Democrats of all stripes focus on impeachment (despite all the facts)

Featured

NYT and New York district investigate Rudy rather than real corruption

NYT: Rudy Giuliani Under Investigation Over Ukraine Work. He Denies Wrongdoing

In a 12 October 2019 Daily Caller article, we see how the New York Times and federal investigators have gone after Rudy Giuliani.

GiulianiFederal prosecutors are reportedly investigating Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s dealings in Ukraine, including whether he acted as an unregistered foreign agent, an allegation he denied.

Prosecutors in Manhattan are looking into whether Giuliani worked with Ukrainians to oust Marie Yovanovitch as ambassador to Ukraine, two anonymous sources told The New York Times.

Giuliani told the Times he is not aware of any investigation against him. He also said he was investigating issues involving Ukraine on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump, and not Ukrainian officials.

Trump responded to news of the investigation Saturday by defending his lawyer.

Two Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were indicted Thursday on charges that they made illegal campaign contributions, including to a lawmaker who pushed for Yovanovitch’s firing in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2018.

Yovanovitch testified to Congress on Friday, and accused Giuliani and his Ukrainian partners of taking part in a “concerted effort” to force her removal.

Prosecutors said Parnas and Fruman, who operated businesses in Florida, were involved “in causing the U.S. government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.”

(Read more at Daily Caller)

Why not investigate the dark ties between Ukraine and Biden/Obama

On the off chance that stories saying Biden was behind the scenes in Ukraine selling the presidency, don’t you think that the New York Times and other liberal outlets might want to look into it? If Biden took part in saving the company who ended up with $1.8 billion in missing aid, don’t you think that more than bloggers and FOIA crusaders would look into it?

If there are credible sources telling us that Clinton, Obama, Biden, and the International Monetary Fund pillaged Ukraine, why shouldn’t that be part of the campaign trail discussion?

Could it be due to the media bias favoring Democrats?

This “Resistance” goes to emotion-only mode (no facts)

Nolte: Snopes announces it will now fight Trump using ‘feelings’ and ‘emotion’

Breitbart‘s John Nolte points out how left-leaning “fact checker Snopes has adopted a mission of fighting Trump with “feelings” and “emotions.”

snopes-coverJust like he did with far-left CNN, President Trump has just forced the phony, left-wing fact check site Snopes to throw out every standard of professional journalism.

In a stunning admission (of what we already knew), Snopes reprinted an essay Thursday arguing that Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are such unique threats to the world that “experts must find new ways to reach people.” Which means that — get this — Trump and Johnson must be “countered by the shared stories, experiences and emotions of real people and how they are affected by the big global issues.”

The blog post by professors David Knights and Torkild Thanem was first published at The Conversation but re-run by Snopes in full. “Public austerity measures, for example, are not simply about financial facts,” they mewl. “Indeed, when presented merely as economic data, many people can neither identify with nor understand them. Instead, austerity poses problems that compel us to examine how they affect people and families in their daily lives. The experiences of those individuals must be shared.”

The professors promise to get just as ridiculous with other left-wing causes, specifically when it comes to stopping Brexit and furthering the Global Warming Hoax:

Whether examining Brexit, public austerity measures or the effects of climate change, one limitation is that facts and data generated through quantitative social research are presented as if detached from the people they concern as well as those involved in their production. Far removed from people’s lived experiences, they risk displacing any sense of what it is to be human. As such, they are, perhaps, too easy to dismiss.

This is actually good news. The mask is now removed forever.

What’s more, posting this article — without any caveat that it does not reflect the site’s editorial position — is a surrender on the part of Snopes, an admission that people are not falling for the selective facts and hand-picked experts that these fake fact-check sites use to avoid inconvenient truths, such as the fact that their so-called climate experts are 0-41 with their doomsday predictions.

(Read more at Breitbart)

The real problem with this headline is that this is Snopes‘ normal operating mode

If you are in the habit of going two or three levels into the links provided by an article (and then not accepting the tales if the “proofs” are circular or non-existent), then you will know that many “fact checkers” (and especially the Snopes site) provide nothing but left-leaning and biased input. Therefore, with such exposure, surely you would also know that a prime tool at Snopes involves the use of emotional pleas.

So what else is new?

Hunter Biden To Step Down From Board Of Chinese Firm

After all of the problems start to surface, we get a report from the Daily Caller pointing out that the experience-free billionaire has resigned from the Chinese board (but did not divest himself of the profits or funds given him when he went to China on Air Force 2).

hunter-bidenHunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, announced he will resign from the board of a Chinese private equity firm that has been a target of President Donald Trump’s criticism in a Sunday statement from his lawyer.

Joe Biden had no part in his son’s foreign business dealings, and Hunter Biden has also vowed not to take part in any such business if his father is elected as president in 2020, according to the statement published by attorney George Mesires to Medium.

“To date, Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR’s board of directors. He has not received any return on his investment; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest. Moreover, Hunter played no role in directing or making BHR’s investments. Hunter intends to resign from the BHR board of directors on or by October 31, 2019,” the statement reads.

“When Hunter engaged in his business pursuits, he believed that he was acting appropriately and in good faith. He never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the president of the United States,” the statement continues in reference to criticism from Trump regarding the younger Biden’s ties to China.

The statement continues with a promise that Hunter Biden would not partake in any foreign business dealings “under a Biden administration.”

“Hunter makes the following commitment: Under a Biden Administration, Hunter will readily comply with any and all guidelines or standards a President Biden may issue to address purported conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, including any restrictions related to overseas business interests. In any event, Hunter will agree not to serve on boards of, or work on behalf of, foreign-owned companies,” the statement concludes.

(Read more at Daily Caller)

He did not divest himself of the ill-gotten profits earned while his dad was in office

Even though Hunter Biden could only have gotten the Ukrainian board job paying $83,000 per month (for years) because his dad was the American Vice President and was overseeing an attempt sweep out corruption — he accepted the money.

Even though Hunter Biden was a drug addict who was drummed out of the military, he managed to get a ride on Air Force 2 into China (where he got another high-paying job at a Chinese securities company). When the Vice President should have stood against the air space taken over by China and the islands built by China in shipping lanes, America did nothing and Hunter Biden got another high-paying job.

Even though Hunter Biden has blathered out responses to ABC’s softball questions, the only response I believe from him is that he did exhibit “poor judgement.”

13 months of impeachment hopes from Comey

NYTwits declare: Comey would like to help with impeachment

In a stereotypical puff-piece on someone it considers a “hero” of the resistance, the NYTwits explain how Comey would like to take part in the impeachment.

ComeyJames Comey slumps strategically in restaurants — all 6-foot-8 of him, drooping faux-furtively with his back to the room — and daydreams about deleting the civic-minded Twitter feed where a bipartisan coalition pronounces him a national disgrace.

He sleeps soundly — nine hours a night, he ballparks — and organizes the self-described “unemployed celebrity” chapter of his life around a series of workaday goals. “One of my goals has been to get to 10 consecutive pull-ups,” Mr. Comey said in an interview, legs crossed on the back porch of his stately Virginia home. “I’m at nine now. So, I’ve been doing a lot of pull-ups.”

He writes and thinks and reads and worries from a tidy downstairs office surrounded by the trinkets of his past: the White House place card from the night President Trump asked for his “loyalty” as F.B.I. director; a book by Nate Silver, the political data whiz who believes Mr. Comey’s explosively ambiguous letter in October 2016 about the Hillary Clinton email investigation probably handed Mr. Trump the election; a page from a quote-of-the-day calendar, saved for its resonance: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

“It reminds me so much of the F.B.I.,” Mr. Comey said.

But then, a lot of things have lately. Another Trump-branded election interference scandal is upon us. Institutions are wobbling. And Mr. Comey, as ever, cannot fight a nagging conviction about it all: James Comey can help. He must help.

(Read more at the New York Times)

As long as NYTwits like this are on the left, we should remain motivated

If you need another reason (other than Robbie Francis O’Rourke and his gun-grabbing and religion-suppressing ways can muster), then you need to work on motivation.

Maybe this is how Schiff avoided talking directly with the leakers

Reminder: Schiff Reportedly Hired Two Of Trump’s NSC Staffers

In addition to his lie that he later called “parody,” his lie about not being in contact with the “whistleblower,” and even his multiple claims that he had proof that Trump conspired with Russians, Schiff also seems to have hired two of Trump’s NSC staffers, as reported by the Daily Caller.

IdiotSchiffPresident Donald Trump accused Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff in February of “stealing” away people who had worked in the White House at its National Security Council by hiring them.

Schiff’s committee hired two people who worked at the NSC in the Obama and Trump administrations: Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018 and was hired in February with a stop in between at a think-tank founded by Obama officials, and Sean Misko, who departed the NSC in 2017 and joined Schiff’s staff in August, the Washington Examiner reported.

Also in August, the “whistleblower” who had worked at the NSC reportedly made contact with an unnamed aide to Schiff — the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — who provided guidance about his next steps to blow the whistle about a July phone call, leading him to retain an attorney and approach an inspector general.

That interaction took on added intrigue because Schiff said “we have not spoken directly” with the whistleblower, when in fact his aide had. A Washington Post fact-checker wrote his statement was “flat-out false.” Schiff knew details about the whistleblower’s complaint before it was filed, according to the Examiner.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations at Judicial Watch, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Schiff wasn’t so much stealing Trump’s people, but rather there were people in the Trump administration who never agreed with his policies.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Lies, lies, and more lies — the face of Democrats

Beside farcically being the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, there can be no reason to associate Adam Schiff with intelligence (given the number of times that he has been caught in lies). On the other hand, there are ample reasons to associate his name with lies.

Just to prove there are some news agencies reporting on American political news other than the Trump impeachment

Sen. Sasse Blasts Beto for ‘Extreme Intolerance’ for Trying to Force Churches to Support Gay Marriage

Just to prove that they can report on things that the NYT and WSJ ignore, the Christian Broadcasting Network reports on the First-Amendment threat from O’Rourke.

Beto O'RourkeDemocratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke shocked even some fellow liberal politicians like Pete Buttigieg last week when he said churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t support gay marriage. Now he’s trying to backpedal those comments.

At a CNN Democratic town hall debate Thursday night,  O’Rourke was asked, “Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, and charities should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” the former Texas 16th district congressman replied. “So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

O’Rourke’s comments immediately drew backlash from conservatives. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) released a statement Friday condemning O’Rourke for “extreme intolerance.”

“This bigoted nonsense would target a lot of sincere Christians, Jews, and Muslims,” wrote Sasse. “Leaders from both parties have a duty to flatly condemn this attack on very basic American freedoms.”

“This extreme intolerance is un-American,” Sasse went on. “The whole point of the First Amendment is that…everyone is created with dignity and we don’t use government power to decide which religious beliefs are legitimate and which aren’t.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

At least O’Rourke has defined Democrats as the anti-religious party

What else have any other Democrats done? Have they passed any bills funding construction of bridges, highways, or other infrastructure? Have they successfully proven that President Trump ever obstructed justice?

Have they encouraged businesses to start up by lowering the regulatory hurdle?

Although they recently complained that we pulled out too quickly from Syria (and I might agree that we could support the Kurds to a degree), what have they done to fund and support our military?

Rudy Giuliani Explains Why He Took Matters Into His Own Hands When Trying To Expose Alleged Biden Corruption

The Daily Caller recounts Rudy Giuliani’s explanation of why he took matters into his own hands to expose the Biden corruption.

rudyPresident Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who is at the center of the Ukraine scandal, sat down with the Daily Caller’s Stephanie Hamill for an exclusive one-hour interview.

Giuliani explained in detail why he took matters into his own hands trying to expose the Biden’s alleged corrupt business deals in Ukraine.

“It broke my heart that I couldn’t go to the FBI,” said Giuliani.

He told the Caller that he lacked faith in the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2018, and claimed that the alleged witnesses actually attempted to get information to the government agency and the Department of Justice, but says they were ignored.

“They concluded that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were still running the FBI, and that it was as crooked as it was under Clinton. I made a promise that I would investigate it myself, develop the corroboration so then no one could tear it apart afterwards,” Giuliani explained.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

I support every effort to expose the corruption of the Democrats

Were these corruptions within the Republican party, I would support exposing them. Therefore, since these corruptions fall within the party that wants to strip me of my religious rights, wants to fund the killing of babies with my tax dollars, and wants to ignore my daily sacrifice and still strip more tax dollars from my pay checks — I say that the investigators should go get them.

As for myself, I want to know how the Clinton Foundation can accept funds from foreign governments while Hillary served in the State Department and ran for president. I want to know how Hunter Biden can ride on daddy’s coattails to Ukraine and China to land lucrative jobs while daddy negotiates with the government. I want to know how the FBI and Department of Justice destroyed evidence concerning Hillary without any repercussions.

What’s more, those are only at the beginning of my desire for justice.


To the Do-Nothing Democrats — In your dreams, Chuckie

From the Do-Nothing Democrats — Schumer: We’ll Force Votes on Health Care, Taxes, and Climate

Breitbart seems to be the only one telling us how Schumer wants to force votes on the Democrat agenda. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

chuckieDuring Friday’s Democratic Weekly Address, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that when Congress returns to session, Senate Democrats will force votes on health care, taxes, and climate.

Transcript as Follows:

“My fellow Americans…

Over the past month, evidence has emerged that the President of the United States pressured a foreign leader to investigate one of his leading political rivals.

It is an offense serious enough to warrant a full investigation by Congress, and that is exactly what the House of Representatives has decided to do by beginning a formal impeachment inquiry.

We have a responsibility now to see that all the facts get out, and to consider those facts with the best interests of our country, nothing else, in mind.

When I studied our constitution in high school and college, when we learned that one of the greatest threats our Founding Fathers feared was foreign interference in our elections – I said at the time, ‘Why did they care about this? This hasn’t happened in any real sense.’

But of course, once again, we have learned how the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is relevant to this very day.

If a foreign country can actually affect our elections, Americans will lose faith in our democracy – this grand and wonderful democracy.

So we must guard against that, but at the same time we have to do two things at once. We can protect our constitution and do things average working families need at the same time. And Democrats are intent on pushing for working families.

From the very beginning, Senate Democrats have been committed to doing the people’s business.

The price of health care is too high, incomes are too low.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, gun violence is an epidemic.

Too many Americans have trouble voting, and our elections remain vulnerable to foreign interference.

Climate change is an existential threat to the planet that demands bold and far-reaching action.

Over the course of his presidency – long before the House investigation – President Trump has failed to offer serious proposals to address any of these issues.

In many cases, his policies have made things worse.

And while the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has passed hundreds of bills dealing with health care, infrastructure, gun violence and much, much more, the Republican Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has turned our chamber, the Senate, into a legislative graveyard.

Not one of those bills has even received a vote in the Senate: no vote to save protections for people with pre-existing conditions, no vote on bipartisan background checks, no vote on bipartisan election security legislation, no vote on the Violence Against Women Act.

So as Congress comes back into session next week, Senate Democrats have a plan to jolt the Senate into action on several important issues.

Over the next few weeks, we will force our Republican colleagues to vote on whether to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions or not; to protect middle-class families from a tax hike or not, to protect our climate or not.

And we will also demand that our Republican colleagues take up legislation to protect hard-earned pensions for millions of workers, and they are in danger of losing it right now.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Look out or you may get what you wish for (as with the Nuclear Option, Impeachment of the next Democrat, and other Democrat gifts to Republicans)

Recently, you complained that Republicans should not follow the bad example of Democrats by imposing the Nuclear Option on the nomination of judges. Oddly, you said absolutely nothing when Dick Durban used the same tactic to push through Obama’s judicial nominees.

Right now, Republicans are complaining the way Nancy Pelosi has broken with the procedures called out for the impeachment process by not calling for a vote for an impeachment inquiry. By doing so, she has prevented anyone from sending out real subpoenas (never mind what the “press” calls the Democrat letters of demand — they are not subpoenas). That is, by not calling a vote, she is blocking Republicans from mounting a defense of the President. Will you complain in the future if Republicans treat you just as unfairly?

I hope you do, Chuckie.

Also at this time, Republicans with a backbone are complaining about how Democrats locking them out of the hearings on impeachment. When that happens during the next impeachment of a Democrat president, will you whine?

I hope that I will be able to write an extended blog about that whining.

You see, as long as Republicans have played by the rules and Democrats have bent the rules — the system has not really worked. However, that ended with Trump. When people say “you can’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” they know what they are talking about.

Now that the Democrats have gotten one taste of the blade they dealt, they are fighting harder and dirtier than ever. That is, rather than following the rules and stepping out of the hole they have dug themselves into, Democrats have decided to double down and dig themselves deeper into the dump they have created. So they are being unfair with the continual investigations, being unfair with the continual Antifa attacks, being unfair with the improper impeachment inquiry, and being unfair by their kangaroo court impeachment “closed hearings.”

Therefore, I hope that Republicans give Democrats a full taste mouthful of the mush you have spooned out.

Schiff Admits There Was No Quid Pro Quo But Still Believes In Impeachment

Townhall reports on the morally vacuous leadership of the impeachment movement.

StephanopoulosShiffHouse Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) told George Stephanopoulos that his Committee plans to hold President Donald Trump accountable for his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the unclassified, unredacted transcript showed that no quid pro quo took place, Schiff believes impeachment is still necessary. He believes Trump failed to protect America’s elections.

“I intend to hold the president accountable and I intend to do it with our own investigation. And what we have seen already is damning because what we have seen in that call record is a president of the United States using the full weight of his office, with a country behold to America for its defense, even as Russian troops occupy part of its land, and the president used that opportunity to try to coerce that leader to manufacture dirt on his opponent and interfere in our election,” he said.

“It’s hard to imagine a series of facts more damning than that. So yes, we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

“Let me stop you right there because we’re already hearing some of the president’s defenders, even those who sometimes say the call was not appropriate, say yes, that in the absence of an explicit quid pro quo, some kind of statement from the president or a document that says, ‘We are withholding the aid until you do that investigation.’ That is what is necessary to pursue impeachment,” Stephanopoulos said.

(Read more at Townhall)

Nothing goes together like lies and Schiff

From the beginning of each of the investigations, one way to tell whether there were fabrications involved seemed to be to look and see if Schiff had become involved. Almost every story line he became involved with became corrupted.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing

Fox News reports how Democrats blocked Repbulican Matt Gaetz from attending an impeachment inquiry hearing.

matt-gaetzRep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., an ardent supporter of President Trump, got the boot on Monday when he tried to sit in on the testimony of a former top National Security Council expert on Russia who was appearing on Capitol Hill as part of the House impeachment inquiry into the president.

Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

A frustrated Gaetz aired his disappointment to reporters after being told he was not allowed to sit in on the hearing, venting his anger over what he says are “selective leaks” by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and questioning why he was not allowed to be present during Hill’s testimony. Gaetz added that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was involved in the impeachment inquiry.

“It’s not like I’m on agriculture,” Gaetz said. “What are the Democrats so afraid of?”

Gaetz followed up his comments with a tweet calling the impeachment inquiry a kangaroo court and using one of Trump’s favorite nicknames for the intelligence committee chairman, “Shifty Schiff.”

“Judiciary Chairman [Jerry Nadler] claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago,” Gaetz tweeted. “Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it. And yes – my constituents want me actively involved in stopping the #KangarooCourtCoup run by Shifty Schiff.”

Other Republicans closely aligned with Trump continued on Monday to complain about Schiff and his handling of the impeachment inquiry – with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also lambasting the California Democrat for excluding some congressional Republicans from the testimonies and for leaking “cherry-picked” information from the closed-door hearings to the press.

(Read more at Fox News)

Sunlight disinfects. Get this out for all to see.

Closed-door investigations only act as breeding grounds for corruption. We need this to come out into the open, where the American people can see the expressions of the people being questioned, where we can hear the questions posed and the answers offered, and where we can make up our own minds.

Radack & Cagle block quorum, preventing an almost 12% tax hike

Featured

Steve Radack and Cactus Jack Cagle provide an example of tax resistance that other Republicans might emulate

As told in an 8 October 2019 Houston Chronicle article, we had a good example of heroic resistance shown in a recent Harris County Commissioners Court meeting. Two Republicans decided to stand against a tax hike (called for by newly-elected Democrats even though an excess of funds existed).

Two Harris County Commissioners Court members skipped Tuesday’s meeting, preventing the Democratic majority from voting on a property tax hike that would increase county revenue by 8 percent.

SteveRadack
Steve Radack

The no-shows by Republican commissioners Steve Radack and Jack Cagle mean the county will revert to the effective tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year, which will result in $195 million less than the rate Democrats had proposed, according to county budget analysts.

Texas law requires a quorum of four members, rather than the usual three, to decide tax rates. That exception provided rare power to Radack and Cagle, who repeatedly have lost close votes to their three Democratic colleagues this year.

HidalgoGarciaEllis
Lina Hidalgo, Adrian Garcia, and Rodney Ellis

Tuesday’s no-vote was the culmination of four weeks of sparring over the tax rate since the three Democrats — County Judge Lina Hidalgo and commissioners Rodney Ellis and Adrian Garcia — proposed the hike Sept. 10. The trio dismissed the quorum break as a childish stunt. The Republicans, in absentia, claimed a win for taxpayers.

“The residents of Precinct 4 elected me to represent them. They did not elect me to lord over them or to repress them,” Cagle said in a statement issued after the meeting began. “This is the taxpayers’ money, not the government’s.”

The proposal would have increased the county’s overall property tax rate to 65.3 cents per $100 of assessed value, up 2.26 cents from the current rate. The measure would have added 1.1 cents to the flood control district’s tax rate, 0.8 cents to the hospital district and added 1.7 cents to create a “financial stability” or rainy day fund. Some of those increases would have been partially offset by reductions in the tax rates for the debt service of the county, the flood control district, the hospital district and the Port of Houston.

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

We still have heroes in the conservative movement

Thanks to both Commissioners Cagle and Radack for using the tactic employed by Rodney Ellis while he was in the state legislature.

The odd part of the story is how it gets reported. Of course, Democrats in the press applauded the tactic when it meant a tax cut was defeated for middle-income Texans and cried foul (refer to the left-leaning Houston Chronicle [or is that Houston Comical] article above) when it prevented tax hike for middle-income Texan families.

You would almost think that Democrats in the press are campaigning to become the enemy of middle-income Texans. In other news, print circulation of newspapers takes another plunge.

