elderly women by both robbing and killing them.
An illegal alien from Kenya has been charged in the deaths of 12 elderly women in Texas, and at least one major media outlet has so far ignored what could be one of the most prolific serial slayings in American history.
Billy Chemirmir, a 46-year-old former healthcare worker, had already been charged with capital murder in March 2018 in the death of Lu Thi Harris, 81, but was indicted on Tuesday for 11 additional deaths: five in Collin County and six more in Dallas County.
Court records show that Chemirmir, a citizen of Kenya living illegally in the United States, allegedly smothered his victims with a pillow and then robbed them, according to The Dallas Morning News.
After Chemirmir’s initial arrest, authorities told reporters their plans to review around 750 cases of unattended deaths of elderly women for links to Chemirmir, some of which had already been ruled as natural causes.
He was indicted Tuesday in the deaths of six Dallas County women:
Phyllis Payne, 91, who died May 14, 2016, according to the indictment and her obituary
Phoebe Perry, 94, who died June 5, 2016, according to a family obituary
Norma French, 85, who died Oct. 8, 2016, according to the indictment and her obituary
Doris Gleason, 92, who died Oct. 29, 2016, according to her family and the indictment
Rosemary Curtis, 76, who died Jan. 19, 2018, according to her obituary
Mary Brooks, 87, who died Jan. 31, 2018, according to the indictment and her obituary
Details about the new Collin County indictments were not immediately available on Wednesday evening.
Additionally, Chemirmir is charged with attempted capital murder for allegedly trying to suffocate two other Collin County women. He also allegedly attacked a 93-year-old woman in 2017 at a Frisco assisted living facility.
One really sad part of this comes to us through Red State, who tells us that (although Nancy Pelosi and CNN are making up lies about the border and Trump) neither Pelosi or CNN can be bothered to say anything about this illegal alien mass murderer.
When will this be one-too-many for Pelosi or Schumer?
Things CNN has reported:
-Trump gets 2 scoops of ice cream, everyone else gets 1
-The shape of Trump's genitals… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Missing girl Salem Sabatka found safe after ‘heroes’ lead Texas police to her kidnapper
Democrat Blind Eyes toward Sexual Trafficking & Sexual Deviancy has Related Issues
According to even left-wing CNN, bad things can be averted when good people spring into action. Pastor and family friend Jeff King not only prayed, but also jumped into action (searching local park and hotel parking lots for the type of car used in the kidnapping of Salem.
Authorities rescued a Texas 8-year-old Sunday after a vigilant duo saw the Fort Worth Police Department’s description of the car suspected in her kidnapping and went hunting for it, police said.
Standing in front of the WoodSpring Suites in the suburb of Forest Hill, a beaming Buddy Calzada, spokesman for the Fort Worth police, told reporters that the pair, members of a local church, found the grey Ford Five Hundred in the hotel parking lot.
“As you can see, there is a smile on my face. I’m here to report that Salem has been found safe,” he said.
Police have charged Michael Webb, 51, with aggravated kidnapping, a first-degree felony. Webb is not related to the girl, Salem Sabatka, police said.
Salem was taking a walk with her mother Saturday night in Fort Worth when a car approached and a man snatched her, police said. Her mother tried to jump into the vehicle to save her daughter, but the man shoved her and sped away, video from a home doorbell shows.
Authorities issued an Amber Alert and posted photos of Salem and the Ford Five Hundred to social media.
The churchgoers saw the posts, found the vehicle and called it in to police. Officers determined in what room the car’s owner was staying, breached the door and found Salem, Calzada said.
“They’re our heroes tonight, I’ll tell you that,” he said of the churchgoers.
Jeff King has come forward as one of the heroes and told “Good Morning America” that he knew Salem’s dad, so when he learned the girl was missing, he touched base with friends who were already out looking for the youngster. King went to the crime scene where a Fort Worth detective told him he should be checking parks, apartments and hotels, he told the show.
