diff --git "a/SOCKET_DATA/propaganda-span/test_text.txt" "b/SOCKET_DATA/propaganda-span/test_text.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/SOCKET_DATA/propaganda-span/test_text.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+House of Representatives Paid $15,000,000 To Sexual Harassment Victims  Did you know that the House of Representatives has paid out $15,000,000 to victims of sexual harassment in recent years? I am going to share some things with you in this article that are deeply disturbing, but it is for a purpose. The status quo is not acceptable in Washington, and once people truly understand how deep the corruaption runs I believe that they will get motivated to finally drain the swamp once and for all. So yes, I am going to share some things in this article that are truly disgusting, but the goal is to show you that it is time to take our government back from the corrupt career politicians that are completely and utterly out of control. In recent days, CNN has interviewed dozens of people that worked on Capitol Hill, and almost every single one of them had stories of sexual harassment to share… CNN spoke with more than 50 lawmakers, current and former Hill aides and political veterans who have worked in Congress, the majority of whom spoke anonymously to be candid and avoid potential repercussions. With few exceptions, every person said they have personally experienced sexual harassment on the Hill or know of others who have. In an environment with “so many young women,” said one ex-House aide, the men “have no self-control.” “Amongst ourselves, we know,” a former Senate staffer said of the lawmakers with the worst reputations. And sometimes, the sexual advances from members of Congress or senior aides are reciprocated in the hopes of advancing one’s career — what one political veteran bluntly referred to as a “sex trade on Capitol Hill.” The American people are not going to put up with this any longer. We have no choice but to clean up our government because the rest of the world is laughing at us. On Tuesday, U.S. Representative Jackie Speier told a congressional hearing that she personally knows of two current members of Congress that have “engaged in sexual harassment”… “In fact there are two members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, right now, who serve — who have…engaged in sexual harassment.” Speier said one of the harassers has propositioned women with the comment, “Are you going to be a good girl?” Another has exposed his genitals, she said, and some victims have had “their private parts grabbed on the House floor.” “All they ask in return as staff members is to be able to work in a hostile-free work environment. They want the system fixed and the perpetrators held accountable.” And Speier was the one that revealed the fact that 15 million dollars have been paid out to victims of sexual harassment in the House in recent years. The following comes from Breitbart… Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press Daily on Tuesday that the U.S. House of Representatives has paid $15 million to alleged victims of sexual harassment by its own members in recent years. “We do know there is about $15 million that has been paid out by the House on behalf of harassers in the last ten to 15 years,” she said. “15 million dollars has been paid out over sexual harassment claims,” Todd replied, somewhat shocked. “So, obviously more than one member of Congress.” If members of Congress are engaged in this type of behavior, why don’t the American people know about it? And why are those members of Congress still allowed to serve? Representative Barbara Comstock also testified on Tuesday. She said that one current member of Congress exposed his private parts to a female staffer when she delivered papers to his house… Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) said at a House Administration Committee hearing on Tuesday that a sitting member of the U.S. Congress exposed himself to a young female staffer who delivered papers to his house–at his request. We need to be told who this member of Congress is so that he can be removed from Congress immediately. This kind of behavior is not acceptable for anyone in a civilized society – and that goes double for someone that is supposed to be one of the leaders of our nation. Here are the exact words that Comstock used as she described this incident… This member asked a staffer to bring them over some materials, to their residence. And the young staffer — it was a young woman — went there and was greeted with a member in a towel. It was a male, who then invited her in. And at that point, he decided to expose himself. She left, and then she quit her job. She left, she found another job. Of course, this sort of behavior is not just limited to members of Congress. According to an ex-Secret Service agent, Vice-President Joe Biden was regularly engaged in “Weinstein-level” predatory behavior… An ex-Secret Service agent is claiming that former Vice President Joe Biden engaged in “Weinstein-level” sexual assault and that he would walk around the VP residence late at night completely naked. According to Big League Politics’ Cassandra Fairbanks, a Secret Service agent who spoke on condition of anonymity revealed that Biden “would mess with every single woman or teen,” and that a Christmas get-together at the VP’s house had to be canceled “because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.” In fact, things were so bad that at one point a Secret Service agent almost got into a fight with Biden. Here is more from Paul Joseph Watson… During one alleged incident in 2009, Biden cupped the breast of a Secret Service agent’s girlfriend during a photo, prompting the agent to shove Biden and almost hit him. The agent was subsequently suspended for a week, according to the source. Men would often stand in front of female agents and Navy women or create false pretenses to have them leave the room just to get them away from Biden, according to the agent. When I am elected to Congress, I am going to make fighting this sort of predatory behavior a top priority. We are supposed to serve as an example to the rest of the world, and instead, we have become a bad joke. Those that have been engaging in this sort of shameful behavior have got to go because we simply are not going to put up with it anymore. Article posted with permission from End of the American Dream Take a look at the future of America: The Beginning of the End and then prepare.
+Federal Prosecutors Called In After Florida Democrats Caught Altering Election Documents  Florida should be called and called now unless the GOP wants to Florida and Georgia stolen the way they are stealing House seats. Photo: Elections staff load ballots into machine as recounting begins at the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office on Nov. 11, 2018, in Lauderhill, Florida Fed. Prosecutors Called in After FL Democrats Caught Altering Election Documents. By Karista Baldwin, Conservative Tribune November 15, 2018: take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Last week, the Florida Department of State asked federal prosecutors to look into alterations made on official election documents from the 2018 midterms. Politico reported that the department points to the Florida Democratic Party for changing dates on forms used to amend absentee and mail-in ballots. These ballots would have been flagged for missing information or for being filled out with incorrect information. The amending forms, called “cure affidavits,” were due at 5 p.m on Nov. 5, the evening before Election Day, at the latest. During pre-Election Day absentee and mail-in voting, political parties have access to lists of people whose mail-in ballots were rejected for errors. Meanwhile, cure affidavits are publicly available and anyone can send them to voters to prompt them to “fix” their ballots. According to Politico, the DOS released affidavits on Tuesday, which demonstrate that four different counties said the ballots could be returned by 5 p.m on Thursday, Nov. 8, past the official due date. Among the counties involved with the altered affidavits is Broward, which has been a hotspot for controversy as many Florida races have led to a recount. Some people point to Brenda Snipes, Broward’s Elections chief, for her troubling history of election transgressions. Do you agree with the call for a federal investigation? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Politico reported that they received audio of a Florida Democratic party volunteer leaving a voicemail to a voter in Palm Beach County to revise their mailed ballot after Election Day. Palm Beach County failed to make Florida’s recount deadline on Thursday. Matt Dixon, bureau chief of Politico, tweeted on Wednesday that the Democratic party volunteer call came during Florida’s ballot recount after ballots were allowed to be amended. “We are now doing a recount, so we want to make sure you let your vote be counted,” Dixon quoted from the voicemail. It seems that Democrats may have called absentee voters about supplying them with cure affidavits after the permitted date. It also looks like whoever sent out the cure affidavits physically changed the due date to say Nov. 8, instead of Nov. 6. Bradley McVay, DOS interim general counsel, asked attorneys in Florida to investigate the conflicting dates. “Altering a form in a manner that provides the incorrect date for a voter to cure a defect … imposes a burden on the voter significant enough to frustrate the voter’s ability to vote,” McVay wrote in a letter, sent on Nov. 9 and publicly released on Tuesday. According to DOS officials, they are less concerned with the inaccurate dates, and more concerned with the fact that the cure affidavits appear to have been deliberately altered. State officials turned over the altered forms to federal investigators. Of the many allegations of ballot mishandling in Florida, this is the first that has been referred to the federal government. While Democrats seem to have told voters they could fix ballot errors up to the Thursday after Election Day — these votes could not count. It looks like Democrats may have hurt their own interests by misleading their voters. They may have believed that they were supplying the correct information, but they still should not have altered official documents without verifying that they were right, which they weren’t. It is yet to be determined whether the federal investigation will find Democratic ineptitude or deception in this case.
+Pro-Sharia Democrat Congressional Candidate Ilhan Omar Defends Tweet On “Evil Doings Of Israel”  Retailing these poisonous lies ought to hurt her chances for election to Congress, especially after the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. But she is a Leftist, and the Left is increasingly anti-Semitic, so she will cruise to victory. “Dem Candidate Ilhan Omar Defending Tweet On ‘The Evil Doings Of Israel,’” by Frank Camp, Daily Wire, October 28, 2018: take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. On November 16, 2012, Somali-born Minnesota state Rep. Ilhan Omar (D), who’s currently running for the state’s 5th Congressional District seat, sent out the following tweet: Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel In May of this year, Twitter user John Gilmore dug up the six-year-old tweet, forcing Omar to defend herself. She responded: “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.” Omar’s initial tweet came three days after “Palestinian terrorists in Gaza launched more than 150 rockets at Israel” from November 10-13, 2012, reports the Jewish Virtual Library. On November 14, the Israeli Air Force killed Ahmad Jabari in an air strike. Jabari, the military commander of Hamas, was allegedly responsible for, or instrumental in, multiples terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and military personnel since the 1990s. On November 15, another terrorist-launched rocket killed three Israeli civilians. This and other rocket launches from Palestinian militants in Gaza prompted Israel to initiate Operation Pillar of Defense. According to Israel’s official New York consulate website, during the operation, “the IDF targeted over 1,500 terror sites including 19 senior command centers, operational control centers and Hamas’ senior-rank headquarters, 30 senior operatives, damaging Hamas’ command and control, hundreds of underground rocket launchers, 140 smuggling tunnels, 66 terror tunnels, dozens of Hamas operation rooms and bases, 26 weapon manufacturing and storage facilities and dozens of long-range rocket launchers and launch sites.” Omar defended herself against charges of anti-Semitism in a July interview with ABC News, saying: “These accusations are without merit. They are rooted in bigotry toward a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe.” The oft-repeated notion that Israel is an “apartheid” nation is incorrect on multiple grounds. Perhaps the most succinct refutation of this idea comes from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which writes:
+President Donald Trump Proposes "Simple Immigration Plan": Illegals Have To Go!  On Monday, President Donald Trump proposed what he sees as an ideal immigration plan during a meeting with the King and Queen of Jordan at the White House. “We want a system where when people come in illegally, they have to go out,” Trump told reporters. “A nice simple system that works.” Trump said that the system that Mexico uses to deal with illegals by holding them a few hours and then sending them away is preferable to how the long, drawn out process in the united States is conducted. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. I completely agree. In fact, I've often said if we catch people close to the border, we should not even bring them into the system if they are not citizens, but walk them back over the border and make sure they keep walking. Often, by putting illegals into the system, it takes years to deport them, which costs the American people lots of money. That system would require more judges to handle more illegals and Trump ripped the calls for more judges in favor of a more "simple immigration plan." “We want strong borders and we want no crime,” Trump said. “The Democrats want open borders and they don’t care about crime.” Trump then called on Congress to correct the problems created by legislation with more legislation. “The laws are obsolete, the laws are horrible, having to do with the border, both in terms of security and in terms of taking care of people,” he said. “We want children staying together,” Trump said, blasting the New York Times report that said he didn't really want to sign his executive order last week that would keep families together in detention while they awaited the judicial process. Of course, Trump has inherited a problem that has existed for several administrations, both Republican and Democrat, for decades. It is time that Congress sure up things so that America's tax dollars are not bound up in a worthless judicial process when people are clearly in the country illegally. Sadly, too many people want more amnesty which begs the question if any of them take the law seriously in the first place. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
+One Trillion Stars  The nearest neighboring major galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The large galaxy is stunning in size and has around three times as many stars as the Milky Way does. It can easily be seen with the naked eye from Earth, and it is found in the constellation of Andromeda, from which its name originates. Far from being just a pretty sight in the sky, the Andromeda Galaxy is an impressive, turbulent patch of the cosmos. It is even expected to collide with the Milky Way years down the road. If you find that fascinating, then you are going to enjoy these ten amazing facts about the Andromeda Galaxy. 10 Also Known As Messier 31 Celestron NexStar 90SL... Buy New $309.95 (as of 04:50 EDT - Details) Our closest neighboring galaxy is also known as Messier 31 or M31. The name came from Charles Messier, the French astronomer who catalogued the large galaxy. Messier documented many objects in the skies of the Northern Hemisphere, and they are collectively known as the Messier objects or the Messier Catalog. (Note that Messier wasn’t always the first to observe the objects in his catalog.) In 1757, he had begun searching for Halley’s Comet, but the calculations given to him had sent him to a different section of the sky. That wrong section of the sky is where he observed a nebula that became the first entry in the catalog: M1, also known as the Crab Nebula. In 1764, Charles Messier added M31 to his catalog. By the end of the year, he had added a total of 38 objects. By 1781, he had logged a total of 103 objects into his catalog, 40 of which had been found by Messier himself. [1] 9 Named After The Andromeda Constellation Photo credit: Keilana, Roberta Mura If you look up into the northern night sky between Cassiopeia’s “W” asterism and the Great Square of Pegasus, you will find the constellation Andromeda. The star pattern was named after the mythical princess Andromeda, the wife of the Greek hero Perseus. The constellation was first cataloged by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy in the second century, and it is also known by the names of Chained Maiden, Persea, or Cepheis. Celestron Sky Maps Celstron Best Price: $15.97 Buy New $18.95 (as of 04:55 EDT - Details) The Andromeda constellation is also home to various other deep sky objects. Andromeda is located outside the galactic plane, and it does not contain any clusters or nebulae of the Milky Way; it does contain other visible galaxies, though. The most famous of these galaxies is, of course, the Andromeda Galaxy, which gets its name from the large constellation. The constellation is best-known for the Andromeda Galaxy, which is one of the most famous objects in the sky that can be seen with the naked eye. [2] 8 Larger Than The Milky Way In astronomy, a light-year is a commonly used unit to measure distance, but some astronomers prefer to use a unit called the parsec. When referring to something larger, they use kiloparsecs, which are equal to 1,000 parsecs, and megaparsecs, equal to one million parsecs. The Milky Way measures about 100,000 light-years or 30 kiloparsecs across. This may seem large, but it is rather small when compared to other galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy has an approximate diameter of 220,000 light years, which is more than double of that of the Milky Way. It is the largest galaxy in the Local Cluster. If it were bright enough, the Andromeda Galaxy would appear larger than the Moon in the sky (as depicted above), even with it being much farther away. The galaxy is 9.5 trillion kilometers away from Earth, whereas the Moon is only 384,400 kilometers (238,900 mi) away—that should give you a better understanding of just how big the galaxy really is. [3] Read the Whole Article
+Juanita Broaddrick: Senator Feinstein Had No Interest In My Rape Allegation  Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of rape — and who’s never ever recanted her story, in all the years she’s made the accusation — had a blunt message for Sen. Dianna Feinstein about the supposed “due process” that needs to be given to Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, and it’s one that goes like this: Where was mine? The Clinton machine did nothing but shut down Broaddrick and paint her as a liar. And now? Now things like this, from Sen. Chuck Schumer. Should I call?? https://t.co/FMUKzBU87c take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) September 21, 2018 Yet now the Democrats, including Feinstein, want to demand Christine Blasey Ford have her day in court, figuratively speaking, for her flimsy and meritless accusations against Kavanaugh? More from the Washington Times: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, has championed Brett Kavanaugh’s #MeToo accuser, but Juanita Broaddrick says the senator never showed any interest in her 1999 rape allegation against President Bill Clinton. Ms. Feinstein was elected in 1992, making her one of the few remaining senators who served during independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation into Mr. Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. “It’s absurd,” Ms. Broaddrick said Wednesday on Fox News. “Not one Democrat would look at my deposition with the independent counsel. Oh my gosh, they did not want to know about it.” She pointed to the discrepancy between Democratic lack of interest in her case and the party’s outrage over allegations of sexual assault leveled last week against Mr. Kavanaugh. “Oh, it makes me go back to 1999, when Dianne Feinstein, along with every other Democrat, refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel,” said Ms. Broaddrick told Fox’s Laura Ingraham on Monday. “They would have nothing to do with it. That shows you the difference in the double standard that existed back then and still does today.” Ms. Broaddrick has also lashed out at Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, who voted not guilty on the Clinton impeachment, as did Ms. Feinstein and Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat. “You voted NOT GUILTY on both counts at Bill Clinton’s impeachment,” she tweeted. “You didn’t give a damn back then. You, Dicky Durban [sic], are a complete FRAUD.” Ms. Broaddrick also said that if Senate Democrats want the FBI to investigate the 36-year-old accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh, they should reopen her 40-year-old case, too. If you want the FBI to go back that far @[email protected] to investigate Ford’s allegations…. let’s investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair. She has long accused Mr. Clinton of raping her a motel room in 1978 in Little Rock, when he was Arkansas attorney general. “Go back that far, let’s investigate my situation,” she said on Wednesday. “Why not? Everybody says well it was litigated and adjudicated—my case was never litigated, it was never adjudicated. It never went to court. I was never discredited at all.” Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University, has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school in Maryland. The allegation went public last week after Ms. Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she received a letter about the incident in late July and referred the matter to federal authorities a week ago. “During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable,” tweeted Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday. “She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward.” Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
+National Data | May Jobs: We Unveil The New VDAWDI | Articles  A rough patch—or a double-dip recession? Economists are increasingly befuddled at what awaits the once-great U.S. economy. And Wall Street is plainly beginning to panic. Unemployment is a case in point. It now seems obvious that one of those mysterious memos has gone out to the Main Stream Media saying that no-one can mention the immigration moratorium solution. But unemployment is befuddling anyway. Just a few weeks ago professional prognosticators were expecting job growth of 175,000 in May. However, nonfarm payroll growth came in at 54,000 in May, the smallest gain since September, and a fraction of the just lowered consensus forecast (125,000 jobs.) The "other" employment survey, of households rather than businesses, also broadcast mixed signals—at least so far as the prospects for native-born workers are concerned. VDARE.com has long argued that the household survey captures the employment of illegal aliens; additionally, it actually mentions ethnicity. In May, according to the Household Survey, total employment rose by 105,000. Non-Hispanics actually gained ground: Total employment: up 105,000 (+0.08 percent) Non-Hispanic employment: up 190,000 (+0.16 percent) Hispanic employment: down 85,000 (-0.42 percent) Thus VDAWDI—VDARE.com's American Worker Displacement Index, unveiled in 2004 and still unique—fell to 126.2 in May from April's 127.0 level. This, of course, is atypical statistical noise. Non-Hispanics have lost jobs at twice the rate of Hispanics since the recession hit in December 2007. And since the official start of the "recovery" in June 2009, Hispanics have gained 416,000 jobs while non-Hispanics have lost 675,000 positions. Step back further and the picture is still bleaker. Since January 2001 the number of non-Hispanics holding jobs has declined by 1.9 million, or by -1.6%. Over that same period Hispanic employment rose by 3.9 million, up a whopping 24.2%. Simply put, the 21st century has not been good for non-Hispanic job seekers. This Hispanic/non-Hispanic divide was, of course, a convenient proxy for VDARE.com's primary interest: foreign-born workers and their role in displacing their native-born counterparts. We tracked this by looking at Hispanics because such a high proportion of them are foreign-born—and because the federal government declined to provide data on immigrant vs. non-immigrant unemployment. However, since January 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] has begun to publish figures for foreign-born and native-born employment. These data are not seasonally adjusted, making month to month trends difficult to interpret. BLS resolves the dilemma by comparing the current month with the same month of the prior year: By this measure also, May 2011 is notable for some catching up on the part of native-born workers—at least when compared to the same month of 2010: Employment Status by Nativity, May 2010-May 2011 (numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted) May-10 May-11 Change % Change Foreign born, 16 years and older Civilian population 35,647 36,348 701 2.0% Civilian labor force 24,210 24,253 43 0.2% Participation rate (%) 67.9% 66.7% -1.2%pt. -1.8% Employed 22,125 22,216 91 0.4% Employment/population % 62.1% 61.1% -1.0%pt. -1.6% Unemployed 2,085 2,037 -48 -2.3% Unemployment rate (%) 8.6% 8.4% -0.2%pt. -2.3% Not in labor force 11,437 12,095 658 5.8% Native born, 16 years and older Civilian population 201,852 202,965 1,113 0.6% Civilian labor force 129,656 129,196 -460 -0.4% Participation rate (%) 64.2% 63.7% -0.5%pt. -0.8% Employed 117,372 117,812 440 0.4% Employment/population % 58.1% 58.0% -0.1%pt. -0.2% Unemployed 12,284 11,384 -900 -7.3% Unemployment rate (%) 9.5% 8.8% -0.7%pt. -7.4% Not in labor force 72,196 73,769 1,573 2.2% Source: BLS, "The Employment Situation - May 2011," June 3, 2011. Table A-7. PDF Thus over the past 12 months: Immigrants and native-born Americans both experienced the same 0.4% job growth, with 440,000 more natives and 91,000 more immigrants at work. A TIE . The immigrant unemployment rate fell by 0.2 points; the native-born rate fell by 0.7 points. ADVANTAGE NATIVE-BORN. The share of immigrants holding jobs fell by 1.6%; the share of natives holding jobs fell by 0.2%. ADVANTAGE NATIVE-BORN . Labor force participation rates fell by 1.2% points for immigrants and 0.8% points for natives. ADVANTAGE NATIVE-BORN . The immigrant population of working age increased by 2.0%; the comparable native population grew by 0.6%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS By an amazing coincidence, January 2009—the month President Obama took office—is also the earliest month of data published in BLS's new foreign and native-born employment table. Coincidence or not, this means we can piece together the monthly points to see the President's priorities, or at least his practical effect. Setting the job count at 100.0 for both native-born and immigrants in January 2009, immigrant employment ticked up to 102.9 in May—am increase of 2.9%. Native employment ticked down to 97.5—a 2.5% decline. We label this "The New VDAWDI". From January 2009 through May 2011 the New VDAWDI, calculated using foreign-born and native-born employment figures, grew by 5.5%. By comparison VDAWDI, calculated using Hispanic and non-Hispanic employment figures, rose by 3.3% over the same period. As we've found before, our older measure of American Worker Displacement understated the problem. In all but a few months of the Obama Administration, native-born workers have lost ground to immigrants Time is running out for native-born workers—a.k.a. Americans. Can the same be said for the Obama Administration?