Harris County Tax Increase Averted After Commissioners Skip Meeting

More to the point, The Texan also reported on the tax revolt.

When Judge Lina Hidalgo (D) called to order this week’s meeting of the Harris County Commissioners Court, the two Republican members of the court were conspicuously absent.

The court had been scheduled to vote on Hidalgo’s proposal to raise property taxes by the maximum 8 percent allowable without voter approval.  After January 1, 2020 a new state tax relief law will lower the maximum to 3.5 percent for cities and counties.

But according to state statute, four of the five elected members of the court must be present to establish a quorum for a tax levy vote.

Cagle
Jack Cagle

In skipping the meeting, Commissioners Steve Radack (R-Precinct 3) and Jack Cagle (R-Precinct 4) succeeded in blocking a tax rate increase that Cagle called “unwise, unjust, and unfair.”

“The residents of Precinct 4 elected me to represent them. They did not elect me to lord over them or to repress them,” Cagle said in a prepared statement.  “This is the taxpayers’ money, not the government’s.”

At a September 10 meeting, Cagle had proposed increasing the rate for only the Harris County Flood Control District but was overruled by Hidalgo. Democrat Commissioners Rodney Ellis (Precinct 1) and Adrian Garcia (Precinct 2) joined Hidalgo in a 3-2 party-line vote to increase taxes in all four county tax categories.

Under the proposed increase, rates would have increased from 0.62998 to 0.6520 per $100 of valuation. According to the county budget office, the average increase for homeowners would total $38 per year.

Texas State Senator Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) argued that the estimated $38 increase did not consider property value growth. Instead, he said the average homeowner, with a taxable value of $177,690, would likely see an increase of $118 per year, and that some residents would experience rate increases of nearly 12 percent.

Without the quorum needed to approve Hidalgo’s proposed rate, Harris County will revert to the “effective rate.”  While the rate itself will fall to 0.61170, many property owners will still pay a higher tax bill next year due to rising values, and the county will still collect an estimated $37 million more in revenue.

During public hearings, Commissioner Garcia frequently reminded the public that appraisal processes were also responsible for higher property tax bills.

“The reality is that the majority of the problem is… not what we’re proposing, but it’s the fact that you’ve got a runaway appraisal district. That appraisal district has been raising your assessed value 10 percent every year.”

At a previous hearing, Commissioner Cagle had produced a stack of 423 emails printed on red paper opposing the increase and two emails supporting the increase printed on blue paper.

(Read more at The Texan)

Thanks to the guys who keep reminding me to brag on these heroes

I have to be honest and start this with a hat-tip to Chris X of KSEV and Chris Salcedo of KSEV, WBAP, and NewsMax TV. If I had to depend on the Houston Chronicle for stories like this (which surely appeared under the fold on page C23 in their print version), I would not have heard of it.

Transsexual stories not in the news

Featured

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

If we jump across the Atlantic to Sky News, we can read of the many children who want to return to their original sex after transsexual treatment.

Hundreds of young transgender people are seeking help to return to their original sex, a woman who is setting up a charity has told Sky News.

CharlieEvans

Charlie Evans, 28, was born female but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.

The number of young people seeking gender transition is at an all-time high but we hear very little, if anything, about those who may come to regret their decision.

There is currently no data to reflect the number who may be unhappy in their new gender or who may opt to detransition to their biological sex.

Charlie detransitioned and went public with her story last year – and said she was stunned by the number of people she discovered in a similar position.

“I’m in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn’t, and their dysphoria hasn’t been relieved, they don’t feel better for it,” she says.

“They don’t know what their options are now.”

(Read more at Sky News)

Although this article says “there is no data …” on how many are unhappy with their new gender, there are a number of studies that say otherwise

Consider the following data:

  • At least 12 studies indicate that slightly over 90% of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of the condition by puberty and more by adulthood
  • Most children experiencing gender dysphoria also have other psychological issues
  • A survey conducted in 2010 by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – neither of them members of the vast rightwing conspiracy – revealed that 41 percent of transgendered Americans have attempted suicide. This is a rate more than 25 times higher than the population at large.
  • Even secular media sources are talking more about the lies behind this industry. However, mass media news and reality shows still paint it as somewhat glamorous.
  • Surgery won’t reassign sex, because our sex is determined when we were in the womb. Sex is binary, either male or female. Identities are in our thoughts or feelings.
  • Surgery only masculinizes or feminizes someone’s outward appearance. People aren’t born in the wrong body. It is biologically impossible to change one’s sex.
  • There are at least 6500 genes which are expressed differently in men and women which will continue to function as the sex someone is born as.
  • The facts of biology won’t be changed by your feelings or even the fact that you can get a surgery which they call “reassignment.”
  • Up to 20% have regret, even after the operations, according to over 100 international medical studies. The reality of the expected results does not meet the mind’s expectations, which caused a 44-year-old woman in Belgium to request euthanasia after the surgery because she was psychologically distraught. “I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself,” said Nancy Verheist (birth name) who wanted to be known as Nathan. They granted the euthanasia.
  • A study from 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid indicated there were no meaningful improvements to the quality of life for those who had transitioned.
  • Suicidal thoughts don’t reduce if the person had them before. Or they become a new reality.
  • Body-identity Integrity Disorder (BIID) is when people want to cut off healthy body parts. For instance, someone who identifies as an amputee but has all his/her body parts would not be allowed surgery to remove body parts to become an amputee. Their feelings are ignored while those wanting to “change” their sex are not. Therefore, the medical doctors willing to do these reassignments ignore the facts above to make money off gender dysphoria or BIID, and therefore are probably violating the Hippocratic Oath of “Do no harm.” Remember this in case you need to sue the doctor later if you have regrets. But they’ll make you sign paperwork to prevent that because they know.
  • There is an institute in Belgrade who does gender re-re-assignment for those who regret previous surgeries and want to return to their biological sex.
  • Harvard professor Jerome Kagan, with 40 years of studying children, says parents who are particularly affirming of their children’s cross-sex identification ultimately have outcomes in health and well-being which are worst.
  • Another lie is once you change you’ll be happy. The stories of those formerly in the LGBTQ choice proves otherwise.

(Hat tip to the podcasts of Bryan Fischer, Abraham Hamilton, and Bishop E. W. Jackson)

Puberty Blockers Linked to Thousands of Deaths – Liberty Counsel

According to Liberty Counsel and the Food & Drug Administration, thousands of deaths in the United States can be linked to puberty blockers.

Drugs that are being used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused youth have been linked to tens of thousands of serious reactions and thousands of deaths, as well as other serious medical issues, according to Food & Drug Administration (FDA) data.

lupron

The FDA has now documented over 41,000 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate, known as Lupron, which is used as a hormone blocker. There have been 25,645 reactions considered “serious,” including 6,379 deaths.

Lupron is traditionally used for treatment of prostate cancer as it inhibits the flow of testosterone over the prostate. The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal processes at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age. However, it is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose and the absence of any peer-reviewed studies done on the drug’s long-term effects.

Lupron and synthetic hormones have been documented to contribute to physical problems such as blood clots and other cardiovascular complications, brittle bones and faulty joints, altered psyches, and permanent sterilization. Yet many of the long-term repercussions will not be felt for years.

Despite these serious issues, sales of Lupron were approximately $669 million in 2017 in the United States alone.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a California-based pediatric endocrinologist, stated that he knows of no other psychological condition that is treated by administering hormones out of alignment from their normal levels. When injected into a physically healthy body, the drug interrupts a normally-functioning endocrine system and causes a condition where the male testes or the female ovaries produce little or no sex hormones.

Currently doctors are giving testosterone to gender-confused girls as young as eight years old and teen girls as young as 13 are having their breasts removed via mastectomy procedures. Boys the age of 17 can have penises the developmental age of a nine-year-old’s or lose sexual sensation all together due to hormone blockers.

Dr. Laidlaw said, “Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should, therefore, be treated with proper psychological care. But it becomes an endocrine condition once you start using puberty blockers and giving cross-sex hormones to kids. There have been few physicians willing to stand up and say, ‘We need to question this, there is something wrong here. Why are we using cancer drugs on kids without cancer and stopping normal puberty?” Laidlaw said.

(Read more at Liberty Counsel)

Because of the physical harm and death being dealt on children, this seems to be a mass case of Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy

Be certain that children between 3 and 15 are too young to make decisions that will:

  • Cut their life expectancy dramatically,
  • Prevent them from ever having children,
  • Increase their chances of contracting cancer, becoming clinically depressed, and otherwise being burdened, and
  • Will leave physical and mental scars.

Therefore, I would suggest that the above article provides evidence that liberals in the US have begun experiencing Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy. That is, these parents — to the detriment of their children — have sought attention by forcing their children to take the position of a gender dysphoric.

If that is not the case, then they have — en masse — taken on the advise of greedy, soulless, and un-Hippocratic doctors.

Court will decide who writes law: SCOTUS or Congress

Does SCOTUS get to rewrite Title VII in its own image?

Although the Washington Post wants to make the recent Supreme Court inductees the center of the story, the real topic centers on whether the jurists on the Supreme Court adhere to originalism or believe the Constitution has become a living document. Still, the Washington Post says:

SCOTUSdecidesOnLGBTQ

The Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday about whether federal discrimination laws protect gay and transgender workers, and President Trump’s appointments to the court could play the pivotal roles in deciding the outcome.

The issue, one of the most significant facing the court this term, concerns the reach of ­Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, besides protecting against workplace discrimination because of race, religion and other characteristics, also prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” The court has since interpreted that definition to include discriminating on the basis of sex stereotypes.

The arguments touched on some of the most controversial issues of the day — whether it would mean the end of single-sex bathrooms, whether men should be able to compete on female athletic teams, whether dress codes for men and women would become a thing of the past.

The word “transgender” made its first appearance in a Supreme Court argument, as did “cisgender” — the term for a person whose gender identity matches how they were identified at birth — and the gender-ambiguous character “Pat” from “Saturday Night Live” skits that aired during the 1990s. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose questions in court gave no signal about his views on the case, was careful with pronouns, at one point using the neutral “they” to refer to an individual.

Lawyers for the gay and transgender individuals challenging their firings seemed to pitch their arguments to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative who advocates a close textual reading of statutes. During the sexual orientation arguments, he pushed lawyers for the government and the employers to acknowledge that sex seemed to be at least a “contributing cause” to the terminations.

The Post is right to say “transgender” made its first appearance, because the concept does not appear in the original law

Title VII was written to deal with discrimination between males and females. Those who wrote that law did not have any concept of transsexualism in their minds as they framed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, if the current Supreme Court stretches the definition of “sex” to include transsexuals (much as the 1973 Supreme Court invented the right to abort babies from a stretching of the Fourteenth and Ninth Amendments), then we will have experienced another writing of law via judicial fiat.

Oddly, since the constitution states that Congress has the sole authority creating law, how can this be? One answer might be that Senators and Representatives are lazy and do not want to take on the tough subjects that the appointed-for-life justices seem willing to burden us with.

When John Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act by effectively rewriting it from the bench, Democrats breathed a sigh of relief because their failing healthcare law had a little more life. Republicans wiped the sweat from their brow because they did not have to risk being called racist for standing against the first African-American president.

When Henry Blackmun wrote the majority decision for Roe, he not only enabled the American holocaust (which, unlike Germany’s holocaust, was carried out against our own children), but also absolved the sexual revolution of its responsibility and enabled Margaret Sanger’s racism.

Stories you probably did not hear about impeachment

Featured

NPR Regrets Interviewing Republican Who Called Out Schiff and Democrats on ‘Political Impeachment’

Breitbart reports on the National Public Radio interview that varied from their selected topic.

IdiotSchiffNational Public Radio (NPR) regrets a live radio interview with a Republican lawmaker who called out Democrats and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing investigations against President Donald Trump, for what he called a “political impeachment.”

NPR sent out its public editor, Elizabeth Jensen, to defend the taxpayer-funded left-wing media outlet for it “journalistically strong” coverage of the impeachment effort after its supporters criticized an interview with Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN):

Unlike some of the critics, I think that overall the coverage has the handling of misinformation in an interview on Wednesday’s All Things Considered with Rep. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, raised journalistic concerns that I don’t think are explained away as purely partisan posturing (although there has also been plenty of partisan pushback from both sides about the interview). And once again, the journalistic challenge resulted from a format choice: the decision to interview a politician on live radio.

Live interviews have increased greatly on NPR’s newsmagazines in recent years. As readers of this column well know, listeners (and I) have raised many concerns about their execution.

When they work, live interviews are a valuable way to hear the point of view of a newsmaker in their own words. An interview runs into problems, however, when the guest says something that is provably inaccurate or seriously misleading. At that point the host is obligated to push back to correct it, which to some listeners sounds partisan (and it can be unpleasant and unproductive when an interview turns argumentative).

(Read more at National Public Radio)

If only NPR would come clean, it would be much more simple

All that they would have to do would be to change their banner. Once it read “NPR provides all news that supports the current narrative of liberals and Democrats.” Of course, for anyone who has listened to 10 minutes of PAll Things Considered, Morning Edition, or Here and Now would know that a liberal slant predominates just about everything that comes across their airwaves.

Democrats make arguments against impeachment

If you listen to the Democrats in the following video, you will hear them make strong arguments against impeachment.

Speaker Testimony
Biden: It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds.
Pelosi: I think it has dramatic impact on the confidence the American people have in government.
Nadler: The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election.
Schumer: Their hatred of the President exceeds their caring about this country and its people.
Biden: It would trample on the choice made by the people through the electoral process and do great harm.
Nadler: The people elected the President. They still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgement of the American people.
Sanders: But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is — let’s get on with the business of the American people.
Nadler: Impeachment of a president is an undoing of a national election …
Biden: … it violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice.
Nadler: They are ripping asunder our votes. They are telling us our votes don’t count and that the election must be set aside.
Waters: Send a message through the ballot box. That’s what we do in this democracy.
Green: I’m concerned that, if we don’t impeach this President, he will get re-elected.

I will agree with all of these Democrats on these statements

However, unlike the times that we endured while Bill Clinton philandered and lied about the philandering, we do not have a media that wants to cover for the President.

So, it is completely up to the reasonable people of America to look at how things are being twisted and to vote accordingly.

Going into the next election, we need to remember that:

  1. Pelosi has not put out a level field for impeachment like the Republicans of the Clinton era did. She has not yet put the impeachment inquiry up to a vote, which would:
    • Allow both sides to issue subpoenas.
    • Allow the defenders of Trump to mount a defense.
    • Take the anonymous accusers out of the shadows (since, in the American judicial system, we have the right to face our accusers).
  2. Adam Schiff lied into the Congressional record with his opening statements to the House Intelligence Committee (later calling it a “parody”).
  3. In conflict with most Americans’ sense of fairness, Democrats have not allowed Republicans to ask questions or participate in the impeachment hearings so far.

Women for Trump have organized a march

With a hat-tip to the Chris Salcedo Show, I have found that Women for America First has organized at least one march for 17 October 2019.

I would encourage all who can to attend this march

The more support we can provide, the less cocky the Democrats will be. Therefore, send money, attend marches, and attend rallies.

State Department testifies US diplomats gave Ukrainians a do-not-prosecute list

The One America News Network points out how US diplomats gave Ukrainian officials a do-not-prosecute list of Americans.

Trump ImpeachmentTop U.S. diplomats will testify this week on Capitol Hill, including former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Deputy Secretary of State George Kent. Yovanovitch was removed from her post after she allegedly gave Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko a “do not prosecute” list of American allies she felt were above the law.

Also scheduled to testify is U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who made headlines when private text messages between him and top Ukrainian officials were released. In the messages he confirmed there was never a request for a “quid pro quo of any kind” from the president. The texts follow the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Trump congratulated Zelensky on his landslide victory.

“I actually spoke with President Trump just a few minutes before he placed the call and not only did the president call to congratulate president Zelensky, but also to begin the collaboration of charting the pathway forward with the U.S. support of Ukraine and a White House visit that’s upcoming for President Zelensky,” stated Sondland.

The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker made frequent visits to Ukraine in the hopes of improving U.S. relations. Volker has been interviewed in regards to the matter and although Democrats attempted to pry him for information they could use in their impeachment inquiry, he maintained the president’s innocence.

(Read more at One America News Network)

Add to this, Volker has come out attacking Democrats for their bias in using his report

Now it seems that the Democrats want to ignore Ambassador Volker because he has discredited their little lie about Trump and Ukraine.

Biden berates reporter for question on Ukraine ‘conflicts of interest’

The Daily Mail reports that Biden berated a reporter for asking him questions about Ukraine.

Joe Biden has lashed out at a reporter in response to a question about his family’s potential conflicts of interest in the Ukraine, insisting that press should focus on allegations against President Donald Trump.

BidenSnapsAt a Service Employees International Union forum in Los Angeles on Friday, Biden was asked about his work overseeing foreign policy for Ukraine as vice president while his son Hunter served on the board of a major Ukrainian company.

‘It’s not a conflict of interest. There’s been no indication of any conflict of interest, in Ukraine or anywhere else. Period,’ Biden snapped.

Asked how his son’s cushy $50,000-a-month gig didn’t at least create the appearance of a conflict of interest, Biden rejoined: ‘I’m not going to respond to that. Focus on this man. What he’s doing that no president has ever done. No president.’

Biden has previously demanded that reporters ‘ask the right questions’ and accused Trump of trying to ‘hijack’ the campaign with unfounded assertions that Biden and his son had corrupt dealings in Ukrainian business and politics.

In late September in Iowa, the former VP scolded a Fox News reporter who asked about his family’s ties to Ukraine. ‘You should be asking him the question: why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader?’ he said.

‘This appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power. To get on the phone with a foreign leader who is looking for help from the United States and ask about me and imply things … this is outrageous. You have never seen anything like this from any president.’

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

Considering the number of days the press spent on covering Trump’s blow-up …

When you think back a few days to Trump;’s verbal bout with the press, it seemed that the talking heads would not let it go.

On the other hand, now that Joe Biden is the one on the catbird seat, the press does not want to mention the dust up.

Why did you mostly hear about impeachment?

The Democrats want to distract us from 2019 having the most illegal crossings in 12 years

The Washington Examiner reports that illegal crossings rose in 2019 while San Fran Nan blocked all debate on the border wall.

Border Patrol agents working along the United States-Mexico border took into custody approximately 851,000 people in the U.S. government’s fiscal 2019, marking the highest number of arrests since 2007, according to federal data exclusively obtained by the Washington Examiner.

borderwallBut the 40,000 people taken into custody in September is less than one-third of the 132,000 arrests made in May at the height of a surge of illegal immigrants.

Roughly 40,000 people were apprehended after crossing into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California during the month of September. That number was added to the previous 11 months to bring fiscal 2019, which ran Oct. 1, 2018, through Sept. 30, to slightly more than 851,000 arrests. Those arrested for illegally crossing into the U.S. from Mexico may have claimed asylum once in custody, but that figure is not released by the government each month.

The 851,000 arrested at the southern border does not include the number of people who approached ports of entry, or border crossings, to claim asylum or pass through but were turned away. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security agency that oversees these figures, is expected to release this and related data in a few weeks.

As of Aug. 31, another 263,000 people were encountered at ports by the Office of Field Operations, a component of CBP. Border Patrol agents are stationed on the land between ports of entry while field operations officers stay at ports. These people are not arrested but are simply denied entry.

These numbers do not include additional arrests and denied port crossers at the U.S.-Canada border and along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, nor does it include the September figure for those encountered at the ports.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Due to the fact that the Democrats have a complicit press and we are too easily distracted, this bait-and-switch might work

Unless the grassroots of the conservative movement gets out and points out how the press and Democrats are covering this and other failings, they will get away with it. Unless we continually post and talk about the murders at the hands of illegal aliens, the Democrats will win here.

Should we fail to point out that the Democrats’ sanctuary cities have become cesspools of crime, drug use, and disease, the Democrats will win here.

Should we not point out that Democrats have failed to deliver on the infrastructure, Medicare, or anything else.

Democrats in the Press and Congress twist the rules

Fox’s Ed Henry blasted for twisting question to exonerate Biden

As recounted by the One America News Network, Fox’s Ed Henry has been blasted for twisting a question to blame President Trump and exonerate former Vice President Biden (who confessed to doing what our president is accused of doing).

EdHenryConservative commentator Mark Levin blasted Fox News host Ed Henry for pushing a “dishonest” narrative regarding the president’s Ukraine call. Levin appeared as a guest during a Sunday interview on the network, where he talked about the president’s discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski.

Early in the interview, they discussed Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. Soon enough, however, things got heated when Henry pressed Levin on whether or not he was “okay” with President Trump asking for “dirt” on Biden. Levin hit back by calling the question misleading and dishonest. He then pointed out that nowhere in the transcript of the call did the president ask for any kind of information on Biden or anyone for that matter.

Henry was appearing to reference House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s infamous dramatization of President Trump’s phone call with Zelenski. The shutdown quickly attracted the attention of the president, who retweeted over 20 reactions to the exchange.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

This seems to be the norm for most main stream media

Lie, accept the lies of Democrats as gospel, and cry when you get caught.

Then blame Trump. Just because you’re a Democrat.

Democrats subpoena Giuliani for documents related to impeachment inquiry

Even though a vote has not been held (and, therefore, this is not a legal impeachment inquiry that would include real subpoenas), in contradiction to the concept of executive privilege, and despite lawyer-client confidentiality (already thoroughly undermined by the Mueller’s/Democrats’ raid on President Trump’s lawyer, Cohen), the Daily Caller points out how Democrats have insisted on receiving documents from President Trump’s lawyer.

Democratic lawmakers subpoenaed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani Monday for documents related to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

fullofschiff-liarcummings-natanengelHouse Democrats’ inquiry “includes an investigation of credible allegations that [Giuliani] acted as an agent of the President in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the Office of the President,” Reps. Elijah Cummings, Adam Schiff, and Eliot Engel wrote in a letter to Giuliani Monday.

They asked Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to produce documents related to their request by Oct. 15. The move comes one day after Giuliani told ABC Sunday that he would not cooperate with Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Cummings, Schiff, and Engel are investigating whether Trump attempted push Ukraine into probing former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his dad was in the White House.