“We got out here and tried to make a difference,” he said. “I went ahead and started looking at parks and then just kind of (was) told this one motel and we went there. And on the way back from that motel, this one was right next to us on the access road, so we just pulled in and yeah, that’s how it happened. It’s kind of crazy.”
One of the sad by-products of the border crisis is that boys, girls, and women become the sexual playthings of men who are willing to pay. Therefore, kidnappings like these seem to be on the rise in major cities.
Since Ms. Pelosi was so animated about the “Equality Act” and the supposed injustices there, I wonder if she could be bothered with protecting victims against kidnapping and sexual trafficking?
Unrepentant ‘American Taliban’ Eligible for Early Release Thursday for ‘Good Behavior’
Never-Trump Democrat Judges and the Ilhan Omar-coddling party will produce another attack
As reported by a 21 May 2019 Breitbart article, the “American Taliban” who was captured by the US Army during the Obama administration will be released on Thursday (23 May 2019) due to his “good behavior” (although he killed US troops and has not renounced jihadism).
A U.S. federal prison is expected to release John Walker Lindh, an allegedly unrepentant jihadi known as the “American Taliban,” on Thursday, years before the end of his 20-year sentence reportedly due to good conduct and time served before his trial.
Lindh became the “American Taliban” after he joined the Afghan terrorist group and U.S. troops captured him in late 2001 when he was 20 years old.
In October 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime for harboring al-Qaeda before the September 11 attacks. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain allies.
After taking into account good behavior and time served, Lindh will have spent 17 years in prison.
The Islamic militant who became known as the infamous “American Taliban” member is set to be released from a U.S. federal prison Thursday despite lawmakers’ concerns about the “security and safety implications” of freeing an unrepentant terrorist who officials say continues to “openly call for extremist violence.”
John Walker Lindh, who is currently behind bars in Terre Haute, Indiana, is set to be discharged May 23, several years before he would complete the prescribed 20-year prison sentence he received for joining and supporting the Taliban.
I lay the jihadism within America at the feet of Barack Obama for his tying of the hands of the military. This idiot and traitor should have been killed on the battlefield.
Were this a Christian that had taken up arms against the US (though I cannot see a scriptural basis for such a move) and were to remain unrepentant of their desire to kill Americans, I would say the same of them. First and foremost, this traitor needs to be given the punishment of traitors. We need to stop going soft on crime.
The Interior Department will publicly list attorneys’ fees paid out, often to environmental activist groups, for legal settlements, according to a recent memo from Principal Deputy Solicitor Daniel Jorjani.
Jorjani’s memo states the Interior Department will develop a webpage within 30 days to publicly list details of legal settlements and cases, which the agency says is a big step in bringing sunshine to a non-transparent practice that the public is largely unaware is happening.
“This is a big deal that will shed light on the millions of dollars the DOI pays out every year in attorneys’ fees” under federal laws, an Interior Department official said in an email.
“This is your tax money and only by shining a light on this process can you decide if it is being put to good use,” the official said.
The memo was signed May 10, but made public Wednesday. Jorjani issued the memo in response to a 2018 order from Interior Secretary David Bernhardt while he served former Secretary Ryan Zinke’s number two. Zinke resigned earlier this year and has since been replaced by Bernhardt as head of the Interior Department.
Environmental groups have been particularly successful using “citizen suits” to sue the federal government into taking an action, then getting taxpayers to pay their attorneys’ fees. A 2016 Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found federal agencies paid out $49 million for 512 citizen suits filed under three major environmental laws during the Obama administration.
This certainly has shades of Democrat dirty dealings, the legacy of Obama scandals, and other unsavory issues on the left. With all of the left’s problems with capitalism, this certainly shows that they have no problems with gaming the system and using crony capitalism.
Alaskan environmentalists sue Department of Interior, its secretary, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over planne… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…
‘Cowardice’: Nikki Haley Takes Aim At Ocasio-Cortez, Omar And Sanders Over Venezuela
In a second 15 May 2019 Daily Caller article, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley calls out the reluctance of fake socialists (you know, the ones who have million-dollar royalties and three homes or three-figure salaries and exclusive apartments that they don’t share with the masses) to face the reality of socialism in Venezuela.
Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley sharply criticized three prominent Democrats — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — for going soft on Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship.
“On the fringes of the left, celebrity politicians refuse to condemn [Venezuelan dictator Nicolas] Maduro. Worse, some have actually embraced him,” Haley wrote in a Monday post for Stand For America, her new political organization.
Haley ticked through the responses from Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Sanders, taking shots at each one.
Ocasio-Cortez dodged when asked if Maduro was a legitimate ruler. “A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed,” commented Haley.
Considering the fact that AOC does not understand the difference between socialism and capitalism (as demonstrated by the following video), it shouldn’t be hard to convince thinking liberals to consider the benefits of the system that has lifted more people from poverty worldwide.
A 15 May 2019 Reuters article points out how economic factors have worked in favor of anyone with a business. Therefore, this works well for non-socialists (non-Democrats).
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, pointing to sustained labor market strength that should underpin the economy as growth slows.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 16,000 to a seasonally adjusted 212,000 for the week ended May 11, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Data for the prior week was unrevised.
Claims had been stuck at higher levels for three straight weeks, reflecting difficulties stripping out seasonal fluctuations from the data around moving holidays like Easter, Passover and school spring breaks.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims would fall to 220,000 in the latest week. The Labor Department said no states were estimated last week.
The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 4,750 to 225,000 last week.
The labor market is strong, with the unemployment rate near a 50-year low of 3.6%. The robust job market is supporting the economy as the boost from the White House’s $1.5 trillion tax cut package fades and President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with China disrupts supply chains at factories, which are already struggling with an inventory bloat that has cut production.
Reading the above Reuters article, you can tell that the author wants America to fail so that Republicans (and the evil business community that supports them) will fail. Oddly, nothing but a point of view separates the author from those he hates. Similarly, I have seen leftist Antifa supporters bludgeoning young women and old men over their having attended a Trump rally. Again, nothing but a disagreement on whether a socialist government or a free people would best govern America separates the attackers from the victims.
In contrast, I have worked for ideologies to fail, but not people. In s recent post, I advocated against the passage of the Equality Act because I am certain that it will lead to the subjugation of my religious rights. However, in other posts, I have stood against Islamists that would kill gays. That is to say, I have stood by those in the “Gay Agenda,” because I see life as sacred, all people as sinners, and the only unforgivable sin as the rejection of Christ.
Liberals have started to lose their composure due to fear of losing the battles they forced on the rest of America
Unborn Babies Are Not Human? CNN Debate Leads to Stunning Declaration: ‘That Is Not a Human Being’
A 10 May 2019 Christian Broadcasting Network article shows how liberals have been taken so aback by the possibility that Roe versus Wade might be returned to the states. As reported, a CNN panel consisting of former Senator Santorum, Chris Cuomo, and talking head Christine Quinn produced a surprising quote.
A CNN interview this week raised some powerful questions about the humanity of the unborn, taking the abortion debate straight to the most central question. But the arguments made by CNN’s host and contributor are stunning.
Host Chris Cuomo took the pro-abortion side as he questioned former US Senator Rick Santorum and CNN political contributor Christine Quinn.
They spoke about states that are passing restrictive abortion laws like Georgia’s hearbeat law, with Cuomo and Quinn arguing that a decision by five people on the Supreme Court is more valid than the rights of states or the beliefs of millions of Americans.
That turned into a heated exchange over when life begins before Quinn said something a lot of people find shocking.
The pro-life Santorum had challenged Cuomo and Quinn about their belief that the unborn baby inside a woman’s womb is not a human.
“Do you guys realize a baby DIES in an abortion? Are you ignoring that fact. This is a human life,” Santorum says.
“It’s not a legal fact,” Cuomo inserts.
“Do you disagree that at the moment of concept that child is human and alive? Is it biologically a human life?” Santorum says. Cuomo says the issue should only be about “viability,” to which Santorum replies, “You guys talk about being the party of science, that is so a-science.”
