La Stampa’s Robert Fastiggi Replies to Chris Ferrara  La Stampa’s Robert Fastiggi Replied to Chris Ferrara’s articles on Fastiggi and Goldstein’s defense of Amoris Laetitia and their criticism of the Filial Correction:   Fastiggi’s exchange with Ferrara concerning “Wait, Wait, It’s all a mistranslation!”  Robert Fastiggi • 13 hours ago  In the article that I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein, we would have done better to speak of the “official” Latin text rather than the “original” Latin text. This, though, is no longer an issue because the normative text is the Latin text published in thr AAS. Mr. Ferrara, however, bases his critique upon an assumption that the “generous response” offered to God is a sin. This, though, is not what AL is saying. The generous response is a move away from sin and a move toward God. I explain this in my most recent response to Prof. E. Christian Brugger, which can serve as my response to Mr. Ferrara:  Posted on LifeSiteNews: Prof. Brugger is a good theologian and a fine man, but he still seems to believe that AL 303 implies that God is asking people to continue to sin in some cases. In his April 22, 2016 article in Catholic World Report, Brugger writes that AL 303 suggests that “God can be ‘asking’ someone to live in a life-state in which they are objectively violating grave matter.” Then in a Sept. 28 ‘17 LifeSiteNews article, he states that “the generous response” owed to God is “a certain state that is objectively at variance with the universal command of the Gospel.” Now Prof. Brugger argues that, because the subject remains “this conscience” in AL 303, this proves that the “generous offering owed to God” is the recognition that one is living “contrary to “the universal command of the Gospel.”  Prof. Brugger fails to see that AL 303 clearly distinguishes between a conscience’s recognition that “a given situation is objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel” and this same conscience’s subsequent recognition of a “generous response owed to God in the present circumstances.” The subject “conscience” might be the same but the object is different. The “generous response” is not the situation that is at variance with the command of the Gospel but an offering that God is asking amid the mass of impediments even though it may not yet be the perfect objective model.  What might be this “generous response?” Pope Francis does not give an example in AL 303 because he’s speaking in general terms of the dynamics of conscience. Moreover, he knows that concrete cases vary widely. In our Sept. 26 article in La Stampa, Dr. Goldstein and I provided a hypothetical example of a couple in a purely civil “marriage” recognizing that God is calling them to live in continence. We chose this example deliberately to demonstrate that “the generous response” could be the ending of a particular sin. Our example was an attempt to show that Professors Brugger and Seifert are wrong to believe AL 303 implies that God is asking some people to continue to live in an objectively sinful state. It’s really just the opposite. AL 303 teaches that conscience will come to recognize that God is asking for a step in the right direction away from sin. Pope Francis explains this again in AL 305 when he says “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties.’”  In a recent interview (http://www.lastampa.it/2017..., the Italian philosopher, Rocco Buttiglione, provides this example for AL 303: “Imagine a father who has a sick son and the child improves. He still has fever but has stopped vomiting; the child manages to keep in his stomach what he eats and has started a therapy that seems to work. The father is happy. Is he happy about the fact that the child is sick? No, he is pleased that his son gives symptoms of improvement and healing.”  This is what Pope Francis is saying in AL 303. God is not happy with situations that are objectively at variance with the command of the Gospel. God, however, is happy when people in such situations discern in conscience that He is asking them to make a choice that moves in the right direction—even if they still need to progress further toward a more complete fulfillment of His will. This is the law of gradualness not the gradualness of the law. It is sad that this beautiful and compassionate message of AL 303 has been so completely misunderstood by scholars who have failed to grasp its true meaning.  Chris Ferrara to Robert Fastiggi • 9 hours ago  I certainly agree that the Latin text is the normative text even if it comes later. I certainly do not agree that the Latin text eliminates the grave problems with Amoris Laetitia. Rather, as I show in my article, it only intensifies them.  With all due respect to Dr. Fastiggi, his argument and that of Buttiglione, that a “move away from sin” is what is pleasing to God, even if the moral norm is not adhered to, is sophistical. What constitutes a “move away” from sin if not ceasing to commit the sin? No example is provided in AL because none can be. The notion is nonsensical. Just how nonsensical is demonstrated by Dr. Fastiggi’s claim that by “a move away from sin” in the case of a divorced and “remarried” couple Francis means their agreement to live in continence as brother and sister for the sake of children. But that would be ceasing to commit the sin of adultery altogether as it would involve abandoning the pretense that they are married along with the illicit sexual relation itself. Such a couple could always be absolved and receive Holy Communion under the Church’s constant practice, albeit privately to avoid scandal.  At any rate, the “brother and sister” approach to the situation, which is that of Familiaris consortio 84, is certainly not the one advocated by Francis. As my article shows, Francis has made it quite clear that he approves of admitting to the sacraments divorced and “remarried” people who will continue to live as if they were married, including sexual relations, while “discerning” their situation, this “discernment” being a mere fig leaf to conceal the proposed toleration of public adultery in the Church. Thus, Francis thanked the Maltese bishops for their AL guidelines, which literally mandate admission to the sacraments of divorced and “remarried” people who believe themselves to be “at peace with God.” And, as he told the bishops of Buenos Aires in writing, “there is no other interpretation.”  No amount of verbal artifice can conceal what is happening in the Church thanks to AL: Public adulterers are being admitted to Holy Communion without an amendment of life and the bimillenial discipline of the Church---which John Paul insisted involves a moral norm, not a mere ecclesiastical law, to which everyone is bound in conscience “without exception”---is being overthrown in place after place.  It is a great disservice to the Church to maintain the pretense that there is nothing problematical about AL. A moral catastrophe is self-evidently underway and it is not possible honestly to deny its cause.  Robert Fastiggi to Chris Ferrara • 2 hours ago  Thank you for your response. You write well but you do not reveal a proper understanding of what Pope Francis is saying in AL 303. I can only ask that you to study the matter more carefully with an open heart and mind.  Chris Ferrara to Robert Fastiggi • 16 minutes ago  Tell that to the four cardinals, the 800,000 faithful, the 45 theologians and the 61 other original signers of the correctio, all of whom you insult with your superficial and I must say entirely sophistical attempt to explain away what Francis is clearly doing.  Irony of ironies, the latter-day Pharisees and legalists Francis sees around every corner are hard at work defending Amoris Laetitia at the very moment it is being cited by bishop after bishop as their sole authority for admitting public adulterers to Holy Communion---while Francis does nothing but approve.  I think you should follow your own advice about studying this matter with an open heart and mind, but above all with open eyes, for you have clearly shut them to what is going in the dioceses in the name of AL.  Fastiggi’s exchange with Ferrara concerning “More Fake News: La Stampa Tries Again.”  Robert Fastiggi • 12 hours ago  I would like to thank Christopher Ferrara again for calling attention to an article I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein in La Stampa. I give him credit for his colorful style. Unfortunately, Mr. Ferrara provides no real evidence for his claim that Pope Francis “wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers in 'second marriages' to the sacraments while continuing their adulterous relations.”  He mentions the Holy Father's letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, but he fails to take into account that the statement of those Argentine bishops can be interpreted in an orthodox way, as Cardinal Müller told Edward Pentin in a Sept. 28 interview published in the National Catholic Register. In fact the statement of the Argentine bishops only speaks of the possibility of “access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” This could reasonably be interpreted as going to confession before receiving Holy Communion.  The same applies to statements of Pope Francis and Cardinal Schoenborn mentioned by Ferrara. Pope Francis defers to the exposition of Amoris laetitia by Cardinal Schoenborn given in April 2016 when the exhortation was made public. I have read the Cardinal's exposition in both Italian and English, and I only find mention of the help of the sacraments in certain cases. Once again, Mr. Ferrara assumes this means access to Holy Communion without prior sacramental confession. With regard to the letter thanking the Bishops of Malta, it should be noted that Edward Pentin mentions a letter of Cardinal Baldiserri not a letter of Pope Francis. Moreover, this letter has not been made public so we don't know exactly what it says other than an expression of thanks. This seems to be very thin evidence for claiming Pope Francis wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers to the sacraments while continuing in their adulterous relations. As a lawyer, Ferrara should have a better sense of what really counts as evidence. As a Christian, he should also be mindful of the command against bearing false witness.  Beyond these considerations, I wish to express a personal concern I have about Mr. Ferrara's standing in the Catholic Church. He says that Dr. Goldstein and I are “foot soldiers of a Leviathan Church” because we defend the Roman Pontiff. Does Mr. Ferrara believe that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is a “Leviathan Church” and not the Catholic Church? If this is so, then it would suggest that Mr. Ferrara is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This, though, is the very definition of schism found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089 and the 1983 CIC canon 751. I hope Mr. Ferrara can clarify what he means by the “Leviathan Church” under Pope Francis. A more simple question to him would be this: “Are you refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members subject to him?”  I apologize ahead of time if I misconstrued his words. I believe, though, my question is reasonable in light of his reference to a “Leviathan Church” distinct from “the dictates of the Immortal God in heaven.”  Chris Ferrara to Robert Fastiggi • 9 hours ago  If Dr. Fastiggi wishes to continue to pretend, despite a growing mountain of evidence, that Pope Francis has not in fact approved of the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion--just as he did when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and just as he did with the woman he telephoned in Argentina—then I cannot help him.  As for my metaphorical reference to a “Leviathan Church,” I am afraid Dr. Fastiggi has succumbed to an unfortunate literal-mindedness. To make it clear for him, I am contending that he and his co-author treat the Pope as if he were the absolute ruler of Hobbes’s Leviathan. I do not, as should be obvious, argue that this Leviathan Church actually exists. That it does not and cannot exist is precisely my point.  Dr. Fastiggi’s inapt citation to Canon 751 and his clumsy and insulting questions about my “standing in the Catholic Church” and whether I am “refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff” demonstrate a pronounced lack of comprehension of pertinent ecclesiological and theological basics, and a rather embarrassing lack of rhetorical finesse. Raising objections to a papal document because it appears to depart from sound orthodoxy is hardly “refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff,” who has not, at any rate, actually commanded anyone to “submit” to anything via AL.  I respectfully suggest that Dr. Fastiggi’s comments evince a need for serious study and reflection before he ventures further opinions on this controversy in public.  Editor’s Note: Paragraph breaks added for readability.
Things to Do in an Emergency: “What’s Your Trade?”  Well, it’s been quite a couple of news weeks for the Catholic Church, hey? McCarrick, Pineda/Maradiaga, Fr. James Larkin getting the boot in Dublin for upholding Catholic teaching on abortion… I know some people are, to put it bluntly, freaking out. The anger of the laity over the McCarrick situation is boiling over into the Twitter feed of the people we still call “the good bishops”. Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence RI, - nicknamed the “Good Tobin” in contrast to the “Bad Tobin” and FrancisCardinal, Joseph Tobin of Newark – got quite an earful when he tweeted the other day, “Despite the egregious offenses of a few, and despite the faults and sins we all have, I’m very proud of my brother bishops and I admire and applaud the great work they do everyday for Christ and His Church.” The replies haven’t topped out yet, at 121, nearly all of them expressing outrage at this cavalier attitude toward the revelation that Cardinal McCarrick has been proven to be a life-long homosexual rapist and sexual predator, grooming and trapping young men and children into unwanted sexual contact; and that nearly the entire episcopate of the United States either colluded directly or kept quiet about it. It’s clear that even the “good bishops” have simply no idea how close they are to being bodily chucked out of their own churches by furious mobs. As I wrote elsewhere, since 2002, most Catholics know perfectly well, despite the lame whitewashing attempt, that “the US bishops gave themselves a pass” on clerical sex abuse with the Dallas Charter “a thing that brazenly shifted blame.” And it seems that though they’re still doing this, quite a few lay Catholics just aren’t having it. We are seeing the final slide, the expected and inevitable result of the last 100 years. The Church was infiltrated, we know this, in the 19th century by some pretty dark forces, and they have finally come into the ascendancy and are showing themselves quite clearly for what they are. The McCarrick news – and all the stuff swirling around it like the latest about Bishop Pineda and his connection to Pope Francis through Cardinal Maradiaga – has not come in contrast to this but as an intrinsic part of it. The scandal of McCarrick is simply a toxic emission, a venting of the gasses that build up naturally around any rotting thing. Rod Dreher[1] is doing excellent work compiling testimony from priests and others saying out loud at last what many of us had known for many years about McCarrick and his gang. It has shown the world what Traditionalists have known, that it is emphatically NOT the result of one “bad apple” or even only a “few” as the hapless “conservative” Bishop Tobin tried to claim on Twitter. This is the result of a mass-collusion. As our friend Steve Skojec put it the other day, “We’ve got to stop pretending it’s just the progressive element in the Church. The ‘conservatives’ are complicit, too.” In short, as it was during his days of glory, globe trotting on the dime of the State Department, hosting presidents for dinner and inviting John Paul II and Mother Theresa to tea, so it is now: McCarrick is the face of the New Paradigm. Whether he now has to go live in obscurity in some beach house in the Caymans, it will remain true: McCarrick is the “New Church.” A point that Dreher’s informants have brought up needs to be made emphatic: the homosexualist cabal that is currently reported to be dominant in the Catholic hierarchy (and don’t imagine this is confined to the United States or even to the English speaking world) have a well documented methodology of mutual protection-and-threat that keeps the whole apparatus afloat. In briefest and simplest possible terms, immoral or even illegal sexual activity is preferred because it leaves a man open to blackmail, to control through fear of exposure[2]. When that blackmailing culture becomes ascendant, it will always reject the morally upright as too dangerous, too difficult to control. This is why faithful seminarians are rejected and why faithful priests are harassed. As Dreher reported, When predatory gay priests run seminaries, they select on a bias for gay candidates... Gay seminarians who intend to be celibate, Sipe said, face tremendous pressure to have sex. If they slip up even once, their failure will be noted, and shared… And they will be made to understand that their lapse is remembered. Later, as a priest, predators within the priesthood have that knowledge to hold over the heads of other gay priests, to keep them silent if they ever have the desire to blow whistles. When I was covering the scandal in the early 2000s, I spoke to several, unconnected heterosexual men — priests, former priests, seminarians — who said that gay seminary rectors or diocesan officials encouraged them to take female sexual partners, so that they too would be complicit in sexual secret-keeping, and therefore no longer [be] a potential danger. Nothing in a system like that is a greater threat to the corrupt than men who are not corrupt. For many priests, one might say all good priests, this is not a sustainable situation, to say the least. I’ve had quite a few conversations with priests who are now asking how to deal with it. How are they to continue to offer the sacraments in this situation? Where are they to live? How are they to maintain themselves? These are the priests who did make it through this institutional gauntlet, who remain faithful now but are still under the control of these often grossly corrupt and evil men. As men known to be incorruptible themselves, there is a big target painted on their backs. In short, not only can a bad bishop harry a man out of his ministry, he has complete control over the priest’s material life. The bishop can, with the flick of a pen or a single phone call, render a priest homeless, penniless and jobless. And these, remember, are men, often well on in years, whose only education and employment training has likely been academic degrees in philosophy and theology, and whose only professional contacts are ecclesiastical. Moreover, because of the globalisation of the bishop-network, a man blackballed for his authentic Catholicity will be a pariah in every diocese in the world. And with the advent of Bergoglio in Rome, there are no more havens; as many of the former Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have learned, the blackballing has gone global with this pontificate. He will remain a pariah even among the so-called “good” bishops who live in terror of the immense power of the cabal… (see above re: McCarrick & President Bush/John Paul II.) I have been hearing from priests who are saying in effect, “We’re trapped in this situation and forced to remain silent because if we don’t we’ll not only be unable to function as priests, but we’ll be homeless and penniless. We’re unemployable in any other field.” And as much as we might be tempted to say, “Well suck it up, this is for the good of souls,” the reality is that these are not small considerations. Many priests are getting older – many of them with health issues – and a man who has already given 20 or 30 years of his life to the Church is faced with a practical impossibility if he finds himself blacklisted. Of course there are some who don’t fit this mould; there are a lot of second careers in the priesthood and plenty of people go into seminary after some years in the normal workforce and can go back to it at need. Some of the men now coming forward with complaints against McCarrick, who left the priesthood over their experiences, have gone on to have normal, healthy working lives. But I think honestly most priests are in this corner and they know it and so do their bishops. I think a young man goes forward in great faith, spends ten to fifteen years studying philosophy and theology - fields that have almost no application in the workforce outside academia or the Church - with the honest, and frankly fair, expectation of a lifetime of employment and a safety net at the end. As one of them said to me, “The old arrangement was, ‘Remain faithful, do the work, and we will look after you. We’ll house, feed and clothe you and look after your retirement.’ The new arrangement is a perversion of that: ‘Keep quiet and go along with it all and you’ll be fine, but step an inch out of line and we’ll destroy you.’” So what do we do? The Old Paradigm is destroyed and going along with the New Paradigm is a guarantee of destruction for yourself and everyone else. As we saw in Ireland this week, the Purge has started. It’s not enough to simply demand that a priest continue in his ministry no matter what. We need to start working together with faithful priests – while there still are some – to help them create practical material alternatives. If we who still love the Church want priests to be faithful, and even to start denouncing the evil and corruption they see, we are going to have to help them create a modicum of independence and security in which to do it. The other day the American conservative writer, John Zmirak, wrote a sound suggestion on Twitter that I think it’s time we all started taking seriously. In response to the continued outrages of both “good” and bad bishops, Zmirak suggested establishing “an escrow fund in each scandal-plagued diocese, where laymen [can] deposit the funds they would have donated to [the] local church, until [a] new bishop [is] appointed.” I responded: “And the money could be used to purchase properties to house faithful priests punished by their bishops for refusing the New Paradigm. We could even perhaps buy a few convents so contemplative nuns could continue to pray in peace, without harassment from the evil men in Rome.” I am hearing lately from laymen who are starting to talk about setting up financial structures to ensure that the authentic Catholic life can be maintained through what is obviously soon to be a general collapse of the institution. This would mean independent non-profit foundations that could build or buy church buildings, convents and even schools and provide salaries for priests and other staff. I started thinking about this recently when I received a note from a reader with a link to an online petition from Germany, addressed to the German bishops [!!!] “begging” those manifestly evil and apostate men not to close a famous and ancient monastic house. I responded that this was going about things the wrong way. Catholics are going to have to get their heads out of the mindset that they are helpless petitioners, “begging” the hierarchy to maintain the Faith. First of all, it only gives them a frisson of pleasure to see us groveling and begging for mercy. Let’s not give them that, OK? There’s already enough “frissons of pleasure” in their lives. Second, it’s simply not going to work. In Germany, in the US, in Canada, in Italy, in Britain… throughout the Church in the 1st world, and in much of it elsewhere, the men in charge of the “institutional Church” – that is, whose names are on the bank accounts – are dedicated to the destruction of everything we want to preserve. The wolves are now looking with ravening eyes at the faithful. They are, in short, our enemies. They’ve become so by making themselves the enemies of Christ and His Holy Church. They know it and it’s time we stopped imagining otherwise. The other suggestion I have is for young men interested in the priesthood to fortify themselves not only spiritually but in the material sphere. There’s one big vulnerability we can guard against pretty easily. No one should be facing penury and permanent unemployment because he’s a faithful Catholic. We should never be letting any young man go into any diocesan seminary without being a property owner. He should own a house or stand to inherit one. Families have to come to see this as a duty to the child and to the Church. And more than that, the potential priest needs to have job skills that have nothing to do with the priesthood. Among the working classes there is a bias against intellectual work. But most working class people have a pretty sensible attitude towards ambitions in academia: get something under your belt you can fall back on. How many philosophy PhDs can build himself a bookshelf? Change the oil in a car? Rewire a house? The standard cliché of young people with useless academic degrees working at Starbucks has become so common it’s not even worth memeing anymore. How many young men do we foresee being forced out of seminary for having the wrong “sexual orientation”? Every one of those guys needs to be able to snap his fingers in the face of the rector and walk straight into a decent job, based not on any recommendation from a corrupt bishop, but on his solid skills. Among the white collar classes there is a bias against blue collar work, but the trades are crying out for skilled men and a trade school diploma in fixing tractors is a lot cheaper and a lot faster to get than a university degree. That’s an economic asset that we can’t afford to turn up our well-educated noses at. Don't miss Hilary White's next article in the July 31 Print Edition of The Remnant Newspaper; Subscribe today!   It reminds me of a discussion I had some years ago with the prior of a Benedictine monastery that is attracting a lot of young vocations. One kid wanted to join and told me they had recommended he go to some college or other to study philosophy first. This college, apparently, waives much of the tuition and gives work studies to people going for the priesthood and religious life so they can avoid the student loan trap. This is fine, good idea. But I asked him what he knew how to do. “Can you fix a bathroom pipe? Do you know anything about what to feed a sheep or how to care for a cow? Can you drive a tractor?” This nice kid, who certainly does have a vocation, could read books and look things up on the internet and write a pretty mean paper on Thomas Aquinas, but not a lot else. There is going to have to be a shift in attitude in our remaining faithful institutions. Does a monastery really need all of its members to have PhDs in philosophy and theology? Wouldn’t it also be useful to have an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter, a cook, someone who knows how to fix a car or a tractor? Or for that matter, a certified accountant or an investment banker? If you insist on having people with degrees, maybe a degree in agriculture would be a good fit for a big monastic foundation with a lot of land like, say, Clear Creek or that new Carmelite place in Nebraska. I think this is the time we are going to have to start overcoming our class snobbery. Young men with ambitions for the priesthood are going to have to tuck away employability and an independent financial foundation, in the same way people used to tuck money away against a rainy day. Simply put, they’ve got to stop being materially dependent on the hierarchy. This vulnerability is a gun to their heads in this time. The next kid who says anything to me about wanting to enter the diocesan priesthood, I’m going to ask, “How sound is your investment portfolio?” The next candidate for religious life, I’ll ask, “Great! What’s your trade? What do you have to fall back on?” I’m given to understand that some houses of the Congregation of the Oratory ask candidates to come with an independent income, which, given what we’re seeing elsewhere doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Perhaps Catholic financial advisors could be encouraged to set up a programme to teach young men how to create a sound financial footing with investments. Meanwhile, we must refocus our energy on the Faith itself, instead of the physical and even canonical structures that house it. That monastery in Germany is lost. Those bishops want the property and they’ll get it. What the group of laymen should be doing, instead of petitioning that it be saved, is finding a place where the nuns can live their charism of religious life without episcopal harassment. Bishops won’t protect and support good priests? Then it’s up to us. The Vatican wants to force all religious congregations into the pants-wearing, Marxist anti-nun, LCWR pattern? We’re not helpless. We start buying convent buildings and start a fund to support the nun-refugees. Our goal must be preserving the precious treasure, the Deposit of the Faith, the sacramental life, the great charisms and artifacts of the religious life. I am reminded of what the curators of the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg did in the face of the advancing German army. They took down, packed up and hid the art treasures, some of the greatest in the world. Over a million precious works of art were sent on trains to be hidden in the Urals. Two trains got away to safety, but one was still there when the Germans surrounded the city and began the siege. The museum’s website tells us: “Despite starvation and severely cold temperatures, the Museum continued its preservational functions. With only a skeleton staff left behind, it was difficult to protect the vast buildings and their sumptuous interiors against snow, wind and rain. Equipped with first-aid kits, wearing helmets and gloves, the Museum air wardens cleared away heaps of broken bricks and the remains of charred flooring after each bomb hit the building; they helped dig out the living and the dead and bandage the wounded after raids in the surrounding area. Twelve air-raid shelters were fitted out in the basements of the Museum complex and until the first evacuations were made in March 1942 there were 12,000 people housed there permanently, among them the Museum Director, celebrated Academician Iosif Orbeli.” “Hermitage staff both in Sverdlovsk and in Leningrad acted as museum attendants, continuing their scholarly activity and lecturing in hospitals, holding conferences, writing scholarly articles. No items were lost during the evacuation.” To keep up everyone’s morale, the museum staff, while bombs were falling and they and their patrons were equally starving, continued to give tours and lectures, describing perfectly the artworks that had been removed. They understood the value of what they had, and did everything within their power to preserve and protect it. Does this all sound a bit, well, schismatic? Not necessarily. Any bishop who can demonstrate through his actions and not just with his tweets, who can prove that he is still a Catholic and not a wolf, is welcome to join us. But we’d be fools to wait for them. Whatever you might think of Archbishop Lefebvre’s solution over the last few decades, it certainly seems inarguable that the “state of emergency” for which he was preparing has come at last. And in a state of emergency, certain norms are naturally suspended. The simple fact is that soon there are going to be “vagus” priests who have been thrown out of their ministry for maintaining the Faith. There are going to be nuns and monks without homes, as in the England of Henry VIII. I think it’s only reasonable that those who also want to maintain the Faith should reach out to them and offer what shelter we can. What we have seen this week is making it clear that we can simply no longer sit back and “beg” bishops to maintain and defend the Faith. It’s not enough now to go into seminary or a monastery with glowing eyes and a firm faith. Sentiment isn’t going to be much comfort when the young man is no longer so very young and finds himself standing on the street outside the chancery with no skills, no money, no job, (no health insurance) and no prospects. If it is true that we really are alone in this, then so be it. Let’s stop lamenting and start doing practical things about it. ___________________________________ [1] Dreher and others are asking some very important questions now about the activities of the men McCarrick is known to have mentored, one of whom is currently making interesting headlines as Pope Francis’ Cardinal Prefect of the new Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, and as the primary organiser of the upcoming World Meeting of Families in his native Dublin. It should probably be noted that up to the time he left over a “difference of opinion” with the group’s leadership, Cardinal Kevin Farrell as also deeply involved in the Legionaries of Christ. He joined in 1966, was ordained in ’78, and was quickly appointed to a high-ranking position as general director with responsibility for seminaries and schools of the Legionaries of Christ in Italy, Spain and Ireland until 1983. This period was at the peak of the power of the grotesquely corrupt Fr. Maciel, for whom it has been shown ALL the Legion’s leadership was covering. The Farrell family’s involvement in the Legion continues with his brother, Bishop Brian Farrell, who ordained 20 new priests to the questionable-but-officially-reformed community in 2015. A recent post to the official Regnum Christi website shows that Cardinal Kevin is still close enough to the Legion-related “lay” organisation to hire dicastery staff from their ranks. After he left the Legion, Kevin Farrell joined the diocesan clergy in Washington DC and became a protégé of the archbishop, Cardinal Wuerl. So close is he to McCarrick that Farrell’s coat of arms, as Elizabeth Yore reported in these pages, is not much more than a tribute to his belatedly-disgraced mentor. So, someone in a journalistic capacity might want to be asking a few questions about these things too. [2] It should also be noted that in his book, The Dictator Pope, historian Henry Sire documented that this is how Jorge Bergoglio has always operated, collecting bad men around him and controlling them with a masterful combination of threats and rewards. The natural question, “Why does Pope Francis keep such bad men around him?” is now easy to answer.
The Eerie Silence  In a recent communication between Randy Credico, an Assange supporter, comic and radio producer, and Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, Assange’s fear of arrest and extradition to the US was confirmed by the leader of the Russia-gate frenzy. Credico received the following response from Schiff after meeting the Congressman’s staff, in which Credico was trying to connect Assange with Schiff: “Our committee would be willing to interview Assange when he is in U.S. Custody and not before.” Dennis Bernstein spoke with John Pilger, a close friend and supporter of Assange on May 29. The interview began with the statement Bernstein delivered for Pilger at the Left Forum last weekend in New York on a panel devoted to Assange entitled, “Russia-gate and WikiLeaks”. Pilger’s Statement “There is a silence among many who call themselves left. The silence is Julian Assange. As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity. The Collateral Damage video, the war logs of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Cablegate revelations, the Venezuela revelations, the Podesta email revelations … these are just a few of the storms of raw truth that have blown through the capitals of rapacious power. The fakery of Russia-gate, the collusion of a corrupt media and the shame of a legal system that pursues truth-tellers have not been able to hold back the raw truth of WikiLeaks revelations. They have not won, not yet, and they have not destroyed the man. Only the silence of good people will allow them to win. Julian Assange has never been more isolated. He needs your support and your voice. Now more than ever is the time to demand justice and free speech for Julian. Thank you.” No Place to Hide: Edwa... Glenn Greenwald Best Price: $1.49 Buy New $3.70 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) Dennis Bernstein: We continue our discussion of the case of Julian Assange, now in the Ecuadorian embassy in Great Britain. John Pilger, it is great to talk to you again. But it is a profound tragedy, John, the way they are treating Julian Assange, this prolific journalist and publisher who so many other journalists have depended on in the past. He has been totally left out in the cold to fend for himself. John Pilger: I have never known anything like it. There is a kind of eerie silence around the Julian Assange case. Julian has been vindicated in every possible way and yet he is isolated as few people are these days. He is cut off from the very tools of his trade, visitors aren’t allowed. I was in London recently and I couldn’t see him, although I spoke to people who had seen him. Rafael Correa, the former president of Ecuador, said recently that he regarded what they are doing to Julian now as torture. It was Correa’s government that gave Julian political refuge, which has been betrayed now by his successor, the government led by Lenin Moreno, which is back to sucking up to the United States in the time-honored way, with Julian as the pawn and victim. Should be a ‘Constitutional Hero’ But really it comes down to the British government. Although he is still in a foreign embassy and actually has Ecuadorian nationality, his right of passage out of that embassy should be guaranteed by the British government. The United Nations Working Party on Unlawful Detentions has made that clear. Britain took part in an investigation which determined that Julian was a political refugee and that a great miscarriage of justice had been imposed on him. It is very good that you are doing this, Dennis, because even in the media outside the mainstream, there is this silence about Julian. The streets outside the embassy are virtually empty, whereas they should be full of people saying that we are with you. The principles involved in this case are absolutely clear-cut. Number one is justice. The injustice done to this man is legion, both in terms of the bogus Swedish case and now the fact that he must remain in the embassy and can’t leave without being arrested, extradited to the United States and ending up in a hell hole. But it is also about freedom of speech, about our right to know, which is enshrined in the United States Constitution. If the Constitution were taken literally, Julian would be a constitutional hero, actually. Instead, I understand the indictment they are trying to concoct reads like a charge of espionage! It’s so ridiculous.That is the situation as I see it, Dennis. It is not a happy one but it is one that people should rally to quickly. DB: His journalistic brethren are sounding like his prosecutors. They want to get behind Russia-gate freaks like Congressman Adam Schiff and Mike Pompeo, who would like to see Assange in jail forever or even executed. How do you respond to journalists acting like prosecutors, some of whom used his material to do stories? This is a terrible time for journalism. JP: You are absolutely right: It is a terrible time for journalism. I have never known anything quite like it in my career. That said, it is not new. There has always been a so-called mainstream which really comes down to great power in media. It has always existed, particularly in the United States. The Pulitzer Prize this year was awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for witch-hunting around Russia-gate! They were praised for “how deeply sourced their investigations were.” Their investigations turned up not a shred of real evidence to suggest any serious Russian intervention in the 2016 election. Like Webb The Julian Assange case reminds me of the Gary Webb case. Bob Parry was one of Gary Webb’s few supporters in the media. Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series contained evidence that cocaine trafficking was going on with the connivance of the CIA. Later Webb was hounded by fellow journalists and, unable to find work, he eventually committed suicide. The CIA Inspector General subsequently vindicated him. Now, Julian Assange is a long way from taking his own life. His resilience is remarkable. But he is still a human being and he has taken such a battering. Probably the hardest thing for him to take is the utter hypocrisy of news organizations—like The New York Times, which published the WikiLeaks “War Logs” and “Cablegate,” The Washington Post and The Guardian, which has taken a vindictive delight in tormenting Julian. The Guardian a few years ago got a Pulitzer Prize writing about Snowden. But their coverage of Snowden left him in Hong Kong. It was WikiLeaks that got Snowden out of Hong Kong and to safety. Professionally, I find this one of the most unsavory and immoral things I have seen in my career. The persecution of this man by huge media organizations which have drawn great benefit from WikiLeaks. One of Assange’s great tormentors, The Guardian‘s Luke Harding, made a great deal of money with a Hollywood version of a book that he and David Lee wrote in which they basically attacked their source. I suppose you have to be a psychiatrist to understand all of this. My understanding is that so many of these journalists are shamed. They realize that WikiLeaks has done what they should have done a long time ago, and that is to tell us how governments lie. DB: One thing that disturbs me greatly is the way in which the Western corporate press speculate about Russian involvement in the U.S. 2016 election, that it was a hack through Julian Assange. Any serious investigator would want to know who would be motivated. And yet the possibility that it might be the dozen or so pissed-off people who went to work for the Clinton machine and learned from the inside that the DNC was all about getting rid of Bernie Sanders…this is not a part of the story! Eight Hundred Thousand Disclosures on Russia JP: What happened to Sanders and the way that he was rolled by the Clinton organization, everybody knows that this is the story. And now we have the DNC suing WikiLeaks! There’s a kind of farcical element to this. I mean, none of this came from the Russians. That WikiLeaks is somehow in bed with the Russians is ludicrous. WikiLeaks published about 800,000 major disclosures about Russia, some of them extremely critical of the Russian government. If you are a government and you are doing something untoward or you are lying to your people and WikiLeaks gets the documents to show it, they will publish no matter who you are, be they the United States or Russia. DB: Randy Credico, because of his work and his decision to devote a very high-profile series to the persecution of Julian Assange, recently found himself under attack. He went to the White House Press Roast and, after having a nice discussion with Congressman Schiff, he yelled out “What about Julian Assange?” The room was packed full of reporters but Randy was attacked and dragged out. It was if everyone there was embarrassed to recognize that one of their brethren was being brutalized. JP: Randy shouted some truth. It is very similar to what happened to Ray McGovern. Ray is a former member of the CIA but extremely principled. I might suggest he is a renegade now. DB: It was hysterical to watch these four armed guards who kept shouting “Stop resisting, stop resisting!” and they are beating the hell out of him! JP: I thought the image of Ray being hauled off was particularly telling. These four overweight, obviously ill-trained young men manhandling Ray, who is 78 years old. There was something highly emblematic about that for me. He stood up to challenge the fact that the CIA was about to hand over leadership to a person who had been in charge of torture. It is both shocking and surreal, which of course the Julian Assange case is as well. But real journalism should be able to get through the shocking and the surreal and get to the truth. There is so much collusion now, with all these dark and menacing developments. It is almost as if the word “journalism” is becoming blighted. DB: There has certainly been a lot of collusion when it comes to Israel. Then the word “collusion” is quite appropriate. JP:That’s the ultimate collusion. But that’s collusion with silence. Never has there been a collusion like the one between the U.S. and Israel. It suggests another word and that is “immunity.” It has a moral immunity, a cultural immunity, a geopolitical immunity, a legal immunity, and certainly a media immunity. We see the gunning down of over 60 people on the day of the inauguration of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. Israel has some of the most wickedly experimental munitions in the world and they fired them at people who were protesting the occupation of their homeland and trying to remind people of the Nakba and the right of return. In the media these were described as “clashes.” Although they did become so bad that The New York Times in a later edition changed its front page headline to say that Israel was actually killing people. A rare moment, indeed, when the immunity, the collusion was interrupted. All the talk of Iran and nuclear weapons is without any reference to the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East. DB: What would you say have been the contributions that Julian Assange has made in this age of censorship and cowardice in journalism? Where does he come into the picture? JP:I think it comes down to information. If you go back to when WikiLeaks started, when Julian was sitting in his hotel room in Paris beginning to put the whole thing together, one of the first things he wrote was that there is a morality in transparency, that we have a right to know what those who wish to control our lives are doing in secret. The right to know what governments are doing in our name—on our behalf or to our detriment—is our moral right. Julian feels very passionately about this. There were times when he could have compromised slightly in order to possibly help his situation. There were times when I said to him, “Why don’t you just suspend that for a while and go along with it?” Of course, I knew beforehand what his answer would be and that was “no.” The enormous amount of information that has come from WikiLeaks, particularly in recent years, has amounted to an extraordinary public service. I was reading just the other day a 2006 WikiLeaks cable from the U.S. embassy in Caracas which was addressed to other agencies in the region. This was four years after the U.S. tried to get rid of Chavez in a coup. It detailed how subversion should work. Of course, they dressed it up as human rights work and so on. I was reading this official document thinking how the information contained in it was worth years of the kind of distorted reporting from Venezuela. It also reminds us that so-called “meddling” by Russia in the U.S. is just nonsense. The word “meddling” doesn’t apply to the kind of action implied in this document. It is intervention in another country’s affairs. WikiLeaks has done that all over the world. It has given people the information they have a right to have. They had a right to find out from the so-called “War Logs” the criminality of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They had a right to find out about Cablegate. That’s when, on Clinton’s watch, we learned that the NSA was gathering personal information on members of the United Nations Security Council, including their credit card numbers. You can see why Julian made enemies. But he should also have made a huge number of friends. This is critical information because it tells us how power works and we will never learn about it otherwise. I think WikiLeaks has opened a world of transparency and put flesh on the expression “right to know.” This must explain why he is attacked so much, because that is so threatening. The enemy to great power is not the likes of the Taliban, it is us. DB: And who can forget the release of the “collateral murder” footage by Chelsea Manning? JP: That kind of thing is not uncommon. Vietnam was meant to be the open war but really it wasn’t. There weren’t the cameras around. It is indeed shocking information but it informs people, and we have Chelsea Manning’s courage to thank for that. DB: Yes, and the thanks he got was seven years in solitary confinement. They want to prosecute Assange and maybe hang him from the rafters in Congress, but what about Judith Miller and The New York Times lying the West into war? There is no end of horrific examples of what passes for journalism, in contrast to the amazing contribution that Julian Assange has made. Click here to listen to this interview.
The Last-Minute Character Assassination of Judge Kavanaugh  Using any despicable tactic at hand to derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation less than a week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on whether to approve his nomination, Senate Democrats have sunk to their lowest level of character assassination yet. They have resorted to peddling an allegation of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh that supposedly occurred while the judge was in high school. The accuser had refused to identify herself before and during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. She conveniently waited until this Sunday to come forward via an on-the-record interview with the Washington Post. The accuser’s name is Christine Blasey Ford, a registered Democrat who is currently a California professor teaching clinical psychology. Judge Kavanaugh issued a statement on Friday in which he said, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee that heard Judge Kavanaugh’s public testimony earlier this month during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, had received last July a copy of a letter written by the woman making the charge, who we now know was Ms. Ford. Even though Senator Feinstein had the letter in hand, she never brought up the charge during the public hearing, nor during her own meeting with the judge. Instead, Senator Feinstein sat on the letter until late last week, when she issued a cryptic release stating that she had received the letter but did not want to give more details in deference to the woman’s wish to keep the matter confidential. Senator Feinstein turned the letter over to the FBI. The FBI placed the letter in its background file on Judge Kavanaugh but decided not to pursue any further investigation. Senator Feinstein had initially resisted sharing the contents of the letter with her fellow Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee or to go public with its existence because “the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion” and she had already “taken care of it,” according to a source quoted by The New Yorker. Nevertheless, Senator Feinstein evidently bowed to pressure from her leftist colleagues to find a way to insert the allegation into the cesspool of public gossip at the eleventh hour. The New Yorker article, written before Ms. Ford publicly identified herself, provided some details regarding her allegation. However, now Ms. Ford has decided to do what she called her “civic responsibility” and tell her own story publicly. How convenient, coming just 4 days before the scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee vote! The whole sequence of events surrounding how this allegation has suddenly come to light reeks of a set-up, reminiscent of how Anita Hill surfaced in a last-minute attempt to derail Justice Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation. Christine Blasey Ford claims, according to the Washington Post article, that “one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both ‘stumbling drunk,’ Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County. While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. ‘I thought he might inadvertently kill me,’ said Ford. ‘He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.’” Ms. Ford said she was able to escape the room and go home without any apparent further incident after “Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling.” Here is where Ms. Ford’s story becomes quite murky and begins to fall apart. Although Ms. Ford believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, she “said she does not remember some key details of the incident,” according to the Washington Post article. For example, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident.” She also does not remember how she got home. Yet she claims to be absolutely certain that Kavanaugh, whom she presumably knew only as an acquaintance and said she had not spoken to since the night the incident allegedly occurred, was involved in the alleged incident. Ms. Ford admitted that she “told no one at the time what had happened to her.” In fact, she said she recalled thinking: “I’m not ever telling anyone this. This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.” Even if one explains this behavior as the natural reaction of a frightened teenager to a highly traumatic incident, that does not explain why, by her own admission, she “told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband,” according to the Washington Post article. Most revealingly, the article reported on a gaping hole in the therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ms. Ford for the Washington Post’s review. The therapist’s notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’” In other words, the only written documentation Ms. Ford has offered in support of her allegation about the incident she said took place while she was in high school – a therapist’s notes of a couples therapy session occurring 30 years after the alleged incident – did not mention Judge Kavanaugh’s name. Judge Kavanaugh has had extensive background checks performed on him in the past for his various federal government positions, including for his current position as a federal appellate court judge, without the accusation ever having surfaced. Ms. Ford may believe her story to be true, but the lack of any credible corroborating evidence, her partial memory of details surrounding the alleged incident, and the absence of any pattern of such sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh undercut the reliability of her version of the incident. In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Feinstein, 65 women who said they knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school vouched for his character: We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect… Brett attended Georgetown Prep, an all-boys high school in Rockville, Maryland. He was an outstanding student and athlete with a wide circle of friends. Almost all of us attended all-girls high schools in the area. We knew Brett well through social events, sports, church, and various other activities. Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day. The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person. Nevertheless, using their standard contemptible, obstructionist tactics, the Democrats opposed to Judge Kavanaugh happily seized on the unsubstantiated allegation of teen sexual misbehavior in high school to assassinate Judge Kavanaugh’s character. They have done so in the face of Judge Kavanaugh’s lifetime record of stellar public service, multiple background checks producing no evidence of sexual misconduct, and the letter written by the 65 women, who knew him when he was in high school and thereafter and who signed their names to a ringing endorsement of his good character. Feminists gave the serial sexual predator Bill Clinton a free pass because his policies were in line with their ideology. Senator Feinstein called Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy an "inspiration and a friend," presumably also based on their compatible ideologies. Hypocritically exploiting an unsubstantiated allegation of decades-old purported teenage sexual mischief, Democrats seeking to torpedo Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation for ideological reasons have debased themselves with a shameless smear campaign against an eminently qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Predictably, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats, including Senator Feinstein, have called for the Senate to postpone a vote on Judge Kavanaugh. "Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” Senator Schumer said. If a thorough investigation was considered to be so important, why didn't Senator Feinstein set the ball rolling back in July when she first received word of the allegation? The answer is that this is all a ruse to block Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation by all means necessary. Senator Schumer is fulfilling his promise to oppose Judge Kavanaugh with "everything I've got." As of now, the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican majority plans to move forward with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination as scheduled. It is time for the Democrat obstructionists to slink back into their shadowy corner.
Ebola outbreak declared in Democratic Republic of Congo  Story highlights Two cases were confirmed, prompting the outbreak declaration In the past five weeks, there have been 21 suspected cases, including 17 deaths (CNN) The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo declared an outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a rare and deadly disease, on Tuesday, the World Health Organization reported. The declaration came after laboratory results confirmed two cases of the disease in the province of Bikoro in the northwestern part of the country. Ebola virus disease, which most commonly affects people and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees), is caused by one of five Ebola viruses. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. The average case fatality rate is around 50%. A government statement released Tuesday states that the Ministry of Health has "taken all necessary measures to respond promptly and effectively to this new epidemic of Ebola in the DRC's national territory". In the past five weeks, there have been 21 suspected cases of viral hemorrhagic fever , including 17 deaths. "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 WHO's regional director for Africa. "WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response." Read More
Trump Slams “Disgraceful Verdict” After San Francisco Jury Acquits “Kate’s Law”-Victim’s Killer  This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge Update 2 : Just as we suspected, President Trump has tweeted his opinion on this decision… A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 1, 2017 Update 1: AP reports that U.S. immigration officials say they will deport the Mexican man found not guilty of murder in San Francisco pier shooting. * * * As we detailed earlier, in a verdict that has shocked many in the Bay Area (and across America), a jury of six men and six women in sanctuary city San Francisco found illegal immigrant (and five-time deportee) Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty in the death of Kate Steinle. Mr. Garcia Zarate had been homeless at the time of the shooting and had multiple felony convictions and five prior deportations to Mexico. He had been set free from jail only months before the shooting, in defiance of requests by federal immigration authorities, who had asked that he be held longer so he could be deported again. The backlash to his release into the community crescendoed when Donald Trump invoked Ms. Steinle’s killing as he campaigned for president. As The New York Times reports, Ms. Steinle’s death in July 2015 fed into a fierce debate over whether immigrants without legal status should be deported more aggressively, and over the role local law enforcement should play. Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, was walking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms. Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident. Zarate and his defense team maintained the argument that the suspect found the stolen weapon on the pier that day and it “just fired.” The gun belonged to a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier. The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident. Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier… but the stories of what happened copntradicted one another… He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged. But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal. He also told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire. But still, after six days of deliberation, the illegal Mexcian immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges and also found not guilty of assault with a firearm. Garcia Zarate was found guilty of illegal firearms possession, which carries a sentence of 16 months to three years. * * * The public defender wasted no time in focusing his thoughts on President Trump and his administration…saying Zarate was “extremely relieved” by the outcome and that while Steinle’s death “was a horrible tragedy,” it was used as “political fodder for then candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.” Adachi added, “Despite the unfairly politicized atmosphere surrounding this case, jurors focused on the evidence, which was clear and convincing, and rendered a just verdict.” In a response to the verdict, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement saying that despite California’s attempt at a murder conviction, Zarate was able to walk away with only a firearm possession conviction because he was not turned over by San Francisco to ICE. “When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk,” the statement said. “San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.” Sessions continued, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.” Social media erupted with outrage at the verdict (with very few – if any attempting to defend the verdict)… I don't know any American citizen who is a 5x felon and could get away with killing someone with a stolen gun. #KateSteinle #KatesLaw #JoseZarate — Ginger (@SpicyMustang) December 1, 2017 I seriously feel like buying my own damn bricks & building this damn wall myself! So flipping outraged by this unjustice! #BuildtheWall #KatesLaw — ???Steff??? (@Steffs_tweets) December 1, 2017 May San Francisco rot in hell! #KatesLaw — Mike (@Bigly45) December 1, 2017 Insist that KATES LAW is passed. When illegals have more rights and protection than American Citizens. This MUST STOP!!!! — Diana Batissa (@DianaBatissa) December 1, 2017 SF city just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they dont care if YOU, or others get killed by their policies. They will continue to shelter illegals and allow them to do as they please and dont care about the innocents hurt by them. ? SICK!#KateSteinle #KatesLaw — Constitutional-TQN? (@TechQn) December 1, 2017 If Hillary Clinton were in office, we'd all be in danger. The #KateSteinle verdict is an endorsement of murder. There is no way to spin this, there is no defense, today the mask came off. — Mike Cernovich ?? (@Cernovich) December 1, 2017 And even politically-correct politicians piped in… Kate Steinle’s murderer not guilty? This is outrageous! A great injustice has been done. No Californian can feel good about their justice system today. I grieve from the bottom of my heart for the Steinle family who must be personally suffering from this injustice. — Senator Jim Nielsen (@CASenatorJim) December 1, 2017 We suspect it will not be long before President Trump has something to say about this verdict.
It’s Airborne: Officials Warn That The “Black Death” Plague Could Spread Rapidly  The fears that the “black death” would spread from Madagascar have now taken hold. As nations grapple with the outbreak of the bubonic plague, nine countries are sounding warnings that the disease is spreading rapidly. The deadly plague outbreak that has struck Madagascar’s major cities has yet to “peak” and that could make the spread of this infection into the surrounding regions more likely. Dr. Ashok Chopra, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Texas, told The Sun Online the crisis in Madagascar had yet to peak. He also sounded the alarm to neighboring countries. Since there are regular flights in and out of Madagascar and this outbreak has so far, been impossible to contain, other nations are now at risk. Speaking from Madagascar, Christine South, head of IFRC’s (International Federation of Red Cross) emergency operations, said: “With anything like this there is a possibility that somebody could be infected and get on a plane. We have done preparedness support to some of the neighboring countries.” Tourists have been warned to stay out of Madagascar until doctors can get the plague under control to prevent its spread. The outbreak is considered a much bigger threat to the region than in previous years because it has taken on its pneumonic form. That means it is airborne and spread by sneezing and coughing. Not only that, but the plague has a very short incubation time. Once exposed, some people will die within 24 hours. Experts say the epidemic could still worsen as the death tolls hit 124 and more than 1,300 are left infected. The World Health Organization (WHO) has now issued alarming warnings in nine countries too. “If they are traveling shorter distances and they’re still in the incubation period, and they have the pneumonic (form) then they could spread it to other places,” said Chopra. “We don’t want to have a situation where the disease spreads so fast it sort of gets out of control. Most of the cases in the past have been of the bubonic plague but if you look at this particular outbreak, 70 percent of the cases are pneumonic plague, which is the most deadly form of the disease. If the treatment is not given in a very short period of time these people will end up dying.” Both forms of the plague can be cured with antibiotics, but getting treatment quickly is the key to survival.
Dina Habib Powell: "Not Interested" In Replacing Nikki Haley As Ambassador To The UN  Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy Dina Habia Powell is rumored to be among the top candidates to replace outgoing United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley after her resignation earlier this week. However, it's being reported that Powell is "not interested" in the post, which is a good thing for Americans. Powell is on the short list of Trump's considerations to fill the position. Others on the list include Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, who previously served as a spokesman for the US Mission to the UN, and Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to Canada. First, Politico reports: 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 * 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. Powell, who returned to Goldman in a senior role after leaving her job as President Donald Trump’s deputy national security adviser, is said to be strongly considering the job but also weighing family concerns. Powell already lives in New York, where the U.N. is based, but has young children and left the administration in part to spend more time with family. She is also said to be happy in her job at Goldman. Born in Egypt and raised in the United States, Powell is well liked by Trump as well as the president’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. But she is already coming under criticism from some conservatives on social media who maintain that Powell is a “globalist” not closely enough aligned with Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy. Trump on Tuesday described Powell as a “person I would consider” when asked about her possible nomination. “She is under consideration. We have, actually, many names,” he said. However, according to Bloomberg, Powell isn't interested in the position. She says she is just fine at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner Dina Powell has told some colleagues that she’s leaning against leaving the firm to rejoin the Trump administration as ambassador to the United Nations, according to two people familiar with the matter. President Donald Trump has called Powell about the job twice, first on Sunday -- before current United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation -- and again on Wednesday, the people said. He made it clear that he’s interested in the idea of appointing Powell to the position, they said, though he has also talked to other candidates. Powell is not only a partner at Goldman Sachs, which has a sordid history of its own, but also worked in the George W. Bush administration. As for her ties with Goldman Sachs, Breitbart reported the following: 1 – When she served as president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Wall Street giant, Powell repeatedly partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative for a globalist women’s project that served as the centerpiece of Goldman’s foundation. 2 – Powell’s organization joined with the Clinton Global Initiative for globalist giving projects. 3 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs fund directly donated to the controversial Clinton Foundation. 4 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs group worked with Hillary Clinton’s State Department in a project announced by Clinton. 5 – Powell was a featured speaker at a Clinton Global Initiative event alongside Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief, John Podesta. 6 – There are crossover connections between employees paid by Powell’s 10,000 Women and the Clintons. 7 – Powell served on a global group alongside Hillary Clinton. 8 – In coming to Goldman Sachs, Powell joined a firm that has long been deeply tied to the Clintons. Daniel Greenfield wrote about Dina Habib Powell: “The media dubbed her the Republican Huma Abedin. She’s been one of the most powerful women in two Republican administrations. She’s friends with Valerie Jarrett….Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi….Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. Her top role at the NSC represents McMaster’s vision for our approach to Islam. And it’s an echo of the failed approach of the Bush years. Flynn made the NSC into a tool that matched Trump’s vision. McMaster is remaking it to match Jeb Bush’s vision.” Greenfield also adds: When visiting Egypt, Habib-Powell had assured the locals of how Bush, after September 11, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” “I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year,” she gushed. K.T. McFarland had written that “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western civilization.” It’s not hard to see why McMaster pushed out McFarland and elevated Habib-Powell. Habib-Powell had attended the Iftar dinner with members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. She was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by Hanan Ashrawi. Her achievements under Bush included cultural exchanges with Iran, as well as cash for the Palestinian Authority and for Lebanon after the Hezbollah war with Israel. While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, at his side is the woman who had once bragged on CNN, “Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.” Pamela Geller also pointed out why Powell should not be the UN ambassador. Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. She is part of the swamp, part of the willfully ignorant McMaster crowd that clearly opposed Trump’s agenda. Back in 2017, she resigned her post of Deputy National Security Adviser NSC under Islamic apologist H. R. McMaster, whose failed views she shared. McMaster subscribed to the Obama view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, despite the numerous Islamic texts and teachings that incite Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. McMaster went so far as to claim that devout jihadis were “irreligious.” McMaster forced out superb K.T. McFarland from her role as Deputy National Security Advisor and inserted Dina Habib-Powell, former Bush gatekeeper whose pals included Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett. Again, and I have asked this before, how do you fight the Deep State by putting Deep State operatives in these positions? How do you drain the swamp by adding to it? The answer is clear: You don't. This would actually be the perfect time for Trump not to appoint an ambassador to the UN and call for the US to exit the anti-American organization and demand Congress stop funding it and evict the UN from US soil, but I'm not holding my breath.
'Textbook Definition of Bias'  On Monday, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified with FBI boss Christopher Wray before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a predictable performance, the duo cited mistakes and raised concerns but solved none of the lingering mysteries the massive report released last week that found anti-Trump bias did not affect FBI and DOJ decisions. On Tuesday Horowitz performed solo before a joint session of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Oversight chairman Trey Gowdy delivered the opening statement. The attorney general had been accused of “softening or watering down his report,” Gowdy said, “When the reality is it was Jim Comey who softened and watered down his press release, announcing no charges against Secretary Clinton. We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ policies to follow and which to ignore, to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support each and every element of an offense and we see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding whether to send a letter to Congress in the throes of looming election.” In a devastating exchange with Horowitz, Gowdy said that “prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins” is the “textbook definition of bias.” Democrats echoed the IG report’s conclusion that there was no bias. Republicans sought to tie up some loose threads. The IG report confirmed that President Obama communicated with Hillary Clinton on her unsecured email system. Horowitz said the president had been one of 13 who had done so. Rep. Steve King asked about the volume of communications between the president and Clinton. “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” Horowitz said, and the IG was “not sure” if any of the communications had involved classified or top secret material. If the IG did know the subject of the president’s communications with Clinton, he failed to reveal any details. Horowitz “would have to ask” if his team interviewed any officials at the Obama White House but said “not the president himself.” Rep. King asked Horowitz about his first encounter with the switch of “extremely careless” for ‘gross negligence,” which violated a criminal statute. Horowitz found that Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and James Comey were all involved. The IG also said his team focused on the fact that the classified material on Clinton’s server was “not clearly marked,” which repeated one of Clinton’s claims about her negligence. As for the question of her “intent,” Horowitz said it arose “months earlier,” maybe in 2015, though he couldn’t be sure. King said President Obama had suggested the “careless but not intentional” language in a “60 Minutes” appearance in October of 2015. And King had observed that in his July 5, 2016 statement, James Comey used “intent” six times. Horowitz said Comey “concealed from the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, his intention to make a unilateral announcement in July 2016 about the reasons for his recommendations not to prosecute former Secretary Clinton.” The IG also described his report as a “thorough, comprehensive and objective recitation of the facts.” The IG did confirm that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page worked on the Clinton investigation, the Russia and the Mueller team. Horowitz said Strzok and Page had exchanged “tens of thousands of texts.” Ohio Rep. James Jordan asked Horowitz when his team had discovered the message about “we’ll stop” Trump. Horowitz conceded that this meant “stop Trump from becoming president.” The IG said they uncovered that text in May, and Jordan asked “why did we not see it until last Thursday?” “I can’t answer that,” Horowitz said, adding that it had been sent to Rod Rosenstein’s department at the DOJ. Jordan concluded that Rosenstein “made the decision that we had to wait a month.” Several representatives were curious about two FBI agents and one lawyer the IG report had not named. “The FBI raised a concern because they work on counterintelligence matters,” Horowitz said. Rep Mark Meadows asked if the two FBI agents were Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer, which the IG declined to confirm. “They don’t work in counterintelligence,” said Meadows, who charged that the FBI gave the IG “false information” and altered key witness reports. “How did Comey see the report before it came out?” Rep. Darrell Issa wanted to know. Horowitz said Comey didn’t see the whole thing, but explained that he allowed those the IG team had criticized to have a look before release. By the end of the day it was evident that Congress would have to hear from Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok and others. Horowitz confirmed that the IG is investigating whether FBI official Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump bias factored into the launch of the bureau’s Russia probe. Also on Tuesday Peter Strzok was “escorted” from the FBI building. As his lawyer told reporters, Strzok had “played by the rules,” but been targeted by “unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks.” “I hope he comes and portrays himself as a victim,” Trey Gowdy told Fox News. Rep. Bob Goodlatte said the committee would issue a subpoena for Strzok to testify “next week.” That will make for an exciting show on C-SPAN but none of this would be happening if the deep state plot to “stop” Trump had succeeded.