Giuliani alleges that Biden worked to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company Hunter was affiliated with.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This should not surprise anyone, because Democrats have sunken lower during the last three years

We should expect that Democrats would have no respect for the lawyer-client relationship. They had no respect for it when Mueller combed through the files and computers of the President’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

For all of the things Democrats “passed” with great fanfare (with no Republican or presidential support — so it went nowhere), none of it was in support of the regular American who works to keep this nation together.

The problem with this inaction becomes magnified when you also consider the ways that attacks made through their maniacal search for impeachable offenses. For example, although General Flynn had once been determined to have told the truth, he was later convicted on the process crime of lying to the FBI.

Also consider the way CNN recorded and the FBI staged the early-morning raid on the home of Roger Stone, who was so little of a flight risk and threat that he was able to bond out during the morning of the same day. For nothing but the hope of finding some impeachable offense, this man was routed from his home at gunpoint at the command of a party that wants to disarm us all.

Coincidentally, now that it has come out that Mueller may have lied to Congress and the testimony against him seems every bit as convincing as the evidence held against Flynn, do you think that Mueller see years in prison?

Schiff ‘helped write’ whistleblower complaint, after House panel admits advance knowledge

According to The Greg Jarrett and Lifezette, Adam Schiff had prior knowledge of the whistleblower complaint (and helped write it).

From The Greg Jarrett, we find:

A spokesperson for Congressman Adam Schiff confirmed Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct by President Trump had contacted the legislator before officially filing his complaint.

Schiff&RedStain“A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s panel before filing a complaint — prompting President Trump, in an extraordinary afternoon press conference at the White House, to directly accuse Schiff of helping write the document,” reports Fox News.

“It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” said the President during a press conference at the White House. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”

“Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community,” Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News. “This is a regular occurrence, given the Committee’s unique oversight role and responsibilities. Consistent with the Committee’s longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel.”

(Read more at The Greg Jarrett)

How many layers of lies can Schiff press into this investigation

Consider that Schiff lied:

  1. By creating his imagined dialogue between Trump and Zelensky (which he, naturally, called “parody” once he got called on it)
  2. By remaining in the investigation even though he was involved in reviewing (if not creating) the whistleblower story
  3. By likely setting up all of the whistleblower scenarios.

Trump supporters greet Pelosi in South Carolina: ‘Impeach Pelosi’

Breitbart reports in a 5 October article how San Fran Nan was greeted with a banner saying “Impeach Pelosi” when she went to speak at an event.

Donald Trump supporters in South Carolina sent a clear message to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Friday evening, flocking to her event’s venue and holding up signs to express their support of the president.

Pelosi-in-South-CarolinaPelosi was featured as the keynote speaker at a South Carolina Democratic Party fundraising event at the Hyatt Regency in Greenville, South Carolina, on Friday. Trump supporters gathered outside of the event’s venue to express their support for the president. Videos show supporters shouting “Trump” and holding American flags, Trump-Pence 2020 banners, and homemade signs reading, “Impeach Pelosi”

Pelosi-in-South-Carolina1Pelosi-in-South-Carolina2Pelosi-in-South-Carolina3

(Read the bullshit response from Pelosi and other Democrat idiots at Breitbart)

Make a real difference. Follow in the steps of these Resistance Resistance.

If Hillary and Pelosi with their compatriots in Antifa can constitute the resistance, then we can make a new group. We can resist the resistance. We can be the Resistance Resistance.

At every Maxine Waters fundraiser, Pelosi speech, and even their trips to their limos — we can stand up. While nobody who claims salvation can advocate the things that Mad Max called for her followers to do, we can surely defend the defenseless.

The ‘Never Trump’ Coalition that decided Eh, Nevermind, He’s Fine

According to even the biased writers at the New York Times, we find independents, conservatives, and Republicans have come to support the President of the United States.

BrentBozellThey signed open letters, dedicated a special magazine issue to criticism of him and swore he would tear at the fabric of this nation. Now they have become the president’s strongest defenders.

In 2016, Erick Erickson could not have been clearer. Donald Trump was “a racist” and “a fascist.” It was no wonder, Mr. Erickson wrote, that “so many people with swastikas in their Twitter profile pics” supported him. “I will not vote for Donald Trump. Ever,” he insisted, adding his voice to the chorus of Never Trump Republicans.

This past week, Mr. Erickson, a well-known conservative blogger, titled one of his pieces “I Support the President.” In three years, he had come completely around, a transformation that is a testament to President Trump’s remarkable consolidation of support inside the Republican Party. The effort to impeach the president, Mr. Erickson wrote, was a desperate move by people “who have never come to terms with him.”

“Never Trump” no more, conservatives have largely resigned themselves to a more accommodating state of mind: “Never mind Trump.” And their change in attitude helps to mute the much smaller group of conservative voices who remain highly critical of the president and have questioned his conduct.

Glenn Beck, the radio host who once called Mr. Trump “an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” now says that his defeat in 2020 would mark “the end of the country as we know it.” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who so bitterly feuded with the president during the 2016 primaries that Mr. Trump gave out Mr. Graham’s cellphone number on national television, declared last week that impeachment was nothing but “a political setup.”

It can be difficult to remember that indignation and contempt for Mr. Trump once simmered in every corner of the conservative world. In August 2016, dozens of the most senior Republican national security officials signed a letter warning he would “put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Female leaders of the anti-abortion movement joined together before the Iowa caucuses in 2016 and issued a joint statement declaring themselves “disgusted” at his behavior, saying he had “impugned the dignity of women.” National Review published an “Against Trump” issue that featured essays from 22 prominent conservatives who all made a case for why he should not be the Republican nominee.

At least half of those writers are now on the record making supportive comments about the president. Some, including Mr. Erickson and Mr. Beck, now fiercely defend Mr. Trump, joining many former foes who are speaking out loudly against the impeachment inquiry. Others who contributed to the issue, like Ed Meese, the attorney general under Ronald Reagan, have helped Mr. Trump plan his transition and build his administration.

(Read more, but expect a liberal slant from the New York Times)

A number of current supporters of Trump came from the ranks of other groups

As for myself, I supported Senator Cruz until candidate Trump eclipsed the Senator. I do admit that, like all Republicans (and most independents and conservatives), I think for myself. Therefore, when the administration steps away from my values, I speak up (maybe not in this blog, depending on how busy I am, but often here).

So, when Trump initially announced pulling out and abandoning the Kurds, I called. When the administration voiced support for the LGBT community, I pointed out how their agenda stands antithetical to God’s best in our lives. Still, in this age of grace and in this current political climate, God may be allowing us time to seek Him (however, our enemies here are putting up every obstacle to their possible loss of power).

Still, whether it is because of his support of religious rights or his appointment of conservative justices or his removal of inane bureaucratic regulations or his implementation of capitalism in place of Obama’s dream, I support my President.

Telephonic phishing scams

Featured

The Social Security phishing scam

After a blog post on Social Security phishing at the Arlin Report, I determined that I should blog about those pesky scammers who try to sneak your social security number and name from you. Problem is that, after trying and failing to get the Houston Police Department to investigate either of the last two scammers who had left messages for me, I threw the recordings away.

Malware phishing data conceptHowever, having felt a challenge from the Arlin Report post, I determined that I would start on a post as soon as I got another message from a scammer. True to form, I got one that very day (2 October 2019).

The text of this most recent scam follows:

As we have received against your social security number by the federal crime and investigation department. We need to talk to you as soon as possible. Again, this call is from Social Security Administration. Number to reach department is 516-530-7087. I repeat, it’s 516-530-7087. Thank you.

For the audio, click here.

Things noted and maybe erroneously extrapolated from this and other scam calls

There are several things that I noted in the above message (or at least assume that I noted):

  1. One change that I observed happening after my first scam call (which obviously cannot be demonstrated here, due to my having deleted files) was the transition from a real voice to an artificial voice. I guess someone got caught via their voice print.
  2. Still,one of the hallmarks of criminality flourishes in this message: errors.  Errors abound in the message. Try looking up a “federal crime and investigation department.” (It doesn’t exist.) Ask anyone if the Social Security Administration (SSA) will communicate via any method other than mail. (The SSA will not call you or send you emails. The SSA will only communicate by letter.)
  3. To reiterate the central error: the SSA does not have to contact you to get your Social Security number (SSN). They have it. However, even if they did need to contact you, they would do it by mail.
  4. Sometimes, the scammers are not just after your SSN, name, and address.  At these times, they bank on your curiosity and other emotions to just gather other information.

Therefore, calling these scammers would be a bad idea, since these calls may be blindly blasted out and calling them provides them your phone number (especially your cell phone number). Additionally, many times, the number called can be a pay-by-the-minute phone number that will charge to your phone number.

Because we are emotional creatures, there is the “call-back” scam

phishing-scamsAs suggested above, some criminals either use a one-ring tactic or some sort of emotional ploy to get the mark (you and me) to call them back. Sometimes, they pretend to be stranded relatives. Sometimes they pretend that our credit cards are going to be charged for some reason.

Hence, we get scam calls like the following:

That we have renewed your antivirus security for the upcoming one year and we have charged you $399 and within 24 hours, you will see a charge from VTech solution. If you want to cancel the subscription and want a refund then please call on this. Number one, 239-932-2091 cancellation should be done within the 48 Hours upon receiving this confirmation call. Thank you. This is David Williams customer relationship manager.

For the audio, click here.

If you like the scams made available thanks to Social Security and emotional manipulation, just wait for greater federal involvement in healthcare

If you think that it is bad enough with the current crop of social security and the emotion-related scams, just wait until the U.S. government starts expanding Obamacare. That will provide another fertile field for the scammers to plow (since the ACA was sold to us with the promise that it would save each family $2500, but ended quadrupling most of our rates), many of us will be fearful of possible glitches in the system.

Thanks, Obama. Future thanks to Warren, Sanders, and Pelosi.

We have a choice

Featured

We have a choice of who we will focus our attention upon and, therefore, reward

Brandt Jean offers forgiveness to the woman who shot his brother, Botham Jean

BrandtJeanAs published in RedState, Breitbart, and other outlets, 18-year-old Brandt Jean (brother of murdered Botham Jean) offered forgiveness to the woman who shot his brother. In a perfect illustration of Christian love and forgiveness, Brandt offered the following words and acts of love from his heart:

If you truly are sorry, I forgive you.

I know if you go to God and ask him, he will forgive you.

I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you.

I’m not going to hope you rot and die, just like my brother did. I personally want the best for you. I wasn’t going to say this in front of my family or anyone, but I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you because I know that’s exactly what Botham would want for you. And the best would be for you to give your life to Christ.

I don’t know if it is possible, but can I give her a hug, please? Please?(Judge: Yes.)

(Hardly audible, he seems to pray for her.)

Through this offering of a sacrifice of forgiveness (and it was a sacrifice), we find a young leader that provides peace to a people not ready to receive it. In a very corporal way, Brandt embodied these verses:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:43-45 NASB)

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. (Luke 6:27-35 NASB)

Considering that the world that Brandt entered the courtroom through was filled with calls for retribution and calls of hate, he could have been swayed by those calls. I would not have blamed him, because this temptation has a root in our common humanity. However, instead, he called on his faith, on the faith that his brother once demonstrated, and on the faith that his home church displayed. By doing this, he demonstrated the importance of one other key verse:

and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking the assembling our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, (Hebrews 10:24-25 NASB)

We can focus on calls for the need for institutional reform that seems militant

allison-jeanIn the early morning report that I first heard of the sentencing of Ms. Guyger, the focus fell on institutional failings within the Dallas Police Department. However, the way the focus was presented by the news organization seemed to suggest that the Jeans were not forgiving Ms. Guyger. The problem with this perceptions was that it showed itself to be obviously not true when to anyone who reviews a longer interview of the Jeans.

To be specific, the early-morning report that I saw focused on a portion of a statement by Allison Jean, where she said, “If Amber Guyger was trained not to shoot in the heart, my son would be here today.”

While this point is true and pointed, the media uses it to ignore the several points of other institutional failings within the police investigation of this case AND the forgiveness offered by Allison Jean toward Ms. Guyger.

Furthermore, because forgiveness was offered, let me point out that there is no conflict in concepts when we forgive, but also allow the consequences of an action play out. Therefore, while we may forgive acts done against us, there may be penalties to pay that fall inside of the realm of justice. And never let it be said that Christians support injustice.

In fact, to allow this man to be shot in his own home (even if by mistake due to long hours worked and a confusing building design at that apartment complex) without punishment — that is not justice. As noted before, let it be said that Christians support injustice.

Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NASB)

 

As the following video shows, there is a precedent of Christians forgiving those who have killed. Whether you point back to those of Iraq, rural Pennsylvania, or Charleston, we are called to forgive.

So, with all of this in mind, what in the media will we focus upon?

“Climate change,” gun confiscation, Ukraine, & other reasons to not trust the media

Featured

Skewed Climate Change reporting made right

Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions

In s 20 September 2019 Breitbart article, Nick Nolte lists 41 doomsday predictions that climate experts got wrong. Here are the first few.

ChildrenMarch

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

  1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
  2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
  3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
  4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
  5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

(Read more at Breitbart)

If they had the truth on their side, why wouldn’t they predict correctly

Rather, if they had the truth on their side and just knew that they could not predict, why not just withhold a prediction? Of course, the reason would be that the climate alarm activists want to gin up fear of impending doom that is just far enough away as to be actionable.

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

Breitbart reported in a 24 September 2019 article how 500 scientists have signed a letter stating that no climate emergency exists.

NoClimateEmergency

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”

“If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world,” they state.

Although Obama claimed the matter was settled, these 500 scientists dissent

When I worked at NASA as a technical writer/editor, I worked alongside subject matter experts that disagreed with the concept of global warming. At that time, I was also aware of a subject matter expert who supported the concept. Would you like to guess who the local media interviewed any time that the topic of “global warming” came to the forefront?

You would be correct if you wagered that the local media went to the subject matter expert who supported global warming.

Gun confiscation

“Beto: People can’t fight a Tyrannical Government nor do they have the right to”

A 26 September 2019 video posted by Colion Noir shows Evan MacDonald as he observes how the Second Amendment was constructed to allow the citizenry to stand against a tyranical and overreaching government. In response, Democrat presidential wanna-be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke maintains that citizens cannot fight a tyranical government and do not have the right to fight that overreaching government.

On this count, O’Rourke is right that we cannot afford to buy the type of weapons the US Army carries. However, …

If we use the logic that Democrats most recently used to support their suggestion that American government (aka, taxpayers) must pay for healthcare for all, then you would be handing all sorts of high-powered, military-grade weapons and ammunition to the populace.

Many liberals might rightfully complain that some of these weapons might be used by criminals and the mentally ill. Truth of the matter is that they have and will. However, through the balancing power of good people with weapons, we would be able to fend off more criminals than if we were all disarmed.

Woman Who Confronted Beto O’Rourke Speaks Out, And She’s Got A Message For President Trump

In a 21 September 2019 Daily Caller article the forthrightness of Lauren Boebert comes to the fore.

LaurenBoebertLauren Boebert, the Colorado restaurant owner who confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke about his gun control proposals during a Thursday town hall, discussed the issue on Saturday morning’s “Fox & Friends.”

“I am here to say hell no, you’re not,” Boebert, who owns a pro-Second Amendment restaurant called Shooters Grill, told O’Rourke on Thursday. “I have four children. I’m 5 foot zero, 100 pounds, cannot defend myself with a fist. I want to know how you’re going to legislate that, because a criminal by defense breaks the law. So all you’re going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens like myself.”

In addition to discussing what led her to confront the presidential candidate, Boebert also had a few more words for O’Rourke along with a message for President Donald Trump.

“Well, I heard that Beto was coming to my state of Colorado to talk about gun control or maybe gun legislation, and I heard what he had to say about taking away our Second Amendment rights and our firearms,” Boebert said, responding to a question about why she decided to confront O’Rourke. “And I really wanted to go down there and just reverse his statement, and tell him absolutely not. Because I’m sure that that is every gun owning American’s immediate response to his ‘hell yes’ was an immediate, firm ‘hell no.’”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

For more democracy, get involved

Ms. Boebert demonstrates a central idea within our democracy: to be heard, speak up early, speak up loudly, speak long enough to be heard, and (though not demonstrated in this article) keep speaking until you have spoken at the ballot box.

Then rinse and repeat.

Beto O’Rourke Widely Criticized Over His Gun Confiscation Answer During Reddit Q&A

The Daily Caller reports in a 20 September 2019 article on the boomerang-effect experienced by Democrat presidential wanna-be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke.

Beto-ORourke-Hell-Yes-We-Wil-Take-Your-GunsDemocratic 2020 hopeful Beto O’Rourke participated in an “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) on the popular link-sharing site Reddit Thursday, and his answer on gun confiscation was widely criticized.

In an AMA thread, users are encouraged to ask whatever questions they want in the comment section, and the creator of the thread can then choose what to answer. Reddit users can either up-vote or down-vote comment based on how well they contribute to the discussion.

TAGAO’Rourke’s AMA thread had over 26,000 comments as of Friday afternoon. Though Reddit’s users found some of O’Rourke’s answers satisfactory, he was strongly down-voted for his other answers.

“How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s?” one user asked. The candidate has previously said that he plans to enact a mandatory gun confiscation program for AR-15s and AK-47s.

O’Rourke responded:

“Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war. Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in their schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts… everywhere. I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s fun to shoot but would give it up. Because they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.”

That answer received over 12,000 down-votes, and Reddit users deconstructed all the things wrong with his answer. One user gave a detailed response to O’Rourke’s question, asking him how he would find so many unregistered guns and how he would pay for the “buyback” program.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

With both gun confiscation and impeachment, we need to show all Democrats how much we disagree

As with abortion, this does not work as a “meet our friends from the other side half-way” sort of situation. This is a “stand your ground” sort of situation. In fact, to the believer, I would quote (possibly not in full reference to the impeachment situation, but more to our charge to witness and protect):

Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:13 NASB)

The issue of the Ukraine

Congressional Democrats have no credibility on impeachment

The Federalist explains in a 27 September 2019 opinion piece how the problems with the most recent impeachment push will likely backfire on Democrats.

The problem with the Democrats’ impeachment gambit—aside from the fact that it appears to rest largely on a complaint riddled with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and hearsay—is that the American people don’t trust Congress and will likely have little confidence in any impeachment process undertaken by Democratic congressional leaders.

And no wonder. Ever since President Trump won the presidency in 2016, Democrats have been grasping for some pretext to invalidate the results of that election.

First, it was the outlandish claim that if Trump didn’t liquidate his global business interests upon taking office, he would be in violation of the emoluments clause. Then it was more than two years of the Russian collusion hoax that fizzled with the release of the Mueller report this spring. Along the way, there were repeated attempts to pin obstruction of justice on Trump for his firing of FBI director James Comey, as well as accusations about payments to Stormy Daniels, questions about Trump’s tax returns, and allegations of sexual assault.

None of this, in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, ever approached a justification for impeachment. A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found that just 37 percent support impeachment. A Monmouth poll last month showed just 35 percent support. For years, polls on impeachment have stayed in this range.

Democrats are therefore very far out of step with the American people on the question of impeachment, and it’s hard to see how the transcript of Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, much less the “whistleblower” complaint released Wednesday evening, will change that. The complaint, with its allegation that Trump solicited interference in our elections from a foreign country, is in effect a continuation of the Russian collusion narrative Democrats spent two years pushing, to no avail.

In short, congressional Democrats don’t seem to appreciate how tenuous their position is now, or how a blatantly partisan impeachment inquiry could demolish all remaining confidence in our democratic institutions and set the country up for a crisis in the 2020 elections.

(Read more at The Federalist)

If the Democrats had the truth on their side, why would this be a parade of lies?

If Adam Schiff had the truth on his side, why did he lie into the Congressional record and then call it “parody” when other representatives call him out for making up testimony?

If the bureaucrats of the “deep state” had truth on their side, why change the forms associated with a whistleblower complaint so that second-hand information can be submitted? If they had truth on their side, why not allow the time-tested American justice system to play out and allow President Trump to face his accuser?

If Nancy Pelosi has the truth on her side, why does it seem that she had prior knowledge of a top-secret document within the White House? Is there a possibility that this “confidential informant” situation is a Democrat-devised scheme to remove President Trump from office?

If Schiff really believed that politicians who collaborated with other governments should be removed from office, why hasn’t he resigned after being caught on tape trying to get dirt on Trump from those who he thought were Ukrainian operatives?

Gutfeld on the media’s manipulation of the Ukraine story

In a video posted on 25 September 2019, Greg Gutfeld outlines the media’s manipulation of the Ukraine story.

Right now, the media’s face is pressed up against the window of the candy store and they’re salivating. The glass is fogging up. They are hoping against hope, staring into a field of dreams. Believing that, if they build an impeachment, a crime will follow.

So let’s step back and see this for what it is: another example of the media and the Democrats fashioning the worst of things out of the best of times all to avenge an emotional loss.

Do you want some examples?

  1. As America leads the way in climate with cleaner energy, Democrats tell our kids they have a decade to live.
  2. As race relations improve from the mass demonstrations of five years ago, the media sees racism in every nook.
  3. As men and women reach equality in all facets, the media questions whether gender is just a fantasy.
  4. As women and minorities gain more employment than ever, the man running the show is called a bigoted sexist.

A guy called Trump. A guy who wakes up every morning in that candy store called America wondering what we can get out of the world (and not the reverse).

Whistleblower Rules Secretly Changed Right Before Report Filed Against Trump

The Federalist Papers reports in a 28 September 2019 article that the Whistleblower law was secretly changed to allow second-hand information in a report against President Trump.

The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump.

The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.

But in the time between May 2018 and August 2019 that rule was changed, which has many wondering what involvement the intelligence community had in the complaint, The Federalist reported.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

(Read more at The Federalist Papers)

Thank God for those who work as watchmen on the wall

Thank God for the watchful eye of those at The Federalist and other true journalistic endeavors.

Good news not reported

Trump Shines Spotlight on Christians Being Killed, 1st President to Host UN Religious Freedom Meeting

The Christian Broadcast Network reports in a 24 September 2019 article how President Trump was the first American President to host a religious freedom meeting at the UN.

Donald Trump has become the first US President to ever host a meeting at the United Nations on religious freedom.

“As President, protecting religious freedom is one of my highest priorities,” Trump told the nations of the world on Monday.

In his keynote address to the UN, President Trump pointed to alarming statistics showing 80% of the world’s population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.

“When I heard that number I said, ‘Please go back and check it because it can’t possibly be correct.’ And sadly it was 80%,” Trump said.