+Local Police & Feds Impose INFORMATION BLACKOUT in Las Vegas Shooting  There already was a blackout on the worst mass murder in modern American history. 58 dead, hundreds wounded, the savagery of the Vegas attack is unspeakable, and still the incompetent, clueless authorities know nothing. That’s the information they seek to blackout. This botched investigation is a stunning indictment of the FBI. This is not the Soviet Union, this is not Iran or Riyadh – this is America. Where is the outrage? And while the bumbling FBI has dismissed out of hand jihad as a motive, here is what we know: ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Vegas slaughter. ISIS does not claim credit for events that are not theirs. They have double and tripled down on their claim. They have said that Stephen Paddock had converted to Islam six months ago, and they revealed his Islamic name as Abu Abd Abdulbar al Ameriki. Paddock made multiple trips to the Middle East. The FBI has not spoken of his itinerary or who he met with. His girlfriend Mari Danley had relatives in Dubai. Over 200 of Paddock’s foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible covert terrorism financing. Paddock transferred $100,000 to his girlfriend in the Philippines, now an ISIS foothold. Paddock removed the hard drive before he committed suicide. The San Bernardino jihad attackers did the same thing. If you recall, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik threw their hard drives in a lake near their home, and despite Herculean efforts by law enforcement, the hard drives were never recovered. AUTHORITIES PUT BRAKES ON INFORMATION FLOW IN LAS VEGAS SHOOTING By Rachel Crosby Las Vegas Review-Journal, October 26, 2017: Fifty-eight people killed. More than 500 injured. And yet, nearly a month after the Las Vegas Strip experienced the worst mass shooting in modern American history, local and federal authorities are refusing to fill in the blanks. It wasn’t always like this. In the days after Oct. 1, when Stephen Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest festival crowd from his Mandalay Bay corner suite, Las Vegas police were hosting multiple news conferences a day. Then, once a day. Then, once every few days. They compiled and released snippets of officers’ body camera footage. They spent several minutes answering specific questions. They released a comprehensive timeline, which ended up being wrong. They took it back, and tried to clarify the errors, but instead caused more confusion. By Oct. 13 — the last time the Metropolitan Police Department or the FBI addressed the media or public — something had changed. The sheriff, who had been straightforward and stern, was now emotional and at times combative. Both he and the FBI failed to provide much new information, and at the end of the meeting, they refused to take questions. Since that day, the only person who has shed more light on the investigation is Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos, who was shot in the leg while approaching the gunman’s room. His platform to share that information? “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” which aired last week. He hasn’t made himself available to the media since. “It doesn’t matter,” FBI spokeswoman Sandra Breault told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Thursday, when asked why there had been no significant updates in two weeks. “It’s an ongoing investigation, and unless there’s something to report, there will not be a briefing.” Calls to the national FBI office were forwarded back to Breault at the Las Vegas office. At least twice this week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has asked to speak with Sheriff Joe Lombardo about the shooting investigation. Both times, reporters were told by Carla Alston, the Police Department’s director of communications, that the sheriff “will not be conducting interviews.” “As he has stated previously, the case is still ongoing” she said in an email Thursday. “Another media briefing will be held when we have new and accurate information.” When asked when that briefing would be, Alston guessed it could occur in the next two weeks. The Review-Journal also specifically asked about the more than 50,000 hours of overtime that Metro officers have logged since Oct. 1 on work directly related to the shooting investigation. “Investigators have made progress on investigative leads and in mapping out Stephen Paddock’s life for the last few years — and they’re still not done,” Alston said. “We still have officers dedicated to this case 24/7.” She agreed that members of the public have a right to know more, “but they have a right to accurate information and not the speculation … that has filled so many news stories the past month.” Nearly a month after the mass shooting, the gunman’s motive remains a mystery. More straightforward questions also remain unanswered, including whether the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay — where the gunman was staying — has surveillance cameras, and what exactly investigators collected in the gunman’s hotel room and homes. Authorities also have not said how long the gunman had a “do not disturb” sign on his hotel door, and whether hotel staff saw something suspicious in his room but failed to report it. Though authorities have described the investigation as a team effort, they have not explained what role Las Vegas police, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are playing in the case. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller. Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books
+No Justice for Kate Steinle  A San Francisco jury on Thursday found Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, also known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, not guilty of the murder of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier on July 1, 2015. The jury of six men and six women, including three immigrants, found the Mexican national not guilty of all murder and manslaughter charges and guilty only of felony possession of a firearm. For Garcia’s Zarate’s attorney, Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election, the trial was all about Donald Trump. “For those who might criticize this verdict – there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years,” Gonzalez said after the verdict, “the Attorney General of the United States and the President and Vice President of the United States. Let me just remind them, they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case.” “From day one this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation,” added defense attorney Francisco Ugarte. “It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy of hate of others. I believe today is a day of vindication for the rights of immigrants.” Alex Bastian of the San Francisco prosecutor’s office told reporters the verdict “was not the one we were hoping for,” but the Steinle family could be forgiven for any reasonable doubts about the prosecution. “We’re just shocked — saddened and shocked ... that’s about it,” Jim Steinle, Kate’s father, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “There’s no other way you can coin it. Justice was rendered, but it was not served.” Kate’s brother Brad was “stunned that they couldn’t even get him on using the weapon.” Attorney David Wohl told Fox News that with negligent discharge of a firearm, the defendant’s action met every standard for involuntary manslaughter. The verdict, Wohl said, was “an utter and complete and total failure by the prosecutor.” Conservative Ben Shapiro told Fox news the verdict was “horrifying. . . Politics trumps evidence in California once again.” For Jeff Sessions San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy “led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.” According to the Attorney General’s statement, the Justice Department “will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their communities above the convenience of criminal aliens.” For his part, President Trump tweeted: “A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.” Mexican national Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 54, is a seven-time felon and has been deported five times. In 2015 federal authorities sought to detain him for deportation. San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi chose to defy the feds and release the Mexican national. On July 1, 2015, the criminal illegal picked up a Sig Sauer .40 caliber pistol, stolen from a Bureau of Land Management officer, and fired the shot that killed Kate Steinle, only 32 years old. The Mexican nation and career criminal enjoyed all the rights of the American legal system, the presumption of innocence, and a high-profile defense attorney funded by American taxpayers. During the trial, former vice presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez claimed that Garcia Zarate’s background and nationality played a role in his prosecution. As Gonzalez argued, “If this was a college student or Swedish kid would he be charged with murder?” That sort of politically correct nonsense plays well in San Francisco, so any observer of the case could be forgiven for believing that prosecution and defense both got the outcome they wanted, regardless of the tragedy for the Steinle family. The felony firearms charge, the only charge on which Garcia Zarate was found guilty, carries a sentence of 16 months to 3 years. Since Garcia Zarate has been languishing in jail, the authorities could commute any sentence to time served and he could walk free within weeks. San Francisco is not likely to hand the felon over to ICE for deportation. Should that happen, Garcia Zarate has already proved five times that anybody can get away with violating U.S. immigration law. He has already proved that in the sanctuary state of California, false-documented illegals are a privileged class. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, or whatever his real name is, has also proved that a career criminal who is not even supposed to be in the country can literally get away with murder in broad daylight. When that happens, the killer’s public defender will call it a “vindication for the rights of immigrants.” In San Francisco, and across California, this verdict will surely give new meaning to the cry of “no justice, no peace.”
+Did Oakland Mayor Tip Off La Raza to ICE Raid?  The story of the Oakland mayor who tipped off illegal alien criminals to ICE raids resulting in rapists and child sex offenders escaping arrest just keeps getting worse. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf shocked the nation when she issued a tweet and press release on February 24 warning about impending ICE raids. Schaaf refuses to say how she learned about the ICE raids, only saying it was not from official sources. “I felt that it was my duty to share the information,” Schaaf said. Whatever the leak pipeline looked like, it's good odds that it began with Obama holdovers ensconced in the government. In emails we obtained through a public records request, we didn’t find out who her sources were, but we do know who she was talking to before she made her big announcement. Emails reveal that hours before the announcement, a group called Centro Legal de la Raza sent the mayor information on what employers should do in case of an ICE raid. Hours before the public was warned about ICE raids, some Oakland businesses got a head start, thanks to the mayor. According to emails, the Oakland Indie Alliance, a group of independent businesses, got a message saying “Important Alert! Credible information ICE Raids in Oakland Sunday 2/25 and Monday 2/26” and “This information comes directly from the Mayor.” Now that last part is significant. Because there is no doubt that businesses employing illegal aliens are committing a crime. It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States.. An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien’s illegal employment. Any business that tips off illegal aliens admits that it is aware of their status. By passing along the warning, Mayor Schaaf was tipping off criminals committing a felony.