Eyewitness Confessional: There Was An Active Shooter Targeting The Bellagio Hotel During The Las Vegas Massacre  In yet another astonishing eyewitness report that contradicts the official story surrounding the worst mass shooting in American history, a married couple who were celebrating their 10th anniversary in Las Vegas at the time of the shooting have come forward to reveal that there was an active shooter inside the Bellagio Hotel around the same time that supposed lone gunman Stephen Paddock was found dead. During the confessional, a Canadian man by the name of Jeff detailed the fact that he and his wife were in the Bellagio Resort and Casino around 11:20pm on the night of the shooting when panic broke out in the hotels lobby. Jeff begins the interview by making clear his belief that there were multiple active shooters targeting different places in Las Vegas on the night of the attack. “First of all, I think what needs to be said is that, from my perspective, there were multiple events that occurred around Las Vegas, up and down the Strip that night. It wasn’t just centralized around the Mandalay Hotel,” the witness claimed. The eyewitness then goes on to directly say that he and his wife were involved in an active shooter situation at a different hotel that authorities have so far done everything in their power to cover-up. “My wife and I were in Las Vegas celebrating our 10th anniversary and on October 1st we were involved in an incident with an active shooter at the Bellagio. There is no mistake in my mind about it,” he continued. Jeff then describes a scene in which he and his wife were walking through the main lobby when screams and gunfire erupted. Keep in mind, this is all information that the police and the FBI has hidden from the American people. “All of a sudden there was just a crescendo of screams that started behind us in the lobby,” he claimed. “Then I heard somebody yell ‘there’s a shooter! There’s a shooter!’ And then I heard like five or six pops, like unmistakable gunfire, unmistakably.” “That was about 11:20 when we heard the shots and the screams… at that point you could hear and see the screams and see hundreds of people coming towards us.” Amazingly, as Shepard Ambellas noted, “The man’s claims match up to actual events captured in police audio recordings from the night of the shooting which confirms that between 11:15 and 11:18 p.m. on the night of Oct. 1 there was, in fact, something going on at the Bellagio.” This testimony also backs up claims by another eyewitness, Rene Downs, who has spent the past few days doing interviews about a shooter inside the Bellagio Hotel. Slowly but surely we are starting to see the official narrative regarding the Las Vegas Massacre be completely destroyed. At this point it is strikingly obvious that authorities have lied to the American people about the worst mass shooting in our countries history. One can only speculate as to what the reasons for these lies actually are?
Domestic abuse allegations against Keith Ellison cannot be substantiated, Dems' lawyer says  A lawyer hired by Minnesota Democrats says she is unable to substantiate the accusations of domestic abuse against Rep. Keith Ellison because the lawmaker’s ex-girlfriend refused to provide video of the incident - but the findings are still being turned over to law enforcement.  The Associated Press on Monday reported that it obtained a draft of a report written by Susan Ellingstad, a lawyer hired by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate the claim against Ellison.   "The investigation report, which was released today without our knowledge by someone outside of our organization, was unable to substantiate the claim of physical abuse made by Ms. Monahan,” DFL Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement.  Martin said they planned to turn over the report to local law enforcement.  “For the purpose of objectivity and getting all of the facts regarding these allegations, we have decided to forward the information in the investigation to local authorities in order to let them review the contents and determine whether further investigation is warranted,” Martin said. The Democratic congressman, who serves as deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has denied the allegations.  In a statement, Ellison thanked Ellingstad for conducting a "thorough, independent, and fair review."  "I believe women who come forward must be heard, and to have their allegations fully investigated," Ellison said. "This is why I have complied with this investigation fully, and will do so with any other inquiries. ... At this time, I will be focusing on the issues of this important election."  Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, alleged in August that Ellison dragged her off a bed by her feet while screaming obscenities at her in 2016. Monahan said she had video footage of the incident and levied the allegation just days ahead of a crowded Democratic primary for Minnesota attorney general that Ellison went on to win.  The state's Democratic party launched an investigation into the claim, retaining a local attorney with links to the state party to determine whether the alleged incident took place. Democratic party chairman Ken Martin said last week he expected the investigation to conclude soon.  A draft report obtained by the AP noted Monahan's shifting rationale for refusing to produce the video footage, including that it was lost, was on a USB drive in storage and would be too embarrassing and traumatic to release it.  The Ellison accusations have put Democrats in an uncomfortable position, as they speak out on sexual misconduct claims against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh denies the accusations.  Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has accused Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during a high school party nearly four decades ago. Many prominent Democrats have supported Ford’s allegations.  “No, they don't,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question of whether the party believes women’s stories. “I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”  She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed.” Many other Democrats and progressives – who largely stayed silent after the accusations against Ellison emerged – came out in support of Ford, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, chairman of the DNC, who urged to investigate the claims and Kavanaugh.  Monahan went to reiterate that her story has nothing to do with politics. “I have nothing to prove to anyone, I simply shared my story. People can believe it or not. I don’t need anyone to affirm my humanity, I affirmed it,” she wrote in another tweet.  “The fact that both parties only care if it scores political points is hypocritical,” she added. “Do you think a person who has dealt with any form of abuse by politicians is thinking about politics? No, we & are families are trying to heal.”
Being Skeptical Of Documented Liars Attacking a Supreme Court Nominee Is A Good Thing - Here's Why  If you don’t like President Trump and can’t understand how anyone could, look no further than the past week for an excellent example of what on Earth could’ve made a man promising to Drain the Swamp so popular. The Washington establishment politicians act like children when they can’t have their way. They kick and scream and lie and pout. President Trump is the anti-politician and when Congress continues to behave like this, he only gets more popular. President Trump nominated Bret Kavanaugh to the supreme court. He’s a pro-life judge and his vote will certainly tip the scales of justice to the right. The power that the Supreme Court has, some would argue, is greater in certain aspects than that of the president himself. Perhaps that’s why the 2016 election loss was so devastating to the Democrats. Trump potentially has the ability to nominate 3 Supreme Court justices during his presidency, thus shaping the laws and morals of this country for about the next 30 years. Personally, I trust very, very few politicians no matter the party that they claim. So, when a bunch of well-documented liars come out with yet another sexual assault allegation against a Trump appointee, let’s just say I’m skeptical and here’s why: 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 * 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. Timing The most suspicious part of this whole situation is the timing. Christine Ford recalled the incident in 2006 She's known about this for over ten years, why come forward now? She's affiliated with the democratic party and the “resist” movement She hired a Clinton attorney, Lisa Banks She can produce exactly zero witnesses Any one of these (and dozens of other) circumstances by themselves are not enough to dismiss this allegation outright. However, taken together as a whole, it’s far too suspicious to lend it any credibility. Ladies, you demand to be believed, no matter what. Well, when every time there's a man that you don't like running for public office or being nominated for a position, some woman crawls out from a line of protesters and makes an ambiguous-at-best claim about unwanted sexual advances, it becomes increasingly difficult to take you seriously. No, an accusation against a man who has been investigated by the FBI six times prior and has 75 women publicly vouching for his character is not going to stop this process. And guess what, next time a man is nominated to a position who really has committed a crime, people will be that much less likely to believe his accuser. Way to go! By attempting to derail this process with such a pathetic attempt at a smear campaign, you have successfully made it much easier for a real sex offender to point back at this and say, “look, this is what they do"! Women everywhere should be furious. As an outsider, a regular Joe American, this is what I see: Trump nominates a very well known, well-established judge to the supreme court. Immediately every Democrat publicly stated that they would vote No for his confirmation. On the other hand, every Republican publicly stated that they would vote Yes. Currently, there's more Republicans in Congress than Democrats, which means the guy will be confirmed. There's an election 2 months away. The Democrats think that they'll take back the majority of Congress and will thus be able to block Trump's nomination. All they have to do is delay the confirmation until after the election. So, they dig up some Trump-hating woman from Kavanaugh’s past and convince her to say that he assaulted her thinking that such an allegation will surely delay the vote long enough for them to regain control of Congress. It’s not difficult to see through this plan. These are the facts. This is not my opinion. Everything else is just noise.
Viganò Doubles Down, Accuses Francis of Losing Sight of Christ  Archbishop Viganò has released a new, powerful statement necessitated by the peculiar reaction of Pope Francis to the Aug 22 Testimony. Many thanks to our friends at LifeSiteNews, especially Diane Montagna, for the following translation and release of the follow-up testimony from arguably the most courageous prelate in the Church today—Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. The former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States has, as they say, doubled down. Far from backing-away and making excuses for his early actions, as we’ve all become so accustomed to seeing in these rare cases where a hierarch breaks ranks, Archbishop Viganò is digging in with a 4-page bombshell that restates his initial accusations of abuse cover-up against Francis and other powerful members of the hierarchy, and even concludes with a suggestion that Francis is beginning to act as a “substitute of our Lord.” Read the Archbishop’s words for yourselves and note well the ring of truth that resonates in every sentence. This is clearly the testimony of an honest man who has only the good of the Church in his heart—a modern-day Athanasius standing against something so much worse than Liberius. Friends, let us pray for Archbishop Viganò. He is standing alone now, and not only against the most dangerous pontificate in history, but also the forces of hell itself—forces which will do all in their power to silence this voice crying in the wilderness. Make no mistake about this: Archbishop Viganò is fighting for the very survival of the human element of the Catholic Church. He is standing against corrupt men in high places who cannot be trusted to do what is best for souls, for the Catholic faithful or indeed for Holy Mother Church herself. The enemy is not only at the gates but has now made their way to the thrones of power and the seats of the Apostles. God help us. It goes without saying that we here at The Remnant not only stand with Viganò but we thank God for him every day, we pray the Rosary for him every day, and wish him every blessing and heavenly consolation as he undergoes this passion for the sake of the Master he serves so well. God bless you, Your Excellency, and Mary keep you. We are with you! MJM _________________________________ Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio Scio Cui credidi (2 Tim 1:12) Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days. “As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord, I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to him; For I rejoice in the Lord.” (Psalm 103:33-34) ***** It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital. My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ. Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence. Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony? The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church. Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building. Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know. I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth. ***** Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.
The Sun is getting cooler and dimmer, but scientists aren’t worried  In what is being considered a particularly rare event, scientists are projecting that the Sun will be an unusually cool customer by the year 2050. By combining data and observations from decades of Sun research, experts are predicting a “Grand Solar Minimum” will occur a few decades from now, making our parent star dimmer and cooler than it has been for a very long time. The Sun might look the same to you today as it has since the first time you laid eyes on it, but our star actually displays plenty of changes. The Sun goes through regular cycles of solar minimums and solar maximums, which are periods where the Sun is either quite calm (the minimum) or incredibly active (the maximum). These patterns repeat every 11 years or so, but new research suggests that there’s a pattern behind the pattern, and that a particularly cool solar minimum is on the way. The study, which was published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, was carried out by a team led by physicist Dan Lubin of the University of California, San Diego. After combing the data, Lubin’s team has forecasted a grand minimum that will be around seven percent cooler than the typical solar minimum, making it a particularly calm moment for our star. During a solar minimum, the Sun produces far fewer solar flares and sunspots, and as a result, much less ultraviolet radiation is shot out into space and towards Earth. This can have a number of effects on our planet, including changes in the thickness of the stratospheric ozone layer and temperatures far above ground. Those changes can affect weather, though forecasting specific differences has proven difficult. The grand minimum will be an exaggerated version of the typical solar minimum, and could produce some very noticeable effects. The most recent grand minimum is thought to have occurred back in the mid 1600s. The event, called the Maunder Minimum, is credited with plunging temperatures to the point where the Thames River and Baltic Sea froze over. However, other parts of the planet heated up, including Alaska and Greenland, to far above their normal highs. This temporary shakeup of temperatures could happen again, though the researchers say it will have very little effect on the overall global warming trend that mankind has created for itself.
Watch: Campus Commie Has Profanity-Laden Hissy Fit, Pours Beverage on FSU Republicans  Extreme leftists have been resorting to hysterical profanity-laden melodramatic hissy fits when they encounter people they disagree with. These incidents tend to occur on college campuses. It doesn’t take much to trigger these people. The latest comes from an admitted supporter of communism at Florida State University. Watch this leftist loon pour her beverage on FSU Republicans as she states they are “normalizing and enabling Nazis” by supporting Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis. WATCH: Angry leftist pours her beverage on FSU Republicans and says they are “normalizing and enabling Nazis” by supporting Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis. pic.twitter.com/1UDRxSZXE1 — Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) November 1, 2018 By the way…where are her pants?
Cardinal O’Malley will head revived Vatican abuse panel  Cardinal Sean O’Malley has been reappointed as the head of a Vatican commission on child sex abuse, as Pope Francis on Saturday revived the panel in the wake of widespread condemnation last month of the pontiff’s defense of a Chilean bishop accused of witnessing and ignoring abuse. The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors lapsed in December, when its members’ terms expired, prompting concerns that the advisory body could be disbanded. In addition to O’Malley’s return as the panel’s president, Pope Francis named seven returning members and nine new members representing countries around the world, including Brazil, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, and India, according to a statement from the Vatican. Advertisement Some members are themselves survivors of abuse, according to the statement, but they were not identified to protect their privacy. Get Fast Forward in your inbox: Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email. Sign Up Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, said in the statement that the pope had “given much prayerful consideration” to the membership of the panel. “The newly appointed members will add to the Commission’s global perspective in the protection of minors and vulnerable adults,” he said. “The Holy Father has ensured continuity in the work of our Commission, which is to assist local churches throughout the world in their efforts to safeguard all children, young people, and vulnerable adults from harm.” Local survivors of abuse greeted the announcement warily, hopeful that there could be positive change in the church but saying the panel accomplished little under its first three-year mandate. “The objectives of the commission when it was first announced, when it was just getting started. . . were never fulfilled,” said Phil Saviano, an abuse survivor who founded the New England chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Advertisement Saviano said the commission is “a good idea,” and added, “I’m not particularly optimistic that much will get accomplished, but a commission is better than no commission.” Given his long experience witnessing the church’s inertia on the issue, Saviano said, he has set his expectations at rock bottom. “That’s kind of my attitude now: If I don’t expect the Catholic Church to do anything, then I won’t be too disappointed when they don’t do anything,” he continued. Jim Scanlan, another survivor, said “the timing of it is too perfect” given the controversy last month surrounding Pope Francis’s remarks that accused victims of a notorious Chilean pedophile priest, the Rev. Fernando Karadima, of “slander” against Bishop Juan Barros, who the victims say was complicit in a cover up. The pope said he had seen no proof of Barros’s guilt, but the Associated Press reported that O’Malley and other members of the commission had in 2015 hand-delivered to him an eight-page letter from a survivor that graphically detailed his abuse and said Barros and other clergy had witnessed him being fondled but had not intervened. Advertisement Scanlan said his reaction to hearing that Francis has revived the commission was “hopeful but cynical.” Like Saviano, he said the panel accomplished little in its first incarnation. “My expectation is it will probably have the same outcome, because the church is the church, and they do it for appearance, but they’re still going to go by their own rules,” he said. “I’ve seen little that has changed.” Scanlan said Pope Francis has given him hope for progress on some issues in the church, but on sexual abuse, he “continues to be blind to what the church has done.” Last month, O’Malley denounced the pope’s controversial defense of the Chilean bishop. Despite distancing himself from Pope Francis’s comments, O’Malley said that he has witnessed the pontiff’s genuine compassion for abuse victims. “The Pope’s statements that there is no place in the life of the Church for those who would abuse children and that we must adhere to zero tolerance for these crimes are genuine,” O’Malley said, “and they are his commitment.” Jeremy C. Fox can be reached at jeremy.fox@globe.com
Desperate Feinstein Pushes 30-Year-Old Claim About Sexual Misconduct Of Kavanaugh  It's incredible the amount of hypocrisy Senator Dianne Feinstein puts on display for the American people to see, and yet, the people in her state continue to put her in office. Her latest antics are to point to a more than 30 year old claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct while he was in high school and somehow claim that he may have committed a crime while at the same time remaining silent on two women who have accused Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running for Attorney General in Minnesota, of abusing them, one of them making the claim this year. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Senator Feinstein said in a surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.” Of course, the reality is that bringing something like this up more than 30 years later is ridiculous, but this is the Democrats for you. 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 * 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. Fox News reports: A spokesperson for Feinstein declined Fox News’ request to elaborate on the lawmaker’s statement, but there has been much speculation that she is referring to a secret letter that has been the subject of intrigue on Capitol Hill over the last few days. A source familiar with the confirmation proceedings told Fox News that Feinstein received the letter back in July, but did not make its existence known publicly until Thursday. According to a report by The Intercept, the letter was relayed to lawmakers by an individual affiliated with Stanford University and concerns an incident involving the 53-year-old Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. According to two officials who spoke anonymously with the New York Times, the incident involved possible sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh and the woman. The letter reportedly was given to Feinstein by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., but has not been publicly disclosed by senators who have seen the document. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the letter in question has been referred to the FBI for investigation. The FBI conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” the FBI said in a statement. The White House has called this nothing more than a last minute gambit, and that would be correct. In fact, the FBI has no plans to pursue any investigation regarding the allegation. According to The Washington Post: According to a person familiar with the matter, the FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the matter, which would normally be handled by local authorities, if it was within the statute of limitations. The FBI instead passed the material to the White House, as an update to Kavanaugh's background check, which already had been completed, the person said. The move is similar to what the bureau did when allegations were leveled against former White House aide Rob Porter. ... Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) dismissed the controversy on Twitter. “Let me get this straight: this is [a] statement about [a] secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified person. Right,” he tweeted sarcastically. “I will add: the FBI already performed and has reported on a background investigation on the nominee and thhttp://ericposner.com/is-brett-kavanaugh-an-originalist/is has been made available to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee,” Cornyn wrote. Exactly! This is political theater over a man who is not an originalist and not a strict Constitutionalist. He's a precedence man! He's said it over and over! If they wanted something on the guy, why don't they bring up his involvement in the Vince Foster cover-up? Now, that would be something to really look into, but not with the corrupt DOJ and FBI we currently have. Of course, if they did, then someone might actually have to act on something that actually was a crime.
Pope Francis: Ross Douthat & Massimo Faggioli Debate Catholic Church’s Future  Pope Francis visits Genoa, Italy, in May 2017. (Reuters photo: Giorgio Perottino) In a debate, Ross Douthat and Massimo Faggioli discussed Pope Francis’s legacy and its effect on internal Church controversies. On Wednesday night, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat and Villanova professor of theology Massimo Faggioli came together for a debate entitled “Francis @ Five: Assessing the Legacy of Pope Francis Five Years after His Election.” As I made my way up to Fordham University, I was excited. Having followed Douthat and Faggioli’s ongoing dialogue on Twitter, I knew I was in for a lively, if predictable, conversation. In his opening remarks, Douthat laid out three criteria that can be used to evaluate Francis’s papacy thus far: his impact on the public’s perception of the Church (a success); his attempts at reforming the Vatican bureaucracy (a disappointment); and his position on “moral-theological controversies,” specifically, communion for the divorced and remarried (a problem). Advertisement Advertisement Faggioli, meanwhile, outlined a genuinely surprising position. Rather than making a straightforward case for why Pope Francis has changed the Church for the better, Faggioli rejected the possibility of evaluating his papacy in terms of “continuity” with past popes, since doing so would assume that “Christianity at some point . . . was complete,” which Faggioli does not think is true. While I emphatically disagree with this argument, I have to hand it to Faggioli: From the outset, he made clear that he was not planning to debate Douthat on the implications of the Francis papacy. Instead, through a combination of rhetorical tricks and soft-peddled Hegelianism, he would completely redefine the role and nature of the Catholic Church. During the crux of the debate — the discussion of communion for the divorced and remarried — Faggioli raised his most theologically unsettling point. To defend his position that remarried persons should be able to receive communion, Faggioli invoked the case of Germany, where 50 percent of Catholic marriages end in divorce. For Faggioli, the implication is that at least 50 percent of German Catholic children never see their parents receive communion and lose their faith because of it. This, he says, is “bad for evangelization,” and in order to keep the pews full, the Church’s role should not be to deny communion to the divorced and remarried, but instead to ask, “What can the Catholic Church do to make the faithful able to receive sacraments?” Advertisement This is a lovely suggestion, and one that I’m not entirely unsympathetic to. However, the fact remains that Faggioli is suggesting the Church do much more than provide sacraments to the faithful. Just before invoking the German case, Faggioli characterized the country as one of the most secular in the world. But rather than lamenting what secularism has wrought on marital life in Germany, reasserting the Church’s position on marriage, and insisting that the faithful strive to live according to her laws, Faggioli argues that the Church ought to bend to the will of secular society. Advertisement It should be clear to anyone, not just practicing Catholics, that this is absurd. If the Church exists simply to accommodate the whims and failures of secular modernity, then what is the point of the Church? Pope Benedict XVI has warned against precisely the kind of “accommodation” Faggioli is calling for, writing that when “the people cannot cope” with God, they “bring him down into their own world,” and insist that “he must be the kind of God that [they need].” In other words, “Man is using God, and, in reality, even if it is not outwardly discernible, he is placing himself above God.” To fully drive the point home, Benedict equates this kind of worship with the Israelites desert worship of the bull calf. Unsurprisingly, this progressive interpretation of Catholic doctrine eventually reveals itself to be rank historicism. Throughout the debate, Faggioli drew out the argument that allowing the remarried to receive communion would not represent a radical change in doctrine but a return to the teachings of the Gospel. Eventually, Douthat drew his argument to its logical conclusion with this question: Were priests throughout history in fact misleading their divorced and remarried parishioners by telling them they could not receive communion? After a few seconds’ pause, Faggioli gave the only answer he could: “There are different responses to the same question in different times.” Advertisement Throughout their conversation, both Douthat and Faggioli repeatedly observed that the debate over Pope Francis and the future of the Church is carried on primarily among Catholic intellectuals, unbeknownst to most of “the flock.” Advertisement It strikes me, however, that everybody — Catholic or not — has a dog in this fight, which is about more than communion and canon law. At its core, this debate is about truth and our ability to judge right from wrong. Could we possibly say, for instance, that it’s impossible to judge the presidency of Donald Trump relative to past presidents? Of course not — that would be preposterous, as I’m sure Faggioli would agree. To pass moral judgements on papacies, presidencies, or anything else, we must have recourse to truth, and to the institutions that have upheld this truth for centuries. Whether in the Church or in the academy, we must resist this dangerous historicist impulse. If we don’t, we will find ourselves, in the words of Pope Benedict, in “a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” Advertisement READ MORE: A Defense of the Catholic Tradition The Left’s New Plan to Gut Religious-Liberty Protections What’s At Stake in the Fight For Religious Freedom
Illegal Alien Wife Beaters Protected by Sanctuary City Mayor Busted  Sanctuary cities are the real war on women. And Democrats are the ones fighting it. Democrats like Oakland's Mayor Schaaf. Three illegal immigrants, who avoided capture after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on a raid by federal immigration authorities last month, have since been re-arrested for new crimes including robbery and spousal abuse, ICE officials said. Schaaf tweeted out a warning ahead of the raid in northern California last month, infuriating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and the Trump administration. “How dare you!” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in California this month, addressing Schaaf. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical, open borders agenda.” ICE officials eventually caught 232 illegal immigrants, many of them criminals, in the four-day sweep but said that hundreds more escaped because of Schaaf’s warning. But on Tuesday, officials said that at least three of those who were targeted in the raid, but were not apprehended, had since been arrested for additional crimes. One was a Mexican national arrested for robbery and gun crimes, who was released back into the community for a prior offense despite an ICE detainer request in November. Another Mexican national was arrested for a DUI, despite having been deported three times and prior convictions for false imprisonment, DUI and battery of a spouse. The third was a Mexican national who was arrested for corporal injury of a spouse, despite being deported twice and criminal convictions including drug possession, hit-and-run, DUIs, possessions of narcotics equipment and a parole violation.
ICE Arrests 22 In Chicago Area During 3-Day Operation  CHICAGO — Federal officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 22 criminal aliens and immigration violators in Illinois’ Cook and Lake counties during a three-day enforcement action, which ended Monday. During this operation, ERO deportation officers made arrests in the following Illinois cities and towns: Chicago (9), Cicero (4), Hoffman Estates (1), Palatine (4), Park City (1), Rolling Meadows (2) and Round Lake Beach (1). All those arrested were men between the ages of 20 and 53. Aliens arrested during this operation are from the following five countries: Ecuador (1), Honduras (2), Mexico (17), Serbia (1) and Ukraine (1). Six of the 22 arrested during this operation were criminal aliens who were released back into their communities after local law enforcement failed to honor an immigration detainer placed on the individuals by ICE. Immigration detainers request that ICE be notified before the individual is released from local custody for any reason. Most of the aliens targeted by ERO deportation officers during this operation had prior criminal histories that included convictions for the following crimes: sexual assault, kidnapping, assault, assault with a weapon, drug possession, theft, obstruction of justice and driving under the influence (DUI); two were known fugitive immigration violators, and six were arrested for illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported, which is a felony. The following are criminal summaries of the offenders arrested in Illinois during this operation: A 38-year-old Mexican citizen and a known gang member was arrested Jan. 8 in Rolling Meadows. He was previously convicted in Cook County for felony aggravated criminal sexual assault and bodily harm. He was previously deported. Cook County Sheriff’s Office did not honor the ICE detainer that was placed. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. A 37-year-old previously deported Mexican man was arrested Jan. 7 in Chicago. He was previously convicted twice of drug possession, and he has pending criminal charges for sexually assaulting a child. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. A 20-year-old Mexican man and a known gang member was arrested Jan. 7 in Round Lake Beach. He was previously convicted of battery. He is also Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient with two extensions. He was served a notice to appear before a federal immigration judge, and will remain in ICE custody pending disposition of his immigration proceedings. A 32-year-old previously deported Ecuadoran man was arrested Jan. 7 in Chicago. He has criminal convictions for DUI, domestic assault and assault. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. A 46-year-old previously deported Mexican man was arrested Jan. 7 in Chicago. He has a criminal conviction for possessing cocaine. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. Depending on an alien’s criminality, an alien who re-enters the United States after having been previously deported commits a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, if convicted. “Our dedicated officers strive to make our communities safer by arresting convicted criminal aliens and removing them from the United States despite the reckless sanctuary policies that are currently in place in Cook County that put our communities at risk,” said Ricardo Wong, field office director of ERO Chicago. “This operation focused on targeting immigration fugitives and criminal aliens in two Illinois counties, but we routinely conduct operations daily. By removing criminal aliens from the streets, our ICE officers provide an invaluable community service by improving public safety.” All of the targets in this operation were amenable to arrest and removal under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE deportation officers carry out targeted enforcement operations daily nationwide as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to protect the nation, uphold public safety, and protect the integrity of our immigration laws and border controls.
Uranium One Informant Breaks Silence: Moscow Paid Millions To Influence Hillary Clinton  The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution Right off the bat, this appears to be clear bribery, and a case could be made for treason. However, it is now being reported that an FBI informant that was involved in the Uranium One deal, has told congressional committees that Moscow paid lobbyists to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration. The Hill's John Solomon reported on Wednesday: The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton. ... Campbell added in the testimony that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons' Global Initiative." “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement." APCO officials told The Hill that its support for the Clinton Global Initiative and its work with Russia were not connected in any way, and in fact involved different divisions of the firm. They added their lobbying for Russia did not involve Uranium One but rather focused on regulatory issues aimed at helping Russia better compete for nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States. In case you are unfamiliar with Uranium One, it is a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The sale gave the Russians control of part of the US uranium supply, thus why I reference a case could be made for treason. While Democrats have unsurprisingly questioned Campbell's credibility, Campbell's attorney Victoria Toensing told Sean Hannity, “[The Russians] were so confident that they told Mr. Campbell with the Clinton’s help, it was a shoo-in to get CFIUS [The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] approval. They were so confident in that that they even had him open up the new office because they were planning on the kind of business they were going to do as soon as CFIUS approved it.” In a lengthy report by Award-winning National Security/War Correspondent Sara Carter, she pointed out that following: On Wednesday, he shared with the committee information he provided to the FBI and has in the past described his frustration with the Obama administration’s failure to stop Russia’s nuclear giant from purchasing 20 percent of American uranium mining assets. Campbell testified before numerous Congressional investigators that his extensive counterintelligence work on Russia and stated that during his time as an informant, he obtained information that Russia was continuing to aid the Iranian government. According to Campbell Russia provided the resources necessary for the nation’s nuclear reactors, despite promises that they were not sharing such technology with Iran. In an April 16, 2010, summary brief provided to his former FBI handlers and obtained by this reporter, he stressed his deep concerns about Tenex, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear arm Rosatom and its ongoing work to provide Iran with the technology needed for its nuclear reactor program. At the time, Rosatom was seeking the approval to purchase the Canadian mining company Uranium One. “TENEX continues to supply Iran with fuel through their Russian company TVEL,” stated Campbell in a 2010 brief provided to the FBI. TVEL is a Russian nuclear fuel cycle company headquartered in Moscow. “They (TVEL) continue to assist with construction consult and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult of TVEL.” Campbell informed the FBI of the close relationship between TVEL and TENEX, both a part of the Rosatom group. He stated in his brief that while spending time with the Russian executives from both Rosatom and Tenex, that any mention of “TVEL is a subject that is serious to all when mentioned. I do not even raise the subject of TVEL to our friends, but occasionally they speak of it and always in a guarded manner.” In the briefs, he informed the FBI that “occasionally someone will mention having been in Iran but usually it is long after the fact.” And when he asked the Russians about these connections, he stated that they “occasionally speak of the relationship, i.e. equipment, consulting. I asked Vadim (Mikerin) if they felt there was a serious problem, and would they adhere to sanctions and western opinion. His response was a smile and shoulder shrug.” But Campbell had provided the FBI with evidence of the criminal network and delivered the information to the FBI, which was monitoring his work as an informant and approving his transfer of bribery money to the Russians. Those transfers, which were made in bulk $50,000 sums and at times delivered in cash, occurred between senior executives of the American transportation company and the Russian executives connected to Rosatom. He had given the FBI irrefutable evidence showing how contracts obtained from the same Russian energy company Tenex, were based on contract bribery and other nefarious actions, he said. Senior members of the FBI, Department of Treasury, Department of Energy and Department of Justice were also briefed on Campbell’s information and were apprised of the various facets pertaining to Russia’s acquisition of the Canadian company. In fact, Campbell had been told by his FBI handlers that his work had made it at least twice into President Obama’s classified presidential daily briefings. Of course, we know what Obama did with his daily briefings. They are somewhere in the White House sewer system. Campbell's work has resulted in real justice being administered. In January, I reported: On Friday, the Justice Department unsealed an 11-count indictment concerning the Uranium One scandal. Sadly, it did not include former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but rather former DoD intelligence analyst-turned uranium transportation executive Mark Lambert of Mount Airy, Maryland. Lambert, 54, was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX. According to the DOJ: According to the indictment, beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. In order to effectuate and conceal the corrupt and fraudulent bribe payments, Lambert and others allegedly caused fake invoices to be prepared, purportedly from TENEX to Transportation Corporation A, that described services that were never provided, and then Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to wire the corrupt payments for those purported services to shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland. Lambert and others also allegedly used code words like “lucky figures,” “LF,” “lucky numbers,” and “cake” to describe the payments in emails to the Russian official at his personal email account. The indictment also alleges that Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to overbill TENEX by building the cost of the corrupt payments into their invoices, and TENEX thus overpaid for Transportation Corporation A’s services. In June 2015, Lambert’s former co-president, Daren Condrey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, and Vadim Mikerin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering involving violations of the FCPA. Mikerin is currently serving a sentence of 48 months in prison and Condrey is awaiting sentencing. The indictment includes allegations against Lambert based on his role in effectuating the criminal scheme with Condrey, Mikerin, and others. We also know the following about Campbell: Undercover FBI informant William Campbell has given written testimony to Congressional investigators after an "iron clad" gag order was lifted in October Campbell was a highly valued CIA and FBI asset deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI Campbell was required by the Russians, under threat, to launder large sums of money - which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian "nuclear money laundering apparatus " " He collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period, some of which detail efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation Campbell claims to have video evidence of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. The Obama FBI knew about the bribery scheme, yet the administration still approved the Uranium One deal. To thank him for his service, Campbell was paid $51,000 by FBI officials at a 2016 celebration dinner in Chrystal City When it emerged that Campbell had evidence against the Clinton Foundation, a Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff (of FISA warrant application fame) slammed Campbell as a "disaster" potential witness All of this then goes back to things we have pointed out with ranchers in the western united States and how this impacts them, as well as the land grabs that are unconstitutionally orchestrated by the DC government and the Bureau of Land Management. There is also substantial documentation that was discovered in Oregon that relates to this deal during the Oregon occupation in 2016, which got zero coverage in the mainstream media. Are we about to see a serious shakedown in all of this? Time will tell, but I remain skeptical, as in the end, all we ever get is excuses rather than justice.
Iran Admits To Aiding Al-Qaeda and Facilitating 9/11 Jihad Terror Attacks  This has long been known, although the mainstream media dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. But now we have definitive confirmation. It was Iran Bush should have invaded after 9/11 , not Iraq. Now consider this: even though, as President of the United States, Barack Obama had access to information that the general public does not have, and certainly knew of Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Obama still pursued the Iran nuclear deal and gave billions to the Islamic Republic. The Iran nuclear deal should never have proceeded — President Obama, the worst president in American history . “Iran Admits To Facilitating 9/11 Terror Attacks,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 8, 2018: Iranian officials, in a first, have admitted to facilitating the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. by secretly aiding the free travel of al Qaeda operatives who eventually went on to fly commercial airliners into the Twin Towers in New York City, according to new remarks from a senior Iranian official. Mohammad-Javad Larijani, an international affairs assistant in the Iran’s judiciary, disclosed in Farsi-language remarks broadcast on Iran’s state-controlled television that Iranian intelligence officials secretly helped provide the al Qaeda attackers with passage and gave them refuge in the Islamic Republic, according to an English translation published by Al Arabiya. “Our government agreed not to stamp the passports of some of them because they were on transit flights for two hours, and they were resuming their flights without having their passports stamped. However their movements were under the complete supervision of the Iranian intelligence,” Larijani was quoted as saying. The remarks represent the first time senior Iranian officials have publicly admitted to aiding al Qaeda and playing a direct role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government has long accused Iran of playing a role in the attacks and even fined the Islamic Republic billions as a result. The U.S. 9/11 Commission assembled to investigate the attacks concluded that Iran played a role in facilitating the al Qaeda terrorists. Larijani admitted that Iranian officials did not stamp the passports of the al Qaeda militants in order to obfuscate their movements and prevent detection by foreign governments. Al Qaeda operative also were given safe refuge in Iran…. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
Muslim Leader Calls for Conquest of “America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy”  Recently a Muslim spokesman in Tunisia named Said Khecharem, who is affiliated with the international pro-Sharia, pro-caliphate organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, declared (to delighted screams of “Allahu akbar” from his audience), that the “establishment of an Islamic state…requires the conquest of America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy – Rome and other infidel lands will be conquered, Allah willing.” According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Khecharem also said: “After the laws of Allah were abandoned, and the heretic regimes were imposed on the Muslims, the most important thing to do is to restore the rule of the Muslims, through the Quran and the Sunna, in order to renew Islamic life and to deliver the Islamic message to the world. My brothers, the implication of this today should be the establishment of an Islamic state over all the lands of the Muslims.”  take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Email 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. And no call to restore the caliphate would be complete without a swipe at the Jews, whom the Qur’an designates (5:82) the worst enemies of the Muslims. Khecharem predicted that “this will happen, of course, after the elimination of the filthy Jewish entity, and after liberation of the lands under direct colonization, like Kashmir and others.” If Said Khecharem were a non-Muslim saying that Muslims needed to destroy “the filthy Jewish entity” and conquer America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy, he would be accused of “Islamophobia” and “bigotry.” But no one will take any particular notice of this. They should, however. Khecharem is not some deluded fanatic raving on a Tunisian street corner. He was speaking at Hizb ut-Tahrir’s International Caliphate Conference; although Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries, it still has an international presence, and recently held a conference in Chicago. Nor is the desire to establish a global caliphate limited to Hizb ut-Tahrir alone. The word khalifa means “successor”; the caliph in Sunni Islamic theology is the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and spiritual leader of the Muslims. As I show in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , the great caliphates of history, from the immediate post-Muhammad period of the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” to the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans, as well as other Islamic states, all waged relentless jihad warfare against non-Muslims, subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law and denying them basic rights. These weren’t the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” abhorred by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims for “hijacking” their religion. This was, for fourteen centuries, mainstream, normative Islam, carried forth by the primary authorities in the Islamic world at the time. The History of Jihad shows from the accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers through the ages that in every age and in every place where there were Muslims, some of them believed that they had a responsibility given to them by Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law. And so it is today: Said Khecharem has enunciated that responsibility more clearly and directly than most Muslim spokesmen do these days, but he is by no means the only one who believes that it exists. What is noteworthy also about The History of Jihad is something that it does not contain. As the jihadis move against non-Muslim states without any letup, pause, period of coexistence, period of tolerance, reformation, or reconsideration, there never appears any force of Muslims to oppose them. While it is undoubtedly true that not all Muslims in any given age have ever waged jihad, there has never been in Islamic history an Islamic entity or organization that was opposed to waging jihad and dedicated to stopping those who were waging it. So it is today. Islamic groups in the West issue pro-forma condemnations after every jihad terror attack, but are doing little or nothing to try to prevent the next one. There is still no mosque or Islamic school in the United States that teaches young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam taught by al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other jihad terror groups. Meanwhile, Said Khecharem and other Islamic spokesmen openly call for Muslims to engage in jihad conquest. Western authorities should be pondering his words, and their implications, very carefully. Instead, if they have taken any notice of him at all, which is unlikely, they have dismissed him as an “extremist.” They have yet to come to grips with the fact that “extremism” is and always has been so distressingly widespread in Muslim communities. But they will. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
MAJOR NEW STUDY: Homeschooling Spikes Due to School Violence, Far-Left Bias  According to a 33-year-long study conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute in Oregon, the top three reasons that parents choose homeschooling are a desire to provide religious instruction or different values than those offered in public schools; dissatisfaction with the academic curriculum, and worries about the school environment. As reported by The Washington Times, the recent school shooting at Parkland, Fla., was the last straw for scores of parents. The paper noted that “the phones started ringing at the Texas Home School Coalition, and they haven’t stopped yet.” The Times added:The Lubbock-based organization has been swamped with inquiries for months from parents seeking safer options for their kids in the aftermath of this year’s deadly school massacres, first in Parkland and then in Santa Fe, Texas. “When the Parkland shooting happened, our phone calls and emails exploded,” said coalition president Tim Lambert. “In the last couple of months, our numbers have doubled. We’re dealing with probably between 1,200 and 1,400 calls and emails per month, and prior to that it was 600 to 700.” While the debate rages anew over familiar topics following such tragedies — tougher, more restrictive gun control laws and bolstering security at public schools — the revolution in homeschooling has been taking place quietly, behind the scenes and off the radar screens of most political organizations. But again, it’s not just the shootings, which admittedly have increased in the past couple of years. Christopher Chin, head of Homeschool Louisiana, told The Times that parents are fed up with “the violence, the bullying, the unsafe environments.” The Left is driving more kids OUT of public schools There is also the Left-wing social engineering. The craziness over transgender students and bathrooms/locker rooms, allowing students to “take a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem, the Left-wing curriculum, and refusing to allow students to wear shirts that praise POTUS Trump or feature the American flag are also driving parents into homeschooling. REMNANT COMMENT: We here at The Remnant are always eager to promote the home-schooling movement, and this report helps illustrate why. At the moment and personally speaking, my own family’s home-school is going great guns. We have a daughter still in high school and three in grade school. Our family couldn't be happier with our decision to homeschool---yes, all the way through high school. And as for our older home-schooled children: My third-eldest child is preparing to head off to college in the fall. Her older sister just finished a semester studying in Austria and will graduate with a double major and a minor degree next spring. My son will be a junior this fall, working on a Mass Communications degree at Franciscan University. Here's an example of his work: Perhaps this video from a couple of years ago will be useful to those considering home-schooling this fall: Friends, please give serious thought and prayer to home-schooling your children. I realize it’s a challenge, but few challenges have greater payoffs in this world or the next. There is no better way to keep the Catholic family together and committed to the Catholic restoration than the Catholic home school.
Barack Hussein Obama Hid Efforts to Aid Iran’s Windfall  A new Senate report reveals that Barack Obama secretly paved the way for Iran to tap into U.S. banks to convert cash it received from sanctions’ relief to dollars — despite the face the White House assured lawmakers it would do no such thing. The report shows how State Department and Treasury Deparment officials during the Obama era quietly gave a special license for a major Omani bank to do business with two U.S. banks. Barack Obama spent considerable time selling the American people on the idea of a cooperative Iran — all the while cutting quiet deals, behind closed doors, with the rogue nation. take our poll - story continues below 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. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? The U.S. banks were pressured into complying with the deal. The Washington Times has more: The Obama administration — despite repeatedly assuring Congress that Iran would remain barred from the U.S. financial system — secretly mobilized to give Tehran access to American banks to convert the windfall of cash it received from sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal into dollars, an investigative report by the Senate has revealed. A copy of the report, obtained by The Washington Times, outlines how Obama-era State and Treasury Department officials discreetly issued a special license for the conversion to a major Omani bank and unsuccessfully pressured two U.S. banks to partake in the transaction, all while misleading lawmakers about the activities. The document, compiled by the Senate’s Republican-led chief investigative subcommittee, began circulating Tuesday, just as the Trump administration issued its harshest warnings to date to foreign governments and companies to avoid doing business with Iran or find themselves in the crosshairs of Washington’s reimposition of sanctions as part of Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. “Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks, and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions,” said Sigal Mandelker, Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. She also called on foreign governments to harden their financial systems against “deceptive” Iranian transactions that ultimately channel money to terrorists. The Iranian government “uses shell and front companies to conceal its tracks” as part of an elaborate scheme designed to procure cash for the Quds Force of Iran’s militant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, Ms. Mandelker said. She issued the warnings in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank as Iran announced Tuesday that it was formally moving ahead with preparations to increase its nuclear enrichment capacities — the sharpest response to date by the Islamic republic to Mr. Trump’s pullout from the nuclear accord. Iranian officials said the increase, while provocative, does not violate its commitments under the nuclear accord. The president sent shock waves around the world with his May 8 decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear pact and begin reimposing U.S. sanctions, which the U.S., Europe, China and Russia had collectively lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran’s promise to curb its suspect nuclear programs and allow international inspections. While Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Tuesday that it plans only to increase enrichment within limits set by 2015 deal, the announcement came with threats from a top Iranian official that the activities could be quickly expanded. The warning put fresh pressure on European leaders to keep the nuclear accord alive despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal. The head of Iran’s nuclear agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Tehran is prepared to dramatically increase its capacity for enrichment but that the work so far is limited to building a facility for assembling the centrifuges. He made the comment a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the increase in capacity and vowed that Iran would preserve its nuclear program despite the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 accord. The Senate report focuses new scrutiny on the lengths President Obama’s team was willing to go to ensure the deal’s success as it was still being negotiated. The Senate Homeland Security Committee’s permanent subcommittee on investigations probe contends that the Obama administration went out of its way to keep U.S. lawmakers in the dark about calculated and secretive efforts to give Tehran a back channel to the international financial system and to U.S. banks, facilitating a massive U.S. currency conversion worth billions of dollars. “Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” according to a draft copy of the document obtained by The Times. “Despite these claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system. “Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system,” the report said. Sen. Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee, is set to outline his panel’s findings Wednesday. Under terms of the nuclear deal, Iran was given the right to reclaim billions of dollars in state assets and bank accounts frozen by international sanctions, but it remained “illegal for U.S. persons, entities, and financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran.” The ban included any “intermediary” transactions by U.S. banks to convert currency for Iran — a development that would have elevated the value of the Iranian assets on the global market and allowed Tehran to more easily move the money through the international banking system. On the day the nuclear deal was implemented in 2015, Tehran had some $5.7 billion worth of assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman, according to Senate investigators, who said Tehran moved quickly to request access to the U.S. dollar. On Tehran’s request, Bank Muscat contacted the U.S. Treasury Department’s office of foreign assets control. According to the Senate report: “Muscat sought to convert $5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros. [But] because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars.” Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2015 that Iran would “continue to be denied access to the [U.S.] financial and commercial market” under the proposed accord, but the Treasury office went ahead with attempts to quietly allow the currency transaction sought by Iran. “On February 24, 2016, OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system,” according to the Senate report, which claims the move was made “even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it.” Even as office of foreign assets control officials directly “encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds,” the Treasury Department continued to deny it was working to facilitate the currency transaction, said the report, which cites a 2016 letter from the department to Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, and Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, that contended the Obama “administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.” The catch, according to Senate investigators, was that neither of the U.S. banks approached by the office of foreign assets control would take on the Iranian currency exchange — in part because of political concerns over the prospect of being found out to have secretly circumvented the remaining ban on U.S. transactions with the Islamic republic. Despite the Obama administration’s efforts, Iran was ultimately forced to convert its Bank Muscat assets to euros in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system, the Senate investigators said. Mr. Portman said in a statement Tuesday night that “the Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran.” “Despite claims both before and after the Iran deal was completed that the U.S. financial system would remain off limits, the Obama administration issued a specific license allowing Iran to convert billions of dollars in assets using the U.S. financial system,” Mr. Portman said. “The only reason this transaction wasn’t executed was because two U.S. banks refused, even though the administration asked them to help convert the money.” Such sanctions, he added, “are a vital foreign policy tool, and the U.S. government should never work to actively undermine their enforcement or effectiveness.”
If Kavanaugh Is Not Confirmed By Senate, Then We Are All Just One Accusation Away From Ruin  If Christine Ford were to make her accusation in any courtroom in America, even a mediocre defense attorney could shatter her credibility within minutes under cross-examination. Here's what that might look like: Defense Attorney : When did this occur Ms. Ford? Ms. Ford : I'm not exactly sure. I believe it was 1982. 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 * Email 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. Defense Attorney : Where did it happen? Ms. Ford : At a house in our town. I'm not sure whose house it was or where it was. I don't remember how I got there. But, I can tell you that it had a swimming pool and I recall a narrow stairway. Defense Attorney : Who was present in the house? Ms. Ford : Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, two other boys and another girl. Defense Attorney : What are the names of the other boys and the girl who were present? Ms. Ford : I don't remember. Defense Attorney : Were you hurt? Ms. Ford : No. If this had been such a pivotal moment for her, how could she have forgotten any those facts? Most victims of sexual assault remember every detail – yes, even years later. No jury would send a young man to prison based on that testimony. Without a shred of evidence, a highly qualified judge, with no other blemish on his record, is being smeared on the national stage by a political lynch mob out for blood. Ben Shapiro spoke to Fox News' Martha MacCallum and said "you have to have some evidence before you destroy a man's life." Shapiro's comments can be heard in the video below. Jeanine Pirro spoke to Hannity on Thursday night and asked, "Since when does truth and justice or guilt and innocence depend on your political party. I fear for this nation when this is now the standard. You believe any woman who goes against a Republican and you don't believe any woman who goes against a Democrat." She continued. "I worry about this country. I don't want these people to sit on juries. It's no longer about truth and justice. It's about politics." Hannity asks, "Why are people willing to throw out due process, equal justice under the law and the presumption of innocence?" Gregg Jarrett says it's "because they're zealous to the point where they've lost their common sense." Their commentary on the video below is interesting. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) is to be commended on his handling of the situation. In the spirit of compromise, he called off the Senate committee vote that had been on the calendar for Thursday and scheduled a hearing for next Monday so that both Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh could state their cases. Kavanaugh immediately responded to Grassley. For 36 hours, there was silence from the Ford camp. Then, their demands began. First, it was reported that Ford would answer questions, but only at a closed hearing and only after an FBI investigation had been completed. Republicans felt that the request for a closed hearing was reasonable, but the demand for a new FBI investigation was not. The FBI investigates federal crimes and/or national security issues. When the FBI received Dianne Feinstein’s letter last week, they forwarded it to the White House to place in Kavanaugh’s background check file. (Note: The FBI has already conducted six background checks on Kavanaugh, the most recent one was done this summer.) It was announced later that Sen. Grassley would not change the date of the hearing set for Monday. Even Senators Jeff Flake, Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham, who have all said Ford needs to be heard, have indicated that if she does not show up for Monday's hearing, they will schedule a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation. On Thursday afternoon, Ford's highly partisan, activist attorney emailed Grassley saying, although her client strongly prefers that an investigation take place beforehand, Ford will testify next week, but she cannot do so on Monday. And she will only be questioned by members of the Senate panel, not outside lawyers. Why not Monday? Does she have an important dentist appointment she can't get out of? In order to avoid the criticism that will no doubt come anyway, the Republicans on the Senate Judicial committee have tried very hard to oblige Ford's requests, even offering to go to California to hear her testimony. She and her attorneys feel that they are in the driver's seat and thus, can call all the shots. Democrats want to delay this vote until after the midterms because they believe they have a chance to retake the Senate as well as the House. Rush Limbaugh points out that the Senate has bent over backwards to accommodate the accuser. "I don’t care who you are, determine the scope and the parameters of an investigation. The accuser doesn’t get to determine when and who investigates. In no circumstance in the country does that happen." In addition to the political reasons for the delay requests, it appears as if this woman is reluctant to testify under oath, possibly because she doesn’t want to perjure herself. Maybe she realizes the magnitude of what her accusations have unleashed. Either this did not happen at all or a much milder version of the situation she alleges occurred. Kavanaugh may have made a pass at her as 17-year-old boys (and even some 17-year-old girls) are known to do. Ford said no and that was it. Even she admits, they did not have sex, nor was this a hostage situation. The perception of events by a 15-year-old girl may differ significantly from reality. And 36 years can distort memories, one way or another. What is happening in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination process should concern every American. Whatever happened or did not happen, it's difficult to feel sorry for someone who comes forward at such a politically opportune moment. There was ample time to have addressed this in July or August, but Dianne Feinstein chose to sit on it until the moment it could inflict maximum political damage. Democrats may be overestimating the strength of their hand. And Ms. Ford may be overestimating the integrity of the "supportive" lawmakers and lawyers currently handling her. Watch all these sensitive lawmakers and high profile, activist attorneys scatter like mice from her once the Senate vote is over (regardless of the result). Ford can choose to state her case on Monday or not, but she is not in a position to be calling the shots.
Newt Gingrich: The truth about Trump, Putin, and Obama  President Trump’s summit Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki created a firestorm of controversy. President Trump seemed to be publicly siding with the Russian dictator against the American intelligence agencies. The initial appearance was so bad that I tweeted: “President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected – immediately.” After flying home from Helsinki and reviewing the tape and transcript of his press conference with Putin, President Trump said he has “full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies” and that he accepts “our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place.” In his remarks to members of Congress Tuesday that were televised by the media, President Trump went on to admit that he realized he needed to clarify his statements in Helsinki. The president said: “It should have been obvious – I thought it would be obvious – but I would like to clarify, just in case it wasn’t. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of “wouldn’t.” The sentence should have been: I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t – or why it wouldn’t be Russia. So just to repeat it, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t’ … “I have, on numerous occasions, noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our elections. Unlike previous administrations, my administration has and will continue to move aggressively to repeal any efforts – and repel – we will stop it, we will repel it – any efforts to interfere in our elections. We’re doing everything in our power to prevent Russian interference in 2018.” Anyone who has studied President Trump knows he hates to admit a mistake. His natural pattern is to move forward and ignore mistakes. For him, this was a big correction (and as I noted the day before, it was an absolutely necessary one). President Trump then reminded everyone of the Obama administration’s failures in dealing with Russian meddling in the election. President Trump noted that President Obama and his advisers had information that the Russians had been working to interfere in the election and they ignored it, because they thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. President Trump said: “President Obama, along with (then-CIA Director John) Brennan and (then Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper and the whole group that you see on television now – probably getting paid a lot of money by your networks – they knew about Russia’s attempt to interfere in the election in September, and they totally buried it. And as I said, they buried it because they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win. It turned out it didn’t happen that way. “By contrast, my administration has taken a very firm stance – it’s a very firm stance – on a strong action. We’re going to take strong action to secure our election systems and the process.” There are two key facts in this statement. First, the very people who have been loudest in attacking President Trump about his performance at the Helsinki summit are the people who failed to protect America from Russian meddling in 2016. The very intensity and nastiness of former CIA Director Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence Clapper is an attempt to distract attention from their failure to protect America. It was their duty in 2016 – not candidate Trump’s. Second, the Trump administration has been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever dreamed of being. The Trump administration is taking real actions designed to weaken Russia and force Putin to change his aggressive behavior. The Trump administration has levied tough sanctions on Russia. Also, President Trump’s public lecture about Germany not buying natural gas from Russia was aimed at cutting Putin off from hard currency worth tens of billions of dollars and further weakening the Russian economy. Furthermore, President Trump’s efforts to get our European allies to increase their defense spending has a direct impact on Putin. The stronger NATO is, the less maneuvering room Russia has. Beyond pressuring our allies, consider these specific steps President Trump has taken against Russia: Where President Obama refused to provide serious weapons to the Ukrainians to help them defend themselves (his response was weakness on a pathetic scale), President Trump has approved the sale of offensive weapons to enable the Ukrainians to increase the cost of Russian aggression. When the Russians used chemical weapons in Great Britain, President Trump joined our allies and expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers from the United States. When the Russians retaliated, the Trump administration closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. President Trump had previously shuttered the Russian consulate in San Francisco and smaller annexes in Washington and New York. More than 100 Russian individuals and companies have been sanctioned for a variety of reasons. Despite the hysteria of the left, it is impossible to see the Trump administration as anything but firm in its dealing with Russia. Nothing done in Helsinki made life easier for the Putin regime in its continued economic decay and diplomatic isolation due to the sanctions regime. Finally, a brief word about the strong language and vicious comments about the president. We are in the early stages of a cultural civil war in which the left sees itself losing. This is what led me to write my new New York Times best-selling book, “Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback.” With each passing month the radical-extremist wing of the Democratic Party dominates the progressive wing more and more. With President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, it was clear that anyone Trump nominated was going to be attacked. In fact, the demonstrators protesting the nomination had signs for all four of the finalists and were instantly ready to oppose the president regardless of his choice. Similarly, Obama-era national security officials seem determined to use the harshest possible language to attack President Trump. I think their strong words and hysteria are driven by their own guilt. Whatever the Russians did, they did while Brennan was director of the CIA, Clapper was director of national intelligence, and James Comey was head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These former officials attack Trump ferociously to hide their own failure and their own guilt. Just keep that in mind the next time you see one of them on TV. My prediction is that President Trump will remain tough on Russia, and the Helsinki press conference will be seen as the aberration it was.
Spygate Coverup?  https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/spygate-coverup/ Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) accuses the Republican House leadership of dragging their heels in the Spygate investigation. This has been evident for months now, as there are many connections and obvious questions that haven’t been investigated. The FBI files contain memos that need to be scoured too. The House leaders are Paul Ryan (Speaker of the House), Kevin McCarthy (Majority Leader), Steve Scalise (Majority Whip) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (House Republican Conference Chair). There is a decided lack of aggressiveness of this investigation. One source is Paul Ryan: Evidence: “House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday that Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy was ‘accurate’ when he argued the FBI has acted appropriately in its ongoing probe of potential Russian links to the Trump campaign.” How could Ryan possibly know this? Isn’t he prejudging the case without even finding out what actually happened? If Ryan is correct, an investigation will show it; but the current evidence suggests he is wrong. By short-circuiting the investigation, Ryan is betraying the interest of the American people to learn what the FBI and CIA actually did against Trump. Another Republican who wants to stop investigating is former RNC Chair, Michael Steele: “There is no Spygate because there are no spies in the campaign.” The attitude of Steve Scalise is wishy-washy. He’s open to a special prosecutor, but his responses come across as passive, lacking push, zeal and enthusiasm to delve deeply into Spygate. There is a kind of coverup at work here in which important Republicans do not want to bolster Trump by adding substance to Spygate, and they do not want to clean up the FBI by aggressively investigating Spygate further. They don’t want the rotten inner workings of the organization to be aired publicly. They want to preserve the FBI’s reputation. They don’t care to see Trump vindicated. The contrast with the Watergate investigation and hearings is startling. 1:33 pm on June 6, 2018 The Best of Michael S. Rozeff
Trump To Sessions In Series Of Tweets: ‘Stop The Rigged Witch Hunt NOW!’  President Donald Trump has taken to Twitter in order to call upon Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end the investigation into his alleged Russian collusion. Trump wants the Justice Department to “stop the rigged witch hunt” before it can “stain our country and further.” In his Twitter post, Trump also blasted the 17 angry Democrats that are doing a conflicted Mueller’s dirty work. ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 “..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bon Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to [sic] USA!” Trump wrote. And Trump is far from the only American who sees the investigation as a witch hunt. Many Twitter users have taken his side, while many others believe firmly in the Russian conspiracy theory. The president made his comments in a series of Tweets earlier this morning. “FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day one. He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed to.....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 .....remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated. This is a real issue. It won’t go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys. Mueller has an interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation.” ALAN DERSHOWITZ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 Enough is enough!!! This is just a deep state coo attempt (Mueller) to stop the will of We the People!!! It's time to jail Mueller and cancel this witch hunt!!! Lock them all up this has to end!!! Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) August 1, 2018 Attorney General Sessions recused himself from overseeing the investigation early in 2017. The New York Times hypothesized that this was done, in part, to avoid the kind of conflicts such as that which Trump has proposed. Later, a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was appointed to carry out the investigation. Trump’s lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Jay A. Sekulow, said in a telephone interview that the president was not ordering the inquiry closed but simply expressing his opinion via the social media platform. “It’s not a call to action,” Mr. Giuliani said, adding that it was a sentiment that Mr. Trump and his lawyers have expressed publicly before. “He’s expressing his opinion, but he’s not talking of his special powers he has” as president, Giuliani said. “He doesn’t feel that he has to intervene in the process, nor is he intervening,” said Sekulow. The special counsel is also looking into some of Trump’s tweets about Attorney General Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James Comey and whether the messages were intended to “obstruct the inquiry” into his alleged Russian collusion. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of Vermont, suggested on Twitter that the president’s directive to Sessions in these recent Tweets was, in fact, obstruction. When I was a prosecutor, obstruction of justice was often hard to prove, requiring difficult-to-obtain evidence that the individual’s actions were truly intended to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. Oh how times have changed. https://t.co/CjSFJmng7Z — Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) August 1, 2018 The ongoing battle against the Trump presidency and the debate over what constitutes opinion vs. “obstruction of justice” doesn’t appear to have an end date in sight. Although, according to Guiliani, Mueller suggested that the Russia obstruction probe would be wrapping up by September 1. We’ll all be waiting with bated breath.