And followers of Christ are among the most heavily persecuted around the world. In fact, it’s estimated that 11 Christians die each day for their faith.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

By shining light, many regimes will scramble

However, the light must be persistent.

Considering the cover provided by the American press, President Trump’s speech may have only transitory effects unless we support him with action and prayer.

Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats

Real Clear Politics addresses the big problem the great economy provides for the Democrats.

Presidential elections are won on the shoulders of a strong economy, which is why the voters are certain to reject the Democrat Party’s ongoing effort to promote radical economic change.

Out of all the Democrats running for president in 2020, none are acknowledging the significance of President Trump’s accomplishments on the daily lives of American families. Their push for dramatic changes to key pocketbook issues, including health care, taxes, and regulations, ignore a simple yet crucial political reality: American taxpayers are winning again.

The U.S. unemployment rate, for instance, is currently hovering near a 50-year low, after dropping by an entire percentage point since the president’s inauguration. More importantly, the ongoing economic resurgence is making the American Dream more accessible than ever before.

The U.S. economy has already added more than 6 million new jobs in just 2 ½ years, and employee compensation and savings are skyrocketing — clear indications that working Americans are experiencing the benefits of this booming economy.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the American people are well aware of the tremendous economic progress this country has made under President Trump’s leadership, and they expect the good times to keep on rolling.

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that a whopping 71% of Americans “expect their personal finances to improve” over the course of the next year, while only 15% expect their finances to get worse. The lopsided result reveals a remarkable degree of confidence that this president’s pro-growth policies and “America First” trade agenda are responsible for our ongoing economic success, and that’s devastating news for the Democrats.

In order to have any chance at all against Donald Trump in the next presidential election, the Democrats will have to convince millions of voters that the ongoing economic renaissance isn’t real, which is only possible by brazenly lying to voters.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

That is, a good economy is bad news for the Democrats until …

The good economy is bad news for Democrats until conservatives and Republicans get complacent and leave it up to others to go to the polls. Moreover, when we do not push the middle-of-the-road people to vote, then we lose and the Democrats win.

Do you want the Democrats to win?

(Social) media giants exposed in their support of the left

Facebook Admits It’s a Publisher in Court Filings

A 10 September 2019 article at Breitbart shows how Facebook came to admit its role as a publisher (and the implications).

Facebook, in court filings defending itself from a lawsuit filed by activist and congressional candidate Laura Loomer, has cited its first amendment rights as a “publisher,” contradicting public claims by the company that its social media service is a platform.

LoomeredThe distinction between publisher and platform is central to the legal protections enjoyed by big tech companies, and is frequently cited by Republican lawmakers in their criticism of Silicon Valley’s political bias.

Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech platforms have immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to to host) user-generated content. Unlike publishers, which are liable if their writers defame someone, a tech platform is not held liable for content created by its users.

Yet Facebook appears to be jettisoning this categorization in its court filings, saying it has a First Amendment right as a publisher not to carry Loomer’s content.

Via Facebook’s legal filings (p2):

Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message.

This contradicts public statements made in a Senate hearing last year by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who insisted that Facebook is a platform and not a publisher.

(Read more at a href=”https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/18/facebook-admits-its-a-publisher-in-court-filings/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>Breitbart)

Since too many get their news from Google and Facebook, this is a threat

Both Facebook and Google must be broken up and brought to adhere to the laws applied to other publishers (that is, until they truly begin to provide an unbiased platform for all ideas). Admittedly, this will cause an opportunity for unsavory parts of the publishing community and it will require the watchfulness of parents and other protectors of the weak. However, to have the free speech right of all restored, it will be worth it.

Facebook incites violent war on ICE

OneNewsNow shows how Facebook incited people to attack ICE.

On Thursday, Sept. 19, Abolish ICE Denver and the Denver Communists are organizing a protest outside the house of Johnny Choate, the warden of the immigrant detention facility in Aurora, Colorado.

Abolish-ICEAbolish ICE thugs in Colorado want to see the homes and families of immigration enforcement officials set aflame.

Denver communists want alien detention facility employees dead, swinging from nooses with broken necks.

Both groups are brazenly using Facebook to spread their inflammatory and violent messages. So, where is Silicon Valley — whose top companies partner with the Southern Poverty Law Center smear machine to de-platform conservatives, pro-lifers and Donald Trump supporters — to stop the open borders left’s escalating hate?

On Thursday, Sept. 19, Abolish ICE Denver and the Denver Communists are organizing a protest outside the house of Johnny Choate, the warden of the immigrant detention facility in Aurora, Colorado. Choate works for GEO Group, which operates the center. Instead of laying blame at the feet of global profiteers who induce illegal immigrants to risk their families’ lives to trespass our borders, anti-ICE agitators are targeting homeland security employees and contractors who simply enforce federal immigration and detention laws passed by Congress.

The Denver Communists group shared a poster on Facebook with Choate’s face superimposed over a generic neighborhood map with private residential homes. “CONFRONT LA MIGRA WHERE THEY LIVE,” the radicals urged members. The graphic describes Choate as “warden of Aurora’s notorious ICE concentration camp.” That’s the same inflammatory and defamatory language popularized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and used by antifa militant Willem Van Spronsen, who attempted to firebomb the Tacoma ICE facility, also run by GEO Group, in July.

The protest announcement also includes the phrase, “Chinga La Migra!” It’s the slogan of Mijente, a Latino activist group leading the Abolish ICE movement. Translation: “[Expletive] the Border Patrol.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Facebook allows this type of incitement to stand. There should be consequences.

Just as we all have free speech, we also will face consequences if we choose to shout “Fire” at a crowded theater. In similar ways, there should be consequences for the Antifa thugs who called for action against our border agents and for Facebook, who provided a means of communicating.

The Biden problem

Featured

 

Vanity Fair calls the Biden nepotism as a 2020 scandal

Vanity Fair recognizes the political-dynasty-wrecking potential of the Biden problem.

hunter-biden-at-daddys-podium
Hunter Biden at V.P. Joe Biden’s lectern

In a move sure to trigger 2016 P.T.S.D., The New York Times has published a nearly 3,000-word tale of intrigue involving the Biden family’s various entanglements in Ukraine. In short, the story is this: in the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor”—Viktor Shokin—“who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.” The pressure campaign also just so happened to benefit Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who was then getting paid as much as $50,000 to sit on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was in Shokin’s sights. The question the Times raises, but does not answer, is: were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine coincidental, or corrupt?

The Bidens say Joe acted “without any regard” for the impact on his son, and that Hunter never discussed private business with his father. But of course, that seems unlikely to put this story to rest. The current Ukrainian prosecutor general recently decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma, which could unearth new details about Hunter’s work. No surprise, the story is also being heavily promoted by Donald Trump and his allies, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to the Times, Giuliani has met repeatedly with both the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor and the new prosecutor, and has discussed his findings with Trump—who then suggested he would like Attorney General William Barr to look into the matter. (Perhaps that is why Barr was at a loss for words on Wednesday, when Senator Kamala Harris asked whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”)

Times reporter Ken Vogel, presumably seeking to pre-empt accusations of water-carrying, explained on Twitter that the paper’s interest in the subject predates Trump. “TO BE CLEAR: Independent of @RudyGiuliani’s efforts, the intersection of @JoeBiden & HUNTER BIDEN in Ukraine warrants scrutiny,” he said, noting that the Times had begun reporting on the Burisma story in 2015. Some within the Obama State Department, too, were concerned with the appearance of impropriety, or the possibility that Hunter’s business could complicate his father’s diplomatic efforts. (“I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers,” Hunter Biden told the Times in a statement. “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.”)

Nevertheless, the Times report dovetails with Trumpworld efforts to get the Biden-Ukraine story in the news. The Hill reported in April on Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare. More recently, the right-wing American Greatness and conservative-leaning Fox News both highlighted stories about the Biden family’s entanglements in Ukraine. MAGA-friendly outlets Breitbart and The Daily Wire made hay of the story on Thursday, leveraging the journalistic credibility of the Times.

The Burisma affair—whether coincidence or scandal—may be just the first volley in what is likely to become a broader war over Joe Biden’s conduct and record. Past speculation about Biden family drama has centered on Hunter’s documented struggle with drug use and his recently ended relationship with his late brother’s widow. But the bigger threat might actually be Hunter’s past business enterprises. Already, there’s another attack line looming on the horizon: in his latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer describes how a private-equity firm managed by Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, negotiated a $1.5 billion investment deal with the state-owned Bank of China at the same time that his father, then the vice president, was conducting high-level diplomacy with Beijing. (On one of his trips, Hunter allegedly made use of Air Force Two.) Whether or not the Chinese hoped to curry favor with Hunter’s father, Trump allies are sure to make note of the issue, especially given Joe Biden’s controversial remark this week downplaying China as an economic competitor. (A spokesman for Hunter Biden disputed Schweizer’s claims to the Journal.)

(Watch the normally-liberal media rip Biden a new one at Vanity Fair)

The central part of the Biden problem is Joe Biden

Much as Joe Biden did much to deep-six race relations by fighting for segregation in the 1970’s and by stumbling verbally around his 2008 running mate (when he called Obama “the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy“), Joe Biden has worked as his own worst enemy. Whether we consider the corruption centering on Crowdstrike (the Democrats’ private online investigators) or just his stumbling comments on the campaign trail, Joe Biden continually does more to destroy his campaign than his opponents could ever hope to do.

Giuliani Promises To Release Incriminating Evidence On Biden

A 23 September 2019 article in the Daily Caller describes some of the steps former Mayor Giuliani has promised to take in dealing with the Biden problem.

NYMayorGuilliani
Former NYC Mayor Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Monday that he has “a lot more evidence” on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine, adding in that Biden’s son Hunter is “drug challenged.”

After telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday that he asked Ukraine to look into Biden, Trump’s personal lawyer went after Biden for multiple alleged offenses related to Ukraine. He tweeted Monday that Ukraine paid Hunter $3 million in laundered money while his father and Obama looked the other way.

Giuliani told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on Monday that he would continue to unearth evidence against the Bidens.

“There’s a lot more evidence I’m going to put out,” Giuliani said on “Mornings with Maria.” “I put one out today — money-laundering. I’ve got a bigger one for tomorrow, a bigger one for the day after.”

Trump’s personal attorney added that the situation is a positive for Trump because it puts the spotlight on Biden.

“It’s the only way you can get this out,” Giuliani said. “The only way that they [the media] would cover this story is by punching the president in the face, and then the president deflects the punch — which he’s done — the story’s come way down from where it was, and then he hits ’em with a right hand that’s more powerful.”

During the conversation about Biden’s alleged conversations with Ukraine, Giuliani took a hit at Hunter, saying he is “drug challenged,” adding in that Joe Biden “fails at everything.” Hunter has struggled with drug and alcohol addiction throughout his life, according to an interview published in The New Yorker in July.

As the criminals who beleaguered New York would know, Giuliani does not make idle threats

Although I cannot tell you what the surprise might be, if Giuliani tells us that Biden has a surprise coming, then you can make book on that surprise appearing.

Biden’s Nepotism and Hypocrisy in Ukraine

Canada Free Press provided an op-ed comment by James A. Lyons, Jr. Admiral, USN (ret.) on the problem of nepotism created by Joe Biden.

joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukrainian-oil
With no oilfield experience, Hunter Biden got a job at a Ukrainian oil company paying $50K/month for years

U.S. relations with Ukraine have dramatically flourished under President Trump, in contrast to the poor state of the Washington-Kiev strategic alliance under former President Obama. While the Trump national security team approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missile systems and sniper rifles to Ukraine, the Obama administration vetoed similar sales of lethal weapons, leaving Ukraine to face Russia alone. An equally important aspect of U.S. support for Ukraine has been in reforms and the fight against corruption, which the Obama administration also undermined by nepotism and hypocrisy.

Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously wrote in his memoir that Joe Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Now that the former vice president is considering yet another presidential run, voters should always remember some of Amtrak Joe’s golden oldies, including: dismissing North Korea as a “paper tiger”, stating that the Taliban is not America’s enemy, and embracing China’s one-child policy. But, it would be hard to name another sitting vice president whose reckless nepotism impacted another country, as Biden did with Ukraine.

Vice President Biden routinely complained about “backsliding” over Ukraine’s fight against corruption, while at the same time, his son, Hunter, with no background in the gas industry, earned a huge salary as a consultant to gas mogul Mykola Zlochevsky’s Burisma Holdings, which is mired in allegations of corruption. This example of nepotism is, as reported in The Washington Post, a problem for U.S. soft power as Hunter Biden’s appointment “looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer said the lack of due diligence in the Vice President’s office was surprising as Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma “undercut that message of anti-corruption.”

Prior to Burisma, Hunter Biden teamed up with his Yale roommate, Devon Archer to create Rosemont Capital and Rosemont Seneca*. Their first forays were in China, including in a nuclear company under FBI investigation. But the good times did not last, as Archer was charged in May 2016 with “conspiracy to commit securities fraud” against Native Americans.

(Read more about he mafia-like Burisma at the Canada Free Press)

Everybody knows that governments do not hire drugged-out, inexperienced sons for no reason

If it looks like nepotism and smells like nepotism and tastes like nepotism and feels like nepotism, it is probably nepotism.

Joe Biden bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated his son fired

The Hill reported in a 1 April 2019 article that Joe Biden really stuck his foot in his mouth by bragging on the way he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. To magnify the situation, he did it in front of the world’s power players (all surrounded by cameras and recorders).

Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

BidenAdmits“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

(Read more at The Hill)

When you hear the Vice President say this, what else needs be heard?

With this bragging on tape, what other proof do we need?

Trump to release whistleblower complaint to Congress: report

According to a 24 September 2019 article at The Hill detailed how President Trump planned to release the whistleblower report to Congress.

The White House is expected to give Congress the whistleblower complaint at the heart of a brewing scandal that has led to a formal House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, a source confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

reportPolitico first reported that both the whistleblower complaint and Inspector General report will be released to Congress by the end of the week. The decision marks a reversal for the White House, which had previously declined to provide the documents to lawmakers, even as Trump decried the impeachment inquiry sparked by the controversy as a “witch hunt.”

The official emphasized to Politico that the decision and timing could change, but that the president has agreed to the move.

The White House declined to comment on the record about the matter.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday announced the House would launch an official impeachment inquiry amid concerns that the president sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July talk to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter by threatening to withhold military aid.

Trump admitted this week that he mentioned Biden during the call and that he cut off aid to Ukraine days before the conversation. However, he has maintained that there was no quid pro quo discussed during their conversation.

Trump and Republican allies have claimed Biden abused his power during his time as vice president when he pressed Kiev to dismiss a prosecutor who was investigating a natural gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, whose board members included Biden’s son. No evidence has emerged that Biden was acting to protect his son.

The president has already promised to release the official transcript of his phone call with Zelensky, saying it will reveal a “very friendly and totally appropriate call.” However, congressional Democrats say the transcript is insufficient and that the whistleblower complaint, which first expressed alarm over the phone call, is needed to fully flesh out the details of the discussion.

(Read more at The Hill)

Another Democrat scheme bites the dust

The President has placed the information out where it can be seen, has been open to answering questions, and has gone to the public with the President of Ukraine. How will the Democrats deny this in light of the many things they have done (via Biden, as mentioned above, and via a set of senators, mentioned below).

Democrats Wrote to Ukraine in May 2018, Demanding It Investigate Trump

Breitbart points out in a 24 September 2019 article how three Democrats demanded that the Ukrainian government investigate Trump. (Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show)

Democrats wrote to the Ukrainian government in May 2018 urging it to continue investigations into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign — collusion later found not to exist.

Durbin-Leahy-MenendezThe demand, which came from U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), resurfaced Wednesday in an opinion piece written by conservative Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

Ironically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared Tuesday that the mere possibility that President Trump had asked Ukraine to continue an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden — even without a quid pro quo — was enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. (Biden boasted in 2018 that he had forced Ukraine to remove its prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid; he did not tell his audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that the prosecutor was looking into a firm on whose board his son, Hunter Biden, was serving.)

Thiessen observed (original links):

It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

The Democrats’ letter is available online here. In it, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy demanded that the Ukrainian government answer their questions about the Mueller probe, and issued an implied threat: “This reported refusal to cooperate with the Mueller probe also sends a worrying signal — to the Ukrainian people as well as the international community — about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

If demanding investigation from Ukraine of political opposition is impeachable, these senators must be impeached

Senators Leahy, Durbin, and Menendez must be impeached if, as the accusers of President Trump are correct. If using the United States governmental power to compel a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is impeachable — then impeach them.

If it is not an impeachable offense, please bug off.

Several proofs of apostasy

Featured

God says: “You shall have no other gods before me

However, Presbyterian seminary promotes worshiping plants

We find that Reform Charlotte reports in an 18 September 2019 article describing how an apostate seminary has started the politically-correct practice of worshiping plants.

union-seminary-plant-ceremony.png

If you want a glimpse of where the Southern Baptist Convention is heading barring a merciful hand-slap from God, just watch the liberal denominations. Recently, Reformation Charlotte reported on a liberal Presbyterian church that placed a pagan deity in their sanctuary. No doubt, idolatry and progressivism go hand-in-hand.

Union seminary — which was home to the father of modern Black Liberation Theology, James Cone — is by far one of the most downgraded seminaries in the US today. It has completely abandoned the gospel in favor of social justice. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that the seminary would abandon God in favor of idols.

What’s interesting, however, is the particular path they’ve chosen for their idolatry and their unique form of idol worship. It is peculiar, and not something we’ve seen in anything that claims Christianity — at least not in Western Civilization.

Plant and animal worship is typically unique to Eastern mysticism as well as Native American and other forms of animism. According to this definition, which I believe sums it up quite well,

Animism is the doctrine that every natural thing in the universe has a soul. If you believe in animism, you believe that ostriches, cactuses, mountains, and thunder are all spiritual beings.

(Read more at Reform Charlotte)

Even though the Church is under grace and not the law, breaking this law could be blasphemy

Because this act fits squarely in with attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to anyone else, Union Seminary‘s little politically-correct act rightly defines as blasphemy.

As any believer might attest, this worship and adoration should only go toward the members of the Trinity (Exodus 34:14; Psalm 81:9; John 4:23; Philippians 3:3; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 19:10).

Hat tip to Watchman73

Not considering either Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; or 1 Timothy 1:8-11 — “Churches” accept sexual deviation

Southern Baptist Church Now Accepting Gay Church Members

Through the reporting of Pulpit and Pen, we find that

jim_conrad

Pastor Jim Conrad of the Towne View Baptist Church in Kennesaw Georgia announced the changes to the Southern Baptist Church’s polity on Sunday. The Southern Baptist Convention has been softening its tone on homosexuality since Russell Moore broke bread with homosexuals in 2014 (Albert Mohler embraced the language of ‘orientation’ and “repented” for having support ‘reparative therapy’ at the same conference). Since then, SBC employees and fellows for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) have even publicly supported the pro-gay Christian Revoice Conference.

While God calls us to minister to a lost world, we have forgotten the command to select leaders who are beyond reproach

Over the last few years, there has been a focus on the love of God (1 John 4:8). However, at the same time, there has been a seemingly willful ignorance of the holiness of God (2 Corinthians 7:1; Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8; and many other verses).

Similar to the way we have forgotten the justice of God, people have forgotten the high standards for leadership with the Church. Somehow the requirement that leaders “must be the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine …” (1 Timothy 3:2-3).

Therefore, although we must reach out to the lost person (Jude 1:23; Matthew 28:19; and many other verses) as they currently live and we must offer a better way.

New Jersey Catholic Church celebrates LGBT ‘Pride Mass’

Breitbart reports in a 1 July 2019 article how a New Jersey Catholic church celebrated a “Pride Mass” for the LGBT community of Hoboken.

tobin-gay-pride-mass

Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church in Hoboken celebrated a special “Pride Mass” on Sunday, highlighting a growing rift among the Catholic community over homosexuality.

Despite the Catholic Church’s condemnation of homosexual activity, local media reported, the Pride Mass “signifies an acknowledgement of dramatically shifting views, not only within the Catholic community but Hoboken itself.”

“Once a hardscrabble blue-collar town, decades of socioeconomic transformation have created a relatively cosmopolitan environment when compared to Hoboken’s more parochial past,” the report stated.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Although some would like to point to our Divine creation, they conveniently forget about our common fallen nature

While some might want to point out how we were “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14) — those same people forget our tendency to fulfill the appetites of the flesh (Ephesians 2:3; James 1:5; and other verses) and our capacity to fall short of perfection (Romans 3:23; Romans 2:12; Psalm 51:4; and other verses).

Although we don’t need open acceptance of sin, we need open acceptance of sinners.

Not taking aggressive steps, just taking steps to observe and protect — a pastor comes under arrest

Pastor’s arrest at ‘drag queen story hour’ headed for trial

OneNewsNow reports in a 20 September 2019 article how a pastor has been denied the freedom of attending a “drag queen story hour.”

A pastor’s criminal charges are moving forward in an Oregon municipal court after a judge refused to dismiss the case against him.

Spokane-Drag-Queen-Story-Hour-Arrest

Afshin Yaghtin, who is represented by the Pacific Justice Institute, is charged with obstructing justice after Spokane police officers arrested him in June outside a public library, where protesters and counter-protesters were gathered to face off over a “drag queen story hour” event.

Yaghtin claims he was not there as a protester but wanted to enter the library to observe the controversial event, which means law enforcement potentially punished him unlawfully.

OneNewsNow reported in an August story that PJI attorney Jorge Ramos was filing a motion to dismiss the case.

“This pastor didn’t do anything illegal,” says PJI attorney Brad Dacus. “He wasn’t protesting. He didn’t have a bullhorn. He didn’t have a sign. He just wanted to enter the public library to watch a public event where the public was invited to attend.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

If we were devoted to protecting the powerless children, there would be no corner for this to occur

Various verses command us to protect the powerless (Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17; Isaiah 35:3; and many other verses). Therefore, our protection of the very young should be unquestionable. Instead, we are too mesmerized by media and too otherwise preoccupied to take a stand.

If we were devoted to one another in brotherly love, would we overlook the Islamist scourge against churches in Africa?