Then he raised the issue of humans being treated as property in a clear reference to the wrong-headed arguments that had been used by pro-slavery forces in the 1800’s. “That’s a unique human being inside that woman. So is it the property of a woman, that you can do whatever you want with it?”
Christine Quinn, a board member of the National Institute of Reproductive Health, said, “When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It’s part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control over her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals.”
When liberals start claiming that babies in utero are not human, they are losing their grip with reality. Nobody thinks that you will crack an eagle egg and get a chicken or a wolf, but (somehow) liberals want us to believe that there is an immaculate conception each time a woman decides to keep her child. Until then, according to Christine Quinn, no human is human.
Even Street Artist Sabo recognizes the wrongness of Ilhan Omar’s Anti-Semitism
PHOTOS: Street Artist Sabo Calls Out Ilhan Omar over Her Anti-Semitic Remarks
Political street artist Sabo put up a number of signs criticizing anti-Semitic comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the Woodland Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles amid the freshman lawmaker’s appearance in town for a speech.
Ilhan Omar is scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Los Angeles Saturday. Counter-events have been organized against her appearance.
“CAIR-LA is honored to have Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as the featured speaker for the 4th Annual Valley Banquet,” the group’s website states.
“Born in Somalia, Ilhan and her family fled the country’s civil war when she was 8 years old. They lived in a refugee camp in Kenya for four years before coming to the United States, eventually settling in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1997.”
Street artist Sabo is mocking both Omar and CAIR with new street art. The art calls out Omar for her past of anti-Semitic statements.
When the arts community recognizes the way Democrats are working against the good of the rest of us, we are talking about a sea change. Like the tweets by Cher regarding the money spent on illegals while American vets and American homeless starve on the streets, it seems that some on the left have started to wake up.
“We just put a poll if you’re in your car, this is [a] Pennsylvania poll, Democratic primary contenders, Biden, 53%, Sanders, 50%, Warren 47%, Buttigieg, 45%, Harris 45%, O’Rourke 44%. In the face-to-face against Trump, they all beat him, that’s the headline. Biden by the most, Trump coming in the 40s,” Wallace began.
Naturally, this has not seen very much play on the networks — they are too busy focusing on a Fox News poll that follows the tradition of the polls that predicted a 85% chance of a Clinton landslide in 2016.
Dan Crenshaw And 2020 Dem Face Off During Budget Hearing: ‘Good Luck’ On ‘Your Failing Presidential Run’
Republican Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw went after Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton for putting Moulton’s “failing presidential run” above his congressional duty during a Budget Committee hearing Wednesday.
Moulton, who announced his presidential campaign on April 22, was at odds with Crenshaw during a hearing on retirement security. The presidential wannabe accused Crenshaw of trying to slash benefits for seniors. Then he got peeved at American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew G. Biggs when the witness was reluctant to testify about topics he deemed outside of his area of expertise.
“Mr. Moulton, I’ll help answer your question since you didn’t want to direct it at me. I don’t think this is as helpful to your presidential run as you might think,” Crenshaw said when Moulton had expended his five minutes.
“If you have to solve the problem of Social Security in a progressive way, which I think we actually agree on, what is the fairest way to do it? Do you want to increase benefits for millionaires?” he added. “That’s the essential question. And your answer to that is: Yes, you do. Some progressive. It doesn’t make sense, and it’s bad for the economy, but I know you were looking for sound bites for your failing presidential run. Good luck with that.”
A prominent attorney believes former CIA Director John Brennan is at the center of a conspiracy to frame President Trump.
During an interview Wednesday, Joe Digenova said Brennan is the mastermind behind a scheme to remove the president from office with the Russian collusion hoax. He accused the former CIA director of working with James Clapper and James Comey to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton of her email scandal in 2016.
Digenova said when Clinton still lost, Brennan used the Russian hoax as an “insurance policy” to undermine President Trump’s Election Day victory.