+9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad  [Pre-Order Jamie Glazov's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us, HERE.] Editors’ note: In light of the skyrocketing phenomenon of Muslim migrants stabbing unbelievers in random stabbing sprees in Europe, as well as the calculated denial that leaders, authorities and media are enforcing about it, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to the crucial steps America and the West must take to robustly confront the unceasing onslaught by Jihad and its leftist enablers. We are, therefore, reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s July 12, 2016 Breitbart article, "9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad". Having written the article in the closing chapter of the disastrous Obama administration, the author recognizes and celebrates the life-saving turn-around disposition that the Trump administration has brought in to counter Jihad. Frontpage is most confident that the suggested steps below will continue to be the overall focus of the new administration -- which, thankfully, is now taking many of the crucial and constructive steps vis-à-vis our enemy. We find the article more relevant and urgent than ever due to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 approaching tomorrow: * 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad. By Jamie Glazov While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor. Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism: 1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment. The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law). 2. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.” “Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country. For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security. The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage. 3. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups. The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it. 4. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy. After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them. Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing. 5. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign. The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch. Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam. Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.” The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands. 6. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious. Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious. 7. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools. Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5). Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now. 8. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government. Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam. (P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.) 9. Ridicule the Enemy. Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Sharia and Jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches. Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces. We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other. Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at [email protected]
+Archbishop Viganò Speaks, the Neo-Catholics Panic  In his eleven-page account, affirmed under oath, the Archbishop, marking a turning point in Church history, declares that senior Vatican officials, including former Secretaries of State Angelo Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone as well as Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, coordinator of Pope Bergoglio’s “Council of Cardinals”, covered up McCarrick’s decades of sexual predation and that Bergoglio himself continued the coverup. This article was first written to address the neo-Catholic commentator Massimo Faggioli’s attempt , following the Pennsylvania grand jury report and the fall of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, to minimize the homosexual crisis in the Church and blunt the correlative rise of what he derides as “neo-traditionalism.” As my piece was about to go to press, however, EWTN’s National Catholic Register broke the explosive story on the written testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò , former apostolic nuncio to the United States (2011 to 2016). Faggioli’s propaganda piece now becomes merely illustrative of the points to be made here in light of this astonishing and indeed providential development. Regarding Bergoglio, Viganò testifies that in 2013 he personally informed him about McCarrick’s history, the dossier of the Congregation for Bishops on his sexual crimes against boys and young men, and the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon him by Benedict XVI (forbidding residence in a seminary, public appearances and Masses). Evidently already aware of these facts, however, Bergoglio not only rehabilitated McCarrick but made him a “trusted counselor” who advised the elevation of the pro-homosexual prelates Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin and Kevin Farrell to the College of Cardinals and the prominent episcopal sees they now discredit. All of this happened before Bergoglio, bowing to worldwide public pressure, finally—only weeks ago—took decisive action against his “trusted counselor.” McCarrick had lobbied for Bergoglio’s election, along with Maradiaga and the infamous Cardinal Danneels, who covered up homosexual rape committed by a priest against his own nephew,has supported “same-sex marriage,” and advised the King of Belgium to sign a law legalizing abortion in 1990. As Edward Pentin notes: “all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.” Viganò concludes his testimony by declaring that all of the prelates involved (many others are implicated), including Bergoglio, should resign their offices for the good of the Church. As to Bergoglio in particular, he courageously states openly the truth that so many of his brethren know but fear to speak in public: I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.” [emphasis in original] If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church! [my emphasis] Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock. In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them. [emphasis in original] Before he was papal nuncio in Washington, Viganò headed the Governorate of Vatican City State after having served as Nuncio in Nigeria, a Delegate for the Pontifical Representatives of the Secretary of State of the Holy See and a Member of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia. In those capacities he had access to documents and witnesses that corroborate his own firsthand testimony. With Viganò’s testimony, the widespread homosexual infiltration of the post-Vatican II hierarchy, from the top on down, now emerges mountainously into view, never to be buried again. Even before that testimony, however, the fall of McCarrick and the Pennsylvania grand jury report had already presented a Sisyphean task to neo-Catholic apologists for the decrepit Novus Ordo status quo and the ill-starred Council that launched its installation. Yet there is little doubt they will continue the same polemic that for nearly sixty years has doggedly defended every one of the ruinous “reforms” that have resulted in a debacle without equal in Church history, even considering the Arian crisis of the 4th century. Those “reforms” included abandonment of the Vatican’s strict pre-conciliar instruction (1961) that “advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” Today, neo-Catholic commentators, cowed by the demands of political correctness, refuse to state the simple truth that homosexuality is a perversion that precludes ordination as does any other grave psychological disorder. Kill the Messenger I suspect that not even Viganò’s historic testimony will change the neo-Catholic position. Quite the contrary, I would expect the neo-Catholic commentariat either to ignore Viganò’s witness, explain away his revelations or, failing that, make every effort to smear the man. The campaign to discredit Archbishop Viganò began instantaneously on the Catholic left wing. Only hours after Viganò’s sworn testimony appeared online, the professional Catholic dissident Sean Michael Winters, writing for National Catholic Reporter, smeared the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, who holds doctorates in both civil and canon law, as “a trafficker in conspiracy theories who mixes fact, fiction and venom,” “more than a little obsessed with homosexuality”—like Oliver Stone, who “was obsessed with the grassy knoll”—“a disgruntled former employee” and “always a crackpot.” Without addressing the merits, Winters dismissed Archbishop Viganò’s “wild claims” about bishops who are “subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality” and accused the Archbishop, along with unnamed other bishops and archbishops, of “speak[ing] about gay people with such hatred…” Winters issues the dire warning that “A putsch is afoot and if the U.S. bishops do not, as a body, stand up to defend the Holy Father in the next 24 hours, we shall be slipping towards schism long before the bishops’ meeting in November. The enemies of Francis have declared war.” Notice that for Winters it is not the Church or the integrity of her doctrine and discipline that must be defended against enemies, but only Bergoglio and the regime of novelty he is leading to its final extremity. John Allen’s instant analysis attempting to impeach Viganò’s testimony is, as one would expect from him, a bit craftier. His opinion is: “Take it seriously, but with a large grain of salt.” Which is just Allen’s more nuanced way of saying: “Don’t believe it.” Allen’s view is supported by such irrelevancies as the fact that Viganò’s account implicates “no fewer than 32 senior churchmen” (so what? ), that he “has a history” of “innuendo and conspiracy theories” (a gratuitous assertion unsupported by evidence of falsity), that he allegedly quashed an investigation of Archbishop John Nienstedt and ordered evidence destroyed (an allegation Viganò has immediately and categorically denied with conclusive supporting documents, but in any event a tuo quoque fallacy) and that Allen has “the impression that all this was orchestrated with a political agenda in mind” (the same “conspiracy theory” mentality he gratuitously attributes to Viganò). Mark Shea, easily the most insufferable of the neo-Catholic polemicists, has quickly followed Winters and Allen in trying to cast doubt on Viganò ’s claims. Ignoring eleven pages of detail, written and published under oath, he suggests there has been no “Documentation. Evidence. Proof.” Yes, Francis should resign if Viganò ’s allegations are true, Shea admits—a stunning concession coming from him. Yet, making no attempt to refute Viganò’s account on the merits, he tries to wave it all aside with his usual mode of argument—puerile mockery: “But at present, the eagerness of the Greatest Catholics of All Time to believe and repeat everything their itching ears want to hear about this Pope whose living guts they have hated from the moment of his election only tells in his favor, not against it.” Shea’s ever-expanding opus of digital invective never seems to rise above this sort of crude ad hominem attack: Well, if those people believe it, it can’t be true. The neo-Catholic propaganda mill will have a very difficult time smearing this witness, however. Speaking to Catholic News Agency, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, who served as first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington, confirmed that “Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” when he stated in his sworn account that Nuncio Pietro Sambi conveyed to McCarrick at the Nunciature in Washington the sanctions that had been imposed on him by Pope Benedict—sanctions Bergoglio ignored for five years until forced to act by a worldwide storm of outrage. Furthermore, a series of prelates has vouched for Viganò’s character and credibility: - Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas has gone so far as to order all the priests in his diocese to read from the pulpit a statement that he finds Viganò’s allegations credible. - Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, issued a statement affirming that he has known Viganò for 39 years, has “always known and respected him as a man of truthfulness, faith and integrity” and that his testimony should “be taken seriously by all…” - Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, Michigan issued a statement calling Viganò’s account “another daunting challenge to our confidence in the reliability of the Church’s leadership, during a summer of devastating news regarding clergy sexual abuse and infidelity.” (The statement has since apparently been scrubbed from the diocesan website.) - Bishop Athanasius Schneider declares: “Archbishop Viganò confirmed his statement by a sacred oath invoking the name of God. There is, therefore, no reasonable and plausible cause to doubt the truth content of the document of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.” - Cardinal Raymond Burke’s statement declares: “The declarations made by a prelate of the authority of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be totally taken to heart by those responsible in the Church.” - [And just two days ago, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco wrote a letter to his faithful which "speaks to Vigano's integrity and sincere love of the Church."] In another setback for the propaganda machine gearing up to impeach Viganò’s testimony, the Catholic Herald has just reported that Cardinal Wuerl must have known full well from Viganò himself that McCarrick was under Pope Benedict’s papal sanctions on account of his sexual misconduct because, as an Archdiocesan spokesman now confirms, at Viganò’s request as then papal nuncio Wuerl had to cancel a public appearance by McCarrick not long before Bergoglio’s election. The Herald asks the obvious question: “[I]f Cardinal Wuerl was unaware of the sanctions, and unaware of the reason for them, why did he ask no questions of the nuncio regarding the reason for his demand?” The question answers itself, and Viganò’s testimony on this critical point stands confirmed by Wuerl’s own spokesman. Bergoglio Pleads the Fifth Bergoglio himself, however, has already precluded any attempt to impeach Viganò’s testimony. During the return flight from Dublin after the “World Meeting of Familes,” he was asked to comment on Viganò ’s allegations that he had informed Bergoglio of McCarrick’s crimes in 2013 as well as the sanctions imposed by Benedict. Bergoglio declined to incriminate himself: Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this. I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions. It is an act of trust. When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it, but I would like your professional maturity to do this work. It will do you all good, really. In other words, as Bergoglio cannot deny the allegations without lying, he will say nothing at all about them in the hope they will go away—with the help of sycophants in the Vatican press corps and shifty polemicists like Shea, who expects his readers to swallow his explanation that Bergoglio’s refusal to say anything in his defense when asked point blank about the charges against him “seems to me to obviously be the reply of somebody who believes the accusations are groundless…”. Seems to be. Obviously. The American “Gay” Church Expansion While events have overtaken Faggioli’s piece, it will remain useful here as a prime example of the neo-Catholic polemic. That polemic seeks to shore up the collapsing Novus Ordo establishment lest it give way to the dreaded traditionalist revival. But before I address Faggioli’s latest defense of the indefensible, some background is in order, including a discussion of further key details of Viganò’s testimony. First of all, as I predicted 16 years ago, because the Vatican under John Paul II had no intention of enforcing the pre-conciliar ban on admission of homosexuals to the seminary “a new bumper crop of homosexual ordinands is guaranteed—and with it a new harvest of scandal for the Church.” That prediction came immediately after the “pedophile summit” of 2002 in Rome, which I attended as The Remnant’s correspondent. In answer to my question then head of the USCCB, Wilton Gregory, made an explosive admission reportedby the international press: “it is an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.” The struggle, to the extent there even was one, obviously has been lost. Sixteen years later, the homosexual predator McCarrick has finally been exposed to the world, stripped of his cardinal’s hat and deprived of any ministry, but only after international media coverage of the Vatican’s semi-secret finding that McCarrick had raped a teenage altar boy 47 years ago. If not for that one case, McCarrick’s sixty years of homosexual debauchery might well have gone unpunished in this world and he would have died still possessed of all the phony honors that had been heaped upon him throughout his career as a parasite in the Body of Christ, including the favor shown to him by Bergoglio. The telling details of Archbishop Viganò’s testimony concerning Bergoglio’s friendly relations with McCarrick before he finally had to cut him loose—details conveniently ignored by Winters, Allen and Shea—are utterly devastating to any defense of Bergoglio. This would explain why he will not a “say a word about” Viganò’s charges against him. The Archbishop reveals, as already noted, that Pope Benedict imposed sanctions on McCarrick under which he “was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.” Viganò further reveals that those sanctions were communicated to McCarrick by then Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi, but were also repeated by Viganò himself when he succeeded Sambi as Nuncio: I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance. Viganò testifies that on June 23, 2013, he obtained a private audience with Bergoglio after having encountered McCarrick at the Pope’s residence three days earlier, during which encounter McCarrick had told him with an air of triumph: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China” (evidently to assist in negotiating Bergoglio’s planned sellout of China’s underground Catholics to the Communist dictators of Beijing). Viganò wanted to know why McCarrick had apparently been relieved of the sanctions. During the audience Bergoglio queried: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” and Viganò replied with the truth Bergoglio obviously did not want to hear: I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not…. It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews…. He [Bergoglio] knew from at least June 23, 2013 [the date of the audience with Viganò] that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action to save his image in the media. [all emphasis in original] Before his long overdue fall McCarrick, as Bergoglio’s “trusted counselor,” had been instrumental in cementing into place the homosexual-friendly status quo of the American episcopate that oppresses and defrauds the faithful. It was McCarrick, noted Marco Tosatti, who was behind the elevation of Blase Cupich to the key position of Archbishop of Chicago, where Cupich has since promoted the homosexual subversion of Father James Martin. And Viganò now confirms Tosatti’s allegation: “The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.” That is, the normal process was circumvented for these appointments. Remnant readers may recall that I spotted Cupich back in 2002, when he was the obscure Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, as an example of what was coming in the Novus Ordo: accelerated degeneration. As I wrote back then, with the likes of Cupich in view: Cupich is the very model of a Novus Ordo bishop. He is the very exemplar of the crisis we must still endure…. Let the thing die of its own excesses, for as the “little synod” [the 2002 “pedophile summit”] demonstrates, the men who control this establishment will never restore it to anything resembling the vibrant Church that a long line of militant, uncompromising Popes delivered into their hands at Vatican II. For heaven’s sake, the men who govern the Church today require a Vatican summit meeting to agonize over whether serial child molesters should be defrocked. From the Vatican on down, through deliberate decisions and criminal neglect, the servitors of Vatican II have laid waste to the liturgy, the perennial clarity of Catholic teaching, the Church’s militant opposition to worldly thinking, the traditional formation in seminaries, the religious orders, the missions, the trust of the faithful in their own priests—in short, the very life of the Church—and dare to call it a renewal. We must no longer subsidize the malpractice of the architects of ruin. Nor must we join the neo-Catholics in their mindless applause when one of these incompetents attempts to repoint a brick or two in the crumbling façade they have erected to obscure the Church of old. As for William (“nighty-night baby!”) Tobin, after McCarrick had arranged for him to become Archbishop of Newark, Tobin, another episcopal booster of Martin’s pro-homosexual propaganda, promptly sponsored a “gay pilgrimage” to his cathedral in Newark. And it was McCarrick who obtained the cardinal’s hat for his roommate of six years, Kevin Farrell, whom he consecrated a bishop. Farrell, yet another promoter of Martin’s homosexual activism, arranged for Martin to “welcome ‘gay’ families” at the “World Meeting of Families” in Dublin from which Bergoglio has just returned. Finally, there is the appointment of the “pro-gay” Robert McElroy as Bishop of San Diego, concerning which Viganò reveals: “The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: ‘Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.’ McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.” Like Cupich, Tobin and Farrell, McElroy is an avid promoter of Martin’s homosexual subversion of the Church, calling opposition to Martin symptomatic of a “cancer of vilification [that] is seeping into the institutional life of the church.” Emboldened by the certainty that he will face no discipline whatsoever, Martin, now backed by “Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy,” as Viganò testifies, is urging all the “gay priests” to “come out,” including those ordained since the useless “pedophile summit” presided over by none other than McCarrick as the classic fox in charge of the hen house. But Bergoglio has also lent his own authority to Martin’s effort to mainstream homosexuality in the Church. As Viganò notes, it was Bergoglio who made Martin a “Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications,” even though he is a “well-known activist who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families…” “Father” Martin now confidently declares, sixteen years after the “pedophile summit,” that “The idea of a purge of gay priests is both ridiculous and dangerous. Any purge would empty parishes and religious orders of the thousands of priests and bishops who lead healthy lives of service and faithful lives of celibacy.” Martin thus revels in smug certitude that the future of the universal Church is in the hands of legions of intrinsically disordered homosexual bishops and priests and their homosexual successors, who will perpetuate an existing worldwide homosexual network, and that there is absolutely nothing we can or should do about it. A Worldwide Network of Corruption, Beginning at the Top None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the homosexual invasion of the Catholic hierarchy is confined to American prelates and priests. The spread of clerical sodomy has not respected national boundaries but rather extends throughout the Church under the eyes of a Vatican apparatus that is itself thoroughly infested with homosexuals. This is thanks in large measure to Bergoglio, who made a flagrantly active homosexual, Monsignor Battista Ricca, “prelate of the gay lobby,” no less than head of his papal household. Moreover, it was Bergoglio’s right hand man, Cardinal Maradiaga, who sheltered his friend, Juan José Pineda, auxiliary Bishop of Tegucigalpa, from any discipline over his notorious homosexual liaisons with seminarians in that diocese. When an apostolic visitation, compelled by mounting public pressure, confirmed the charges against Pineda, he was forced to resign, even as Maradiaga dismissed the incontestable proofs against him as “slander.” Viganò notes that “the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.” Despite the fall of his friend Pineda, Maradiaga continues todefend and protect the homosexual corruption of his own seminary, involving incontrovertible evidence of rampant sodomy among the seminarians he refuses to dismiss, rejecting all the evidence as “gossip.” Concerning Maradiaga, who is also mired in financial corruption for which he offers no credible explanation, Viganò provides this withering assessment of the man and his relation to Bergoglio: In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, [McCarrick] had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops….. By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See…. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First, he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati. On the very day Archbishop Viganò’s testimony was made public, Sandro Magister summed up the entire state of affairs in the Church universal after decades of unrestricted homosexual migration into the hierarchy, to which Bergoglio has contributed mightily: “From the seminaries, to the clergy, to the bishops, to the cardinals, homosexuals are present at all levels, by the thousand.” Archbishop Viganò now provides his own decisive summary of the situation, based on firsthand experience with a now endemic homosexual corruption of the Church: Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote: “The problem of clergy abuse cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church. [emphasis added] Defending the Council by Defending the Homosexual Status Quo At this moment, the entire Novus Ordo regime of novelty is threatened with collapse on account of its homosexual corruption, and voices throughout the Catholic world are now echoing Archbishop Viganò’s call for Bergoglio’s resignation, including Laura Ingraham: “Too little, too late from Pope Francis in Ireland. I stand with Archbishop Carlo Vigano. Time for the laity to demand a new Shepherd.” Even Michael Voris, in a highly amusing example of leading from behind, has finally abandoned his absurd refusal to criticize this pontificate and now declares with a screaming headline: “Pope Francis Must Resign.” Nearly three years ago, seeing what was certainly coming on the disastrous course Bergoglio had already clearly established, this newspaper published a petition which states: “We your subjects respectfully petition Your Holiness to change course for the good of the Church and the welfare of souls. Failing this, would it not be better for Your Holiness to renounce the Petrine office than to preside over what threatens to be a catastrophic compromise of the Church’s integrity?” Our petition was of course dismissed as “ridiculous” by the neo-Catholic commentariat. Today, our ridiculous suggestion is the stuff of mainstream news. From the neo-Catholic perspective, the events of recent days present a terrifying prospect: the final collapse of the Novus Ordo establishment, an end to the conciliar aggiornamento and a revival of integral Tradition, which growing numbers of young people are seeking. Hence even before Archbishop Viganò had come forward, commentators like Faggioli were already sounding the neo-Catholic air raid siren. Faggioli fretted that “[t]he abuse scandal and delegitimization of the episcopate has created a great power vacuum in the Church” that could be filled by the “neo-traditionalist Catholicism of the younger generations of American Catholics” who “attack American bishops and cardinals close to Pope Francis.” Accordingly, he rushed to the defense of Bergoglio and his corrupt regime against “a radicalization of religious conservatism in the neo-traditionalism sense...” For Faggioli, not only would Bergoglio’s resignation be unthinkable, so also would a purge of the homosexual and pro-homosexual prelates Bergoglio and his Vatican henchmen have systematically enabled. The Pope, he argues, is not “the CEO of the Catholic Church world, and the bishops as its managers whom the Pope can simply fire.” No, Bergoglio cannot “simply fire” bishops. Except whenever he pleases, as we have seen again and again with the conservative bishops and even Cardinals (Burke and Müller) he has sacked because their conservatism offended him or one of his friends, prompting even Crux to ask: “Does Pope Francis have an enemies list?” Then again, Francis even obtained the removal of his own “trusted counselor” McCarrick from the College of Cardinals, albeit only when forced to act due to worldwide condemnation in the media. So, according to Faggioli, the same Pope who sacks conservative bishops and cardinals according to his pleasure and has just removed a cardinal from the College of Cardinals in an unprecedented disciplinary act under fire from the media, is somehow powerless to dismiss Modernist bishops who have created an obscene “gay culture” in the Church and replace them with orthodox, normal heterosexual males. Francis cannot “simply fire” even Cardinal Wuerl, who covered up crimes of homosexual predation by the priests he transferred elsewhere while Archbishop of Pittsburgh, and who authorized payment of $900,000 in hush money to bury sexual abuse claims against a homosexual priest involved in the production of child pornography. Wuerl, says Faggioli, “faces a complex situation: on the one hand Wuerl was not afraid of clashing with the tribunal over the Apostolic Signatura in the Vatican which wanted to readmit a priest from the Pittsburgh diocese to ministry… while in other cases he seems to have collaborated in covering up some cases… It is a very difficult position also because Wuerl became a symbol… beyond the specific accusations against him, from which he could not publicly defend himself.” In other words, because his situation is “complex” Wuerl, unlike McCarrick, should remain a cardinal and the Archbishop of Washington, DC, thus maintaining a key bulwark against the “neo-traditionalist” threat. Yet, as the Pennsylvania grand jury report documents, Wuerl assisted McCarrick in the coverup of his crimes and now brazenly lies about it. Here too Viganò’s testimony sheds light on the darkness: …. I myself brought up the subject [of McCarrick] with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained? His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well. Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it! Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk. [emphasis in original] What really concerns Faggioli and those who think like him is not Wuerl and his “complex situation,” which is not complex at all. Rather, what he views with alarm as an “essential element” of the context in which Wuerl operates is that “scandals are also the opportunity for the neo-traditionalist Catholicism of the younger generations of American Catholics to attack American bishops and cardinals close to Pope Francis….” Better a thousand septuagenarian Wuerls in their lavish sties of corruption, financed by the faithful, than a single, young neo-traditionalist prelate! But what exactly is a neo-traditionalist? Quite simply: an orthodox Catholic who has had enough of the homosexual-infested regime of novelty imposed on the Church by the old men of the Council, Bergoglio merely being the latest, the highest placed, and one of the last. As Faggioli puts it: “In the last fifteen years, the American Catholic Church has been traversed by a radicalization of religious conservatism in the neo-traditionalism sense, especially in the younger generations of priests and intellectuals. They interpret the current abuse crisis as fruit of the mistakes of the Council itself and not only of the post-Council…” Just as Faggioli fears, many in the up-and-coming generation of Catholic clergy and laity recognize the obvious: that the conciliar texts, for all their prolix repetition of traditional teaching, opened the way to ecclesial disaster. Because in those texts—above all Gaudium et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate and Sacrosanctum Concilium—the Council verbally prostrated itself before “the modern world” and the practitioners of other religions while authorizing Bugnini (Secretary of the liturgical Preparatory Commission that drafted what would become Sacrosanctum Concilium) to begin demolition of the sacred liturgy that was the very foundation Catholic of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. To quote Paul VI, then in the depths of his conciliar delirium at the Council’s close: But one must realize that this council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the council over the modern world of humanity…. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world’s values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed. [emphasis added] Thus did Paul describe the conciliar “opening to the world” through which the world promptly invaded the Church, including large numbers of homosexuals who should never have been admitted to the seminary. In sum, Faggioli is representative of the thinking that requires defense of a homosexualized clergy if only for the reason that tradition-minded Catholics cannot be allowed to take their place: “This neo-traditionalist Catholicism believes that sexual abuses are committed only by homosexual clergy… and that the crisis of abuse can be resolved by a kind of Catholic Jacobinism that should eliminate all bishops and priests minimally engaged in dialogue with modern culture, and replaced by a young clergy marked by personal sanctity but also by a fascination for a mythical Middle Ages and the rejection of a Church-world relationship based on a principle of reality.” Rather than “young clergy marked by personal sanctity,” the neo-Catholic mentality Faggioli exemplifies prefers that homosexual priests and bishops be kept in place in order to continue the “dialogue with modern culture.” It is not the integrity of the Faith that matters but only perpetuation of the post-conciliar regime of novelty. Any abandonment of the regime must be viewed as ecclesiastical treason—“Catholic Jacobinism”—if not criminal activity. Faggioli would probably be more inclined to civil or criminal prosecution of “Catholic Jacobins” for “hate speech” than Novus Ordo bishops for their complicity in covering up homosexual rapes. “Homosexuality in the clergy exists and is a matter that must be addressed,” Faggioli fleetingly acknowledges toward the end of his piece, “but the abuse crisis cannot be resolved by making homosexuals within the Church the scapegoat of a scandal that has ancient roots, well before Vatican Council II.” And how does the Church “address” a massive infestation by homosexual priests and prelates without removing them from authority and ensuring that they cannot promote homosexual successors for generation after generation? Faggioli has no answer because what he is really arguing—the final beachhead of the neo-Catholic defense of their disintegrating regime—is that homosexuals in the hierarchy must remain in authority as an indispensable seawall against a “neo-traditionalist” storm surge. Faggioli’s argument demonstrates that neo-Catholicism has never been about making the authentic Faith more appealing to a “modern world” founded precisely on a rejection of the Church’s authority. It is not about the Faith at all. Rather, it is an ideological movement dedicated to the face-saving defense of a catastrophic failure in ecclesial innovation that has corrupted the human element of the Church in practically every department. For people like Faggioli, indeed for the tradition-hating Pope they blindly defend, the one thing to be feared is that more and more faithful will recognize the neo-Catholic polemic for what it is—a fraud—and begin demanding a return of everything the regime of novelty has stolen from the life of the Church. That is exactly what a growing number of Catholics are now doing, as even the secular press recognized less than three months before Bergoglio began his tyrannical reign. In this respect, what the neo-Catholics are defending at bottom is themselves—that is, the reputations they have all staked on their defense of the indefensible against the traditionalists they have arrogantly mocked and marginalized for decades only to see, to their horror, that traditionalism is ever more vindicated as the scandals of the Novus Ordo mount under this reckless Pope to an unsustainable, indeed apocalyptic, level. A return to integral Tradition is the threat that Faggioli sees as coming particularly from the young. Irony of ironies, he is now reduced to defending what is old and tired and corrupt against a restoration, led largely by a youthful vanguard, of what is ever ancient but ever new. For some, it seems, no price is too great—not even the good of the Church—to avoid the personal ignominy of being seen on the wrong side of history. Conclusion: The Fatima Connection Long before the arrival of Bergoglio in Rome, the successive Vatican Secretaries of State, Angelo Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone, were instrumental in advancing the homosexual corruption of the Novus Ordo establishment. As to Bertone and Sodano, Viganò provides further vital testimony: Nuncio Sambi’s report [on McCarrick’s sexual abuse], with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict…. Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information [concerning McCarrick] was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by McCarrick. It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the cover-up. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocably condemned. It is no coincidence that, as I detail in my book on the Third Secret of Fatima, Sodano and Bertone have also taken the leading role in suppressing the integral Secret and reducing the Message of Fatima in general to a generic prescription for personal piety, stripped of its prophetic and admonitory content regarding the epochal malfeasance and corruption of the upper hierarchy to which they belong. Concerning my book, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Viganò’s predecessor as Nuncio in Washington, whom Viganò’ credits with diligently reporting McCarrick’s crimes to the Vatican and conveying Benedict’s sanctions to McCarrick, made some very revealing comments during an interview with Robert Moynihan, published posthumously six years ago in Inside the Vatican: We were discussing the Third Secret of Fatima, the allegations that the Vatican has not published the entire text of the Third Secret as revealed to Sister Lucia, and the response of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, in a book where Bertone states that there is nothing more to be revealed. Sambi said, “Excuse me.” He got up, went out of the room, and came back with a book. “Here,” he said. “Do you know this book? You should read it.” It was Christopher Ferrara's The Secret Still Hidden. “Wait,” I said. “You are the Pope’s representative in the US, and you are urging me to read a book that questions what the secretary of state wrote?” Sambi replied, “All I am saying is that there are interesting things worth reading in this book. And in the end, we are all after the truth, aren’t we? The truth is the important thing...” The truth is indeed the important thing. And the truth about our situation is revealed in that still-hidden part of the Secret to whose contents Pope Benedict alluded during his pilgrimage to Fatima in 2010, identifying elements that do not appear at all in the obscure vision published back in 2000, which Sodano and Bertone tried to pass of as the entirety of the Secret at the same time they were covering up homosexual corruption in high places: As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church, and that the Church thus has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn forgiveness on the one hand, but also the need for justice. [emphasis added] I believe that Archbishop Viganò’s precious testimony is a sign that Heaven itself is now responding to the “need for justice” in the Church. Whether or not justice involves the resignation of the most wayward Pope in Church history, the inevitable season of justice will culminate in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Church’s restoration. This will be a final victory over the enemies within and their apologists, such as Faggioli, who, in typical neo-Catholic style, imperiously scoffs at the notion of “a young clergy marked by personal sanctity but also by a fascination for a mythical Middle Ages” and busies himself defending an unsalvageable mass of corruption he dares to describe as “a Church-world relationship based on a principle of reality.” I can only conclude by making my own these closing words of Archbishop Viganò:
+London Borough With Highest Percentage Of Muslims In UK Votes To Ban Trump From Entering  I’m sure President Trump is deeply disappointed in not being able to enter Tower Hamlets. But this ridiculous exercise in virtue-signaling, even though it has not (yet) been taken up by the Home Office, only highlights Britain’s hypocrisy and double standards regarding who can enter the country and who cannot. Pamela Geller and I are banned from entering the country for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. Meanwhile, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.” Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. “London: Muslim Enclave Votes to ‘Ban Trump,’” by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, January 20, 2018: A London borough – which has the highest percentage of Muslims in the UK – has voted to ban U.S. President Donald J. Trump for the area, declaring him a “bigot”. The council has been at the centre of serious corruption scandals, including the removal of an Islamist mayor who was found guilty of bribing Muslim groups and wielding “undue spiritual influence” on Muslim voters. The anti-Trump motion, proposed by Councillor Ohid Ahmed and Councillor Oliur Rahman, passed by a majority vote this week. It calls for President Trump’s planned state visit to the United Kingdom to be cancelled, adding: “Should the Government still choose to go ahead with State Visit, this Council makes clear that President Trump would not be welcome in our Borough.” The area in East London includes the famous Tower Bridge and Canary Wharf, but the ban does not appear to be enforceable. The current Labour mayor, John Biggs, complained that President Trump “doesn’t applaud diversity [and] doesn’t respect the culture of others and doesn’t respect women”. The mayor added: “He is failing in his leadership and we should not welcome him here. We must be vigorous in our intolerance of his intolerance.” In response to the news, Peter Golds, the leader of the Conservatives group in the council, tweeted: “In 2015 one of the Tower Hamlets First election candidates tweeted ‘let us support Hitler the Great.’ These people, corruptly elected, have no shame. For the record, our group refused to vote in this farce.” “Tower Hamlets is home to one of the country’s most diverse communities,” the motion begins, adding that it “has the highest percentage of Muslim residents in England – 35 per cent compared with the national average of 5 per cent”. After several paragraphs of platitudes about “community cohesion” and “diversity”, it says “this Council notes with shock and alarm the decision by Donald Trump, President of the United States, to ‘retweet’ Islamophobic propaganda from the Britain First Twitter account”. It also bemoans that he has allegedly “bigoted attitude towards women, ethnic minorities and Muslims which has resulted in examples of division and hatred within the USA and beyond” and attacks his “illogical” decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The motion also notes that the neighbouring Royal Borough of Greenwich formally adopted a similar motion in December last year…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
+Israel Takes On the Shia Crescent  Despite Israel's repeated warnings, Barack Obama's reckless appeasement of the Iranian regime has enabled its rise as a hegemonic threat in the Middle East region as well as a threat to international peace and security. In 2009, Obama turned his back on millions of dissidents in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, who were peacefully protesting the rigged election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. In 2011, Obama precipitously removed the remaining U.S. combat troops from Iraq, giving rise to ISIS’s re-emergence in Iraq from its bases in Syria. The radical Shiite Iranian regime purported to come to the “rescue” of both countries from the Sunni terrorists, turning Iraq into a virtual vassal state of the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the process. Obama's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran legitimized Iran's path to eventually becoming a nuclear-armed state, while immediately filling its coffers with billions of dollars to fund its aggression. Meanwhile, Syria has become ground zero for Iran's execution of its regional ambitions, which is to establish its Shiite Crescent connecting with its allies, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This plan has included the establishment of a land route that Iranian-backed militias secured in June, beginning on Iran’s border with Iraq and running across Iraq and Syria all the way to Syria’s Mediterranean coast. This road makes Iran’s job easier in supplying arms by land, as well as by air and sea, to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and to equip Iran’s own forces fighting inside of Syria in support of Assad. This helps explain why Iran has placed so much importance on helping the Syrian regime establish control over the Deir ez-Zor area in eastern Syria, near the Iraqi border. “Everything depends now on the Americans’ willingness to stop this,” said an Iraqi Kurdish official who was quoted in a New Yorker article. However, U.S.-led coalition forces apparently have done next to nothing to stop this major advance in Iran’s Shiite Crescent expansion. “Obama ran down our options in Syria so thoroughly, by the time this administration took over,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Iranian influence is spreading because they are so heavily involved in regime activities,” Tabler added. “It’s a new monster.” Furthermore, Iran has funded and armed its terrorist proxy Hezbollah, which has sent its militia from its home base of Lebanon to fight alongside Assad's forces. And Iran has used Syria as a transit point for shipment of sophisticated rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon for future use against Israeli population centers. Despite the fact that Hezbollah has American blood on its hands, the U.S.-led coalition has chosen not to do anything about Hezbollah’s presence in Syria, bought and paid for by Iran. While Israel chose not to take sides in Syria's civil war with military intervention of its own, it has bombed weapons storage facilities and convoys inside Syria for its own protection. Just recently, on September 7th, Israeli jets struck a Syrian weapons facility near Masyaf, which was reported to have been used for the production of chemical weapons and the storage of missiles. Israel will also do what is necessary to repel Iranian-backed forces if they edge too close to areas near the Golan Heights, shrinking the buffer between Israel and Iranian controlled territories. However, such tactical measures may not be enough to thwart Iran’s larger ambitions. In light of intelligence reports that Assad may be ready to invite Iran to set up military bases in Syria, Israeli leaders have concluded that they cannot wait until the Trump administration decides to deal more forcefully with Iran's growing use of Syria as a staging area for carrying out its expansionist Shiite Crescent strategy. “Their overriding concern in Syria is the free reign that all the major players there seem willing to afford Iran and its various proxies in the country,” wrote Jonathan Spyer in an article for Foreign Policy. As long as nobody else is addressing the concern Iran’s growing control raises in a satisfactory manner, “Israel is determined to continue addressing it on its own.” At least, Israel has a more sympathetic ear in the Trump administration than it did in the Obama administration for raising its concerns about Iran’s growing threat, not only to Israel but to U.S. interests in the region and beyond. President Trump’s sharp denunciation of the Iranian regime during his address to the UN General Assembly represented a welcome departure from the Obama administration’s milquetoast approach to Iran. As the U.S.-led coalition continues to drive ISIS from its bases of operation in Syria, the Trump administration has proclaimed its intention not to allow Iran to turn Syria into its own satellite, as Iran has essentially done in Iraq. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said that the “so called liberation of areas by Assad’s forces and Iranian proxies could actually accelerate the cycle of violence and perpetuate conflict rather than get us to a sustainable outcome.” He claimed that the Trump administration’s “objectives are to weaken Iranian influence across the region broadly,” without discussing the means to accomplish those objectives. Whether the Trump administration follows through remains to be seen. In the meantime, Israel will have to deal with the fallout of Iran’s ambitions in Syria itself.