Islamist Mob Burns Christian Church to the Ground in Cameroon

Breitbart reports in a 19 September 2019 article of a Cameroon Islamist mob that burned a Christian church to the ground.

christian-cross-burns-640x480

A mob of some 100 militants of the Islamic terror group Boko Haram raided and torched a church in the far north of Cameroon, local media reported Wednesday.

On the night of 14 to 15 September, the Boko Haram raiders attacked the local church of the Union of Evangelical Churches in the village of Krawa Mafa, burning it to the ground.

Along with the church building, the jihadists burned 50 concessions, stole some 200 goats and sheep, and slaughtered one steer, reports stated.

Though aware of the attack, the local Cameroon military did not attempt to engage the terrorists since they found themselves severely outnumbered. There has been an upsurge of jihadist activity in this border region whose local security forces are understaffed due to a reduction in personnel.

The national government has been asked to take steps to remedy this deficit but so far no action has been taken.

The kidnapping of Catholic priests has also become widespread in Cameroon’s two western regions since the outbreak of an armed conflict in 2017 that has resulted in hundreds of deaths.

(Read more at Breitbart)

If a brother needs help and all you have is platitudes, what use is that?

As we are told in James 2:15-16, our faith needs works. Although works will not save us, works give an evidence of our faith to the outside world.

Often, that becomes a key part of our method of convincing others for Christ.

If the Presidential election were today, who has earned your vote

Featured

Do not let them shift the blame

Featured

Just as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA, pictured above) tried to blame the President for the crisis that the Congress created through years of inaction, Democrats continue to try to shift the blame. Do not let them do it.

Do not let Democrats shift the blame for 9/11

“Airplanes Took Aim”: NY Times Shamefully Goes the Ilhan Omar Route in Describing How 9/11 Happened

On 11 September 2019, Red State pointed out the hypocrisy of the New York Times as the NYTwits cover for Ilhan Omar.

Five months ago, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said “some people did something” in a CAIR speech she gave where she talked about the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. The “some people” she was referring to, of course, were the radical Islamic terrorists who “did something” by committing the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.

Hands-Off-Ilhan-RallyOutrage was swift and came from many corners including from President Trump. The New York Post published a brutal front page reminder in response to Omar’s reprehensible comments:

Unfortunately, on the 18th anniversary of 9/11 it seems that the New York Times took a page from Omar’s book in characterizing the horrific events of that awful day.

In a now-deleted tweet they posted early this morning, the paper wrote that “airplanes took aim” at the World Trade Center, rather than noting terrorists “took aim.” They also noted the WTC was where “more than 2,000 people died” rather than accurately reporting it was where “nearly 3,000 people” were killed. Here are a couple of screen captures of the original tweet:

Not only was that how the tweet was written, but the actual story originally contained the same language:

(Read more at Red State)

“Never forget” was the promise — not reassign blame

Although we must not assign guilt to the innocent, we also cannot become blind to the real danger. We cannot think that radical Islam can be disassociated with the murder of innocents (unless it turns from the more violent commands within its own tradition — at which point it ceases to be radical Islam). We cannot let our guard down, because the remembrance does not link to a sense of vengeance desired, but from the need to protect future generations.

Do not let Democrats lie about the border crisis

Former ICE Director to Wasserman-Schultz: “I’ve forgotten more about this issue than you’ll ever know”

Real Clear Politics shares a recent dust-up between DWS and Former ICE Director Holman.

Former ICE director Tom Homan shoots down Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a heated exchange over deferred action.

From Wednesday’s House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on Medical Deferred Action for Critically Ill Children:Former ICE director Tom Homan shoots down Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a heated exchange over deferred action.

From Wednesday’s House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on Medical Deferred Action for Critically Ill Children:

Speaker Testimony
Wassserman Schultz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my questions, since it has not yet been done I think it’s important to really make sure that the jingoist, bigoted testimony of Mr. Homan is called out as nearly completely untrue, as being an outrage. And as a former official directing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, he should know better. So making sure that I am–
Unknown: Mr. Chairman.
Wassserman Schultz: No, no, this is my five minutes.
Homan: What did I say that was inaccurate?
Wassserman Schultz: I’m not asking a question.
Raskin: Okay, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. She’s made her point, and I will try to resolve any other issues at the end of her questioning.
Wassserman Schultz: Thank you. So I just think it’s important that it’s not accepted as accurate testimony.
Jordan: I just want to get–because your–your testimony is that the broader issue and I–this is critically important but we also have a broader issue that we have unbelievable numbers we have seen on the border with apprehensions and everything else, right?
Homan: Absolutely. And if I can respond to the earlier remark from Wasserman Schultz I have forgotten more about this issue then you will ever know. So to say my testimony is inaccurate is wrong. Everything I said here is accurate. Bottom line. If you want to go toe to toe I am here. I am here on my own time to speak to the American people about what is what and what is fact.
Wassserman Schultz: I am sure happy to go toe to toe with you Mr. Homan. Happy to do that any day.
Homan: Well, I–I am here. But you’ve got to let me respond to your question rather than dropping a bomb and running away.
Wassserman Schultz: It was my time (mumbling).
Homan: There is a crisis on the border and–and it is not going to go away if we keep enticing more and more–if we want to abolish ICE, we want to give away college education and drivers licenses and free medical care and rewarding illegal behavior you are never going to solve the immigration crisis on the border. It’s not going to happen.

I, for one, am tired of the Main Stream Media ignoring Democrats as they compound the border issue

Of course, to me, Democrats include the likes of the Koch brothers (who lobbied for and profited from illegal aliens in their chicken processing plants).

Furthermore, these Democrats also include those shamelessly ignoring the crisis at the border in order that they might:

  1. Absolve their compatriots of the inaction required by the likes of the Koch brothers
  2. Build a new identity-politics group from the illegal aliens
  3. Create a feeling of distrust between conservatives and the communities that might identify with the illegal aliens

With these groups identified, we must watch these Democrats and demand action.

Do not let Democrats re-write the genetic code

Although there is no “gay” gene, journalists continue the search

Kirby Anderson of Point of View points out a central flaw within the “gay” gene debate.

DNA molecule research

Two weeks ago, the largest study of the genetic basis of sexuality was published in Science. Based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, the research concluded that there was no “gay gene.” But you wouldn’t know that from some of the headlines.

Associated Press proclaimed that “New Genetic Links to Same-Sex Sexuality Found in Huge Study.” The Washington Post was a little less spectacular: “There’s No One Gay Gene, but Genetics Are Linked to Same-Sex Behavior.” Fortunately, you had some headlines like NPR that offered a better perspective: “Search for Gay Genes Comes Up Short in Large New Study.”

The range of headlines illustrates how political and politically correct any discussion of same-sex attraction and homosexuality has become. Researchers and gay activists have been looking for this elusive “gay gene” for decades in order to affirm the cliché that homosexuals were “born that way.”

What the researchers found is that a few genes might have some influence on same-sex sexual behavior. To put that in perspective, consider that about 60 percent of height is influenced genetically, while the rest is due to environment. The research concludes that genetic influence of same-sex behavior is less than a third of that.

I also found it interesting that the researchers actually consulted with LGBTQ groups before publication in order to “clarify wording and highlight caveats.” I doubt that has been done for too many other scientific research studies.

(Read more at Point of View)

If you took just a sampling of the studies on identical twins and homosexuality, you could have predicted this reaction

By looking at the conclusions of a wide sampling of the scholarly articles on the occurrence of homosexuality with identical twins, you would have found phrases like:

  1. “(A)ttempts at final answers are only partially successful and beget still other scientific puzzles” (Whitam, Diamond, & Martin, 1993)
  2. “(M)ale homosexuality may be associated with a complex interaction, in which genes play some part” (Eckert, Bouchard, Bohlen, & Heston, 1986)
  3. “(T)he need of additional work in relation to the genetic aspects of homosexuality cannot possibly be questioned” (Kallman, 1952).

However, statements like the following were either cryptic or missing:

  1. “Discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation” (King & McDonald, 1992). [Homosexuality cannot be inherited by only one individual out of two identical twins.]

Do not let Democrats redefine normalcy

Patriots’ Ben Watson Tells Media to ‘Stop Lying’ about Brees, Focus on the Family

Christian Headlines shows how Ben Watson called out the media for lying about Drew Brees and Focus on the Family.

ben-watson

A 15-year veteran of the NFL is defending New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees and Focus on the Family following mainstream media criticism of both.

Benjamin Watson, a tight end for the New England Patriots, said Monday the criticism against Brees and Focus on the Family was unfair and inaccurate. As Christian Headlines previously reported, Brees faced a backlash after he recorded a video promoting Bring Your Bible to School Day, which is being held Oct. 3 this year and is sponsored by Focus on the Family.

The criticism focused on the organization’s stance on LGBT issues, including its defense of the traditional definition of marriage. The articles that sparked the controversy said Focus on the Family was “anti-LGBT.”

Watson, who is known for his Christian views, previously played with Brees.

“My reaction was, first, that the article itself was misleading and a mischaracterization of Focus on the Family and of Drew. It was slanderous,” Watson said Monday on Fox and Friends. “And so my response was to stop lying with those sorts of labels.”

It is a lie, Watson said, to label Focus on the Family “as anti-gay, anti-non discrimination.”

“It’s a shame in this country right now, where if you adhere to certain biblical beliefs that we all have a right to choose what religion we adhere to, you’re labeled as anti,” he added. “What Focus on the Family does is uphold marriage. Family is the basic building block of society. [Focus on the Family] upholds those things, and they’re labeled [as] anti by other people. And there’s an agenda there. And that’s what really upset me.”

(Read more at Christian Headlines)

At one time, the Gay groups said all they wanted was acceptance
Now they seem to want to vilify anyone who doesn’t join them

As Jack Philips, Melissa Klein, Elaine Huguenin, Barronelle Stutzman, and a number of other Christians might testify, gay groups have been known to take peoples’ livelihoods in response to a perceived slight. This has to stop.

Loving and praying for our enemies must continue; however, standing by as our Christian brothers and sisters become victims of gay groups has to stop.

 

Democrats: the party of “Do as I say, not as I do”

Featured

Democrats show how not to promote a free press

The Democrat press accuses Trump of suppressing the Freedom of the Press

I cannot count the times the press has accused President Trump of oppressing the members of the American press. However, finding an example of the whining required reference to an 8 January 2019 commentary at The Federalist that detailed the scaremongering by the American press on freedom of the press.

committee-to-protect-journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a group alleging to promote press freedom and the rights of journalists, awarded President Donald Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” in its “Press Oppressors” awards this week. The story was giddily retweeted across the liberal Twitterverse, because, one imagines, people actually believe it.

From there, the author (David Harsanyi) goes on to characterize the battle between the American press and President Trump as a “slap fight (between) a couple of sloshed Real Housewives.” Sadly, until President Trump moved his press gatherings out to the edge of Marine One, I would have to agree with Mr. Harsanyi and say that the press got too much press out of the White House. Nonetheless, the move to the edge of Marine One happily put an end to much of the grandstanding by the press.

Additionally, I would suggest that any freedom-loving conservative read this article by Mr. Harsanyi so as to glean:

While Trump’s efforts to stop Michael Wolff’s fabulist “Fire and Fury” from being published are silly and counterproductive and sure to fail (update: as is his new lawsuit against Buzzfeed), he is merely accessing the legal rights that all Americans enjoy. In the meantime, Democrats, right now, support new laws that would allow the state to ban political books and documentaries. The Obama years made overturning the First Amendment via the Citizens United a tenent of its party platform. Obama, in perfect syntax, engaged in an act of norm-breaking, called out the Supreme Court publicly for upholding First Amendment. That was rhetoric, too. Few defenders of the press seemed bothered by any of it.

(Read more at The Federalist)

Although sometimes embarrassed by Trump’s foibles, I still support a President who punches back

Admittedly, there are times that I wince at the words tweeted by the President; however, I appreciate this President who fights (unlike some seemingly spineless Republicans).

thefighter1

This is particularly accentuated since I have seen that this President has taken into consideration many of the topics that have been heavy on my heart. He has held the hope presented by the pro-life position. Moreover, he took in mind the effect the misdirected courts have had on our lives by appointing constitutionally-minded jurists. Furthermore, he removed the chains placed by previous administrations on our economy through unnecessary regulation. More to the point, he removed the mandate that we be required to kowtow to governmental meddling between me and my doctor.

And while I will not make this portion of this post into a listing of the major accomplishment of the administration, I do find it necessary to reiterate the mistrust I have in the press due to their 90% negative reporting on this President.

Democrats show how not to allow journalism

O’Rourke ejects a conservative journalist

We find by reading Breitbart that Presidential hopeful Robert Francis O’Rourke tossed a conservative journalist (Joel Pollack) out of a public meeting.

NothingStopORourke

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) has styled himself as a champion of press freedom, tweeting last October: “The press is not the enemy of the people but the best defense against tyranny.”

It is now August, and with his poll numbers falling in the Democratic presidential primary, O’Rourke has decided that he is entitled to abuse members of the press who cannot be relied upon to provide favorable coverage.

O’Rourke’s campaign ejected this Breitbart News reporter from a speech at Benedict College, a historically black college, on Tuesday afternoon.

JoelPollack_EjectedByBeto

This reporter was standing along the side of a lecture hall in the basement of the Henry Pinder Fine Arts Humanities Center, waiting for the event to start, together with roughly 200 students and college staff members. Other news outlets had set up cameras in the back of the room.

Several minutes after the 3:00 p.m. event had been scheduled to begin, a staff member in a Beto O’Rourke t-shirt approached this reporter and asked what outlet I represented. Upon reading the press credential on my chest, he put a hand on my shoulder and said, cheerfully, “Oh, hey. All right.”

A few minutes later, before the event began, a campus police officer approached this reporter and motioned for me to accompany him to the back of the room, adding that I should bring any property I had with me. In the hallway outside, he informed me that I was to leave.

A different member of the O’Rourke campaign staff, who said his name was “Steven” and would not give a last name, said that I was being ejected because I had been “disruptive” at past events.

This reporter has covered two O’Rourke events. The first was at a protest outside a shelter for migrant teens in Homestead, Florida, in June; the second was at the College of Charleston “Bully Pulpit” lecture in Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday evening. At no point was there any disruption whatsoever.

This reporter asked a question during a press gaggle on Monday evening; that was the only interaction of any kind with the candidate.

The question asked the Democratic presidential hopeful whether misquoting Trump’s comments on riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was consistent with O’Rourke’s pledge to “heal” and not “inflame” divisions in this country.

Considering how the Left howled when Jimmy Acosta was barred from White House briefings, this should have made front-page news

However, unlike the spats between the White House and Jimmy Acosta, Kaitlan Collins, and others, they might have forgotten about Obama’s blacklisting of Fox?

iu

Or, more to the point, did they think that we did not notice how they encircled Acosta after he was called out for blocking a female White House staffer from taking the microphone he had repeatedly been told to relinquish? News to the Nightly News: you cannot successfully champion both the #MeToo movement and a bully of females.

Bodyguards for April Ryan rough up an invited guest photojournalist

The New York Post lets the cat out of the bag by reporting on the attack that one bodyguard of April Ryan perpetuated on a photojournalist who was trying to ply his trade.

AprilRyanBodyguard

CNN political analyst April Ryan — who has repeatedly blasted President Trump for attacking and vilifying the press — got her bodyguard to forcibly remove a journalist from an event she was speaking at in New Jersey, leading cops to charge him Monday with assault.

“This was more than just an assault on me,” tweeted New Brunswick Today editor Charlie Kratovil. “This was an assault on freedom of the press.”

Kratovil claims he was violently tossed from the New Jersey Parent Summit on Aug. 3 by Ryan’s goon after spending two hours inside filming other guests and speakers without any problems.

Kratovil had been invited to The Heldrich Hotel, where the event was held, by a public relations firm and asked to cover it. Video posted online shows him sitting in the audience as Ryan takes the stage and starts speaking.

Moments later, her bodyguard — Joel Morris, 30, of Illinois — comes into view and is told something by Ryan. He promptly walks over to Kratovil and allegedly attempts to take his video camera.

“Put that down,” Kratovil yells. “Don’t you dare — put that down, sir! That’s my camera!”

A tussle allegedly ensues and Morris winds up walking Kratovil out of the venue — with his arm twisted around his back, the journalist says.

“This is a personal event,” Morris can be heard telling him. “You’re not allowed back in.”

A woman can be heard screaming at Kratovil at one point, saying: “How dare you come in here and interrupt this event like this!”

“I didn’t interrupt,” he fired back.

Kratovil posted a video on his Twitter page Monday, explaining how cops found “probable cause” to charge Morris with harassment, assault and theft.

“I was there to cover April Ryan’s speech,” Kratovil explained. “Joel Morris stole [my] camera, high-tailed it out of the room. One thing led to another, I ended up being assaulted after retrieving the camera. But now Mr. Morris is going to have to show up on Sept. 12…in Superior Court.”

Kratovil added, “It’s a shame that we even have to be at this point.”

He read a statement from the NJ Society of Professional Journalists, saying: “It is never under any circumstances permissible for a person aggrieved at being photographed or videotaped to lay hands on the journalist, or attempt to take away the journalist’s equipment.”

“It is sad we have to say this, and remind people of this — and it’s super sad that we have to remind another journalist of this,” Kratovil said. “We are still waiting for [Ryan] to comment on this unfortunate incident…Maybe now that there’s criminal charges we might hear something from her. I hope sincerely that she does comment and I hope she does condemn this. This is unacceptable…Not in our country, we have freedom of the press here.”

(Read more at New York Post)

Although this started in full view of April Ryan and the bodyguard was in her employ, she denied involvement

Somehow, a person who made a name for herself by reporting on other people has surrounded herself with bodyguards and will not allow herself to be the subject of reporting.

Another phase of the killing of the Freedom of the Press: Liberals stand against the free flow of ideas

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy

Due to the slanted reporting by NBC News in their 22 August 2019 article on the Epoch Times, it becomes evident that maybe this outlet (that liberals want to close down) merits our support.

To quote NBC (and, thence, read beyond the liberal bias to see the possible truth):

Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign, from any future advertising on the platform.

The decision follows an NBC News report that The Epoch Times had shifted its spending on Facebook in the last month, seemingly in an effort to obfuscate its connection to some $2 million worth of ads that promoted the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies.

“Over the past year we removed accounts associated with the Epoch Times for violating our ad policies, including trying to get around our review systems,” a Facebook spokesperson said. “We acted on additional accounts today and they are no longer able to advertise with us.”

Facebook’s decision came as a result of a review prompted by questions from NBC News. The spokesperson explained that ads must include disclaimers that accurately represent the name of the ad’s sponsors.

The Epoch Times’ new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which appeared under page names such as “Honest Paper” and “Pure American Journalism,” allowed the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook’s political advertising transparency rules. Facebook’s ban will affect only The Epoch Times’ ability to buy ads; the sock-puppet pages created to host the new policy-violating ads were still live at the time of publication.

Nicholas Fouriezos, a reporter for the website OZY, tweeted about the move Thursday. It was first spotted last week by Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast.

A recent NBC News investigation revealed how The Epoch Times had evolved from a nonprofit newspaper that carried a Chinese-American religious movement’s anti-communism message into a conservative online news behemoth that embraced President Donald Trump and conspiracy content.

(Read more tripe at NBC News)

Facebook as one of the gatekeepers for the Democrat party

Nobody can deny the numerous times Facebook has acted to suppress points of view that counter the Democrat orthodoxy. When at a gathering of liberals, Mark Zuckerberg bragged that Facebook had banned pro-life ads to the platform just prior to the Irish referendum on abortion (something that at least one Spanish article corroborates).

PJWBanned-1200x630

So, how can we consider Facebook (or Google or Twitter) a unbiased platform for the digital exchange of information? Considering that it took Facebook years of anti-Semitic offenses by Louis Farrakhan to get him banned, but only months of right-wing reporting or commentary by Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer to get them banned, there is no way to trust Facebook in such a manner.

NYTwits: You’re not the resistance

NYT Staffer Pleads With Newsroom: ‘We’re Not F**king Part Of The Resistance’

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we are told of an instance where a member of the press resisted “The Reistance.”

The New York Times takes a lot of heat from the right for just existing.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

That they even needed a reminder on this matter speaks volumes.

The meeting came after Manhattan’s paper of record caught hell when editors ran — and then changed — a headline that put President Trump in a favorable light. The headline changed after the Twitterverse descended on the NYT like an angry swarm of bees.

“Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism,” last Monday’s headline read after Trump delivered a speech denouncing white supremacy after the recent spate of mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso killed 30 people.

Lefty Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor and longtime editor at The Nation, dramatically dropped her subscription. If you lose Joan Walsh you know you’re in trouble (eye roll)

In the next edition, the NYT changed the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”

CNN media writer Oliver Darcy wrote about a newsroom town hall that happened at the behest of Executive Editor Dean Baquet last Friday.

New York Times Illustrations Ahead Of Earnings Figures

Stating the obvious, one staffer said, “There are a lot of people that think The Times is too liberal, and when you start throwing words like that around, people will accuse us of editorializing.”

Baquet didn’t need his arm twisted. “It was a fucking mess,” he told reporters and editors of the headline choice.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

A headline to state the obvious: the New York Times is only objective as a mouthpiece for Democrats

Nobody can gloss over it. All pretense that there might be true objectivity at the New York Times has evaporated.

Muslim-American Journalist Says Twitter Shadow-Banned Her After Asking Ilhan Omar For An Interview

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we hear the story of Dalia Al-Aqidi, a Muslim, female journalist and refugee, who was shadow-banned from Twitter after pressing Ilhan Omar for an interview.

DaliaAl-Aqidi_IlhanOmar

A Muslim-American female journalist and refugee was shadow-banned from Twitter after criticizing Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Dalia Al-Aqidi said Omar has largely refused to grant sit-down interviews to U.S. media outlets, while doing so with Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar.

Al-Aqidi is a longtime journalist who has covered the White House and the Iraq war for Alhurra TV, a U.S.-based Arabic network, where the Chicago Tribune lauded her as the “most-watched TV reporter no one in America has seen.” She has also contributed stories to the U.S. government-run Voice of America and the Saudi-government-run Alarabiya in the past. She previously fled Hussein’s Iraq.