Texas Mom: My Son Was Attacked For Wearing A MAGA Hat At Whataburger  A Texas mother’s teenage son was allegedly attacked at a Whataburger for wearing a MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat. The mother posted the video of the incident on Facebook as evidence of her claims. The woman claimed a man became extremely angry at her teenage son and his group of friends because one of them wore a “Make American Great Again” hat, KENS5 reported. The hats have become noticeable and are often an outward expression of support of President Donald Trump. The video shows the man throwing his fountain drink at the table and shouting a racial slur. According to Breitbart, in the mother’s post on Facebook, which has since been taken down, Patricia Spittler asks for help in identifying the man she called “scum bag of the year.” The San Antonio CBS affiliate reported that Spittler wrote: “His friend was wearing a patriotic hat, and this happened! It would be nice to know who he is for someone to let him know his actions are not okay!” Spittler added: “Real tough guy… approaches a group of teenagers minding their own business just having a burger! He kept his hat, too.” The video found it’s way to Twitter, and it is slightly violent, so err on the side of caution if watching near children. Also be aware that there a few racial slurs in the video. Disturbing video of young Trump Supporter having his MAGA hat stolen and a drink thrown in his face. The civility of the Left on full display… pic.twitter.com/gUzBVRpP7X — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 5, 2018 As the video begins, the man says, “… supporting the president. You ain’t supporting shit nigga,” and then throws the drink in the face of a 16-year-old boy. With MAGA hat in hand, the man walks away saying “Bitch ass motherf**ker.” The boy, Hunter Richard, said the man also pulled his hair while taking the hat, according to reports by News4SA. “I support my President and if you don’t, let’s have a conversation about it instead of ripping my hat off. I just think a conversation about politics is more productive for the entire whole rather than taking my hat and yelling subjective words to me,” he told the local NBC affiliate. A police report was filed and a man was fired for stealing the hat and the assault (throwing a drink in a Trump supporter’s face.) The post below, claiming a person was fired for the actions against Richard, had been removed or made private, meaning some may not see it.
Jeff Sessions lashes back at Trump  Personal Liberty Poll Exercise your right to vote. WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a message for Donald Trump: You’re wrong, Mr. President. Sessions long has been one of Trump’s favorite pinatas, often taking the brunt of the president’s public scorn. Trump offered this assessment of his hand-picked attorney general recusing himself from the Justice Department’s special counsel probe of Russian election meddling: “What kind of man is this?” Trump, in an interview that aired Thursday morning, also blasted Sessions because, he said, the former Alabama senator “never took control of the Justice Department.” About seven hours later, the country’s top law enforcement officer fired back. And, by doing so, took on Trump publicly in a way few Republicans in Washington have during his turbulent 19-month-old presidency. “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success at effectuating the President’s agenda — one that protects the safety and security and rights of the American people, reduces violent crime, enforces our immigration laws, promotes economic growth, and advances religious liberty,” the AG said in a statement. “While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action,” Sessions added. “However, no nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States.” That last statement comes amid nearly constant complaints from Trump that Justice Department and FBI investigators are being unfair to the president and his allies. That line of criticism has been picked up by, among others, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who was indicted on federal officials this week on charges of misusing campaign finance funds for personal use. Trump did not directly answer a Fox News interviewer’s question about whether he intends to fire Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the special counsel investigation, after November’s congressional elections. He also said he only gave the former senator the job because Sessions was a supporter during the 2016 presidential race. — John T. Bennett CQ-Roll Call ——— ©2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
People Call On White House To Pardon Oregon Ranchers Steve & Dwight Hammond  A couple of years ago, I introduced you to the Hammon family, a rancher family out of Oregon that was targeted after the patriarch in the family and his son went to jail for doing what ranchers do, setting fires to protect property and livestock. However, in the day and age of unmitigated "terrorism" charges, once they served their sentence the federal government went after both men for more time inside their prison for profit system. Their story ultimately led to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge protest, which led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Now, many who have seen what took place both in the Oregon trials and the Bundy Ranch trials are calling on President Donald Trump to issue a pardon for Steve and Dwight Hammond. According to the White House petition on behalf of Dwight and Steven Hammond by Protect The Harvest: The Hammond case is viewed by many in the West, and indeed across the nation, as a manifest miscarriage of justice akin to double jeopardy. 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 * 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. As long as Dwight and Steven Hammond remain in jail for what is obviously a gross miscarriage of justice, this matter remains a blight on the federal regulatory agencies and the criminal justice system. Rural communities of the West are greatly appreciative of the efforts of the Trump administration to restore the economies of these communities. We respectfully ask President Trump to pardon Dwight and Steven Hammond. I completely agree with that assessment and fully support President Trump pardoning these men. They are the furthest thing from terrorists. They are hard-working, family ranchers who simply were doing their job. I've written on the Hammond's case in several articles, which you can view below. Many of you followed these stories when the mainstream wouldn't cover them. Many of you followed Bundy Ranch until after the trials, but when we asked for people to step up and sign a petition to bring Bundy Ranch prosecutor Steven Myhre to justice for his crimes, we couldn't get 1,000 signatures. Please, put yourself in the position of these humble ranchers and consider if you would appreciate someone simply taking the time to put their name on a petition to which the President of the united States might have to respond to by setting these men free. Consider that and then, please, support the petition by clicking here.
America's Immigration Voice.  Swedish PM does not rule out use of army to end gang violence JANUARY 17, 2018 / 9:06 AM / A DAY AGO Reuters Staff STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Sweden will do whatever it takes, including sending in the army, to end a wave of gang violence that has seen a string of deadly shootings, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said in Wednesday. Sweden’s murder rate is relatively low in international terms, but gang violence has surged in recent years and Swedes are worried that the police are unable to cope. … Four people were shot dead in the first week of this year. One man died after picking up a hand grenade outside a subway station in a suburb of Stockholm. Law and order is likely to be a major issue in a parliamentary election scheduled for September with the populist, opposition Sweden Democrats linking public concern about the rising crime rate to a large increase in the numbers of immigrants. … “People are shot to death in pizza restaurants, people are killed by hand grenades they find on the street,” Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Akesson said in parliament on Wednesday. “This is the new Sweden; the new, exciting dynamic, multicultural paradise that so many here in this assembly … have fought to create for so many years,” he said sarcastically. From Reuters:Wikipedia has a page devoted to “ List of Grenade Attacks in Sweden ,” which lists 80 different attacks beginning in 2014. That’s crazy.
Conspiracy Theorists Seize on Mesa Man Who Sold Ammo to Las Vegas Shooter  Thanks to crackpots online, a Mesa man has become embroiled in conspiracy theories after he sold ammunition to the Las Vegas mass shooter. Douglas Haig, a 55-year-old Honeywell engineer, sold more than 700 rounds of ammunition to Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock in September. Haig's name was inadvertently revealed this week when unredacted court documents were released to reporters. Search warrant records showed that Haig was a person of interest in the investigation of the mass shooting. As a result, Haig said that he has received death threats and people have pounded on his door to tell him that he deserves to die. "It makes me feel horrible," he said at a news conference Friday morning. "People need to do their research and think rather than just react viscerally.” It's not just people harassing Haig at his home: Conspiracy theorists online have seized on Haig's engineering background to lob wild claims about the Las Vegas shooting. Many of their theories lean heavily on Haig's LinkedIn profile, which says that Haig previously worked for Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Bonkers conspiracy site Intellihub posted an article this week that pointed to Haig's background in the aerospace industry as a sign of U.S. government involvement in the massacre. They noted Haig's LinkedIn page, which says he worked for Boeing in Mesa as a senior liaison engineer in their unmanned helicopter division from 2010 to 2013. "Let’s not forget that it is a fact that helicopters were lurking behind the Mandalay Bay during the attack which were not shown on the radar," author Shepard Ambellas writes. Ambellas claims helicopters provided an "air assault" during the massacre, a ludicrous theory he's expounded upon on InfoWars with the internet's conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Alex Jones. Ambellas and Intellihub claim that the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are providing cover for the real story behind the massacre, with help from Haig. In public statements this week, Haig denied any connection to the massacre and said he merely sold Paddock the rounds. "However, don’t be fooled," Intellihub writes. "Haig is likely a CIA cut-out who is just upholding the public narrative in conjunction with the FBI Las Vegas and the LVMPD." Laura Loomer, a noxious far-right personality who formerly worked for Project Veritas, also started making hay with Haig's background in Arizona aerospace. She wrote on Twitter that the massacre "is starting to look more and more like a gun running operation gone wrong every day." Douglas Haig’s @LinkedIn Account says he also has “DOD Top secret clearance” on top of specializing in military ammunition.  He is the second suspect in the #LasVegasShooting.  This is starting to look more and more like a gun running operation gone wrong every day. pic.twitter.com/ifkkglZ4kw — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) January 30, 2018 But Haig is an engineer, and he says he's not a former military officer. It should be noted that Haig's rounds were probably not even used in the massacre: Haig sold Paddock tracer ammunition, which emit a flare when fired making them easier to see. Had Paddock fired these rounds during the nighttime massacre at the concert, they would have been visible. Haig's attorney Marc Victor told reporters it was perfectly legal for Haig, a private citizen, to sell Paddock hundreds of rounds of tracer ammunition — the bullets are legal in Arizona. Paddock showed up to buy ammunition at Haig's home after meeting him at a gun show in Phoenix. "I sold him 600 rounds of .308 tracer, surplus U.S. military. I sold him 120 rounds of .556 tracer, again, surplus U.S. military," Haig said to ABC15. "I put it in a box for him. He paid me, put it in his car, and left." Haig said he's been legally selling ammunition as as a hobby since 1991, but after the massacre, he has stopped his side business. It wasn't unusual for a customer to buy over 700 rounds, he said. "I've seen all kinds of people. There were no tells," Haig said of Paddock. When asked about the threats, Haig said, “I’ve had people screaming they want me to die through my front door." Haig and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the conspiracy theorizing. Haig said he's sorry that the massacre took place, but emphasized that he had nothing to do with Paddock's mass shooting. “I had no contribution to what Paddock did,” Haig said at the news conference. “I had no way to see into his mind. The product that I sold him had absolutely nothing to do with what he did.” Nevertheless, it's hard to believe that Haig's denials will dissuade the conspiracy-mongers. YouTube conspiracy theorist Jake Morphonios said that for all he knows, Doug Haig didn't play a role in Paddock's massacre. Even so, Morphonious still parlayed an innocent-until-proven-guilty stance into a 30-minute dissertation where he discussed a "shadow government in the United States" in the context of Haig's work for companies like Northrop Grumman. "Did he know something that Stephen Paddock was going to do? That I don't know — it's possible, but who knows." Morphonious said. He added, "I've got some questions of my own about Doug Haig that I'm going to continue seeking answers for."
Trump: "If You Don't Want To Be Saying The Words 'Speaker Pelosi'... Go Out & Vote"  Obviously, President Donald Trump is encouraging people to go out and vote against Democrats, which everyone should do. At a rally of 8,500 in Indiana on Friday, Trump encouraged them to go out and vote Republican if they didn't want to be uttering the words "Speaker Pelosi" over the next two years. “If you don’t want to be saying the words ‘Speaker Pelosi’ for the next two years, you gotta go out and vote,” Trump said as he stumped for congressional candidates Greg Pence and Jim Bair. Trump also encouraged the crowd to vote for Mike Braun for US Senate. 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 * 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. Trump praised Braun as a man who didn't need the position and is not a career politician. Just like his promotion of voting for Republicans in the House would lead to defeating Democrats and keep the words "Speaker Pelosi" off our lips, Trump also said that a vote for Braun's opponent, incumbent Democrat Sen. Joe Donnelly, would lead to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becoming the Senate Majority leader should the Democrats regain control of the Senate. The president also pointed out that Donnelly had opposed tax cuts and joined with his fellow Democrats in attacking and voting against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. "The people of Indiana do not have a one-week memory,” said Trump. “That was a disgrace what we watched up there." Additionally, Trump said that Donnelly voted to provide free health care to illegal aliens and sponsored Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) "Open Borders Bill." While some don't believe that Trump's base is all that energized, it seems pretty energetic to me and attacks on conservatives on social media and in search engine results have only furthered their outrage at the establishment, both Democrat and Republican. We're just days away from seeing how things turn out. There's a part of me that thinks this may actually turn out to be one of the biggest turnouts for a mid-term election that we've ever seen, but that's just my gut feeling. On Tuesday, we'll know for sure. I don't know about you, but I didn't actually like hearing the words "Speaker Paul Ryan." I certainly don't want to hear "Speaker Pelosi," again.
Tea With the Curate: The Attack on Marriage is an Attack on Christ in the Eucharist  Pope Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical on the Eucharist, “Mysterium Fidei,” was the first place I saw anyone say that the body and blood, soul and complete divinity of Christ was actually present in the consecrated species. Having been raised in Remi de Roo’s Victoria in the 1970s, I had naturally never heard anything at all about the Eucharist. The understanding that Catholics believed what they believe about it came as a bit of a shock. (Read the full document here. ) With the hindsight of 52 years and a great deal of very dirty and unappealing water under the Catholic bridge, we can see it as a kind of warning prophecy. Published just three months before the close of Vatican II and just as Annibale Bugnini was cranking open the floodgates of his never-ending stream of liturgical alterations, Mysterium Fidei is now an important marker of a critical turning point in Catholic history, perhaps the most important of modern times.  Who can read this without cringing at what we now know was about to happen: Therefore, we earnestly hope that the restored sacred liturgy will bring forth abundant fruits of eucharistic devotion, so that the Holy Church, under this saving sign of piety, may make daily progress toward perfect unity and may invite all Christians to a unity of faith and of love, drawing them gently, thanks to the action of divine grace. But in 1983 at the start of my personal investigations into the Catholic religion, I knew nothing of any of that. The encyclical, the very first I ever read, was also a marker for me of a personal turning point. It was the first time I had ever seen Catholic eucharistic doctrine clearly and – most importantly – unapologetically stated. It came right out and said something so astounding, something so completely unlikely, that I had to admit that it left very few logical possibilities. Like C.S. Lewis’s assessment of the claims by Christ of His own divinity, this pope was either mad, bad or telling the plain truth.  Something that may be much more noteworthy now in our current circumstances than it was the year I read it, is that the pope’s very first quote was not of scripture, but the Council of Trent: “At the Last Supper, on the night He was handed over, Our Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until He should come, and thus entrust to the Church, His beloved spouse, the memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of devotion, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is received, the soul is filled with grace and there is given to us the pledge of future glory.”  In these words are highlighted both the sacrifice, which pertains to the essence of the Mass which is celebrated daily, and the sacrament in which the faithful participate in Holy Communion by eating the Flesh of Christ and drinking His Blood, receiving both grace, the beginning of eternal life, and the medicine of immortality. I remember my thoughts upon reading this shocking statement… “By doing what? !”  My acceptance from the reading of this document of the Church’s orthodox eucharistic doctrine was based in part on Pope Paul’s gracious and beautiful exposition, and in part on the sheer radical, mad unlikeliness of it. What could conceivably be the reason to say anything as wild as this if it weren’t true?  The idea of transubstantiation struck me as I read that document as possibly the strangest and most earth shattering thing I’d ever heard. It shocked me out of a kind of swamp of intellectual worldliness; presenting the idea to my thirsty mind that there could indeed be fantastic realities far more wonderful than the banal and painfully uninteresting secularist worldview I had been taught to accept. It was as though someone had plausibly told me that, yes, there were fairies and magical kingdoms in real life, “just around the corner”.  By the time I read it, I had been through a long, slow transition from a childhood devoted to Our Lady and confirmed in my belief in wonders, to a kind of disappointed practical atheism after three years in a diocesan Catholic parochial school. I had been taught, by both word and implication, that everything the Catholic Church had taught before Vatican II was pernicious nonsense. Where it was simply wrong it was ridiculous and where it was wrong and political it was outright wicked.  What led me to read that particular encyclical is the most clearly identifiable moment of actual grace in my young life to that point. It was the first time it occurred to me to investigate, like an anthropologist, what the Church herself said about her teachings. While mulling grimly one day over all the wickedness of the Catholic Church, I was pulled up short by a single thought: “I could be wrong.” At 17 it seemed such an unlikely thing to think I was rather shocked. But stopping a moment to consider, I realised that I had only ever heard about Catholic things from people who clearly hated the Church; her enemies, in short. It hardly seemed just to convict on the testimony of these obviously biased witnesses. In order to properly and thoroughly condemn the Church, with convincing due diligence, I had to read something about it that didn’t come from her enemies.  The same day, I presented myself at the reference desk of the public library and asked, “Do you have any books about Catholicism? Something official?” The librarian took me to the reference section and showed me the shelves of encyclicals, documents and histories. Saints and popes from one end of the stacks to the other. Having no clear idea what my own question meant, I just picked one at random.  The description of the Holy Eucharist as the supreme Centre from which all our life as Catholics flow, and from which all other doctrines radiated, was something that was not going to come into my head for another eight years of reading. But even so, Mysterium Fidei forced me to face up to a reality I’d never dreamed of before; that this, the little unassuming wafer, was the most important thing in the world.  Reading through the encyclical again, holding it up next to the current situation in Rome, makes it easier to clarify certain critical issues. Given what we are now seeing, consider the poignancy of the following passages: When dealing with the restoration of the sacred liturgy, the Fathers of the council, by reason of their pastoral concern for the whole Church, considered it of the highest importance to exhort the faithful to participate actively with sound faith and with the utmost devotion in the celebration of this Most Holy Mystery, to offer it with the priest to God as a sacrifice for their own salvation and for that of the whole world, and to find in it spiritual nourishment. This was, remember, 1965, four years before the New Mass was issued and before Cardinal Ottaviani warned the pope that it was precisely this sacramental reality that was about to be catastrophically obscured.  Who, reading this passage, does not feel the urge to shout down the years, to do something to stave off the disaster that was coming: [W]e are aware of the fact that, among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery in written or spoken word, there are some who with reference either to Masses which are celebrated in private, or to the dogma of transubstantiation, or to devotion to the Eucharist, spread abroad opinions which disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith. It is as if everyone were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or else to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved. Keeping Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention directly before our thoughts, we read with a strange kind of helpless dread… …it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the “communal” Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ’s presence in this sacrament.  Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called “transignification” and “transfiguration,” or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present. […]  And therefore, so that the hope aroused by the council, that a flourishing of eucharistic piety which is now pervading the whole Church, be not frustrated by this spread of false opinions, we have with apostolic authority decided to address you, venerable brothers, and to express our mind on this subject. [1] Those of us writing similar jeremiads now have been working to clarify that the attack from Rome on the moral doctrine of the Church isn’t about marriage. It’s about the Eucharist and to a lesser extent the priesthood. The demonic forces we know are the driving force behind this supreme moment of heresy and destruction aren’t really looking at the undermining of marriage as their primary goal; they want to get at the Eucharist. We know it is demonically inspired because their hatred is for Christ Himself in the first place and for anyone who loves and wants to serve Him second. They are men who refuse to bend the knee before the God whom they will not serve.  This knowledge – that the attack is on the Body and Blood of Christ – can also help readers spot their friends in the crowd. The places where Eucharistic adoration is still offered are places where at least some flicker of the true Faith survives. The bishops and priests now talking about the supreme glory of the Eucharist, and the need to defend it from sacrilege, are lighthouses. A case in point is Bishop Mark Davies, of my own former diocese of Shrewsbury in England. In March, 2016, in the midst of the shouting from Rome, Bishop Davies spoke at his Chrism Mass said that only through the “reality of the Eucharist” could new vocations to the priesthood be found. “In treasuring this gift of priestly celibacy we need to recognize more clearly the intimate link between the Ministerial Priesthood and the reality of the Eucharist. If the Mass were ever reduced in our minds to being merely a commemorative meal and the priest as only a community leader or functionary, then the celibacy of the Catholic Priesthood might seem extravagant.” It’s almost as if someone had slipped a copy of the Ottaviani Intervention inside his morning paper.  The targeting of marriage, through the instruments of creatures like the myopic and theologically tunnel-visioned Cardinal Kasper, is demonically brilliant. It’s a “stitch-up” as the English call it; a fix. You make it a matter of “mercy” (backed up by the iron fist) that no one in a state of objective mortal sin can be refused Holy Communion; you give the national bishops conferences the power to start enforcing this, and you have created a previously unimaginable situation in the Church. You have created a regime in which a refusal to desecrate the sacred species will be grounds for persecution of faithful priests, seminarians and laity. And of course, we are seeing it starting already.  It’s a brilliant strategy, the magic bullet that will revert the Church to the 1976 model on every front, and very likely keep it there forever. As if the goal was to go back in time and erase the entire John Paul II/Benedict XVI period out of history. It will halt the revival of eucharistic piety among seminarians; in fact, it will reverse the general reforming trend of “conservative” seminaries that was such a feature under John Paul II and has for 30 years been the hook upon which all hopes of restoration have hung.  It is easy to see what is coming next. Once certain announcements are published in parish bulletins, laity will have to consider whether they can, in conscience, continue to assist at Masses where systematic sacrilege has been formally adopted as the rule. The few bishops with sufficient spine to stand up to the pressure of both Rome and their own national conferences – newly empowered with directives to make doctrinal declarations – will be ruling embattled islands of Catholicism in a poisoned sea of systematic heresy and desecration. A dark, impenetrable and “irreversible” winter of persecution of the faithful by their own shepherds will fall.  Not being a theologian I have no idea if this encyclical is, as so many of these seemingly orthodox documents of that period seem to be, rife with the usual “time bombs,” ambiguities, mushy language or even outright errors. I haven’t looked it up. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there qualified to examine it to see if it’s safe for Trad-Catholic consumption. And I have no doubt at all that there are better, more venerable, even more sublime and poignant works on the Eucharist in the canon of “official” things. From saints and Doctors of the Church and whatnot, many of which the pope cited. But whatever its flaws, Mysterium Fidei is the one I found, and I’m convinced it wasn’t an accident.  O God, in Your infinite mercy, forgive and have mercy on Pope Paul VI Montini for whatever neglect or damage of which he may have been guilty. In this one case at least, a work of his was the exact right thing at the exact right time. For me at least it was the key that opened the Door to Narnia.  ____________________   [1] The fact that four years before the New Mass was issued, Paul VI was pinpointing in such detail exactly what Bugnini and co. were preparing makes it all but impossible to escape the conclusion that he knew perfectly well what was coming but approved the disastrous New Rite anyway. And then did nothing but weep as the inevitable disaster unfolded.
The Plague Is AIRBORNE And It’s Spreading Because People Are Literally ‘Dancing With Corpses’  The plague that’s airborne and has killed at least 124 people in Madagascar is now blamed on “dancing with corpses.” This is the time of year when the dead are wrapped in sheets and paraded through the streets while others dance around the bodies. The local tradition is said to be one of the major causes of the spread of this disease. Since it’s airborne, anyone coming close to the corpse of a person who has died of the black death could themselves, catch the infection. Health officials suspect it’s no coincidence that the outbreak coincides with the time of year when families customarily exhume the remains of dead relatives, wrap them in a sheet, and dance with them through the streets in a sacred ritual, AFP reports. “If a person dies of pneumonic plague and is then interred in a tomb that is subsequently opened for [the ritual], the bacteria can still be transmitted and contaminate whoever handles the body,” said Willy Randriamarotia, Madagascar’s health ministry chief of staff. Some locals believe the whole plague is some kind of a government conspiracy, and say they have no intention of forgoing the ritual known as “famadihana.” They say they will continue to dance with the dead and intend to honor their ancestors. “I will always practice the turning of the bones of my ancestors — plague or no plague. The plague is a lie,” Helene Raveloharisoa told the wire service. Josephine Ralisiarisoa firmly believes the country’s cash-strapped government is just exaggerating the problem to get money ahead of an election next year. And it isn’t that anyone is putting this past a government to lie for profits, but health officials have even warned tourists, a source of money, to stay away from Madagascar for their own health. “I have participated in at least 15 famadihana ceremonies in my life. And I’ve never caught the plague,” she told the AFP.
Chile 'cover-up' letter contradicts Pope  © EPA Pope Francis's trip to Chile and Peru was overshadowed by he row A victim of a paedophile priest in Chile has revealed he wrote to the Pope in 2015 about an alleged cover-up after Francis denied getting evidence. Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of cleric Fernando Karadima in the 1980s, accused fellow priest Juan Barros of witnessing the abuse and doing nothing. The Pope caused outrage after a visit to Chile last month by defending Bishop Barros, who was made a bishop in 2015. The Vatican refused to comment on the letter when approached by BBC News. Pope Francis has said in the past that dealing with abuse is vital for the Church's credibility and perpetrators must face "sanctions". What allegations does the letter make? Mr Cruz sent the text of his letter (written in Spanish) to BBC News, showing it was addressed personally to Pope Francis and dated 3 March 2015. That was more than two weeks before the bishop's ordination in the south Chilean city of Osorno, an event dramatically disrupted by hundreds of protesters accusing Bishop Barros of covering up Karadima's sex attacks on young boys. The bishop has denied ever knowing about "the serious abuses" committed by Karadima, who was never prosecuted in Chile because so much time had passed but was convicted and sentenced by the Vatican to a lifetime of "penance and prayer". "Holy Father, I decided to write this letter to you because I'm tired of fighting, crying and suffering," Mr Cruz writes. © AFP Cardinal O'Malley (centre) accompanied the Pope in Latin America "Our story is well known and there's no point reminding you of it, except to tell you of the horror of having experienced this abuse and how I wanted to kill myself." In his letter, he also attaches the full text of a previous letter written a month earlier to the Vatican's top diplomat in Chile, Archbishop Ivo Scapolo. In that letter, Mr Cruz accuses Bishop Barros of "doing all the dirty work of Fernando Karadima", and describes the abuse he suffered and which Bishop Barros allegedly witnessed. "When we were in a room with Karadima and Juan Barros, if he [Barros] wasn't kissing Karadima, he watched as one of us, the youngest, was touched by Karadima and forced to give him kisses," he writes. "Karadima would say to me: 'Put your mouth next to mine and stick out your tongue.' He'd stick out his and kiss us with his tongue. Juan Barros witnessed all of this on countless occasions, not just in my case but in the case of others as well." Addressing himself to Pope Francis, Mr Cruz says: "Holy Father, Juan Barros says he saw nothing and yet, there are dozens of us who can testify to the fact that not only was he present when Karadima abused us, but that he, too, kissed Karadima and they touched each other." He concludes the letter with this appeal: "Please Holy Father, don't be like the others. There are so many of us who despite everything think that you can do something. I treasure my faith, it's what sustains me, but it is slipping away from me." Hasn't the Pope already apologised? © AFP Karadima was only punished by the Vatican The remarks that the Pope had made in January that caused such offence were: "The day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will speak. There is not a single piece of proof against him. Everything is slander. Is this clear?" The Pope later apologised for hurting victims' feelings "without meaning to" but continued to insist there was "no evidence" against the bishop. "In Barros's case, it was studied," he said. "It was restudied. And there is no evidence... I don't have evidence to convict." How far did the letter get? © Reuters Bishop Barros (centre) was greeted by angry protesters at his ordination Members of the Pope's own Commission for the Protection of Minors, set up in 2014 as part of efforts to counter sex abuse by clergy, have told the Associated Press they hand-delivered the letter to Francis's top adviser on sex abuse, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, in April 2015. A photo in the AP report shows Marie Collins, a member of the commission at the time, handing the letter to the cardinal. "When we gave him the letter for the Pope, he assured us he would give it to the Pope and speak of the concerns," she told AP. "And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done." Mr Cruz told the BBC that Cardinal O'Malley had called him later in 2015 to say he had given the letter to the Pope. Cardinal O'Malley, whose spokesman referred requests for comment to the Vatican, has earned respect for his work in tackling sex abuse by clergy in Boston. Cardinal O'Malley's disgraced predecessor, the late Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved paedophile priests between parishes rather than addressing victims' claims. In an unusual step, Cardinal O'Malley openly criticised the Pope last month for his initial remarks in Chile, saying he had left victims feeling abandoned. Pope Francis announced last week he was sending the Vatican's top expert on sexual abuse, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, to Chile to investigate the accusations against Bishop Barros.
The Hammond Pardons Bring Justice to Obama's Victims  The media very deliberately misreported the Bundy standoff, ridiculing the men involved and shrugging at the murder of LaVoy Finicum. When the court case completely collapsed, the media buried the story. Just as it failed to provide any meaningful information about the background of the case. That was in part because it would have been damaging to Obama. And because they didn't care. But President Trump listened to the voices asking him for justice. Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges. At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences. The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison. This was unjust. Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison The same administration that was against mandatory minimums for its drug dealers and gang members went to court to defend mandatory minimums under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. While Obama pardoned drug dealers and locked up ranchers, Trump pardons ranchers and locks up drug dealers. Both men are currently in prison on five-year sentences, thanks in part to a 1996 antiterrorism law that imposed a mandatory minimum sentence on certain crimes on federal land. The length of their prison terms, in part, fueled outrage at their convictions. Federal Judge Michael Robert Hogan originally gave the Hammonds reduced sentences in 2012, arguing that the mandatory minimums were unjust. But the Obama administration appealed, and federal Judge Ann Aiken in 2015 imposed the full five-year sentences. Hogan was a Bush appointee who respected the law. Aiken was a Dem fundraiser, her husband was the chair of the Oregon Dem party, appointed by Bill Clinton. Aiken was unqualified for her role, except in the ways that mattered to the Clintons and their Dem allies. These pardons cleanse another stain from our nation's history in the dark years of Obama.
Dan Fishback: It's Okay to Boycott Israeli Plays, But Not Okay to Boycott BDS Plays  Every time a BDS activist faces a boycott, the #BDStears come out. The latest outbreak of #BDStears comes from Dan Fishback and his supporters. The American Jewish Historical Society was caught collaborating with JVP; a radical anti-Israel hate group with links to anti-Semitism. Here's my article on the subject. The American Jewish Historical Society was founded to study and preserve Jewish history. These days it’s instead partnering with Jewish Voice for Peace: an anti-Israel BDS hate group that defends anti-Semitism and which sponsored talks by an anti-Semite who accused Jews of drinking blood. Coming up in late October is “The Balfour Declaration: Support for a Jewish Homeland or Jewish State?” The two speakers are Robert Herbst, the coordinator of the Westchester chapter of JVP, and Jonathan Kuttab, who advocates a one-state solution for eliminating Israel. He had tweeted, "EU no longer considers #Hamas a terrorist group. Time for US to do same." In December, the AJHS will feature “Rubble Rubble”, a play by Dan Fishback based on his trip to Israel. Fishback is a BDS supporter and a member of the JVP Artists Council. His goal is to “normalize Jewish anti-Zionism”. AJHS and JVP members get discounted admission. The JVP events have been canceled That includes Fishback's Rubble and Rubble. And Dan Fishback is flooding the media with #BDStears. There's an outbreak of them at anti-Israel hate sites like the New York Times and the Forward. "I have grown accustomed to feeling unwelcome in Jewish spaces," Dan Fishback whines. Him, the PLO and the KKK. "Any Jew who opposes the Occupation — or opposes Zionism itself — knows that feeling of being shunned from the places that are supposed to shelter and nurture you: families, synagogues, community centers, arts organizations," Fishback continues. "I am terrified for the Jewish people. I was raised to believe we were a people of dissent and argument. I was taught that it was important to ask difficult questions, and that it was noble to stand up for what you believed in. If our Jewish institutions — particularly the American Jewish Historical Society — cannot accommodate dissent, and effectively exclude all Jewish anti-Zionists, then they have not only lost a rapidly growing Jewish population, but they have lost a key aspect of their Jewishness." Let's unpack this knapsack of entitled nonsense. Anti-Israel activists like Dan Fishback are entitled to exploit Jewish spaces for their propoaganda... even while they advocate a boycott of the Jews of Israel. Previously Dan Fishback had authored an article arguing for boycotting some Israeli plays. Now he's whining that boycotting his play is a violation of Jewishness because Jews are a "people of dissent and argument." But the only dissent and argument that Jews are supposed to welcome is that of people who hate the existence of Jewish nationhood. Not of Jewish nationhood itself. "it’s not that BDS is “censoring” work — it’s that BDS is resisting a propaganda campaign that was intentionally crafted to influence international politics," Dan Fishback claimed when advocating a boycott of some Israeli plays. It's not that boycotting Dan Fishback censors work. It's resistance to a propaganda campaign intended to attack the human rights of the Jewish people. It's time for the #BDStears crowd to examine their entitlement and recognize that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either that or they can go whine to the New York Times some more because the Jewish community won't let them burn crosses on their lawn.
Pope admits Catholic Church has ‘long ignored’ problem of child abuse  VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Monday asked forgiveness for child abuse crimes and cover-ups within the Catholic Church, admitting that the pain of victims “was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced.” The strongly worded statement came ahead of an Aug. 25-26 papal pilgrimage to Ireland, one of the countries rocked by clergy sex abuse scandals, and followed an expose of pedophile priests in the U.S. “The heart-wrenching pain of these victims, which cries out to heaven, was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced,” Francis said in a Letter to the People of God, a rarely-issued address to the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics. On Aug. 17, a Pennsylvania grand jury report, based on hidden archives of the U.S. church, named 301 priests from the state as credibly accused child sex abusers and accused church leaders of a systematic cover-up of their crimes. The report “detailed the experiences of at least a thousand survivors, victims of sexual abuse, the abuse of power and of conscience at the hands of priests over a period of approximately seventy years,” Francis acknowledged. “It is essential that we, as a Church, be able to acknowledge and condemn, with sorrow and shame, the atrocities perpetrated by consecrated persons, clerics, and all those entrusted with the mission of watching over and caring for those most vulnerable,” he said. “Let us beg forgiveness for our own sins and the sins of others,” he added. In the run-up to Francis’ visit to Ireland, the head of the Irish Catholic Church, Archbishop Eamon Martin, said he expected the pope to meet with victims of clergy sex abuse and to promise effective remedies. “I’m not sure what his words will be and I’m not sure that a simple apology is what survivors of abuse want,” Martin said in a BBC interview. “If he expresses an apology, it needs to be more than ‘we’re sorry,’” he added. In his letter, Francis repeated a famous 2005 quote by his predecessor Benedict XVI, who, a month before being elected pope, lamented “how much filth” there was in the Catholic Church. “With shame and repentance, we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives. We showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them,” Francis said. “Looking back to the past, no effort to beg pardon and to seek to repair the harm done will ever be sufficient. Looking ahead to the future, no effort must be spared to create a culture able to prevent such situations from happening, but also to prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated,” he added. Colm O’Gorman, an Irish abuse survivor who founded One in Four, the main survivors’ group in Ireland, commented on Twitter that the pope offered “Much stronger language than ever used before.” But O’Gorman added: “(The pope) begs for forgiveness, but still does not admit or own the deliberate policy of cover up designed & implemented by the #Vatican.” Like his predecessor, Francis has promised “zero tolerance” on child abuse, but scandals have kept recurring in several parts of the world — including in Australia recently. In January, the pope was accused of insensitivity and tone-deafness after insisting, during a visit to Chile, that local abuse survivors had no “proof” against a bishop who allegedly witnessed abuse and failed to report it. Following an outcry, Francis apologized for his remarks, held private meetings with victims at the Vatican, and, after envoys he sent to Chile backed up victims’ claims, the entire leadership of the Chilean Catholic church tendered their resignations. According to church expert John L Allen, an editor at specialized website Crux.com, the Catholic Church has a structural problem when it comes to dealing with cover up accusations. “Sixteen years since the crisis first erupted in the U.S., almost ten years since that happened in Ireland, and now more than five years since Francis was elected, the Catholic Church still has no credible, transparent process for handling cases when the accusation against a bishop isn’t the direct commission of abuse but rather covering up someone else’s crimes,” Allen said in a Sunday column. — Alvise Armellini dpa ——— ©2018 Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Kamala Harris & Elizabeth Warren Have Ethics Complaint Filed Against Them In Senate  The faces of the criminal Democrat Party, at least two of them, have now had an ethics complaint filed against them in the US Senate, and rightly so. Senators Kamala Harris, who basically said that Judge Brett Kavanaugh was guilty because she believed Christine Blasey Ford's unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations against him, and Elizabeth Warren, also known as "Fauxahontas," are the two members of the Senate who will be investigated. Looks like when you are so gung ho to go after someone based on 36-year-old allegations in which there are no witnesses and no evidence, it will eventually come back to bite you. Both Harris and Warren stand accused of breaking fundraising rules by sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. 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 * 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. The Washington Times reports: A watchdog group filed a Senate ethics complaint Monday against Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — even before they cast their votes against him. While voting and then asking supporters to back that decision with cash is common, the watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), says asking for money ahead of time crosses the line into vote-buying. FACT asked the Senate ethics committee to probe fundraising emails sent by Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, and Ms. Harris, California Democrat. Ms. Warren’s email said she was demanding a delay on the judge’s confirmation vote and asked for donations for her 2018 election campaign, while Ms. Harris’s emails detailed several of her actions as a member of the Judiciary Committee, including her questioning of the president’s pick for the high court, and asking for contributions. The Senate's own rules prohibit this kind of behavior, but will the Senate hold these women to the standard they've set? “This is a clear violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the appearance or actuality of elected officials ‘cashing in’ on their official position for political purposes,” said Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT. Of course, but like most of these kinds of violations, the only thing that might actually occur here is censure, and that is highly unlikely in the current climate. However, voters should be aware of the unethical practice of both of these senators. While Harris is not up for re-election this year, Warren is. Could the good people of Massachusetts do us all a favor and elect someone else in her place?
Guardian ups its vilification of Julian Assange  It is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Reporter Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it. Faced with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed back its initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts. Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so, to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”. The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race. The Guardian’s latest story provides a supposedly stronger foundation for an existing narrative: that Assange and Wikileaks knowingly published emails hacked by Russia from the Democratic party’s servers. In truth, there is no public evidence that the emails were hacked, or that Russia was involved. Central actors have suggested instead that the emails were leaked from within the Democratic party. Nonetheless, this unverified allegation has been aggressively exploited by the Democratic leadership because it shifts attention away both from its failure to mount an effective electoral challenge to Trump and from the damaging contents of the emails. These show that party bureaucrats sought to rig the primaries to make sure Clinton’s challenger for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, lost. To underscore the intended effect of the Guardian’s new claims, Harding even throws in a casual and unsubstantiated reference to “Russians” joining Manafort in supposedly meeting Assange. Manafort has denied the Guardian’s claims, while Assange has threatened to sue the Guardian for libel. ‘Responsible for Trump’ The emotional impact of the Guardian story is to suggest that Assange is responsible for four years or more of Trump rule. But more significantly, it bolsters the otherwise risible claim that Assange is not a publisher – and thereby entitled to the protections of a free press, as enjoyed by the Guardian or the New York Times – but the head of an organisation engaged in espionage for a foreign power. The intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the Wikileaks organisation, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals. That, in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old, corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far greater transparency. The Guardian story will prepare public opinion for the moment when Ecuador’s rightwing government under President Lenin Moreno forces Assange out of the embassy, having already withdrawn most of his rights to use digital media. It will soften opposition when the UK moves to arrest Assange on self-serving bail violation charges and extradites him to the US. And it will pave the way for the US legal system to lock Assange up for a very long time. For the best part of a decade, any claims by Assange’s supporters that avoiding this fate was the reason Assange originally sought asylum in the embassy was ridiculed by corporate journalists, not least at the Guardian. Even when a United Nations panel of experts in international law ruled in 2016 that Assange was being arbitrarily – and unlawfully – detained by the UK, Guardian writers led efforts to discredit the UN report. See here and here. Now Assange and his supporters have been proved right once again. An administrative error this month revealed that the US justice department had secretly filed criminal charges against Assange. Heavy surveillance The problem for the Guardian, which should have been obvious to its editors from the outset, is that any visits by Manafort would be easily verifiable without relying on unnamed “sources”. Glenn Greenwald is far from alone in noting that London is possibly the most surveilled city in the world, with CCTV cameras everywhere. The environs of the Ecuadorian embassy are monitored especially heavily, with continuous filming by the UK and Ecuadorian authorities and most likely by the US and other actors with an interest in Assange’s fate. The idea that Manafort or “Russians” could have wandered into the embassy to meet Assange even once without their trail, entry and meeting being intimately scrutinised and recorded is simply preposterous. According to Greenwald: “If Paul Manafort … visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.” Former British ambassador Craig Murray also points out the extensive security checks insisted on by the embassy to which any visitor to Assange must submit. Any visits by Manafort would have been logged. In fact, the Guardian obtained the embassy’s logs in May, and has never made any mention of either Manafort or “Russians” being identified in them. It did not refer to the logs in its latest story. Murray: The problem with this latest fabrication is that [Ecuador’s President] Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs … What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”. No fact-checking It is worth noting it should be vitally important for a serious publication like the Guardian to ensure its claims are unassailably true – both because Assange’s personal fate rests on their veracity, and because, even more importantly, a fundamental right, the freedom of the press, is at stake. Given this, one would have expected the Guardian’s editors to have insisted on the most stringent checks imaginable before going to press with Harding’s story. At a very minimum, they should have sought out a response from Assange and Manafort before publication. Neither precaution was taken. I worked for the Guardian for a number of years, and know well the layers of checks that any highly sensitive story has to go through before publication. In that lengthy process, a variety of commissioning editors, lawyers, backbench editors and the editor herself, Kath Viner, would normally insist on cuts to anything that could not be rigorously defended and corroborated. And yet this piece seems to have been casually waved through, given a green light even though its profound shortcomings were evident to a range of well-placed analysts and journalists from the outset. That at the very least hints that the Guardian thought they had “insurance” on this story. And the only people who could have promised that kind of insurance are the security and intelligence services – presumably of Britain, the United States and / or Ecuador. It appears the Guardian has simply taken this story, provided by spooks, at face value. Even if it later turns out that Manafort did visit Assange, the Guardian clearly had no compelling evidence for its claims when it published them. That is profoundly irresponsible journalism – fake news – that should be of the gravest concern to readers. A pattern, not an aberration Despite all this, even analysts critical of the Guardian’s behaviour have shown a glaring failure to understand that its latest coverage represents not an aberration by the paper but decisively fits with a pattern. Glenn Greenwald, who once had an influential column in the Guardian until an apparent, though unacknowledged, falling out with his employer over the Edward Snowden revelations, wrote a series of baffling observations about the Guardian’s latest story. First, he suggested it was simply evidence of the Guardian’s long-standing (and well-documented) hostility towards Assange. “The Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him.” It was also apparently evidence of the paper’s clickbait tendencies: “They [Guardian editors] knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false.” And finally, in a bizarre tweet, Greenwald opined, “I hope the story [maligning Assange] turns out true” – apparently because maintenance of the Guardian’s reputation is more important than Assange’s fate and the right of journalists to dig up embarrassing secrets without fear of being imprisoned. I think the Guardian is an important paper with great journalists. I hope the story turns out true. But the skepticism over this story is very widespread, including among Assange's most devoted haters, because it's so sketchy. If Manafort went there, there's video. Let's see it. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 28, 2018 Deeper malaise What this misses is that the Guardian’s attacks on Assange are not exceptional or motivated solely by personal animosity. They are entirely predictable and systematic. Rather than being the reason for the Guardian violating basic journalistic standards and ethics, the paper’s hatred of Assange is a symptom of a deeper malaise in the Guardian and the wider corporate media. Even aside from its decade-long campaign against Assange, the Guardian is far from “solid and reliable”, as Greenwald claims. It has been at the forefront of the relentless, and unhinged, attacks on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for prioritising the rights of Palestinians over Israel’s right to continue its belligerent occupation. Over the past three years, the Guardian has injected credibility into the Israel lobby’s desperate efforts to tar Corbyn as an anti-semite. See here, here and here. Similarly, the Guardian worked tirelessly to promote Clinton and undermine Sanders in the 2016 Democratic nomination process – another reason the paper has been so assiduous in promoting the idea that Assange, aided by Russia, was determined to promote Trump over Clinton for the presidency. The Guardian’s coverage of Latin America, especially of populist leftwing governments that have rebelled against traditional and oppressive US hegemony in the region, has long grated with analysts and experts. Its especial venom has been reserved for leftwing figures like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, democratically elected but official enemies of the US, rather than the region’s rightwing authoritarians beloved of Washington. The Guardian has been vocal in the so-called “fake news” hysteria, decrying the influence of social media, the only place where leftwing dissidents have managed to find a small foothold to promote their politics and counter the corporate media narrative. The Guardian has painted social media chiefly as a platform overrun by Russian trolls, arguing that this should justify ever-tighter restrictions that have so far curbed critical voices of the dissident left more than the right. Heroes of the neoliberal order Equally, the Guardian has made clear who its true heroes are. Certainly not Corbyn or Assange, who threaten to disrupt the entrenched neoliberal order that is hurtling us towards climate breakdown and economic collapse. Its pages, however, are readily available to the latest effort to prop up the status quo from Tony Blair, the man who led Britain, on false pretences, into the largest crime against humanity in living memory – the attack on Iraq. That “humanitarian intervention” cost the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created a vacuum that destabilised much of the Middle East, sucked in Islamic jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, and contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe that has fuelled the resurgence of the far-right. None of that is discussed in the Guardian or considered grounds for disqualifying Blair as an arbiter of what is good for Britain and the world’s future. The Guardian also has an especial soft spot for blogger Elliot Higgins, who, aided by the Guardian, has shot to unlikely prominence as a self-styled “weapons expert”. Like Luke Harding, Higgins invariably seems ready to echo whatever the British and American security services need verifying “independently”. Higgins and his well-staffed website Bellingcat have taken on for themselves the role of arbiters of truth on many foreign affairs issues, taking a prominent role in advocating for narratives that promote US and NATO hegemony while demonising Russia, especially in highly contested arenas such as Syria. That clear partisanship should be no surprise, given that Higgins now enjoys an “academic” position at, and funding from, the Atlantic Council, a high-level, Washington-based think-tank founded to drum up support for NATO and justify its imperialist agenda. Improbably, the Guardian has adopted Higgins as the poster-boy for a supposed citizen journalism it has sought to undermine as “fake news” whenever it occurs on social media without the endorsement of state-backed organisations. The truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative. Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: whether they are a platform like Wikileaks promoting whistle-blowing against a corrupt western elite; or a politician like Jeremy Corbyn seeking to break apart the status quo on the rapacious financial industries or Israel-Palestine; or a radical leader like Hugo Chavez who threatened to overturn a damaging and exploitative US dominance of “America’s backyard”; or social media dissidents who have started to chip away at the elite-friendly narratives of corporate media, including the Guardian. The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do. UPDATE: Excellent background from investigative journalist Gareth Porter, published shortly before Harding’s story, explains why the Guardian’s hit-piece is so important for those who want Assange out of the embassy and behind bars. Read Porter’s article here. No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others, please consider hitting the donate button in the right-hand margin (computer) or below (phone).
Asteroid Will Skim By Earth Days Before Christmas: It Is ‘Potentially Hazardous’  An asteroid called 3200 Phaethon will skim past the Earth just days before many will celebrate with Christmas festivities. The three-mile-wide asteroid is expected to miss the Earth, but it’s still labeled as “potentially hazardous,” and for good reasons. With a diameter of about 3 miles, the asteroid named 3200 Phaethon (after the Greek demi-god who, according to legend, nearly set the Earth on fire) is classified as “potentially hazardous” by the Minor Planet Center. The asteroid will pass within 6.5 million miles of the Earth, which is relatively close in space terms, but still around 27 times the distance of the moon. Much closer flybys have occurred in the very recent past. Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory are planning to use the opportunity to obtain a detailed 3D model of the asteroid, which has a particularly irregular shape. First detected in December 2007, 3200 Phaethon is widely thought to be the parent body for the Geminid meteor shower, which is due to peak this year on the night of December 13. This would make the Geminids one of only two major meteor showers not originating from a comet; the other being the Quadrantids in January. The main difference between asteroids and comets is their composition. Asteroids are made up of metals and rocky material, while comets are made up of ice, dust and rocky material. Comets which approach the Sun lose material with each orbit because some of their ice melts and vaporizes to form a tail. But the real question is will anyone be able to see the asteroid’s close approach to our planet. According to NASA, 3200 Phaethon will be visible in small telescopes for experienced observers in areas with dark skies. It is potentially detectable for three weeks but will be at its brightest between December 11 and 21. If you don’t see the asteroid itself, be sure to look out for the Geminid meteor shower, which is set to provide a spectacular show over the course of 10 nights in December, with as many as 100 shooting stars every hour.
SPECIAL REPORT: Papal Cover-up Alleged, Pope Accused in International Sex Abuse Case  Hey, remember five minutes ago when Pope Francis shouted at a reporter in Chile that there was “no evidence” supporting complaints against his good friend Bishop Juan Barros? And, just for good measure he accused the people accusing him – victims of sexual abuse by Barros’ mentor, the convicted sex-predator Karadima – of committing “calumny”? [1] And remember when Cardinal O’Malley told the pope off in public over the “pain” these accusations had caused the victims of sexual abuse? And then remember how the pope had apologised-except-not-really because the accusations are, after all, still lies, and that there’s still “no evidence” against Barros…? The press, secular as well as Catholic, is full this week of the story that the pope did indeed see evidence of Barros’ complicity in Karadima’s sexual abuse – not only that Barros had helped to cover it up but that he had been present and a direct witness at the time and therefore a passive participant. Nicole Winfield and the Associated Press dropped the bomb that the information came directly from the victims, whom Francis had dismissed and refused to meet with on his trip, and delivered through his own Commission on sexual abuse: Pope Francis received a victim’s letter in 2015 that graphically detailed how a priest sexually abused him and how other Chilean clergy ignored it, contradicting the pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward to denounce the cover-up, the letter’s author and members of Francis’ own sex- abuse commission have told The Associated Press.  The fact that Francis received the eight-page letter, obtained by the AP, challenges his insistence that he has “zero tolerance” for sex abuse and cover-ups. It also calls into question his stated empathy with abuse survivors, compounding the most serious crisis of his five-year papacy. Now it appears that Francis had also overruled a 2015 warning from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that Barros should not be made a bishop. The Italian Catholic daily La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana reports that not only did the pope see a letter from victims, but that the CDF, under Muller, “had already conducted an preliminary investigation into Barros and the other bishops close to Karadima which had led to the decision to relieve them of their duties.” “But with a letter signed by the Pope in January 2015 and sent to the Chilean bishops, the request for exemption is blocked and shortly thereafter Barros is promoted to…Osorno.” The article points out that while Karadima was convicted by a Vatican tribunal on the testimony of the victims, it is the same testimony of the same victim-witnesses that Francis now dismisses in the accusations against Barros. The accusations that stood against Karadima come from the same sources as those against Barros, who the victims said was in the room watching at the time. While the specifics are still not known, readers may be reminded by this of a peculiar incident about a year later in which Pope Francis summarily ordered the dismissal of three priests of the CDF, whose remit was investigations of clerics accused of sexual abuse. The website One Peter Five reports, via Marco Tosatti, that the pope ordered their removal without offering any explanation to then-cardinal prefect Gerhard Muller. When, after several attempts and three months later[2], Muller was able to get an audience with the pope to ask the reason, he received the response, “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.” Marco Tosatti reports the CDF incident, but it follows an odd story of a meeting of curial officials to discuss certain bishop appointments. Without naming names, (or, frustratingly, giving dates[3]) Tosatti relates: “It was some time ago to make a bishop, not in Italy. The nuncio has prepared the triad [the “terna” or list of three candidates]. A cardinal, head of the dicastery, perhaps the same holder of the Congregation for Bishops, during the ordinary assembly took the floor, saying: ‘The first candidate indicated is excellent, the second is good. But I would like to warn of the third, whom I know well, since he was a seminarian, and who presents problems both on the level of doctrine and morality. He responds little to the necessary criteria. But the third was a friend of someone and another cardinal, of the circle currently in power, has flung himself at his colleague, accusing him of impropriety.’ The meeting ended without further decisions.” Whatever the details of these strange incidents, what is clear in Chile is that no amount of eyewitness testimony was going to make the slightest difference. Bergoglio wanted Barros as a bishop and that was that. Even while “apologising” the pope had doubled down when questioned about it by journalists, saying, “You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward.” “In the case of Barros it’s been observed, it’s been studied; there’s no evidence. The best thing to do if someone believes it’s the case is to come forward quickly with evidence.” The AP report, however, says exactly the opposite; that members of his own (now defunct[4]) abuse Commission had approached Cardinal O’Malley, the pope’s “top abuse advisor,” with the letter to deliver to the pope. Marie Collins, the Irish abuse survivor and Commission member who resigned, citing the Vatican’s refusal to take meaningful action, told AP, “When we gave him [O’Malley] the letter for the pope, he assured us he would give it to the pope and speak of the concerns. And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done.” Juan Carlos Cruz, the Karadima victim whose membership on the Commission the Vatican had blocked, told AP, “Cardinal O’Malley called me after the pope’s visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope – in his hands.” On the face of it, there are only a few logical possibilities here. In fact, unless Cardinal O’Malley – who has, as of this writing, remained silent – comes forward and says that he didn’t hand the letter over pope, there is really only one; that the pope lied. And this is what is now being said quite openly by a vast array of voices, secular and Catholic, left and right. As Winfield writes, “The revelation could be costly for Francis, whose track record on the abuse crisis was already shaky after a botched Italian abuse case he intervened in became public[5]. More recently, he let the abuse commission lapse at the end of last year. Vatican analysts now openly question whether he ‘gets it,’ and some of his own advisers privately acknowledge that maybe he doesn’t.” “No evidence…” Lie big, lie often, and when caught, keep lying. One of the many things these secular reporters seem not to be paying attention to is that “no evidence” is in fact a well-rehearsed, stock response for Bergoglio. He said almost exactly the same in 2013 when confronted about another predatory homosexual he was sheltering. The hoopla surrounding the “Who am I to judge” comment tends to obscure the context of the comment. It was made in response to a question by a journalist about Monsignore Battista Ricca – a prelate whose promiscuous homosexuality is so well known it was covered by the Telegraph as early as July 2013. Ilze Scamparini asked the pope about Ricca, saying, “What you intend to do about this? How are you confronting this issue and how does Your Holiness intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?” What reply did Bergoglio give? His standard one: “No evidence.” About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response.” He added, “In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything.” But Ricca’s activities, for which the pope claimed there was no evidence, were notorious. They include being caught in flagrante in an elevator with a teenaged male prostitute, and his sexual relationship with a captain in the Swiss army. So flagrant was Ricca’s behaviour that it took intervention by Uruguay’s nuncio to have him removed. It was reported in 1999 and 2000 by L’Espresso, who said the information was confirmed by “numerous bishops, priests, religious and laity” in Uruguay[6]. In fact, the evidence shows that Ricca is completely in line with Bergoglio’s normal procedures. As “Marcantonio Colonna” wrote in the Dictator Pope, “In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.” It was at this early “no evidence” comment on the plane home from Rio that some of those paying attention started to understand that Bergoglio’s policy is in line with that of certain leaders of the past who recommended that if a politician was going to lie, he should lie big and lie brazenly. And in case anyone was wondering what will happen next, the same advice said to keep on lying after you’re caught. The pattern of silence and, when pressed, flat-out denial has been Bergoglio’s policy since long before he came on the international scene. He has a long record in Argentina of shaving close to scandals and vociferously denying involvement, and relying heavily on the broad good will of Catholics towards bishops to pull it off. Perhaps his biggest error with Barros was failing to understand just how little of that capital of trust there is left in the Catholic world as a whole. Indeed, on the subject of priests sexually abusing young people, it could only be measured in the negative numbers. “Argentine Victims Who Tried to Meet with Pope Francis…” Though the website Bishop Accountability is blatantly anti-clerical, their data is unassailable since most of it comes from information that is already public. On their Argentina page is a long list of accusations that Bergoglio/Francis simply isn’t interested in hearing from victims. “In Pope Francis’s 21 years as bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires, the Wall Street Journal reports, including the years when he headed the Argentine bishops’ conference, he declined to meet with victims of sexual abuse.”  “All of them tried to contact the cardinal archbishop in 2002 or later,” the same period when Pope Benedict and other bishops were striving to meet with victims and demonstrate an interest in the problem. The site says that “in addition to Bergoglio’s failure to respond to victims, the public record contains no evidence that he released any information about abusers.” In fact, he went so far as to flatly deny there had been any instances of abuse in his archdiocese. Weeks after his election to the papacy, he was quoted by his close friend, Rabbi Abraham Skorka, “In my diocese it never happened to me, but a bishop called me once by phone to ask me what to do in a situation like this.” Francis added that he agreed with the “zero tolerance” attitude of the Irish episcopate and admired Pope Benedict’s reforms – most of which he was later to quietly reverse. It was at exactly this time, however, that victims from Argentina were attempting to get the new pope’s attention. One, known to the press only as “Gabriel,” wanted to talk to Francis about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Julio César Grassi, accused of molesting at least five boys, “who has been avoiding the sentences of the justice of Morón and the Court of Cassation. So far, judges and prosecutors at all instances found him guilty.” In case anyone thinks the Grassi-Gabriel case was not serious enough for the pope’s attention, Bishop Accountability summarises, “A year after Gabriel had filed criminal charges [2003] but before the start of Grassi’s trial, three men ransacked the survivor’s apartment and beat him.” These men threatened to kill him if he did not retract his testimony and quit the case. Ten years [after Gabriel filed criminal charges], in May 2013, with Grassi still free despite his conviction in 2009, “Gabriel and his attorney, Juan Pablo Gallego, brought a two-page letter addressed to Pope Francis to the office of the papal nuncio in Buenos Aires. An employee refused to accept the letter after learning of its topic and threatened to call security if Gabriel and Gallego did not leave the premises.” The group surmises that it was Bergoglio’s direct intervention with judges in the case that prevented a conviction against Grassi for so long and delayed his sentencing through multiple appeals. In 2006, then-Archbishop Bergoglio complained of a “media campaign” and claimed that the Grassi case was “different” from other accusations. During his criminal trial Grassi said Bergoglio “never let go” of his hand. In 2009, Grassi was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and corruption in the case of “Gabriel,” who was aged 13 at the time of the abuse, but the appeals dragged on until he was finally sent to prison in September 2013. Several more similar cases, all of whom were rebuffed in their attempts to meet with Bergoglio, are detailed here, for the strong-of-stomach. A virtuoso performance-liar Looking back and carefully examining his record, Jorge Bergoglio’s mastery of using the weaknesses of morally compromised men is becoming evident. It is arguable that even the members of the so-called “San Gallen Mafia” who apparently conspired to put him on Peter’s throne were used by him. But he is also a master of judging an audience and telling them what they expect to hear; a key skill for all grifters and confidence tricksters. Looking carefully at the infamous “Who am I to judge” comment, this was clear early on. The first part of that interview is a blatant and enormous lie, and it was from there that the pope moved on to his apology for homosexuality in general. Recall that this was the very first airplane interview, on the trip back to Rome from World Youth Day in Rio, a matter of weeks after his election. At the time, the papal apologists sprang instantly into action and we heard all about how the pope was talking strictly within the boundaries of Catholic doctrine. But perhaps in hindsight, we are ready to examine the full implications of his little speech, one that was clearly well-rehearsed. (Don’t forget, no question is asked in a papal interview without being thoroughly vetted ahead of time. Journalists must submit their questions well in advance.) This was the pope laying out his policy regarding homosexuality, a policy for which he was duly rewarded by being lauded on the cover of the homosexualist lobby’s US trade magazine. Read his full answer carefully: I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for “sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins.  But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger.  This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that.  But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there.  I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good.  If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question. Many thanks. One of the pope’s favourite rhetorical techniques is a combination of Begging the Question and conspiracy. He starts by assuming, without any effort at defence or explanation, a point that concedes the whole issue. This was the first time a pope had ever used the political term “gay”. Not “homosexual,” not “same-sex attracted,” but “gay,” meaning that he started by adopting the entirety of the homosexualist movement’s linguistic manipulations. Language counts in politics, and a pope using that term means he is by implication starting the discussion – and his pontificate – by aligning himself with the basic tenets of a movement that is violently opposed to Catholic moral teaching, and in direct opposition to his immediate, and still living, predecessor. In this case too, he was addressing a plane load of journalists who were either secular themselves, or for the most part are the kind of Catholic who believes it is fine to “disagree” with Catholic teaching on sexuality. There are very few “conservative” Catholics in the Vatican journalist pool. This means that his use of this language was a conspiratorial wink and nod to his immediate audience, a sly message to say, “People talk all the time about a gay lobby, but you and I both know this is mostly nonsense, propaganda from those people… those conservatives…We cool and hip people don’t hate gays, do we?” This astonishing departure follows an implied but very clear assertion that Ricca has repented and given up his activity, an assertion that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. We are simply asked to take the pope’s word for it, but given that it follows his astoundingly brazen lie that there was no evidence for Ricca’s homosexual activity in the first place, we can take the assurance for what it seems to be worth. Next, after another little inside nudge-nudge-wink-wink joke about the “gay lobby” – implying (but of course never outright saying) that the whole thing is hysterical nonsense – we hear a direct contradiction to Catholic teaching from no less a source than his predecessor, Pope Benedict Ratzinger. “The problem is not having this tendency.” Well, actually, your holiness, yes it is, particularly in the case of priests. The “tendency” is called in the same catechism you quote “intrinsically disordered” and Ratzinger was very clear that this “tendency” is a sign of a serious emotional dysfunction that “must” preclude a man from being ordained. Squandering the capital of trust A few months ago in a piece for the Remnant, I talked about why the Church (and nearly all human societies) regard lying as a sin: A mistake many make about lying is to understand it only in terms of morality. But Thomas makes the point that it is first a matter of metaphysics. Lying is an act at variance in its essence with the nature of reality. Thomistic theology teaches that it is by lying that we become most like the devil, and most unlike God, because we are trying to change the nature of reality to suit our own purposes. Habitual lying in effect changes you into a different kind of being, one that is by nature an opponent of Truth, ordered against Truth. This of course means that a person whose “orientation,” as we might say, is towards falsehood, even when he is at any given moment saying something true, is still servicing his lies. He tells the truth only to continue to control and manipulate reality. It was not by violence, but by lying and manipulation, by issuing half-truths and pretending to be the kind of man he was not, that Shakespeare’s character Iago earned the title of most evil character in English literature. Human beings are naturally ordered towards the truth, and we have to work at assuming a lie. This is why confidence tricksters can be successful, why lying works for getting what you want; people don’t see it coming. The first natural assumption is trust, at least at the basic level of expecting truth most of the time. We therefore instinctively see lying as a betrayal of trust. Considering how much trust the Catholic faithful had in the papacy until about 1965, how much un-earned trust Francis started with just by being elected, this pontificate should be remembered as one of the great confidence scams in history. Believing Catholics have watched aghast as this pope has habitually trampled on every aspect of Catholic teaching. Sandro Magister recently published a piece on his website that listed in dizzying detail the many times, in only the last few months, that pope Francis has falsified with obvious intention, the words of Christ in Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Of course this would be of little interest to secular journalists, who have paid no mind to his habit of rewriting Catholicism, but the sex abuse crisis is something secular journalists are very interested in, a fact Bergoglio seems not to have understood. It is now irrefutable that Pope Bergoglio is a habitual liar – that in fact truth, like reality, seems to mean nothing to him except as a tool. Sociologists talk about the concept of the “high trust society,” one in which citizens believe what they are told by the elites and trust them to govern and protect them adequately. They warn that the general loss of trust in institutions leads to a general state of chaos, in which laws on the books matter little as citizens turn to their last resort of protecting themselves and their own families. This is the way societies disintegrate. It has been said many times that the sex abuse crisis has created a massive loss of trust in prelates among the Catholic faithful, and this is true. With a professional confidence trickster on the papal throne, blatantly using lies and manipulation to maintain power and ram through an agenda at radical variance with Catholic doctrine, how long before that predictable disintegration occurs? Are we seeing it already? Are we seeing it in the declarations of this or that episcopate on Amoris Laetitia and Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics? With Cardinal Marx and others promoting “blessings” for “same-sex unions” are we going to be seeing an escalation of it? I have seen a veritable chorus of Catholics on social media declaring that if Paul VI is canonised, their loss of faith in the Church as an institution will be complete. I am told from contacts inside the Vatican that after the trip to Chile Bergoglio’s support has completely dried up. He has no more resources of trust even among the people he has chosen to surround himself with and after the reports of Cardinal Sandri going toe-to-toe with him in a shouting match, it seems that perhaps even his legendary vicious temper tantrums are failing to have the desired effect of terrorising his subordinates into submission. Marie Collins, by no stretch even a “conservative” Catholic, echoed this concern, saying the Barros affair has “definitely undermined credibility, trust, and hope” in Francis. “All I can say is that people who had a lot of hope in this particular pope, and I am talking about just ordinary Catholics that I know in my own parish, would find it very difficult now…and cannot understand and cannot believe that this particular pope has said the things he has said in the last few weeks,” she told the National Catholic Reporter. It may seem like a moment to enjoy, seeing the apparently unbreachable shell of papal teflon finally cracking, but in reality this situation is potentially very harmful for souls in the long run. There is a multitude of problems this pontificate has created or made worse that we will be dealing with for a long time after Bergoglio is gone, but perhaps one of the bigger ones will be the destruction of trust. Already fractured since the collapse of all Catholic institutions after Vatican II and the horrors of the sex abuse crisis, how much will there be to repair of the once-steadfast trust Catholics instinctively had in the Church after this? Notes: [1] “Not one victim has come forward in Chile; show me the proof. This is slander and calumny. Is that clear?” [2] The book “The Dictator Pope” relates that regular meetings between the pope and dicastery heads have been abolished and even high-ranking curia prefects are often unable to see the pope, whose appointments are now completely controlled by the Secretariat of State. It is certainly clear that no one sees the pope unless Cardinal Parolin approves, which may be the reason Cardinal Zen, in his efforts to warn Francis of the dangers of a Vatican deal with the communist Chinese government had to wait in the rain at a Wednesday general audience. [3] This is common in Italian journalism that has somewhat different standards from that of the Anglo world… and drives the rest of us spare. Italians care about getting a general picture of what’s going on, where Anglo-Saxons are considered weirdly obsessed with trivial details. [4] Though she never blamed the pope, Marie Collins complained that Vatican officialdom had simply not implemented the Commission’s recommendations. The time limit of the Commission’s members was allowed to lapse without renewal and though it was not dissolved formally the Commission has ceased to function with no word of any plan to revive it. [5] Probably a reference to the Inzoli case in which Francis overturned a previous sentence of a Vatican tribunal after the priest – now laicised – approached some of the pope’s close advisors for help, including Cardinal Coccopalmerio. [6] Not that anyone in Rome was trying very hard. Sandro Magister reported after the “Who am I to judge” comment, “Before the appointment, Francis had been shown, as is customary, the personal file on Ricca, in which he had not found anything unseemly. He had also heard from various personalities of the curia, and none of them had raised objections.”