+Vote targeting Jewish student politician was not anti-Semitic: McGill report  MONTREAL – It was political disagreement — not anti-Semitism — that led to a Jewish student being voted off the McGill University student council’s board of directors, an investigation ordered by the principal has concluded. But Jewish groups on and off campus have denounced the report as flawed, saying it missed the significance of an anti-Semitic text circulated online before Noah Lew was removed from the board last fall. A joint statement from five campus Jewish groups says the report, released this week by principal Suzanne Fortier, “appears to condone discrimination against Jewish students at McGill based on the cultural and religious organizations they affiliate with.” The controversy has its roots in McGill’s long-running debate over the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. At an Oct. 23 general assembly of the Student Society of McGill University, a routine motion to elect a slate of directors turned contentious. Supporters of a group called Democratize SSMU, formed to fight a decision of the board of directors declaring BDS counter to the SSMU constitution, brought a motion to divide the election vote. In the past they had been ratified as a bloc. The first five candidates were overwhelmingly approved, but when they got to Lew, the only Jewish director, he was rejected 105 to 73. In a subsequent Facebook post, Lew wrote, “My Jewish identity was now public, and a target was placed squarely upon me by the McGill BDS movement.” An outcry followed, leading Fortier to appoint former Ombudsperson for Students, Spencer Boudreau, to investigate. She also created a Task Force on Respect and Inclusion in Campus Life and a support line to report incidents of intolerance. Boudreau interviewed 38 students over his three-and-a-half week investigation. His findings, he wrote, do “not substantiate the notion that the vote was motivated by anti-Semitism,” which he defined as hostility toward or discrimination against Jews. Rather, he found, votes against Lew were “motivated by politics, that is, based on his support for Israel and Zionism and/or for his view of the BDS movement.” Protests about Israel’s policies cannot be equated with anti-Semitism, Boudreau wrote, though he said Lew’s belief that he was targeted because he was Jewish was “honest and even understandable.” A statement Wednesday by Hillel McGill, Chabad at McGill and three other Jewish groups said Boudreau was mistaken about the timing of an anti-Semitic message posted online by Democratize SSMU. Boudreau’s report said the message followed the assembly vote, but in fact it was posted at the beginning of October. Democratize SSMU deleted the message, which targeted Lew and two other candidates, after the meeting and apologized for publishing material that was “insensitive to anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish people as corrupt and politically powerful.” The Jewish groups said this anti-Semitic rhetoric “was used to encourage students to vote specifically against Noah Lew. It is under this context that the (general assembly) occurred, and the report fundamentally misunderstands this, which alters the entire findings of the report.” They say Boudreau’s report “insinuates that Jewish students who engage with mainstream Jewish community organizations are permitted to be precluded from holding political office.” Lew was restored to his post as a director last month after a ruling that the split vote in October had violated the SSMU constitution. He was not immediately available for comment. Michael Mostyn, CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, called the report a whitewash. “The report does not present a full or accurate picture of the hostile atmosphere facing Jewish students at McGill,” he said in a statement. Fortier said the university’s next actions will be based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Respect and Inclusion in Campus Life, due to report in April. “I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that there is absolutely no place for anti-Semitism at McGill University and that, as principal and vice-chancellor, I will remain vigilant to ensure that all members of our community feel safe, welcomed and respected on our campuses,” she said in a statement. • Email: ghamilton@nationalpost.com | Twitter: grayhamilton
+Two DREAMERs Caught Smuggling Illegal Aliens  Or rather, "Two illegal aliens caught smuggling less glamorous illegal aliens." The distinction between the illegal aliens who benefited from Obama's illegal amnesty and other illegals has always been a matter of rhetoric, not substance. And illegal aliens are not a racial or ethnic group. They're an industry: an economic industry and a political industry. If you legalize them, you move closer to legalizing all illegals. Meanwhile DREAMERs continue violating the law. In more ways than one. Customs and Border Protection said the first smuggling attempt was broken up on Oct. 4, after Border Patrol agents stopped a car at a checkpoint on Interstate 35 and discovered two illegal immigrants from Brazil hiding in the trunk. The driver of the car was from Guatemala, a juvenile who had been approved by the Obama administration for a DACA permit in 2016. Three days later the same checkpoint snared another DACA recipient from Mexico smuggling an illegal immigrant from Mexico in his trunk. Neither of the Dreamers’ names were released. They and the illegal immigrants they were trying to smuggle are all being processed for deportation, CBP said.
+Conspiracy: Muslim Photographer & Nation Of Islam Hid Photos Of Obama With Farrakhan Since 2008  The left-wing enemedia worked as furiously to cover up, censor and sanction Barack Hussein Obama’s jihad and violent left-wing connections as they do to manufacture and make up lies to destroy President Trump. The LA Times refused to release a video of the infamous Jew-hating event Obama hosted with close confidante and infamous antisemite Rashid Khalidi. The media gave scant coverage to Obama’s close relationship with radical Reverend Jeremiah “God damn America) Wright who blamed the US for 9/11. I detailed Obama’s nefarious connections and resulting worldview in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America , which was ignored by the mainstream media. The Muslim photographer Askia Muhammad, who took this photo of candidate Barack Obama and vicious jihad-supporting racist Louis Farrakhan, knew this would impact the election: he said so. And so he conspired with the terror group, the Nation of Islam, to keep it hidden for 10 years. He has served as the editor of Muhammad Speaks and as the head of the Washington office of The Final Call, the official newspapers of the Nation of Islam. [4][5] He has worked as a commentator for National Public Radio and a columnist for Washington Informer. [6][7] (Wikipedia) The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he “gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy.”“But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover,” Muhammad said. Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It absolutely would have made a difference.” Farrakhan In His Own Words (PDF). Some Farrakhan quotes: “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” “My god will wipe this country (America) from the face of the earth.” On on the Jewish people: “You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood.” “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” “You are not now, nor have you ever been a citizen of America. You are a slave to white America.” “America is in trouble, and I say God is about to wipe this nation from the face of the Earth. I’m not crazy, I’m not drunk, how long do you think a nation can do evil and not face the wrath of god?” “You see everybody always talk about Hitler exterminating six million Jews. That’s right. But don’t nobody ever ask what did they do to Hitler.” White people are potential humans – they haven’t evolved yet. On Hezbollah: “They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters.” “The Mother Wheel is a heavily armed spaceship the size of a city, which will rain destruction upon white America but save those who embrace the Nation of Islam.” THE PHOTO THAT NEVER SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY: OBAMA WITH FARRAKHAN IN 2005 By Esme Cribb | Talking Point Memo January 25, 2018 2:16 pm Askia Muhammad A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have “made a difference” to Obama’s political future. The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he “gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy.” “But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover,” Muhammad said. Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It absolutely would have made a difference.” Reached by TPM on Thursday, Muhammad said a “staff member” for the CBC contacted him “sort of in a panic” after he took the photo at a caucus meeting in 2005. TPM has published the photo above with Muhammad’s permission. “I sort of understood what was going on,” Muhammad told TPM. “I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan,” the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff. Muhammad said he gave away “the disk” from his camera but “copied the photograph from that day onto a file” on his computer. “Realizing that I had given it up, I mean, it was sort of like a promise to keep the photograph secret,” Muhammad said. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books
+Stop Comparing Immigration Enforcement to the Holocaust  The media has 2 very simple rules for Holocaust analogies. 1. The Muslim Brotherhood's leaders praising Hitler, calling for another Holocaust and killing Jews is nothing like the Holocaust. And only shameless Zionists would attempt to equate killing Jews with killing Jews. 2. Anything a Republican president does is exactly like the Holocaust. A former CIA director compared US immigration policy to Nazi Germany in an ominous Tweet. “Other governments have separated mothers and children,” Former CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden wrote on Saturday, along with a black and white photo of the Birkenau concentration and death-camp in Poland. Then Hayden doubled down on that analogy. It's particularly stupid of Michael Hayden to make that analogy because during the Bush years, the agencies he ran were compared to Nazi Germany. Repeatedly. You might think that would have cured him of facile Nazi analogies. But instead it seems to have whetted his appetite for making them. Yes, the Nazi arrested people, asked them for ID, split up families and... then killed them all. That's the really relevant part. Every country arrests people. Just about every country splits up families when they arrest the parents. That's not unique. Selecting the Jews, based on race, for extermination is more of the reason why the term Nazi is not a positive one. Hayden's thoughtless tweet can just as easily be used to delegitimize any and all law enforcement. The attacks here are motivated by a desire for open borders. Children are being used as human shields in a campaign to end national security forever.
+Nigel Farage Warns “We’ll Lose” A Battle Between the West and Islam  British politician Nigel Farage once helped convince Britons to vote for Brexit and separate from the European Union, but British establishment politicians have done everything they could to sabotage that vote since then. Now Farage has apparently decided that if he can’t beat them, he’ll join them — if not on Brexit, then in their stance of denial and appeasement regarding the global jihad threat.’ At a recent dinner of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which he formerly headed, Farage said: “If dealing with Islamic fundamentalism becomes a battle between us and the entire religion, I’ll tell you the result: we’ll lose. We will simply lose….We absolutely have to get that Muslim majority living in many of our towns and cities on our side, more attuned to Western values than some pretty hardline interpretations of the Qur’an.” Sure. Now how does Farage propose to do that? His warning against making the resistance to jihad a “battle between us and the entire religion” is odd. No sane person is saying that the West should go to war with the entire Islamic world. The likeliest interpretation of his statement is that he is saying that we must not speak about how jihadis find justification for their actions in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as that will alienate the “moderates.” take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. But if we don’t speak about such facts, how will we ever convince Muslims not to follow “hardline interpretations of the Qur’an”? Another problem with Farage’s statement is that it manifests a remarkable ignorance of history. While he is deeply concerned that British people not begin to think that resisting jihad terror means that they are in a “battle” with the “entire religion” of Islam, he appears unaware of the fact that many Muslims throughout history have considered their entire religion to be at war with the entire non-Muslim world. I document this abundantly in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS . To take one of innumerable examples, Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi, a fifteenth-century Persian who wrote a biography of the Mongol Muslim warrior Tamerlane, observed that “the Qur’an says the highest dignity man can attain is that of making war in person against the enemies of his religion. Muhammad advises the same thing, according to the tradition of the Muslim doctors: wherefore the great Temur always strove to exterminate the infidels, as much to acquire that glory, as to signalise himself by the greatness of his conquests.” After conquest came dhimmitude, the subjugated status that the Qur’an mandates for “the People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians). In the early twelfth century, the Fatimid caliph Al-Amir bi-Ahkamillah issued this edict: Now, the prior degradation of the infidels in this world before the life to come—where it is their lot—is considered an act of piety; and the imposition of their poll tax [jizya], “until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (Koran 9:29) is a divinely ordained obligation….The dhimmi’s payment of his dues by a bill drawn on a Muslim, or by delegating a real believer to pay it in his name will not be tolerated. It must be exacted from him directly in order to vilify and humiliate him, so that Islam and its people may be exalted and the race of infidels brought low. The jizya is to be imposed on all of them in full, without exception. Underlying this subjugation is a deep contempt for non-Muslims. In the year 718, the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz sent out a message to the governors of the various Islamic provinces: O you who believe! The non-Muslims are nothing but dirt. Allah has created them to be partisans of Satan; most treacherous in regard to all they do; whose whole endeavor in this nether life is useless, though they themselves imagine that they are doing fine work. Upon them rests the curse of Allah, of the Angels and of man collectively We must not think that we are at war with the entire religion. But what, Mr. Farage, are we to think about the Muslims who consider themselves and their religion to be at war with us? Nigel Farage has become just another mainstream hack politician. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
+Madagascar Plague Outbreak Has Already Killed 57 And Infected Over 600  An outbreak of the plague in Madagascar is spreading at an unprecedented rate. With the ease of spreading the plague, the likelihood that this disease will move to other more densely populated regions of the planet has become a huge concern for many. So far, the plague has claimed 57 lives and infected more than 680 others. These figures are from October 12, however, and the disease is spreading rapidly. An estimated 329 of these cases and 25 of the deaths were in the capital city of Antananarivo. Of the 684 cases reported as of October 12, 474 were the pneumonic plague, 156 bubonic and 1 septicemic plague. A further 54 were unspecified, according to the World Health Organization. Of Madagascar’s 114 districts, 35 have reported cases of plague, including at least 10 cities. Plague is caused by infection with the bacterium Yersinia pestis and is typically spread through the bite of infected fleas, frequently carried by rats. The bacteria will eventually end up causing the often fatal plague. Symptoms can include painful, swollen lymph nodes, called buboes, as well as fever, chills, and coughing. Pneumonic plague is more virulent or damaging and is an advanced form of the disease characterized by a severe lung infection. The infection can be transmitted from person to person via airborne droplets from coughing or sneezing. The incubation period is extremely short too, and an infected person may die within 12 to 24 hours of contracting the bacteria making cures in underdeveloped regions of the globe difficult at best. According to CNN, the cases were reported by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Bureau for Risk and Disaster Management (BNGRC) in Madagascar. They include probable and suspected cases as well those that have been confirmed by laboratory tests. And while the country experiences regular outbreaks, with an estimated 400 cases of plague each year, this time things are very different, experts warn. This year, health officials report the infections started much earlier than usual, and they’re occurring in new areas, including urban settings. They’ve also seen an unexpected number of cases of pneumonic plague, which transmits more easily from person to person. Historically dubbed the “black death” the bubonic plague has been responsible for several worldwide pandemics in the past. Early detection of the plague is key since both forms of it can be cured with antibiotics. But, occasionally there can be cases of septicemic plague, where the infection has spread to a person’s bloodstream and can cause bleeding and necrosis of tissue, turning it black. Internationally, this outbreak is also being taken seriously. WHO delivered more than 1.2 million doses of antibiotics and released $1.5 million in emergency funds earlier this month. The Red Cross has released more than $1 million to deploy a treatment center and has mobilized more than 1,000 volunteers and is upgrading their skills on community surveillance, finding and monitoring people who have been in contact with infected patients and insightful messaging to stop the spread of this disease.
+Kate Steinle's death at the hands of a Mexican national became a flashpoint in the immigration debate — here's the story behind her killing  The surprise acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the shooting death of San Francisco woman Kate Steinle set off a firestorm of outrage Thursday night, as top conservatives and critics of so-called "sanctuary cities" pinned blame for Steinle's death on illegal immigration and insufficiently aggressive deportation policies.  Garcia Zarate, a 45-year-old Mexican national who was homeless and living in the US illegally when he fired the shot that killed Steinle, was acquitted by a jury on murder and manslaughter charges. The jury convicted him of the lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a gun, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in state prison.  Steinle, 32, was fatally shot while she walked along Pier 14 of the San Francisco Bay with her father in July 2015. The bullet that pierced her back had ricocheted off the concrete ground after it was fired by Garcia Zarate from a handgun belonging to a federal ranger that had been stolen four days earlier.  Garcia Zarate's defense attorneys argued that the shooting was an accident — they said he found the gun wrapped in a T-shirt or cloth under a pier bench and unintentionally discharged it. Lead attorney Matt Gonzalez has argued that the weapon was a SIG Sauer with a "hair trigger in single-action mode" — a model well-known for accidental discharges even among experienced shooters. Gonzalez told the jury, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that Garcia Zarate had never handled a firearm before, was frightened by the noise of the gunshot, then flung the weapon into the bay where it was later found by a diver.  Prosecutors, however, alleged that Garcia Zarate brought the weapon to the pier deliberately to do harm, and intentionally aimed and shot Steinle after firmly pulling the trigger. They said Garcia Zarate then threw the weapon into the bay and fled the scene.  Beyond the shooting itself, perhaps the most controversial aspect of Garcia Zarate's case involves his previous criminal activity and history of deportations, and how San Francisco and federal authorities handled his custody before he ever picked up the gun and shot Steinle. At the time of Steinle's death, Garcia Zarate had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes and deported five times since the early 1990s.  He faced a sixth deportation in 2015, and was in Justice Department (DOJ) custody that March after serving 46 months in prison for a felony re-entry into the US, but instead of transferring him into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation, the department transferred him to the San Francisco County Jail for prosecution of a 1995 marijuana charge.  San Francisco prosecutors, who had long ago deprioritized marijuana charges, dismissed the decades-old charge and released Garcia Zarate on April 15, 2015. Due to San Francisco's policy of limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — which some refer to as a "sanctuary" policy — the city did not inform ICE when they released Garcia Zarate.  As a result of the case, both the DOJ and the city of San Francisco have changed several policies. The DOJ announced in 2016 it would no longer release potentially deportable detainees to local jails without first allowing ICE to take custody. San Francisco, meanwhile, has adjusted its policy to notify ICE if they are releasing suspected undocumented immigrants who face charges of serious or violent felonies.  "This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had simply turned the alien over to ICE as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets," ICE Director Thomas Homan said in a statement on Thursday. "It is unconscionable that politicians across this country continue to endanger the lives of Americans with sanctuary policies while ignoring the harm inflicted on their constituents."  But ICE has faced criticism of its own over not seeking a judicial warrant to legally obtain custody of Garcia Zarate when it discovered he had been transferred into San Francisco's custody. The agency has argued that obtaining judicial warrants are unnecessary and would place too much burden on ICE officials and federal courts.  Though the agency did issue a request to the city to detain Garcia Zarate until ICE officials could pick him up, their detainer requests are not signed by a judge and are therefore not legally binding. San Francisco's policy is to ignore such requests if they are not accompanied by judge-signed warrants, and the city has cited federal court cases concluding that such detentions violate inmates' Fourth Amendment rights.  Garcia Zarate's deportation and criminal history made him an effective target for immigration hardliners, who argued that Steinle would still be alive were it not for an insecure border and lenient treatment toward suspected undocumented immigrants in local jails. President Donald Trump immediately seized on the verdict on Thursday as evidence of the perils of "Illegal Immigration." Trump frequently villainized Garcia Zarate and cited Steinle's death during his presidential campaign, using the case to bolster his argument for a border wall and aid his crusade against "sanctuary cities."  Early on Friday, Trump also falsely claimed on Twitter that Garcia Zarate had previously committed violent crimes and had illegally entered the US six times due to lax border security under the Obama administration.  "The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!" Trump tweeted.  In fact, Garcia Zarate had never been convicted of a violent crime before Steinle's shooting — his previous convictions were for nonviolent drug crimes and illegal entry. Lax border security, too, does not appear to be a factor since Garcia Zarate was caught by border patrol agents each time he entered the country under the Obama administration.  In contrast, Steinle's family has expressed nuanced views on immigration and "sanctuary" policies. They have both condemned Trump for "sensationalizing" Steinle's death to advance anti-immigration policies, and expressed frustration with San Francisco officials, who they believe went too far in refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
+Las Vegas Shooting Victim: “There Was 100% More Than One Shooter,” Gates To Concert Were Locked Shortly Before Attack  Las Vegas mass shooting victim Rocky Palermo was shot in the pelvis during the horrific attack and is now speaking out about what he saw and believes happened, including the presence of multiple shooters as well as locked concert gates and police telling frantic civilians to go in the other direction. Palermo, who has done various interviews since the attack, appeared on “The Blast” with a series of shocking comments that correlate with various other reports indicating that multiple shooters carried out the attack and that the FBI is actively covering this up. “I definitely do believe that there was 100% more than one shooter, every other person that I’ve talked to that did unfortunately get hit as well, have all said the same things,” Palermo detailed. The man then goes on to explain that after being shot he ran “about 200 yards” to hide behind a car, all the while hearing bullets fly past him at what he believes was ground level. “I’m waiting and all of a sudden we hear a little whizzing going by us, all of a sudden bullets are just flying by,” he continued. “When something is coming up and down or at least from a different angle they are either going to hit the ground or… alot of different things are going to happen. When someone is shooting form a horizontal line its just going to keep shooting,” Palermo attempted to explain. Take note that what he means here is that people were being shot at from ground level rather than the 32nd floor of the hotel. Palermo then specifically heard the gun shots get “closer and closer” before quickly deciding it was once again time to run. Shockingly, he then goes on to detail the fact that at the end of the concert the previous two nights everyone had exited a specific way but on the night of the shooting this route was locked down shortly before the attack. “Every other night at the concert, everybody kinda exited right off Las Vegas Blvd, that was standard, that was routine, you get out of the concert and you go down to the next casino,” he continued. “At 10pm they closed every exit on Las Vegas Blvd, every single one. They gated them all closed with chain-link fences, 10:08 the shooting started and we were pigs sitting in a corral. We only had one exit to go out of…..everyone was just kinda following the sheep.” Palermo makes clear this confused concert goers who had used the normal exits in the past. “The same exits we had came in and left Friday and Saturday night were definitely closed. There were people that went over there and tried to leave and there were cops that were telling them no, you can’t go out here, you have to go the other way,” he shockingly concluded. This stunning testimony is obviously a huge bombshell in the ongoing investigation of the Las Vegas mass shooting and is sure to continue to add credence to the growing belief that we are not being told what actually happened that fateful night.