“I dared her to give me a 30 minute 1-on-1 interview. I believe we have things in common we can discuss — we’re both immigrants, women, and Muslims. And from what I’ve seen from her she only gives interviews to Al Jazeera,” Al-Aqidi told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Two hours later, CAIR started following me” on Twitter, she said, referring to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “So I pointed out CAIR’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Soon after, it was as if Al-Aqidi didn’t exist on Twitter. From her side, everything looked normal. She never received communications from Twitter notifying her of violating its terms of service, and she could log in and send tweets.

But no one could see them. When a user searches her name on Twitter, it never comes up in the autocomplete. If you type in her screen name “@dalia30,” it does not come up, with Twitter instead suggesting @dalia30900915. When you search for key words that she has tweeted, her own missives are missing from the search results.

Known as a “shadow-ban,” the practice of Twitter secretly preventing others from seeing someone’s tweets, while misleading the user that this is not happening, is so common that a website, shadowban.eu, tests for it. It confirms that Al-Aqidi is shadow-banned.

(Read more at 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller)

This goes to prove that insider politics has killed journalism

Just as Dalia Al-Aqidi got shadow banned for asking questions of the untouchable Ilhan Omar, Laura Loomer got banned from Facebook shortly after reporting on Nancy Pelosi and Sharyl Attkisson left from CBS with her persistence in investigating the Obama excesses.

And Democrats present themselves as tolerant.

Democrats on race relations: Ilhan Omar demonizes all White men

Ilhan Omar suggests people should be ‘more fearful of white men’ than jihadists in 2018 interview

The New York Post reveals through a 25 July 2018 article how Rep. Ilhan Omar demonized all White men.

ilhan-omar-FearWhiteMen

Rep. Ilhan Omar said Americans should be “more fearful of white men” when discussing the threat of “jihadist terrorism.”

The Minnesota progressive was asked in a resurfaced interview with Al Jazeera from August 2018 about the rise of Islamophobia, citing the attacks that killed eight people on a Manhattan bike path in 2017 and the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14.

“I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Omar answered.

“And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men,” she continued.

Omar, a Somalia-born Democrat, along with other first-year Democratic congresswomen — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — have been feuding with President Trump after he tweeted earlier this month that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

(Read more at the New York Post)

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account …

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account for this statement (or her accusations that represenatives friendly to Israel held dual allegances or her “Some people did something” comment about 9/11 or her many anti-Semitic statements), then it might again start to set unfortunate trends.

I say “again” because the last time the Democrat press dismissed the words of a prominent Democrat, riots erupted. On another instance with that same Democrat, towns burned in support of lawlessness.

Ilhan Omar must not have believed her own advice on White men (quoted above), since she had an affair with a married White man

In yet another article, the New York Post explains how Rep. Omar has been accused of having an affair with her white, male campaign worker.

A Washington, DC, mom says her political-consultant husband left her for Rep. Ilhan Omar, according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The Post.

Dr. Beth Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative — and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing, submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday.

The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband — who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison — have a 13-year-old son together.

“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.

“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.

“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.

“It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation,’’ according to the filing.

The Mynetts lived together for six years before marrying in 2012, the filing said.

Omar — a member of “the Squad,” a group of far left-leaning female freshman House members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two others — recently separated from her husband, according to reports.

ilhan-omar-tim-mynett

The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.

Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Mynett at a California restaurant in March.

(Read more at New York Post)

If Ilhan Omar were anything but a hypocrite

Hypocrit_UntilThen

If Ilhan Omar were a true, principled politician, she might consider taking acts that would be best for her constituents.

If she were true to Islam, there would be no room in her life for infidelity or racism.

If she were a dedicated racist, she never would have had an affair with a White man.

With all of this said, all I can say is that she definitely is a hypocrite.

Democrat hypocrisy on personal protection

In response to the Odessa shooting, Democrats call for ineffective gun control

On Saturday, 31 August 2019, an insane man went on a shooting spree after he was fired and then pulled over for failing to signal a turn. Previously described by neighbors as “scary” and “violent,” this nut called the FBI and began “incoherently rambling” after his firing. Although he had both a criminal record and had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and, therefore, failed his background check, this madman purchased a rifle by way of a private sale. By the end of his rampage, the man who won’t be named here had killed seven and wounded 22 as he drove around shooting randomly before he was stopped by a policeman’s bullet near a movie theater.

During the same weekend in Chicago (where gun laws are in effect), eight were killed and 26 injured during a respite from violence (this is the lowest murder rate since 2011).

Over the years, articles demonstrate that Democrats want gun protection for them, not you

Democratic Congressman: Yeah, You Don’t Need Guns, But ‘We Deserve’ Armed Guards

The Daily Wire reports in a 23 June 2016 article on the hypocrisy of Charlie Rangel.

Democratic New York Representative Charlie Rangel, no stranger to hypocrisy, told The Daily Caller in an interview that while members of Congress “need” and “deserve” to be protected by guns, law-abiding citizens should not own guns.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

These are the Democrats who carved special payments out that cover their Obamacare expenses

If anyone finds any bit of surprise in the fact that Congress expects armed protection even as they devise methods of disarming the people, then remember these similar situations. Remember that they exempted themselves from Obamacare. Remember that insider trading laws that apply to you do not keep Congress members from using their Congressionally-acquired information to profit.

7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

Townhall comments on the liberal hypocrisy that surrounds the topic of gun control.

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened — so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.

But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an “upper class” that deserves to be protected with guns while it’s okay if the “peons” get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child’s life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he’s threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they’re so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the “riff-raff,” that they should have a right to be protected even if you don’t.

(Read the list of seven people and organizations who use guns but campaign for gun laws at Townhall)

Beyond knowing who to ignore and boycott

By knowing to avoid the print of the Journal-News and the bloviating of politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein or that of celebrities like Mark Kelly, Shania Twain, Rosie O’Donnell, or Michael Moore — we can be happier when we ignore it all.

Democrats accuse the NRA of profiting from bloodshed

Ridiculous Hypocrite Celebrities Launch Dumb New Attack on NRA

Red State rightfully points out one instance of where celebrities started a hypocritical attack on the NRA.

Even as it becomes apparent that Tinseltown’s celebrity set is an increasingly inconsequential political faction, they continue to hector and lecture the rest of as if they are still socially relevant and influential.

Undeterred by the fact that their overwhelming support of and assistance for Hillary Clinton in 2016 not only didn’t push her over the finish, but actually contributed to her defeat, the luminary Illuminati continue to offer up their unnecessary and unwanted opinions.

Since the election the famous have led the #Resistance — resulting in zero change. They have loudly backed the Women’s March, and their donning of vagina hats has provoked far more laughter than change. Celebrities have openly funded and supported the latest surge of gun control fervor following the Parkland school shooting, and the result has been an increase gun sales and a huge spike in new memberships for the NRA.

So not merely inconsequential to success for their liberal causes, but actively detrimental to it, and yet totally unaware of it.

This lack of awareness has led to a particular crowd of celebrities who, unable to ascertain the reason for rising NRA memberships and gun ownership, to concoct a plan to counteract it. Remarkable.

The formation of The NoRA Initiative is meant to be a direct salvo against the NRA. By way of introduction, this outfit crafted an open letter (PDF) to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and it is a marvel of ignorance and misinformation, all delivered in a demeaning, condescending, angry tone. Just as you’d expect from these geniuses.

This letter — signed by a lengthy list of actors, performers, and dozens of other deeply important people — wastes no time in being an easily disregarded missive of mirth. It begins by addressing the Columbine High School shooting, and our celebrities fall on their collective faces by sentence Two. “Three of the four guns used in the shooting were legally in the possession of the shooters.”

Uh, no. Sorry, Hollywood gun experts, but the two killers at Columbine — Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold — were below the age to “legally” own their firearms. The guns were purchased by another individual, and despite the claim by NoRA, the straw purchase for underage individuals was illegal.

The letter then mentions the NRA held its convention in Denver weeks later. This is another wild inaccuracy. Rather than marching in behind the tragedy, the convention had long been planned for Denver and following the shooting then President Charlton Heston canceled most of the event activities, save for his legally mandated annual speech. This was done out of respect of the victims. Then NoRA engages in more sophistry.

(Read more at Red State)

Not terrorists, but founded by pastors seeking to protect former slaves from the KKK

As I previously blogged in 2016, there are a number of Blacks who support Second Amendment rights. Still, when you compare the support that should exist for the protection of Black families against the stated support for senseless Democrat policies, there really can be no comparison.

Additionally, considering that the NRA was established by former abolitionist pastors who wanted Blacks to be able to protect their own families against the KKK (the Southern Democrat’s violent tool of oppression), there should not be a debate within poor America as to whether only the rich deserve the protection of sidearms via bodyguards (refer to April Ryan above).

As evidenced by the words of the Black conservatives in the 2013 conference documented in the below two videos (both long and short versions), we have ample evidence to support the good intentions of the founders, leaders, and members of the National Rifle Association.

The O’Rourke campaign shows no control in promoting itself after the Odessa shooting

Beto O’Rourke campaign selling ‘this is f—ed up’ T-shirts to help gun control activists

In a 1 September 2019 USA Today article, the sickness of one Democrat campaign comes out.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not mince words when describing the deadly shooting in Midland-Odessa, Texas, that left at least seven people dead and 22 wounded.

“This is f—ed up,” he said on Twitter Saturday evening and in a television interview on Sunday morning.

Later Sunday, his presidential campaign announced that the “f—ed up” quote had become a T-shirt being sold for $30 on the campaign website.

TeamBeto

“100% of the proceeds from the sale of this item will be shared equally between Mom’s Demand Action and March for Our Lives,” the campaign wrote on the O’Rourke campaign website, referring to two prominent gun violence prevention groups.

According to the campaign, the shirt was printed by a union and made in the United States.

The campaign has defended O’Rourke’s profanity on Twitter.

“if you’re angrier about a swear word than a baby being shot in the face, consider your choices,” the campaign wrote, referring to a 17-month-old girl who had been shot in the Texas shooting.

(Read more at USA Today)

News for “Beto”

What I am angry about stems from the continual attack by “Beto” on my Second Amendment rights any time he can make an emotional plea based on the acts of someone else.

Unlike “Beto,” I believe that murderers should be executed (rather then babies). Unlike “Beto,” I believe that the guilty should be punished, not those law-abiding citizens who have done nothing and who want to protect themselves.

Lead Democrats hypocrisy on “Climate Change”

Obama commits America to higher taxes with the Paris Climate Accord

According to a 1 June 2017 Business Insider article, Obama brought the USA into the Paris Climate Accord in order to supposedly slow the progress of global warming.

In December 2015, nearly every country, including all of the world’s biggest polluters, came together in Paris and agreed to limit carbon emissions.

The Paris Agreement was designed to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

It was a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Now President Donald Trump is withdrawing the US from the accord.

Here’s a quick primer on the Paris Agreement.

What did the US agree to?

The Paris Agreement laid out a framework for countries to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Each country submitted a climate-action plan laying out how it would achieve these goals.

The US’s plan, which the Obama administration submitted in March 2015, set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. The baseline level this reduction is measured against is 2005, when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

(Read more at the Business Insider)

After claiming the seas would rise due to global warming, Obama buys multi-million dollar beachfront property

As discussed at PJ Media, Obama has purchased a mulit-million dollar beachfront property which would easily be wiped out by global warming, if it existed.

After the news broke that former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama are buying a $15M waterfront estate in Martha’s Vineyard, some took to social media to accuse the Obamas of hypocrisy on climate change.

“If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t buy a $15 million mansion on…Martha’s Vineyard. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously,” wrote Twitter user @RantyAmyCurtis.

Others made a similar point in reaction to the news of the Obamas purchase, which has reportedly not been finalized yet.

“If climate change is as bad as Obama said it was, why is he buying property on or near the beach?” wrote Twitter user @Huffman_Hippy.

“How about Obama pushing climate change legislation then buying a coastal mansion at Martha’s vineyard?” wrote Twitter user @Mikel1618.

Twitter user @Chris_Roy wrote that the Obamas $15 million investment in a waterfront property “seems odd for a climate change alarmist believing in sea level rise and the destruction of coastal regions.Hmmm 🤔. Obviously not thinking of what he will leave his children.”

(Read more at PJ Media)

This was not the first high-profile Democrat to become a climate hypocrite

Al Gore, who hit his peak during his years in the as the Vice President under Bill Clinton, told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” Additionally, he told American households to conserve by keeping the air conditioning and heating at uncomfortable levels (while he maintained a sprawling mansion that included an Olympic-sized, heated pool). Likewise, he encouraged America to abstain from burning gasoline while he uses a fleet of jets and gas-guzzling sedans.

More recently, AOC has been called out for jet-setting and using SUV’s while advocating her drastic “Green New Deal.”

Democrats on terrorism

Democrats want to both coddle and demonize terrorists

When The Atlantic pointed out the incoherence within liberal (hence, Democrat) thought on terrorists.

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. “My god,” he wrote. “@POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat.” The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. “Terrorism is a real threat,” he acknowledged, “but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists.” Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trump’s approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

LondonBridgeMuslimAttackers

Maybe Murphy didn’t do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects “attack” neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such acts—that fear is what the terrorists want—does not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. It’s designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.

In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that they’ll be kept safe, not to be told that they’re overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the country’s many “dark realities”—the government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the “grim problem of existence,” and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely “material things,” and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.

Murphy’s reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters’ questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the president’s overseas trip:

Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. That’s when the president’s advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.” Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.

Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.

Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obama’s ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays “radical Islamic terrorism” as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.

Obama’s stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didn’t scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bush’s war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to “spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.” Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.

(Read more at The Atlantic)

From these and other instances, Democrats seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too

In the event that one might review the above article (or consider how radical Islam was never mentioned during a Senate hearing on the 9/11 attacks or think about how Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have never been punished for their many anti-Semitic attacks, just remember.

San Francisco City government declares the NRA to be a terrorist organization

By reading between the lines of the New York Times, we discover the degree of disrespect doled out by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors toward the National Rifle Association.

Unsettled by recent mass shootings across the nation, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution this week declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Catherine Stefani on July 30, two days after a shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif., in which three people were killed and more than a dozen others injured.

Before the resolution was put to a vote on Tuesday, Ms. Stefani spoke about the “carnage across this country,” also citing mass shootings last month in El Paso; Dayton, Ohio; and near Odessa, Tex.

Ms. Stefani said the N.R.A. conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed at local, state and federal levels.

“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”

While the resolution has no practical effect, Ms. Stefani said in an interview on Wednesday, “I firmly believe that words matter, and I think this is a step in fighting the negative impact of the N.R.A.”

(Read more at the New York Times)

Consider the results of the Board of Supervisors on San Francisco

To those who might consider the words of Ms. Stefani, walk the streets of San Francisco and decide whether the NRA or the Board of Supervisors has done the most to terrorize San Francisco.

AOC and Pressley raise bail funds for Antifa members who attacked police in Boston

According to the New York Post, AOC and Pressley raised bail for Antifa.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a fellow member of “the Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, vowed Saturday to contribute to a fund that is raising bail money for the 36 counterprotesters arrested at the “Straight Pride Parade” in Boston.

Nine of the counterprotesters arrested have been charged with assaulting police officers, the Boston Herald reported. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pressley (D-Mass.) both tweeted out a link to a crowdsourcing page called The Solidarity Against Hate Legal Defense Fund, which has raised nearly $25,000 to pay bail and other legal fees of those arrested while protesting the march.

“One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston’s white supremacist parade?” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, sharing a link to the fund. “Contribute to the Bail Fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.”

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Pressley’s initial tweet about the fund. Pressley slammed the “Straight Pride” event as an “#LGBT hate march” and asked followers to join her in making a contribution to the fund.

(Read more at the New York Post)

An answer that aligns with our founding

We can stop mass shootings without restricting Second Amendment liberties

Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation argues that America need not give up its guns in response to the recent violence.

PoliceProtection

It is often said by people of all political persuasions, and certainly by my fellow conservatives, that the primary duty of the federal government is to keep us safe.

The problem is, that’s not true. The founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the Federalist Papers, make it clear that the primary duty of the federal government is the preservation of liberty, not safety. The Founders had very clear ideas about the trade-offs between safety and liberty, and they willingly gave up their own security in order to take a desperate shot at more political liberty.

The Founders were primarily concerned about preventing tyranny, and they correctly understood that a free people could keep themselves safe, but a safe people might not be able to keep themselves free. You could live safely in a police state or a military dictatorship, or remain subjects of King George, but you wouldn’t be free.

That’s why Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Americans in the tradition of the Founders don’t trade liberty for safety.

But liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. The Founders believed that a free people could, through self-organization, create the means and the institutions necessary to maintain public safety. Liberty logically precedes safety, but it doesn’t preclude it.

Confronted with the horror of repeated mass shootings, proposed solutions have rushed toward restricting Second Amendment rights. But an American solution for reducing mass shootings should not focus on erosions of liberty.

On the other hand, when defenders of Second Amendment rights offer no practical solutions, they leave open the implication that liberty requires us to tolerate the occasional (or not-so-occasional) mass shooting. Not only is that a losing argument with the public in the long run, it’s also not true. Americans are entitled to both liberty and safety.

And let’s not get distracted by discussions about root causes. That might strike you as peculiar, but root causes are notoriously difficult to address, and government is particularly ill-equipped to do so. So what can we organize to do now to increase safety without eroding liberty?

Travel almost anywhere else in the world and you will commonly encounter armed security in public places. Somehow, uniquely in America, we see this as a bad thing. That needs to change.

In the church my family attends, we adapted after a threat. There is now armed security scattered throughout the congregation, in the sanctuary, in the lobby, and even on the platform. Air transportation obviously adapted after 9/11, with added airport security and air marshals on flights.

It’s time to adapt to the era of mass shootings. Every school, every church, every large retailer and every government facility should have armed, obvious guards at all entrances. We don’t need to force teachers to take up arms, we simply need ever-present, trained, armed security in schools. This is now the cost of protecting our children and of protecting the public.

(Read more at the Institute for Policy Innovation)

Consider these Bible verses

Members of the Democrat coalition take positions against big parts of the party

Featured

AOC comes out against affirmative action

Ocasio-Cortez: Electoral College is ‘Affirmative Action’ for Rural Americans

Breitbart uses a 24 August 2019 article to point out how clueless AOC can be toward Democrats outside of the big city.

AOC_frogFace

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) continued her verbal assault on the Electoral College, this time smearing the Constitutional system that guarantees big states don’t have undue influence in electing the president as an “electoral affirmative action” scheme for rural Americans.

On Friday, Ocasio-Cortez posted the following 5-point missive on Twitter:




Last week, the socialist lawmaker claimed the Electoral College “is, in fact, a scam” and has a “racial injustice breakdown.”

She wrote: “The Electoral College has a racial injustice breakdown. Due to severe racial disparities in certain states, the Electoral College effectively weighs white voters over voters of color, as opposed to a “one person, one vote” system where all our votes are counted equally.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

AOC may be demonstrating the problem of unintended consequences

For AOC to claim that “electoral affirmative action” would be unfairly advantageous for rural Americans over urban Americans, she surely must recognize the overall inequity of the affirmative action program. That is, unless this woman has not considered the consequences of her actions.

Then again, just as Obama seemed not to associate his own divisive words with the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, maybe Alexandria does not see how she is arguing against a program that many in her Democrat circles deem as central to their ideology.

Still, it would seem that the Democrats would stuff a sock in the mouthpiece that would have democrats tearing down affirmative action.


Democrats in media ignore stories that should be prominent for those affected by Mexico

Democrats ignore the violence in Mexico: 11th Mexican Journalist Murdered In 2019

As reported exclusively in a 25 August 2019 Breitbart article, Nevith Condez Jaramillo has been murdered (likely for his reporting of the corrupt conditions in Central Mexico).

Murdered-Mexican-Journalist

Press freedom organizations in Mexico denounced the murder of yet another journalist who died from at least four stab wounds. The journalist had previously been the target of threats for his reporting on corrupt activities in Central Mexico.

Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) confirmed the murder of Nevith Condez Jaramillo. The journalist was stabbed to death. Authorities recovered the victim’s body on Saturday morning in the town of Tejupilco in the state of Mexico. The murder marks the 11th of its kind in 2019 and the 13th of its kind since Mexico’s current President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador took office in December 2018. Mexico’s CNDH is reporting that Condez’s murder is the 12th of 2019.

According to El Sol De Mexico, Condez had been the target of numerous threats from local law enforcement and had reached out to press freedom groups for help. The journalist had also asked to be placed in a special program to protect journalists that is run by Mexico’s federal government. However, the measure was never completed. The press freedom group Periodistas Desplazados reported that Condez had been the target of numerous threats before his murder.

(Read about the other 10 journalists murdered for their work at Breitbart)

Both pitfalls and benefits exist in addressing this murder, but they can make them all positive

Considering that an emphasis on these stories would undercut their claims of oppression by President Trump and would bolster the argument of those supporting the Second Amendment.

However, in the interest of their readers who might travel to Mexico or trade with Mexican companies, it would build a trust that now seems to be lacking.

With all of this in mind, why would the Democrat candidates and Democrat press continue to ignore the murder of a corruption-exposing Mexican journalist?

Democrat governments like that in Portland have started using Antifa to punish their conservative “enemies” (much as Hitler’s brown shirts went after communists)

Antifa Accused of Attacking Small Conservative Group After Portland Police Reportedly Abandon Them

According to an 18 August 2019 article in the Western Journal, a man holding an American flag who was safe behind the police officers before they left soon found punks directly targeting him.

antifa

In the midst of a heated Portland, Oregon, rally, police allegedly abandoned a small conservative group to the clutches of antifa punks.

The scene, captured by journalist Andy Ngo, first shows Portland police in riot gear separating a conservative group from the black-clad leftist mob. The group was separated from the main crowd, according to Ngo.

WARNING: The following videos tweeted by Andy Ngo contain strong language. Viewer discretion advised.

According to Ngo’s tweets, the police allegedly abandoned the small group despite the mob presence.

Considering how amped up the black-clad antifa protesters were, this does not appear to be a safe or smart move.

(Read more at the Western Journal)

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck …

As previously suggested several times by several people regarding Mayor Ted Wheeler, there seems to be a direct connection between the Democrat government of Portland and Antifa.

One thing that cannot be denied also stems from Antifa’s decision to stamp out all voices other than extremely liberal voices. Therefore, you cannot deny the parallels between Antifa and fascism.

Why has the Democrat political machine in the Pacific Northwest turned its attack dog on the peaceful citizens?