New outbreak of Ebola kills 17 in northwest DR Congo  Seventeen people in northwest Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have died from Ebola, the health ministry said on Tuesday, describing the fresh outbreak as a "public health emergency with international impact." "Twenty-one cases of fever with haemorrhagic indications and 17 deaths" have been recorded in Equateur province, it said, citing a notification to the ministry as of May 3. It is the DRC's ninth known outbreak of Ebola since 1976, when the deady viral disease was first identified in then-Zaire by a Belgian-led team. In Geneva, the World Health Organization (WHO) said lab tests in the DRC confirmed the presence of Ebola virus in two out of five samples collected from patients. "WHO is working closely with the government of the DRC to rapidly scale up its operations and mobilize health partners, using the model of a successful response to a similar... outbreak in 2017," it said in a statement. It said it had released $1 million (840,000 euros) from an emergency contingency fund, set up a coordination group and deployed more than 50 experts to work with the DRC government and health agencies. "The action plan prepared by the health ministry has been approved," an official statement released after a cabinet meeting said. - No new deaths - "Since the notification of the cases on May 3, no deaths have been reported," it said, without specifying when the first case came to light. The outbreak occurred in Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumba. All the cases were reported from a clinic at Ilkoko Iponge, located about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from Bikoro, where treatment capacities are limited, the WHO said. A team of experts from the WHO, Doctors without Borders (DRC) and Equateur province travelled to Bikoro on Tuesday to beef up coordination and carry out investigations, it said. Ebola is one of the world's most notorious diseases, being both highly infectious and extremely lethal. It is caused by a virus that has a natural reservoir in the bat, which does not itself fall ill, but can pass the microbe on to humans who hunt it for "bushmeat". The virus is handed on by contact with bodily fluids -- touching a sick or dead person is a well-known source of infection. Following an incubation period of between two and 21 days, Ebola develops into a high fever, weakness, intense muscle and joint pain, headaches and a sore throat. That is often followed by vomiting and diarrhoea, skin eruptions, kidney and liver failure, and internal and external bleeding. The worst-ever Ebola outbreak started in December 2013 in southern Guinea before spreading to two neighbouring west African countries, Liberia and Sierra Leone. That outbreak killed more than 11,300 people out of nearly 29,000 registered cases, according to WHO estimates, although the real figure is thought to be significantly higher. More than 99 percent of victims were in the three West African countries, although cases occurred in other parts of the world, often stirring panic. There is no current vaccine to prevent Ebola or licensed treatment for it, although a range of experimental drugs are in development. Early care with rehydration may boost the chance of survival. Given the lack of a pharmaceutical weapon against Ebola, health experts have responded with time-honoured measures of control, prevention and containment. They use rigorous protocols to protect medical personnel with disposable full-body suits, masks, goggles and gloves and disinfecting sprays.
ICE Arrests Over 150 in Bay Area  Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested more than 150 illegals in the San Francisco Bay Area this week -- no thanks to the Democrat mayor of Oakland, who tried to warn the constituents of her sanctuary city of impending ICE raids. Fox News reports that “targeted immigration enforcement operations” resulted in the arrests, about half of which snared fugitives with convictions for assault and battery, crimes against children, weapons charges and DUI. One such fugitive is a documented gang member whose “accumulated criminal convictions in California... have resulted in more than 15 years of prison sentencings” and who had previously been removed by ICE four times. Many of the other arrested illegals had criminal convictions from Mexico and Guatemala throughout Northern California. The arrests came despite a press release tweeted by Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, which noted that “multiple credible sources” told her ICE would be conducting the raids in the Bay Area. This did not win her any friends among law enforcement. ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan said in a statement Tuesday, The Oakland mayor’s decision to publicize her suspicions about ICE operations further increased that risk for my officers and alerted criminal aliens — making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda. Unlike the politicians who attempt to undermine ICE’s critical mission, our officers will continue to fulfill their sworn duty to protect public safety. True to the left's support for criminality over law and order, Mayor Schaaf declared that she considered it her "duty" to warn criminal illegals in her area. Fox News notes that ICE officials are asking the Department of Justice to look into whether she broke any laws by doing so. ICE reports that 864 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions and other public safety threats "remain at large" in the area -- an indeterminate number of whom may have been tipped off by a Democrat mayor who betrayed the law-abiding citizens of Northern California.
New Audio From The Night Of The Las Vegas Massacre Reveals That There Was “Another Active Shooter” In The Bar At The Top Of The Mandalay Bay Hotel During The Attack  Newly released audio from the Clark County Fire Department has provided even more proof that there were multiple shooters during The Las Vegas Massacre, further debunking the official narrative of a lone gunman on the 32nd floor and once again calling into question almost every aspect of what actually happened during the worst mass shooting in American history. The audio, released on the SoundCloud account of a local news reporter, is an almost three hour recording of transmissions between dispatch and units on the ground amid the confusion of the mass shooting that at one point details a report that a wife of a firefighter was actually pinned down in the Foundation Room bar on top of the Mandalay Hotel. Intellihub’s Shepard Ambellas, who has extensively reported on the entire Vegas cover-up since the beginning, recently found that at around the 1:27:54 mark of the audio file you can clearly hear dispatch describing the situation to first responders who are headed in that direction. “We have a firefighter’s wife at this event who is pinned down behind the bar at Mandalay Bay. We are trying to get further on the name,” dispatch frantically notes. “Batallion 6, be advised that we are getting reports on Mandalay Bay, at the bar, we currently have, another active shooter up there.” After being asked to confirm the information, dispatch goes on to make clear that she is specifically speaking about the bar at the top of the hotel rather than anywhere near the 32nd floor room that Stephen Paddock supposedly operated from. “The only information I have is it’s the bar on top of the Mandalay Bay,” dispatch continues before being asked if the shooter was pinned down or “just sheltering right now?” Interestingly, the story doesn’t end there, as Ambellas wrote in his piece, author and entrepreneur Grant Cardone was actually holding an investors meeting in the very same bar shortly before the attack took place. The popular social media influencer apparently left the Foundation Room literally seven minutes before authorities claim Paddock opened fire from his 32nd floor room. Cardone wrote about his experience in a post on Medium in which he claimed that the Mandalay Bay was telling visitors that there was at least one active shooter, “moving” throughout the hotel shooting people. It was reported by the Mandalay there was a shooter moving through the hotel. I told Elena and Johnny, “stay close to me, we are not running out, stay calm, there is one person in charge — where I go, you follow, no matter what.” […] About this time, there was starting to be a lot more activity through the casino and now the reports suggested there was active multiple terrorists moving through the hotel shooting guest. Then twitter started showing up with feeds suggesting multiple hotels being attacked, bomb threats, and more. This new report documenting yet another instance of a possible second shooter comes on the heels of dozens of similar reports, with the most recent arriving in the form of air traffic control audio that directly stated that there were active shooters on the runway. “During the air traffic control recordings, which were released by political strategist and co-founder of “The New Right” Mike Tokes, one of the dispatchers is heard telling an incoming plane that landing might not be a good idea because there were multiple active shooters on the airport property itself,” SHTFplan reported. “Shutting down might not be a good idea, there’s active shooters on the runway,” he declared. “The 19s are closed, we are in the process of trying to round them up, they are on the airport property.” Air traffic control tapes on the night of the Las Vegas shooting: “There’s active shooters on the runway. They’re on the airport property” pic.twitter.com/HZf3LBeAgk — Mike Tokes (@MikeTokes) October 29, 2017 Slowly but surely we are beginning to see the truth about the horrific attack come to light despite authorities desperately trying to prevent it from reaching the American people. Sadly, the picture emerging is one that includes a shocking amount of evidence pointing towards a classic deep state false flag operation.
WATCH: John Bolton Promises Room Full of ‘Former Terrorists’ the US Would ‘Overthrow’ Iran by 2019  For those who may not be paying attention, the plan to overthrow Iran has long been in the works. In fact, in April 2012, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained (Mojahedin-e Khalq) MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009 for this very purpose. MEK is the Iranian political-militant organization that advocates for the violent overthrow of the current Iranian regime. They are hardly quiet about it. Coincidentally, MEK was classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and its allies—during this training period—until none other than Hillary Clinton suddenly removed them from the list in 2012. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site until President Barack Obama took office in 2009. 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 * 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. It was widely reported that the MEK was behind the anti-government violence that erupted in Iran in January which snowballed into the situation today. Hersh also reported additional names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. For over a decade, Bolton has been calling for regime change in Iran. Now, he’s the National Security Advisor. It just so happens that at least one of these calls for regime change in Iran was caught on video last year as Bolton gave a speech at the Grand Gathering of Iranians for Free Iran. “There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” Pay attention to the first line in that quote above in which Bolton notes that the opposition needed to overthrow Iran’s current regime “is centered in this room today.” Who was in that room? Well, the entire event was actually put on by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK. As Politico pointed out in a 2016 article, despite the neocon attempts to rewrite history, MEK have killed Americans and committed multiple acts of terrorism. For decades, and based on U.S. intelligence, the United States government has blamed the MEK for killing three U.S. Army colonels and three U.S. contractors, bombing the facilities of numerous U.S. companies and killing innocent Iranians. To recap, the formerly terrorist-classified organization MEK, trained in the US and granted special privilege status by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012—which has since been heavily funded to refine their image by having famous US neoconservative war hawks from both sides of the isle actually chant for “regime change” on their behalf—is now the darling child of the neocon agenda and the impetus behind what could kick of World War 3. While the current Iranian regime is certainly no bastion of freedom, the idea that US intervention or a violent revolution would be beneficial for the people of Iran or American citizens is outright insane. To see what US intervention—through military support and the support of opposition groups—does to countries, one need only look at Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to see the horrific death tolls and war-ravaged dystopias left in America’s wake. To those paying attention over the years, Trump’s desire to intervene in Iran, and his subsequent support in the media and from all sides of the political spectrum should come as no surprise as it has been the plan since Bill Clinton was in office and was documented in the neoconservative PNAC report. This was even admitted by General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, that the U.S. planned on going to war with Iran, according to a 2001 memo from the U.S. Secretary of Defense. “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,” Clark said. “Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.” All presidents since Clinton have crossed countries off this list. Now it’s Trump’s turn. Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project
SPECIAL REPORT: Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases  The incident was brief: on the Thursday of the pope’s week-long South American trip, in response to an impromptu question tossed out by a Chilean reporter, the pope responded in what one reporter described as a “snippy tone”: “The day I see proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk. There is not a single piece of evidence against him. It is all calumny. Is that clear?” This month has been quite a spectacle, even for this pontificate; an apparently unending stream of outrages and embarrassments, with the pope and his Vatican media support jumping from one scandal to the next. But among secular reporters the sex abuse issue trumps all others and the fallout continues to blaze down on the Bergoglian pontificate in response to his amazing accusation earlier this month that victims of sexual abuse by clergy were engaging in “calumny,” in their accusations against a Chilean bishop, Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid. It seems the shine is coming off the papal penny among leftist secular journalists, his natural constituency. Writing for the Boston Globe, the paper that first broke the clerical sex abuse scandals all the way back in 2001, Kevin Cullen wrote, “Let the record show that the promise of Pope Francis died in Santiago, Chile, on Jan. 18, in the year of our Lord 2018… he has revealed himself like no one else could.” But it gets worse than this. When a “leftist” pope pressing a secularist agenda on the Church starts to lose the support of Michael Sean Winters and the National Catholic Reporter, he must know he’s in trouble. Though he’s “sticking with Francis” for now, Winters wrote, “I wish I knew what it was about Pope Francis that makes him fail to grasp the situation with Bishop Barros, the pain caused to the victims and the damage done to the church. I am gobsmacked that the pope twice declined to accept the bishop’s resignation.” On January 23rd, an unsigned NCR editorial opined, “Within the space of four days, Pope Francis twice slandered abuse survivors.” “These remarks are at the least shameful. At the most, they suggest that Francis now could be complicit in the cover-up. The script is all too familiar: Discredit the survivors’ testimony, support the prelate in question, and bank on public attention moving on to something else. “The insistence with which Francis defends Barros is mystifying. Three separate journalists on the papal flight gave the pope opportunity to say why exactly he believed the bishop instead of the survivors accusing him. The second journalist to ask Francis about Barros on the flight was a Chilean woman. As she spoke to the pope, her voice cracked with nervousness at questioning the church’s top leader. She asked: ‘Why are not the victims’ testimonies proof for you? Why do you not believe them?’ The pope gave no satisfying answer, only repeating a claim of ‘no evidence’ against the bishop.” Indeed, it was understood, as the Washington Post said, that Francis’ trip to Latin America – dogged by protests over Barros both in person at the pope’s appearances and in the press – was in part intended as “an apology tour” to abuse survivors. Which is why his accusation of calumny against those same victims the next day came as such a shock to observers unused to Bergoglio’s ability to turn on a dime. All was going as planned. On Wednesday, January 17, the pope met as scheduled with selected survivors of sexual abuse by priests. He made all the right noises, talking about his “pain and shame,” and reportedly even crying, at what happened. “I know the pain of these cases of child abuse and I am following how much is needed to overcome this serious and painful evil,” he said. 24 hours later he was calling them liars. James Hamilton, 49 and now a doctor, was one of the Barros accusers. He told the BBC at a press conference, “What the Pope has done today is offensive and painful, and not only against us, but against everyone seeking to end the abuses.” The lead voice of the victims in Chile, Juan Carlos Cruz, tweeting to one of Francis’s leading apologists, Austen Ivereigh, said, “Does he need a photo, a selfie, as proof? Sorry Austen, we didn’t think of it as we were being abused and Juan Barros watching.” Although the issue came to the attention of a much broader audience during the most recent papal trip, the outcry has been ongoing since his appointment to the southern Chilean diocese of Osorno in 2015. Barros was a student protégée of the charismatic homosexual/pederast predator Fernando Karadima, and went on to be ordained in 1984, made bishop in 1995 and appointed as bishop of the armed forces. Barros claimed in court that the first he knew of Karadima’s offenses was on a Chilean television programme in 2010. This is refuted by Karadima’s victims – deemed credible both by the secular courts and the Vatican tribunal – who testified that he personally witnessed the abuse at Sacred Heart of Jesus church in Santiago. Last Thursday, however, was not the first time Francis, confronted unexpectedly in public over the Barros question, has responded testily and with insults. In 2015 the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano published a video of him scolding two women who spoke with him in St. Peter’s Piazza, asking that he reconsider the appointment, citing the “suffering” of the Church in Chile over the issue. The pope told the women, “The Church has lost its freedom, letting its head fill with politicians and accusing a bishop without having any proof, after twenty years of service, so think with your head.” He warned them not to allow themselves to be led by “leftists who have set up this thing.” “The only charge against this bishop has been discredited by the Court of Justice, so please do not lose your serenity, you suffer, but because you are foolish...I am the first to judge and punish those accused of similar crimes, but in this case there is not even a proof.” The insults were not forgotten. Among the signs held by protesters in Chile last week were those reading, “Ni zurdos, ni tontos,” (Neither lefties nor stupid). The jab certainly wasn’t lost on Francis, since the signs were being held by protesters the full length of his auto route to Santiago from the airport. One of the protesters told the BBC, “He doesn’t even know us, so how can he accuse us of being such things? He thinks we are politically motivated even though we come from different parishes in Osorno and are doing this because we are against priests being allowed to abuse children.” Apparently His Holiness was informed that the “calumny” comment had caused some blow-back because a couple of days later we got something touted – though somewhat skeptically – as a “contrite” papal apology. This also followed an astonishing public rebuke of the pope by Sean Cardinal O’Malley – a member of the C9 council of cardinals and the former head of the pope’s sex abuse commission – who said, “It is understandable that Pope Francis’ statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator.” “Pope Francis fully recognizes the egregious failures of the Church and its clergy who abused children and the devastating impact those crimes have had on survivors and their loved ones,” O’Malley said. Of course, Francis being Francis the apology was banked around with assertions of how right he was. “I have to ask forgiveness because the word ‘proof’ wounded,” he said. “It wounded many people who were abused…I ask them for forgiveness because I wounded them without realizing it, but it was an unintended wound. And this horrified me a lot, because I had received them.” “And I know how much they suffer, to feel that the Pope says in their face ‘bring me a letter, a proof.’ It’s a slap. And I agree that my expression was not apt, because I didn’t think.” He doubled down, saying, “I have not heard any victim of Barros. They did not come, they did not show themselves, they did not give evidence in court. It’s all in the air. It is true that Barros was in Karadima’s group of young people. But let us be clear: if you accuse someone without evidence with pertinacity, that is calumny.” “This is what I can say with sincerity. Barros will remain there if I don’t find a way to condemn him. I cannot condemn him if I don’t have – I don’t say proof – but evidence. And there are many ways to get evidence. Is that clear?” This “contrite” papal apology didn’t fly well even with the regular news reporters. Philip Pullela, a reporter on the plane for Reuters, described it as “an extremely rare act of self-criticism,” for the “unusually contrite” Bergoglio, and noted that, “While the pope has vowed ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual abuse, his efforts have sputtered.” Indeed, Francis claim that he met with and heard the “pain” of the victims is untrue in the specific case in hand. CBS News reports that though the Osorno group had tried to obtain a meeting during the trip they were refused. Greg Burke, the pope’s press officer, confirmed that “no papal meetings were planned with the Osorno group, which had formally requested to meet with the pope in July but were told by Vatican organizers that his schedule was already final, some six months before the trip.” Who is Barros? Some may remember a video that made the internet rounds of an uproar in a Chilean cathedral at the installation ceremony of a bishop. At the time it didn’t draw much attention from the English language press – mostly at that time distracted by the ongoing battle of the notorious Kasper Proposal and the oncoming Synods. But despite the pope’s claim, the charges against Barros are serious and have been deemed credible by a judge. He is accused of having covered up sexual abuse, including destroying evidence, committed by Karadima in the ‘80s and ‘90s. In fact – and this point has tended to get glossed over in the press – Barros is accused by the victims of having been in the room, watching at the time, and of engaging in sexual activity with Karadima. This is not, therefore, merely a matter of a bishop or colleague discovering the abuse after the fact, but of being a voyeuristic participant. Juan Carlos Cruz, told the press in 2015 that he and another boy – both in their teens at the time – “would lie down on the priest’s [Karadima’s] bed, one resting his head at the man’s shoulder, another sitting near his feet. The priest would kiss the boys and grope them, he said, all while the Rev. Juan Barros watched.” Cruz, now a 51-year-old “gay” journalist, told The Associated Press, “Barros was there, and he saw it all.” A Vatican investigation found Karadima guilty in 2011 and sentenced him to a life of seclusion in a monastery for “penitence and prayer.” Note that date; 2011 was when the processes for investigating and trying priest-abusers, put in place by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, were still in effect, and while he was still sitting on the Petrine throne. Things are a bit different now. Neither was the complaint against Barros without the support of responsible people. The media reported that over 1,300 Catholic faithful in Osorno, including 30 priests of the diocese and 51 members of Parliament, wrote to the pope asking him to rescind the appointment – none of which received any response. Fr. Peter Kleigel, a priest of Osorno, told Associated Press, “We’re convinced that this appointment is not correct because, following canon law, a bishop must be well-regarded. We need a bishop who’s credible.” The problem with getting the news out about Karadima, as in most of these cases, was the bishop, in this case Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz of Santiago, who after the Conclave of 2013 was appointed a member of Pope Francis’s C9 inner council. It was certainly never a secret that Errázuriz was a close, like-minded friend and collaborator of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, the kingpin of South American Catholicism. Allegations against Karadima – that went back to 1962 – had certainly been reported to Church authorities well before a Chilean news agency revealed the case in 2010, but were ignored by Errázuriz. Even the National Catholic Reporter in 2014 pointed to the cover up and the relationship between the new pope and the accused cardinals, “Hamilton had applied for a marriage annulment, after telling his wife of a long psychosexual entanglement with Karadima that began when he was 17 in El Bosque. His wife confided in a priest, who told Errázuriz in 2006. When a canon lawyer and several priests close to the cardinal suggested that Hamilton not mention Karadima, he pressed on with his request in order to force the issue of punishment for the priest while having his marriage annulled. Again, Errázuriz refused to take action against Karadima.” The pope’s claim that there is “no evidence” flies in the face of the ruling of the civil judge in the Karadima case – a fact that ought to be of paramount consideration under the Vatican’s own rules for determining credibility in such cases. While Judge Jessica Gonzalez was forced to drop criminal charges because the statute of limitations had expired, she affirmed that testimony by Cruz and other victims was credible. After a full year of investigation, Gonzalez called their claims “truthful and reliable”. Victims said that a letter written to Church authorities complaining of Karadima’s abuse in 1982 was intercepted and destroyed by Barros, who was serving at the time as secretary to Cardinal Francisco Fresno, Errázuriz’s successor and collaborator. As for Barros’s general credibility as a Catholic bishop, the witness of the victims is damning. In a letter to Bishop Ivo Scapolo, papal nuncio to Chile, that Cruz gave to the Associated Press, he said he witnessed Karadima and Barros in an intimate relationship. “I saw Karadima and Juan Barros kissing and touching each other. The groping generally came from Karadima touching Barros’ genitals”. Barros has never denied having had a close friendship with Karadima. Hamilton confirmed this saying, “I saw how Barros watched it all.” And the matter didn’t end in 2010. Emails published in Chile in 2015 showed that Cardinal Errázuriz also blocked the appointment of Juan Carlos Cruz from the new child protection commission – a group plagued by such scandals and eventually ignored to death by Francis. Which brings us to Francis Bergoglio’s own record in this area. The pope claimed “I am the first to judge and punish those accused of similar crimes,” but this claim is not supported by the reality. Indeed, it has been pointed out that Francis has gone to considerable lengths to dismantle the efforts of his predecessor at “safeguarding” young people, punishing abusers and removing bishops who cover it up. In the case of Barros, the Associated Press obtained a confidential letter from Pope Francis dated 2015 that “reveals the [Chilean] bishops’ concern about Francis naming a Karadima protégé, Bishop Juan Barros.” Just days before the pope’s “calumny” comment, January 11, AP reported that Francis had full knowledge of the controversy he risked in appointing Barros to Osorno. “[H]is ambassador in Chile had tried to find a way to contain the damage well before the case made headlines.” The letter, addressed to the executive committee of the Chilean bishops’ conference, said, “Thank you for having openly demonstrated the concern that you have about the appointment of Monsignor Juan Barros. I understand what you’re telling me and I’m aware that the situation of the church in Chile is difficult due to the trials you’ve had to undergo.” The letter said that in 2014 the nuncio, Archbishop Scapolo, had asked Barros to resign as bishop of the armed forces and had “encouraged him to take a sabbatical year before assuming any other pastoral responsibility as a bishop.” There can also be little doubt the new pope was fully aware of the record of his close friend Cardinal Errázuriz in ignoring complaints of Karadima’s victims when he appointed him to the C9 council. And even if he didn’t then, he certainly knows now, and yet Errazuriz continues in that advisory role. Francis further appointed Cardinal Errázuriz to serve as his Special Envoy to World Apostolic Congress Of Mercy III meeting in Bogotá, Colombia in June 2014. Since 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger and later as Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sexual abuse; Francis in his short five years has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes. Among the earliest indications Catholics had that the new pope had no intention of getting to the bottom of the priest-abuser problem was his appointment of the notorious homosexual, Monsignor Battista Ricca, as head of the Vatican Bank and the man in charge of his own residence, the Casa Santa Martha. It is often forgotten that Bergoglio’s notorious comment “who am I to judge” was in response to a question on a plane-presser about Ricca, and was followed with a similar claim from Francis about there having been no proof of his misbehaviour. As the pseudonymous Marcantonio Colonna wrote in the book, “The Dictator Pope,” “In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.” But even before this was the sinister appearance of Godfried Cardinal Danneels on the loggia on the night of Francis’s election to the papacy. Danneels’s prominence in the Bergoglian pontificate continues to be the most prominent indicator of the pope’s deprioritising of clerical sexual abuse. The former head of the Brussels archdiocese was a leading figure in the so-called St. Gallen Group, which he himself described as a “mafia,” who had worked against the election of Joseph Ratzinger in 2005 and to elect Bergoglio in 2013. At the end of a long career as Europe’s leading “liberal” Catholic prelate, Danneels came under a cloud of scandal when he was accused of having covered for a protégé bishop who admitted to having sexually abused his own minor nephew. In 2010 the publication of an audio recording determined undeniably that Danneels had told the victim to keep quiet and not cause trouble for the soon-to-retire Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges. The cardinal even went so far as to suggest that the victim should “ask forgiveness” for his own role in the scandal. Before the recordings were released, Danneels had also denied all knowledge of sexual abuse by clergy or cover-ups. In the book, Colonna asks the question, “What happened to ‘Zero Tolerance’ for clerical sexual offenders?” He wrote that data presented by the Vatican the UN Human Rights Commission in January 2014 showed that Benedict XVI “had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012,” including the notorious Fr. Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Crucially, it was Ratzinger who moved the competence for sex abuse cases from the Congregation for Bishops to Doctrine of the Faith, with powers to suspend and punish offenders. His reforms specifically included bishops who had refused to act against priest-abusers. A senior member of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendia, confirmed this, saying, “This Pope has removed two or three bishops per month throughout the world... There have been two or three instances in which they said no, and so the Pope simply removed them.” These reforms – and removals – have ceased entirely under Francis. Despite his claims that he punishes the guilty, it was in fact Francis who reversed the previous, Benedict-era sentence against the notorious Italian priest-pederast Mario Inzoli at the request of the now-equally notorious Cardinal Coccopalmerio. Inzoli was found guilty in 2012 by an ecclesiastical court of abusing boys as young as twelve and suspended. Inzoli had even abused boys in the confessional, convincing them that the abuse was approved by God. Following an appeal by Coccopalmerio, Francis reduced the priest’s penalty to a “lifetime of prayer,” with permission to say Mass privately, and a promise to stay away from children. The uproar over this caused the Italian prosecutors to reopen the case against the priest, and eventually Inzoli went to prison and was laicized. As for Ratzinger/Benedict’s procedural reforms, rumours continue to circulate that the pope intends to reverse them as well, placing competence back into the hands of the same dicastery that held it when the scandals broke in 2001. This has been denied by Greg Burke, but given Francis’s usual methods, it’s anyone’s guess who in reality is actually dealing with these cases, if anyone. A tribunal of bishops, requested by his own sex abuse commission, was ignored and then Francis summarily removed two of the CDF staffers in charge of handling such cases, famously refusing to give any reasons to CDF prefect Cardinal Müller who was soon to be dismissed. In fact, the chaos and lack of commitment on the issue has come under harsh criticism from at least one member of the pope’s now-defunct sex abuse commission, a loudly trumpeted part of Bergoglio’s early scheme of reform. Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor, was appointed in 2014 to the new Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. She resigned in 2017, citing “Vatican officials’ reluctance to cooperate with its work to protect children.” Collins released a damning statement, indicating that the commission had never seriously intended to change or reform anything. She said none of the commission’s recommendations had been implemented. “The reluctance of some in the Vatican Curia to implement recommendations or cooperate with the work of a commission when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable,” Collins wrote. As of December last year, the commission has been allowed to lapse, and no longer functions, though it has not been definitively dissolved. The terms of office of its members expired December 17th. This week Collins tweeted her question for Pope Francis on the Chilean situation: “Why does the Pope not believe these three men? They have been consistent over years in what they say. When asked why he believes his fellow cleric and not the survivors he can give no good reason.” Why indeed.
The JFK Cover-Up Continues  While the mainstream media was announcing for the past two weeks that President Trump was going to release the CIA’s long-secret records on the JFK assassination, I took a different position. On Monday of this week, I predicted that Trump would make a deal with the CIA that would enable the CIA to continue its cover-up of the JFK assassination. (See “I Predict Trump Will Continue the CIA’s JFK Assassination Cover-Up” and “No Smoking Guns in the JFK Records?”) On Thursday, the day of the deadline established by law for releasing the records, Trump granted the CIA’s request for continued secrecy, on grounds of “national security,” more than 50 years after the Kennedy assassination. Please, don’t start calling me Nostradamus. A blind man could see what was happening. Donald “Art of the Deal” Trump was obviously negotiating all week with the CIA, and he was obviously pushing to get what he wanted all the way up to the very last day. On Thursday, the deadline established by law for releasing the records, the CIA undoubtedly blinked and Trump presumably got what he wanted in return for granting the CIA request for continued secrecy. Time to buy old US gold coins Some mainstream media commentators are criticizing the CIA for waiting until the very last day to make its case for continued secrecy. Displaying their naivete, they demonstrate their lack of understanding about how things work in Washington, D.C. As I indicated in my Monday article, when someone in the federal government needs a favor from someone else, the someone else is going to ask for something in return. JFKu2019s War with the... Douglas Horne Check Amazon for Pricing. The fact is that the CIA put in its request to Trump for continued secrecy of its JFK records long before yesterday. But “Art of the Deal” Trump obviously sat on the request, undoubtedly hoping that he could get what he wanted in return if he just continued holding out and conveying that he was ready to release the records. Don’t forget: According to Trump’s own tweets, he had already ostensibly decided to deny the CIA’s request for secrecy before the Thursday deadline: Trump tweet sent on Saturday, October 21: “Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.” Trump tweet sent on Wednesday, October 25: “The long anticipated release of the #JFKFiles will take place tomorrow. So interesting! Now, it’s theoretically possible that the CIA presented Trump with some earthshattering new information on the Thursday deadline that showed that the United States would fall into the ocean if Americans were finally permitted to see the CIA’s long-secret JFK records. But how likely is that? Not likely at all! Instead, it is a virtual certainly that when Art of the Deal Trump sent out those two tweets, he was sending a message to the CIA as part of the negotiations: Give me what I want or I will release the records. In the negotiations, both Trump and the CIA knew that Trump was in the catbird seat. The Kennedy Autopsy Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. In the end, the CIA blinked, just as Trump knew it would. Contrary to what the mainstream press is asserting, the records undoubtedly contain more incriminating circumstantial evidence that fills in the mosaic of a U.S. national-security regime-change operation on November 22, 1963. That’s what the mainstream media, forever wedded to the official story no matter how ridiculous and illogical it is, simply cannot bring themselves to confront. Trump knew that he had the CIA over a barrel. As I indicated in my two articles this week, the CIA was between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it could refuse to grant Trump what he wanted and let the records be released, which it knew would point to the CIA’s guilt in the assassination. On the other hand, it could give Trump what he wanted and have to suffer the obvious inference that people would draw — that the CIA was continuing to cover up incriminatory evidence. What did the CIA give Trump in return for Trump’s extending the CIA’s 50-year-plus secrecy? We don’t know, but my hunch is that it pertains to Russia. Here’s my next prediction: the congressional investigations into Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia are about to fizzle out. That’s because I believe that the CIA, as part of its deal with Trump, will order its assets in Congress to cease and desist with respect to that investigation. In my opinion, that’s the price the CIA had to pay in return for its continued cover-up of its U.S. regime-change operation in November 1963. Notice something else about the deal that Trump has presumably made with the CIA: The secrecy arrangement extends only to April. Ostensibly, the next six months are needed to carefully review the records to determine whether the records really to relate to “national security.” Regime Change: The JFK... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media isn’t even questioning that ludicrous notion. For more than 50 years, the CIA has known why it has wanted those particular records to be kept secret. During the term of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, the CIA decided to keep these particular records secret for another 25 years. There are bound to be lots of CIA memoranda detailing why it was imperative to keep these particular records secret for as long as possible. Finally, the CIA made its request for secrecy to Trump at least several weeks ago. The notion that the CIA suddenly hit Trump yesterday with a new argument as to why “national security” would be threatened, after Trump had supposedly already rejected the arguments that had been presented to him, causing Trump to suddenly change his mind, is, well, laughable. So, why the April deadline? Why not extend the secrecy for another 25 years, which is undoubtedly what the CIA wanted? Because Trump obviously needed collateral to ensure that the CIA complied with its part of the deal. If Trump had extended the secrecy for 25 years, he would have lost leverage to ensure that the CIA complied with its part of the bargain. Let’s say, hypothetically, that I’m right: that the CIA agreed to use its assets in Congress to shut down the Russia investigation. To make certain that the CIA fulfills its part of the bargain, Trump would need the April deadline so that the threat of the records release would continue hanging over the CIA. If the CIA fails to fulfill its part of the bargain, Trump releases the records in April. If the CIA squelches the Russia investigations, Trump grants another extension of time in April. Let’s state the obvious: The CIA records that are still being suppressed have nothing to do with “national security.” They have everything to do with covering up the CIA’s role in the U.S. national-security regime-change operation that took place in Dallas in November 1963, which succeeded in ousting from power a president who was, in the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, engaged in actions The CIA, Terrorism, an... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. that constituted a grave threat to “national security,” i.e., befriending the Russians (i.e., the Soviets) and Cubans and entering into peaceful coexistence with the communist world. In other words, unlike Lee Harvey Oswald, who had absolutely no motive to kill President Kennedy, the national security establishment did have motive, a powerful motive, the same motive that motivated the CIA and Pentagon to target other political leaders for regime change or assassination around that time, such as Mohamad Mossadegh, Jacobo Arbenz, Patrice Lumumba (who Kennedy admired), Fidel Castro, and Salvador Allende. For a more detailed analysis of motive, read FFF’s ebook JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. Immediately upon the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, the official account was that this was just a lone nut, former U.S. Marine communist who decided, for no apparent reason, to assassinate Kennedy. One big problem is the official story, however, requires a suspension of logic and common sense. For anyone who has a mindset of conformity and deference to authority, that story makes sense because nothing is questioned or challenged. For anyone who has a critical, analytical, independent mindset, the official story is filled with holes. For example, how many communist Marines have you ever heard of? Why would a genuine communist join the Marines in the first place, especially since the Marines had just recently killed millions of North Korean communists? Why would a genuine communist join the Marines knowing that he could be called upon at any moment to go to Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Europe, or elsewhere to kill fellow communists? How many communists do you know who like to kill fellow communists? It gets better. CIA & JFK: The Secret ... Jefferson Morley Check Amazon for Pricing. After Oswald supposedly tried to defect to the Soviet Union and promised U.S. Embassy officials in Moscow that he was going to deliver classified information to the Soviet Union, which was America’s sworn Cold War enemy (and former World War II partner and ally), U.S. officials permitted him to return home with a Red wife, without even one grand-jury summons or even an iota of harassment. Think about Martin Luther King, John Walker Lindh, Edward Snowden, the U.S. Communist Party, or the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Think about how the U.S. national-security establishment treats what it suspects are communists or traitors. It skewers them. Why, just look at how they call Julian Assange a traitor and he isn’t even an American. Recall the McCarthy hearings. Dalton Trumbo. The entire U.S. anti-communist crusade, including Vietnam, which more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers died killing communists. And they’re going to tell us that they just let Lee Harvey Oswald, a supposed self-avowed communist skate blissfully across the Cold War stage of history with nary any abuse or harassment at all? Don’t make me laugh. Soon after the Warren Commission was established, Warren called a super-secret meeting of the commission to address information that had come into Warren’s possession. That information was that Oswald was actually working for U.S. intelligence. Yes, a spy, the type of people that work for the CIA. That would make sense, especially given that the Marine Corps is a prime recruiting place for the CIA. Semper fidelis! Now, suddenly, all the circumstantial evidence in the Kennedy assassination falls into place. It begins to make sense. The mosaic starts to be filled out: They needed to get rid of Kennedy to protect national security and elevate Johnson, who had the same anti-communist mindset as the Pentagon and the CIA, to the presidency. Unlike JFK, who had begun withdrawing troops from Vietnam, Johnson would The Man Who Killed Ken... Roger Stone Check Amazon for Pricing. protect national security by sending more troops to Vietnam. But to avoid detection, they needed a patsy, which is the term that Oswald used after his arrest. They needed to frame someone for the crime. And what better person to frame than a communist or an intelligence agent who the public would believe was a communist? Part of the scheme, obviously, would be to establish Oswald’s communist bona fides. That’s why he was sent to New Orleans, where, contradictorily, he would work for a right-wing business owner, work with a right-wing former FBI agent, and conduct a public protest in favor of Fidel Castro and Cuba. It was also why he was sent to Mexico City, where he would be ordered to visit the Cuban and Soviet Embassies, no doubt being told that he was being prepared for an important mission, maybe to enter Cuba to assassinate Castro. But no government operation ever goes perfectly. Things obviously went dreadfully wrong with the Mexico City operation because the investigation into it after the assassination was quickly shut down. Today, it remains shrouded in mystery. And guess what is included in the records that Trump has now agreed to continue suppressing. You guessed it! The CIA’s records relating to Mexico City! Ever since the assassination, the CIA has argued that the release of any of its JFK records would threaten “national security.” One thing is for sure and undeniable: Despite the release of many of the CIA’s records in the 1990s and yesterday, the United States did not fall into the ocean or fall to the communists. And neither would it have done so if Trump had not granted the CIA’s request for a continued cover-up of what it did on November 22, 1963. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger
Austrian diocese blesses gay couples on Valentine’s Day, makes reference to Amoris Laetitia  NewsCatholic Church, Homosexuality AUSTRIA, February 16, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The Diocese of Linz, Austria, invited homosexual couples to participate in the blessing of couples on St. Valentine's Day. The move comes in the wake of the recent debate over the German bishops' initiative to bless homosexual couples, as well as the controversy over Bishop Andreas Laun's own criticism of it. The diocese’s own media report makes a reference to Amoris Laetitia, as well as to Cardinal Reinhard Marx's recent initiative. The official diocesan newspaper, KirchenZeitung, announced on February 9 that in two different parishes in the Diocese of Linz homosexual couples were explicitly invited to receive a Church blessing on St. Valentine's Day. As is explained in the article: St. Valentine is known as the saint of friendship and of love. In many parishes and ecclesial institutions, it is already tradition to offer blessings of couples around the time of his feast day. People in homosexual relationships are welcome at the blessing ceremonies in Wels-St. Franziskus [Church] and in the Ursulinenkirche. Paul Stütz, the author of the article, explains that the blessing of couples “offers an occasion to express love.” “The blessing expresses that one is welcomed by one's partner and by God.” At the end of his article, he adds a link to another report about Cardinal Reinhard Marx's recent 3 February interview showing his openness to the idea of blessings of homosexual couples in individual cases as decided by a pastor. Stütz also quotes in the article itself Father Franz Harant, “a pastoral worker in the field of marriage and the family” at the Ursulinenkirche in Linz. Harant himself shows himself a supporter of blessings for homosexual couples, and he makes here an explicit reference to Amoris Laetitia. As Stütz reports: We give out that universally available blessing. There, we have nothing to forbid,” says Harant. He sees himself in this in union with Pope Francis who himself says in his magisterial document Amoris Laetitia that “each person, independent of his sexual orientation, is to be respected in his dignity and welcomed with respect. As the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net writes, Harant must be quoting here AL 250. Irmgard Lehner, the pastoral assistant of the Wels-St. Franziskus Church, the other of the two parishes that welcome homosexual couples, appreciates this blessing ritual for Valentine's Day, saying it has “an enormous power.” During the ceremony, couples come forward in church and receive a hand on their foreheads and a sign of the cross. “We thus stress the high value of relationships,” explains Lehner. As the KirchenZeitung journalist adds: “This offer can be accepted by lovers in all kinds of life situations – also by lesbians and homosexuals.” Lehner, who is herself a theologian, regrets that, so far, no homosexual couple has come for the blessing. “Here with us, everybody should feel welcome, just as he or she is.” The pastoral assistant adds that “God is love. There are no restrictions.” The Diocesan Working Group on Pastoral Care for Homosexuals (dahop) is rejoicing about such a welcome from a parish. The group says that it repeatedly receives requests from homosexual couples who wish to “receive a blessing in the frame of a liturgy.” The KirchenZeitung then quotes a commentary, saying: It would be good if a clear sign of openness and invitation would be made by many more pastoral workers [male and female], in order to give the clear signal that love between two persons with equal rights are wished by God and thus already blessed. Moreover, the above-quoted Franz Harant himself is the contact person of this Diocesan Working Group – also called “Rainbow Pastoral.” As can be seen on the website of dahop, the Diocese of Linz offers special liturgical services for homosexuals, called “Queer Church Services” (Queer-Gottesdienste) that take place in Harant's own parish. It is not clear whether these church services take place in a form of a Holy Mass. Similar blessings for homosexual couples are currently taking place, or are being considered, also in Gemany, some of them on the diocesan level, some of them on an individual level. As LifeSiteNews reported in January, the Diocese of Limburg is publicly discussing the establishment of a special liturgical rite for the blessing of homosexuals. Publicly presented by Johannes zu Eltz, a high-ranking priest of the diocese, his so-called Frankfurt proposal has the public support of the local bishop, Georg Bätzing. Additionally, the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net reports that there are two Catholics priests in two different German dioceses who publicly state now to have given many blessings to homosexual couples. Father Christoph Simonsen (Diocese of Aachen) says that he has blessed 50 couples in the last fifteen years; Father Siegfried Modenbach (Archdiocese of Paderborn) has blessed two homosexual couples in the last years. He also conducts church services for homosexuals. Kath.net subsequently contacted both Dioceses and requested information about these two priests. As an answer, they were told that the Diocese intends to talk with the concerned priests, but that this matter needs to be addressed among the German bishops in general, such as in the German Bishops' Conference. This moral turmoil in German dioceses has provoked concern and criticism among Catholics. Mathias von Gersdorff, German pro-life activist and book author, states on his own blog, the upcoming Spring Assembly of the German Bishops' Conference will become crucial in this matter. As he sees it, “the bishops of Germany who will meet next week for the Spring Assembly of the Bishops' Conference find themselves in a complicated situation,” where they will have to show their colors. They will either be in favor of the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality and marriage and forbid such blessings, or “essentially accept them,” at least by “saying nothing.” He concludes:
San Francisco Show Trial Sequel  Last week, a San Francisco jury acquitted seven-time felon Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a repeatedly deported Mexican national, of all murder and manslaughter charges in the July 1, 2015, fatal shooting of Kate Steinle as she walked with her father and a friend on Pier 14. The jury found the confessed shooter guilty only of felony gun possession. Many observers decried the verdict as a travesty of justice, but they were mistaken if they thought it could not get any worse. San Francisco public defender Matt Gonzalez now seeks to have Zarate’s gun possession charge dismissed. Gonzalez is contending the jury should have been told that “momentary” possession of a gun is not necessarily a crime. “If you possess it just to dispose of it or abandon it, it wouldn’t be a crime,” Gonzalez told reporters. The Steinle family and relatives of murder victims have new cause for outrage, but this gambit is consistent with Gonzalez and the San Francisco show-trial in which he co-starred. Gonzalez hails from McAllen, Texas, and attended Columbia University on a scholarship. As he explained, “I think I was a product of affirmative action,” and ethnic preferences doubtless played a role in admission to Stanford Law School. In San Francisco, Gonzalez became known as “The Great Left Hope,” and a hero to Bay Area radicals. The La Raza Lawyers Association named Gonzalez Lawyer of the Year, and the Mexican American Political Association, a group with roots in the Communist Party, gave him the Bert Corona award, after one of the CPUSA’s most high-profile Stalinists. In 2,000, after a decade as a public defender, Gonzalez gained election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In 2003, as board president, he commissioned a graffiti artist to spray SMASH THE STATE on his office wall, in “traffic cone orange.” As Gonzalez explained, “This is a sentiment I think all of us have had. You have to rally and find ways of opposing what you don’t like.” In 2003 Gonzalez ran for mayor of San Francisco but lost to Gavin Newsom. In 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader tapped Gonzalez for vice president. “He has a great, steadfast commitment to justice,” Nader told reporters. On that score, the Steinle family and other relatives of murder victims have room for reasonable doubt. In jury selection, Gonzalez and the prosecutor, assistant district attorney Diana Garcia, included three “immigrants,” quite possibly false-documented illegals. True to form, judge Samuel Feng sealed the identities of the jurors. So observers have grounds to believe that Garcia and Gonzalez both got the jury they wanted. Garcia told the court Zarate was playing his own “secret version of Russian roulette,” and thus parroted the defense’s contention that the shooting was all a matter of chance. As it happens, in Russian roulette a shooter loads one bullet into a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, then puts the gun to his own head and pulls the trigger. In a central fact of the case, Zarate did not aim the gun at himself but fired in the direction of Kate Steinle. In another established fact, the bullet struck her in the lower back and tore through her abdominal aorta. This happened in broad daylight, but as in In the Heat of the Night, they had the body which was dead. Garcia Zarate confessed to firing the shot and had gunpowder residue on his hands. After firing, he tossed the gun in the water. He said he had found the stolen weapon wrapped in a cloth and that it discharged by itself, both utterly unbelievable claims. Even so, the politically correct jury found the career criminal not guilty of murder and manslaughter. Any observer could be forgiven for believing that prosecution and defense both got the outcome they wanted. Unlike Stalin’s trials of the old Bolsheviks, and Fidel Castro’ trial of General Arnaldo Ochoa, this show trial aimed to establish innocence for the guilty, and the dynamics of the left were on full display. Denunciations of “gun violence” were nowhere in evidence and expressions of sympathy for the Steinle family proved pathetically weak. As Arthur Koestler said, on the left the truth is spoken with loathing and falsehood with love. On the left, as Orwell had it in Animal Farm, rats are comrades, and criminals are victims of capitalist society. In the view of Gonzalez, society is progressing toward a social justice paradise ruled by a wise elite that knows what’s best for all. In this inexorable progress, determined by history, some people are going to have to die. As Bertolt Brecht told Sidney Hook about Stalin’s victims, “the more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot.” Out for a summer-day walk with her father and a friend, Kate Steinle was a completely innocent victim, gunned down by a career criminal who was not even supposed to be in the country but found special protection in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, part of the sanctuary state of California. As defense attorney Francisco Ugarte said, the verdict was a “vindication for the rights of immigrants.” Since Donald Trump mentioned the case, former vice-presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez had to establish the complete innocence of the shooter. That explains the effort of “The Great Left Hope” to have his client’s felony gun possession conviction tossed. Any observer of the case could believe it probably will be.
Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked 2016 armed standoff  Dwight Hammond, 76, and Steven Hammond, 49, were originally convicted in 2012 after an Oregon jury found they had committed arson on federal lands a decade earlier. | Rick Bowmer/AP Photo Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked 2016 armed standoff President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued presidential pardons to two Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, convicted in 2012 of committing arson on federal lands near their ranch. The father and son's 2016 imprisonment — and the armed protest at a national wildlife refuge that followed — formed a flashpoint in the ongoing dispute between cattle ranchers and the federal government over land-use rights. Story Continued Below “The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land,” the White House said in a statement. “[They] are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. “Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.” Dwight Hammond, 76, and Steven Hammond, 49, were originally convicted in 2012 after an Oregon jury found they had committed arson on federal lands a decade earlier. The Hammonds asserted they were taking preventative measures to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plants; the federal government maintained they were attempting to mask illegal deer hunting, among other things. Morning Agriculture A daily briefing on agriculture and food policy — 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. After a sympathetic federal judge ruled the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional, the father and son walked away with sentences of three months and one year respectively. Prosecutors appealed, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the decision, resentencing the men to 5 years apiece (a move the White House statement called "unjust"). The duo’s subsequent arrival at a California prison to complete the remainder of their sentences triggered a 300-person march and later, a protest at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There, armed occupiers — including Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven Bundy participated in a similar 2014 standoff — faced off with federal agents for 41 days in dispute of the jail time, which they saw as punishment for the Hammond family’s refusal to sell the government its land. “We felt we had exhausted all prudent measures,” Bundy said in a news conference at the time. “Do we allow this to go on, or do we make a stand?” The Hammonds’ attorneys had sought clemency from former President Barack Obama, The Oregonian reported. But the appeal did not gain much traction until Trump took office. "I have a sense that things are moving forward and I have faith in our president,” Susie Hammond, the wife and mother of the imprisoned ranchers, told The Oregonian last month. “If anyone is going to help them, he'd be the one." This article tagged under: Pardons Donald Trump Oregon
Rep. Danny Davis was For/Against/For/Against Farrakhan  Rep. Danny Davis helped get the ball rolling by praising Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. “I don’t regard Louis Farrakhan as an aberration or anything, I regard him as an outstanding human being who commands a following of individuals who are learned and articulate and he plays a big role in the lives of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people,” he emphasized later. Then Rep. Davis' office issued a statement disavowing Farrakhan. And then Davis got right back to talking to the Daily Caller and disavowed the disavowal. “The congressman was insistent that The Daily Caller misquoted him during the interview and that he didn’t subscribe to Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements and actions in the past,” the ADL official told JTA in a statement. “He expressed an interest in seeing some of the latest statements made by Farrakhan vis-a-vis Jews, which we promptly shared with him.” The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The term "Jewish Question" is largely used by anti-Semites. So Davis then sorta disavowed his own statements. J Street endorsed him. And then he talked to the Daily Caller again. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis thinks Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious racist and anti-Semite, does “outstanding work” but doesn’t agree with Farrakhan’s positions that white people are “devils” and Jewish people are satanic. Progress! "I don’t spend a lot of time, I buy Final Call when I see them. I’ve been to Saviour’s Day, I’ve read, I’ve been a fan of Elijah Muhammad, so those are my positions, but I do disagree with the notion that white people are devils.” I wonder how far a white congressman would get saying, "I attended the Klavern, but I don't agree with the KKK's views about black people." But that's Rep. Davis' current views. He likes a racist hate group. But doesn't believe white people are devils or Jews are satanic. Whoever the JTA has on the "explain away Farrakhan's Dem fandom" beat is going to be busy again. But this is typical of the Dems and their useful idiots. And J Street is on record as endorsing a politician who praised a racist hate group leader and discussed the "Jewish question."