+Obama Secretly Tried to Get Banks to Aid Iran, Banks Refused  International financial institutions get a lot of heat for terror state ties. But this is a case where Obama Inc. tried to get them to do the wrong thing. While they did the right thing. The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal, despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so. Yet another Obama dirty deal with Iran that we're just learning about now. The question is how many more are there? And that's part of why Spygate is happening. The assault is also a cover-up. The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system. The effort was unsuccessful because American banks — themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions — declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran. That's how bad Obama was on Iran. The banking system was more reluctant to help Iran launder money than he was. Nor was Obama worried about the reputational risk of loading foreign currency on unmarked cargo planes and flying it to Iran. Issuing the license was not illegal. Still, it went above and beyond what the Obama administration was required to do under the terms of the nuclear agreement. Except Obama Inc. weren't trying to drive a hard bargain. So they didn't stick to it. They were trying to aid Iran. Shortly after the nuclear deal was sealed in July 2015, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified that even with the sanctions relief, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.” A month later, one of Lew’s top deputies, Adam Szubin, testified that despite the nuclear deal “Iran will be denied access to the world’s most important market and unable to deal in the world’s most important currency.” This was typical of the worthless assurances that Obama officials made. And disgraced themselves by doing so. Obama administration officials at the time assured concerned lawmakers that a general license wouldn’t be coming. But the report from the Republican members of the Senate panel showed that a draft of the license was indeed prepared, though it was never published. And when questioned by lawmakers about the possibility of granting Iran any kind of access to the U.S. financial system, Obama-era officials never volunteered that the specific license for Bank Muscat in Oman had been issued two months earlier. Scandal-free administration, folks. Not a single scandal to see here. Not a one.
+Muslim Crime Stopper Sofian Zakkout's New Crush: Anti-Semite Pastor Steve Anderson  For nearly two millennia, Jews have suffered persecution after persecution at the hands of those who used religion as a vehicle for hate and even mass murder. Recently, a video clip of anti-Semitic pastor Steve Anderson – making the claim that Jews have experienced such abuse because they have somehow been cursed – wound up on the personal Facebook page of South Florida Muslim leader Sofian Zakkout. According to Zakkout, who sits on the boards of two anti-crime groups, Anderson’s declaration “makes a lot of sense.” With statements like this from Zakkout and worse, why would groups committed to fighting crime continue to compromise themselves and sabotage their mission by affiliating with him? Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout is the President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), a prominent Islamic organization headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida. On January 25th, Zakkout posted onto his personal Facebook page a video clip of a speech made by Steve Anderson, the pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Anderson is notorious for calling for the killing of gays to end AIDS. In the clip, Anderson states the following: “And the Jews were scattered into all nations for literally 2000 years, right? For 1800 sum odd years. And by the way, everywhere they were scattered, they were persecuted, hated, treated badly. Why? ‘Cause God’s blessing them? No. ‘Cause they’re under the curse of God for having rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.” Blaming Jews for the extreme torment they endured for so long, which includes a Nazi Holocaust that took the lives of six million innocent Jews and so many others, is incredibly offensive. Indeed, statements and beliefs such as Anderson’s have provoked hatred and persecution of Jews. Towards the end of the clip, which is less than four minutes in length, Anderson throws the anti-Semitism in people’s faces. He zealously states, while drawing laughter from his small audience, “You say, ‘Why are you preaching against the Jews?’ Well, don’t come back next Wednesday night. Because, next Wednesday night, God’s wrath is on the Jews even more!” About the clip, on Facebook, Zakkout wrote above it, “Makes a lot of sense!” Of course, this is coming from someone [Zakkout] who regularly refers to Jews as “monkeys and pigs,” and in February 2016, circulated on social media a report claiming that “the Holocaust was faked.” The report calls the Holocaust “the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity” and was produced by a media outlet which describes Hitler as “the greatest leader in modern Western history.” Both Anderson and Zakkout have been denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for their propagation of anti-Semitism. In July 2010, the ADL condemned Zakkout and his group AMANA for featuring an anti-Jewish video produced by former KKK leader and white supremacist David Duke on the AMANA website. The ADL described the video as “venomous.” In October 2015, Zakkout praised Duke, as “David Duke, a man to believe in!” Besides posting videos from Steve Anderson and David Duke on his Facebook page, Zakkout also, in July 2017, posted a four minute clip from a speech made by Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan. During the clip, Farrakhan repeatedly labels the Jewish people “Satan.” He states, “Really, they’re not Jews. No, that’s Satan. You should learn to call them by their real name, ���Satan.’ You’re coming face to face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God, and the enemy of the righteous.” Zakkout is also an ardent supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas, if not a member himself. In July 2014, he organized a pro-Hamas rally held outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Miami. Rally goers repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” After the rally, Zakkout wrote the following in Arabic, above photos from the event: “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” He signed it “Br. Sofian Zakkout.” The next month, Zakkout declared in Arabic, "Hamas is in my heart and on my head." All of the above testifies to hatred and intolerance, but it is even more disturbing given the fact that Zakkout sits on the boards of two anti-crime organizations: Crime Stoppers of Miami-Dade County and Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County. Serving alongside Zakkout on these boards are local politicians and law enforcement officials. One would think that they would find Zakkout’s actions and bigotry unacceptable, as well, yet Zakkout continues to serve unchallenged. If the board members of Crime Stoppers and Citizens’ Crime Watch do not wish to be associated with anti-Semitism or white supremacism or Hamas or Holocaust denial or Steve Anderson or David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, then they must cut ties with Sofian Zakkout. The time is long overdue that these groups maintain their credibility and remain true to their stated missions of protecting and safeguarding the American public. Sofian Zakkout’s bigoted and radical agenda is antithetical to this and is a documented threat to national security. His presence on the boards of both organizations constitutes an obscene travesty. Once and for all, these groups need to divorce themselves from Zakkout and repudiate what he stands for. Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
+WHO Prepares For “Worst Case” As Congo Ebola Outbreak Spreads  This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge In the week since we first noted the new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the number of cases has risen by 50%, and The World Health Organization has now said it is preparing for “the worst case scenario.” The WHO has tallied 32 suspected or confirmed cases in the northwestern area of Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumbathe near the border with the Republic of Congo, including 18 deaths, between April 4 and May 9. The outbreak, declared by the DRC health ministry on Tuesday, is the DRC’s ninth known outbreak of Ebola since 1976,when the deadly viral disease was first identified in then-Zaire by a Belgian-led team. Scientists are greatly concerned that this outbreak in the remote Bikoro region will travel 175 miles to the city of Mbandaka – the capital of Equateur province and home to around 1.2 million residents. We’ve updated this map. Turns out that the provincial capital of Equateur, Mbandaka, is home to roughly 1M people. It’s less than 300 km or 175 miles from Bikoro and reachable by water. pic.twitter.com/3Q3PwAAdsh — Helen Branswell (@HelenBranswell) May 11, 2018 What’s worrisome is that the most recent WHO update says that there are two probable cases at Wangata – which is very close to Mbandaka. #EbolaDRC: This news gives me pause. @WHO‘s latest update says there are 2 probable cases at Wangata, which is adjacent to the provincial capital, Mbandaka. Population of Mbandaka = 1.2 million. https://t.co/LwlMGcAL7J pic.twitter.com/RVVO15m2F9 — Helen Branswell (@HelenBranswell) May 14, 2018 Peter Salma, head of emergency response at the World Health Organization (WHO) said last week: “If we see a town of that size infected with Ebola, then we are going to have a major urban outbreak,” adding “We are very concerned, and we are planning for all scenarios, including the worst-case scenario.” Today I had the chance to see first-hand the #Ebola response in #DRC. Teams are motivated and working hard. I visited the hospital in Bikoro where patients are being treated, and lab technicians are testing samples. We’re working with our partners 24/7 to stop this outbreak. pic.twitter.com/JzYH3snmjM — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) May 13, 2018 The WHO is planning to send up to 40 specialists to the affected area over the next week or so, while Salma adds that the UN hopes to have a mobile lab up and running this weekend, similar to the one set up by the WHO. The WHO and World Food Programme are also working to set up an ‘air-bridge’ to help bring in supplies, however, only helicopters can be used until an airfield is cleared to allow larger planes to land, Mr Salama added. The health body has released £738,000 ($1m) from its Contingency Fund for Emergencies to support response activities for the next three months. –Daily Mail Mobile lab materials being shipped to strength rapid analysis of the samples from Bikoro, the #Ebola affected area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, #DRC 🇨🇩 pic.twitter.com/vgmyqWhLFV — WHO African Region (@WHOAFRO) May 12, 2018 Over 100 Red Cross volunteers in #Equateur province (50 in #Mbandaka, 60 in #Bikoro) now mobilized to fight the spread of #Ebola in #DRCongo. Community volunteers and groups are critical to stopping the spread of diseases, especially in isolated areas. pic.twitter.com/oJ33Dn1CFB — IFRC Africa (@IFRCAfrica) May 13, 2018 This marks the country’s ninth epidemic since the ebola virus was identified in 1976. When a small outbreak hit the DRC last year, eight people were infected and four died. In 2014, 66 were infected out of which 49 died – a 74% fatality rate. In the 2002-2003 outbreak, 90% of those infected died. That said, on average the disease kills around half of those who contract it. Ebola, a haemorrhagic fever, killed at least 11,000 across the world after it decimated West Africa and spread rapidly over the space of two years. The pandemic was officially declared over back in January 2016, when Liberia was announced to be Ebola-free by the WHO. The country, rocked by back-to-back civil wars that ended in 2003, was hit the hardest by the fever, with 40 per cent of the deaths having occurred there. Sierra Leone reported the highest number of Ebola cases, with nearly of all those infected having been residents of the nation. -Daily Mail Experts say the DRC’s vast, remote terrain provides an advantage, as outbreaks often remain localized and easy to isolate. Bikoro, however, is not far from the Congo river – an essential waterway used for transport and commerce. Downstream lies Kinshasa and Brazzaville – the DRC’s capital. The two cities are home to a combined 12 million people. As such, neighboring countries are on high alert. Officials in Nigeria, Guinea and Gambia have incresaed screening measures along their airports and borders, measures which helped contain the virus during the West African epidemic that began in 2013. Angola, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi and the Republic of Congo – which border the DRC – have all been alerted. While Kenya, which does not border the country, has issued warnings over the possible spread of Ebola. Thermal guns to detect anyone with a fever have been put in place along its border with Uganda and at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Concerned health officials in Nigeria, which also does not border the DRC, have put similar measures in place to keep its population safe. -Daily Mail Scientists believe Ebola is most often passed to humans by fruit bats, however porcupines, gorillas, antelope and chimpanzees could also be carriers. It is transmitted between humans through blood, secretions and other bodily fluids (and surfaces) of those infected. There is currently no “proven” treatment for Ebola, however dozens of experimental drugs exist – including a vaccine called rVSV-ZEBOV, which has reportedly protected nearly 6,000 people.
+Beware sonic weapon attacks, US tells citizens in China  An employee of the American embassy in Guangzhou was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury The US has warned its citizens in China to be vigilant for “abnormal sensations of sound and pressure” as it opened an investigation into whether officials were targeted with a sonic weapon that caused a brain injury. An American government employee stationed in the southern city of Guangzhou recently reported “subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure”, the embassy in China said yesterday. The employee was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury in an incident with echoes of suspected “sonic attacks” on American diplomats in Cuba last year. Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, said that medical teams were travelling to Guangzhou to investigate. The government employee’s symptoms were “very similar and entirely consistent” with those suffered in Cuba, he…
+Madagascar Outbreak: It Is ‘Inevitable’ The Plague Becomes Resistant To Drugs  The newest warning about the outbreak of the airborne pneumonic plague, or black death, in Madagascar has been released. Officials warn that it’s inevitable that this bacterial infection that’s infected over 2000 people will become resistant to antibiotics. The only way to treat a person who has contracted the plague is with antibiotics. But experts now warn that because they are being used so much to treat the infection, antibiotics resistance is inevitable and making this disease much more terrifying. Once the bacteria is resistant, the Madagascar healthcare system will be overwhelmed, and the disease will have control of the nation. According to the Daily Mail, Madagascar’s healthcare system will be unable to cope if the deadly plague outbreak continues to escalate, a scientist has warned. Scores of doctors and nurses have been struck down with the disease, which is predicted to gather momentum in the coming weeks and there are growing fears hospitals will be unable to meet the illness’ burden. Official figures reveal at least 2,034 people have been infected with the “medieval disease” so far in what has been described as the “worst outbreak in 50 years.” The black death outbreak has so far claimed at least 165 lives. Although the plague is responding well to antibiotics right now, drug resistance is also an increasing concern amongst experts who predict it will vastly accelerate the disease’s death toll. Professor John Joe McFadden from the University of Surrey told MailOnline: “Fortunately in [the] plague, it has not developed much antibiotic resistance. If that kicks in, the plague will be far, far scarier. If you throw more and more antibiotics at patients, antibiotic resistance is more or less inevitable.” Dr. Derek Gatherer, from Lancaster University’s biomedical and life-sciences department, told MailOnline the country would struggle “to cope” if cases continue to spiral. “Madagascar, typically like many African countries, doesn’t have many doctors. There are around three-and-a-half thousand doctors for 22 million people. They only have around 6,000 hospital beds, so they aren’t particularly well positioned to cope with these kind of events. And if it wasn’t for the international aid coming in things would definitely be much worse for them.” And experts continue to fear the healthcare system is on the brink of being overwhelmed. Should the disease actually spread to the African mainland, it will be all but impossible to control and the health care system would certainly be unable to handle the outbreak at that point, making a global pandemic much more likely.
+Ebola Outbreak Confirmed in Democratic Republic of Congo  On Tuesday, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo announced an outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a deadly virus that causes severe bleeding and organ failure, among other unpleasant symptoms. The declaration was made after two cases of the diseases were confirmed in the Bikoro province in the northwestern part of the country ten months after the end of an earlier outbreak. © AP Photo / Abbas Dulleh Ebola-Like Marburg Virus Kills Two People in Uganda According to the country's Health Ministry, five samples were taken from suspected cases in Bikoro. Out of the five samples sent to the National Institute of Biological Research in Kinshasa, two tested positive for Ebola. However, no deaths have been reported among those with the disease. "We will gather more samples, conduct contact tracing, engage the communities with messages on prevention and control and put in place methods for improving data collection and sharing," said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the World Health Organization's (WHO) regional director for Africa, following the outbreak announcement. "WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response," Moeti added. This is the Congo's ninth outbreak of the virus since it was discovered in the country in 1976. The last outbreak occurred in the northern Bas Uele province in 2017. However, it was quickly contained due to swift action taken by the government and the WHO.