Make no mistake about it, John Brennan is the mastermind of this conspiracy to frame Donald Trump, and to steal his presidency from him after he was elected,” he stated. “John Brennan is at the core of this conspiracy — his handymen and acolytes were Clapper and Comey, and the senior FBI officials who worked with Comey, but lets not forget that all the people at the senior levels of the U.S. Department of Justice under Obama were involved in this plot.”
The President says it would be ‘appropriate’ for him to ask Attorney General William Barr to open a probe into business dealings between Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian Gas Company.
He made the comment in an interview with ‘Politico’ on Friday, just before his attorney Rudy Giuliani was expected to meet with Ukraine’s new President to discuss the issue.
Giuliani later canceled the meeting, calling it a set up by ‘vocal critics’ of the President.
Biden has long received scrutiny for threatening to withhold $1 Billion in aid to Ukraine back in 2016, to pressure prosecutors to throw out an investigation into a private gas company, where his son was on the board of directors.
If Ukrainian or US laws were broken by Biden, we need to know.
Colorado students walk out as a Democrat presidential contender turns a vigil into an anti-gun rally
According to a 10 May 2019 OneNewsNow article, the students who gathered to honor Kendrick Castillo left when a Democrat presidential hopeful tried to turn it into an anti-gun rally.
During a Wednesday vigil honoring a school shooting victim who was fatally gunned down Tuesday while eight other students were wounded in the deadly attack at a STEM high school in Highlands, Colorado, students walked out in protest when a Democratic senator and representative politicized the event – essentially turning it into a gun control rally.
Celebrating the life and heroism of 18-year-old senior Kendrick Castillo – who rushed the shooter to protect students and prevent casualties – students grew angered and couldn’t bear to watch Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) seizing the opportunity to politicize the solemn event. They renewing Democrats’ propaganda machine for gun control when they were given the stage to speak at the vigil not far from the Columbine High School shooting nearly two decades ago.
Dems know no shame?
Just 15 minutes down the road from the Columbine High School shooting that killed 15 – including the gunmen – and injured more than 20, Democratic officials were seen using the podium intended for mourning at Highlands Ranch, Colorado, and instead used it to stump for their anti-gun agenda heading into the 2020 presidential election … and students would not could stand by and watch.
Perturbed students from STEM’s Highlands Ranch High School were not shy to let their voices be heard when they called out the Democratic leaders for using their tragedy, tears and grief for their political gain.
“Clearly moved, many of the students chanted ‘mental health’ after Bennet and Crow invoked gun control during the vigil – and even more walked out of the event in protest,” TheBlaze reported. “Other students shouted, ‘political stunt’ and, ‘We are people – not a statement.’”
Approximately 2,000 attended the highly publicized vigil organized by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and virtually all of the speakers were politicians and gun control activists pushing U.S. Congress to enforce more restrictive laws curbing citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.
But after listening to Democrats’ progressive anti-gun propaganda for half an hour, hundreds of students had enough and stormed out of their school’s packed gymnasium yelling, “This is not for us,” among other verbal protests.
A Chance for Christians and Liberty-Minded People to Stand Up against Tyranny
On 17 May 2019, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will bring up the Equality Act (HR 5) to a vote. For the reasons outlined in the rest of this page, I hope that this measure fails magnanimously.
If implemented, the Equality Act would expand the definition of the word sex in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as legally protected classes. The result will unleash radical liberals to attack those whose faith teaches that marriage is only between one man and one woman and that sexual identity of male and female is a fixed, biological fact.
By government edict, business owners, employees, and customers alike will be subject to a radical LGBT agenda that would bend them in the following ways:
Churches would be required to marry same-sex couples.
Female business owners, customers, and employees would then be forced to share their privacy in restrooms and dressing rooms with men who claim to be women.
Health care providers and professionals would be forced to perform gender transition procedures (sex changes) and provide medical services (hormone therapy) that would violate their moral and religious convictions.
Amusement parks, recreation centers, skating rinks, and daycare centers, etc. will be forced to employ people whose values on sexuality deviates from those of the employer.
Adoption and foster care agencies will be forced to place children into same sex households and into homes of individuals suffering from gender confusion.