Kavanaugh and Last-Minute Accusations  Democrats are pulling out all the stops and enabling salacious last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in order to sink his candidacy. Now that Christine Blasey Ford has finally agreed to testify this Thursday at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her charge that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a long-ago high school party, these new charges have suddenly emerged from left field. On Sunday, a former classmate from Judge Kavanaugh's time at Yale accused the Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her at a party. The New Yorker has just published an article written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, based on information that was reportedly sent to at least four Democratic senators. The article recounted a claim by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s, concerning “a dormitory party gone awry.” As the article acknowledged, however, “her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” The article goes on to say that in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, Ms. Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” It was only after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” that Ms. Ramirez was suddenly able to pinpoint Judge Kavanaugh as having committed an unsavory act, even though she admitted being “foggy” at the time. The New Yorker article also noted that the magazine “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” Meanwhile, the ever-present Michael Avenatti, attorney of porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had information from anonymous sources that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend had "targeted" women with drugs and alcohol at parties to facilitate "gang rape." Haters of Judge Kavanaugh are turning the process of Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee into something worse than a travesty. His opponents in the Senate have transformed their “advise and consent” function into a campaign of no-holds barred character assassination.  While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys." A week has already gone by since Ms. Ford went public with her story in an interview with the Washington Post while Ms. Ford and her attorneys stalled for time. They raised one procedural issue after another while claiming that the committee majority was “bullying” Ms. Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-I) has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford’s preferred scheduling for her appearance. He extended the deadline several times for her to come to a decision on whether to testify at all. He had offered various options for her to testify publicly or privately or to be interviewed by committee staff in her home state of California, whichever setting would make her more comfortable. However, in Senator Grassley’s e-mail thanking Ms. Ford for finally agreeing to a time certain for her testimony, Senator Grassley correctly reminded her attorneys that “the committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, and what order to call them and who will question them. These are nonnegotiable.” While the negotiations with Ms. Ford’s attorneys for her testimony were underway, Democrats were sitting on the latest allegations, ready to pounce as soon as Ms. Ford’s accusation was about to be heard. Some Democrats are already using the Ramirez episode to push anew for a fresh FBI investigation and to postpone Thursday’s scheduled hearing. Ideally, if the Democrats cannot apply enough pressure to force a withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through their relentless campaign of character assassination, they want to push any Senate votes until after the midterm elections at the earliest. Then they will claim that the newly elected senators should be involved in the confirmation decision. In the meantime, Judge Kavanaugh’s adversaries in the Senate, the mainstream media and progressive circles continue to bludgeon Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion. All of their stratagems are an obvious attempt to buy time in order to persuade any wavering senators that Judge Kavanaugh is too tainted by sexual assault charges – whether proven or not - to sit on the Supreme Court. Proof does not matter to those wanting to bring Judge Kavanaugh down at any cost. Regarding Ms. Ford’s accusation, they know that the proof so far is non-existent, aside from Ms. Ford’s own assertions contained in her confidential letter given to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, last July, and in her Washington Post interview. While a redacted version of Ms. Ford’s letter has been published, Senator Feinstein has refused to date to give even Senator Grassley a copy of the completely unredacted version. The FBI has already conducted 6 background checks, no federal crime is alleged, and there is no forensic evidence to investigate after 30 years at a site that Ms. Ford cannot even identify. What we do know so far tends to undercut the credibility of Ms. Ford’s accusation. Ms. Ford cannot corroborate her decades-old charge of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Whatever corroboration Ms. Ford was hoping for from “witnesses” she claimed were at the alleged party is non-existent. The individuals she reportedly named in her unredacted confidential letter given to Senator Feinstein have either denied being at such a party or do not recollect what Ms. Ford has alleged. Moreover, by her own admission to the Washington Post, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember some key details of the incident.” She does not remember, for example, where it happened, how the party came together in the first place, or how she got home after the alleged incident. She believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, but reportedly could not be more precise on the day or even the month of the party. Afraid that Ms. Ford’s sexual assault allegation could be readily challenged and anxious to establish some sort of pattern of sexual misconduct beyond this single alleged incident, the Kavanaugh haters have latched onto Ms. Ramirez’s story. The New York Times published an op-ed column last week by a psychiatrist, Richard A. Friedman, who cited neurological science to conclude that Ms. Ford’s claim that she has “a vivid memory of an attack that took place when she was 15” is “credible.” The reason, he wrote, is that “memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.” The only problem with Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that Ms. Ford has apparently forgotten such key details surrounding the alleged sexual assault as when and where it happened and how she got home. Moreover, when Ms. Ford finally told someone about the incident in any detail some 30 years later in 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband, she did not name Judge Kavanaugh specifically, according to the therapist’s notes that Ms. Ford had provided to the Washington Post in connection with her interview. The Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes it reviewed “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’” Ms. Ramirez’s story is even less credible. It took an attorney and six days of very belated reflection to help revive her memory of an incident she claimed happened while she herself was very drunk. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of Judge Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics who told men to “shut up” regarding Ms. Ford’s allegations, said she doubts Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility because of “how he approaches his cases.” Aside from mischaracterizing the constitutional textualist reasoning underlying Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, she is saying that she does not believe Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of the sexual misconduct allegations lodged against him because of the opinions he wrote that she does not like. Such circular “reasoning” would be amusing if it were not so emblematic of what one writer called “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also suffering from the same syndrome. She said Thursday regarding Ms. Ford: "I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story." Ms. Ford’s supporters are exploiting the “Me Too” movement to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty simply because Ms. Ford is a woman who has made what they call, without any corroborating evidence to date, a “credible” charge. The same would presumably be the case for Ms. Ramirez. They argue that since the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal judicial trial, but rather a legislative hearing for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, the normal burden of proof shouldered by the accuser should not apply. Judge Kavanaugh should have to prove that he is not guilty, they are in effect insisting. This is another case of Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the normal burden on the prosecution in a criminal case - to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - is not applicable regarding the charge against Judge Kavanaugh since he is not a defendant in a criminal trial. However, that should not flip the burden of proof onto Judge Kavanaugh altogether. Judge Kavanaugh is being subjected to charges of a criminal nature that could not only deprive him of a seat on the Supreme Court for which he is otherwise eminently qualified. Ms. Ford’s unsubstantiated accusation can completely destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s life by causing irreparable damage to his reputation for integrity and good character and to his career, which he has built up during decades of public service. His family’s lives have been completely upended. Placing the burden on Judge Kavanaugh to prove that he was not involved in an uncorroborated incident from years ago, about which even his accuser does not recall key details, turns the fundamental constitutional principle of due process upside down. Ms. Ford should have the burden to prove her accusations by at least a preponderance of all the evidence presented. This charade must come to an end. No more extensions for Ms. Ford to come forward and testify. If Ms. Ford does not follow through with her agreement to testify in an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this Thursday and do so upon the conditions set by the committee, she should go home while the committee proceeds to an immediate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. If Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh do testify, the senators deciding on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as well as the American public following the testimony must remember one cardinal rule. In a nation guided by fairness and law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, many of Judge Kavanaugh’s haters have thrown that rule aside. If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled as a result of the smears and character assassination, President Trump should immediately nominate someone on his short list such as Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate Republican majority should then push through the new nominee’s confirmation as soon as possible. Delay is not an option.
Nimesh Patel Stand-Up Routine Cut Short Due To Uncomfortable Jokes  Nimesh Patel, a comedian known for being the first Indian-American writer for Saturday Night Live, had his stand-up routine at cultureSHOCK cut short earlier tonight due to uncomfortable jokes. cultureSHOCK, an event hosted by the Asian American Alliance, is a charity performance showcase that aims to provide a space to celebrate Asian American expression. Patel was one of the main events promoted beforehand. However, his jokes quickly progressed to uncomfortable territory, including one about a gay black man who lives in his neighborhood and how “[I]t made me realize that being gay is definitely not a choice because no one wants to be gay and black.” The tension in the room increased as Patel told more jokes in this vein until organizers of the event went up on stage to stop him, citing a change in program plans. Patel questioned why this was happening. The organizers replied that the person in charge of tech had to leave early, but Patel continued to claim that he was being cut off because the audience didn’t like his jokes. At one point, one organizer told Patel he was being disrespectful. When asked for closing remarks, Patel responded: “I’m a generation older than all of you I know comedy,” and called the organizers incorrect in ending his set. He tried to continue speaking until his mic was cut. We have reached out to the Asian American Alliance for comment and were told that their board is not yet prepared to release a statement. We will update this post if such a statement is forthcoming. Image via Columbia University Asian American Alliance Tags: breaking, columbia university asian american alliance, cultureSHOCK, nimesh patel
Hungary's Orban calls for global anti-migrant alliance with eye on 2018 elections  (Fixes dateline) * PM Orban faces elections on April 8, leads all polls * Migration has been Orban's defining theme since 2015 * Says will counter globalism alongside U.S., UK, Israel By Marton Dunai BUDAPEST, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Hungarian leader Viktor Orban called on Sunday for a global alliance against migration as his right-wing populist Fidesz party began campaigning for an April 8 election in which it is expected to win a third consecutive landslide victory. Popular at home but increasingly at odds politically and economically with mainstream European Union peers, Orban has thrived on external controversy, including repeated clashes with Brussels and lately the United Nations. Those conflicts, mostly centred on migration since people fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa flooded into Europe in 2015, have intensified as the elections approach and Orban poses as a saviour of Europe's Christian nations. "Christianity is Europe's last hope," Orban told an audience of party faithful at the foot of the Royal Castle in Budapest. With mass immigration, especially from Africa, "our worst nightmares can come true. The West falls as it fails to see Europe being overrun." Orban is widely credited for reversing an economic slump in Hungary and controlling its public finances, culminating in a return to investment-grade for its debt, which was cut to 'junk' during the 2008 global economic crisis. To achieve that and hold onto power the prime minister, 54, has used methods that critics have called authoritarian, and picked fights with EU partners, especially in the West. Eastern leaders, most notably in Poland, have followed his lead. But migration dominates his agenda now. Orban said on Sunday that Europe faces a critical fissure between nation states of the East and the West, which he called an "immigrant zone, a mixed population world that heads in a direction different from ours". As the West wants eastern Europe to follow its lead, an increasingly vicious struggle was likely, he said, alluding to a plan to redraw the European alliance advocated by the leaders of France and Germany. "Absurd as it may sound the danger we face comes from the West, from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris," Orban said to loud applause. "Of course we will fight, and use ever stronger legal tools. The first is our 'Stop Soros' law." Orban has for years targeted Hungarian-born U.S. financier George Soros, whose philanthropy aims to bolster liberal and open-border values -- anathema to Orban, an advocate of a loose group of strong nation states that reject multiculturalism. The Hungarian leader has advocated "ethnic homogeneity" and compared Soros, a Jew, to a puppet master unleashing immigration onto Europe to undermine its cultural and economic integrity. A defining moment of his premiership came in 2015, as the migrant crisis peaked: he built a double razor wire fence that became the symbol of anti-migrant sentiment in Europe. Orban also said the Hungarian opposition had failed to heed the call of history when it opposed his toughness on migrants. Voters have responded favourably and Orban is a clear leader of all polls. POWERFUL ALLIES Orban has conflated the issue of immigration with the image of Soros, 87, whose name was used in a tough anti-migrant bill sent to Parliament on Wednesday. Soros, for his part, compared Orban unfavourably to both the Nazis and the Communists, saying his rule evoked dark tones from the 1930's -- when Hungary was allied with Nazi Germany -- and was more oppressive than Cold War Soviet occupation. Orban has tightened the screws on non-government organisations, particularly ones funded by Soros, and attempted to close a prominent Soros-founded university. Attributing to Soros a recent United Nations plan on creating a global blueprint to handle the migration crisis, Orban said he anticipated that powerful allies would help him prevent the U.N. from greasing the wheels of migration. "Soros has antagonised not only us but also England, President Trump and Israel too," he said. "Everywhere he wants to get migration accepted. It won't work. We are not alone and we will fight together ... and we will succeed." In Europe, he cited as allies Hungary's fellow Visegrad countries Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland, whose ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is also often at loggerheads with the EU. He said a victory for Silvio Berlusconi's party in Italy's March 4 election would strengthen the nationalist fold. "We don't think the fight is hopeless, on the contrary, we are winning," Orban said. "The V4 is firm, Croatia has come around, Austria has turned in the patriotic direction, and in Bavaria the CSU has created a resistance." (Reporting by Marton Dunai; Editing by Catherine Evans) Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
America's Immigration Voice.  Kritarch Patti Saris thinks she runs immigration policy, right down to how many times someone can have their case reviewed, though she seems confused as to who will do the reviewing of those cases. At issue is a large group of Indonesian Chinese Christians who fled a pogrom in Indonesia directed against them in the 1990s. The Chinese generally filed asylum applications after arriving in the United States, and, importantly, not at an American embassy or consulate in Indonesia or nearby. All were relatively wealthy and had or obtained tourist visas to the United States. This is important as most actual "refugees" drop everything to flee their homelands if they are under threat of death. Tellingly, these asylum applicants were the elite of Indonesian society, because their higher average IQ, than the rather dull Indonesians. 87 is the average Indonesian IQ , and note that average includes the higher average Chinese, so the locals really are a dull lot. This is important in that while there was anti-Chinese and anti-Christian violence, the non-Chinese Christians mostly stuck around, though the Chinese used tourist and student visas to come to the United States in a leisurely manner, taking time to either bring or otherwise secure their wealth in Indonesia. In any event, the persecution was limited in time and duration as the local elite know they need the Chinese to run the economy and to avoid Red China intervening on behalf of their fellow ethnics. In the United States, these Chinese went through the liberal asylum process, but did not manage to fool even the credulous "judges" at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the immigration courts. Fast forward to the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty , where despite outstanding deportation orders, these illegal aliens, among millions of others, are allowed to remain, and then given employment authorization as well. Fortunately, elections have consequences, and the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty, or parts of it, came to an inglorious end. And end it was for this particular lot of illegal aliens. But Kritarch Patti Saris was having none of the immigration laws of the United States. She thought she was decider-in-chief on who gets deported. And all on the flimsy excuse that the aliens need another bite at the apple, despite the clear fact that the Indonesian government had long ago quashed the ethnic riots directed against the market dominant minority of Chinese and the religious motivated violence against Christians. While there are a couple of provinces in Indonesia that impose Sharia law on Muslims, most non-Muslims are exempt. As moderates go, Indonesia is about as close as it gets to moderate Muslims. Mostly because the country would not last long without an outside high IQ elite to run the country. Before it was the high IQ Dutch, now it's the Chinese. Remember, an 87 IQ is just about retarded. A federal judge on Monday ordered U.S. immigration officials to delay any efforts to deport 51 Indonesians living illegally in New Hampshire so the group can have time to argue that changing conditions in that country would make it dangerous to return... Federal law gives authority over immigration matters to the executive branch, not the courts. Chief U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston found she had authority to ensure the Indonesians have a chance to argue that conditions in their home country had deteriorated significantly enough to reopen their cases for trying to stay in the United State. She worried that without the order, ICE officials could deport some of the Indonesians covered by the suit, at which time they would lose the opportunity to have their cases reopened. [Judge Orders U.S. To Delay Deporting Indonesians In Immigration Fight, by Scott Malone, Reuters, November 27, 2017] Kritarch Saris thought she knew better and has been running a deliberate campaign to prevent the deportation of these Chinese illegal aliens. And now she has gone full rogue, prohibiting the deportation of all these illegal aliens who already had their day in immigration court.Saris appears to be making up immigration law and procedure on the fly, as her order appears to not understand either the EOIR process or immigration law. “The government shall inform the court whether petitioners, who are not detained, will have access to emergency procedures if they must file their original motions to reopen,” Saris wrote. This makes no sense in English, much less in the established procedures in the EOIR. The aliens have no emergency, there are no emergency procedures, and their original motions to reopen were denied for lack of legal basis in law or any changed conditions in the country they are being deported to that would avail them of another claim. Indonesia is more hospitable to Chinese Christians today than the short period in the 90s when there was a problem. But basically, Saris wants the illegal aliens the opportunity to submit another asylum application, and benefit by the years it will take to adjudicate those claims. Basically Saris wants these illegals to never leave. That, of course is not her role. The only claim they have before a Federal court is if they got the due process that Congress gave those illegal aliens. And they did, they filed for asylum, had a hearing and appeals, and lost. With the legislative fight over DACA, the Trump Administration needs to include legislative language including more restrictions on kritarchs who want to make American immigration policy, as well as other reforms to lower legal immigration, build the wall, and deport illegals here. Or impeachment, or both.
Uranium One Bombshell: Evidence of Bribery, Extortion, Kickbacks, Money Laundering, and More!  Right about now the people in the Clinton camp should be getting very nervous about the ongoing investigations into the Uranium One deal. What must be most annoying for the Clinton team is that these investigations all started as a way to undermine the Trump administration and continue to push connections between Trump and Russia. Now, more than a year after the investigations began, it’s looking less likely than ever that President Trump did anything wrong… but the investigations seem to be zeroing in on key Clinton team members (including the Clintons themselves). On Tuesday night Fox News Sean Hannity sat down to talk about the exploding scandal that is the Uranium One deal, and what it could mean for the Clinton family. Hannity spoke with investigative reporter Sara Carter of Circa, John Solomon of The Hill, and Victoria Toensing, an attorney representing the FBI informant who allegedly possesses documents on the sale of Canadian mining company ‘Uranium One’ to Russia interests back in 2010. Now that the NDA (non disclosure agreement) has been lifted Circa’s Sara Carter is “reporting that she has received a treasure trove of documents that in fact prove tonight the FBI informant has knowledge of Russia’s involvement in uranium one.” Not to be outdone, the Hill’s John Solomon had found even more dirt on this ugly Clinton led deal. Apparently, Solomon has learned that the FBI informant “has evidence, was on the inside, directly from Putin’s Russia, the push for nuclear fuel deals, and all the crimes we talked about, bribery, kickback, extortion, money laundering, racketeering, all knelt corroborating and will be corroborated even further. Go into your report.” This is all about to get very ugly. https://youtu.be/_DFeri21hlc HANNITY: Breaking news tonight, the Hills John Solomon, investigative reporter Sara Carter, they released bombshell reports equally tonight. Solomon reporting according to the memos obtained, the FBI informant that now has had his NDA lifted at the center of this case gathered years and years of evidence of Russia’s plot to control U.S. Nuclear fuel, which included the uranium one deal. And Sara Carter reporting that she has received a treasure trove of documents that in fact prove tonight the FBI informant has knowledge of Russia’s involvement in uranium one. Also joining us now is the attorney for the FBI informant, Victoria Toensing along with John and Sara. Sara, let’s start with your report. A treasure trove, that is huge. SARAH CARTER, CIRCA NEWS: It is Sean. I mean there’s over 5,000 documents which include emails, briefs, other documentation, memorandums that the informant had turned over to the FBI and Justice Department, and within these documents, it’s very evident of Russia’s intention to enter the American market, energy market. And their intentions to acquire uranium one. HANNITY: John, you go into extensive detail in a very long and hard-hitting piece tonight and revealing piece, how the FBI informant — you actually said six years, I thought he was only an informant for four years. He has evidence, was on the inside, directly from Putin’s Russia, the push for nuclear fuel deals, and all the crimes we talked about, bribery, kickback, extortion, money laundering, racketeering, all knelt corroborating and will be corroborated even further. Go into your report. JOHN SOLOMON, THE HILL: You know, Sara just said something about the importance of the dominance of the uranium market. This is an email that the FBI has had for six years. It shows that uranium one was part of a Russia strategy to control, not just benefit from the global market, controlled the global market. That would put the United States at a disadvantage. That is the sort of evidence that this FBI informant has right now. If you go back on the last week we heard several things from the Justice Department, there’s no connection to uranium one. These are emails that say uranium one that are in the FBI files. They said that there was no connection between the uranium one case and the criminal case. We now know the criminal case got its first evidence in 2009, a whole year before the uranium one deal was approved by the Obama administration. There are a lot of things that people have been saying that these documents simply don’t agree with. HANNITY: All right. I got a very high ranking Congressman and that knows, let us put it that way, and actually sent me a note. The knowledge of key administration officials will be the next thing proven by both of you, and the links to the Clinton foundation. Sara, is that true? CARTER: I believe that is true. I mean especially when we at — HANNITY: Do believe or you know? I can’t ask Victoria that question because she won’t tell me. CARTER: I know it’s true. I know that looking at these documents following the money, following the money is what’s important here. The Justice Department has not pointed out that they will possibly call a special counsel to this. This is still out there. They are looking into it. That is something that they need to decide. But whether it’s a special counsel or whether it’s a prosecutor that is investigating this, they will be able to follow the money. There are somethings said … HANNITY: When you say follow the money, my suspicion would go to the money came directly from Russia, was funneled through the Canadian donors to the Clinton Foundation. How good are my instincts? CARTER: You have pretty good instincts. I think there’s a lot of other areas that they will be looking at as well. Remember this is like peeling back an onion. You peel one part and then you find another part. And that is what’s going to require somebody to do an extensive investigation. HANNITY: But it is beginning to cascade Sara. CARTER: It is. HANNITY: John, I want her to respond to the same thing, that the Clinton Foundation, that this will be traced back to high-ranking Obama administration officials and the Clinton Foundation, and if you add the money portion Sara mentioned? SOLOMON: I do. I think the place we will be talking about in the next couple weeks as the Clinton global initiative. Sort of a side project of the Clinton Foundation. There are new flows of money there that we will report on then the next couple of weeks. There were also some personal business projects, some very senior Clinton people that got a remarkable infusion of cash from Russia. It will be able to talk about that in the next couple of weeks. Another layer of interest of the story. HANNITY: All right. We have a lot of time in the segment so I want to go very slowly here. Both of you, before I get to Victoria, Sara and John, you both in your pieces said 5,000 documents. I hear the number the FBI informant is much, much greater, tens of thousands. True or false? SOLOMON: That seems to be accurate. We have a subset of the documents and they are very voluminous. HANNITY: Now let me go to Victoria. One of the great attorneys. She is the most difficult to get any information out of. Victoria, one of the things I’ve known about you, and I’ve interviewed you so many times over the years, you now have been doing a deep dive into all of this. You are now representing this FBI informant. I think they will become an American hero out of all of this, but apparently, he was fighting and begging and pleading and saying the Russians are here, they are doing this, why are you paying attention? I hope my instincts are right there, and number two, how devastating it legally is this going to be based on what I was just asking Sara and John about impacting former Obama officials, money, Clinton foundation? VICTORIA TOENSING, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING FBI INFORMANT: Let me go to number one first, that is the whole essence of what John and Sara and I are talking about is that in 2009, 2010, our FBI and presumably our Justice Department, and the White House, as my client was told, all knew about this corruption in the Russian nuclear energy area. There’s no separate companies. They are all related. The Russian nuclear energy is controlled from the top, from Putin. They are all one. They all talk to each other. So the evidence about this corruption was known to our government in 2009, 2010, and why is it that CFIUS either wasn’t told, or CFIUS people knowing about it — HANNITY: Explain CFIUS, 13 agencies, I am sorry 9 agencies approving the deal that gave control of uranium one to the bad actor, hostile regime, Putin Russia. TOENSING: They said, the CFIUS board said that the bad Russians could buy uranium one, which contains access to 20 percent of the U.S. Uranium, why was that decision made? Was CFIUS told? Did Bob Mueller go to Eric Holder and tell him? Eric Holder sat on it. HANNITY: He was one of the nine. TOENSING: Did Bob Mueller go to the White House and tell him? The FBI agents told my client that they were briefing the President about his conduct. Of course, when the CFIUS decision was made. My client said, what happened? HANNITY: Back to my original question, counselor, if I may. You are too good at your job. This is a very serious point. Putting your legal hat on, objectively speaking, yes they knew, the evidence will prove it based on the documents and your client, crimes committed on a high level? National security compromise? TOENSING: Of course, it goes without saying giving the Russians control of the uranium was a national security compromise. I think that we are going to have to do is continue to follow the money because the reporting that John and Sara are going to be doing in a few days will be revealing about where lots of the various money went and where it came from. HANNITY: Always we go back, and I believe at the end of this you guys deserve a Pulitzer, and I’m not the only one thinking that. You have dug so deep on this, this has been a deep dive and I applaud you both. I want to ask as it relates to who knew what, and when. What did they know, when did they know it, John Solomon? I’m talking about Obama, Mueller, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton. SOLOMON: We are at a little disadvantage right now, because we don’t have those records, and also the records that Congress needs to go get, but I can tell you I have a person quoted in my story who has direct knowledge of what the Justice Department knew. This person said without a shred of doubt, we knew in 2009 a year before CFIUS ruled that Thomas were engaged in criminality, without a shadow of a doubt, we knew that Russia was trying to gain a corner on the U.S. market, get a strong hold on our uranium, and without a doubt we knew they were using political levers to try to get their way here. We are talking about control, like this document says, they are trying to gain control of our markets. That has to be national security interest that should have been raised in CFIUS. HANNITY: President daily briefings were told. Had this information in it before CFIUS approves this. CARTER: Sean. That is what we need to find out. We need to see those Presidential daily briefings. Congress can get those. They will be able to know whether or not President Obama was briefed on this and according to a number of people that I have spoken with as well, he was. I think that will reveal a whole other layer of who knew what, where and when. And we follow the money and it will reveal even more about Hillary Clinton and what she knew and when did she know it, and the other members of the CFIUS board. HANNITY: And Obama and Holder and Mueller? John, real quick, we are running out of time. SOLOMON: yes listen, I think even Sessions and Rosenstein have questions to answer. There are people in Congress who don’t think they’ve gotten a straight answer from them. HANNITY: All right. Victoria, we get the last word from you, laws broken? TOENSING: Well, of course. HANNITY: You are so good at your job. You are so annoyingly good. The American people deserve the truth varied our security was compromised, we import uranium, because we don’t have enough. Newt Gingrich will weigh in on this and more things and about the Clintons. Are they facing their day of reckoning? And a big announcement at the end of the show. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
Ex-Sailor Pardoned By Trump Says He’s SUING Obama And Comey  A former Navy sailor, who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump, is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials. Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, says he was subject to unequal protection of the law. Saucier said that he realizes he had erred in taking the photos, which he said he wanted to show only to his family to show them where he worked. He has also lashed out at Obama officials, saying that his prosecution was politically motivated, prompted by sensitivity about classified information amid the scandal involving Clinton’s emails. According to Fox News, Saucier argues that the same officials who sought out punishment to Saucier for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information. Saucier’s lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. Saucier, who lives in Vermont, pleaded guilty in 2016 to taking photos inside the USS Alexandria while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut, in 2009. He said he only wanted service mementos, but federal prosecutors argued he was a disgruntled sailor who had put national security at risk by taking photos showing the submarine’s propulsion system and reactor compartment and then obstructed justice by destroying a laptop and camera. –Fox News “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must elapse before the lawsuit actually is actually filed. “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” he said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton,” he continued, alleging his life was ruined for political reasons. “With a pardon, there’s no magic wand that gets waved and makes everything right,” Saucier said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” Saucier has had cars repossessed and is in debt due to the loss of income after having a felony on his record. The government actively destroyed his life an made it all but impossible for his family to get back on track. But Hillary Clinton is running around free, to this day. And that is what Saucier is so burnt about, with good reason.
Trump Effect: Islamic Republic Ceases Naval Provocations in Arabian Gulf  Yesterday’s State of the Union address issued by Donald Trump represented a refreshing break from the eight years of pusillanimous foreign policies pursued by past administration. Nowhere was this more evident than in the manner in which Trump described Iran’s repressive regime and attempts by the Iranian people to overthrow it through peaceful protest. When it comes to Iran’s governing authorities, the Trump administration is under no illusions about the nefarious nature of this fascist theocracy. “We are restoring clarity about our adversaries,” Trump stated in a not too subtle jibe at his predecessor who seemed to be in a perpetual state of confusion about who his friends and enemies were. Trump also referenced the recent widespread Iranian protests, crushed with extreme ruthlessness by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij auxiliary militia. “When the people of Iran rose up against the crimes of a corrupt dictatorship,” he stated, “I did not stay silent. America stands with the people of Iran in their courageous struggle for freedom.” By contrast, Barack Obama and his obsequious acolytes were besotted by the prospect of forging détente with the despotic mullahs of the Islamic Republic. His administration remained largely silent when Iranians took to the streets in 2009 to protest a rigged election. Some have speculated that his administration missed out on a prime opportunity for regime change. It was only downhill from there. In a misguided effort to secure Iran’s willingness to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Obama sold everything including the kitchen sink. He tried selling the American people on the naïve notion that there were moderate elements of import in the Iranian government, ignoring the obvious fact that all authority in Iran is vested with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and his IRGC henchmen. The tried and true concept of peace through strength gave way to fecklessness through appeasement. Ransom payments to the tune of $1.7 billion were transferred to Iran. Promising criminal investigations targeting Iran’s chief terror proxy, Hezbollah, were shut down. Targeted liquidation operations by our Israeli allies against Iranian Quds Force leaders were foiled after Obama tipped off Tehran on Israel’s intentions. Iranian material breaches of the JCPOA were all but ignored while Iran’s ballistic missile program was allowed to proceed at full speed despite being in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231. Obama’s near messianic zealotry in his interactions with the mullahs severely compromised America’s national security and weakened its image on the international stage. Worse, it emboldened the mullahs (appeasement tends to do that) who seemed to revel in Obama’s groveling. Iran’s mischief-making extends far and wide but it is in the Arabian Gulf where friction between the IRGC and the United States Navy remains constant. Iran regards the Arabian Gulf as its domain and but for the presence of the U.S. 5th Fleet, would have full reign over its waters, which include the strategic Strait of Hormuz. In addition to securing the Gulf, the 5th Fleet serves as a constant reminder to the Iranians of their impotence. But the deterrent effect of the Navy’s 5th Fleet, and for that matter America’s military might, is only as effective as the political leadership that commands it, and Barack Obama as Commander in Chief of the armed forces did little to instill fear or project deterrence. On the contrary, the Iranians correctly viewed him as weak, indecisive and ineffectual. On his watch, American warships patrolling the Gulf were harried by armed IRGC speed boats and larger navy frigates with near impunity. At times Iranian naval vessels closed to within 600 to 150 yards of American warships. The navy termed these near ritualistic, belligerent encounters, “unsafe and unprofessional.” Iranian arrogance and impudence reached its zenith with the January 12th 2016 seizure of two American riverine command boats and their crews near Farsi Island. The RCBs and crews manning them were returned some 16 hours later but not before the Iranians stole two satellite phone sim cards, likely containing classified information, as well as thousands of pages of information downloaded from laptops, GPS devices and maps used by the sailors. Ironically, the seizure occurred on the very day that Obama was to give his State of the Union address but predictably, he didn’t think that the seizure of Americans was important enough to note. But according to the Navy, the past five months have witnessed markedly less belligerent conduct from the Iranians, leaving Navy officials baffled by the sudden positive change in attitude. In fact, Iran’s attitude adjustment in the Arabian Gulf is no mystery and stems from the Trump administration’s implementation of a new robust foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic. Soon after taking office, Trump noted that “Iran [was] playing with fire” and added that he wouldn’t be as “kind” to the mullahs as Obama was. This wasn’t empty rhetoric. It was backed up by tangible action. Additional sanctions were imposed against Iran for acting in defiance of UNSCR 2231. Sanctions were also imposed against the IRGC for supporting terrorism. Trump’s DOJ revived and breathed new life into Project Cassandra, a promising anti-Hezbollah/IRGC law enforcement initiative shelved by Obama. Most importantly, Trump failed to certify the JCPOA noting material Iranian breaches, and has threatened to abrogate the deal in its entirety unless modifications are implemented. Those modifications would include an end to absurd sunset clauses in the JCPOA and tough restrictions on ballistic missile testing. The mullahs have become cognizant of the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town, one that backs up tough talk with action and doesn’t ask “how high” when they say “jump.” Clearly, the IRGC’s new docile posture in the Arabian Gulf is a direct consequence of this realization.
Hungarian Prime Minister: ‘Christianity is Europe’s last hope’  NewsFaith, Politics - World BUDAPEST, Hungary, February 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Brushing aside any semblance of political correctness, Hungary’s Prime Minister said in his state of the nation speech on Sunday that, “Christianity is Europe's last hope.” Addressing his country and the world, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that European nations which have encouraged migration have, “opened the way to the decline of Christian culture and the advance of Islam.” Orbán painted an image of Western Europe being overwhelmed by the accelerating influx Muslim immigrants in recent years. “According to estimates, the proportion of immigrants will grow at an accelerated pace in the European countries west of us,” said Orbán. “I won't even say anything about France and Holland, but even the born Germans are being forced back from most large German cities as migrants always occupy big cities first.” Orbán warned that as Western Europe becomes saturated with Muslim occupants, Islamists would soon seek to stream in to his country from both Western Europe as well as from Islamic nations. “This means that the Islamic civilization, which always considers its vocation to convert Europe to what it calls the true faith, in the future will be knocking on the door of Central Europe not only from the south, but from the west, as well,” he said. Prime Minister Orbán said his government will oppose efforts by the United Nations or the European Union to “increase migration” around the world. In June, LifeSiteNews reported that Orbán had taken a strong stand and not backed down against outside globalist influences seeking to control his nation’s politics. Billionaire George Soros, who famously backs many progressive initiatives around the world, locked horns with Orbán over the Central European University (CEU) he founded in 1989, which has been criticized as a funnel for anti-nationalist views. Orbán and Soros have a history, beginning in partnership and ending in acrimony. Orbán started public life as a crusader against communism and attended Oxford University on a Soros scholarship. Soros, who expatriated from Hungary, also funded Orbán’s political organization, the Alliance for Young Democrats. But Orbán’s defense of conservative values has led to breaking ties with Soros, whom he now criticizes as a foreigner meddling in his country’s affairs. After Prime Minister Orbán delivered his strongly worded state of the nation speech, a UK Daily Mail report said, “Orbán has conflated the issue of immigration with the image of Soros, 87, whose name was used in a tough anti-migrant bill sent to Parliament on Wednesday.” The Daily Mail report continued: Soros, for his part, compared Orbán unfavourably to both the Nazis and the Communists, saying his rule evoked dark tones from the 1930's, when Hungary was allied with Nazi Germany. But Orbán remains committed to his policy, claiming that Soros and supporters of migration are losing the fight. He said: “Soros has antagonised not only us but also England, President Trump and Israel too. Everywhere he wants to get migration accepted. It won't work. We are not alone and we will fight together and we will succeed.” In addition to inviting Soros’ ire, Orbán came under fire a couple years ago from the U.S. State Department under President Obama as well as the European Parliament for purportedly discriminating against homosexuals because of Hungary’s insistence on defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that pre-born babies have rights. Last year, Orbán also criticized liberals and encouraged citizens to give life to more children during the 11th conference of the World Congress of Families. Three thousand “natural family” advocates who attended the four-day conference heard Orbán in his opening address lambaste the European Union (EU) for its “relativizing liberal ideology that’s an insult to families.”
Catholic bishop purges the names of his predecessors from church buildings for failing to protect children  On Wednesday, Bishop Ronald Gainer of the Catholic diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ordered that the names of all previous Harrisburg bishops from the past seven decades be removed from church buildings and rooms, because they collectively failed to protect children from dozens of predators priests and other Catholic leaders. No other Catholic prelate has conducted such a blanket purge of his predecessors' legacies, The New York Times reports. © Claudio Reyes/AFP/Getty Images Catholic Church deals with sex abuse fallout At the same time, Gainer released the names of 71 clergy and seminarians who've been credibly accused of sexual misconduct involving children dating back to 1947, apologized on behalf of the diocese and himself, waived any confidentiality agreements abuse survivors may have signed in legal settlements with the diocese, and released new guidelines for protecting children in the church. Grainer said he wanted to release the list of accused predators earlier but was asked to wait until a state grand jury inquiry into abuse in six Pennsylvania Catholic diocese, including Harrisburg, was complete. A spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who ordered the two-year investigation of Catholic sex abuse, said the Harrisburg diocese had pushed to end the grand jury investigation last year. The grand jury's findings, including allegations against more than 300 priests accused of sexual abuse dating back to 1947, will likely be released this month after the state Supreme Court gave the green light. The Catholic Church is already reeling over the revelations that former Washington Archbishop Theodore McCormick, who resigned as a cardinal over the weekend after being sanctioned by Pope Francis, has been credibly accused of sexually abusing at least two boys decades ago. McCarrick, 88, faces a trial at the Vatican and has been barred from saying public Mass.
After Calling for Guns & Ammo Confiscation & Universal Gun Registration, the American Medical Association Should Think About Taking "American" Out of Their Name  The American Medical Association (AMA) should seriously consider changing their names since they are about as anti-American as it comes in their new demands for gun confiscation measures, which include guns and ammunition confiscation, as well as universal gun registration. The AMA, which should take no political position when it comes to guns, except to uphold the law which protects the God-given rights of law-abiding citizens, came out with a lengthy blog post not only calling for guns and ammunition confiscation, as well as universal gun registration but also proposals to ban the sale and possession of “all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.” Now, the majority of people at the AMA probably couldn't tell you any of these devices or items if they saw them, but they are advancing an agenda. Just keep that in mind. 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 * Email 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. This has nothing to do with medicine or health, and far from stupid people running for Congress who spray themselves with pepper spray to tell you how it will be effective to protect your children against a criminal armed with a gun, these people don't used the word "epidemic" in their diatribe, though they are on record saying gun violence is a public health crisis. Sara Berg, a senior writer at AMA, was the author of the lengthy post which calls for all sorts of government overreach and unconstitutional legislation. And though she has a huge laundry list of things the AMA supports, she fails, like every other Socialist and Communist, to tell us exactly how these measures keep people safe and weapons out of the hands of criminals. Berg and the AMA want to pull a Dick's Sporting Goods and demand that people be 21 before they can purchase a firearm. Does Berg and the AMA support our military? Do they not know that 18-year-olds carry firearms, both handguns and rifles? I ask, as I do with the issue concerning alcohol, what is magic about the age of 21? I ask, where does government get to determine who gets to do whatever at whatever age based on an ambiguous age number? Yet, if we do that, we won't have to worry about mass shooters, right? Wrong. Yeah, that's gonna keep people safe. It's going to infringe on the rights of those who don't commit crimes and need a gun to protect themselves or be part of the constitutional militia. The AMA also wants to bypass the Fifth Amendment protections concerning someone actually being indicted and found guilty of a crime being deprived of their liberty and property as they promote a new legal procedure by which “family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel” can petition courts to confiscate firearms from people “when there is a high or imminent risk for violence.” They want to do what President Donald Trump suggested and "take the guns first" and forget due process. See? This is why they should be honest about who they are and name themselves the Non-American Medical Association. I'm all for situations like Nikolas Cruz who assaulted teachers and students being arrested and tried and dealt with lawfully, but to go seizing people's property and denying them their liberty base on the hearsay of another person is anti-constitutional and anti-American. Who knows exactly what they mean by high-capacity magazines. I mean, for the most part, you can obtain 20 or 30 round magazines for both handguns and rifles. In some cases, you can purchase drums which hold 50-100 rounds, but if you are in New York, the NY SAFE Act defines your high capacity magazine to hold anything more than 7 rounds. As for the nonsensical call to ban armor-piercing bullets, virtually every caliber of bullet, except maybe a .22 can pierce kevlar-based vests, and if you are using .22 magnums, they will even pierce those! At the 2018 AMA Annual Meeting, delegates adopted policy for the AMA to support: Establishing laws allowing family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel to petition a court for the removal of a firearm when there is a high or imminent risk for violence. Prohibiting persons who are under domestic violence restraining orders, convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes or stalking from possessing or purchasing firearms. Expanding domestic violence restraining orders to include dating partners. Requiring states to have protocols or processes in place for requiring the removal of firearms by prohibited persons. Requiring domestic violence restraining orders and gun violence restraining orders to be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Efforts to ensure the public is aware of the existence of laws that allow for the removal of firearms from high-risk individuals. The delegates also modified existing policy to: Recognize the role of firearms in suicides. Encourage the development of curricula and training for physicians with a focus on suicide risk assessment and prevention as well as lethal means safety counseling. Encourage physicians, as a part of their suicide prevention strategy, to discuss lethal means safety and work with families to reduce access to lethal means of suicide. Newly adopted policy also means the AMA will: Advocate for schools to remain gun-free zones except for school-sanctioned activities and professional law enforcement officials. Oppose requirements or incentives of teachers to carry weapons. They also oppose concealed carry reciprocity, which I do as well, but based on the principle that the Second Amendment's protections extend to the various states as well, since it recognizes a right, not a permission, to keep and bear arms. I also oppose it because it's just another step for the federal government to say they need a database so states can check, thus identifying gun owners and possibly their weapons. “People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,” said AMA Immediate Past President David O. Barbe, MD, MHA. “In emergency rooms across the country, the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience. “Every day,” Dr. Barbe added, “physicians are treating suicide victims, victims of domestic partner violence, and men and women simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn’t have to be this way, and we urge lawmakers to act.” Yeah, and people are dying by the hundreds of thousands at the hands of drugs approved by the FDA, but I don't hear you guys calling to shut down the unconstitutional FDA or put Big Pharma out of business, does anyone else? Where is Berg's blog post on that? Where is the AMA statement against the pharmaceutical companies and big government? I'll tell you why they aren't speaking out on that... they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, plain and simple.
US Conference of Mayors Call For More Gun Confiscation Legislation  The United States Conference of Mayors passed several resolutions last week that called for more gun confiscation legislation following all the debate about guns after several shootings, despite the fact that government has never been given authority to restrict or regulate arms. Part of the hypocrisy of the US Conference of Mayors is that they actually push to infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights while claiming that it is consistent with the Second Amendment. For example, the organization writes in support of David Hogg's #NeverAgain movement, "WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors 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." 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 * 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. And just what kind of policies are we talking about? According to the mayors: Strengthening the Regulation of Gun Sales and Dealers, including: Limiting the number of guns a person may purchase in a single transaction or in a month or other specified period of time; Banning replica handguns; Increasing inspections of licensed gun dealers; and Targeting and holding responsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to straw purchasers; Banning Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines, including: Reinstating a strengthened, effective ban on military-style assault weapons, such as AK-47s, and their component parts; and Banning large capacity ammunition feeding devices and the importation of all large capacity ammunition clips. Supporting Local Efforts to Reduce and Combat Gun Crimes, including: Opposing concealed carry reciprocity policies and legislation that would circumvent city policies established to protect residents; Providing local governments and law enforcement officials access to ATF gun trace data; Opposing "Stand Your Ground" or "Shoot First" laws and urging state legislatures that have adopted such laws to repeal them; and Encouraging mayors to take executive actions to combat gun violence and illegal use and trafficking of guns; Protecting Young People, including: Opposing proposals to allow teachers and other non-law enforcement, non-security personnel to carry firearms in K-12 schools; Raising the youth handgun ban from 18 to 21 years of age; Banning juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault rifles; and Holding gun owners criminally liable when children gain access to improperly stored guns. Protecting Domestic Violence Victims, including: Prohibiting persons convicted of domestic violence crimes or subject to final domestic violence restraining orders from acquiring or possessing firearms; and Requiring prohibited domestic abusers to turn in firearms they already own; How any of this is consistent with support for the Second Amendment is anyone's guess. I think they throw that language in to cover for the fact that they are attacking it head on and attacking the rights of the people. How does any of this stop gun violence? It doesn't. What it does do is infringe on the rights of teachers, law-abiding citizens who want to purchase several guns which they will use lawfully, sides with criminals against law-abiding citizens as it opposes stand your ground and other measures written specifically to protect people who would normally be victims of crime. Banning semi-automatic weapons doesn't stop crime either, as we've pointed out before, and the statistics are available for anyone to see that gun violence didn't go down one bit during the decade of the Clinton/Feinstein assault weapons ban. These geniuses also "Support Enactment of Comprehensive Background Checks, Ban the Sale of Bump Stocks and Related Devices and Prevent the Arming of Teachers in Schools." Again, this will do nothing to stop criminals with guns. Why? Because they won't follow your unconstitutional and unlawful laws in the first place! On top of that, the criminal mayors want to institute red flag laws. "The U.S. Conference of Mayors registers its strong support for extreme risk protection order laws and urges both states and the federal government to enact such laws," the group wrote. They are fully in support of violating the Fifth Amendment rights of otherwise law-abiding citizens based on merely the fact that someone claims that a family member is a harm to themselves or others, even though they have not committed a crime. This is the Trump, "Take the guns first and then due process" mantra. Guns.com reported on some of the statements made by some of these mayors. Karen Freeman-Wilson, mayor of Gary, Indiana and chairwoman of the conference’s criminal and social justice committee, said gun-related tragedies “rips families and communities apart.” “Policies like background checks on all gun sales and Red Flag Laws save lives. It’s as simple as that,” Freeman-Wilson said. “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.” St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said the new resolutions show mayors will “lead the way in solving our gun violence crisis.” “We wouldn’t be doing our jobs as mayors if we weren’t focusing on gun violence — an issue that threatens the public safety of every community, big and small,” she said. “Our bipartisan network of mayors knows how to work together and compromise on policies that save lives. If only our partners in Congress did the same.” Gun control groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised the conference for reaffirming its support for stricter regulations. “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,” said Everytown president John Feinblatt. “It’s time for our leaders in Washington to follow the lead of America’s mayors and put public safety over NRA priorities.” None of these statements can be backed up by facts. The facts refute their arguments, but beyond that, the Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms is a right given to us by our Creator, not a permission we gain from government. So, while they tell you they support the Second Amendment and that their unlawful policies are consistent with it, nothing could be further from the truth. If you buy into this, you probably think places like Chicago, Illinois are among the safest places to live in the US when the opposite is true. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
Army Colonel: False Flag ‘Gulf of Tonkin Incident’ May Be Used to Get US Into War with Iran  Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war. On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported, “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim. But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed. Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’” If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did. Sadly, the United States has a tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. And now, a US Army Colonel is predicting that another Gulf of Tonkin incident could bring us into war with Iran. As President Donald Trump continues to surround himself with neocon warhawks, the drums are beating for war with Iran. The rhetoric is becoming so strong, that Trump himself — without provocation — began tweeting threats to the sovereign nation. On Tuesday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Colonel Douglas Macgregor addressed the growing prospect of US war with Iran and warned that a new “Gulf of Tonkin incident” could be used to drag us into it. Carlson mocked the neocons’ claims that Iran is the “greatest threat” to America, explicitly noting that “virtually every attack in America has been inspired not by Iran, but by Iran’s Sunni enemies.” Carlson pointed out how the neocons are hellbent on pushing the Trump administration into a new war. “If there was ever a swamp in Washington you are looking at it — the foreign policy establishment — they are working overtime to ensnare the president in a mess in Iran,” Carlson said. “Let’s hope that he understands exactly what’s going on.” Pointing out Trump’s recent attempts at diplomacy with North Korea and Russia, Col. Macgregor weighed in, noting that he thinks Trump will attempt to avoid war with Iran. However, he noted that a false flag could be used to drag us into it. “I think the president needs to watch carefully for the potential for something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident,” Col. Macgregor said. “Many of your viewers may not remember that it never happened and we could very well be treated to something like that in the Gulf. We should watch for that, and this is an example of President Trump’s comments on fake news, he should not be sabotage by fake news.” Carlson then pointed out how the Trump admin has reacted to fake news by attacking Syria—twice. For those who may be unaware, the plan to overthrow Iran has long been in the works. In fact, in April 2012, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained (Mojahedin-e Khalq) MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009. MEK is the Iranian political-militant organization that advocates for the violent overthrow of the current Iranian regime. They are hardly quiet about it. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site until President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Hersh also reported additional names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Coincidentally, MEK was classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and its allies—during this training period—until they suddenly removed them from the list in 2012. While the current Iranian regime is certainly no bastion of freedom, the idea that US intervention or a violent revolution would be beneficial for the people of Iran is outright insane. To see what US intervention—through military support and the support of ‘protesters’—does to countries, one need only look at Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to see the horrific death tolls and war-ravaged dystopias left in America’s wake. To those paying attention over the years, Trump’s desire to intervene in Iran, and his subsequent support in the media should come as no surprise as it has been the plan since Bill Clinton was in office and was documented in the neoconservative PNAC report. This was even admitted by General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, that the U.S. planned on going to war with Iran, according to a 2001 memo from the U.S. Secretary of Defense. “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,” Clark said. “Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.” All presidents since Clinton have crossed countries off this list. Now it’s Trump’s turn. Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project
Las Vegas Shooting: A THIRD Timeline Emerges  Editor's Note: This is probably a reason why reporters Laura Loomer and Mike Tokes were barred from entering the presser. They would have posed real genuine questions of Sheriff Lombardo and forced him to stumble all over himself in answering them. The words “conspiracy theorists” are being bandied about. Are they for real? A well-coordinated, meticulously planned attack on concertgoers leads to the murder of 58 Americans at a country music festival in Las Vegas, with over 500 injured, and they have no explanation or motive. Do the FBI and law enforcement think people won’t talk about it or speculate as to what happened? Are they for real? Further, the FBI insists there is no jihad motive, while saying they don’t know his motive. How can they possibly hold those two contradictory ideas at the same time? The sheriff, alluding to allegations of a conspiracy between his department, the F.B.I., and MGM — supposedly in an effort to establish a legal case — said, “there is no conspiracy.” William Jacobson explains the latest “revise” by the authorities is the now infamously botched Vegas investigation: October 13, 2017, Legal Insurrection  Police and hotel still don’t agree on some details. I realize that in the heat of a shooting, particularly a mass shooting, it may take some time for a precise timeline to develop. But it didn’t take very long for the Las Vegas police to release a precise timeline. The initial timeline was that Stephen Paddock’s shooting stopped when, approximately 6 minutes after he started, he was interrupted by a security guard from the Mandalay Bay hotel. Paddock then turned his fire into the hallway, firing some 200 bullets, and after that the shooting stopped as police arrived. That was Version No. 1. Some days later, the Las Vegas police backed away from that timeline, and stated that the security guard actually arrived 6 minutes before Paddock started shooting into the crowd 32 stories below him. That raised a number of question, including why no one called 911 after what must have been a loud volley of shots in a hotel hallway. That was Version No. 2. But now that is disputed, in Version No. 3. WaPo reports: Las Vegas police said Friday that the gunman who opened fire on a country music festival far below his hotel suite did not shoot a security guard six minutes before that rampage, contradicting a timeline they had offered earlier this week…. The confusion began Monday when police said that the gunman fired at the hotel security guard, Jesus Campos, six minutes before the mass shooting began, not during the massacre as they had said. Lombardo also said police had hunted for the source of the gunfire and that officers responding to the gunman’s floor were unaware that a guard was shot until they arrived there, at which point the shooting rampage had ended. MGM Resorts pushed back on this account, first saying Tuesday that there were unspecified inaccuracies and then, on Thursday, releasing a statement directly contradicting parts of what the police had said…. Lombardo had said Monday that Campos, the guard, was shot at 9:59 p.m. and that the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m. This six-minute gap relayed by Lombardo left uncertain whether there was any lag in alerting police to the source of the gunfire during critical moments. Police said officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m., two minutes after Paddock had stopped firing. MGM, though, said it was “confident” that the 9:59 p.m. time was inaccurate and “was derived from a Mandalay Bay report manually created after the fact without the benefit of information we now have.” The company also disputed the suggestion of a lag, saying the shooting rampage began within a minute of Campos reporting his injury on the 32nd floor. On Friday, Lombardo effectively agreed with the company’s statement, though he argued that the 9:59 p.m. time he had offered four days earlier “wasn’t inaccurate when I provided it.” Lombardo said he was told this time had been written by someone in a security log. Upon investigation, Lombardo said, police learned that Campos first encountered a barricaded door on the 32nd floor at 9:59 p.m. The guard was eventually fired upon by Paddock “in close proximity to” 10:05 p.m., when the mass shooting began, Lombardo continued. Clear, right? Not so fast, the police and hotel still have disagreement over important details, such as when police arrived relative to Paddock’s shooting at the crowd: An enormous, important discrepancy has emerged over what happened during the Las Vegas massacre: When did police arrive on the 32nd floor where Stephen Paddock was firing his deadly fusillade onto concertgoers below? Las Vegas police say they didn’t get to the floor until after the shooting was over. But MGM Resorts International, the owner of Mandalay Bay, says police officers were there shortly after the shooting began, responding to a report of a security guard being shot. The discrepancy could raise questions about whether police might have taken steps to intervene while Paddock was launching his devastating 10-minute onslaught…. … on Thursday, in response to inquiries about when Mandalay Bay notified police of the Campos shooting, MGM Resorts issued a statement that was unequivocal: Las Vegas police officers accompanied Mandalay Bay security to the Campos shooting and “immediately responded.” MGM said that “Metro officers were together with armed Mandalay Bay security officers in the building when Campos first reported that shots were fired over the radio. These Metro officers and armed Mandalay Bay security officers immediately responded to the 32nd floor.” The statement says MGM believes Paddock began firing out the window of his room within 40 seconds of Campos reporting his shooting, and Lombardo said Friday, “I agree with the statement.” These discrepancies on basic facts are feeding conspiracy theories. As to Paddock’s motive, still nothing from the investigation. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
Apparently, They Think We are Fools  As Pope Francis continues his five-year-long tirade against the imaginary Catholic Pharisees who defend the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the integrally related Eucharistic discipline—he is still at it as of yesterday (January 9)—he and his collaborators are busily engineering neo-Pharisaical escape hatches from the negative precepts of the divine and natural law emanating from the Sixth Commandment. Determined to quell any Catholic opposition to his moral subversion, Francis has slapped the label Authentic Magisterium® on his outrageous opinion that in “complex circumstances” wherein it is not “feasible” to live as brother and sister, two people who are not married can be admitted to Holy Communion without ceasing extra-marital sexual relations so long as they engage in an ill-defined “process of discernment.” As Father Brian Harrison has so trenchantly observed, this means that people embroiled in adultery can receive Holy Communion while they “discern” that they should not be receiving Holy Communion because they are embroiled in adultery. Do they think we are fools? Then there is the endlessly double-talking Cardinal Müller. In a recent interview concerning Rocco Buttiglione’s verbal contortions aimed at demonstrating that the administration of Holy Communion to public adulterers is consistent with the Church’s bimillenial prohibition of precisely that, Müller proposed this preposterous “solution” to a “problem” that does not exist: It is possible that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament, certainly with the appropriate precautions as not to scandalize the community of the faithful and not to weaken the conviction of marriage indissolubility. The Cardinal knows this is moral and canonical nonsense. No Catholic, whether or not he consults a priest, can declare for himself that his marriage in the Church was invalid, especially when—indeed because—he lacks canonical proof of invalidity. Moreover, absent an annulment granted by the competent Church tribunal, a purported “second marriage” can only be an invalid civil ceremony and thus a thinly disguised form of continuous public adultery. Cardinal Burke, whom Francis sacked as head of the Church’s highest tribunal because he was a major impediment to the conspiracy culminating in Amoris Laetitia (AL), has observed the obvious in this regard: Such cases do not exist. No priest has the authority to declare a marriage null in the internal forum. Marriage is a public state in the Church, and the judgment regarding an accusation of nullity of marriage must be made in accord with the long practice of the Church. If a college of judges in a matrimonial tribunal is not able to arrive at moral certitude regarding the nullity of a marriage after a careful and thorough examination of the petition of nullity, how can an individual priest be capable of making such a judgment having to do with the eternal salvation of the soul in question? The only case in which a priest could admit a person living in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist is the case of a couple who agree to live “as brother and sister”, that is to respect the marriage to which they are bound by not living in a marital way with another person. Even then, the priest would have to insist that the couple living in continence receive the Sacraments in a place in which they are not well known, lest other faithful be led to believe that persons living in an irregular matrimonial union may receive the Sacraments. Does Cardinal Müller think we are fools? Some of us apparently are, or at least are willing to serve as knowing dupes by defending neo-Pharisaical sophistry that would produce “a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” Apparently, they think they can fool us in the next phase of the program of moral subversion that this incredible Pope seriously expects us to believe is an imperative of “mercy”: the justification of contraception in “complex cases” to which “discernment” must be applied. Consider the recent declaration by one of Francis’s new appointments to the Pontifical Academy for Life, whose entire membership he sacked and whose constitution he ordered rewritten to neutralize it. In a lecture at the Gregorian, one Father Maurizio Chiodi, a “moral theologian” of the post-Vatican II variety, proposed that “an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as anact of responsibilitythat is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situationsresponsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.” That is, Francis’s man at the reconstituted Pontifical Academy declares openly that there is a duty to contracept! Chiodi’s sole “authority” for this lie from the pit of hell is nothing more than Chapter 8 of AL, the only document of its kind in the entire history of the Church. AL will doubtless be providing cover for a whole new line of Authentic Magisterium® products, all of which will be utter fakes, including some form of “pastoral integration” of homosexual unions. Evidently, they do think we are fools or willing to play the fool in exchange for the benefits of respectable conformity in the midst of an unparalleled debacle for the Church. (Consider the example of Catholic Answers, which “defends the Faith” while refusing to recognize that it is under ferocious attack from the very vertices of the Church. Silence at best is the price it must pay for remaining in good standing with the pro-homosexual bishop Francis has installed in San Diego.) But we are not fools. And God will not be mocked. Francis and all his designs will ultimately come to nothing. Meanwhile, ours is but to keep the Faith and protest before God and man the blows now raining down against the Church, even when they come from a wayward Roman Pontiff at her summit. Indeed, especially then.