Democrat politicians and the Democrat press ignore a story that could unite America against a new threat

Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile

In one of the few exceptions, Newsweek reports on the affects of the failed Russian cruise missile.

russia-nuclear-cruise-missile-test-burevestnik

Russian doctors who expressed fears about the radiation they would be exposed to by treating victims of a failed nuclear-powered missile explosion were ordered to “get to work” by officials, it has been reported.

Secrecy still surrounds the circumstances and impact of a rocket engine blast on a platform in Noyonoksa off the coast of Arkhangelsk on August 8, which killed at least five people and injured six.

The failed test is thought to have involved the nuclear-powered cruise missile in Russian known as “Burevestnik” and in the U.S. as “Skyfall.”

Victims were taken to Arkhangelsk regional hospital for treatment, where doctors say they were not warned about radiation exposure.

More accounts have been emerging from medical staff who treated victims that day.

Health workers have been sworn to secrecy, but one doctor told independent news outlet Meduza medical staff demanded answers from the victims’ government escorts over what the risks would be.

“Those accompanying the patients replied that everyone had been decontaminated. We were told: ‘They pose no danger for you, get to work.’

“After we started to operate on them, dosimetrists arrived and measured the levels of beta radiation and then ran out of the operating room in fear.

“When doctors asked them what had happened, they confessed that the beta radiation was off the scale.”

He said that other patients in the emergency room were also put at risk.

(Read more at Newsweek)

By publishing online, but not in print or on the main stream networks, news outlets avoid covering issues they want to bury

This program could provide the genesis of another Chernobyl, but the American public will never rise against it if they never know of it.

What is Russia hiding

A Deutsche Welle article explores the Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile mishap.

Burevestnik-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile.

After an explosion at a Russian missile-testing site led to a surge in radiation, five monitoring stations went offline. This did not happen by chance, experts say.

Concern is growing that the Russian authorities are covering up the scale of the explosion at a military site outside Severodvinsk on August 8. It emerged this week that five local monitoring stations had gone offline in the aftermath of the accident. This was reported by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), a Vienna based independent group which operates an international network of radiation monitoring stations. The CTBTO funds the stations in Russia, which are run by the country’s Defense Ministry.

The data recorded by these stations is automatically shared with the CTBTO and other members of the organization in accordance with an agreement signed by 184 countries to ban all nuclear testing, which Russia has ratified. However, because countries such as North Korea and Iran have refused to ratify it, the agreement has yet to become binding, a spokesperson for the CTBTO told DW.

The route of the radiation clouds

At first, Russia attributed the problem with the radiation monitoring stations to an error in their communication system. But later the country’s deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said that handing over the data from the stations to the CTBTO is a “completely voluntary” activity.

Experts interviewed by DW were convinced that the shutdown of the stations was directly connected to the blast outside Severodvinsk and that the Russian government was concealing information on the incident.

Lassina Zerbo, the CTBTO’s Executive Secretary, was one of the first to link the failure of the stations to the explosion. In a tweet, Zerbo published a map of how the radioactive clouds could have dispersed, based on weather conditions in the days after the blast. According to the model he outlined, the clouds would have travelled almost exclusively over Russian territory.

(Read more at Deutsche Welle)

Does the press deny these stories because they deny the uniting power of external threats?

In part, Reagan lead by showing the reality of the threat of the Russian evil empire. He drew word pictures within his speeches showing us the murderous intent of rulers who had enslaved millions of their own subjects while they sought to expand their holdings worldwide.

Why don’t the Democrats start a rallying cry against the Russians and the threat they pose?

The community whose heart strings were regularly pulled “for the children” have been abandoned by Democrats because …

Children are LGBTQ’s Main Target Now

A 21 August 2019 article at the American Family Association suggests that children (once the object of pleas from the left) now are the target of action by the LGBTQ community.

08_19-lharvey

I admit that I don’t understand the “progressive” mind.

When public libraries – in the name of tolerance and diversity – invite transvestite “drag queens” to read to a group of children – I am NOT sympathetic.

Even as I write this, I feel my anger rising.

THESE ARE CHILDREN!

I wish this insanity represented isolated events, but it does not. First Things, a respected publication, reports that Drag Queen Story Hours are a “global phenomenon” with more than 35 chapters in the U.S. alone and that the events often draw hundreds of participants.

The New York Times defended these abominations as “nice public event[s].” Slate magazine called them mere exhibitions of “free speech and association.”

Christians, we are in a war with evil. It is important we remain faithful and defend the truths of Scripture.

Let there be no doubt that the intent of these far-left extremists is pure evil. Consider these recent attempts to radicalize our children and grandchildren:

  • Arthur (PBS) – In May, the beloved animated children’s series revealed that one of its longtime main characters and Arthur’s teacher, Mr. Ratburn, is “gay” and getting married.
  • Cartoon Network – For LGBTQ Pride Month in June, the popular children’s network tweeted outhe message: “We want to wish everyone a HAPPY PRIDE and encourage all of our LGBTQ+ fans to stand proud all year long!”

These purveyors of evil don’t care what parents and grandparents think. They are aiming for our children.

This clearly demonstrates two critical realities for America going forward:

  1. Christians must be instructed about what the Bible teaches and what it means for our nation’s moral foundations; and
  2. Christians must be salt and light – including being active in culture and politics.

How do we go forward in that vision?

First, we must recognize that ideas have consequences. In other words, a nation impacted by Christianity is going to look much different than one dominated by a Marxist, Muslim, or other worldviews.

Then, we must learn to defend and articulate the truth of a Christian worldview in contrast to the myriad of other belief systems in the world.

(Read more at the American Family Association)

As noted earlier, transsexual ideology will impact women’s rights in ways Democrats do not want to acknowledge

But first, consider what the Bible says

In the Bible, we are told “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). We are also told “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Therefore, while men and women are not interchangeable and while they are both “imago dei” (in the image of God), they are equal in the eyes of God.

With this in mind, don’t let us imagine that there will not be consequences when we try to assign guilt to God (“He put me in the wrong body.”), decide to play God with our bodies with pharmaceuticals, and then go after children (although warned in Luke 17:2).

Nonetheless, as Christians, we need to respond with compassion and be prepared to search for answers to the questions asked of us. This is evident because there is no condemnation in the commandment to “save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh” (Jude 1:23). Likewise, we are to answer (and not condemn), as required by the commandment to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15). Still, providing this defense will come via the truth.

Additionally, there is the subject of protecting the children

As warned in Luke 17:2 and Matthew 18:6, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Therefore, care must be taken to protect children from stumbling.

Additionally, Christians and Jews find themselves charged with protecting helpless children (as outlined in Psalm 82:3; Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 1:17; James 1:27, and a number of other verses).

As trans high school athletes win state titles, parents petition to ban them

As reported from the pro-transgender side, Outsports points out in a 14 June 2018 article:

Yearwood

Two transgender high school athletes in Connecticut both did really well on the track this season. Too well, say some detractors who are now trying to ban all transgender athletes from competing as their gender.

What has been a quiet murmur since the success last year of Andraya Yearwood now, with the added success of fellow trans sprinter Terry Miller, is quickly becoming a full-blown controversy in a state with some of the country’s most welcoming policies for trans athletes.

Recently, at the Connecticut state championships, Miller set Connecticut state open meet records in the girls 100-meter and 200-meter races en route to two state titles.

Miller, a sophomore, has added two New England regional championships to her trophy case, for both the 100-meter and 200-meter.

Yearwood, also a sophomore, finished second in the 100-meter at the state meet, losing only to Miller.

Now some parents and student-athletes are up in arms, starting petitions to ban trans athletes from competing.

“I think it’s unfair to the girls who work really hard to do well and qualify for Opens and New Englands [competitions],” Selina Soule, a sophomore who finished sixth in the 100-meter at the state meet, told the Hartford Courant. “These girls, they’re just coming in and beating everyone.”

(Read the rest of the article at Outsports)

Actually, transgenders transitioning from boy to girl dominate girls sports where allowed to compete

Although the main stream media does not seem to want to touch the subject, various conservative and alternative outlets report that transgender athletes have come to dominate girls sports in Connecticut and Alaska with implications nationwide.

Why don’t Democrats work to protect our children from predators like this?

They said they just wanted a place at the table …

Featured

Liberals said they just wanted a place at the political table, but now they want to exclude anyone with whom they disagree

The latest Google blacklist includes the Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, The Christian Post, and so many more

OneNewsNow points out through a 15 August 2019 article how liberals at Google have directed Internet traffic away from conservative sites like Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Caller, and The Christian Post.

File_appears_to_show_ranking_classifier_to_define_channel

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.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

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

Breitbart discusses in a 17 August 2019 article an anti-Semitic cartoon shared by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

These women speak as if we don’t know their history or that of Miftah

When these women complain, they seem to forget that the rest of the world has access to their own hateful comments and the history of the groups they choose to join.

Therefore, Rashida Talib, don’t think that we have forgotten your call for the one-state solution (elimination of Israel). Don’t think that we’ve forgotten your tweet accusing US representatives of dual loyalty due to their support of Israel. Despite the millions of Arab, Muslim Israelis, you claim that Israel discriminates against “darker skinned” peoples. We also remember how you get a “calming feeling” when you think of the Holocaust. Likewise, we remember your false claim that Palestinians gave Jews a “safe haven” from 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?

When it comes to Ilhan Omar (if you want to call her that, rather than the true name that she lied about when escaping her past), then don’t forget her now-deleted tweet:

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.)

Miftah, a terrorist-supporting group, would have sponsored Tlaib & Omar to Israel

In a 19 August 2019 OneNewsNow article, we find a few details about the group that would have sponsored the radical Muslim Congresswomen.

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.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Miftah glorifies these terrorists

In a 16 August 2019 National Review article, we find some of the particulars about Miftah:

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:

(Read more at the National Review)

Murder must never be glorified

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

According to a 19 August 2019 article at Houston Fox affiliate KRIV, a Florida school district will require re-education of a teacher for unapproved opinions.

TransTripe

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.

(Read the original at Fox26)

We have to admit that we saw this coming

As early as 2006, the Huguenins of Elaine Photography were sued for not providing wedding photography to a gay couple. Soon thereafter, Baronelle Stutzman, Melissa Klein, and many other bakers found themselves in the crosshairs of the radical gay agenda for refusing to participate in gay weddings.

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.

Joey-Gibson-leader-of-Vancouver-based-right-wing-group-Patriot Prayer

Joey Gibson, leader of Vancouver-based right-wing group Patriot Prayer, turned himself in to the downtown Portland jail Friday in connection with charges linked to a May Day melee outside 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.

(Read more at Oregon Live)

A differing message from Patriot Prayer and Steven Crowder

When we go to the Patriot Prayer Facebook page, they say:

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.

See Gibson turn himself in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENCpVmh4ZfU&t=3s

See the video from that day here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmunmUuVw0Q&t=12s

Donate to legal fund here: https://gogetfunding.com/legal-fees-for-joey-gibsonpatriot…/

Footage from Stumptown matters:

From the Steven Crowder, we get the following videographic compilation of evidence:

Things that should give us pause regarding China, Hong Kong, gun control, and the Second Amendment

Featured

Chinese “paramilitary” at Hong Kong border

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.

ShenzhenSportsCenterParamilitaryParking

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.”

(Read more at Reuters)

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.

ShenzhenSportsCenterVehiclesWithTurrets

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.

Trump ties China trade deal to Hong Kong protest

In a 15 August 2019 article by Fortune, Trump’s tweet brings the Hong Kong protests into the China trade deal.

HongKongMillions.png

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.

(Read more at Fortune)

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).

However, had the President gone to CNN or CBS to spread his message, he would have been nearly silenced.

China Is Waging a Disinformation War Against Hong Kong Protesters

Even the New York Times recognizes in a 15 August 2019 article the measures taken by China against the Hong Kong protesters.

china-propaganda

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.

(Read more at New York Times)

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.

Fourth, Google has worked with the Chinese government to suppress Internet searches within China, has blocked their Google Maps application to searches in China, and works with the Chinese military. Considering the left-leaning tendencies of Google, how might they use their findings to change elections across the globe (including in the US)?

Philadelphia shooting: Mayor calls for gun control

In a 15 August 2019 article by the BBC, several of the most common Democrat talking points on gun confiscation came out.

MayorKenney
Mayor Kenney calls for gun laws when multiple gun laws were already violated.

The mayor of Philadelphia has joined growing calls for gun control after a shootout in his city left six officers injured as they served a drug warrant.

“Our officers need help,” said Mayor Jim Kenney. “They need help with keeping these weapons out of these people’s hands.”

A gun battle broke out between police and a gunman on Wednesday, leading to a seven-hour stand-off.

The suspect reportedly carried a semi-automatic rifle and several handguns.

Mr Kenney called out politicians for their failure to address the gun crisis and confront the National Rifle Association’s powerful gun rights lobby.

“It’s aggravating, it’s saddening,” Mr Kenney said. “If the state and federal government don’t want to stand up to the NRA and some other folks, then let us police ourselves.”

He added: “Our officers deserve to be protected and they don’t deserve to be shot at by a guy for hours with an unlimited supply of weapons and an unlimited supply of bullets.”

US President Donald Trump also weighed in on the shooting, tweeting Thursday morning that the Philadelphia shooting suspect “should never have been allowed on the streets”.

“Long sentence – must get much tougher on street crime!” he wrote.

(Read more at the BBC)

Pointing out the lies and fallacies

This article focuses on the following:

  1. Our sympathy and respect for the Philadelphia police who were fired upon
  2. Our assumed respect for those who are in positions of power (such as this mayor)
  3. The desire of many to be within a perceived majority (that is, we would also like to be with those who “joined growing calls”)
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Both murder and attempted murder is illegal.
  4. Pennsylvania and Philadelphia have gun laws that were violated by this criminal. Adding another gun law would not prevent anything.
  5. Gun laws have little effect on murder rates. Look at Chicago, New York, and London.
  6. As jihadists have taught us, planes, bombs, cars, trucks, and knives can be used when guns are not available.

Hong Kong Protesters sing the American national anthem and “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord”

Featured

Hong Kong Protesters Embrace American Flag in Fight for Freedom

Breitbart reported in a 29 July 2019 article how the US flag and national anthem have become central to the Hong Kong protests.

HongKongUS_Flag

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Our response to the Chinese

TiananmenTanks

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

The Daily Caller points out the obvious regarding those who stand defenseless before a Communist government.

HongKong2nd

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.

(Read more and see the video at the Daily Caller)

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).

HongKongSingHallelujah

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.”


And that’s how the hymn caught on.

“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.”

(Read more at Fox News)

When I first heard of this anthem being used, I did not know how a Christian anthem could come into wise use in a land where 90% of the population does not profess Christianity.

It seems that it occurred because Christians in Hong Kong were following the Bible by protecting the powerless.

While the Christian community of Hong Kong finds itself dwarfed within the community, it has been able to show love and provide protection. May God bless them.

Observations on the El Paso and Dayton shootings

Featured

Walmart shooter manifesto: a madman’s rant

Drudge Report provided all of the text of the purported El Paso shooter. This way, each of us can read this piece (which has been confirmed to have been loaded by the shooter onto 8chan) and decide what parts of the “news” actually checks out.

WALMART SHOOTER MANIFESTO

Sat Aug 03 2019 22:31:51 ET

The Inconvenient Truth

About Me

Walmart

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.

Political Reasons

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.

Economic Reasons

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.

Gear

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

Reaction

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.

Admittedly, just as Democrats have pointed out, there are two points of commonality between this degranged madman’s rants and President Trump’s speeches. First, both call the events at the Southern border an invasion. But what else do you call the incursion of hundreds of thousands of uninvited invaders? Second, they both call out “fake news.” Still, what else do you call a press that reports positive stories on one president 59% of the time while reporting 93% negative stories on another?

On the other hand, the following commonalities exist between the El Paso shooter and the Democrat Presidential nominees:

  1. Their common hate for corporations (as evidenced by the video and article on Liz Warren below).
  2. Their consideration of free healthcare for illegal immigrants (the madman opposes this while all of the Democrat Presidential candidates at the second debate supported it)
  3. Their consideration of basic universal income — something the shooter saw as an inevitability and the Democrats embrace.
  4. Their fixation on the environment. On one side, the shooter waxes eloquent on the environment (calling a Dr Seuss children’s book a “decades old classic.”) Likewise, Democrat luminary AOC befuddled us all by first stating that we only had 12 years to correct global warming, then stating that it was just a joke, allows her chief of staff to tell us the Green New Deal centered on implementing socialism, and (finally) returning to her original screed stating that we only had 12 years.

The Dayton shooter was a leftist

Heavy.com reports in an 1 August 2019 article that Conner Betts was a self-described “leftist” who supported Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, and Antifa.

ShootingDayton

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

Maxine Waters

In a 25 June 2018 Real Clear Politics article, we see how Representative Maxine Waters said:

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

In a 17 June 2019 article at the Daily Wire, we find out about some of Joe Biden’s inner demons.

biden_0

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.”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

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.

Liz Warren

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.

MagaHatNYA 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.

(Read more at Fox 5)

The Castro brothers dox Trump donors in San Antonio

CBS, USA Today, and the Washington Times tell us how one of the Castro brothers (one of whom is running for President) now finds himself being shamed for doxing.

The Washington Post reports it this way:

JoaquinCastro

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.

One interesting thing about Joaquin’s doxing of Trump voters in San Antonio was that these doxed donors included donors to the Julian and Joaquin political campaigns.

Evidence of a Pro-Obama media bias

Media Shocked by Joaquin Castro Doxxing Trump Donors; Ignored Obama Doing Same in 2012

Another Breitbart article reminds us that Obama also used intimidation of the donors to Romney’s campaign.

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.

As Strassel noted in her 2016 book, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech:

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

Breitbart reports in a 7 August 2019 article how Netflix plans to depict Trump supporters in their serice Dear White People.

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

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’

Breitbart reports in a 7 August 2019 article on a deplorable movie.

The Hunt is about a group of left-wing “elites” who hunt “deplorables.” and is scheduled to open everywhere September 27.

More from the far-left Hollywood Reporter:

“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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

Fox News points out in a Sunday, 4 August 2019 article how Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick told Antifa to “stay out” in light of the Walmart shooting.

danpatrick

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick explicitly warned the left-wing group Antifa against coming to the state following Saturday’s mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart.

The shooting came 29 days before a scheduled visit from Antifa, which planned to conduct a “Border Resistance” militancy training tour.

“Stay out of El Paso,” Patrick told Antifa during an appearance Fox News. He noted that while the group wasn’t usually welcome in Texas, they especially weren’t welcome after the shooting.

“Stay out of Texas, basically,” Patrick said. “We don’t need them coming in on Sept. 1. We didn’t need them coming in before this happened.”

(Read more at Fox News)

I agree with the Lt. Governor. Even if this tragic event had not happened, we would not need Antifa in the state. We need these leftist thugs even less now.

President Trump’s inputs to this situation

Donald Trump mistakenly offers condolences to ‘Toledo’ shooting victims

Breitbart reports in a 5 August 2019 article how President Trump introduced a human factor into the equation (he screwed up).

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.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Sorry that President Trump made this mistake; however, we are all fallen creatures and we miss the mark occasionally.

President Trump is talking about red-flag laws. Texas lawmakers have blocked those bills in the past.

The Texas Tribune points out in a 7 August 2019 article how Trump’s proposed red flag laws have been opposed by Texas Republicans.

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.

(Read more at The Texas Tribune)

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..

Similar cases

Armed customer likely deterred potential shooter at Mo. Walmart

A 10 August 2019 OneNewsNow article points out how an armed customer probably stopped a potential shooter at a Missouri 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.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Good to hear that the good guy prevailed.

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)

1565317130538_1280x1280.jpg

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)

Judge Dismisses Covington Teen’s $250M Lawsuit Against Washington Post

Featured

Judge Dismisses Covington Teen’s $250M Lawsuit Against Washington Post

Breitbart reports in a 27 July 2019 article how a judge has ruled in favor of the Washington Post and Jeff Bezos (owner of the Washington Post and Amazon).

CovingtonKids

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

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.

Thirteen bits of the Mueller testimony “we can’t get into”

Featured

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Collins: 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?

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: 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?

Mueller: In the — in the — in the wake of the report?

Collins: Since the — since the closing of the office in May of 2019.

Mueller: And the question was, have we conducted…

Collins: Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?

Mueller: No.

Collins: And you can confirm you’re no longer special counsel, correct?

Mueller: I am no longer special counsel.

Collins: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

Mueller: No.

Collins: Were you or your team provided any questions by members of Congress (inaudible) the majority ahead of your hearing today?

Mueller: No.

Collins: Your report states that your investigative team included 19 lawyers and approximately 40 FBI agents and analysts and accountants. Are those numbers accurate?

Mueller: Could you repeat that, please?

Collins: Forty FBI agents, 19 lawyers, intelligence analysts and forensic accountants; are those numbers accurate? This was in your report.

Mueller: Generally, yes.

Collins: 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?

Mueller: That went a little fast for me.

Collins: OK. In your report — I’ll make this very simple — you did a lot of work, correct?

Mueller: Yes, that I agree to.

Collins: A lot of subpoenas, a lot of pin registers…

Mueller: A lot of subpoenas.

Collins: OK, we’ll walk this really slow if we need to.

Mueller: A lot of search warrants.

Collins: All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough.

Mueller: What?

Collins: In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: 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?

Mueller: We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.

Collins: So that would be a yes.

Mueller: Pardon?

Collins: That would be a yes.

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: 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?

Mueller: I will leave the answer to our report.

Collins: 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?

Mueller: Thank you. Yes.

Collins: 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?

Mueller: You’re going to have to repeat that for me.

Collins: Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in the federal criminal law. Conspiracy is.

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: In the colloquial context, known public context, collusion — collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?

Mueller: No.

Collins: 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.”

Mueller: Yes (ph).

Collins: 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?

Mueller: 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…

Collins: 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.

Mueller: That’s correct.

Collins: 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.”

Mueller: Right.

Collins: Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?

Mueller: Not when I read it.

Collins: So you would change your answer to yes, then?

Mueller: No, no — the — if you look at the language…

Collins: I’m reading your report, sir. These are yes-or-no answers.

Mueller: (inaudible) Page 180?

Collins: Page 180, Volume 1.

Mueller: OK.

Collins: This is from your report.