College sports programs would be required to allow men who identify as women to compete as women in sports competitions
College and professional sports stadiums would be required to open its restrooms to either sex.
The Democratic Party has clearly laid out their intent to force Christians into subjugation to radical sexual deviancy. The Party’s platform states, “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”
The “progressive vision” of religious liberty for Democrats was recently made visible by Chai Feldblum, the former fixer for Micelle Obama and commissioner of the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum set the “progressive direction” of the Democratic Party through her statement (emphasis mine):
I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.
Here are some additional resources on the Equality Act that you can read and share with others:
Drake acquires a gigantic plane. – Via Daily Caller – “The superstar rapper showed off his plane, called “Air Drake,” on Instagram Friday, and it’s downright absurd. The interior is absolutely massive, and he points out that it’s not a ‘timeshare’ or ‘rental.’ It’s just all his.”
While I support his right to use a jet and as many gas-guzzling SUV’s as he wants in the commission of his work, he needs to stop preaching unproven theories to the rest of us.
Socialist ‘It’ Candidate Ocasio-Cortez Rips ‘Unregulated’ Uber, Then Spends $4,000 On … Uber
Socialism: Self-described social democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving. The youthful socialist can hardly go a day without saying something that undescores the hypocrisy of her beliefs.
Last week, we noted the irony of the socialist movement’s most visible star (besides Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, of course) lamenting the closure of the restaurant she once worked at. Turns out, the restaurant closed largely due to enormous hikes in the minimum wage — a policy Ocasio-Cortez would enthusiastically impose on the whole country.
For her latest display of socialist hypocrisy, you have to go back to March.
Then, tragically, a New York cab driver named Nicanor Ochisor took his own life. He did so apparently in response to financial struggles. As Zuri Davis of the Reason.com blog points out, New York Times reporter Noam Scheiber immediately blamed ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft for the death and faulted local government for letting the ride-sharing companies operate.
Seeing a chance to score political points, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “NYC’s fourth driver suicide. Yellow cab drivers are in financial ruin due to the unregulated expansion of Uber. What was a living wage now pays under minimum.”
And she had a whole socialist agenda for fixing the problem, as she saw it.
-to call Uber drivers what they are: EMPLOYEES, not contractors
-Fed jobs guarantee
-Prep for automation”
But, surprise! Fox News reports that Federal Election Commission records show that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign used Uber repeatedly, despite her sharp criticisms of the business model.
Indeed, her campaign spent around $4,000 on 160 Uber rides in California alone from April to late June. For the record, Ocasio-Cortez isn’t running for office in California, but in New York. Apparently, California is where the really BIG socialist billionaires live.
For someone who claims to be so so concerned about the environment (to the point of forcing the rest of us to embrace socialism and abandon our cars), she sure does not want to sacrifice anything.
Hypocritical Democrat. AKA, common Democrat.
#AOC recants: ‘…world ending in 12 years due to climate change’ – it was “a joke”
In the electronic folds of the Watts Up with That blog, we are informed that AOC’s demands that we should give up all for the Green New Deal were just a joke that sea sponges should have understood.
Ocasio-Cortez recants with insult: I Was Joking About World Ending In 12 Years, and you’re an idiot if you believed me
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that she was joking around when she claimed the world was going to end in 12 years if we do not take serious action against Climate Change, a declaration she’s been widely criticized over. The 29-year-old socialist mocked the Republican Party for taking her claim about the end of the world seriously, which she suggested was a combination of “dry humor + sarcasm.”
AOC in a tweet published on Mother’s Day:
This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
I am with Mr. Watts. I saw her proposal of the Green New Deal as a real platform for her. However, I can also see the other side.
That is, by AOC making her own “deplorable” statement like this, she shows that she is the joke and those that vote for her are the punch line.
Green New Deal Vote Exposes Democratic Hypocrisy on AOC-Led Insanity
Even left-leaning CNN cannot help but poke at AOC’s Green New Deal as a stupid idea.