Records Support Claims That Minnesota Muslima State Rep Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother  Ilhan Omar has accused Israel of “evil doings” in Gaza and called Israel an “apartheid state.” It isn’t surprising that Ilhan Omar would think this way. She is a hijab-wearing, devout Muslim, and Islamic Jew-hatred is in the Quran. What is shameful about this is that her views are mainstream in the Democrat Party today. She should never have been chosen as a candidate for Congress with hateful views of this kind, but this is the way the Democrat leadership, and the Democrat base, thinks. They want candidates like Ilhan Omar. And they know they’ll win, because this is their base today. 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 * 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. Neither the Democrat leadership nor the Democrat base cares that she married her brother. She is a Muslim and a leftist, so she can further their identity politics. That’s all that matters to them. “Official School Records Support Claims That Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Married Her Brother,” by David Steinberg, PJ Media, October 23, 2018 (thanks to Mark): Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
Communion to Adulterers Promulgated as "Authentic Magisterium"  Last week, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)—the Vatican's organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See—published Pope Francis' October 2016 letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires in which he praised their episcopal guidelines allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective mortal sin. If papal clarification was ever needed on the long-debated issue of the intended meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII, such clarification has now been provided for the Church at large. Concerning these guidelines that allow "the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist" in "complex circumstances" where "limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt" permit adulterous couples to continue in adultery, the pope said in his letter: "The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations." Until now, the pope's letter to the Argentinian bishops had been considered a private letter with no binding force, whereas AAS has now elevated Pope Francis' letter to the official magisterial status of an "Apostolic Letter," while including a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. The rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends both documents—the papal letter and the episcopal guidelines—to bear the character of his "authentic Magisterium," and that the pope has personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website. Hence Amoris Laetitia VIII, which proposes that people living in adultery can be guiltless and thus be admitted to the sacraments of Confession and Communion when "concrete circumstances" make it difficult to renounce their adulterous state, is now declared "magisterial" by the Holy See. The problem with this is that heresy or sacrilege can never be declared magisterial, so that if it is, it not only has no binding force, but the faithful are obliged to resist and refute such a declaration. St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Theologiae: "If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate [pope] even publicly." The fact is that this latest promulgation is counter-magisterial, but the pope and his right-hand man now feel they have enough support from the dissenting left that enables them to come forward with it. Cardinal Parolin's rescript on the papal and episcopal documents reads as follows: Rescript "from an Audience with His Holiness" The Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two preceding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium. From the Vatican Palace, on the day of June 5 in the year 2017 Pietro Card. Parolin Secretary of State The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a papal rescript as follows: "Rescripts are responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. Some rescripts concern the granting of favors; others the administration of justice, e.g. the interpretation of a law." It appears then that Parolin's rescript constitutes a direct reply to the dubia of the Four Cardinals. Pope Francis' praise of the episcopal guidelines clearly answers the cardinals' query concerning his intention in Amoris Laetitia VIII, so will Cardinals Brandmuller and Burke now proceed to issue the formal correction of it? As reported in The Dictator Pope—a remarkable new book which provides an inside look at the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of recent history—English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor who was largely responsible for the vote canvassing behind Francis' election told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, "Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things." Each day, we see new evidence that this might have been a gross understatement. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that Francis may come forward one day and declare "ex-cathedra" that the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia VIII, as now taught by the Holy See, is promulgated as "extraordinary magisterium." Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope." Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: "In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact."
Julian Assange  The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy. The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be. They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home. Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian’s case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected. We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a U.S. extradition warrant is successful — a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture. I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him. In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the U.S. Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. Against the State: An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price: $9.95 Buy New $9.95 (as of 06:00 EDT - Details) This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution” and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech. Vichy Media Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth. The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France. Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as “the icon for your generation”. This was the same Clinton who threatened to “obliterate totally” Iran and, who, as U.S. secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies. When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists. Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean, and many drowned. WikiLeaks Exposed Clinton Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton’s foundation – which she shares with her husband – received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East. As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever — worth $80 billion — to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation’s principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen. Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her. Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the “damage” Julian Assange did “personally to you”. In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as “very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence” and “a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator”. She offered no evidence — nor was asked for any — to back her grave allegations. At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia’s publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him. As if that wasn’t enough, Ferguson’s executive producer, Sally Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: “Assange is Putin’s bitch. We all know it!” There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from. The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:50 EDT - Details) The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist. Maligning and Profiting off Assange WikiLeaks’ revelations became part of the Guardian’s marketing plan to raise the paper’s cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive. With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. The question is why. Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated. Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.” This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States. According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. One leaked official memo says: “Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever.” In Alexandra, Virginia – the suburban home of America’s war-making elite — a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages — has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy; the U.S. Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange’s crime is to have broken a silence. They Never Happened No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of “unworthy” lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza. When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to “a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed”. He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought” of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America’s imperial crimes “never happened … even while [they] were happening, they never happened.” No Place to Hide: Edwa... Glenn Greenwald Best Price: $1.49 Buy New $3.70 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger. Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange’s lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory — in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government’s attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher — in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power. The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks “illegal” and wanted to cancel Assange’s passport — until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories. In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Prime Minister Gillard’s outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London. Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists. If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian’s passport. Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange’s father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy. I have watched Assange’s health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray. Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his government’s diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.
NASA captures farthest ever image from Earth  © Press Release The historic photograph taken by the New Horizons spacecraft. Pic: NASA NASA has released a record-breaking photograph taken by the New Horizons spacecraft when it was 3.79 billion miles away from the Earth. New Horizons flew past Pluto in July 2015, taking pictures which revealed an even more diverse landscape than scientists had previously imagined. After the fly-by, the spacecraft continued into the Kuiper Belt - similar to the asteroid belt but further out from the Sun and composed of dwarf planets and frozen ice, rather than rocky bodies. Now, using its Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI), the spacecraft has photographed several Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs) and dwarf planets at unique angles. © Other A zoomed-in version of the 'Pale Blue Dot' image The false-colour images released by NASA are the farthest from Earth ever captured by a spacecraft, and are also the closest-ever images of Kuiper Belt objects. New Horizons was even further away from Earth than the Voyager 1 space probe when it turned towards the Earth on 14 February 1990 and took a picture of a tiny dot. In 1994, US astronomer Carl Sagan reflected on the significance of the photograph to an audience at Cornell University, famously coining its name as the "Pale Blue Dot", and giving one of the most widely published speeches of all time. © Getty Carl Sagan and the 'Pale Blue Dot' photograph New Horizons is only the fifth man-made spacecraft to ever travel beyond the outer planets, and many of its activities are setting distance records, according to NASA. In December it successfully carried out the most-distant course-correction manoeuvre ever, with the mission team guiding it towards a close-encounter with a KBO scheduled for 1 January 2019. "That New Year's flight past MU69 will be the farthest planetary encounter in history, happening one billion miles beyond the Pluto system - which New Horizons famously explored in July 2015," said NASA. Fortunately, the spacecraft is healthy and functioning properly, although it is currently in hibernation. The mission controllers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, will bring the spacecraft out of its electronic slumber in June to begin a series of system checkouts and other activities to prepare it for the next record-breaking encounter.
Pope Francis Denounces “Murderous Indifference” To Persecution Of Christians, Of Which He Is A Chief Architect  Associated Press reported that the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and other Orthodox Patriarchs met with Pope Francis on Saturday, and that the Pope had some strong words to say about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. The Pope couldn’t resist an anti-Semitic shot at Israeli “occupation,” but he also seemed to denounce Islamic jihad activity, saying: “So many conflicts have been stoked too by forms of fundamentalism and fanaticism that, under the guise of religion, have profaned God’s name – which is peace – and persecuted age-old neighbors.” He decried the “thirst for profit that surreptitiously exploits oil and gas fields without regard for our common home, with no scruples about the fact that the energy market now dictates the law of coexistence among peoples!” The Pope lamented the fact that in recent years the Middle East has been “covered by dark clouds of war, violence and destruction, instances of occupation and varieties of fundamentalism, forced migration and neglect.” And he deplored the fact that “all this has taken place amid the complicit silence of many. The Middle East has become a land of people who leave their own lands behind.” He cried: “Indifference kills, and we desire to lift up our voices in opposition to this murderous indifference. For the Middle East today is weeping, suffering and silent as others trample upon those lands in search of power or riches.” These are odd statements coming from Pope Francis, a world-class Islamopanderer; notice that he said nothing about who was doing the persecuting, and implied that it was the fault of powers outside the Middle East. The Catholic Church as a whole has committed itself to Islamopandering, such that it is largely silent about the Muslim persecution of Christians that has taken place in the Middle East. Why? The Catholic Church is following Pope Francis’ lead, and Francis has said: “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist.” And he has also said: “Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. This has had a terrible influence upon the Catholic Church, and aids and abets the Western political and media elites in their determination to cover up the Muslim persecution of Christians. Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, gave an interview to a French reporter in which he was highly critical of the mainstream media and even of his fellow bishops for ignoring the Muslim persecution of Middle Eastern Christians. “The European media,” he charged, “have not ceased to suppress the daily news of those who are suffering in Syria and they have even justified what is happening in our country by using information without taking the trouble to verify it.” And as for his brother bishops in France, “the conference of French bishops should have trusted us, it would have been better informed. Why are your bishops silent on a threat that is yours today as well? Because the bishops are like you, raised in political correctness. But Jesus was never politically correct, he was politically just!” Archbishop Jeanbart was not the first to say this. “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?” asked Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI). Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan himself has in the past appealed to the West“not to forget the Christians in the Middle East.” The former Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.” But Gregory III should have understood, since he was a major part of the problem. He himself said: “No one defends Islam like Arab Christians.” It is to defend Islam that Western clerics do not raise their voice against such acts of brutality. It is to pursue a fruitless and chimerical “dialogue” that bishops in the U.S. and Europe keep silent about Muslim persecution of Christians, and enforce that silence upon others. Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, said it on February 8, 2013 as he was suppressing a planned talk at a Catholic conference on that persecution: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” Remember that Mohamed Atta, about the plane he had hijacked on September 11, 2001, told passengers over the intercom: “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.” The Catholic Church appears to have adopted that statement as its policy regarding Muslim persecution of Christians. “Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Trump suggests he would have picked another AG who could have blocked Russia probe  Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that he would have picked another attorney general if it would have stopped an investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election. In his latest public slam at Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- who, citing his involvement with the Trump campaign, recused himself from the investigation last year, paving the way for the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller -- Trump said he would have "quickly picked someone else" had he known about the recusal. "The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn't tell me he was going to recuse himself," Trump tweeted Tuesday. "I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined...and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!"
Former Navy Sailor Pardoned By Trump To Sue Obama & Comey  Kristian Saucier, a former Navy sailor who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine he worked on but was later pardoned by President Donald Trump, says that he is going to pursue a lawsuit against several Obama administration members, including Former FBI Director James Comes and Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah. The same FBI that gave Hillary Clinton a pass for operating an illegal email server, which we have evidence for the fact that she sent and received classified documents through resulting in a national security breach and at least one death, but would not give the same leniency to Saucier who simply took some pictures of his submarine. Fox News reports: 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 * Email 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. His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must lapse before the lawsuit actually is filed. “We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.” Saucier's attorneys attempted to use the Hillary Clinton defense to get him out of hot water for taking pictures of classified systems aboard the USS Alexandria in 2009. Prosecutors sloughed off the defense, saying it was essentially “grasping at highly imaginative and speculative straws in trying to further draw a comparison to the matter of Secretary Hillary Clinton based upon virtually no understanding and knowledge of the facts involved, the information at issue, not to mention any issues if intent and knowledge.” Saucier confessed to taking photos of the submarine back in 2009 when he served as a 22-year-old machinist mate, saying he wanted to show the pictures to his family and future children. Following an interview with the FBI in 2012, he destroyed all evidence of the pictures, meaning the Naval Criminal Investigative Service could not confirm his claims that he did not share the photos with unauthorized people. “It was a foolish mistake by a very young man,” Saucier’s lawyer, Greg Rinckey, said. “It’s a very sad case because Kristian Saucier is a fine young man. We don’t believe this was really his true character.” “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” Saucier said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton,” he continued, alleging his life was ruined for political reasons. President Trump had spoken of his support of Saucier on the campaign trail and blasted the Obama administration's handling of his case. “With a pardon, there’s no magic wand that gets waved and makes everything right,” Saucier said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” That's a good attitude considering he has had his cars repossessed and is in a tremendous amount of debt due to his incarceration and now having a felony on his record. But hey, Hillary is free, right? That's all that matters, cause after all, they're (Bill and Hillary) good people, aren't they, Mr. President? I think it's great that Mr. Saucier has been pardoned, I really do, but I continue to ask what a lot of Americans continue to ask, why does the known criminal Hillary Clinton remain at large in our country with her corrupt foundation taking in billions, her trashing our Republic and continuing to have a national voice? The American people weren't promised pardons, we were promised a special counsel to dig into the Clintons and bring about justice. It's time that occurred.
Tenth bishop signs ‘Profession of Immutable Truths’ in defense of marriage  NewsCatholic Church, Family, Marriage ROME, February 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – His Excellency Elmar Fischer, bishop emeritus of Feldkirch, Austria, has signed the “Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage,” LifeSiteNews confirmed on Monday. Bishop Fischer is the tenth prelate to sign the profession. As has been widely reported, three bishops in Kazakhstan – Tomash Peta, Jan Pawel Lenga, and Athanasius Schneider – issued a Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage on Dec. 31, 2017. The profession was made public on Jan. 2, 2018. In the document, the three bishops solemnly professed the Church’s received teaching and discipline regarding sacramental marriage and the limited conditions (see Familiaris Consortio, n. 84) under which Catholics who are civilly divorced and joined in a second union may receive sacramental absolution and Holy Communion. Ordained to the priesthood in 1961, Fischer headed the Marriage and Family Centre of the Feldkirch diocese from 1979 to 1990. After serving as vicar general of the diocese from 1989, in 2005 Pope Benedict XVI appointed him bishop of Felkirch where he served until 2011, retiring at the age of 75. Bishop Fischer’s support of the profession comes one week after Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakstan, invited the world’s bishops to sign the document and join in raising a common voice in defense of the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. “God decides the time, and the time will come when the Pope and the episcopacy again will proclaim, with all clarity, unambiguity and beauty, the sanctity of marriage, and of the family, and of the Eucharist,” Schneider told LifesiteNews in an exclusive Jan. 15 interview. Schneider said greater public support of the document from the world’s 5,000 bishops would be “a stronger voice for professing the constant truths of the Church, and it would be a beautiful common voice defending the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage in the midst of a real neo-pagan society where divorce has become a plague and where sexual depravity is increasingly spreading.” Bishop Fischer’s public support of the Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage brings the number of signatories to nine bishops and one cardinal. To date, in addition to the three original signatories from Kazakstan, the following prelates have signed the profession: • Cardinal Janis Pujats, Emeritus Archbishop Metropolitan of Riga, Latvia • Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò of Italy and former apostolic nuncio to the United States • His Excellency Luigi Negri, Archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy • Bishop Andreas Laun, Emeritus Auxiliary of Salzburg, Austria • His Excellency Rene Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA • His Excellency Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop of Chur, Switzerland • His Excellency Elmar Fischer, Bishop emeritus of Feldkirch, Austria.
First American Citizen To Be Convicted Of Joining ISIS Gets 20 Years  The first American citizen to be convicted of successfully joining the Islamic State has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Mohamad Khweis, unlike the dozens of other people in the United States who failed to join ISIS and were subsequently charged, actually made it to Syria, but after just three months tried to escape and was captured by Kurdish forces, The Washington Post reports. Khweis is an interesting case for numerous reasons. First, there was no particular event or friend who ignited his radicalization. Second, he successfully made it to Syria via Turkey. And third, he came from a secular home that was stable. His life before joining the caliphate was unremarkable. He obtained an associate’s degree in criminal justice and worked as a bus driver in Alexandria, Va. He also abused marijuana over the past few years. Khweis’ defense attorney said Friday that even he has no idea what caused Khweis to join ISIS. “It’s difficult to understand,” defense attorney John Zwerling said Friday. “We don’t really know what caused him to travel to Syria.” From the very start of his trial, Khweis said he regretted his actions and said his decision to join ISIS in December 2015 was a drunken one. “I hated myself for making the worst decision I ever made,” Khweis wrote to the judge in a letter. “I ruined my life and my family’s life.” Prosecutors, who pushed for 35 years in prison, accused Khweis of lying repeatedly over the last 15 months of the trial. When Khweis was first captured in Iraq in March 2016, he told the FBI that he was following a young woman. However, that young woman didn’t exist. “This defendant executed his plan to perfection,” prosecutor Dennis Fitzpatrick said. “He got into the Islamic State. He was in their machinery. He was providing himself and his services to the organization.” Article posted with permission from The Daily Caller News Foundation
A student failed an assignment because her professor believed Australia 'is not a country'  Australia is a country. Just so we're all clear. Shutterstock A professor at Southern New Hampshire University failed one of her student's assignments because the professor incorrectly thought Australia "is not a country," according to a report in BuzzFeed News. Australia is, in fact, a country. The student, Ashley Arnold, is working towards an online sociology degree with the university. For one of her final assignments, she had to compare a social norm in the United States to another country. She chose to compare social media use in the US to what it's like in Australia. The professor, according to BuzzFeed News, failed Arnolds because "Australia is a continent; not a country," which, again, is incorrect, just so we're clear here. Australia is both a continent and a country. When Arnold complained, the professor said they'd reexamine the assignment, but did not concede that Australia was a country. "Australia is a continent; it is not a country. That error made it nearly impossible for you to accurately complete your week 2 research outline correctly," the professor wrote in an email obtained by BuzzFeed News. "As I mentioned above I will look over your week two paper once again and see if you earned more credits than I gave you." In another email exchange, Arnold correctly asserted that Australia is a country, linking to the "About Australia" section of the country's website: Australia is both a country and a continent. It's the only country that is both. I provided a resource in the first email that clarifies that for you. If you need further clarification google or the SNHU Shapiro Library has that information you. Again I mean no disrespect but my grade is affected by your assumption that Australia is not a country when it in fact is. Thank you and let me know if I need to provide further resources proving Australia is a country. The professor said they'd take Arnold's concerns into consideration. "Thank you for this web-address," they wrote. "After I do some independent research on the continent/country issue I will review your paper." After a period of review, the professor changed Arnold's grade to a B+, according to BuzzFeed News. The professor did not acknowledge their error. A representative for Southern New Hampshire University didn't immediately respond to INSIDER's request for comment. In a tweet, it said it refunded Arnold's tuition for the class and "replaced the instructor." Sign up here to get INSIDER's favorite stories straight to your inbox.
Keith Ellison Defends Louis Farrakhan: "He Had Something To Offer"  Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), aka Hakim Muhammad, recently defended his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who recently paralleled Jews with termites. During a debate with Republican opponent Doug Wardlow, Ellison was asked about his previous support of Farrakhan, but then claims that he has distanced himself from Farrakhan. Yeah, right, Hakim! Understand that Ellison attempts to tell the audience and his opponent that he has distanced himself from Farrakhan since the 1990s. Take a look at his comments. 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 * Email 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 absolutely, unqualifiedly denounce and reject the views of Louis Farrakhan," said Ellison. "I’ve said that many, many years ago.” “Look, in the early 1990s, Louis Farrakhan was a person speaking the issues of African-American civil rights," Ellison added. "At that time, he had some things, I thought, he had to offer." Ellison then concluded, "He made it very clear in the early 90s that his views and mine were absolutely incompatible, and I’ve been saying that ever since.” Keith, you're lying. It's clear from video evidence that Ellison and fellow Democrat Gregory Meeks had dinner with Farrakhan and Iranian leader President Hassan Rouhani in 2013. Take a look for yourself and understand how pathological liar and accused woman abuser Keith Ellison seeks to deceive you. In case you missed it, here's a still frame of Ellison just a few feet away from a man who has called on 10,000 blacks to stalk and murder white people. Both of these men have the same devil as their father because both men are following after the teaching of the Koran . One of them just actually has the nerve to say it. The other doesn't. Maybe Ellison is attempting to pull an Obama. Remember when Obama's "pastor," Jeremiah Wright uttered "God damn, America!"? Obama tried to say he had been in that church for years and never heard such things, which isn't true. Ellison is attempting to do that same. However, as Michael Ahrens of GOP.com tweeted, Ellison knew what kind of man Farrakhan was then and what kind of man he still is today. Ahrens tweeted, “In 1993, Farrakhan told women: “You’re a failure if you can’t keep a man.” In 1994, Farrakhan said: “Murder and lying comes easy for white people.” All this came *before* Ellison praised him as “a role model” in 1995, and was photographed selling Farrakhan’s newspaper in 1998.” In 1993, Farrakhan told women: "You're a failure if you can't keep a man." In 1994, Farrakhan said: "Murder and lying comes easy for white people." All this came *before* Ellison praised him as "a role model" in 1995, and was photographed selling Farrakhan's newspaper in 1998. pic.twitter.com/5dvnDHTSoB — Michael Ahrens (@michael_ahrens) October 22, 2018 Ellison is a totalitarian-minded individual, who has been supported by Communists and Islamists alike. As the old saying goes, "If you like down with dogs, you're going to get fleas." Consider Keith Ellison to be a flea-infested political con man.
Biblical Illiterates Reverse Romans 13: Teach Submit to Tyranny!  Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the first his Cromwell; And George the third- Treason! Cried the speaker- May profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it. –Patrick Henry Recently, I received a newspaper article from a confused, biblically illiterate friend asking me what my take was on an article titled, “Scripture teaches to submit to authorities” with reference to Romans Chapter 13. In this article, the author was calling out a Christian for protesting a corrupt representative in government, even going so far as to suggest this protestant ought to have stayed home to read their Bible rather than to protest corruption in government. He went onto say that we are commanded by Scripture to submit to the authorities that have been elected. To start off, maybe this individual should take the time to know a little bit of his own history! There is nothing worse than when a person who doesn’t know what they are talking about tries to tell you what the truth is. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. Maybe he should have taken the time to look to the founding forefathers and that document which they drew up called “The Declaration of Independence.” That document alone is 75% of the usurpations that the Tyrant King George committed against our forefathers and what it is that our forefathers would not put up with. Our American history found in that document teaches that our forefathers threw off the tyrant that would not be ruled by God and declared “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!" Furthermore, the motto of the American Revolution was “No King but King Jesus.” America’s original national seal was “REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD” with a picture on the inside of the seal showing the Pharaoh being overthrown by the sea with Moses and the children of Israel safe on the shore. John Hancock, the first signer of the Declaration of Independence, said, “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian duty of each individual… Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which Heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” (History of the United States of America, Volume. 2 p. 229) Apparently, this individual who wrote the article knows nothing of the Black Robed Regiment that the tyrant King George feared the most. The Black Robed regiment, were in fact, the preachers that went before the Forefathers in educating the colonies to resistance when it came to the corrupt King on the other side of the pond. They sacrificed themselves to establish the freedoms in which he enjoys today. The author went on to write that this protestant should know what the Bible says about those in authority. First of all, the authority given to our representative government is derived from “We the People.” We receive our rights from God, and in turn, delegate power to those who serve “We the People.” Representatives work for us, we do not work for them. “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” -The Declaration of Independence He then quotes Romans 13: 1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. The first Scripture says: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. God ordained the power, and that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Did God tell His Church to submit to that which He condemns? (Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15) Absolutely not! Is the Church to transgress His Laws, or to magnify and enforce His Laws unto judgment? (Psalm 40:8; Romans 3:31) Of course not! If He did, that would make God unjust. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). The Lord has, in fact, commanded nowhere in Scripture for the Church to submit to the wicked. The Bible teaches just the exact opposite. We are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” (Ephesians 5:11). Furthermore, it would contradict what Scripture teaches us from Genesis all the way to Revelation every step of the way. Think of this: Those that serve “We the People,” before taking office, swear to uphold the US Constitution with their hand on the Holy Bible. They are appointed to magnify law against crime, not crime against the law (Psalm 94:20). America is based on Common Law, the Mosaic Institution. Read the 5 books of Moses. “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the Law of God.” –William Blackstone, English Common Law Representatives are to magnify the law, not tear it down; and yet, this is what the biblically illiterate are teaching others to do, submit to the tyrants and resist God, His Church and His Word (Micah 3:5). I ask, are Christians to submit to those who have sanctioned the murder of the innocent in the womb (Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17)? Absolutely not! Are Christians to submit to those who have redefined marriage where a man can now "marry" a man and a woman can now "marry" a woman (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:24 etc…)? Absolutely not! Submit to those who lie continuously, to them that steal and even kill? Absolutely not! Submit to what God condemns? Yet, this is what the perverse, modern-day, professing Christians are teaching the sheep in the American Church today. It would do you well to now look to the Christ when He said that we are to beware of the leaven of the Pharisee’s (corrupt doctrines of those who claimed to be the children of God), as well as the leaven of Herod (corrupt doctrines of government) (Mark 8:15). If you remember, it was those same people who called for the crucifixion of Christ while crying out “We have no King but Caesar” (John 19:15). Do these that teach such heresy not realize that every apostle, except John, was killed by hostile corrupt civil authorities opposed to their endeavors? Christians throughout history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by corrupt civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various, lawless policies and prohibitions. Did Christian martyrs violate God’s principles of submission to authority? Of course, not. Also, keep in mind that magistrates have limited and defined authority in civil matters. Take note that civil government is to be, and must be, a “terror to good works.” It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good, law-abiding people. God never gave them that authority and any, and all, government that oversteps the divine authority and its boundaries has no divine authority or protection. Civil government is a “minister for God to thee for good” (Romans 13:4). It is not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Anyone who teaches that they have authority to execute wrath upon "him that doeth good” is ignorant and uneducated in their misleadings (1 John 4:6). To tell Christians to submit to evil civil authority is teaching the opposite of what is true. Common sense does come into play here. I ask, did Moses violate God's principle of submission when he was commanded by God, “Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me” (Exodus 9:1). And when Pharaoh refused, God plagued the Pharaoh and the Egyptians and set His children free. Think of this, the meekest man alive was sent to the face of the Pharaoh to tell him to obey or else. Is this what is being preached from the pulpits across America today? Or what of Gideon who was to deliver the Children of Israel from the Midianites? The first thing the Lord commanded him to do was to tear down his father's altars (Judges 6:25). Was this a violation of God's principles of submission? The sins of the fathers were the reason the Midianites had power to oppress them. What of that lone prophet, Elijah? The tyrant Ahab called him the troubler of Israel. Elijah set the record straight when he answered, "I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim (1 Kings 18:18). Is this a violation of God's principles when it came to submission to authority? Elijah took Ahab and the false prophets to the top of Mount Carmel where the God of Israel consumed the sacrifice by fire, and the false prophets were killed (1 Kings 18:38-40). What of King David? Was he violating God’s principles of submission when he refused to surrender himself to Saul’s troops? David was a king that was to overthrow corrupt governments by dispossessing them and establishing righteousness through justice and judgment (Jeremiah 23:5; Isaiah 51:4). Did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego violate God's principle of submission when they refused to worship King Nebuchadnezzar’s image? Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. Daniel 3:3-6 When they refused to submit to the tyrant, the furnace was heated up 7 times hotter so that the guards were consumed, only to have the fourth man, “like the Son of man,” show up to deliver them where the fire had no power over them, and not a hair of their heads was singed. In the end, Only the corrupt king acknowledges the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.” Daniel 3:28 Did Daniel violate God's principles of submission when he disobeyed the king's order to stop praying to any god but himself? Keep in mind that the punishment was that Daniel was thrown into a den of lions in which God sent forth an angel to protect him. His accusers were then thrown into the den and devoured by the very lions that they meant to have devoured Daniel (Daniel 6). What of Jeremiah? Was he violating God's principles of submission when he was sent to preach repentance to the corrupt church and the corrupt kings? For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. Jeremiah 1:18 Don’t forget about Amos, who was prophesying judgment upon the corrupt priests and the corrupt king of his day (Amos 7:10-16). Was that violating, or fulfilling God's principles and purposes? What of the New Testament? John the Baptist points out all of the evils of King Herod (Luke 3:19). Was this a violation of submission to civil government? No, it was a rebuke to corruption in government to submit to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His laws. Is it a violation of submission to God's principles to keep preaching, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”? Absolutely not! The corrupt Pharisees along with corrupt government did the opposite. “Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:2-20 Or what of the account found in Acts 12:1-11, where the Lord sent an Angel to liberate Peter from the hands of tyrants. “Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him. And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.” Over and over again, you can see that the Church was to stand in protest against the wicked that were at war with Christ (Revelation 12:17), in dealing with not only the corrupt and wicked priests, but also the corrupt and wicked in government. as well as those who submitted to such. It is important for people to know the Scriptures (History), lest you find yourselves to be fighting against God (Acts 5:39). Nowhere in Scripture can you find the Lord telling His children to submit to the wicked in disobedience to His Word. Nowhere! Furthermore, the individual that wrote the article teaching people to submit to authorities might want to take the time to read Romans 12:21 before perverting and twisting Romans 13, so that the next time he will not be guilty of twisting Scripture the way that Satan twists Scripture. “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
National Data | May Jobs: Displacement Stalls, Americans Take All New Jobs—But For How Long? | Articles  Finally, the shocking surge in immigrant displacement of American workers and in the immigrant workforce, which began in January and completely undid the improvement we had begun hopefully to call the “Trump Effect” has stalled. May job numbers released Friday show native-born Americans big winners and immigrants (legal and illegal, the Labor Department doesn’t distinguish) big losers. But displacement and immigrant workforce growth are still high in absolute terms and could resume anytime. Only legislation, above all an immigration moratorium, can secure the fruits of the current economic expansion for Americans. In May: Immigrant employment fell by 1.068 million, down by 3.81%. Native-born American employment rose by 1.361 million—up 1.1% The immigrant employment index, set to 100.0 in January 2009, fell to 124.7 from 129.6 in April. The native-born American employment index rose to 106.6 from 105.4 in April. The New VDARE American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI), our term for the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes, fell to 117.0 from the all-time high,123.0, recorded in April. Can't render, error In other words, Trump has not even begun to repair the damage done by eight years of Obama. Native-born American workers lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years. And, shown above, this trend accelerated significantly in the months leading up to the election. While May was a welcome respite, Trump supporters have reason to complain: Since taking office in January 2017 President Trump has presided over a labor market in which immigrants have gained 1.006 million jobs, a 3.9% increase, while native-born Americans gained about 2.4 million jobs —a rise of only 1.9%. As far as the labor market is concerned, “America First” has not translated to Americans First. In normal times, this might be a big story. But the even the conservative non-Main Stream Media is currently too steeped in economic euphoria to notice. Nd anyway, they almost never report the immigration dimension. However, it is now absolutely clear that immigration, and immigrant displacement of American workers, cannot be jawboned away. The only answer is legislation— border wall to stop the illegal alien flow; a second Operation Wetback, including E-Verify, to get the illegal alien self-deporting; a moratorium on legal immigration. May 2018 was the fifth consecutive month in which the foreign-born working age population (including illegals) grew by more than 1 million from the same month the prior year. But May’s growth was less than that in April and March, possibly an emerging trend. Can't render, error In May 2018 there were 1.342 million more working-age immigrants than in May 2017. This comes on the heels of gains of 2.154 million and 1.597 million. year-over-year, in March and April, respectively. It’s hard to believe with the evaporation of the Trump Effect, but less than six months ago we were seeing to year-over-year declines in the immigrant workforce population. The last five months of 2017 saw the foreign-born population fall by an average 100,000 from the same month of the prior year (shown in red on our chart). These are net figures. Over a 12-month period an average of perhaps 300,000 immigrants die and an equal number leave the U.S. voluntarily. So the 1.342 million net rise in foreign-born population, May 2017 to May 2018, implies that nearly 2 million foreign-born individuals may have actually settled in the country over those 12 months. (This excludes tourists and other short-term entrants.) In percentage terms, the immigrant working-age population grew 3.24% over the 12 months. If this growth rate persists, it portends a doubling in 22 years. By contrast, the native-born American population rose 0.63% over this period —a rate that will require 114 years for a doubling. If both rates persist that long, the term “native born” will refer to a minuscule fraction of the U.S. population. Another way of looking at American worker displacement: the immigrant share of total U.S. employment: Can't render, error Immigrants accounted for 17.36% of total employment in May. Note that, while significantly below the all-time high of 18.1% recorded in April, the May figure is third highest among the 113 months for which we have data. A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is available in the Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Nativity table published in the monthly BLS Report. Employment Status by Nativity, May 2017- May 2018 (numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted) May-17 May-18 Change % Change Foreign born, 16 years and older Civilian population 41,390 42,732 1,342 3.24% Civilian labor force 27,315 27,923 608 2.23% Participation rate (%) 66.0 65.3 -0.7 pts. -1.06% Employed 26,290 27,086 796 3.03% Employment/population % 63.5 63.4 -0.1 pts. -0.16% Unemployed 1,025 837 -188 -18.34% Unemployment rate (%) 3.8 3.0 -0.8 pts. -21.05% Not in labor force 14,075 14,809 734 5.21% Native born, 16 years and older Civilian population 213,377 214,722 1,345 0.63% Civilian labor force 132,664 133,842 1,178 0.89% Participation rate (%) 62.2 62.3 0.1 pts. 0.16% Employed 127,117 128,924 1,807 1.42% Employment/population % 59.6 60.0 0.4 pts. 0.67% Unemployed 5,547 4,919 -628 -11.32% Unemployment rate (%) 4.2 3.7 -0.5 pts. -11.90% Not in labor force 80,713 80,880 167 0.21% Source: BLS, The Employment Situation-May 2018, Table A-7, June 1, 2018. PDF Over the past 12 months (May 2017 to May 2018): The immigrant labor force (employed plus looking for work) rose by 608,000, or 2.23%; the native-born labor force grew by 1.178 million, up by 0.9%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS Immigrant employment grew 2.1-times faster than native-born American employment: 3.03% vs. 1.42%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The unemployment rate for immigrants fell 21%, from 3.8% to 3.0%; native-born unemployment rates fell 11.9%, from 4.2% to 3.7%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The number of unemployed native-born Americans fell by 628,000—an 11.3% drop; immigrant unemployment fell by 188,000—an 18.3% reduction. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The labor-force participation rate, a sign of worker confidence and mobility, fell 0.7 points for immigrants and rose 0.1 points for native-born Americans. This marks the second straight month in which native-born LPRs have risen, year-over-year, relative to those of immigrants ADVANTAGE AMERICANS Border Patrol statistics for May are not yet available. April data showed illegal immigration had rebounded dramatically, after running below the previous year’s level for most of 2017. I will report on this, and on wage growth data, in the next couple weeks.. Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants.
There Were “Active Shooters On The Runway” Bombshell Air Traffic Control Audio From The Night Of The Las Vegas Massacre Reveals  In yet another striking example of a widespread cover-up currently underway regarding the worst mass shooting in American history, new air traffic control audio has been released that details the fact that there were multiple active shooters on the airports property which is extremely close to the venue where at least part of the attack took place. The audio recordings, taken from the night of the October 1st massacre that left 58 dead and over 500 injured, are further proof that multiple shooters were used throughout the area, a fact that directly contradicts the official story. During the air traffic control recordings, which were released by political strategist and co-founder of “The New Right” Mike Tokes, one of the dispatchers is heard telling an incoming plane that landing might not be a good idea because there were multiple active shooters on the airport property itself. “Shutting down might not be a good idea, there’s active shooters on the runway,” he declared. “The 19s are closed, we are in the process of trying to round them up, they are on the airport property.” Air traffic control tapes on the night of the Las Vegas shooting: “There’s active shooters on the runway. They’re on the airport property” pic.twitter.com/HZf3LBeAgk — Mike Tokes (@MikeTokes) October 29, 2017 This stunning tower audio once again provides proof that the entire narrative that claims that Stephen Paddock operated alone from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel is complete nonsense and that authorities are actually actively covering up what really happened on that fateful night. While there have been countless stories since the attack that raise the very real possibility that this was a false flag, one has stood out due to the fact that the person who released the information died shortly after. As Shepard Ambellas reported in a now viral article, “Kymberley Suchomel, who posted her eyewitness account of the Las Vegas massacre in astonishingly vivid detail to her Facebook page on Oct. 4, subsequently passed away in her home on Oct. 9 from what reports are claiming are natural causes.” “Shockingly, just days before her death, Suchomel posted key details about the shooting to Facebook that contradicted the official narrative which claims that Stephen Paddock was the lone gunman.” From dozens of eyewitness reports, including Suchomel’s, that clearly indicate the presence of multiple shooters, to the possibility of helicopters being used in the attack, the American people are clearly not being told the truth. It is also important to keep in mind that multiple investigative reports conducted by other alternative media outlets have actually named government officials and private companies that may be behind the attack and so far there has been no official denial from either.
Agencies scramble to prep Russia probe files for release after sweeping Trump order  Intelligence agencies were scrambling Tuesday to comply with a sweeping order by President Trump to declassify key documents that could shed light on the origins of the Russia collusion probe that has hamstrung the administration for more than 18 months.  The documents Trump ordered declassified involve a renewed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page and text messages from disgraced former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.   The president on Monday afternoon ordered that the documents be released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency,” according to a statement issued by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.  It is not immediately clear how and when the documents will be released, but by Monday evening, intelligence agencies said they had already begun working to prepare the documents.  “When the President issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House Counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News. “The Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.”  ODNI spokeswoman Kellie Wade also said that the agency was “working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification.”  The documents include all FBI reports on interviews, also known as 302s, with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with applications to surveil Carter Page, as well as 21 pages of one renewed warrant. The 21 pages make up only a small portion of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in a heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year.  The president also ordered the release of unredacted text messages from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.  The president for months has blasted Strzok and Page for the bias revealed in their text messages, as well as Comey and McCabe for their leadership of the FBI. Comey was fired from the bureau in May 2017; McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March; Page left the bureau in May; and Strzok was fired last month. A source familiar with the timing of the declassification told Fox News they expected the Carter Page warrant application to be declassified first, followed by the FBI reports on agent interviews with Ohr.  The source added that the Justice Department is working on a "compressed timeline" and they expect the first release of records in days or sooner. The text messages are expected to take longer because of the sheer number involved and the fact that Trump ordered their release without redactions.  Republicans on Capitol Hill, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., are touting the president’s order, saying it covers “pretty much everything that he wanted…and the text messages are a bonus,” a source said of Nunes.  Congressional Republicans are hoping the files reveal details about the start of the Russia investigation led by the FBI, which evolved into Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election.  But Democrats,including the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are blasting the declassification order as a “clear abuse of power.”  "[Trump] has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative," Schiff said. "With respect to some of these materials, I have been previously informed by the FBI and Justice Department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods.  "This is evidently of no consequence to a President who cares about nothing about the country and everything about his narrow self-interest," Schiff added.  The president’s order is similar to his February move, when he cleared the way for the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee to release a partisan memo about the surveillance warrant on Carter Page. Democrats, weeks later, released their own version of the memo.
Will Trump Continue the CIA’s JFK Cover-Up?  Last Friday, President Trump made the following announcement: I have decided not to block release of the CIA’s remaining JFK-assassination related records except for those records that directly implicate the CIA in the assassination, which will continue to remain secret.” Okay, he didn’t really put it like that. But that’s the potential and likely import of his announcement, which actually read as follows: Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.” (Italics added.) The operative words, of course, are: “Subject to the receipt of further information….” What is going on here? Negotiations. The art of the deal. The CIA desperately does not want to show the American people its long-secret JFK-related records. It has asked Trump to continue keeping at least some of them secret notwithstanding the passage of more than 50 years since the Kennedy assassination. Under long-established custom and tradition in Washington, D.C., when someone asks someone else for a favor, the person who is in a position to grant the favor demands something in return. That’s where the negotiations between Trump and the CIA come into play. Trump wants something in return. We don’t know what — maybe laying off on the Russia investigation — but his announcement last Friday is obviously part of the concluding steps of such negotiations. Time to buy old US gold coins What Trump has done with his announcement is send a clear message to the CIA: “Give me what I want and I’ll give you want you want. Otherwise, I will let all your cherished long-secret records relating to the JFK assassination be shown to the American people.” Make no mistake about it: A deal is about to be made. The CIA will cave. It will end up giving Trump whatever it is he wants. Trump is in the driver’s seat because the CIA cannot afford to permit the American people to see the records it wants to continue to be kept secret. And once the CIA gives Trump what he wants, he will cave and give the CIA the continued secrecy it so desperately needs. All this will happen by this Thursday, the date set by law for release of all the JFK records that Trump has not blocked. Think about it: The CIA has asked the president to continue secrecy of records that are more than 50 years old or, apparently, some relating to secret correspondence between the CIA and the Assassination Records Review Board back in the 1990s. The CIA’s ground? “National security” of course, the two most important and meaningless words in the American political lexicon. National security? Really? Whatever definition that one might put on that nebulous term, no reasonable person can honestly believe that the release of 50-year-old records are going to result in the United States falling into the ocean or even that the communists are going to take over the federal government. The CIA says that releasing its decades-old JFK records will reveal secret “methods” of intelligence gathering. Really? What, like the CIA was using typewriters instead of computers and pay telephones instead of cell phones? What is amazing (or not) is the extreme nonchalance of the mainstream media to the CIA’s request for continued secrecy. That should be big news. It’s essentially an admission of guilt, given that it is absolutely ludicrous to think that “national security” would be threatened by the release of the CIA’s long-secret JFK-assassination-related records. You see, the mainstream media starts with the assumption that the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination. In their minds, the assassination was committed by a lone nut former U.S. Marine communist, one who had no motive to kill the president. Such being the case, the mainstream media, deferring to the CIA, automatically concludes that its wish to continue keeping secret has to be based on “national security” grounds rather than an attempt by the CIA to continue its cover-up of its assassination of the president. Let’s proceed from the opposite assumption: That the CIA, in partnership with the military and the Mafia, orchestrated the assassination by framing a former U.S. Marine who was then working for U.S. intelligence, either Navy intelligence, the CIA, or the FBI, or a combination of all three. Don’t forget, after all, that that’s what Oswald said. He said he was being framed. Yet, from the very beginning, the mainstream media has never given any serious consideration to the possibility that Oswald was framed for the crime. Instead, they have steadfastly stuck with the official story, one that has all the characteristics of a pat frame-up: That Oswald acted alone or possibly acted in concert with others, both of which lead to nothing but dead ends, contradictions, and anomalies. Now, let’s assume instead that Oswald was telling the truth when he said he was being framed. In that case, it would be imperative that the CIA and the military keep as tight a lid on their records as possible to ensure that investigators or investigative reporters would have a difficult time piercing through to the circumstantial evidence that establishes the frame-up. As part of the frame-up, the CIA would have to fortify the persona of Oswald, its intelligence agent, as a purported communist. That would enable the CIA to blame the assassination on a communist, which, not coincidentally, was the advice that the Pentagon and the CIA were doling out to Latin American military dictatorships at the School of the Americas. In cases of covert state-sponsored assassinations, Latin American regimes were taught, a good strategy was to blame the assassination on a communist because then they could smear anyone who challenged the official story as a communist sympathizer. It would also explain why the CIA was closely monitoring Oswald’s movements prior to the assassination, something else that the CIA kept secret for decades. They had to make certain that Oswald was not on to them and had not discovered that he was being set up for a frame-up. The first organization that came out with a press release advertising Oswald’s bona fides was the DRE, an anti-communist group in New Orleans with which Oswald had had contact. What no one knew at the time, and what the CIA intentionally kept secret for decades, was that the DRE was a CIA front organization. It was being generously funded by the CIA and controlled by a secret CIA agent named George Joannides, which the CIA would intentionally keep secret from the Warren Commission in the 1960s, the House Select Committee in the 1970s, and the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. But there was another big operation to establish Oswald’s communist bona fides before the assassination. It had to do with Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, where he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies. Something dreadful obviously went wrong with that part of the operation because the official investigation into it was quickly shut down during the early post-assassination period. Today, Oswald’s Mexico City trip, which is part of those CIA records ready to be released, is still shrouded in mystery. The CIA’s continued secrecy in the JFK assassination is no big surprise. As I wrote in my October 11 article, “Will Trump Make a Deal with the CIA on JFK Records?,” the CIA is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it knows that those records will further implicate the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. On the other hand, it knows that by seeking continued secrecy, it’s essentially an implicit acknowledgment of guilt. Not surprisingly, it is choosing the latter course, especially because it knows that its assets and allies in the mainstream press will continue to come to its defense with respect to its ridiculous claim of “national security.” Do the CIA’s long-secret records contain a video-taped confession? Of course not. And they don’t contain any reference to assassinating Kennedy. The CIA’s practice from the very beginning has been to not put any reference to a state-sponsored assassination into writing. But there has to be a reason why the CIA chose to keep this particular batch of records secret for more than 50 years. Those long-secret records undoubtedly include small bits of important circumstantial evidence that fill out even further the mosaic of a regime-change operation that took place in Dallas in November 1963, the same types of regime-change operation that took place in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1960-1963, Congo in 1961, and Chile in 1973, all of which the CIA steadfastly kept secret from the American people. In 1953, the CIA was in the process of developing a top-secret manual on assassinations, one that showed that the CIA was specializing not only in the art of assassination but also in the art of covering up its role in state-sponsored assassinations. Every American owes it to himself to read that manual. Too bad the mainstream press has never given that manual the consideration it deserves. If it did, it might not be so deferential to the deal that Trump and the CIA are about to make to continue the JFK assassination cover-up by continuing to keep some of the CIA’s decades-old JFK’s related assassination records secret from the American people. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger
Sodom and Gomorrah was Judged by God Because Men Refused to Keep His Commandments in Dealing with the Wicked!  “How ridiculous to overlook judgment because of kindness then love wounds itself by killing justice!” -Charles Haddon Spurgeon How often I see and hear the professors of Christianity today walking contrary to the word and spirit of the Living Christ (2 Corinthians 3:6). How willing they are to overlook judgment when it comes to the criminals that run rampant in this country, and on the other hand how willing they are to show compassion to the criminals while overlooking the victims. Why? “Evil men understand not judgment” (Proverbs 28:5). If you read the preceding verse, you will see that Scripture tells us “they that forsake the law praise the wicked.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. This is exactly the Scriptural point that I want to make. From the pulpits in America today we here the events unfold of Sodom and Gomorra and how Abraham should have prayed longer in hopes that God would have spared them rather than the righteous people in Sodom and Gomorra doing what God had commanded. And of course, not a second thought on man's behalf is given concerning the victims in these two cities. Here is Abraham’s account… “And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto theLord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place." -Genesis 18:16-33 Got questions.org explains very well… Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:4-5 The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..." (Genesis 19:2 4) . In light of the passage, the most common response to the question, "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term ”sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of the reason God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels, who were disguised as men. At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged. Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically. The point is that there were no righteous to be spared and the Lord did what man failed to do when they had the time to do it. Question: How do you show mercy to a people who observe lying vanities (Jonah 2:4) and refuse to return to the Lord (Jeremiah 6:16) on His terms? (Jeremiah 22:3) God must be true and judgment must commence. Men today, like those of Sodom and Gomorrah, are not valiant for the truth. They are valiant to proceed from evil to evil (Jeremiah 5). They care more about the pleasures of sin for a season, than they are grieved for the afflictions of Joseph (Amos 6:6; Hebrews 11:25). Men today care more of compromise (where two men both agree on what they both know is wrong) and diplomacy (seduction in another guise) in promoting anarchy through “antinomianism” than they do the Law of God against the sins unto judgment that enslave men (John 8:34). Instead of establishing judgment within the gate and hating the evil and loving the good (Amos 5:15) in hopes that the Lord may be gracious to their repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), they reject the counsel of God against them by hating the good and loving the evil, and that to their own damnation. They care more about the approbation and favor of men than they do that of the Living God and what His Word declares (Galatians 1:10),not knowing that which his highly favored among men is an abomination unto the Lord (Luke 16:15). They wear the cross. Yet, they have no testimony of the power of God unto salvation by the cross because they do not practice what Christ required: “Deny yourselves and take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 5:15, 13:4-5; Galatians 2:21). Professed Christians in America today talk much of love through inaction, and yet know nothing of it (1 John 3:18). They read what to do, but do it not! In fact, they declare and proclaim how much they love God, and yet if you were to have them read His moral law and look to their own lives, they would find how much they actually hate God through their actions (Matthew 15:8). Then again, these were the same types of people in Jerusalem crying out "Crucify him! Crucify him! We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). And these are the same people today persecuting living Christians while praising the dead ones (Matthew 5:10). They continuously preach of the heroism of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Gideon, Samson and others from the pulpit and fail to understand what these men were doing when serving their generations (Psalm 71:18-19; Isaiah 51:4). Today, instead of doing the same, they simply hide under a false grace (Isaiah 30) and give themselves over to a man, the president, and declare end times. They declare we're in the end times because they have failed to stand up and fight for their posterity in keeping the Lord's commandments and His judgments (Psalm 78:1-11). Ungrateful reprobates, pretenders, counterfeits and hypocrites are what they are (Matthew 23:3). Instead of reaching out to the greatest demographic here in America, public high schools, they send missionaries to foreign lands to do there what they fail to do for their own here. Instead of fighting for their posterity and shutting down the illegalities of sodomy in all 50 states, they teach them to just do their best to understand that they cannot help themselves while God say’s the opposite (Leviticus 20:18). Instead of fighting on their behalf against the federal government that is illegally indoctrinating them, they simply give their kids over to them to be dumbed down. And instead of protesting the murder of 58 million innocent babies (Proverbs 6:17), they merely pass it off as a "choice," that being the lessons that they learned from the media that they say that they do not believe (Romans 1:18). The American Church, instead of protesting corruption in government through the example of the Biblical patriarchs and our American forefathers (Matthew 5:17-18), teach to submit to tyranny as if to suggest that it is somehow obedience to God (Romans 12:21). The Church in America has failed to keep the Commandments of the God of Israel. Instead of preaching out against sin, they advocate for that which God clearly condemns, thereby making war against God (Micah 3:5), which at length destroys our government, our country and our families. Look to their feigned strength that they profess to possess. It is gauged by simply looking to the prevailing immoralities and debauchers of society. They are weak and pathetic and they have no excuses as to why America is where we is today! Why did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah? It's the same reason that he is judging America today (Amos 4:12), He cannot find the righteous in order to spare her (Jeremiah 22:3). Defining the Wicked… Wicked men in the sight of God are those who have the knowledge of what to do when it comes to the right, but over and over again, they turn their shoulders and choose the wrong, through tolerance and apathy Americans are bringing upon themselves destruction (Deuteronomy 30:19) that will not be reversed, which leaves no alternative as to why God judges and is judging America today (Deuteronomy 28:63). Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
ICE arrests 145 in South and Central Texas during 7-day operation targeting criminal aliens  SAN ANTONIO — Deportation officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 145 criminal aliens and immigration violators in South and Central Texas during a seven-day enforcement action, which ended Feb. 16. During this operation, ERO deportation officers made arrests in the following Texas cities and towns: Austin (45), San Antonio (41), Rio Grande Valley (37), Laredo (15) and Waco (7). Of the 145 arrested, 86 had criminal convictions; 39 were arrested based on previous immigration encounters, four of which have pending criminal charges; 20 had no prior immigration history or encounters, one has pending criminal charges. Of the total arrests 135 were men and 10 were women. They range in age from 18 to 62 years old. Aliens arrested during this operation are from the following countries: Mexico (128), Guatemala (7), El Salvador (1), Honduras (7), Peru (1) and Jordan (1). Most of the aliens targeted by ERO deportation officers during this operation had prior criminal histories that included convictions for the following crimes: indecency with a child, assault, deadly conduct, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, drug trafficking, burglary, resisting arrest, firearms offense, alien smuggling, illegally entering the U.S., and driving under the influence (DUI). Sixty one of those arrested illegally re-entered the United States after having been previously deported, which is a felony. Depending on an alien’s criminality, an alien who re-enters the United States after having been previously deported commits a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, if convicted. Following are criminal summaries of three offenders arrested during this operation: Feb. 14 – A previously deported 42-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in Harlingen, Texas. He was convicted in 2011 of indecency with a child, a felony, and was sentenced to 10 years’ probation. He is currently facing federal criminal charges for illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported. He remains in U.S. Marshals custody pending the outcome of his criminal case. Feb. 15 – A 42- year-old illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in San Antonio. He was convicted in 2008 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to four months in federal prison. In October 2017, he was convicted for DUI and sentenced to 15 months in prison. He is currently in ICE custody pending removal. Feb. 13 – A previously deported 40-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in San Antonio. He was previously removed to Mexico in 2009 after he illegally entered the United States through Laredo, Texas. Sometime after 2009, he illegally re-entered the United States and was arrested at his residence where officers discovered six handguns in his possession. He is being prosecuted for re-entry after deportation, and illegal alien possessing a firearm. He remains in U.S. Marshals custody pending the outcome of his criminal case. “The results of this operation are a clear indication of ICE’s commitment regarding the role we play in keeping our communities safe by locating, arresting and ultimately removing at-large criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety, and other immigration fugitives,” said Daniel Bible, field office director for ERO in San Antonio. “ICE’s leadership has made clear that ICE will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and – if found removable by final order – removal from the United States. By effecting these immigration enforcement operations, the dedicated men and women of ICE help keep our communities safe.” All of the targets in this operation were amenable to arrest and removal under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE deportation officers carry out targeted enforcement operations daily nationwide as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to protect the nation, uphold public safety, and protect the integrity of our immigration laws and border controls. During targeted enforcement operations, ICE officers frequently encounter other aliens illegally present in the United States. These aliens are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and, when appropriate, they are arrested by ICE officers.
The Dictator Pope: A Call to Hierarchical Opposition  Of that book, no less than Robert Royal—signaling growing alarm over the Bergoglian Debacle in the Catholic mainstream— has written : “About 90 percent of it is simply incontrovertible, and cannot help but clarify who Francis is and what he’s about.” And the picture that emerges in stark relief in The Dictator Pope, as Life Site News reports , is that of “a power-hungry, manipulative dictator, [who] celebrated the abdication of Benedict XVI” because he knew what it meant: that the plan to give him the Keys of Peter in 2005 would finally come to fruition in 2013. “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything!” Thus is Cardinal Leonardi Sandri, a fellow Argentinian and a supporter of Pope Francis at the conclave of 2013, reliably reported literally to have screamed at Pope Francis behind closed doors in the Vatican. Sandri would be one of a number of Bergoglian partisans at the conclave who are now said to be experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” as documented most recently in the explosive best-seller The Dictator Pope . "When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. The true children of Holy Church, at such times, are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable." Francis, writes Royal, “has little use for established procedures, precedents, even legal structures within the Church…. When the head of the Church himself does not much feel bound by the tradition or impartial laws he has inherited, what then?” What then indeed? The Dictator Pope even feels at liberty to demand that the Lord’s Prayer be changed to reflect his dissatisfaction with God’s words: “And lead us not into temptation [et ne nos inducas in tentationem],” which Francis has decided, after 2,000 years, is a “not a good translation.” Apparently lost on Francis, given the disordered mélange of bits and pieces of things he has read that constitutes his theology, is the distinction between sin, a culpable act, and temptation, which arises from concupiscence or what Saint Thomas called the fomes, or the fleshly inclination to sin, which grace enables us to control by the rule of reason over the passions. But now we are witness to the single worst act of tyranny in the entire history of the papacy. The Church has seen a number of Popes who have abused their power, Alexander VI being the most popularly known example. But never, before Francis, has there been a Pope who dared to tyrannize the Magisterium itself by attempting to bend it to his errant personal opinions. By publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), Francis has officially declared that the “authentic Magisterium” includes the guidelines of the bishops of Buenos Aires for the implementation of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (AL), which he expressly approved in his letter to them as the only correct interpretation of his will. The guidelines have been published in the AAS along with Francis’s private missive, which is suddenly declared to be “an apostolic letter.” The normalist narrative has just been stripped of any colorable argument that nothing is too terribly amiss with this pontificate. We are now expected to believe that the “authentic Magisterium”—meaning simply and only AL—teaches what the guidelines preposterously declare, solely in reliance on AL: When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, one may propose that they commit to living in continence….  In other more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be viable. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment…. [I]f one arrives at the recognition that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). As Francis would have it, then, the “authentic Magisterium” has just flatly contradicted itself for the first time in two millennia: The admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion, which John Paul II, in line with all of Tradition, called “ intrinsically impossible ” given their objective state in life, is now deemed possible depending on circumstances—that is, situation ethics applied to violations of the Sixth Commandment.  The requirement that people embroiled in such unions commit to living in continence before they can be absolved and partake of the Blessed Sacrament—a moral norm binding “ without exception ” because it is rooted in divine law—is suddenly demoted to a mere “proposal” that may not be “feasible” or “viable” in “the concrete circumstances of the couple.” A valid annulment of a truly invalid marriage, the sine qua non for entering into marital relations with another purported spouse, is now dispensed with in “more complex circumstances… when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity,” the way thus being opened to de facto divorce in the Catholic Church. The meaningless slogan “journey of discernment” cloaks a naked authorization for the official toleration of adulterous sexual relations in the Church’s sacramental life. No less than a Roman Pontiff lends his name to the outrageous claim that children resulting from an adulterous relationship, blithely referred to as a “new union,” could be “damaged” if the partners in adultery were required to cease their adultery in order to be absolved and receive Holy Communion—evidently because the “new union” would dissolve without adulterous sexual relations and there could be a second divorce! This appeared in the last Print-Edition of The Remnant. See what else you missed. Subscribe Today! As recently as seventeen years ago, during the reign of John Paul II, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative texts reaffirmed the immutable truth reflected in Canon 915, which prohibits the administration of Holy Communion to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” That prohibition, declared the Pontifical Council, applies to the divorced and “remarried” not as a matter of mere disciplinary law subject to revocation or modification, but rather “is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws; [and] the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.” Francis, however, has purported to do nothing less invent exceptions to divine law that oppose the doctrine of the Church. The attempt is void, of course, and the appellation “authentic Magisterium” is fraudulent. But the consequences of this Pope’s toying with the teaching office of the Church to advance half-baked theological notions, such as “discernment” (a term he borrows from St. Ignatius of Loyola but strips of its original meaning) are catastrophic. Over the past year, Cardinal Burke and a few other members of the hierarchy have called upon Francis to “clarify” his intention respecting AL. That clarification has now been given: Francis intends, if it were possible, to change the unchangeable teaching of the Church regarding an irrevocable moral norm rooted in divine law. Even if the attempt is void and of no effect before man and God—an immoral law is no law at all—Francis clearly means to impose his will by fiat, daring invoke the “authentic Magisterium” to cloak his absurd novelties. No Pope before him has ever dared to do such a thing. So now it must be asked: Where are the cardinals and the bishops? With one or two noble (however inconsistent) exceptions, their response to the Bergoglian Debacle thus far ranges from silence, to active complicity, to—at best—hand-wringing over the increasingly chaotic state of the Church while begging the Pope to “clarify” his already perfectly clear intentions. At this point, continued pleading for a Bergoglian “clarification” can only give rise to an impression of disingenuousness, whereas continued silence about the papal origin of this ongoing catastrophe is a standing rebuke to all the hierarchs who know what we all know: that at the epicenter of the chaos is the most wayward Pope the Church has ever had to endure. Continued inaction while the laity and a few good priests are left to themselves to defend, as best they can, the constant teaching of the Church against the abuses of a tyrant on the Chair of Peter threatens the hierarchs with a legacy of shame and a terrible accountability before the Just Judge. Their failure to defend the Faith by standing up to the one they know full well is attacking it almost daily lends itself ever more to an indictment for timidity in the face of unprecedented danger to the Church and the cause of the Gospel of which they are divinely charged to be leaders. The time for “prudence” is long past. Prudence now gives way to mere pusillanimity. The time for hierarchical action is now, before the damage to the Church becomes irreparable. The members of a hierarchy seemingly cowed by a papal tyranny the Church has never before seen must rise immediately and give a courageous answer to the challenge posed long ago by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, when an already monumental ecclesial crisis was still in what can now can be seen as merely a preliminary stage: Where in our Church are the leaders who can show us the right path? Where are the bishops courageous enough to cut out the cancerous growth of modernist theology that has implanted itself and is festering within the celebration of even the most sacred mysteries, before the cancer spreads and causes even greater damage? What we need today is a new Athanasius, a new Basil, bishops like those who in the fourth century fought courageously against Arianism when almost the whole of Christendom had succumbed to heresy. Will none of the hierarchs rise to defend the Church as “a new Athanasius, a new Basil”? Even the best among them continue to limit themselves to generalized lamentations at conferences or in interviews about the parlous state of the Church or at most the “confusion” Francis has caused by not “clarifying” precisely what he has just clarified. They avoid the absolutely necessary direct and public exposure of error at its source. That error threatens to overwhelm the Church while they do little more than fret about a situation whose self-evident cause—a reckless Pope in love with his own ideas and filled with contempt for Tradition—they seem incapable of identifying. Concerned clergy and laity throughout the Catholic world are doing what they can according to their stations. But in the midst of that “final battle” over marriage and family of which Sister Lucia warned the late Cardinal Caffarra in light of the Third Secret of Fatima, within the human element of the Church only the cardinals and the bishops possess the divinely bestowed power to repel an assault on marriage, family and the very integrity of the Faith that is now, for the first time in Church history, being led by a Roman Pontiff. This undeniably apocalyptic development imposes upon the hierarchs—first and foremost in the Church—the duty to act. True love for the Church, indeed true charity toward Francis himself, requires of them nothing less than what was required of Saint Paul when the first Pope fell into error that jeopardized the very mission of the Church: that Peter be withstood to his face (Gal. 2:11). May Our Lady of Fatima intercede to obtain for them the grace of fortitude to do what must be done and what only they can do. Our hopes and prayers are with them as the foremost instruments of divine providence in the ecclesia Dei adflicta. Our Lady of Fatima, intercede for us!