+SO MUCH FOR MERCY & DIALOGUE: Member of Vatican International Theological Commission Sacked for Questioning Pope of Mercy & Dialogue  The Catholic Twitterverse is alive today with criticism of the USCCB’s decision to sack Fr. Thomas Weinandy, the former head of their doctrinal office. It took a matter of hours for the brave defenders of the status quo to leap into action against the mild Franciscan friar’s polite plea to Pope Francis to defend the Catholic Faith and faithful. Or at least to stop attacking them. In a letter made public November 1st, Fr. Weinandy, a former chief of staff for the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, warned Pope Francis that he has caused “chronic confusion” among the faithful and bishops.    He wrote to the pope, “To teach with such an intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth.” He added that Catholics are “disconcerted” by the appointment of bishops “who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief, but who support and even defend them.”    In an interview yesterday with John Allen’s Crux, he added, more prophetically than he had perhaps intended, “I don’t think anyone can, or should, associate my letter with the USCCB or the American bishops. Neither was involved in my writing the letter, and its publication will be news to them.”    “Bishops are quick learners,” he wrote in his letter, “and what many have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it,” claiming that many bishops don’t speak out publicly for fear they will be “marginalized or worse.”    And sure enough, within hours of making his letter public, we learned that Fr. Weinandy had been given the boot. Of course, the Twitterverse is busy commenting on the irony: how a man expressing grave concerns that there is an atmosphere of fear of being punished for expressing grave concerns, was immediately fired.    Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of this little incident is just how completely blind the US bishops – as with nearly all the episcopate – are to what political analysts call the “optics”. Political consultants often ask: how does it look? And it looks extremely bad. As though the fog of irony weren’t thick enough, in response to the outrage from Catholics, the USCCB has done what all the other members of Pope Francis’ cabal have done and started blocking critics from its Twitter account. Which, it must be said, only proves Fr. Weinandy’s point once again.    Some of the criticism has been unusually sharp. Fr. Hunwicke wrote this afternoon, “This cheap and vulgar ritual humiliation exemplifies the extent to which P[ope] F[rancis] is presiding over a bully-boy Church in which midget bishops and minicardinals compete to defeat each other in the sycophancy stakes. Just as Tom Weinandy has, in effect, just said.”    As I write this, the outrage is doing the opposite of dying down, and is surely a sign of how fed up Catholics – even those who would never identify themselves as Traditionalists – have become with this pope and his cadre of episcopal bullies. In his letter, Fr. Weinandy made a point of stating that he is not signatory to the Filial Correction or any other public declaration against Pope Francis’ agenda.    In fact, a former student of his wrote to me today saying, “I see that Fr. Thomas Weinandy has been squashed. He was one of my professors in Patristics at Oxford and he was one of the most mild-mannered, least confrontational, kindest academics one could have hoped to meet. To me, the fact that he has chosen to write to express his concern about the crisis in the church and the papacy is very significant.  He is neither a traditionalist, nor a controversialist, but a humble and straightforward Friar who is clear-thinking and entirely loyal to the Church and Her teaching. I would be surprised now if we were not see more of this sort of letter/exercise of conscience. I imagine that it’s going to become harder and harder for men of conscience and position to sit on the fence.” When I posted it, this assessment was backed up by Joseph Shaw, the head of the UK’s Latin Mass Society and the spokesman for the Filial Correction, who wrote, “This is absolutely right. Not a man to seek out confrontation.”  The Crux piece offered a succinct bullet point list of Fr. Weinandy’s concerns. He said the pope is… Fostering “chronic confusion.” “Demeaning” the importance of doctrine. Appointing bishops who “scandalize” believers with dubious “teaching and pastoral practice.” Giving prelates who object the impression they’ll be “marginalized or worse” if they speak out. Causing faithful Catholics to “lose confidence in their supreme shepherd.” Our friend Edward Pentin has reproduced the full text of the letter at the National Catholic Register which is definitely worth a read. Fr. Weinandy sent the letter to the pope on July 31, the Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Like the Dubia cardinals, he said he made it public only after the pope had ignored it for months.  Notable in his critique is its distinct pastoral flavour, his concern on the effect the situation is having on ordinary people. The pope, he said, seems “to censor and even mock” critics of Amoris Laetitia for their desire to interpret it in keeping with Catholic teaching, and in doing so is committing a “kind of calumny…alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry.”  In an interview with Crux, Weinandy said he is not afraid of reprisals but “more concerned about the good that my letter might do.” The letter “expresses the concerns of many more people than just me, ordinary people who’ve come to me with their questions and apprehensions. I wanted them to know that I listened.”  “I have done what I believe God wanted me to do,[1]” he said.  In fact, Fr. Weinandy has bolstered my own “Great Clarifier” theory, saying that this pontificate, and the lack of response to it from priests and bishops, is being allowed by God in order to reveal “just how weak is the faith of many within the Church,” He added that Francis has revealed that many in the Church “hold harmful theological and pastoral views.”  Which inevitably brings to mind other responses that have not been quite so clear, nor so pastoral.  When Cardinal Muller was removed abruptly from his position as head of the CDF, the conservative Catholic world wailed that it was another case of a “good” prelate being got rid of. And it seems clear from the way it was done, and the way Francis treated Muller in general, that he was indeed got rid of. But his depiction by conservative writers as a beleaguered champion of Catholic orthodoxy persecuted by the regime for his faithfulness betrays a somewhat selective memory and short attention span. Ed Pentin has a long file of interviews and articles about Muller that clearly show his complete inability to make up his mind whose side he’s on.  A quick examination of Muller’s interviews and statements reveal an irresolute and ultimately calculating mind of a man who is – so I am told by sources close to him – motivated mainly by a puerile desire to be approved of by the “cool kids” in the Vatican, on the one hand, and an unshakeable conviction of his own theological brilliance on the other.  Most recently, on October 30th, Crux quoted him under the headline, “Cardinal Muller backs Pope Francis against critics of ‘Amoris Laetitia’” in which the former head of the CDF has at last climbed on board the Kasperian train on reception of Communion for unrepentant adulterers.  Signaling furiously with the trendy FrancisChurch buzzwords and even trendier blithering incoherence, Muller writes that “mitigating factors in guilt,” can lead, couples in “an uncertain marital situation” through a “path of repentance” – always “accompanied” by an exquisitely sensitive confessor – to a point where the reception of Communion is no longer sinful. Presumably because adultery itself is no longer sinful. Or sacrilege either, I guess. Or something. Somehow the “new evangelization” is involved in this, though it’s unclear how exactly it makes adultery and sacrilege OK. Also, it’s very important to fulfill the Sunday Mass obligation, and as everyone knows, one can’t possibly go to Mass on a Sunday without receiving Communion.  We hear again, as we did incessantly from the Kasperians at the Synods, about the hard case of the poor, poor woman who has been abandoned by the first husband, and who “finds no other way out than to entrust oneself to a kind-hearted person,” … with whom, I guess, she has also no choice but to have sexual relations. Because of kind-heartedness.  Anyway, the result of this is a “marriage-like relationship” about which confessors have to be very careful not to say mean things. Or be too “extreme”. It’s very important for him to avoid a “cheap adaptation to the relativistic Zeitgeist,” on one side, and a “cold application of the dogmatic commandments and the canonical rules,” on the other. Because that could be too polarizing. And mean.  And anyway, sins of the flesh aren’t the worst things ever. There are, like, “different levels” of gravity, you know? And, like, it depends on the type of sin, right? “Spirit’s sins” like spiritual pride and avarice and stuff, are worse than “sins of the flesh,” you know? Which are, like, only a result of “human weakness,” right?  Apparently the real problem with this whole thing has been that the Kasperian kerfuffle has totally been blown way, way, WAY out of proportion, and the “polarization” it has caused has been “regrettable”. The question of Communion for divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics, he said, has been “falsely elevated to the rank of a decisive question of Catholicism and a measure of ideological comparison in order to decide whether one is conservative or liberal, in favor or against the pope.”  For years under Pope Benedict, Muller was engaged in an open war with the German episcopate who insisted that they were going to allow Communion for the divorced and remarried, no matter what Rome said, even threatening to go into schism if they didn’t get their way[2].  Muller, with little backing from Pope Benedict – who appeared content to allow his CDF prefect and the Germans shout out their differences – and with outright opposition from Francis, did indeed strive to hold the line. The fact that Francis orchestrated the Synods to undermine him was certainly not his fault. And it is difficult to imagine anyone being in a worse position than he was at the time.  But since then, Muller has demonstrated very little of his former grit, instead attempting from one day to the next to appease both sides. Reportedly removed from CDF – and of course lionized by “conservatives” – for his mild and equivocating opposition to Amoris Laetitia, Muller has gone back and forth in what can easily be seen as a desperate attempt to find friends in both camps. With this in mind one could be forgiven for not taking his October 30th essay too seriously.  Perhaps one of the good effects to come from Fr. Weinandy’s persecution will be to demonstrate how a pastor of the Catholic Church is supposed to act. As my friend said, maybe “it’s going to become harder and harder for men of conscience and position to sit on the fence,” assuming there are any left.  Catch Hilary's regular column in The Remnant's Print/E-edition. Subscribe Today! [1] In this interview, Fr. Weinandy gave a remarkable story of how his prayer for a “sign” that he ought to write the letter was very specifically answered: “If you want me to write something, you have to give me a clear sign,” Weinandy recalls saying. “Tomorrow morning, I’m going to Saint Mary Major’s to pray, and then I am going to Saint John Lateran. After that, I’m coming back to Saint Peter’s to have lunch with a seminary friend of mine.” “During that interval, I must meet someone that I know but have not seen in a very long time, and would never expect to see in Rome at this time. That person cannot be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain. Moreover, that person has to say to me, ‘Keep up the good writing’.” Weinandy said, exactly that happened the next day, in a chance meeting with an archbishop he’d known a long time ago but not seen for over twenty years, who congratulated him for a book on the Incarnation and then said the right words, “Keep up the good writing.” “There was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something,” Weinandy said. [2] It’s notable that these howling tantrums from the German bishops halted abruptly about the same time as Cardinal Kasper gave his infamous consistory speech in February 2014.
+CNN’s Jim Acosta Has Press Pass Restored by White House  Jim Acosta has his press pass back.  The Trump administration stood down on Monday from its nearly two-week-long dispute with CNN over the White House credentials of Mr. Acosta, informing the correspondent that his badge was formally restored. CNN in turn dropped its lawsuit on the matter, which had ballooned into a test of press freedoms in the Trump era.  But while it yielded to Mr. Acosta — whose testy questions had touched off Mr. Trump’s ire — the administration used the occasion to lay down a set of formal rules governing reporters’ behavior at future White House news conferences, a highly unusual step.  Among the guidelines was a restriction of one question per reporter, with follow-ups allowed at the discretion of the president or the White House official at the lectern. “Failure to abide,” the administration warned, “may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.”  The White House sought to blame Mr. Acosta for behaving disrespectfully, although Mr. Trump often lobs insults at journalists and encourages a free-for-all format when taking questions from reporters. Codifying the behavior of journalists struck some as an ominous encroachment into freedom of the press, and the White House Correspondents’ Association said on Monday that it had not been consulted about the new guidelines.  The American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement, said: “These rules give the White House far too much discretion to avoid real scrutiny. The White House belongs to the public, not the president, and the job of the press is to ask hard questions, not to be polite company.” Still, the guidelines are not far removed from the manner in which White House news conferences typically proceed. Mr. Trump made clear last week that he would introduce “regulations” after a federal judge criticized the White House for stripping Mr. Acosta’s credentials without due process or a coherent rationale.  “We would have greatly preferred to continue hosting White House press conferences in reliance on a set of understood professional norms, and we believe the overwhelming majority of journalists covering the White House share that preference,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the press secretary, said in a statement.  Press relations were not always rosy in pre-Trump days. President Barack Obama’s aides preselected the news outlets that were allowed to ask questions at his news conferences. Mr. Obama often chastised reporters, including Mr. Acosta on one occasion, for questions he deemed overly aggressive or grandstanding. But Mr. Trump, a devoted news consumer who relishes his coverage, plays up his conflicts with reporters in part to excite his supporters. He has held far fewer formal news conferences than his predecessors, and the daily White House briefing has virtually disappeared on his watch.  Revoking Mr. Acosta’s White House badge was the most severe step yet, and it soon became apparent that the move would not pass legal muster: After suing last week, Mr. Acosta was granted the temporary return of his credentials by a federal judge.  A back-and-forth ensued over the weekend. Bill Shine, the deputy chief of staff for communications, sent a letter to Mr. Acosta that listed several reasons that his pass had been revoked, perhaps an attempt to satisfy the judge’s request for a clear rationale. CNN’s lawyers called the note an “after-the-fact concocted process.” By Monday afternoon, the sides had reached a resolution.  Aides to Mr. Trump say that the president does not mind answering questions, pointing to his numerous impromptu sessions with reporters during White House photo-ops and Marine One departures. The aides complain about reporters who they say do not respect the solemnity of the setting, even as Mr. Trump flouts many of the norms associated with his office.  “The White House’s interaction is, and generally should be, subject to a natural give-and-take,” Ms. Sanders wrote on Monday, suggesting that the onus was on the press corps to ensure that a “code of conduct” did not become necessary.  That notion read more like a warning — behave or else — and the Correspondents’ Association seemed unmoved.  “For as long as there have been White House press conferences, White House reporters have asked follow-up questions,” the group wrote on Monday. “We fully expect this tradition will continue.”
+FBI Informant “Threatened” After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Case  This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge While the mainstream media has largely ignored it, the scandal surrounding Russian efforts to acquire 20% of America’s uranium reserves, a deal which was ultimately approved by the Obama administration, and more specifically the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which included Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, is becoming more problematic for Democrats by the hour. As The Hill pointed out earlier this morning, the latest development in this sordid tale revolves around a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and beyond to build a case against a Russian perpetrator who ultimately admitted to bribery, extortion and money laundering. The informant, who is so far only known as “Confidential Source 1,” says that when he attempted to come forward last year with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the scandal he was promptly silenced by the FBI and the Obama administration. Working as a confidential witness, the businessman made kickback payments to the Russians with the approval of his FBI handlers and gathered other evidence, the records show. Sources told The Hill the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion. In the end, the main Russian executive sent to the U.S. to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear business, an executive of an American trucking firm and a Russian financier from New Jersey pled guilty to various crimes in a case that started in 2009 and ended in late 2015. Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA. “He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,” she said. The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation. At the time, Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said. It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal, transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval. In the midst of the new discoveries revealed yesterday about the Uranium One case (see: FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions), “Confidential Source 1” has once again hired an attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get his story out. Sitting down with The Hill earlier, Toensing said that the last time her client tried to speak out “both his reputation and liberty” were “threatened” by the Obama administration in a effort to force his silence. “All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, ‘This is wrong. What should I do about it?’” Toensing said she also possesses memos that recount how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race as well as helped him recover some of the money Russians stole from him through kickbacks during the FBI probe. The undercover client witnessed “a lot of bribery going on around the U.S.” but was asked by the FBI to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress, Toensing explained. When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” she added. Emails obtained by The Hill show that a civil attorney working with the former undercover witness described the pressure the Justice Department exerted to keep the client from disclosing to a federal court what he knew last summer. “The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,” the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, “As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint.” As we pointed out last summer when Peter Schweizer first released his feature documentary Clinton Cash, the Uranium One deal at the center of this scandal is believed to have netted the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation millions of dollars in donations and ‘speaking fees’ from Uranium One shareholders and other Russian entities. Russian Purchase of US Uranium Assets in Return for $145mm in Contributions to the Clinton Foundation – Bill and Hillary Clinton assisted a Canadian financier, Frank Giustra, and his company, Uranium One, in the acquisition of uranium mining concessions in Kazakhstan and the United States. Subsequently, the Russian government sought to purchase Uranium One but required approval from the Obama administration given the strategic importance of the uranium assets. In the run-up to the approval of the deal by the State Department, nine shareholders of Uranium One just happened to make $145mm in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Moreover, the New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, with ties to the Kremlin, around the same time. Needless to say, the State Department approved the deal giving Russia ownership of 20% of U.S. uranium assets. Meanwhile, the ‘journalists’ over at CNN are still trying to get to the bottom of exactly who spent the $100,000 on Facebook ads…
+French Authorities Blame Attack by Muslim Shouting, "Allahu Akbar" on "Excitement"  Over-excitement is a serious problem in the Muslim world. And outside it. While the 69-year-old Jewish man (wearing a kippah on his head) was coming out of the synagogue, heading for a bakery near 17 rue Pelleport in Paris 20 th, he was attacked by a 19-year-old man, of North African descent, who hit him on the body and on the head, knocked down, pulled by the hair and beaten while shouting "Allah Akbar". Long live Hitler, to death the Jews. " It can't be a case of Muslim Judeophobia. (That would be Islamophobic.) And since we're in Europe, it's time to default to the standard excuse, mental illness, current flavor, over-excitement. The police quickly intervened to save the victim who lodged a complaint. The anti-Semitic attacker was arrested and placed in police custody and then transferred to the psychiatric infirmary, on the recommendation of the doctor because of his observed state of excitement. It's okay. Getting really excited about Jews is a common problem among Muslim settlers in France. Earlier this month, the suspect in the alleged murder of a Jewish physician in Paris was deemed not responsible for his actions in a second psychiatric evaluation ordered by a judge even though the defense did not request it. The suspect, Traore Kobili, is scheduled to have a third evaluation to determine his ability to stand trial for the murder of Sarah Halimi in April 2017. He is alleged to have beaten her to death while calling her a demon and shouting about Allah before throwing her body from the window of her third-story apartment. They're all crazy in Europe. A Muslim terrorist stabbed four people at a train station near Munich while screaming, “Allahu Akbar”. In between proclaiming the glory of Allah, he also shouted that his victims were all “unbelievers”. A woman heard him say, “Infidel, you must die”. The German authorities came to the inescapable conclusion that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Instead the Muslim terrorist had been “mentally ill” and was probably not even fit to stand trial. And in Russia. Gyulchekhra Bobokulova beheaded a 4-year-old girl and displayed her head in the street while shouting, “Allahu Akbar. I hate democracy. I am a terrorist. I want you dead.” Faced with these bafflingly inscrutable statements, the authorities blamed mental illness. And Amsterdam. In May, Malek, a Syrian refugee, stabbed three people in The Hague while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” The Syrian had previously thanked the Dutch people for their hospitality by shouting, “Allahu Akbar,” and throwing pieces of furniture out of the window of his apartment and into the street. On the loose, Malek cut a man’s throat. He also stabbed two others. Police shot him in the leg, ruled out terrorism and blamed mental illness. In December of last year, Saleh Ali, a Syrian refugee wearing a keffiyah and waving a terrorist PLO flag, went up to a Jewish restaurant in Amsterdam, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and began smashing the windows. The police stood by and watched until he was done. And then they arrested him. Ali admitted to having fought with Jihadists in Syria. So the system decided that he needed a psychiatric evaluation Maybe it's not the terrorists who are nuts. Maybe it's the authorities who are insane.