One thing Democrats are notorious for is sticking together. However, the ludicrous Green New Deal is going to expose which of them will break ranks from the ascendent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party and air on the side of sanity.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has set a vote over the Green New Deal for Tuesday afternoon. Most Democrats have boasted about the greatness of the radical proposal since it was introduced last month. However, since McConnell said, “okay, let’s vote,” they’ve been screaming bloody murder.
I could not be more glad that the American people will have the opportunity to learn precisely where each one of th… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Further down in the CNN article, the author says “virtually all” Democrat presidential contenders support the Green New Deal. However, an incomplete post that I had to leave behind found that all of the then-18 (now 24) contenders were for the Green New Deal. They reaaly need to own their issues.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likes to talk a good game on environmental issues, but recent findings show that while she talks the talk, she does not walk the walk. Michael Knowles calls her out on Monday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show.” Transcript and video below.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our favorite socialist from Yorktown Heights, she said (paraphrasing), “We’re like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” That’s what she said, so what she is saying is we need to have zero greenhouse gases, we need a full transition off of fossil fuels within ten years or else the world will end, or else it is not okay to have children, that’s what she said, (paraphrasing) “You have to ask yourself if it’s moral to have children in this world. And what did we learn from federal filings?” She’s a hypocrite, she doesn’t practice what she preaches. So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lives in the city with the greatest subway system in the world, and according to her federal filings, she listed over 1,000 Uber, Lyft and Juno transactions during her campaign. She spent $30,000 on rideshare apps. Guess where her campaign headquarters was located? One minute away from the Seven Train and the Seven Train can take you anywhere because the Seven Train connects to a bunch of other lines so you can get all around. She lived a one-minute walk away from the Seven Train and she spent 30 G’s on ride-share apps. To put that into perspective, Max Rose, who’s another freshman Democrat from New York, he only spent $6,000 on rideshare apps and he only spent them on 329 rides during his campaign, so she used multiples more than this.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswoman’s campaign platform.
The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.
But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.
In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.
“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life,” Ocasio-Cortez said last March. “Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue – it’s happening in every US metro area.”
Ocasio-Cortez also promised not to take campaign contributions from luxury developers during her campaign. “It’s time we stand up to the luxury developer lobby,” she said in a speech last April. “Every official is too scared to do it – except me.”
Sure, she is a hypocrite, but look at her mentor Bernie.
Lifestyles of the rich and socialist: Bernie Sanders has 3 houses, makes millions
Considering the fact that Bernie preaches the confiscation of wealth, you would think that he would live meagerly. You would think that one house (not three), public transportation (not $100K sports cars), and the health care system he forced us to use would be sufficient. However, if we go to a 21 February 2019 Fox News article, we get a description of his holdings that does not match up with his socialist preaching.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., entered the 2020 presidential race this week promising to transform America with a left-wing vision of economic and environmental justice. But the self-described democratic socialist’s high-end income, multiple houses and fondness for air travel have already opened him up to criticism that his lifestyle doesn’t always match the rhetoric.
Sanders has pitched himself as a grassroots economic populist, focusing on income inequality and higher taxes for the rich.
“Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice,” he said.
“Together you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revoution,” he said. “Now it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.”
But Sanders has raised eyebrows over his spending and personal wealth. Notably, he owns three houses. In 2016, he bought a $575,000 four-bedroom lake-front home in his home state. This is in addition to a row house in Washington D.C., as well as a house in Burlington, Vermont.
More details are starting to come out about the two teenage shooters who took a life and injured eight others this week at a Colorado high school, but some details might get dropped from the typical news story.
Just before 2 p.m. on May 7, Devon Erickson (pictured at right) and accomplice Maya McKinney allegedly walked into the Highlands Ranch STEM school with two loaded handguns and began firing before they were tackled.
One well-deserved post-shooting story describes the heroism of Kendrick Castillo (pictured below), an 18-year-old senior who helped tackle Erickson and thus helped end the shooting, paying for his courage with his own life.
Two others joined Castillo in stopping Erickson, and an unnamed private security guard is credited with subduing McKinney, The Associated Press reported.