Obama’s Treason: Even Worse Than We Thought  The Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday that “the Obama administration skirted key U.S. sanctions to grant Iran access to billions in hard currency despite public assurances the administration was engaged in no such action, according to a new congressional investigation.” And it gets even worse: “The investigation, published Wednesday by the House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, further discloses secret efforts by top Obama administration officials to assure European countries they would receive a pass from U.S. sanctions if they engaged in business with Iran.” This revelation comes after the news that came to light in February, that, according to Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, “the U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.” There is a law that applies to this situation. U.S. Code 2381 says: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” In a sane political environment, Barack Obama would be tried for treason. Barack Hussein Obama has planted seeds that will be bearing bitter fruit for years, and probably decades, to come. He is, without any doubt, the worst President in American history. Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan? Yes, the doughface Presidents made the Civil War inevitable, but worse came later. Grant? Blind to corruption and out of his depth, but there have been worse than he as well. Wilson? That black-hearted Presbyterian bigot arguably gave the world Hitler and World War II, so he is definitely in the Final Four. Harding? Nah: his tax cuts and return to “normalcy” got the American economy, and the Twenties, roaring. FDR and LBJ gave us the modern welfare state and dependent classes automatically voting Democrat; the full bill on the damage they did hasn’t yet been presented. Nixon? A crook and an economic Leftist, who betrayed Taiwan for the People’s Republic; his record certainly isn’t good. Carter? Nothing good can be said about his four years of sanctimony and incompetence. But there is one thing Barack Obama has on all competitors: treason. He showered hundreds of billions of dollars on the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are those who say, “It was their money. It belonged to the Iranian government but was frozen and not paid since 1979.” Indeed, and there was a reason for that: not even Jimmy Carter, who made the Islamic Republic of Iran possible, thought that money, which had been paid by the Shah’s government in a canceled arms deal, belonged to the mullahs who overthrew the Shah. Likewise Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush all thought that the Islamic Republic was not due money that was owed to the Shah. Only Barack Obama did. The definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran order their people to chant “Death to America” in mosques every Friday, and repeatedly vow that they will ultimately destroy the United States of America and the state of Israel. How was giving them billions and helping them skirt sanctions applied by the U.S. government not treason? Other Presidents have been incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, but which has committed treason on a scale to rival the treason of Barack Obama? The Iranians also operate a global network of jihad terror organizations, one of which, Hizballah, is quite active in Mexico now, with the obvious ultimate intention of crossing the border and committing jihad massacres of Americans. Obama has given a tremendous boost to these initiatives, as well as to Iran’s nuclear program, with his nuclear deal that has given the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars and essentially a green light to manufacture nuclear weapons, in exchange for absolutely nothing. There is no telling when the worst consequences of Obama’s aid and comfort to the Islamic Republic of Iran will be felt. But they likely will be felt in one way or another. Even as President Trump moves swiftly to restore sanctions and put Iran on notice that its nuclear activity and global adventurism will not be tolerated, those billions cannot be recovered, and the Iranians have already spent a great deal for their jihad cause. However this catastrophe plays out, there is one man who will suffer no consequences whatsoever: Barack Obama. That’s Leftist Privilege. It’s good to be a powerful Leftist in Washington nowadays. Laws? Pah! Laws are for conservatives.
America's Immigration Voice.  Kritarch Patti Saris, who thinks it is the job of District Court judges to micromanage the deportation system of the United States, got her wish. One of the Indonesian illegal aliens benefiting from her little amnesty took the hint and used the opportunity that Saris created to flee from arrest and deportation, absconding to a sanctuary church to hide from arrest. Kritarch Patti Saris Saris like many other Federal judges does not like our current immigration system and wants another system more to her liking. One of those likings is an unlimited number of hearings as to previously denied asylum claims. Carrying his 3-year-old daughter in his arms, Yohanes Tasik scoped out the church classroom he indefinitely would call home. The Indonesian Christian, facing mounting pressure to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, took refuge Friday night inside the Reformed Church of Highland Park. He is the third Indonesian Christian who claimed sanctuary within the church in fear of deportation. [Indonesian Immigrant Finds Sanctuary In N.J. Church, by Steph Solis, USA Today, January 16, 2018] Saris should know that when the appeal of her decision that the Indonesian illegal aliens gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, her decision will be struck down. So she seem to have acted to encourage the illegal aliens in the case she is managing to see the writing on the wall, and use her order prohibiting their arrest and deportation to flee the authorities.Even the illegal aliens know that minor kritarchs have no authority over deportations, especially those that have been fully adjudicated and any claim of asylum found to be without any basis so they are taking up other options to fight deportation, like fleeing and hiding. A federal judge on Wednesday signaled she may extend an order preventing the deportation of roughly 50 Indonesian Christians living illegally in New Hampshire, a process that immigration officials began after U.S. President Donald Trump took office. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston expressed concern the Indonesians could be deported before their administrative appeals were finished, given their claims they could face religious persecution in the world’s largest majority-Muslim nation. [U.S. Judge May Extend Freeze On Indonesian Immigrants' Deportation, by Nate Raymond, Reuters, January 17, 2018] Federal officials contend they have always had the authority to deport them at any time. “There’s no legal basis for them to ask for more time,” Vinita Andrapalliyal, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer, argued in court on Wednesday. Federal law gives authority over immigration matters to the executive branch, not the courts. Over the Justice Department’s objections, Saris last year ruled she had jurisdiction over the case. She entered a temporary order blocking the Indonesians’ deportation until she could decide whether to impose a preliminary injunction. Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, a lawyer for the Indonesians, argued they should have 90 days to move to reopen their cases after receiving copies of their administrative case files and time to appeal any decision rejecting those motions. “We don’t want to put them on a ship back unless someone has had chance to look at if there’s a really bad situation for them,” Saris said. “That’s my concern.” And Kritarch Saris has not stopped. She is moving forward with more orders to halt deportation of illegal aliens.Kritarch Saris just does not accept that the immigration courts found no basis for their claim of persecution, and there is no evidence that they would face persecution today. She and other kritarchs have acted outside the law, something that the reporter surprisingly puts in the story.And the Treason Bar attorney demanded that Kritarch Saris create a whole new second immigration appeals system of unlimited delay for these illegal aliens.Kritarch Saris thinks that her feelings about a deportation are the same as the law.Well, that is not Kritarch Saris' concern. The concern over persecution overseas is reviewed by the Executive Branch, and that decision was entered--there is no "bad situation" for her to be concerned about. And Saris is not the only kritarch that thinks they run immigration policy--Mark Goldsmith thinks he runs immigration policy as well. A federal judge in Michigan has ordered the government to give bond hearings in preparation for releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants from Iraq into the community, saying the Constitution protects them from indefinite detention in the U.S. U.S. District Judge Mark A Goldsmith, an Obama appointee, earlier had halted deportations for nearly 300 Iraqis, saying that although they had long been ordered removed, conditions on the ground in Iraq had changed and they deserved new hearings. His latest ruling Tuesday evening goes further, certifying some of the Iraqis as a class-action lawsuit and saying most of them should be “allowed to return to their productive lives” while they wait for new hearings — meaning they must be released from detention unless the government can prove they are a major risk to public safety. [Judge Orders Potential Release Of Hundreds Of Illegals From Iraq, by Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, January 3, 2018] He is ordering the release of hundreds of Iraqi illegal aliens and criminal aliens, all because he wants them to have another bite at the apple--they, like the Indonesians, lost claims to political asylum years ago. Kritarch Mark Goldsmith Both these kritarchs are part of illegal and unconstitutional #Resistance to the lawful immigration policies of President Trump. Illegal aliens get only one hearing and one set of appeals to deportation. They don't get another new and illegal set of hearings and appeals just because some minor kritarch wants something. Time for Congress to end this by prohibiting review of immigration and deportation decisions.
Obama Was Never As Tough On Russia As Trump  This is just silly. The constant hand-wringing, from the left-wing media, over President Trump’s loyalties and his connection with Russia is just silly. The media has been hanging on every word the President says and arguing that his rhetoric is proof positive that he is some kind of Russian mole. The only problem with this thesis? Everything that the President is DOING belies their argument. If President Trump were a mole, wouldn’t he have made life easier for Putin? Wouldn’t he have eased sanctions? Wouldn’t he have been less confrontational than Obama in Syria? Wouldn’t the President be making Putin’s attempts at expanding his influence easier? take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. Instead, President Trump’s POLICIES have actually made life more difficult for Putin at every turn. Here’s The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway explaining: Our relationship with Russia is at a significant low point where just having some conversations can lead us to a better outcome. And there are so many important things that they are involved with that we care about, whether it’s Syria, Ukraine, North Korea or nuclear arms. I’m kind of surprised there’s been this much angst over this press conference. Not that he said things the way he should have. President Trump really did mess up with that press conference but I don’t quite know what people want. He actually is pretty tough on Russia. And in the last couple of years, we’ve seen an increase in the military budget, we’ve seen an increase in the intelligence budget. We are doing NATO exercises in the Baltics. We provided legal aid to Ukraine and Georgia. We’re developing low-yield nuclear weapons. He implemented sanctions that were even stronger than required by Congressional mandate. So if you care about actual actions, I think there’s a lot to be happy about in terms of a tough posture towards Russia. People are obsessed about words and they should maybe focus on the actions as well. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, concurred with Hemingway arguing that by any standard Trump has been far tougher on Russia than Obama was. First, the very people who have been loudest in attacking President Trump about his performance at the Helsinki summit are the people who failed to protect America from Russian meddling in 2016. The very intensity and nastiness of former CIA Director Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence Clapper is an attempt to distract attention from their failure to protect America. It was their duty in 2016 – not candidate Trump’s. Second, the Trump administration has been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever dreamed of being. The Trump administration is taking real actions designed to weaken Russia and force Putin to change his aggressive behavior. The Trump administration has levied tough sanctions on Russia. Also, President Trump’s public lecture about Germany not buying natural gas from Russia was aimed at cutting Putin off from hard currency worth tens of billions of dollars and further weakening the Russian economy. Furthermore, President Trump’s efforts to get our European allies to increase their defense spending has a direct impact on Putin. The stronger NATO is, the less maneuvering room Russia has. Beyond pressuring our allies, consider these specific steps President Trump has taken against Russia: Where President Obama refused to provide serious weapons to the Ukrainians to help them defend themselves (his response was weakness on a pathetic scale), President Trump has approved the sale of offensive weapons to enable the Ukrainians to increase the cost of Russian aggression. When the Russians used chemical weapons in Great Britain, President Trump joined our allies and expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers from the United States. When the Russians retaliated, the Trump administration closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. President Trump had previously shuttered the Russian consulate in San Francisco and smaller annexes in Washington and New York. More than 100 Russian individuals and companies have been sanctioned for a variety of reasons. Despite the hysteria of the left, it is impossible to see the Trump administration as anything but firm in its dealing with Russia. Nothing done in Helsinki made life easier for the Putin regime in its continued economic decay and diplomatic isolation due to the sanctions regime. Any intellectually honest review of the last decade of foreign policy would lead one to admit that President Trump has most assuredly been tougher on Putin and Russia than Obama ever was. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLINE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976  On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered an address on the desperate state of the Church at that time—42 years ago—that was never transcribed or published until we did so for the December 15, 2017 print edition of The Remnant. It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church. I’m posting the address here because I'm convinced the Archbishop’s words provide recent recruits to Tradition with vital historical context for the diabolical debacle that is the pontificate of Pope Francis. And for those of us who’ve been in the trenches for a long, long time it also provides welcome reminder of why we must continue to fight. Even though I personally was in attendance back in 1976 when Archbishop Lefebvre delivered this address in Minneapolis, I was only ten years old and of course didn't realize how prophetic he was on that occasion, or how devastated by the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the Freemasonic infiltration of the Vatican. In fact, this transcript reads like a message of encouragement at a crucial moment in the history of this movement—Stay in the fight! Keep the Faith. Never surrender! This address also makes it absolutely clear that everything Archbishop Lefebvre did was part of an eleventh-hour defence of the Kingship of Christ (ignored completely by the Second Vatican Council) and a desperate last stand for Tradition, the infallible teachings of Mother Church and of course her ancient liturgy. And now that Pope Francis has inadvertently unmasked the true spirit of Vatican II, it becomes obvious how and why those who resisted that spirit were right to have done so and will certainly be hailed by history as the heroic band of Catholic brothers that mounted the twentieth century’s last stand for Christ the King and, while scorned and mocked at the time, were nevertheless totally vindicated fifty years later. May we continue to earn the right to stand with them today. MJM The Archbishop Speaks Ladies and Gentlemen: As I said to Mr. [Walter] Matt, I can say in bad English what he says in good English, because he said all of the things I want to say [Referring here to Walter Matt’s introductory talk referenced above.] And I thank you, Mr. Matt, very much, for his invitation, and I thank you for your coming, and I thank Fr. Ward for what he said about the Society of St. Pius X. And I hope that you can understand my poor English, but I think it is better to speak some bad English because to translate would take too much time. As Mr. Matt said, the crisis in the Church is very extraordinary. It is very difficult to understand the situation today. My seminary in Econe (in Switzerland) and the seminaries in Germany and here in America, in Armada, are in very difficult situations with Rome. Why? These seminaries are the same as seminaries were before the Second Vatican Council. They have the same discipline and the same studies, they make good priests; I think they are good seminarians. All is done as all the seminaries before the Second Vatican Council. Why are we now in this very sad situation with Rome? I think that because in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, there is a mutation, a change, in the Church. But we do not change. We continue the Tradition. So why do they now say, as Mgr. (Archbishop) Benelli[1] said to me months ago on the 19th of March, “you are out of communion with the Church.” I am out of communion with the Church because I continue the Tradition of the Church? This is possible? I do not understand. Why? I have done nothing. I believe nothing other than what the Church has believed for twenty centuries. Mgr. Benelli then said to me, you must put down in a writing to the Holy Father that you accept the Second Vatican Council, you accept the reform that followed the Council, and that you accept the orientations that have been given by Rome. Mgr. Benelli took the book of the New Ordo, gave it to me, and said, “You must say this New Mass in all of your houses.” I wonder why Mgr. Benelli did not communicate this condition to me before our meeting. [2] He could have done so. For example, one year ago three cardinals sent me a letter (Cardinals Wright, Tabera [Arturo Carinal Tabera Araoz, one of the Council Fathers MJM], and Gabriel-Marie Garrone) telling me (in effect) that I must close the seminaries. Well, I refused, because I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the Church. Because now they are destroying the Church. When I die and go before the judge, God will not be able to say to me, “You destroyed the Church.” I refused to contribute to the destruction of the Church. I am sure that my seminaries are contributing to the restoration of the Church. I do not destroy the Church. And so I said to Mgr. Benelli, “No, I will not sign that writing.” I think that the mutation in the Church came in through the Second Vatican Council. And do you think this change in the Church came suddenly? When, then? At the beginning of the Council? No, this change in the Church began one century before [the Council]. Pope Pius VI said during the French Revolution that if the Church continues to remain under the influence of the prince of the revolution, then, in the future a crisis will come upon the Church. In [1844], Pope Pius IX ordered Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari. [3] The Pope himself asked Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari. And what did these Instructions say? The Instructions said that they [the Carbonari/Freemasons] must begin to fight against the Church by bringing reform into the Church. The Instructions said the infiltration will take perhaps not one year, perhaps not ten years, but perhaps a century. The Carbonari must enter into the seminary, into the convent, into the sacristy, and slowly, very slowly, the priests will have the ideals of the revolution; of the Freemasons. One day these priests, imbued with Masonic principles, will become bishops, and these bishops can then choose a pope. And even if the pope is not a Freemason, he will have the same ideals as the Freemasons. Pope Pius IX called for the publishing of these Instructions in order to warn the bishops and priests of those times of the fight against the church. In 1895, the Catholic Antonia Fogazzaro, a known modernist, founded a masonic lodge in Milan. He wrote in his book, Il Santo, that “We [modernists]…want a reform in the Church…without rebellion, carried out by legitimate authority…even if this takes 20, 30, or 50 years.”[4] “The reform will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.” The modernist ideas in the Church introduced and enacted through obedience! And I think…well, here we are! In this time! The reform is here, and it is brought about through obedience, to the Council, to the bishop, to the priest. And all they say is “Obedience, obedience, obedience.” The Instructions of the Carbonari say the bishop and the priest will think that they are following the tiara of the Pope, but they will be following the flag of Freemasonry [“the banner of revolution”]. They said that. They wrote that! One century before [the Council]! Thus, it is very important to know that they prepared for the beginning of the Second Vatican Council for a century, perhaps two centuries! As the Archbishop of Dakar and President of the Episcopal Commission for French-speaking West Africa, I was appointed member of the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council. There were some seventy cardinals, twenty bishops, and four super-authorities of the religious orders, among others. Before the last meeting of this Commission the members received two schemas on the same subject: one from Cardinal Ottaviani and another from Cardinal Bea. The schema from Cardinal Ottaviani was titled “…On Religious Tolerance” and the other, from Cardinal Bea, was titled “On Religious Freedom [Liberty].” When we read these two schemas, we thought, “This is impossible. How is it we can receive two opposing theses? One says we must not tolerate error. The other says that error has the right to exist in the name of the dignity of the human person.” And so, we go into the meeting. Cardinal Ottaviani, standing, says to Cardinal Bea, “You have no authority to compose this schema, because it is a theological thesis and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” As Cardinal Bea stands up, he says, “I do have the right to compose this schema because if anything concerns Christian Unity it is religious liberty, and I am the President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.” Cardinal Bea, addressing Cardinal Ottaviani, further said, “I am opposed to your schema.” Impossible! We were in a very sad, serious situation. Cardinal Ruffini had to intervene as we were in front of two cardinals, our brothers. He said we must wait for the authority to say who is right and who is wrong. But before the Pope came (because the Pope came many times to present at these meetings) we voted on the schema. Who is with Cardinal Ottaviani? Who is with Cardinal Bea? The conservatives and the liberals. As the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission, it was for me the first image of the future Council. This historic address appeared for the first time ever in a print edition of The Remnant last year. Isn't it time for you to subscribe? And as we go into the Council, you know that on the first day of the Council, Cardinal Lienart was the chief of the liberal cardinals in the Council, [together] with all of the Cardinals of the Rhine (such as Cardinal Alfrink, Cardinal Frings, Cardinal Dopfner, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Leinart, and Cardinal Koenig of Austria). And now one month ago in Rome, the traditional periodical Chiesa Viva published a photo of Cardinal Lienart with all of the appurtenances of Freemasonry, the date of his inscription in Masonry, the date [of his rising to] the 20th Degree of Freemasonry, the date [of his rising to] the 30th Degree of Freemasonry, and the places where he [attended] the meetings of Freemasonry. This Cardinal was the chief of the liberals in the Council. That is my cardinal; he ordained me to the priesthood, and he consecrated me a bishop. And now this is public. Nobody has been able to refute the publication. And so, we have (I am confident) a mutation in the church by the Council and by the reform after the Council. Now, some say the Council is (was) good, but only the reforms were bad. That is not true. Why? Because when the reforms come, Rome always says the reforms are being done in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all of the reforms came from the Council. And if the reforms are bad, then it is impossible that the Council is good and all the reforms are bad, because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome. Rome said in the name of the Declaration of Liturgy, we [implement] the liturgical reform. We can say that [these bad changes are] not in the text of the Declaration, but this man has the authority to say that this is from the Council. They know that. And I am sure that it [the mutation] is in the Council. Even if it is not explicitly [stated] in the Council but [rather] in the spirit of the Council, it is the same! For example, with religious freedom: now the Holy See and all the Nuncios are against the Catholic State in the name of the Council - in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom. I have heard this (personally) twice. The first time I was in Columbia. When I was in Columbia, I read in the paper about the change in the first article of the Constitution of the Republic of Columbia. [The first article] stated that only the Republic of Columbia recognizes only the Catholic religion. They changed it. They removed this article. I read the discourse of the President of Columbia with the Nuncios of Columbia and the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference in Columbia. The President said he is very, very anxious. He said to the people, “even though we remove this article we remain Catholic. I am a Catholic, I shall remain Catholic, and I do everything possible for the Council and the Catholics in our country.” Then, the discourse of the Nuncio was the discourse of a Freemason: all of it was “progress,” “humanity,” “evolution,” and all the hubris of a Freemason. And during the discourse of the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference, [the Secretary] said, “in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom [of Vatican II], we ask the President to remove this article in the Constitution.” I met this Secretary of the Episcopal Conference during my visit in Columbia, and he said for two years they [had been asking] the President, in the name of the Holy See, to change this article in their Constitution. But I will never…I do not accept the concept, because you destroy the Catholic State in the name of the Council. Are you sure? Yes, sure. It is evident. Now I said to the [Secretary], “As I speak with you now about Columbia, I know that you are the one responsible for the change in the constitution of Valais in Switzerland one year ago. The change in the Constitution of Valais was the same.” (Because you know Switzerland is a Federation where some states are Protestant and some states are Catholic. The Valais is Catholic. And in its constitution, the words of the first article [of the constitution] of the State of Valais – Econe, where we are located, is in the State of Valais - only one religion is recognized: The Catholic Church.) And [the Secretary] said, “Yes, I am responsible for this change.” Brother, what did you do with the Social Kingship of Christ? What is this for you? What do you say when you say “thy kingdom come” in your prayer, the Our Father? “Ah,” the Nuncio said to me, “Now it is impossible.” What did you do with the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas? “Ah, but now the Pope cannot write an encyclical like Quas Primas.” It is incredible. And all in the name of the Council. We must take care, because this change in the church is a liberal change. The liberal principles have entered the Church now, and they destroy the Church. If we cannot set out the true principles of the Church, if we in the name of religious freedom said that all religions have the same right in every state in the world… [missing audio...] The truth is the only one King of the World is Jesus Christ. We say in the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, “Tu solus Altissimus,” “Tu solus Dominus,” “You alone are the Highest,” “You alone are the Lord.” But practically, we would refuse this Kingdom of Jesus Christ if we said that Luther, Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus Christ are all the same. We cannot say that. Impossible. We know that in many states (it is a pity) it is impossible [to recognize Catholicism as the state religion]. We must tolerate - have tolerance for the error - but never give the same right to error and truth. That is impossible. And the change in the liturgy is very important. It is very bad. One of the principles of modern man, as they say now, “modern man,” is democracy. And democracy can have a good sense but not if [by that term is meant] that those who govern receive their authority from the people. The authority comes from God. Not from the people. Not from the masses. From God. But today the principle, the democratic principle, is that the authority is in the people. It is in the masses. That is not true. It is impossible. And our liturgy is the school of our Faith. It is the first school of our Faith for all people. I was in Africa as a missionary and as bishop for 30 years. I know the liturgy was the best school of the Faith for people who cannot read. They can see what the priest does. They can see what the priest does at the adoration of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. And they know that Jesus Christ is present - His real presence is on the altar - by the attitude of the priest. They know that. That is very important. But the change in the Mass destroys the Church. Because we know the liturgy teaches us hierarchy. The true liturgy is hierarchical. It is not democratic but hierarchical. Why? Because we have God, the priest, and then the people. That is hierarchy. When we are in Church we know God is on the altar; the priest is between God and the people; and the people receive God at the hand of the priest. That is hierarchy. But now the new liturgy is more democratic - all around the table. The priest is only the president, and sometimes another man can take the role of the president of the meal. That is a new liturgy. That is very bad, because we have no sense of the hierarchical; whereas the sense of hierarchy is very important in our life. We need the authority of God. We need the Real Presence of God on our altar. We need the Sacrifice of the Mass – not a meal only – but the Sacrifice. So, the Victim of the Sacrifice is really present on our altar. That is the school of our Faith. And slowly, slowly, this new Mass equivocates. It moves the minds of the faithful in a Protestant [direction]. I do not say that all [Novus Ordo] Masses are invalid. I do not say that. But perhaps, more and more, they become invalid because [the ministers lose faith in the Real Presence]. Recently, in France, a progressive paper conducted a statistical survey to see how many priests no longer have faith in the Real Presence. They found that twenty-two percent no longer have the faith, the belief in the Real Presence. But I think that if they directed this question to all of the priests who are under 50 years of age, they would find that fifty percent [have lost the faith in the Real Presence], because the young priests have no faith. No faith. Last year, Bishop Adam (in our Diocese of Sion, Switzerland) ordained one priest for my Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers. This one priest came from France. His uncle had died in a road accident when his cab fell in the river. The uncle had nine children. The Bishop said to the new priest, “Now you can say Mass for your uncle. Now you are a priest, and you can say Mass for your uncle.” The new priest said, “No, never.” Why? It is not useful to say Mass for the dead? “No, no, it is impossible. They are already in heaven.” This young priest who was ordained by the Bishop last year for my Congregation is now a professor in the minor seminary in Switzerland. They are not learning theology, not philosophy, not anything. They learn nothing now. Another example. Recently, I had two young [potential] seminarians come to my house near Paris. One of them works in a factory, and the other is a university student. They told me they were [considering] the seminary of Paris. I asked them, “Why do you come to see me?” They told me that they had a meeting in the house of the Oblate of Maria with the priest who oversees young men who may have vocations to the priesthood in the Diocese of Paris. There was a total of fifteen young men for all of the Diocese of Paris. During the meeting, the priest, before he celebrated the Eucharist, said, “Today we celebrate the Eucharist, but we do not believe in the Real Presence.” These two young men said “That is impossible. We cannot remain in this seminary.” So, they came to meet me. They said that Econe is the only seminary where they seem to be able to find the True Faith. They asked for admittance to Econe. And I think that they shall be coming to Econe next October. But that is a new religion. It is a Protestant religion. That is a fact. Perhaps you can say, “How is it possible that the pope gives the authorization to this change? How is it possible the pope signed this decree? Signed this constitution?” I don’t know. I don’t know. It is a big mystery. A big mystery. There are many proposed theological answers. I cannot subscribe to all of them. Some say the pope is not responsible. Perhaps someone gave the pope an injection, a drug, and he is not responsible. Perhaps, I don’t know. Some say there are two popes [(a body double)]. I don’t know. Some say the pope was liberal before he was elected pope, and perhaps (we do not know) he gave his name to Freemasonry (thereby incurring excommunication before the conclave). We do not know. We do know now that Bugnini was primarily responsible for the change in liturgy, and that he is an infamous Freemason. And because he had an indiscretion with his Masonic appurtenances, the Pope sent him as a Nuncio in Iran. I don’t know. We don’t know. Now, you cannot say that Archbishop Lefebvre said the pope gave his name to Freemasonry. No, you cannot say that. It is possible, but we do not know. But if he was excommunicated, then he is not pope. Not pope. Illegitimate. I don’t know. It is a mystery I cannot understand. But the fact is that the Catholic Church is being destroyed, and now even the pope himself says that. This pope has referred to the auto-demolition of the Church. He said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” But where are the men responsible for the destruction of the Church? Well, there they are. They are the men who destroy the Church. We must show where they are. Where is this smoke of Satan that has entered the Church? I do not know, but it is the pope himself who said that. And I have these experiences every day. I visit many countries. I was in Spain during the Christmas Holy Days. Then I was in Bonn, near Cologne, Germany, three weeks ago, to speak at a conference. Many people came. Many people are confused. What is happening in the Church? They are anxious. But many people say that we disobey. Disobey? Obedience is relative. It is not absolute. It is relative to the good, but not to the evil. We cannot obey our parents if they command a bad thing. We cannot obey. It is clear. And I know that in Spain, for example, the situation in the Church is very bad. The new nominees of bishops and many auxiliary bishops are, approximately, communist, Marxist, and socialist. And so, a majority of the bishops in the Episcopal Conference of Spain are progressives. They are modernists. Whereas, the majority of the bishops [from Spain] during the Council were conservative. So, Rome is responsible [for the situation of the Church in Spain] because it is Rome who approves the nominations for bishops. And we know in France, in Germany, and in Europe generally, that all of the young bishops are worse [than the bishops in Spain] in that they are more or less Marxist. That is a fact. That is impossible. How can they do that? I do not know. I do not know. I have not spent my whole life in Rome. I do know Rome very well, because I was an apostolic delegate, and I was in the Secretariate of the Secretary of State. And I know that very well. But I think that the devil is in Rome, as was said by our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of La Salette. We must pray. We must ask God to put an end to this crisis of the Church. Because if this crisis continues, many people will go to hell. They lose the faith. They cannot go into the church. They abandon the faith. You know that many priests have abandoned the faith. Many priests have gotten married. And many sisters have abandoned their congregations. It is a pity. And it is everywhere. I was in Melbourne, Australia, during the 40th International Eucharistic Congress. Cardinal Knox, who was the man responsible for the Eucharistic Congress, is now the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I read in the newspaper about a Mass Cardinal Knox celebrated during the Eucharistic Congress where sensual dancing was performed at the same time the words of the Consecration were pronounced. That is a sacrilege. You cannot go to that Mass. That is sacrilege. This is a fact. They also called me by phone in Melbourne to say I was on the list of the bishops [attending] the Eucharistic Congress. They asked me to concelebrate Mass with a Protestant pastor and a rabbi. Ay. Impossible. Impossible. No, no, no, no. [applause] This change is not accidental. It is not superficial. It is very deep. Very bad. It is against our faith. Against our faith. And so, we cannot accept this Council and this reform and this orientation even though it comes from Rome. From Rome we expect only the good. We do not expect the bad, the ill. We do not expect the abandonment of adoration in the Mass. We need this adoration. We need to have the faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Because all [of this change] is [oriented] against the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, against the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Mass. It is a sin when we abandon the truth of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and we abandon the Faith of the divinity of Jesus Christ. He is King because he is God. He is the Son of God. So, He is King by His nature. This is essential. Essential! And if He is God, we must give Him the adoration of God. And so, we cannot accept the diminution of this Truth. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus Christ is God. That is a fundamental truth of our Faith. And it all depends on this Truth. And we know now that the theologians and the bishops have [a new orientation]. They do not express this truth clearly and perfectly. They are afraid of the truth. That is very bad. And it is the same in Rome. I think they refuse [to grant me an audience with] the pope, [because they are afraid of the Truth]. When I was in Rome one month ago, Mgr. Benelli told me he visits the pope every day. He said that when he left me, he would go immediately to the pope to express the importance of the work we had conducted during our meeting. Immediately, he said, he would be going. So, why do they not grant me the possibility of visiting the pope? Because they are afraid. Meanwhile the Vatican operated a veritable swinging door where actual heretics and schismatics were concerned. Here, again, is Blessed Paul VI, famously meeting for the first time ever with the heretic Archbishop of Canterbury in St. Peter's: Cardinal Villot said, “We are afraid if Msgr. Lefebvre meets and speaks with the pope that perhaps the pope will change his mind.” Because [the pope] is not too sure; the pope is not man of true conviction. He is a mysterious man. We cannot give a definition of the man. He expresses the truth, and then he does the contrary/opposite. Some part of him will speak the truth. Another part of him is open to error. Very curious. And they are afraid that if I reveal the truth [and tell the Pope] “you must affirm the Kingdom of Jesus Christ everywhere and always each day. You must affirm the Real Presence in the Mass - in the Sacrifice of the Mass,” then perhaps it is possible that the Pope will change his mind. And so, Cardinal Villot says, there is a confusion, and they do not want me to visit the pope. It is impossible to admit me. And I know the pope very well! When I was the apostolic delegate to Pius XII, I was going to Rome every year. And during those eleven years, I met Msgr. Montini. I know him very well. He received me twice during the Council, for a private audience with the pope. But, now, with my position against the Council and the reforms, he says: “No, impossible! You must sign in writing that you [accept] the Council and all the reforms before I will receive you in audience.” But I cannot do that. For me, if I do that, then I betray my mother, the Church. The Church! So, I thank you very much for your encouragement, and I must say that we have a very good generation of young men and good vocations. For the coming year we have 59 applications to our seminary in Econe, Switzerland – applications from the United States, from England, from Germany, from France, and Spain. Good young men with good dispositions are coming from everywhere. And why? Why do they come to this seminary when they know we are in difficulties with Rome? They know that. But still they come. I ask them, why do you come to Econe? You know our situation. They say, “Yes, we know your situation, but we want to become true priests and not protestant pastors or modernist priests. We are coming to your seminary because we know that the end of the priest is to offer the true Sacrifice of the Mass. And so, we are Coming to Econe.” And as I have visited my seminary here in Armada for the past five days, I can see it is the same here. We have very good young men. I also have some Americans in my seminary in Econe. In six weeks I will ordain one American priest from Detroit, who is a very good seminarian and will be a good priest. But these young men refuse to become protestants. They refuse to become modernist. They ask to become true priests. And it is a pity there are not 100 bishops opening good seminaries. So, I ask you to pray for these seminarians because when they become priests they will have many worries and many difficulties. I think, however, they are very well prepared to deal with these difficulties and worries. And we have confidence in God. Since I began this work six years ago, now, I have evidence that God is assisting us. Because it is impossible, I realize, to do this by myself. We now have houses in Switzerland (3), Munich, France (6), Brussels (1), England, Armada, San Francisco, and New York. In Albano, near Rome, we have a congregation of sisters where I have five vocations from the states (good sisters). And I am building a seminary in Switzerland. It is impossible to do all this without God’s assistance. So, I have confidence. It is impossible for the Church to change its tradition. The tradition of twenty centuries. That we cannot change. The Church is tradition. The Church is tradition. It is not revolution. I thank you for your attention. NOTES: [1] Archbishop Benelli, who had the title of “Substitute” (meaning the Assistant to the Secretary of State) of the Vatican Secretariat of State, later created Cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Florence in 1977. [2] Until the date of this meeting, March 19, 1976, nothing had been said to Archbishop Lefebvre about this condition of submission, which submission was demanded of him as a condition to his request for a Papal Audience. Many noted that, at the time, it was only of Archbishop Lefebvre that these conditions were demanded. Paul VI received all kinds of people (abortionists, freemasons, etc. ). [3] Otherwise known as the “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,” a secret document written in the early 19th Century that mapped out a blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church. The Alta Vendita was the highest lodge of the Carbonari, an Italian secret society with links to Freemasonry and which, along with Freemasonry, was condemned by the Popes. [4] During the pontificate of St. Pius X, a lay politician and author Antonio Fogazzaro, advocated a path to reform the Church and Papacy in his novel Il Santo, published in 1907. Fogazzaro was a known Modernist whose works were banned by the Church and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Trump expresses sympathy for Reality Winner, whose mom asks for pardon  ATLANTA — The record-setting prison sentence given to Reality Winner has caught the attention of President Donald Trump, who used it to take another dig at Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In an early Friday post on Twitter, Trump wrote that her sentence of 63 months in federal prison was unfair and accused Sessions of having a double standard. “Gee, this is ‘small potatoes’ compared to what Hillary Clinton did!” he tweeted about Winner, a former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a document about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. “So unfair Jeff, Double Standard.” The tweet drew no immediate response from Sessions. But Winner’s mother had a blunt reply: “Please pardon my daughter Reality Winner.” The Twitter exchange marks a bizarre twist in the story of the 26-year-old former U.S. Air Force linguist, who on Thursday apologized to a federal judge and said she takes “full responsibility for my actions.” Before her arrest, Winner called Trump an “orange fascist” on Twitter. Her disillusionment about his election was part of her reason for leaving the Air Force, her mother told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an interview last year. “Something she said, she didn’t like her new boss,” Billie Winner-Davis said in June 2017. “She was not going to serve in his military.” Meanwhile, Trump continued pounding Sessions in other tweets, saying he needed to investigate “deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr…the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems — and so much more.” — Johnny Edwards The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ——— ©2018 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, Ga.), Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
President Trump Orders FBI Investigation Into Kavanaugh Following Democrat Temper Tantrum  Thought Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been through at least 6 FBI background checks, because of Senate Democrat temper tantrums and RINO Republican Senator Jeff Flake's desire to have another FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh with zero evidence, President Trump succumbed to the pressure and issued an executive order on Friday that authorizes another FBI background check into Kavanaugh. “I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week,” the president said in a statement. The scope and one-week limitations were what Senator Jeff Flake proposed just prior to the vote that passed the Kavanaugh nomination out of committee and to the Senate for a vote on his confirmation. 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 * Email 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. The statement came just a day after Senate Democrats continued their smear of Kavanaugh by declaring they believed Dr. Christine Ford's allegations against him while at the same time obviously not believing his denial of the allegations. On top of that, there has been zero evidence submitted to the committee that Ford's allegations are true. In fact, everything submitted has refuted her claims, from sworn statements by those she claims were there to Kavanaugh's calendar to character statements by dozens of women who have known him since high school to those he has worked with in DC. All of the people named by Ford have already submitted statements that they have no memory of the event ever occurring, including a female friend of hers at the time. Two of those named have stated that they will cooperate with the FBI. “I will cooperate with any law enforcement agency that is assigned to confidentially investigate these allegations,” Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge said. “My client, Patrick J. Smyth, is happy to cooperate fully with this FBI investigation,” said attorney Eric B. Bruce. Kavanaugh also said he would be cooperating as he has in the past. “Throughout this process, I’ve been interviewed by the FBI, I’ve done a number of ‘background’ calls directly with the Senate, and yesterday, I answered questions under oath about every topic the Senators and their counsel asked me," Kavanaugh said in a statement that was released by the White House. "I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate." Well, Senator Flake has given the Democrats what they wanted and you can bet that they are still going to vote pretty much on party lines concerning Kavanaugh. Now, President Trump has gone along with it. My guess is that one of two things will occur with the FBI investigation: (1) Absolutely nothing will be found, and this will have been a huge waste of time or (2) look for this thing to expand and the need will arise to make this more of a circus than it already is, which will dwarf anything Clarence Thomas had to face from the slanderous accusations of Anita Hill. Remember, whether you like Judge Kavanaugh or not, this has been nothing but a political hit.
EXPERIMENTAL Ebola Vaccine Will Be Administered In Congo As Ebola Death Toll Climbs  An experimental Ebola vaccine is being rolled out in Congo as the death toll from the infectious disease continues to climb. The vaccination campaign will begin today. “The vaccination campaign begins tomorrow, Monday, in Mbandaka, capital of the province,” Minister of Health Oly Ilunga told The Associated Press as reported by 9 News Australia. “It will target, first, the health staff, the contacts of the sick and the contacts of the contacts.” The World Health Organization has been warning about the “Ebola situation” in Congo, and it appears their only solution is an experimental vaccine. An experimental vaccine is one that has never been tried on humans before. Ebola hemorrhagic fever, seen mostly only in Africa, is one of the world’s most feared diseases. It begins with flu-like symptoms, followed by bloody diarrhea and vomiting. Days later, some victims begin bleeding through the nose, mouth, and eyes. Depending on the strain of the Ebola virus, it can kill up to 90% of victims. There is no cure for Ebola. The virus is spread through direct contact with the blood or secretions of an infected person. So, is the Ebola virus reaching a terrifying enough level that an experimental vaccine is warranted? The death toll has reached 26 and the vaccine will be rolled out at Mbandaka, the north-western city of 1.2 million recently struck by the outbreak. Since the virus is spread through direct contact, an isn’t airborne, it isn’t nearly as deadly as it could be. Read more here about Ebola and how it is transmitted: Initially, the campaign will target 600 people, mainly medical staff, contacts of suspected cases, and those who have been in contact with the contacts, Ilunga said. Officials are working urgently to prevent the disease from spreading beyond Mbandaka, which lies on the Congo River, a busy traffic corridor, and is an hour’s flight from the capital. The spread of Ebola from a rural area to Mbandaka has raised alarm as Ebola can spread more quickly in urban centers. The fever can cause severe internal bleeding that is often fatal. Meaning, the virus itself doesn’t actually kill. The immune system’s response to the virus is what’s deadly. ZMapp is also an experimental drug that could aid in the recovery from the Ebola virus. But, like the vaccine being administered, it has not been tested for safety or efficacy yet. It is not a vaccine – it is a therapeutic drug. Of the seven people given the drug so far, two have died. ZMapp show “promise,” although scientific results are not definitive. The risk of Ebola spreading within Congo is “very high,” according to authorities, and the disease could also move into nine neighboring countries, the World Health Organization has warned. The WHO, however, stopped short of declaring the outbreak a global health emergency. WHO said there should not be restrictions on international travel or trade. In the meantime, it’s important to prevent oneself from contracting the virus. Unfortunately, health care workers are at the greatest risk as they try to cull the suffering: which is why they will be the first to get the experimental vaccine. For their sake, let’s hope it works better than this year’s flu vaccine.
Black Death Warning: The Plague Is Impossible To Eradicate  Face masks are placed on children in Antananarivo, Madagascar (AP Photo/Alexander JOE) An expert is warning the plague that has sickened over 2000 people in Madagascar since August is impossible to eradicate. Even though the number of those infected has dropped in recent weeks, the plague will never truly be gone. Since the airborne version of the plague can kill a person in just three hours, experts warn that its too soon to think that since there hasn’t been a person infected in recent days, that it won’t pop up again. That’s because the bacteria that causes plague is now so widespread in wildlife, that humans can’t do anything to get rid of it, said Dr. Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology at Monash University in Melbourne. “It’s not possible to eradicate plague, as it is widespread in wildlife rodents outside the sphere of human influence,” Cheng wrote on The Conversation. “Outbreaks, generally, are managed reactively by ‘firefighting teams’, deployed to clear houses of fleas, identify and treat cases and give pre-emptive treatment to contacts at risk. A more preventative approach, such as the identification of areas at risk using climate models and animal surveys to focus flea and rat control efforts, would be better,” he said. “But, this requires a better understanding of transmission pathways in each region where disease persists.” The best way to stop the plague spreading was to focus on flea and rat control in the most at-risk areas, he said. Cheng’s comments came after at least 171 people died in Madagascar over an outbreak of plague. Nine countries were urged by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to prepare for a black death attack, at the end of October. It’s been reported that plague has been transmitted to humans by camels, goats, prairie dogs, rock squirrels and guinea pigs since the 1960’s. There are only a few remaining hotspots for plague in the world – Madagascar being one of them. This outbreak was also highly “unusual”, in that several different parts of the island were affected, including areas with lots of people. WHO has reported 2119 cases of the plague as of November 10. 171 have died of the disease so far.
J Street "Kapos" May Un-Endorse Dem Rep Over "Jewish Question"  Anti-Israel activist group J Street was very outraged when its leaders were described as "Kapos". The comparison of the Soros funded group that has stood with Hamas over Israel with Jews who were forced to collaborate with the Nazis during the Holocaust was indeed insulting. To Kapos. Jews under Nazi rule may have been forced to collaborate. No one forced J Street to collaborate with anti-Semites. And here's J Street trying to decide whether to stop endorsing a Democrat who pals around with Farrakhan and defended him by mentioning the "Jewish question." Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The "Jewish Question" is a term generally used by anti-Semites today. But J Street is stuck with its own Jewish Question. How much anti-Semitism is too much even for it. Left-wing advocacy group J Street said it is re-evaluating its endorsement of a congressman who praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. JStreetPAC, the arm of the NGO that funds and endorses candidates, currently lists Rep. Danny Davis, an Illinois Democrat from the virulently anti-Semitic Farrakhan’s home base of Chicago, as a candidate it supports. The endorsement, first reported in the Forward, calls Davis “a longtime supporter of Israel and a two-state solution.” In J Street's home dimension of Oceania, supporter of Israel means Farrakhan supporter. “We take anti-Semitism quite seriously,” J Street’s statement read. “We are currently in conversation with Representative Davis’ office about this issue. We will get back to you shortly with a more extensive response.” So seriously that J Street can't decide what to do about a politician who defends a Hitler-lover and raises the Jewish Question. That's serious all right. Seriously Kapo.
Undercover Video: Andrew Gillum Staffer: “None of the programs that people are hoping for would happen”  Florida gubernatorial candidate and George Soros-backed Andrew Gillum may have just been completely undercut by a member of his own staff. Not that his racist, anti-semite claims against his opponent weren't enough, one of his staffers has been caught in an undercover video saying, “None of the programs that people are hoping for would happen” and that is to be kept confidential from the public. In a new undercover video from Project Veritas, Omar Smith, who is a staffer for Gillum and claims to have also attended college with him, said that if Gillum is elected “None of the programs that people are hoping for would happen.” 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 * Email 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. When asked whether that would be important for voters to know that or not, Smith said, “That’s not for them to know.” Of course, anyone following what Gillum has been promoting knows he isn't planning on delivering just like many politicians. “So, let’s go back to Mr. Gillum’s platform, right?” said Smith. “Raise the corporate tax in Florida from 7 to 11 percent. That will never happen. Raise teacher’s pay to $50,000, that will never happen. Give me another position. Medicare for all, that will never happen.” What's even more amazing, but not surprising, is that Gillum has claimed that his opponent is a racist, but the video demonstrates the utter racism of Smith, which one can then conclude that Gillum knows about Smith's racism and keeps him on staff anyway. “This is a f***ed up state,” said Smith. “It’s a cracker state.” Smith also stated that the campaign has “to appeal to white guilt.” Good luck with that! It gets worse though. Smith says that Gillum is “a progressive” who is “a part of the crazy, crazy, crazies.” NEW: The honesty of Gillum's campaign staff on undercover video is refreshing, especially when it comes to who the real Andrew Gillum is. While trying to appear as a moderate, "Gillum is a Progressive" and "He is a part of the crazy, crazy, crazies." FULL: https://t.co/G0V1HlyAlz pic.twitter.com/YDWifuIDWv — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 1, 2018 OK, we know that, but if that is true, what sort of useful idiot is Smith? A pretty big one if you ask me. Gillum is not a lawful man as he does not support the right to keep and bear arms, but rather considers Americans as criminals who need to prove their innocence before obtaining a gun. WATCH: Gillum Campaign Staff on gun control "I don't think he can say it [be]cause he's trying to get the moderates" ... "three day waiting period for everybody," "small steps" to ban assault rifles pic.twitter.com/nIwAUvz2YR — PVeritas Action (@PVeritas_Action) November 1, 2018 “I do think he’s not saying specifically, like, I’m going to ban bump stocks or I’m against ARs, only because he’s running a race right now,” said Adrian Young, who serves as the Community Engagement Specialist for the Florida Democratic Party. “I do think he would support anybody doing that stuff, Bill Nelson … But I don’t think he can say it, just cause he’s trying to get the moderates and the gun-toting people in North Florida.” In October, Project Veritas exposed the corruption of Claire McCaskill's campaign. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard
‘Suicide Note’ Seen in Vegas Shooter’s Hotel Room  A mysterious piece of paper discovered last week, when photos from the Las Vegas gunman’s hotel room were leaked to the media, is now back in the news cycle. The pictures were published by numerous news outlets and shared by millions of people on social media. At the time the photos were published by the Daily Mail, police had not mentioned if Paddock left behind a note in his hotel room. Nevada Sheriff Joe Lombardo said police were investigating who leaked the crime scene photos. In one photo in particular, a white piece of paper or notepad on a side table next to a chair is visible, which caused some to speculate that it may have been a suicide note. Soon after the photos were leaked, Twitter was abuzz with chatter referencing the paper, with people spreading cover-up conspiracies and rumors that it was a suicide note. Buy Silver at Discounted Prices Scumbag shooter Stephen Paddock LEFT A NOTE, see new pics from inside hotel room! WHY IS MEDIA NOT REPORTING THIS? #LasVagasShooting pic.twitter.com/U9tULYsk2R — Michael 🇺🇸 (@trendy) October 3, 2017 The #StephenPaddock suicide note that the govt. is hiding from us. pic.twitter.com/z3JRAE80z6 — RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) October 3, 2017 It appears the Las Vegas Shooter left a suicide note. pic.twitter.com/ATtPMR6cUN — STUMP 4 TRUMP (@Stump4TrumpPAC) October 3, 2017 On Thursday, investigators revealed that the note in the photo was not, in fact, a suicide note but neglected to provide further details about the purpose of the note. In their first in-depth interview, which will air on CBS Sunday evening, the officers who stormed Stephen Paddock’s hotel room revealed new details to 60 Minutes that finally explain what was written on the mysterious note. “I could see on it he had written the distance, the elevation he was on, the drop of what his bullet was gonna be for the crowd,” said Officer Dave Newton from the Las Vegas Police in a preview clip of Sunday’s report. “So he had that written down and figured out so he would know where to shoot to hit his targets from there.” Paddock’s note was clearly not a suicide letter. Rather, it detailed bullet trajectory and included calculations about where he needed to aim his weapons to maximize accuracy and optimize his kill rate. Investigators have also been looking for a ‘mystery woman’ who was seen with Stephen Paddock in the days leading up to the Las Vegas shooting. According to ABC News, the ‘mystery woman’ everyone on the internet was talking about has been identified. While officials did not reveal the woman’s name, they did tell reporters she was a prostitute. Police are still investigating whether or not Paddock acted alone. They believe he may have had an accomplice based on the elaborate planning needed to undertake such a massacre and the fact that some ammunition was purchased under someone else’s name. As ABC reported Friday evening: “Meantime, investigators are still trying to figure out whether Paddock acted alone. Authorities believe he may have had an accomplice, based on the elaborate planning on Sunday night’s rampage.  Officials also believe he had help because of the amount of guns in his hotel room, and because some of the ammo was bought under someone else’s name.” Though more details are being released each day, Paddock’s motives remain unclear.
Austrian bishop forcefully rejects German Bishops’ idea of blessing homosexual unions  NewsCatholic Church SALZBURG, Austria, February 13, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The indignation about Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode – the President and the Vice President of the German Bishops' Conference – and their direct or more indirect encouragement of blessing homosexual unions is growing by the day. Now Bishop emeritus Andreas Laun – one of the signatories of the Kazakh “Profession of Truth about Sacramental Marriage” – has written a strong commentary for the Austrian Catholic news website Kath.net on the recent episcopal initiatives coming out of Germany. In the following, we shall present to our readers the essential parts of Bishop Laun's statement, in our English translation from the German. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Cardinal Marx and dear Bishop Bode, there is only one Catholic answer: No! And your addition “in individual cases” is absolutely worthless, it has no argumentative force. A clear statement by Bishop Andreas Laun for Kath.net. Cardinal Marx and also Bishop Bode have now opened up to the idea to offer homosexual couples a blessing. Why not, one could say, since the Church is ready to bless nearly everything on the earth? Now, the Church especially blesses people, but also deeds and objects. The Jesuit Father Eckhard Bieger writes in the Internet about Catholic blessings: For Catholics, really everything can be blessed, not only places of worship, chalices, and the faithful after each prayer service – whether after a Mass, or after the prayers for the hours of the day. The blessing is also not limited to rosaries or religious medal, but one may also bless cars, factory halls, animals, herbs, and much more. Some blessings are only to be made by priests and deacons, especially when it is about objects of worship such as chalices or vestments. But parents can bless their children. The faithful may also take home holy water and sprinkle it on members of the family, but also the stable and the animals, thus blessing them. [...] What kind of hope is connected with a blessing? With regard to the car, certainly the wish for heavenly protection – sometimes also expressed with the help of a medal of St. Christopher, the patron saint of car drivers. With the weather blessing, one prays explicitly for protection against hail, lightning and drought. […] To bless always means that something shall flourish, because only then when there is a blessing upon a cause or a project, will something good come out of it. The blessing comes from God, He is being addressed in the form of a request; and it is given to people, objects, and buildings, with the help of the sign of the cross, holy water, and incense. […] But now concerning the question of Cardinal Marx, and not a few of the priests, the answer is simple: one may ask for God's blessing for sinners, but not for the sin. That is to say, one could not consecrate a brothel, one could not bless a concentration camp or weapons which are not explicitly ordained for hunting or for legitimate self-defense. Therefore it is clear that one may not bless a relationship which is sinful; [one may not bless] the mafia; no blessing for organizations or institutions which promote or procure abortions or which propagate ideologies which are against the Faith, antisemitic contents, or other forms of racist thought. If one considers and weighs this matter, one knows: one may not bless a union of two homosexual men or of lesbian women. Of course [one could bless] two men or women who are de facto homosexual, and that it what happens in each Holy Mass which is being attended by them. This blessing – which is not related to their acts – is being received also by all the other sinners, and the Church thereby hopes that they will convert under the influence of God's Grace! This position which is really simple and easily to be understood has been clearly and convincingly presented – since the statement of the two bishops [Marx and Bode] – by several Christians: by Archbishops Ludwig Schick (Germany) and Charles Chaput (USA); by the German-speaking theologians Hubert Windisch and Markus Büning. I am sure there are many many others, too, who think alike, but whom I do not know. Dear Cardinal Marx and dear Bishop Bode, there is only one Catholic answer: No! And your addition “in individual cases” is absolutely worthless, it has no argumentative force. What would St. John the Baptist have said if Herod, taking for himself his brother's wife, would have excusingly called himself an “individual case”! The idea to bless sinful conduct is really what Isaiah described quite vividly, as follows: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” [Isaiah 5:20] Is this not exactly what Cardinal Marx – and others who are thinking like him – are doing? If one were to place on a bottle of sour cucumbers a tag “honey,” the cucumbers still remain sour! Even blessing bishops cannot change that. Nor can the pope, in calling for a cultural revolution, especially since he does not explain what he exactly means by it. He says that he “allows himself” to talk like that – but if one dares something, one might win, but one also can perish. That seems to catch on these days. For example, the Italian moral theologian, Maurizio Chiodi, recently claimed in his talk at the Gregorian Pontifical University that contraception is sometimes not only not forbidden, but even demanded! To contradict two popes – whom the Church has already “beatified” the one and “canonized” the other – so shortly after their deaths, and in such a radical and open manner, probably has never happened before in the Church's history. Isaiah says that such people draw unto them God's punishment, with thick cords! Nevertheless, one should wish for Cardinal Marx, Bishop Bode, and Professor Chiodi that they sleep well. Whether their conscience will allow it, is not so certain; but if it does not [allow it], it would certainly be a hope for their conversion.