+Conference of Mayors passes resolutions favoring gun control  “Policies like background checks on all gun sales and Red Flag Laws save lives,” said Karen Freeman-Wilson, mayor of Gary, Ind. | M. Spencer Green/AP Photo Conference of Mayors passes resolutions favoring gun control The bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a series of resolutions calling for more gun control measures during the group's annual meeting in Boston this week. The conference is advocating measures to strengthen the regulation of gun sales and dealers, as well as ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Story Continued Below “The U.S. Conference has a 50-year history of formally adopting and aggressively promoting strong policies to reduce gun violence, all consistent with its support for the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the group said. Additionally, the group called for steps it said would protect young people — like opposing letting teachers and other non-law enforcement personnel be armed in K-12 schools — and cited incidents like February’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, as impetus for its push. The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. The group also passed a resolution backing red flag laws that allow “family members and law enforcement to seek court permission to temporarily remove guns from a person in crisis.” “Policies like background checks on all gun sales and Red Flag Laws save lives,” said Karen Freeman-Wilson, mayor of Gary, Indiana, and chair of the conference’s criminal and social justice committee. “The U.S. Conference of Mayors will continue doing everything in our power to keep our communities safe so that children and families are able to live free of the fear of being gunned down.” Gun control advocates including the group Everytown for Gun Safety lauded the move. “Mayors are on the frontlines of America’s gun violence crisis, so it’s no surprise they’re also leading the charge to pass common-sense, life-saving laws,” Everytown President John Fienblatt said in a statement. “It’s time for our leaders in Washington to follow the lead of America’s mayors and put public safety over NRA priorities.”
+India Joins U.S. and China With Plans to Visit the Moon  So far, no one has ever managed to land on the far side of the moon, or near its shadowy poles. India wants to tackle both those firsts in one fell swoop this year, with its Chandrayaan-2 mission, a trio of orbiter, lander and rover that would represent the country's second visit to the moon. The mission is scheduled to launch sometime in the first half of this year, no earlier than March. Its target is a patch of lunar surface about 370 miles away from the south pole, where scientists think the rock may be 4 billion years old, formed just after the moon's giant ocean of liquid rock began to solidify. The region is an area NASA would also like to visit, preferably with a robot that would bring souvenir rock home to Earth for scientists to analyze directly in the laboratory. But despite NASA's renewed focus on lunar exploration, as dictated in December by an order from President Trump, the agency won't beat India back to the moon. Dibyangshu Sarkar/AFP/Getty Images That's even after India's Chandrayaan-2 mission was delayed by three years after Russia backed out of designing and producing the mission's lander. Rather than lose out on that part of the mission, the Indian Space Research Organization decided to just do it themselves. But they aren't sure how long they can expect the mission to last once the lander and rover arrive—it could be over in as little as two weeks, ending as soon as the sun sets, since the mission runs on solar power and the polar area is quite shadowy even during the day. During that time, the team hopes to gather data about charged particles around the moon and the small "moonquakes" that ripple through its surface. Read more: China Prepares for Moon Colony By Keeping Students in 'Lunar Palace' for 200 Days See all of the best photos of the week in these slideshows The new mission's predecessor, Chandrayaan-1, was an orbiter that found the first evidence that there was water ice on the moon. Now, scientists know that ice is likely concentrated at the poles, where it could become an important resource for human and robotic explorers alike. The orbiter piece of the upcoming mission will look to build on its predecessor by mapping how water actually moves around the moon. In the long term, India has its sights set well beyond the moon, with dreams of visiting Mars, Venus or an asteroid.
+“They All Look The Same” – Hillary Cracks Racist Joke After Booker/Holder Mix-Up  This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge Being the paragon of political-correctness and queen of virtue-signaling opportunism, Hillary Clinton sat down with Recode’s Kara Swisher this weekend to answer questions about just how evil and awful conservative opponents have been in the last few months. The conversation began normally, with Clinton hypocritically toeing the progressive line of identity politics by explaining how each of the groups are different but can be managed by the same liberal movement: “What’s often called political correctness is politeness,” Clinton said. “It’s not being rude and insulting to people. It’s respecting the diversity that we have in our society,” she said. “The Democratic Party is a much more diverse political party, attracting people who are African-American, Latino, LGBT, whatever the reason why people feel more comfortable where they are taken in, where they are included as part of a political movement or party.” “And I don’t think it’s politically correct to say we value that. And I don’t want to go around insulting people. I don’t want to paint with a broad brush every immigrant is this, every African-American is that, every, you know, other person with different religious beliefs or whatever – that’s childish.” Childish, indeed. Insulting, indeed. Just 30 seconds later, as Swisher asked: “what do you think of Cory Booker… saying ‘kick them in the shins,’ essentially…” incorrectly recalling Eric Holder’s recent comments. Which Clinton quickly corrected: “Well that was Eric Holder…” Adding, rather extraordinarily, “Yeah, I know they all look alike,” Clinton joked, triggering howls of laughter from the apparently mind-numbed audience. Sorry Hillary, we don’t think they look anything alike. Or did you mean all black people? Finally, we have one question – what would have happened if Trump said it? As The American Mirror’s Kyle Olsen concludes so eloquently, Hillary Clinton appears to benefit from her progressive privilege – it is the only thing that protects her from getting the ‘Roseanne treatment’, and not being dismissed in disgrace.
+PROOF: The LVMPD And FBI Failed To Catalog At Least One Deceased Las Vegas Massacre Victim As Death Toll Rises  In what can only be described as gross negligence or a massive cover-up of the truth, the F.B.I. and LVMPD have failed to record the death of at least one shooting victim killed in the massacre LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have failed to catalogue at least one deceased victim of the 1 October massacre which reportedly only left 58 people dead. The 59th victim, who is currently unnamed by the completely botched investigation and cover-up, was shot and killed in the parking lot of nearby business during the attack. The woman’s lifeless body can be seen being drug across the parking lot by several men who placed the body behind a pick-up truck while the gunfire continued. The event was reported by Intellihub’s Shepard Ambellas on Nov. 11, 2017, in the article titled Private surveillance footage reveals “helicopter hovering overhead” at time of Las Vegas Massacre, FBI never asked for tape, after an excerpt of the footage aired on Tucker Carlson Tonight. At 10:16 p.m., two men drag a “fallen victim” across the parking lot. The men position the victim behind a Ford pickup truck, presumably to shield themselves and the victim from taking any further incoming rounds as they attempted to give the victim medical assistance. “Later at ten-twenty-four p.m., one of the men places his shirt across the victim’s face and then at ten-thirty-two a man places what appears to be a blanket or towel over the body after they had given up hope,” Tucker Carlson said. “Police only arrive in this area for the first time around ten-forty-five p.m. when the body is still there.” The victim’s body was eventually was loaded into the back of a Ford Raptor pickup truck at 11:50 p.m. and taken away. Astonishingly, between the times of 10:13 p.m. and 10:16 p.m. a good amount of debris can be seen being pushed downward and sideways in front of the camera which Carlson claims is from a “helicopter hovering overhead.” A quick review of flight records during that time reveals that a squadron of EC-130 Eurocopters departed from Maverick Leasing LLC at 10:12 p.m., several of which appear to have overflown the parking lot where the victim and debris were seen. However, the departure of the choppers and the fact that several of them overflew the parking lot does not explain all of the debris being kicked up from by a heavy downdraft, prop wash, possibly from a helicopter hovering in place much closer. In fact, the downdraft appears to be constant from 10:13-10:16 p.m. and not intermittent as if several choppers had just passed overhead. According to Carlson, the owner of the tape maintains that law enforcement investigators have never asked to see the footage. A preliminary report on the shooting released by the LVMPD on Friday only lists seven victims as being “placed” outside of the venue, two of which were over a half mile away. However, the official report failed to catalogue the dead woman who was shot in the parking lot of a Haven Street business. The following image is taken from page 34 of the LVMPD preliminary report which shows the seven victims and their locations of death numbered in yellow. The next photo shows where the unnamed victim was located. The victim can be seen being dragged in the following video. The following day, several men, one of which presumably was Fox News anchor Sean Hannity (who was heavily guarded by a five-man security team), received mobile haircuts in the very same parking lot, in nearly the same spot the victim’s body was dragged to. Who was this victim? Will the F.B.I. and LVMPD please explain what in the Hell is going on here? How was this victim overlooked by investigators but known by Intellihub? Who was this victim? Why were people getting haircuts at the crime scene? How many more victims went ignored by investigators?
+Wait! Wait! It’s all a MISTRANSLATION!  Thus, it took more than a year-and-a-half for the Factory to roll out the old reliable “mistranslation” defense to explain away the infamous paragraph 303 of Amoris Laetita (AL), which reads as follows in the official English translation on the Vatican website: Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In other words, the conscience can “inform” a sinner that his continued sinning is not only acceptable to God but is even what God is asking “for now,” given one’s particular “limits.” This outrageous proposition, a form of situation ethics that strikes at the very foundation of Catholic moral teaching, has justly provoked a storm of criticism from lay and clerical defenders of the authentic Magisterium.  But it’s all a misunderstanding, say Dr. Robert Fastiggi, professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, and Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D., professor of Dogmatic Theology at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. All of the critics of AL are wrong—every one of them!—because, you see, the original Latin text does not say what the English text does. Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Dr. Dawn Goldstein Here we go again. So what does the Latin say? Here is the paragraph in the official Latin: Haec autem conscientia agnoscere potest non modo statum quendam ab universali Evangelii mandato obiective dissidere; etiam sincere honesteque agnoscere poteste quod sit liberale responsum in praesenti Deo reddendum atque eadem conscientia firma quadam morali certitudine intellegere illam esse oblationem quam ipse Deus requirit inter rerum impedientium congeriem, quamvis perfectum nondum sit obiectivum exemplar. Yes, and so what? Well, according to Fastiggi and Goldstein, while the English translation reads: “what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God,” the Latin employs the word oblationem, which means offering. So, What the Pope Really Means® is: “what for now is the most generous offering which can be given to God.” So, it’s an offering to God, not a response to God. Big difference.  But just a moment: how can objectively immoral behavior ever be characterized as an “offering” to God? It would seem the Latin version has graver implications than the English because it suggests that falling short of what the moral law requires is an oblation pleasing to God if one’s “limits” make obedience to the moral law difficult. And that is exactly the nonsense Fastiggi and Goldstein expect us to swallow: “Pope Francis is not talking about an offering of an objectively sinful action but a gift of self that moves toward God and the objective moral norm.”  So, our intrepid presenters of What the Pope Really Means® would have us believe that objectively immoral behavior, which is the best one can do according “the “concrete complexity of one’s limits,” is no longer simply objectively immoral behavior but rather a gift of self because it moves toward morally licit behavior. Fastiggi and Goldstein have managed to make the problem even worse in their attempt to explain it away.  What about the English locution “while yet not fully the objective ideal,” which seems to reduce the negative precepts of the natural law to mere ideals? Not so, Fastiggi and Goldstein contend. Do not all those ignorant critics of AL know that the Latin text employs the phrase “obiectivum exemplar,” which, translated literally into English is “objective exemplar.” They declare triumphantly: “The Latin term exemplar does not mean an unattainable ideal, it specifically means a pattern or model to follow.”  Give. Me. A. Break. A pattern or model to follow is an ideal, as a standard Latin dictionary confirms with its definition of exemplar: “(1) copy/reproduction, (2) model, pattern, example, original, ideal. Likewise, the definition of the English word “exemplar” is simply: “an ideal model.”  Here too Fastiggi and Goldsetein only worsen the problem they try to explain away. For if moral behavior is now to be viewed as merely “exemplary” rather than divinely mandated by the natural law that binds all men—including Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery—then basic morality becomes a kind of heroic virtue. Thus, continence cannot realistically be expected, at least “for now” (AL 303), of the average Joe or Jane with an “ex” who has “remarried” and is now mired in the “concrete complexity one’s limits.”  So, as Fastiggi and Goldstein would have it, all the tumult triggered by AL is just a misunderstanding caused by uninformed people who haven’t consulted the Latin text—including those ignorant Vatican translators. According to their proposed “alternate translation” into English, What the Pope Really Means® is that objectively immoral behavior one feels unable to correct due to one’s “limits” is “the offering that God himself is asking amid the mass of impediments, although it may not yet be the perfect objective model.” Which is what the official English translation already says but with fewer words.  It seems Fastiggi and Goldstein are hoping no one will notice that their linguistic tinkering produces no real change in meaning but only an intensification of its perniciousness. Indeed, their “proposed alternate translation” reduces the avoidance of adulterous relations in “second marriages” to the “perfect objective model.” Now, how could anyone but a Pharisee expect perfection from people living in adultery? Are you perfect? Then again, the Pharisees are precisely the ones Our Lord condemned for accommodating divorce and remarriage in violation of the natural law. But such embarrassing truths need not impede the Bergoglian Mercy Train as it barrels toward a train wreck at the end of the line. And Fastiggi and Goldstein are busily helping it along, changing red signals to green. No problem here! has been the mantra of the neo-Catholic establishment for nearly half a century of ecclesial auto-demolition.  But wait, there’s more! Our dynamic translators even provide their own dynamic interpretation of AL to mean that the “offering” to God of which Francis speaks is merely the decision by a divorced and “remarried” couple with children not to end their relationship, which would be the “perfect objective model,” but rather to “live in continence until they may—after the hoped for declaration of nullity—enter into a true marriage.” That is, they would have Francis affirming John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio, which repeats the Church’s constant teaching that continence is required of those who have entered into adulterous “second marriage,” failing which they cannot be admitted to the sacraments.  But the Fastiggi-Goldstein interpretation is precisely the contrary of the interpretation Francis has assiduously promoted and which Fastiggi and Goldstein just as assiduously ignore: i.e., that people in “second marriages” do not have to live in continence, but rather—in “certain cases”—may continue their adulterous relations while receiving absolution and Holy Communion during a “process of discernment.” As we know, in his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, published on the Vatican website (in response to a query he himself may have solicited), Bergoglio informed them “there is no other interpretation.”  Moreover, the Maltese bishops' “guidelines” for implementing AL, published in L’Osservatore Romano—for which Bergoglio thanked them—declare thus: If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351). This Pope’s plan of promulgating a deliberately ambiguous document whose heterodox interpretation and application he would later approve with a series of sub-magisterial winks and nods, both oral and written, is the reason I signed onto the Correctio Filialis. See the piece by Joseph Shaw in this regard.  Shaw maintains that AL can be “bent into some kind of orthodoxy.” Perhaps. But it is not our responsibility to bend a Pope’s statements into conformity with the Faith. Moreover, any Pope who promulgates a document that can be read as orthodox only by a forced interpretation imposed by certain readers—while others disagree—has by that very fact inflicted grave harm upon on the Church, which he alone has the duty to correct. But Francis, as any reasonable observer can see, has no intention of offering any such correction. Quite to the contrary, confusion as a cover for the introduction of Holy Communion for “certain” public adulterers by Bergoglio’s co-conspirators in the Vatican and various dioceses is exactly what he was aiming to achieve from the beginning of the whole synodal charade, which was merely a vehicle for promulgation of AL. As Shaw observes of AL: “What we [the signers of the Correctio] are saying is that it has become clear that orthodoxy is not what Pope Francis wants us to find there.”  In a sense, what Bergoglio is doing is worse than explicit heresy, which could at least be readily identified and denounced as such. But Bergoglio wants the effects of heresy—undermining Holy Matrimony, Confession and Holy Communion, whose integrity is affirmed verbally—without the guilt of an explicit promulgation. In so acting, he is very much in the mold of Honorius I, who was posthumously anathematized by an ecumenical council (the Third Council of Constantinople) and by his own successor (Leo II) for aiding and abetting the spread of the Monothelite heresy (no human but only a divine will in Christ). Honorius did so by means of private correspondence with the author of the heresy, endorsing the heresy without ever formally proclaiming it as doctrine. And yet Honorius I is listed in the canon of the Popes and is not considered to have fallen from office on account of heresy. A similar judgment might well befall this Pope, but it is not for us to level it.  Meanwhile, as Fastiggi and Goldstein labor to convince us that nothing is amiss with AL, Pope Bergoglio is sending clear signals of concern about the rising opposition among the faithful to his master plan to subvert the Church according to his false notion of mercy. In a classic power move, he has just given a sop to Cardinal Burke, the perceived leader of the opposition, by appointing him to a minor position on the Apostolic Signatura—the same tribunal from which Bergoglio brutally removed him as Prefect. And this after also humiliating Burke as the spiritual patron of the Knights of Malta, to which he was exiled after his removal.  Will this sop buy Burke’s silence, staving off the feared public correction? We will soon know if the Cardinal can be bought so easily. But this move demonstrates—if more evidence were needed—that Bergoglio has never been the humble apostle of mercy depicted in his carefully crafted public relations narrative, but rather a cunning ecclesiastical politician, constantly plotting and scheming to get what he wants. That the neo-Catholic establishment refuses to recognize the grim reality of this unprecedented pontificate is but another page in the long annals of its shameful defense of the indefensible to the detriment of Holy Mother Church.
\ No newline at end of file