Mueller: Correct, and I — I — I — I leave it with the report.

Collins: So the report says yes, they are synonymous.

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: 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…

Mueller: (inaudible)

Collins: … or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?

Mueller: I’m not going to discuss other matters.

Collins: All right. And I yield back.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Ratcliffe: 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?

Mueller: Yes, sir.

Ratcliffe: 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?

Mueller: Yes.

Ratcliffe: 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?

Mueller: Can you repeat the last part of that question?

Ratcliffe: 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…

Mueller: May — can I — I’m sorry, go ahead.

Ratcliffe: … can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated…

Mueller: I — I…

Ratcliffe: … because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

Mueller: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.

Ratcliffe: 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?

Mueller: That’s correct.

Ratcliffe: 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.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Sensenbrenner: 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?

Mueller: Yes.

Sensenbrenner: 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?

Mueller: I’d have to look more closely at the statute.

Sensenbrenner: 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?

Mueller: I’m trying to find that citation, Congressman.

Nadler: Director, could you speak more directly into the microphone, please?

Mueller: Yes.

Nadler: Thank you.

Sensenbrenner: Well, it’s Volume 2, page…

Mueller: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry.

Sensenbrenner: Yeah, it’s Volume 2, page 1. It says, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

Mueller: Yes.

Sensenbrenner: 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?

Mueller: 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.

Sensenbrenner: 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?

Mueller: That’s true.

Sensenbrenner: 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?

Mueller: Where are you reading from on that?

Sensenbrenner: I’m reading from my question.(LAUGHTER)

Mueller: That — could you repeat it?

Sensenbrenner: 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.

Mueller: This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss…

Sensenbrenner: OK, then let… … and would direct you to the report itself for what…

Mueller: (CROSSTALK)

Sensenbrenner: … 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?

Mueller: 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.

Sensenbrenner: 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.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Chabot: 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?
Mueller: And you’re on page 103?
Chabot: 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?
Mueller: Yeah, I — I’m not familiar with — with that. I (inaudible)
Chabot: (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…
Mueller: This is outside my purview.
Chabot: OK. Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448-page Mueller report, was he?
Mueller: Well, as I — as I say, it’s outside my purview and it’s being handled in the department by others.
Chabot: 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?
Mueller: It’s outside my purview.
Chabot: 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?
Mueller: Outside my purview.
Chabot: 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).
Mueller: This is a matter that’s being handled by others at the Department of Justice.
Chabot: 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?
Mueller: Well, I’d refer you to the — the report.
Chabot: OK. And President Trump wasn’t at the meeting…
Mueller: No, he was not.
Chabot: … 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?

Mueller: Well, I’ll tell you, this is still outside my purview.
Chabot: 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?

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Roby: 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)?
Mueller: I am not getting engaged in discussion of what happened after the report was prepared.
Roby: Had the Attorney General asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?
Mueller: We worked on the redacted versions together.
Roby: Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?
Mueller: I cannot get into details.
Roby: Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?
Mueller: That’s not in my purview.
Roby: (Video and audio loss) … Rule 6c material. Why did you not take a similar action? So Congress could view this material?
Mueller: We had a process that we were operating on with the Attorney General’s office.
Roby: Are you aware of any Attorney General going to court to receive similar permission to unredact 6c material?
Mueller: I’m not aware of that being done.
Roby: 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?
Mueller: 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.
Roby: 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?
Mueller: With regard to the President or generally?
Roby: Generally.
Mueller: The Attorney General.
Roby: 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?
Mueller: I do not.
Roby: 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?
Mueller: I can’t get into that.
Roby: 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?
Mueller: Well, to the extent that it came through the special counsel’s office, yes.
Roby: Did any single member of your team review all the underlying evidence gathered during the course of your …
Mueller: (interrupting) As as has been recited here today, substantial amount of work was done whether it be be search warrant or …
Roby: (interrupting) My point here is that there is no one member of the team that looked at everything.
Mueller: That’s what I’m trying to get at.
Roby: (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.
Mueller: Thank you, yes.
Roby: How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the special conference – do you attend personally?
Mueller: Very few.
Roby: 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?
Mueller: I can’t get into who wrote the internal deliberations …
Roby: But you signed it?
Mueller: What I will say is a letter stands for itself, okay?
Roby: 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?
Mueller: I can’t get into that. Internal deliberations.
Roby: Did you authorize the letters release to the media or was it leaked?
Mueller: I have no knowledge on either.
Roby: Well, you went nearly two years without a leak. Why was this letter leaked?
Mueller: I can’t get into that.
Roby: 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.

Mueller: Repeat the question.
Roby: Was anything in attorney general bars letter referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated, March 24th innaccurate?
Mueller: I am NOT going to get into that.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Gaetz: Director Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia’s disinformation campaign?
Mueller: No. I said they – my opening statement that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.
Gaetz: 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.”

Gaetz: 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?
Mueller: 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.
Gaetz: 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.
Mueller: Well, sir…
Gaetz: 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?
Mueller: Well what I think is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation and — elsewhere…
Gaetz: I get that…
Mueller: 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.
Gaetz: 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?
Mueller: As I said before and I’ll say again, it’s not my purview. Others are investigating what you…
Gaetz: 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?
Mueller: Pardon me, can you ask…
Gaetz: They both worked on your team didn’t they?
Mueller: I heard Strzok. Who else are we talking about?
Gaetz: Attorney Number 2 identified in the inspector general’s report.
Mueller: OK. And the question was?
Gaetz: Did he work for you? The guy who said, “Viva la resistance.”
Mueller: Peter — Peter Strzok worked for me for a period of time, yes.
Gaetz: 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…
Nadler: Time of the — time of the gentleman has expired.
Gaetz: … (inaudible) resistance, pledged to stop Trump.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
McClintock: 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?
Mueller: If you say so, I have no reason to dispute that.
McClintock: 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?
Mueller: I did not believe I was under consideration for counsel. The — I had served two terms as FBI director…
McClintock: We consider (ph) the answer’s no.
Mueller: The answer’s no.
McClintock: 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?

Mueller: I will answer and I will agree (ph) with your characterization as we did anything to hide…
McClintock: 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.
Mueller: Well, I’m not going to go further in terms of discussing the…

McClintock: Well, let’s go on.
Mueller: … what’s — what the (ph)…
McClintock: 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?

Mueller: I don’t — I don’t necessarily credit what you’re saying occurred.
McClintock: Were you aware that Kilimnik was a — a… (CROSSTALK)
Mueller: I’m not going to go into the…
McClintock: …State Department source?
Mueller: … ins and outs — I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of what we had in the — in the course… (CROSSTALK)
McClintock: Did you interview…
Mueller: … in the course of our investigation.
McClintock: … did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
Mueller: Pardon?
McClintock: Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
Mueller: I can’t go into the discussion of our investigative moves.
McClintock: 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?

Mueller: Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I — than I already have.
McClintock: 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.
Mueller: Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that — in that proceeding.
McClintock: 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?

Mueller: What was the question?
McClintock: 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?
Mueller: No.

McClintock: 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.

Mueller: 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.
McClintock: Then — then why is contradictory information…
Nadler: (CROSSTALK) The time of the gentleman has expired…
McClintock: … continuing to come out?

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Reschenthaler: 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.
Mueller: That Ken Starr did what? I’m sorry.
Reschenthaler: Are you familiar with the independent counsel statute?
Mueller: Are you talking about the one we’re operating under now or previous?
Reschenthaler: No. Under which Ken Starr was appointed.
Mueller: I am not that familiar with that but I’d be happy to take your question.
Reschenthaler: 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?

Mueller: I disagree with that and …
Reschenthaler: OK. Did any — did any of your witnesses …
Mueller: Can I finish?
Reschenthaler: … have the chance to be cross examined?
Mueller: Can I just finish my answer on that?
Reschenthaler: Quickly. My time…
Mueller: We operate under the current statute not the original statute so I’m most familiar with the current statute not the older statute.
Reschenthaler: OK. Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined?
Mueller: Did any of the witnesses in our investigation?
Reschenthaler: Yes.
Mueller: I’m going to answer that.
Reschenthaler: Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?
Mueller: I’m not going to get into that.
Reschenthaler: 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?
Mueller: No.
Reschenthaler: Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public, did that alter contents would you include it?
Mueller: I can’t speak to that.
Reschenthaler: 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?
Mueller: Well, I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory (inaudible) as well…
Reschenthaler: (inaudible) got into that with you where he said there was — you said there was evidence you left out.
Mueller: Well, you make a choice as to what goes into a indictment.
Reschenthaler: 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?
Mueller: Well, generally that is the case.
Reschenthaler: Right.
Mueller: Although most cases are not done in the context of the president.
Reschenthaler: In this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?
Mueller: No. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.
Reschenthaler: So essentially what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?
Mueller: I can’t agree with that characterization.
Reschenthaler: 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.
Mueller: Not true.
Reschenthaler: 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.

  1. 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?

Speaker Testimony
Jordan: 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)
Mueller: Excuse me — are…
Jordan: … Why not?
Mueller: … did you say — I’m sorry, did you say 193?
Jordan: Volume 1, 193. He lied three times, you point it out in the report, why didn’t you charge him with a crime?
Mueller: I can’t get into internal deliberations with regard to who or who would not be charged.
Jordan: 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?

Mueller: I can’t get into the evidentiary filings.
Jordan: 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.

Mueller: Well I can’t get into it and it’s obvious I think that we can’t get into charging decisions.
Jordan: 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?
Mueller: Can’t get into that.
Jordan: Did you interview Mifsud?
Mueller: Can’t get into that.
Jordan: Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?
Mueller: Can’t get into that.
Jordan: 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.
Mueller: I’m not certain I — I’m not certain I agree with your characterizations.
Jordan: 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…

Nadler: The time of the gentleman…
Jordan: …three year saga and get to the bottom of it.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Cline: 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?

Mueller: Correct
Cline: You’d agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statute. Correct?
Mueller: I’m not going to be involved in the discussion on on that at this juncture.
Cline: In fact, the Attorney General himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?
Mueller: I leave that to the Attorney General to identify.
Cline: You would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct?
Mueller: I would have to agree with that one.
Cline: … and members of your legal team, in fact, have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?
Mueller: I don’t know to what you advert. We’ve all (CROSSTALK)
Cline: Well, in time, … (CROSSTALK)
Mueller: … in the trenches. We have all had one of those cases.
Cline: 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?
Mueller: Well, I’m not gonna get into delve into …
Cline: Let me read from that.
Mueller: May I just finish?
Cline: Yes.
Mueller: 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.
Cline: 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.”
Mueller: Let me just say …
Cline: 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?

Mueller: 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.
Cline: Well, I’ll take that
Mueller: …over a period of time. He is run a number Units

Cline: 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?
Mueller: I refer you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues as it appears in the at the end of the report.
Cline: Mr Mueller, I argue that it says above the Supreme Court “equal justice…”

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Steube: 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?
Mueller: 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.
Steube: So you don’t recall on May 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job?
Mueller: I interviewed with the president and it was about…
Steube: Regarding the FBI director job?
Mueller: …it was about the job and not about me applying for the job.
Steube: So your statement here today is that you didn’t interview to apply for the FBI director job?
Mueller: That’s correct.
Steube: 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?
Mueller: I don’t recall that one.
Steube: You don’t recall that?
Mueller: No.
Steube: 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?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak to that.
Steube: 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…
Mueller: That was – that was outside our purview.
Steube: Russian meddling was outside your purview?
Mueller: But the impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies.
Steube: 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?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak to that.
Steube: 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?
Mueller: True.
Steube: When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
Mueller: I’m sorry, what was the – what was the question?
Steube: When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was intended – was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak to that.
Steube: Your team interviewed Christopher Steele, is that correct?
Mueller: Not going to get into that. I said it – I…
Steube: 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?
Mueller: 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.
Steube: 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.
Mueller: And I am not going to answer that question, sir.
Steube: 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)?
Mueller: I do not accept your characterization of what occurred.
Steube: What would you – what would be your characterization?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak any more to it.
Steube: So you can’t speak any more to it but you’re not going to agree with my characterization? Is that correct?
Mueller: Yes.
Steube: 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?
Mueller: I’m not going to answer that.
Steube: So you’re not going to respond to any of the questions regarding Christopher Steele or your interviews with him?
Mueller: Well as I said at the outset this morning, that was one of the investigations that I could not speak to.
Steube: 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.
Mueller: I have nothing to add.
Steube: 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?

Mueller: Yes.
Steube: Article II.
Mueller: Yes.
Steube: That’s correct. Can’t he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?
Mueller: I believe that to be the case.
Steube: Under Article II.
Mueller: 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.
Steube: Well then you’ve testified that you weren’t fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?
Mueller: I’m not going to add to what I’ve stated before.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Armstrong: Mr. Mueller, how many people did you fire – how many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?
Mueller: How many people…
Armstrong: Did you fire?
Mueller: I’m not going to discuss that.
Armstrong: You fired – according to inspector general’s report, attorney number two was let go and we know Peter Strzok was let go, correct?
Mueller: Yes, and there may have been other persons on other issues that have been either transferred or fired.
Armstrong: 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?
Mueller: Say that again if you could?
Armstrong: 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?
Mueller: And the statement was by whom?
Armstrong: Peter Strzok at this hearing.
Mueller: I am not familiar with that.
Armstrong: Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?
Mueller: No. He was transferred as a result of instances involving texts.
Armstrong: 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?
Mueller: Absolutely. We strove to do that over the two years.
Armstrong: Andrew…
Mueller: Part of that was making certain that…
Armstrong: Andrew Weissmann’s one of your top attorneys?
Mueller: Yes.
Armstrong: Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?
Mueller: He had some role but not a major role.
Armstrong: Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?
Mueller: I don’t know when I found that out.
Armstrong: 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?
Mueller: I’m not going to talk about that.
Armstrong: Is that not a conflict of interest?
Mueller: Not going to talk about that.
Armstrong: Are you aware that Ms. Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State?
Mueller: Yes.
Armstrong: Did you know that before she came on the…
Mueller: No.
Armstrong: 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.
Mueller: Can I speak for a second to the hiring practices?
Armstrong: Sure.
Mueller: We strove to hire those individuals that could do that job.
Armstrong: OK.
Mueller: 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.
Armstrong: 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.

Mueller: 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…
Armstrong: 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.

  1. 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.

Speaker Testimony
Johnson: 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)

Mueller: Can I…
Johnson: … 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?

Mueller: True.
Johnson: Mr. Mueller, one last important question. Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?
Mueller: I’m not going to talk about recommendations.
Johnson: It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?
Mueller: I’m not going to talk – I’m not going to talk about that – about that issue.
Johnson: 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.

Was the Garlic Festival shooter just crazy or Islamist?

Featured

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).

GarlicFestival

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.

(Read more at MarketWatch)

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

  1. Having Google send us to articles that have passed their politburo,
  2. Having the New York Times that changes their reporting on the border detention facilities from the Obama to the Trump years, and
  3. 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.

Five stories on the alliance between high-tech companies and liberals

Featured

  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.

DrEpstein

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.”

(Read more at Freedom Outpost)

Pushing votes by influencing searches. We should have seen the handwriting on the wall when reports of the Google employees’ biases.

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).

  1. Google Blacklists Free Speech Platform Gab’s Latest App

Breitbart reports in a 20 July 2019 article how Google blacklisted Gab and does not allow the app to be distributed.

frogpower2

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.


(Read more at Breitbart)

Considering the size of Google and Gab, this isn’t a David and Goliath story. This is a tale of the boy, the magnifying glass, and the ant.

Too bad that only the ant has any regard for our free speech rights.

However, 2019 wasn’t the first year that Google pulled the market censorship of limiting the availability of Gab.

Still, I encourage everyone to go around that Apple Store and Google Play Store and get free speech apps like Parler and Gab.

  1. 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:

TedCruz

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.

DennisPrager.png

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.

  1. 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

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.

  1. Google VP Denies ‘Blacklists’ of Search Results After Leaks Showing Their Existence

Breitbart reports in a 16 July 2019 article how, much like a kid with his or her hand in the cookie jar, Google seems to deny the obvious censorship and blacklisting (even when the evidence is on video).

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Well, after reading these past five articles, who can disbelieve the censorship of Google?

AOC claims: “Weak minds challenge loyalty to our country” then …

Featured

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

Because there was an Antifa bombing of an ICE office on 13 July 2019, The Rebel asked AOC to condemn the bombing. This should be of particular note (since the bomber quoted AOC in his manifesto). To that, she refused to say a word.

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).

AOC’s Chief of Staff admits the real goal of the Green New Deal – It wasn’t fighting climate

As shown in a 12 July 2019 Red State article, AOC’s chief of staff admitted that the “Green New Deal” centered on socialism, not the climate.

AOC faked a photoshoot, pretending to grieve for parking lot

As reported by the Kansas City Star, AOC’s photoshoot at the detention camp was actually at a parking lot. It was all faked.

President Trump’s tweets that are in question

The following tweets comprise the statements by President Trump that have upset the Democrats.




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

She blamed US for the collapse of Venezuela

Omar blames the US for Venezuela (not 20 years of socialism).

She blamed the US soldiers assigned to fighting oppressive Somali war lords for the chaos of recorded in Black Hawk Down

Omar attacked the US army for Black Hawk down.

She makes light of Americans’ fear after 9/11

Omar laughs when remembering Americans’ fear of al Queda terrorists.

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:

Omar refuses to condemn the Antifa attack on police.

Omar laughs at being asked whether she supports Antifa terrorists.

Omar says Muslims should not apologize for terrorist attacks and she will not dignify a remark with a response.

The statements and actions of Rep. Tlaib that prompted the President

In a 7 July 2019 interview, Ms. Tlaib suggests that the conditions at the Customs and Border Patrol Detention Centers approach those at Nazi concentration camps.

Tlaib said that thinking on the Holocaust “gave her a calming feeling.

Tlaib said that the critics of her Holocaust distortion were “racist idiots.”

Tlaib claimed that the Palestinians created a “safe haven” for Jews in the Middle East.



Representatives Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib, and Welch refuse to condemn Antifa firebombing at an ICE office

Trump has instituted the ICE raids due to illegals like this

Prosecutors accuse MS-13 of 7 ‘medieval-style’ slayings, including cutting heart out of rival

A 16 July 2019 Fox News article pointed out the barbarity MS-13 members who entered the US illegally.

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.

(Read more at Fox News)

Border Patrol Arrests In Maine Illustrate The Extent Of The Immigration Crisis, Official Says

According to a 16 July 2019 Daily Caller article, the Border Patrol arrests in Maine show how bad the immigration crisis has become.

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.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

The face of real racism

Racism born from escalation

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).

Real racism from one of the “Squad”

As reported through a 14 July 2019 article at Real Clear Politics, Rep. Pressley states her race-centered view that mandates all Blacks walk in lock step (rather than think for themselves) when she says:

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.

Three stories of religious discrimination not widely reported in the mainstream media

Featured

  1. Religious clash leaves USA’s best left back an observer of World Cup bid

Hat tip to an American Family Association radio broadcast after I had discovered the first reference

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.

Jaelene_Hinkle

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.

(Read more at The Irish Times)

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.

  1. Christian Student Kicked out of Uni for Gay Marriage Views Wins Latest Court Battle

Breitbart reports in a 4 July 2019 article that a Christian student at the University of Sheffield was expelled for a Facebook post and has now won a judgement.

Felix-Ngole

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, reports The 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.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

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.

  1. 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).

InterVarsity

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?”

(Read more at Fox News)

Thank God that Intervarsity won this lawsuit.

Fifteen stories on the problems faced by Christians outside of America

Featured

  1. A warning from Canada over who loses with ‘equality’

The work of OneNewsNow reveals in a 14 June 2019 article how Christians in Canada have lost liberty as “equality” laws have been enacted.

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.

Nancy_Pelosi_Equality_Act

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.

jack_phillips_making_cake_300x188

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.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Although this bill contains “poison pills” that stop President Trump from signing it, every Democrat in the 2020 race for the presidency came out in support of the Equality Act prior to the first debate. Additionally, eight Republicans [Reps. Susan Brooks (Ind.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) Will Hurd (Texas), John Katko (N.Y.), Tom Reed (N.Y.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), and Greg Walden (Ore.)] offered their support to the act.

  1. Is Genocide Imminent? Christians Facing Violence, & Desperate to See God’s Spirit Move

The following Christian Broadcasting Network video (published on 31 May 2019) details the battles subjecting defenseless Christians to the cruelties of Boko Haram.

Whether the textbook definition for genocide has been reached in Nigeria, it is definite that oppression of Christians is occurring in nations where Islam has taken a foothold.

  1. David Mackereth: Christian doctor ‘sacked over trans beliefs’

Through a 9 July 2019 British Broadcasting Corporation article, we are told the tale of Dr David Mackereth (who lost his job due to his Christian beliefs).

A doctor has claimed he was sacked because his Christian beliefs stopped him addressing transgender claimants by pronouns relating to their chosen sex.

Dr David Mackereth

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”.

(Read more at the British Broadcasting Corporation)

A warning about the extremist threat of today

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

  1. Human Traffickers, Corrupt Clergy Target Pakistani Christian Girls For Chinese Grooms

In a 7 May 2019 article, the Daily Caller explains the predicament of Pakistani Christian girls who have been trapped by corrupt clergy and Chinese grooms.

A Pakistani Christian bride shows off he

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.”

Morris, however, denounced the practice.

(Read more at Daily Caller)

(Emphasis through bolding is mine.)

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.

  1. After Attacks On Assyrians, Northern Iraq’s Christian Minority Recommits To A Homeland

The Daily Caller reports in a 16 May 2019 article how attacks on Assyrians motivated Northern Iraqi Christians to recommit to their homeland.

Mirza_Adla_Nova

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.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

What choice do they have? Did Barry Obama open the doors and bring thousands of Christians (no) or many more Muslims into Minnesota? Did they have the choice of going to refugee camps where ISIS sympathizers made life impossible?

  1. Harper’s Exposes ‘Vanishing’ Christians in Middle East

Breitbart echoes news from Harper’s in a 12 June 2018 article that Christians are vanishing from the Middle East.

asia-bibi-protest

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.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

FreeBurmaRangers&frields.png

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.

  1. Report: Christian Persecution in India Jumps by 57% in 2019

Breitbart reports in a 20 March 2019 article that Christian persecution has jumped in India by 57% in 2019.