But what about the two shooters themselves? Are they MAGA hat-wearing white supremacists? NRA members?
And why did they do it? Were they inspired by President Trump? By the tea party? By a Fox News host?
News website The American Conservative, which has been following the shooting, points out Erickson’s white car that was towed from his home was spray-painted with “666” and a Pentagram, and the words “fu– society” were spray-painted on its side.
On his Facebook page, Erickson complained in a 2014 post that he hates “all these Christians who hate gays” for their biblical views.
The same story notes that law enforcement authorities misidentified the accomplice as a male when the “he” is a she who claims to be transgender and is transitioning from “Maya” to “Alec.”
American Conservative writer Rod Dreher then writes:
Watch the coverage over the next few days. It hardly needs saying — but I’m going to say it anyway — that these alleged killers do not represent all gays, allies, or non-Christians, any more than Christians or Muslims who shoot up or bomb places represent all in their religion. But it’s going to be very, very interesting to observe how the media craft this narrative to explain what role the identities these two suspects embraced played in justifying their violent actions.
When I blog, I generally include short comments on the words of main stream media (this way, the main stream media’s words can be used to prove my point). When main stream media refuses (as it increasingly does) to comment on a conservative topic, I use media outlets like Fox, One America News Network, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and similar outlets.
Once again, the American main stream media has largely proven itself lacking in anything but a desire to follow the liberal agenda of the day.
Elderly Pro-Life Woman’s Amazing Christian Response to Attacker Who Broke Her Leg: ‘I’m Forgiving Her’
The rally came together to protest the actions of state Rep. Brian Sims who is seen in viral videos harassing and threatening teenagers and a woman silently praying outside of this particular Planned Parenthood clinic. Sims points his camera at the teens, hoping to expose the identity of these minors, saying: “I’ve got a hundred dollars for anyone who can identify these three.”
In his bullying video, Sims hovers around an older woman, taunting her and trying to shove the camera in her face saying, “Today’s protester, now she is an old white lady who is going to try to avoid showing you her face.”
Sims had triumphantly tweeted his harassment, calling on others to target pro-lifers too: “Push back against Planned Parenthood protestors, PLEASE! They prey on young women, they use white privilege, & shame. They’re racist, classist, bigots who NEED & DESERVE our righteous opposition. Push back, please”
Since the media wants to portray gays as victims and never bullies, this will never see the light of day. Likewise, the attacks on the teens, the offers to have those teens’ lives ruined (much like the issues the media first tried to impose on the Covington Catholic boys.
Pro-Lifers Pack Street at Philly Planned Parenthood: ‘We Are Not Going to Continue to Be Bullied’
Hundreds of pro-lifers came here Friday to protest a Pennsylvania state representative’s recent verbal attacks against pro-life sidewalk counselors outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic.
As CBN News has reported, state Rep. Brian Sims (D) put out a video of himself blasting a woman who was merely praying a few feet from the Elizabeth Blackwell Planned Parenthood clinic. “An old white lady telling women what to do with their bodies,” he said.
Sims then basically offered a bounty for information on three teenage girls praying at the same clinic.
He called them, “A bunch of pseudo-Christian protestors who’ve been out here shaming young girls for being here. So here’s the deal: I’ve got $100 to anybody who’ll identify any of these three.”
The pro-life advocates who came to this clinic told CBN News they won’t be intimidated or stopped because abortion must be fought.
Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager who now helps abortion clinic workers leave their jobs, addressed the rally.
Former Fugees rapper Pras Michel was indicted on charges of funneling millions of dollars in foreign money to then President Obama’s 2012 re-election effort, amid widening fallout of the multibillion-dollar fraud scandal at a Malaysian government fund.
The scandal has toppled Malaysia’s prime minister, threatened Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with criminal charges, and ensnared both Republican and Democratic fundraisers.
Considering how the media has gone bonkers over 30-year-old IRS reports on Donald Trump’s losses that were otherwise self-reported, we can only imagine what the reporting would have been like if this had been a Trump fund raiser who was convicted.