Former Head of DNC Aided & Abetted Muslim IT Spy, Imran Awan  One of the biggest stories of 2017 and 2018 is being ignored by the mainstream media and we all know why that is. It's because it implicates dozens of House Democrats in what could be the biggest crime of spying in US history by Muslim IT spy Imran Awan and his partners. Former head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is on the front line of aiding and abetting Awan and his associates as has been revealed by Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller. In a lengthy report by Rosiak at The Daily Caller News Foundation, he writes: 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 * 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. Ex-Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she intervened in a Pakistani land deal involving her then–IT aide Imran Awan, according to two House employees. The dispute came after Awan’s father was charged with fraud in relation to the deal, and the mysterious exertion of political influence resulted in Pakistani authorities instead targeting the elderly alleged victims, according to a local report. And when a House Office of Inspector General cybersecurity investigation found that Awan made “unauthorized access” to House servers, including the House Democratic Caucus’ shortly before the election, Wasserman Schultz became “frantic, not normal,” “making the rounds” to House officials in an attempt to kill the investigation, one House employee told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Awan told people Wasserman Schultz chose the name for his daughter, Leza — a Jewish name — and that the Florida congresswoman’s daughter regularly rode a horse that Awan kept at a boarding facility, sources with knowledge of the relationship told TheDCNF. Wasserman Schultz cornered House Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko and called him a “fucking Islamophobe,” saying “you will not so much as take away their parking spots,” the two House employees said Kiko told them. The congresswoman also told Kiko she had invited Awan’s whole family to her daughter’s bat mitzvah and said she had “helped him with a land deal,” the sources said. A spokesman for Kiko declined to comment on this story. A 2009 article in the Pakistani publication Dawn, headlined “Influential expat shields father from long arm of law,” said Awan’s father was facing criminal fraud charges involving a land deal, but Awan used political connections to pressure the police into targeting the alleged victims instead. Awan’s father purchased “huge chunks of land from different farmers in 2008,” but all the checks bounced, the report said. “The police high-ups are ‘ominously’ indifferent to proceed against Awan,” and it’s “noteworthy” how they were “complying with the desires of” Awan, who the paper described as a “White House employee.” “About a dozen farmers of Chak 7-JB, Panjor, including five siblings — all aged between 57 and 70 — have given up hope of justice after they sold their agricultural lands to Ashraf Awan of Bole De Jhugi, who is father of White House employee Shahid Imran,” Dawn reported. Imran Awan also goes by Shahid Imran Awan, Virginia court records show. The police harassed the 19 would-be victims, including the five elderly brothers and even their lawyer, and charged them with “frivolous” cases, apparently to get them to stop trying to get the money they say they were owed, the paper said. “Mohammad Abid, a victim of [Ashraf] Awan’s alleged high-profile swindling, said that [Ashraf] Awan’s son had easy access to the corridors of power and that’s why he was able to [pressure] the police to dance to his tunes,” Dawn reported. The article details a series of people who say they were then subject to retaliation, including widow Bushra Bibi who said, “now Imran was threatening her with dire consequences.” A third source, who’s familiar with Imran Awan, told TheDCNF that Awan recounted the intervention in the foreign criminal matter and that Awan said it was Wasserman Schultz who intervened. A fourth source — a fellow House IT aide — previously told TheDCNF that Awan said now-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wasinvolved. Dr. Zafar Iqbal, one of the alleged victims, told TheDCNF that “Imran came to Pakistan to get [his father] out of jail, since he had some [connections] in the Congress.” Ashraf Awan’s business partner in the land deal, Rashid Minhas, told TheDCNF that the elder Awan gave a USB to a Pakistani senator who is a former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency, and that Imran claimed his IT position in Congress gave him the power to “change the U.S. president.” Minhas is in prison for an unrelated fraud charge. On July 25, 2016, the House Inspector General notified the Committee on House Administration that investigators had detected major cybersecurity violations by the Awan family. Awan, his wife, two brothers, his brother’s wife, and even his elderly father were all being paid by various Democrats to manage their servers, with many of the members from Wasserman Schultz’s Florida. The finding came at a critical time for Democrats: It was three days after WikiLeaks published the first emails from a hacked on the DNC, setting the stage for Wasserman Schultz to lose her position as party chair and for Democrats to begin electioneering on a theme of Russian hacking. In February 2017, Kiko and the House’s top law enforcement official, Paul Irving, outlined serious violations in a letter to the committee, and the family was banned from the House computer network. The letter also noted that the House Democratic Caucus server disappeared soon after the IG report named it as key evidence. But Wasserman Schultz refused to fire Awan, with her spokesman saying he would work on “websites” and “printers,” which a cybersecurity expert previously told TheDCNF would presumably involve network access. The congresswoman also added Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, to her payroll in late 2016, after the investigation was in full swing, but before the family was banned from the network. Wasserman Schultz kept paying her until March 17 — 12 days after Alvi went to Pakistan with $12,000 in a suitcase. Her actions so rattled the Administration Committee’s Democratic staff director, Jamie Fleet, that he planted a negative story in Politico that revealed Wasserman Schultz, his fellow Democrat, was continuing to pay the suspect, two House sources said. The story also said Wasserman Schultz had a “friendly personal relationship” with Awan and Alvi. Fleet did not respond to a request for comment. Kiko said in an April 2018 hearing spurred by the scandal that he was powerless to stop members who refused to fire a bad actor. “Termination, now it’s the member’s responsibility … We can revoke everything but they could still be employed,” he said. He added that his office should have the authority to override members who would want to keep a rule-breaker on the government network. Wasserman Schultz became fixated on finding out everything investigators knew about Awan, the House sources said. House investigators briefed her extensively with significant evidence about Awan and his family, including improper computer evidence. Yet Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, “my office was provided no evidence to indicate that laws had been broken, which over time, raised troubling concerns about due process, fair treatment and potential ethnic and religious profiling.” Wasserman Schultz was defending someone investigators allegedly told her was suspected of cybersecurity violations, despite having resigned from her position as DNC head following a devastating hack during the 2016 election. Despite Wasserman Schultz’s relationship with Awan, in April 2017 — two months after he was banned from the computer network — the IT aide appeared to put the congresswoman at risk. Capitol Police found a laptop with the username RepDWS in a phone booth at midnight along with a copy of Awan’s ID, a letter to prosecutors and a note that said “attorney client privilege,” according to a police report. Awan’s ID caused police to tie it to a criminal suspect and seize it, but the note kept them from looking at it. That led to a tense exchange recorded on video in May 2017, in which Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the Capitol Police with “consequences” for not returning the laptop. When he refused, she mulled attempting to restructuring the Capitol Police’s entire board so that her committee would have more leverage over it. House sources told TheDCNF these exchanges were only a public glimpse into numerous such interactions, which were frequently profane, with every official she could buttonhole. One source said she also went to the Department of Justice and “made a stink.” Wasserman Schultz hired the House’s former top lawyer, Bill Pittard — who had recently quit the House — to try to block prosecutors from seeing evidence, TheDCNF previously reported.Awan obtained legal representation from two lawyers who began their careers in Miami — one with experience in espionage cases and the other a former aide to Hillary Clinton. Wasserman Schultz’ district includes much of Miami. One of Awan’s lawyers told a judge he felt “very strongly” that prosecutors should not be able to look at the RepDWS laptop, mounting an attorney-client privilege argument. Prosecutors did not challenge the argument before the judge. In August 2017, Imran and Hina were charged with four felony counts for gathering up money under allegedly false circumstances before wiring $300,000 to Pakistan in January. Prosecutors said the timing suggests that the Awans had learned of their investigation, which a spokeswoman for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, AshLee Strong, told TheDCNF was supposed to be secret. Capitol Police “requested that the shared employees be allowed to continue to use their IT credentials until February [2017] because they didn’t want to tip off the employees,” she said. Wasserman Schultz’s brother is a prosecutor in the same office handling the case and has tweeted about it. Gowen said the wire transfer instead had to do with the land deal, which he told the Washington Examiner was “quickly souring.” Wasserman Schultz did not respond to a request for comment.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban Calls For Global Anti-Migrant Alliance  Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who has been at the forefront in Europe in standing against illegal immigration and the invasion of Muslims into his country has called for a global alliance to stand against the migrant invasion. Viktor Orban, who openly professes the Reformed faith of Christianity, told an audience at the Royal Castle in Budapest, “Christianity is Europe’s last hope.” He continued by stating that mass immigration, especially from Africa, “our worst nightmares can come true. The West falls as it fails to see Europe being overrun.” Reuters reports: Hungarian leader Viktor Orban called on Sunday for a global alliance against migration as his right-wing populist Fidesz party began campaigning for an April 8 election in which it is expected to win a third consecutive landslide victory. Popular at home but increasingly at odds politically and economically with mainstream European Union peers, Orban has thrived on external controversy, including repeated clashes with Brussels and lately the United Nations. Those conflicts, mostly centered on migration since people fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa flooded into Europe in 2015, have intensified as the elections approach and Orban poses as a savior of Europe’s Christian nations. One thing to note is that Christianity is not Europe's "last hope," it's the world's "only hope." In speaking of the influx of Muslim migrants into Europe, Orban sees it as destroying the culture of Europe and referred to it as an “immigrant zone, a mixed population world that heads in a direction different from ours.” Orban then called out the traitors in the midst of Europe who want to push Hungary to accept Muslim invaders. “Absurd as it may sound the danger we face comes from the West, from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris,” he told the crowd to applause. “Of course we will fight, and use ever stronger legal tools. The first is our ‘Stop Soros’ law.” Orban has seen the influence of George Soros and his organizations in Hungary and has openly criticized it and Soros, calling Soros a "public enemy." He also said that Soros has "ruined" millions of lives via his "mafia network." Reuters adds: Soros, for his part, compared Orban unfavorably to both the Nazis and the Communists, saying his rule evoked dark tones from the 1930’s — when Hungary was allied with Nazi Germany — and was more oppressive than Cold War Soviet occupation. Orban has tightened the screws on non-government organizations, particularly ones funded by Soros, and attempted to close a prominent Soros-founded university. Attributing to Soros a recent United Nations plan on creating a global blueprint to handle the migration crisis, Orban said he anticipated that powerful allies would help him prevent the U.N. from greasing the wheels of migration. “Soros has antagonized not only us but also England, President Trump and Israel too,” Orban said. “Everywhere he wants to get migration accepted. It won’t work. We are not alone and we will fight together … and we will succeed.” “We don’t think the fight is hopeless, on the contrary, we are winning,” Orban said. “The V4 is firm, Croatia has come around, Austria has turned in the patriotic direction, and in Bavaria the CSU has created a resistance.” The fight isn't hopeless for those whose hope is in the Lord and will stay the course. I wish Orban and those who support him success!
An Anti-Semitic Purge At McGill University  ​Despite suffering several public and humiliating reversals in various forums and venues, those pushing for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel have not dispensed with their pernicious campaign of hate. The latest outrage perpetrated by BDS activists occurred at McGill University, where a Jewish student and two non-Jewish students identified as pro-Israel were removed from their positions as directors of the Students Society of McGill University (SSMU). At the end of his second year, Noah Lew, who is currently third year undergraduate student at McGill University, applied to serve as Director of the School’s student society. He was warned by others who had prior dealings with the SSMU, to keep his Jewish identity secret lest he sabotage his chances. This is the atmosphere that Jewish students and supporters of Israel must endure on a daily basis at McGill. The toxic environment is due almost exclusively to an active and vocal presence of BDS agitators on campus. Lew followed the advice and was elected as a board member. His “secret” was intact. BDS provocateurs at McGill had relentlessly tried and failed to pass boycott resolutions against Israel. In fact, three attempts within an 18-month period were quashed. Finally, in June 2016, SSMU’s Judicial Board ruled that the BDS campaign and efforts to institute it at McGill ran counter to the McGill’s undergraduate student union constitution. The Board’s ruling, which is called a “reference,” was then referred to SSMU’s directors for ratification. SSMU’s Board of Directors addressed the issue more than a year after the “reference.” Lew and other board members passionately advocated in favor of ratification and their arguments ultimately prevailed over the naysayers. The malevolent BDS campaign at McGill had belatedly come to an ignominious end; or so we thought. Lew and two other directors identified as either Jewish or pro-Israel became instant targets of a campaign of hate laced with blatant anti-Semitic overtones. Campus BDS groups held several meetings to formulate a response and founded the so-called “Democratize SSMU” movement. But Democratize SSMU was anything but democratic. Its raison d'être was to seek the removal of Jewish and anti-BDS students from SSMU’s Board of Directors and place BDS back on the agenda. As an aside, one of the more vocal proponents of BDS at McGill is a rancid character named Igor Sadikov, who in February posted a comment on twitter advocating violence against “Zionists.” As a result, he was forced to resign his position as an SSMU director but dodged an impeachment effort to have him stripped of his position at McGill’s Arts Undergraduate Society. Sadikov made light of his “punch a Zionist” tweet calling it a “misguided joke.” It does not appear that Sadikov was subjected to any form of school disciplinary action despite the fact that his call for violence violated McGill’s Code of Conduct. McGill’s BDS Action Network actively campaigned against Lew and two other board members because of their links to Jewish groups and anti-BDS stances. Democratize SSMU shamefully highlighted Lew’s ethnicity as a reason for his removal. An enlightened, progressive school was suddenly transformed into something harking back to the days of Nazi Germany and the Nuremberg Laws. In October, SSMU’s General Assembly moved to ratify the 12-member Board of Directors. According to Lew, “historically, the Board of Directors had been ratified as a bloc, all 12 at a time.” But BDS activists who showed up for the General Assembly ratification forced the voting to occur on an individual basis rather than a block as was the accepted protocol. In this manner, BDS/ Democratize SSMU activists managed to pick off their opponents one at a time. It was repulsive display leftist-fascist bigotry at its worst. The bigoted BDS provocateurs applauded as Lew and the other two board members were removed from their posts. But this time, they may have gone too far. Even by BDS standards, their manifestly anti-Semitic campaign antics were beyond the pale. BDS activists generally avoid reference to “Jews” by name because it is impolitic and commonly substitute “Zionists” for Jews even though most of us are cognizant of their true intentions. But in the instant case, McGill’s BDS campaigners dispensed with their traditional charade and overtly launched their attack against Jews. The vitriolic BDS campaign immediately sparked outrage among watchdog groups and politicians prompting McGill principal, Suzanne Fortier, to announce that the school would be conducting an investigation into the matter. Even SSMU president, Muna Tojiboeva, voiced support for Lew and expressed the belief that antisemitism played a key role in the ousting the three board members. One can only hope that Fortier takes the issue seriously and conducts a proper investigation, which leads to disciplinary action. Judging by past “investigations” conducted by other schools – SFSU, CUNY and UCI, to name a few – I am not optimistic.
Patrick J. Buchanan: Sorry, Jeff Flake, It's Trump's Party Now! | Articles  More is now required of us than to put down our thoughts in writing, declaimed Jeff Flake in his oration against President Trump, just before he announced he will be quitting the Senate. Though he had lifted the title of his August anti-Trump polemic, "Conscience of a Conservative," from Barry Goldwater, Jeff Flake is no Barry Goldwater. Goldwater took on the GOP establishment in the primaries, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, defiantly declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," and then went down to defeat battling to the end after the assassination of JFK made LBJ invincible. The real "Mr. Conservative" was a true profile in courage. Flake, with only 18 percent approval in Arizona, decided to pack it in rather than get waxed in his own primary. With Falstaff, Flake appears to believe that "discretion is the better part of valor." Sen. Bob Corker is another summertime soldier calling on colleagues to stand and fight Trump while he retires to Tennessee. It's no wonder the establishment is viewed with such derision. Flake calls Trump "dangerous to our democracy." But the real threat Trump represents is to the GOP establishment's control of the party's agenda and the party's destiny. U.S. politics have indeed been coarsened, with Trump playing a lead role. Yet, beneath the savagery of the uncivil war in the party lies more than personal insults and personality clashes. This is a struggle about policy, about the future. And Trump is president because he read the party and the country right, while the Bush-McCain Republican establishment had lost touch with both. How could the Beltway GOP not see that its defining policies — open borders, amnesty, free trade globalism, compulsive military intervention in foreign lands for ideological ends — were alienating its coalition? What had a quarter century of Bushite free trade produced? About $12 trillion in trade deficits, $4 trillion with China alone, a loss of 55,000 plants and 6 million manufacturing jobs. We imported goods "Made in China," while exporting our future. U.S. elites made China great again, to where Beijing is now challenging our strategic position and presence in Asia. Could Republicans not see the factories shutting down, or not understand why workers' wages had failed to rise for decades? What did the democracy crusades "to end tyranny in our world" accomplish? Thousands of U.S. dead, tens of thousands of wounded, trillions of dollars sunk, and a Mideast awash in blood from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, with millions uprooted and homeless. Yet, still, the GOP establishment has not repudiated the mindset that produced this. With the Cold War over for a quarter of a century, what is the case now for America, $20 trillion in debt, going abroad in search of monsters to destroy? Consider. Bush-Obama "open borders" brought in tens of millions of Third World peoples, legally and illegally, to rising resistance from Americans forced to bear the economic and social costs. What was the GOP establishment's reply to the opposition to amnesty for illegals and calls for a moratorium on legal immigration, to assimilate the tens of millions already here? To call them nativists and parade their moral superiority. Flake and Corker are being beatified by the Beltway elites, and George W. Bush and John McCain celebrated for their denunciations of Trumpism. Yet no two people are more responsible for the blunders of the post-Cold War era than McCain and Bush. About which of half a dozen wars were they right? Yesterday's New York Times recognized Trump's triumph: "Despite the fervor of President Trump's Republican opponents, the president's brand of hard-edged nationalism—with its gut-level cultural appeals and hard lines on trade and immigration—is taking root within his adopted party." Moreover, a new question arises: Can the GOP establishment believe that if Trump falls, or they bring him down, they will inherit the estate and be welcomed home like the Prodigal Son? Do they believe their old agenda of open borders, amnesty, free trade globalism and democracy-crusading can become America's agenda again? Trumpism is not a detour, after which we can all get back on the interstate to the New World Order. For though unpleasant, it is not unfair to say that if there was one desire common to Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump voters, it was be rid of the regime resting on top of all of us. Should Trump fall, and a restored establishment attempt to reimpose the old policies, there will be a truly uncivil war in this country. After the Trumpian revolt, there is no going back. As that most American of writers, Thomas Wolfe, put it, "You can't go home again." Traditionalists have been told that for years. Now it's the turn of the GOP establishment to learn the truth as well. Goldwater lost badly, but the establishment that abandoned him never had its patrimony restored. It was the leaders they abhorred, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, to whom the future belonged. Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. His latest book, published May 9, is “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” See Peter Brimelow’s review: “Wheel And Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump.
Bishop Morlino Targets ‘Homosexual Subculture’ in the Church, Calls for Reparation to Sacred Heart of Jesus  Editor’s Note: Over the years, Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison has confirmed several of my children according to the traditional Rite of Confirmation, as his diocese has been a port in the storm for many displaced and disillusioned Catholic families. We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but his faith and pastoral solicitude have for us been a light in the darkness and proof that God has not left us orphans. And now this, finally, a bishop with the courage to look the beast in the eye and speak its name out loud. Bishop Morlino does this in a moment when he is under heavy attack as a “hater” for defending the Church’s teaching on marriage—an attack, by the way, which prompted us here at The Remnant to join the fight to DEFEND BISHOP MORLINO last year. "If you'll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says 'My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).' It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. – Bishop Robert Morlino This is what a courageous shepherd looks like! In our opinion, during the most vile clergy sex scandal in history, every bishop in the country must do exactly what Bishop Morlino has done, i.e., issue a statement of fidelity to the Church’s moral theology, specifically her teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts. In so doing, the bishops will incur the wrath of the enemies of the Church, yes. They will be crucified in the media, yes. But they will also be doing their sacred duty before God in reassuring their thoroughly scandalized flocks that they are absolutely committed to the defense and enforcement of the Church’s moral teaching at a time when it is under scurrilous attack from within. Nothing less will do. Bishop Morlino has now done it, and we respectfully demand that the rest of the American bishops either follow suit or face the charge of being complicit with the degenerate and even criminal shepherds, accounts of whose betrayal and vice now dominate the news. May God bless and keep Bishop Robert Morlino. MJM Bishop Robert C. Morlino's letter to the faithful on the ongoing sexual abuse crisis in the Church August 18, 2018 Dear brothers and sisters in Christ of the Diocese of Madison, The past weeks have brought a great deal of scandal, justified anger, and a call for answers and action by many faithful Catholics here in the U.S. and overseas, directed at the Church hierarchy regarding sexual sins by bishops, priests, and even cardinals. Still more anger is rightly directed at those who have been complicit in keeping some of these serious sins from coming to light. For my part — and I know I am not alone — I am tired of this. I am tired of people being hurt, gravely hurt! I am tired of the obfuscation of truth. I am tired of sin. And, as one who has tried — despite my many imperfections — to lay down my life for Christ and His Church, I am tired of the regular violation of sacred duties by those entrusted with immense responsibility from the Lord for the care of His people. The stories being brought into light and displayed in gruesome detail with regard to some priests, religious, and now even those in places of highest leadership, are sickening. Hearing even one of these stories is, quite literally, enough to make someone sick. But my own sickness at the stories is quickly put into perspective when I recall the fact that many individuals have lived through them for years. For them, these are not stories, they are indeed realities. To them I turn and say, again, I am sorry for what you have suffered and what you continue to suffer in your mind and in your heart. If you have not already done so, I beg you to reach out, as hard as that may be, and seek help to begin to heal. Also, if you’ve been hurt by a priest of our diocese, I encourage you to come forward, to make a report to law enforcement and to our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator, so that we might begin, with you as an individual, to try and set things right to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing about these stories that is okay. These actions, committed by more than a few, can only be classified as evil, evil that cries out for justice and sin that must be cast out from our Church. Faced with stories of the depravity of sinners within the Church, I have been tempted to despair. And why? The reality of sin — even sin in the Church — is nothing new. We are a Church made of sinners, but we are sinners called to sanctity. So what is new? What is new is the seeming acceptance of sin by some in the Church, and the apparent efforts to cover over sin by them and others. Unless and until we take seriously our call to sanctity, we, as an institution and as individuals, will continue to suffer the “wages of sin.” For too long we have diminished the reality of sin — we have refused to call a sin a sin — and we have excused sin in the name of a mistaken notion of mercy. In our efforts to be open to the world we have become all too willing to abandon the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In order to avoid causing offense we offer to ourselves and to others niceties and human consolation. Why do we do this? Is it out of an earnest desire to display a misguided sense of being “pastoral?” Have we covered over the truth out of fear? Are we afraid of being disliked by people in this world? Or are we afraid of being called hypocrites because we are not striving tirelessly for holiness in our own lives? Perhaps these are the reasons, but perhaps it is more or less complex than this. In the end, the excuses do not matter. We must be done with sin. It must be rooted out and again considered unacceptable. Love sinners? Yes. Accept true repentance? Yes. But do not say sin is okay. And do not pretend that grave violations of office and of trust come without grave, lasting consequences. For the Church, the crisis we face is not limited to the McCarrick affair, or the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, or anything else that may come. The deeper crisis that must be addressed is the license for sin to have a home in individuals at every level of the Church. There is a certain comfort level with sin that has come to pervade our teaching, our preaching, our decision making, and our very way of living. If you’ll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says “My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).” It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. There must be no room left, no refuge for sin — either within our own lives, or within the lives of our communities. To be a refuge for sinners (which we should be), the Church must be a place where sinners can turn to be reconciled. In this I speak of all sin. But to be clear, in the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals. We are talking about acts and actions which are not only in violation of the sacred promises made by some, in short, sacrilege, but also are in violation of the natural moral law for all. To call it anything else would be deceitful and would only ignore the problem further. There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is time to be honest that the problems are both and they are more. To fall into the trap of parsing problems according to what society might find acceptable or unacceptable is ignoring the fact that the Church has never held ANY of it to be acceptable — neither the abuse of children, nor any use of one’s sexuality outside of the marital relationship, nor the sin of sodomy, nor the entering of clerics into intimate sexual relationships at all, nor the abuse and coercion by those with authority. In this last regard, special mention should be made of the most notorious and highest in ranking case, that being the allegations of former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s (oft-rumored, now very public) sexual sins, predation, and abuse of power. The well-documented details of this case are disgraceful and seriously scandalous, as is any covering up of such appalling actions by other Church leaders who knew about it based on solid evidence. While recent credible accusations of child sexual abuse by Archbishop McCarrick have brought a whole slew of issues to light, long-ignored was the issue of abuse of his power for the sake of homosexual gratification. It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord. The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest. And the decision to act upon this disordered inclination is a sin so grave that it cries out to heaven for vengeance, especially when it involves preying upon the young or the vulnerable. Such wickedness should be hated with a perfect hatred. Christian charity itself demands that we should hate wickedness just as we love goodness. But while hating the sin, we must never hate the sinner, who is called to conversion, penance, and renewed communion with Christ and His Church, through His inexhaustible mercy. At the same time, however, the love and mercy which we are called to have even for the worst of sinners does not exclude holding them accountable for their actions through a punishment proportionate to the gravity of their offense. In fact, a just punishment is an important work of love and mercy, because, while it serves primarily as retribution for the offense committed, it also offers the guilty party an opportunity to make expiation for his sin in this life (if he willingly accepts his punishment), thus sparing him worse punishment in the life to come. Motivated, therefore, by love and concern for souls, I stand with those calling for justice to be done upon the guilty. The sins and crimes of McCarrick, and of far too many others in the Church, bring suspicion and mistrust upon many good and virtuous priests, bishops, and cardinals, and suspicion and mistrust upon many great and respectable seminaries and so many holy and faithful seminarians. The result of the first instance of mistrust harms the Church and the very good work we do in Christ’s name. It causes others to sin in their thoughts, words, and deeds — which is the very definition of scandal. And the second mistrust harms the future of the Church, since our future priests are at stake. I said that I was tempted to despair in light of all of this. However, that temptation quickly passed, thanks be to God. No matter how large the problem, we know that we are called to go forward in faith, to rely upon God’s promises to us, and to work hard to make every bit of difference we can, within our spheres of influence. I have recently had the opportunity to talk directly with our seminarians about these very pressing matters, and I have begun to, and will continue to, talk with the priests of the diocese, as well as the faithful, in person and through my weekly column and homilies, making things as clear as I can, from my perspective. Here now, I offer a few thoughts to those of my diocese: In the first place, we must continue to build upon the good work which we have accomplished in protecting the youth and vulnerable of our diocese. This is a work on which we can never rest in our vigilance, nor our efforts to improve. We must continue in our work of education for all and hold to the effective policies that have been implemented, requiring psychological exams for all candidates for ministry, as well as across-the-board background checks for anyone working with children or vulnerable individuals. Here again, I state, as we have done consistently, if you have knowledge of any sort of criminal abuse of children by someone in the Church, contact law enforcement. If you need help in contacting law enforcement contact our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator and she will help connect you with the best resources. If you are an adult victim of sexual abuse from childhood, we still encourage you to reach out to law enforcement first, but even if you don’t want to, please still reach out to us. To our seminarians: If you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me and to the seminary rector. I will address it swiftly and vigorously. I will not stand for this in my diocese or anywhere I send men for formation. I trust that the seminaries I choose, very discriminately, to help form our men will not ignore this type of scandalous behavior, and I will continue to verify that expectation. To our priests: Most simply, live out the promises you made on your ordination day. You are called to serve Christ’s people, beginning with praying daily the Liturgy of the Hours. This is to keep you very close to God. In addition, you promised to obey and be loyal to your bishop. In obedience, strive to live out your priesthood as a holy priest, a hard working priest, and a pure and happy priest — as Christ Himself is calling you to do. And by extension, live a chaste and celibate life so that you can completely give your life to Christ, the Church, and the people whom he has called you to serve. God will give you the graces to do so. Ask Him for the help you need daily and throughout every day. And if you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me. I will not stand for this in my diocese any more than in our seminaries. To the faithful of the diocese: If you are the victim of abuse of any kind by a priest, bishop, cardinal, or any employee of the Church, bring it forward. It will be addressed quickly and justly. If you have directly witnessed sexual advances or any type of abuse, bring it forward as well. Such actions are sinful and scandalous and we cannot allow anyone to use their position or power to abuse another person. Again, in addition to injuring individuals, these actions injure the very Body of Christ, His Church. Furthermore, I add my name to those calling for real and sustained reform in the episcopate, priesthood, our parishes, schools, universities, and seminaries that would root out and hold accountable any would-be sexual predator or accomplice; I will hold the priests of the diocese to their promise to live a chaste and celibate life of service to you and your parish, and evidence of failure in this regard will be justly addressed; I will likewise hold every man studying for the priesthood for our diocese accountable to living a chaste and celibate life as part of his formation for the priesthood. Failure to do so will lead to dismissal from diocesan sponsorship; I will continue to require (with our men and our funds) that all seminaries to which we send men to study be vigilant that seminarians are protected from sexual predators and provide an atmosphere conducive to their holistic formation as holy priests, in the image of Christ; I ask all the faithful of the diocese to assist in keeping us accountable to civil authorities, the faithful in the pews, and to God Almighty, not only to protect children and the youth from sexual predators in the Church, but our seminarians, university students, and all the faithful as well. I promise to put any victim and their sufferings before that of the personal and professional reputation of a priest, or any Church employee, guilty of abuse; I ask everyone reading this to pray. Pray earnestly for the Church and all her ministers. Pray for our seminarians. And pray for yourselves and your families. We must all work daily on our own personal holiness and hold ourselves accountable first and, in turn, hold our brothers and sisters accountable as well, and Finally, I ask you all to join me and the entire clergy of the Diocese of Madison in making public and private acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for all the sins of sexual depravity committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy. I will be offering a public Mass of reparation on Friday, September 14, the Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross, at Holy Name Heights and I ask all pastors to do the same in their own parishes. In addition, I ask that all priests, clergy, religious, and diocesan employees join me in observing the upcoming Autumn Ember Days (Sep. 19, 21, and 22) as days of fasting and abstinence in reparation for the sins and outrages committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy and I invite all the faithful to do the same. Some sins, like some demons, can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. This letter and these statements and promises are not intended to be an exhaustive list of what we can and need to do in the Church to begin to heal from, and stave off, this deep illness in the Church, but rather the next steps I believe we can take locally. More than anything else, we as a Church must cease our acceptance of sin and evil. We must cast out sin from our own lives and run toward holiness. We must refuse to be silent in the face of sin and evil in our families and communities and we must demand from our pastors — myself included — that they themselves are striving day in and day out for holiness. We must do this always with loving respect for individuals but with a clear understanding that true love can never exist without truth. Again, right now there is a lot of justified anger and passion coming from many holy and faithful lay people and clerics across the country, calling for real reform and “house cleaning” of this type of depravity. I stand with them. I don’t know yet how this will play out nationally or internationally. But I do know this, and I make this my last point and last promise, for the Diocese of Madison: “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Faithfully yours in the Lord, Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino Bishop of Madison This text first appeared in the Madison Catholic Herald.
Texas teen says he had drink thrown at him at Whataburger because he was wearing pro-Trump hat  A Texas teenager who supports President Trump says he was assaulted by a drink-throwing stranger at a Whataburger restaurant -- all because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. The incident, which was captured on video and has since gone viral, reportedly happened Tuesday at one of the burger chain’s restaurants in San Antonio. “You ain’t supporting s--- n----!” the man is heard saying on camera after tossing a large drink in the direction of the person filming the video. WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE: Click here to watch the video. The individual, who has not been identified, then walks away while carrying the red hat. The man is heard muttering "b---- a-- motherf------" as one of the other teens sitting at the table appears stunned. Hunter Richard, the 16-year-old teen who says he was wearing the hat, told WOAI that some of his hair was ripped off as the man removed it from his head. "I support my President and, if you don’t, let’s have a conversation about it instead of ripping my hat off,” he told the station. “I just think a conversation about politics is more productive for the entire whole rather than taking my hat and yelling subjective words to me.” San Antonio police told Fox News on Thursday they had received a complaint and detectives had been assigned to the case. Earlier in the day, a police spokesperson said the department hadn't received a report. Whataburger told Fox News that it is cooperating with the police investigation. “We were shocked to see this video and certainly don’t condone this type of customer behavior in our restaurants," the company said. "To be clear, no Whataburger employees were involved or witnessed the incident, and we ask that questions be directed to San Antonio PD as we continue supporting their efforts.” Video of the incident reportedly was posted on a Facebook page with a request for the public to help identify the "scum bag of the year.” It racked up more than two million views before being removed or hidden, according to KENS 5. The man in the video allegedly was fired from his part-time job at a San Antonio bar after the footage began circulating on social media. “It came to our attention earlier this evening that a part-time employee was captured on cell phone video assaulting another person at a local eatery,” the Rumble bar in San Antonio posted on its Facebook page. “The assault took place, presumably, because this employee did not agree with the other individual’s political stance." It continued: “We have since terminated this employee, as his actions go against everything that this establishment stands for. THIS BAR IS A SAFE SPACE FOR EVERYONE! No matter your race, creed, ethnicity, sexual identity, and political stance, you are welcomed here!”
Archbishop Hebda and McCarrick's Scandal  Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul, MN, responds to the McCarrick scandal (The Catholic Spirit): Every time Mass is celebrated, the priest prays that Jesus will “look not on our sins but on the faith of [his] Church… .” That’s been an important prayer for me in the time that I have been serving this archdiocese, well aware of our sins but equally aware of the strong and vibrant faith of this local Church. I’ve been praying that prayer even more earnestly in these past weeks as the Church in the United States has once again come face-to-face with its sins, with reports that former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, one of the most prominent Churchmen in the United States in the last quarter century, has been accused of abusing two minors and sexually harassing or assaulting a number of seminarians and young priests. To make matters worse (if that is even possible), evidence has surfaced that indicates that a bishop, as well as some priests and laity, had brought the allegations about misconduct with seminarians to the attention of Church authorities but to no avail: Archbishop McCarrick was nonetheless “promoted” to become the archbishop in our nation’s capital, and elevated to the College of Cardinals. While I realize that it is not always easy to evaluate the credibility of those bringing allegations, and that there’s often a tendency to believe those we know over those we don’t, I don’t think that the Church in the United States will rest — and confidence will be restored — until the matter is independently investigated and explained, and assurances are given that there are safeguards in place to make sure that something like this couldn’t happen again. The matter has been particularly troubling to me personally due to the fact that I had served in the Archdiocese of Newark as coadjutor archbishop from November 4, 2013, to March 25, 2016, when I was named archbishop here. It was while I was in Newark that I was introduced to then-Cardinal McCarrick. A number of good Catholics have written to ask for a personal accounting on my part, inquiring whether I was made aware in my time in Newark of the 2005 and 2007 settlements involving Archbishop McCarrick, or if I knew of any allegations against him. I can state unequivocally that I learned of those settlements only in June of this year, as news broke about the unrelated claim that had been filed in the Archdiocese of New York. What I know of the settlements I know from the newspapers. When serving in Newark, I was regularly briefed on current legal matters of all sorts, but not on past legal matters (unless they were still being discussed in the press). By the time I arrived in Newark in November 2013, the 2005 and 2007 settlements were apparently considered ancient history. It would be untrue to state that I had never heard any allegations about Cardinal McCarrick. Years before I ever lived in Newark, and never imagining that I would be assigned there, I had indeed read — as a somewhat geeky ex-lawyer — an allegation about Cardinal McCarrick in the context of a 2005 lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Archbishop Myers, Cardinal Eagan, Bishop Hubbard and the Irish Christian Brothers. While the complaint didn’t supply any details, the plaintiff was reported to have said to a journalist that “Archbishop McCarrick would share a bed with seminarians but not engage in any activity with them.” The complaint would later be formally amended to include that allegation. Knowing, however, that this lawsuit was completely dismissed by the state and federal courts, I never gave the particular allegation about Cardinal McCarrick any credence. I can also state without exception that no one in my years in Newark ever told me that they were improperly touched by Archbishop McCarrick, and no one ever told me that they had to share a bed with him or that they had seen anyone share a bed with him. I heard lots of gut-wrenching stories in my two-and-a-half years there, but none of them involved Archbishop McCarrick. With St. John Paul II’s 1995 visit, he was remembered for “bringing a saint to Newark,” not as an abuser of seminarians, minors or priests. When I was installed here in St. Paul, he joined me at lunch along with my father, sister, godmother and then 12-year-old nephew. I can assure you that I would never have allowed that to happen if I had any reason to know or even suspect the things that have been reported in the newspapers this past month. While the letters and emails of recent days are sober reminders that there’s still a long way to go in restoring trust, I nonetheless welcome the efforts to hold me accountable to you, the faithful of this archdiocese. The events of these past weeks have shown that no one can be above the law, regardless of rank or privilege. I was grateful for the opportunity to reinforce that with our seminarians this past weekend, and I look forward to continuing my work with the Office of Ministerial Standards and Safe Environment, and our Archdiocesan Review Board, in creating a culture in which no one need be afraid or reluctant to bring forth an allegation of misconduct. Our heavenly patron, St. Paul, reminds us that “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.” May these difficult days be days of great grace for this local Church. REMNANT COMMENT: While we certainly appreciate His Excellency's candid explanation of what he knew and did not know about this horrific scandal in the Church, we would also humbly beg him to take it one step further by publicly proclaiming his profession of belief in the Church's official teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts and the so-called "gay lifestyle," which includes her long-held teaching that homosexual activity between clerics is an ecclesiastical crime. Far from being reassured of this by their bishops, many Catholic faithful today are informed that the modern Catholic Church is now an "inclusive community" that "welcomes all" and "judges none." All very well and good, except for the fact that the Church's constant and unchanging moral teaching on this makes no such allowance. In fact, this binding and constant teaching of the Church was reaffirmed most recently in her most authoritative modern catechism, which holds the exact opposite position from that apparently held by many bishops: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357) Under no circumstances…except for those dreamed up by a number of bishops in this country who apparently think that it should be left up to individual parishes to decide if they are LGBTQ-friendly or not. Even Pope John Paul "The GREAT's" Vatican clarified the Church's teaching on October 31, 1986, in the “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”: Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not. Notice the late pope does not say, “Let the practicing homosexuals have a spiritual home among your faithful,” as Father James Martin and his episcopal fans are at least implying on a regular basis in the media. Does Archbishop Hebda believe it is time for the Church to stop humiliating herself by stooping to accommodate a special interest group that obviously doesn't care about her or the moral code by which she governs? Does he believe that all Catholics must follow the rules of the Church pertaining to the Sixth Commandment...or just the straight Catholics? Does His Excellency believe that if some homosexual Catholics feel they need not bother following the rules they should be warmly welcomed into our "Catholic Christian" community anyway, even if they are in same-sex unions? Pope John Paul certainly didn't accept that. In his 2005 book Memory and Identity, John Paul referred to homosexuality as an “ideology of evil,” insisting of so-called 'gay marriage' that: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and man.” Was Pope John Paul THE GREAT an intolerant homophobe? Are Father Martin and his pals in the episcopacy really so enlightened over every pope, saint, and moral theologian in history? Or is it not so that it is both negligent and uncharitable for some bishops to refuse to inform their faithful that according to the Church's own infallible teaching, everlasting damnation is the price to be paid for this kind of inclusivity and toleration? And if the episcopal retort is going to be that this acceptance refers only to chaste homosexuals, then we call FOUL even louder since this crosses the line into willful deception. We're all sinners, of course--- and the Church already accepts repentant homosexuals as they are, just as she accepts repentant practitioners of ANY sins of the flesh. So why are our bishops playing dumb? Quite obviously, it is because what they are actually closing an episcopal eye to are the folks who want to keep right on sinning--and sinning proudly. This is what the Church of Accompaniment is all about! But, practically speaking--in the real world--this kind of "accompaniment" is only green-lighting vice and mortal sin, and as such constitutes a hideous violation of everything these bishops supposedly believe as Catholic priests. So what's going on here? Who are these bishops that think they can play fast and loose not only with the moral theology of the Catholic Church, but also with the immortal souls of their flock? Is it any wonder that priests and laity alike are changing their attitude on the "gay lifestyle" and violations of the Sixth Commandment when so many bishops are working to remove the stigma attached to this sin that Scripture tells us cries to heaven for vengeance? The Catholic Church's new-found "climate of tolerance" is exactly what McCarrick and company are counting on! It is truly homophobic for any bishop to lie to the gay community about this, and to risk the immortal souls of the sheep merely so that the shepherd might pride himself on occupying the politically correct high ground. This is gross dereliction of duty, and we hope and pray that all the good U.S. bishops would jump at the opportunity to issue statements reaffirming the Church's clear teaching against all sins of the flesh, homo- and heterosexual. Again, God bless Archbishop Hebda for this welcome statement, and may God grant him the courage now to finish the task by publicly reassuring the scandalized faithful that it’s not just abuse of minors or sexual harassment that’s going on here. Our bishops must make it absolutely clear that the Church's moral theology on homosexuality will not and can not be trumped by the dictates of political correctness. And neither can God's law be changed to accommodate the spirit of our “most enlightened” age---which is, of course, an evil spirit that can be driven out only by prayer and fasting. Until the Church and her bishops get back to reaffirming traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality we can forget about seeing an end to the sexual abuse crisis and the massive problem of homosexuality in the clergy. McCarrick will become the norm, not the exception, and confidence in the leadership and moral authority of the Catholic Church will remain in the toilet indefinitely... exactly as the forces of darkness intended all along.
Another Sound Weapon Used To ATTACK US Diplomats: This Time In China  A United States government employee assigned to the American consulate in Guangzhou, China suffered a mild traumatic brain injury similar to those reported by diplomats in Cuba. The unnamed worker reported, “subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure.” The government employee experienced the symptoms from late 2017 until April of 2018, according to the U.S. State Department. “The employee was sent to the United States for further evaluation. On May 18, 2018, the Embassy learned that the clinical findings of this evaluation matched mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI),” Jinnie Lee, U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Beijing, told Gizmodo by email. “The Chinese government has assured us they are also investigating and taking appropriate measures,” Lee continued. But this isn’t the first time a sound weapon has been used on American diplomats. Cuba has been accused of using a similar device to cause brain trauma in Americans at the embassy in Havana. It all started in the fall of 2016. Several of the affected diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Daily Mail reported that one diplomat described being jolted awake in a Havana hotel room by a grinding, blaring cacophony. When he moved a few feet across the room, the noise stopped. When he got back into bed, the agonizing sound hit him again; as if, he told doctors, he had walked through some invisible wall cutting straight down the middle of his room. Whether they heard anything or not, the consequences have been unmistakable — symptoms ranging from nosebleeds, nausea, dizziness and severe headaches to mild brain damage and permanent hearing or memory loss. Oddly, as soon as some of the victims left Cuba, they stopped hearing noises. –SHTFPlan The mysterious illnesses reported by U.S. government employees in Cuba are allegedly thought to be either a “sonic attack” or perhaps malfunctioning surveillance gear. It’s not known yet whether the injured government worker in China was targeted with any such device, despite reporting similar symptoms as the diplomats in Cuba. The U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou says that it hasn’t had any other reported cases of strange sounds being heard by American officials, but is taking the issue seriously. “If you have concerns about any symptoms or medical problems that developed during or after a stay in China, consult a medical professional,” the State Department said in a public release. “While in China, if you experience any unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises, do not attempt to locate their source. Instead, move to a location where the sounds are not present,” the release said. The Cuban government continues to deny they attacked U.S. diplomats with a sonic weapon, and very little additional information is known about those who suffered through the strange ordeal. After months of investigations, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been exposed to an advanced device that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. It was not immediately clear if the device was a weapon used in a deliberate attack, or had some other purpose.
Dem Congressman Corrects ADL's Claim That He Isn't Into Farrakhan  The media has maintained a tight embargo on the release of the photo of Obama meeting with Nation of Islam hate group leader Louis Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting. Almost no national media outlet has covered the story. CNN only mentioned it when it embedded Jake Tapper's tweets about the support for Farrakhan by Women's March leaders. But Rep. Danny Davis had defended Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. The JTA's awkward attempt to whitewash the newly revealed CBC anti-Semitism included a claim from the ADL that Rep. Davis had been misquoted. An ADL official told JTA on Friday that the group had reached out to Rep. Danny Davis, a Democrat, after an article in The Daily Caller said he lauded Farrakhan on Monday as “an outstanding human being.” Farrakhan has calledJews “the enemy of God and the enemy of the righteous,” and said Jews were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century. “The congressman was insistent that The Daily Caller misquoted him during the interview and that he didn’t subscribe to Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements and actions in the past,” the ADL official told JTA in a statement. “He expressed an interest in seeing some of the latest statements made by Farrakhan vis-a-vis Jews, which we promptly shared with him.” The official said the ADL had shared information with Davis about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, and that the organization was waiting to hear back from him. Now, Rep. Davis would really like to emphasize that the ADL is wrong and he loves Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis confirmed in an interview Sunday that he has a personal relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite, and said he isn’t bothered by Farrakhan’s position on “the Jewish question.” Farrakhan has repeatedly denounced Jews as “satanic,” praised Hitler as a “very great man” and has said that white people “deserve to die.” The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The people who talk about the "Jewish question" are generally anti-Semites. Somehow I don't think a white congressman would get away with saying that he agrees with David Duke on the environment but isn't especially concerned about his racism. But black leaders have gotten away with playing that game with Farrakhan repeatedly. But the ADL and the JTA will whitewash this again. And if they can't whitewash this, they'll ignore it.
Mueller is ‘looking for trouble,’ Trump says cryptically  WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump continued bashing Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, saying cryptically Monday the special counsel is “looking for trouble.” Trump alleged in a morning tweet series that the former FBI director is “Disgraced and discredited,” claiming his staff amounts to nothing more than a “group of Angry Democrat Thugs.” That came hours after a Sunday tweet in which he referred to the special counsel team as a “gang.” Both are words with loaded meanings for his conservative political base. The president’s Sunday and Monday attacks on Mueller and his team came after reports that White House Counsel Donald McGahn was interviewed by Mueller and his team for more than one full day. Trump contends he signed off on the testimony; George W. Bush-era White House counsel and attorney general Alberto Gonzales, however, told CNN Monday morning that a sitting White House counsel would be required to fully cooperate with a federal investigation because he is a government lawyer, not a president’s personal attorney. But Trump on Monday morning tweeted that McGahn spoke with the special counsel team for “over 30 hours with the White House Councel, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency.” (The tweet included a misspelling of “counsel.”) The length of the Mueller-McGahn sessions led Trump to the conclusion the special counsel is “looking for trouble” because they “they know there is no Russian Collusion.” But Mueller reportedly is keenly interested in a widely studied June 2016 Trump Tower meeting arranged by Donald Trump Jr., which included a Russian attorney who promised to hand over negative information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The session also was attended by then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner; the president dictated a misleading statement about it a year later and it remains murky just when he learned about the meeting. As Roll Call has reported, Trump was in the tower at the time of the session with the Russian lawyer. The president also continued to push a line first floated by his attorney, former New York mayor and U.S. attorney Rudolph Giuliani, tweeting that campaign collusion with Russia would be a “phony crime.” He’s right, there is no specific collusion statute. But legal experts say anyone in Trump’s orbit would be charged with conspiracy, making false statements to federal investigators or obstructing justice. All are federal crimes. Trump also continued to cast himself as a victim in the matter, saying when he attempts to “FIGHT BACK or say anything bad about the Rigged Witch Hunt,” his critics “scream Obstruction!” Mueller also is looking at whether some of Trump’s actions like firing then-FBI Director James B. Comey or statements about the Russia probe since taking office amount to an attempt to interfere illegally with the special counsel probe. — John T. Bennett CQ-Roll Call ——— ©2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
End The Korean War!  “I have some pretty severe things we’re thinking about,” Trump said of North Korea at a news conference in Warsaw. “Doesn’t mean we’re going to do them.” What President Trump really meant is that he has painted the US into a corner with all his threats of war and really does not know what to do next. North Korea called his ‘or else’ bluff. Good. No action on North Korea is better than any conceivable military operation. Last week the North Korea test fired a new, longer-ranged strategic missile, Hwasong-14, that US experts claimed was capable of hitting Alaska and perhaps even San Francisco. North Korea is now believed to have mastered a lightweight nuclear warhead that can be carried by the Hwasong and shorter-ranged Taepodong and Nodong missiles. North Korea can’t today seriously threaten North America with missile strikes, but it probably will by 2019. Meanwhile, North Korean nuclear and conventionally-armed missiles (and this could include poison gas and biological warheads) today threaten the 80,000 plus US military personnel based in Japan, South Korea and Guam. They would be immediate targets should the US and South Korea attack the north. American Raj: Liberati... Eric Margolis Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $46.29 (as of 07:40 EDT - Details) Add tens of millions of South Korean and Japanese civilians who are at risk of North Korean retaliation. Half of South Korea’s capitol, Seoul, is within range of North Korean heavy artillery and rocket batteries dug into the so-called Demilitarized Zone. It would take only three nuclear weapons to shatter Japan and just two to cripple South Korea, not to mention polluting the globe with radioactive dust and contaminating North Asia’s water sources. Nuclear explosions would spread radioactive contamination over northern China and Pacific Russia. Why are we even talking about nuclear war in North Asia? Because North Korea has scraped and skimped for decades to build nuclear weapons for the sole reason of deterring a major US attack, including the use by the US of tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistan ‘ate grass’ for decades to afford nuclear weapons to offset the threat from far more powerful India. Israel uses the same argument to justify its large nuclear arsenal. After Washington overthrew the rulers of Iraq and Libya, it became painfully apparent that small nations without nuclear weapons were vulnerable to US ‘regime change’ operations. The North Koreans, who are very eccentric but not stupid, rushed to accelerate their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Almost equally important, North Korea boasts one of the word’s biggest armies – 1,020,000 men, 88,000 crack special forces, and an trained militia of over 5 million. The North’s weapons are obsolescent; its small air forces and navy will be vaporized by US power but its troops are deeply dug into the mountainous terrain and would be fighting from prepared positions. War against North Korea would be a slow and bloody slog– even a repeat of the bloody, stalemated 1950-52 Korean War in which 39,000 Americans and at least 2.5 million Koreans died. I’ve been in the deep North Korean-dug tunnels under the Demilitarized Zone. A full division can be moved through in only 60 minutes. Ever since being soundly beaten in Vietnam and fought to a draw in Afghanistan, the US military has preferred to attack small countries like Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon is not eager to tangle with the tough North Koreans. Estimates of the cost of a US invasion of North Korea have run as high as 250,000 US casualties and tens of billions of dollars. Seemingly heedless of these hard facts, President Trump – who himself avoided national military service in the 1960’s – keeps beating the war drums over North Korea and needling its thin-skinned regime with naval exercises, over-flights, and intensifying bombast. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has played right along, clearly relishing his game of chicken with tough-talking Donald Trump. Trump seemed certain he could somehow cajole China into disarming North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. But the administration’s amateur foreign policymakers failed to understand that the only “deal” that could get China to disarm the North was by agreeing to remove all US military bases from the region – South Korea, Japan and Guam – and also moving the US Seventh Fleet far from China’s coasts. War at the Top of the ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $2.60 Buy New $24.57 (as of 06:55 EDT - Details) Growing US hysteria over North Korea, a nation of only 25 million, recalls the propaganda storm launched by Washington to justify its invasion of equally small Iraq. The dim-witted US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has become point-woman for hurling warlike threats at North Korea even though this neocon poster-girl’s foreign affairs experience appears to have been limited to the International House of Pancakes in her native South Carolina. Everyone seems to have forgotten, or ignores, that North Korea, South Korea and the United States remain in a state of war. The 1950-52 Korean War ended with a cease-fire, not a peace. The US has been trying to overthrow and undermine North Korea’s Stalinist regimes ever since, using military threats, subversion and economic warfare. Talk of US-South Korean plans to “decapitate’ North Korea’s leadership with missile strikes and commando raids keeps giving Pyongyang the jitters. South Korea’s new president, Moon Jae-in, demanded that his nation be consulted before any military action. But Moon’s pleas have been largely ignored by Trump. Most South Koreans shrug off the North’s threats and seek to avoid war at all costs. Of course. They would be the primary victims. The US has spent over $200 billion on ballistic anti-missile systems in recent years designed to stop North Korean missiles. Unfortunately, these ABM systems don’t work very well. More tens of billions will have to be spent before these anti-missile systems become reliable. Would it not be easier and less expensive for grand deal-maker Trump to recognize North Korea, set up diplomatic relations, stop trying to overthrow the Kim regime, and finally end the Korean War? The Best of Eric Margolis
Democrat’s Friend Louis Farrakhan In Iran: “Death to America!” – America Is The “Great Satan”  Ah yes, Nation of Islam leader, racist, and totalitarian Louis Farrakhan was recently captured on video in Tehran, Iran chanting “Death to America” in Arabic and stating that America is the “Great Satan.” Louis Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam, met with Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of Iran‘s Expediency Discernment Council, on Sunday in Tehran. Heres’ what he had to say. Iran state TV news presenter: Listen to leader of Nation of Islam chanting "Death to America" Farrakhan [in Farsi]: "Death to…" Audience: "…America" pic.twitter.com/p0qGfHHfg0 — Sobhan Hassanvand (@Hassanvand) November 4, 2018 He then went on in a university speech to encourage the revolution and to persevere against the sanctions of the US, whom he referred to as the “Great Satan.” Louis Farrakhan Refers to the U.S. as "Great Satan" during a Tehran University Speech; Says to Iranians: If You Persevere in Your Revolution Despite the Sanctions, "Victory Will Be Yours." pic.twitter.com/7ZVloq2cXL — MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) November 5, 2018 Algemeiner reported: Nation of Islam leader and prominent antisemite Louis Farrakhan chanted “Death to America” and claimed that “America has never been a democracy” on Sunday during a solidarity trip to Iran, ahead of the re-implementation of US sanctions on the country this week. According to Iran’s semi-official state news agency Mehr, Farrakhan said at a meeting with the Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei that America is conspiring against Iran. “I understand how the enemies have plotted against the Iranian people and I would like to stay alongside you to stop their plots,” he said. He also blasted American support for Saudi Arabia, Iran’s arch-rival in the region, and added, “Satan seeks to divide Muslims and wants them to kill each other, while God tells us in the Quran to be united.” This man is a domestic terrorist and he assimilates with avowed enemies of the US, many of them US Democrats. What I want to know is why would Louis Farrakhan ever be allowed back inside our borders after such statements? Is this not treason of the first order? Furthermore, why are Democrats such as Keith Ellison, who has a long history of friendship with Farrakhan, despite the lies he tells to try and distance himself from Farrakhan for votes, not being arrested for his ties to this criminal traitor? And Ellison isn’t the only Democrat who approves of Farrakhan! H/T Gateway Pundit
Who ‘Won’ the Trump-Kim Summit?  Last week’s Economist Magazine won the day with the best-ever headline about the Trump-Kim Jong-un summit: `Kim Jong Won!’ That said it all. Just out of hospital, I was in no shape to compete with the great Economist or its very witty headline writers. But after watching a week of post Singapore summit between Great White Father Trump and delinquent Kim Jong-un I must totally agree with the Economist. What was billed as a second-coming extravaganza between the two leaders – who have been trading insults of ‘little rocket man’ and ‘dotard’ (someone who is senile) turned out to be a very expensive photo op for both publicity seekers that made much noise but produced very little – at least so far. It seemed as if two schoolyard bullies had been forced by the principal to shake hands. Beyond gestures, North Korea’s leader certainly came out ahead. His objective – and those of his family predecessors for the past 60 years – was to normalize relations with the US, start trade, and end US efforts to overthrow the Marxist government in Pyongyang. American Raj: Liberati... Eric Margolis Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $45.86 (as of 09:30 EDT - Details) Trump’s objectives, at least initially, were to crush North Korea and the threats it could pose to the United States and its regional allies Japan and South Korea. Trump sought to set up Kim as a bogeyman, and himself as America’s savior. Trump knew perfectly well that he could not destroy all of North Korea’s deeply buried nuclear-armed missiles, and, in spite of his huffing and puffing, had no stomach for an invasion of North Korea that could cost the US an estimated 250,000 casualties. So Trump’s solution was more show-biz. A much ballyhooed flight to Singapore, backslapping a delighted Kim, and a love-fest between the two chunky leaders was sold to Americans as the dawn of peace. America’s media was quick to retail the story and burnish Trump’s credentials among the seriously credulous. No more hiding under your school desks or in dank basements. As Trump grandly proclaimed, Americans no longer have to fear North Korea and can sleep peacefully at night! Why? Korea still has all of its medium and long-ranged missiles and an estimated 40 or more nuclear warheads. The North is developing submarines that can launch nuclear-armed missiles from underwater off America’s coasts. For Kim, these weapons are purely defensive, designed to prevent a US attack on his nation. But he is now a full-fledged member of the nuclear club. Equally important, North Korea still has an estimated 14,000 170mm guns and hundreds of 300mm long-ranged rocket launchers emplaced in caves just north of the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas. They threaten almost all of South Korea’s capital Seoul north of the Han River and some US military bases and key airfields, notably Osan. This is a very real threat – one that is largely immune to attack from the air. I have seen these emplacements from the northern edge of the DMZ. Kim’s big guns hold Seoul’s millions of inhabitants hostage. War at the Top of the ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $2.60 Buy New $24.57 (as of 09:00 EDT - Details) There is no mention of this artillery threat in the final communiqué issued by Trump and Kim in Singapore. But it was agreed to temporarily stop the highly provocative US/South Korean war games simulating an invasion of the North, a key demand by Kim. This column has been calling for their end for a decade. North Korea will seemingly halt its missile tests. This is not the ‘denuclearization’ of North Korea that has been bandied about. There may be a few gestures of disarmament but Kim must know that his nukes are his means of survival. In case Kim didn’t remember the dire fate of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Trump’s new national security advisor John Bolton, a fanatic’s fanatic, cheerfully recalled the doom of Libya’s murdered Col. Khadaffi. The Singapore summit was also a huge humiliation for America’s allies Japan and South Korea. In Asia, preserving ‘face’ is essential. Trump completely ignored America’s two old allies after his meeting with Kim – who routinely blasts Japan and South Korea as ‘America’s stooges.’ Instead, Trump sent his beginner Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to explain what happened in Singapore, inflicting a deep loss of face on Tokyo and Seoul. This was a terrible insult and could spark decisions by at least Japan to proceed ahead with its covert nuclear program. Japan can deploy nuclear weapons in 3-6 months; South Korea is not far behind. The United States and North Korea are now on a more civilized level of behavior. But nothing basic has been resolved. Maybe Trump has some more concessions up his sleeve, like cutting the number of US troops in the South. But Korea is now on the back burner as Trump wages trade wars around the globe. The Best of Eric Margolis
The American Jewish Historical Society Hosts Destroy Israel Event  Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism. The American Jewish Historical Society was founded to study and preserve Jewish history. These days it’s instead partnering with Jewish Voice for Peace: an anti-Israel BDS hate group that defends anti-Semitism and which sponsored talks by an anti-Semite who accused Jews of drinking blood. The fruits of the AJHS and JVP partnership have been a series of events attacking Israel. Coming up in late October is “The Balfour Declaration: Support for a Jewish Homeland or Jewish State?” The two speakers are Robert Herbst, the coordinator of the Westchester chapter of JVP, and Jonathan Kuttab, who advocates a one-state solution for eliminating Israel. He had tweeted, "EU no longer considers #Hamas a terrorist group. Time for US to do same." Kuttab has defended Islamic anti-Semitism by claiming that the “distrust Moslems feel towards Jews” is due to “two acts of betrayal by Jewish tribes against the Prophet.” And that Jews suffer from a “Holocaust Syndrome” of entitlement. He justified hijacking planes, described suicide bombers as “taking the supreme sacrifice” and defended Hezbollah as “an armed-resistance movement” He has claimed that the "Jewish community gradually consolidated its power, wealth, and influence in all sectors of society" especially in "crucial sectors like banking, finance, media” where "their influence both as individuals and an organized community far exceeded their numbers" and that their power strengthens “conspiracy theories about ‘Jewish control’ that are reminiscent of the infamous “’Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’” Robert Herbst and Jonathan Kuttab are both supporters of a one-state plan for eliminating Israel. The American Jewish Historical Society is co-sponsoring a JVP anti-Israel event by two opponents of Israel, one of whom has defended Hamas. An organization that hands out the Emma Lazarus Award, named after a passionate Zionist, at its posh dinners is hosting attacks on the existence of Israel. The “Jewish Homeland” or “Jewish State” argument is a hook for contending that the Balfour Declaration didn’t endorse Israel, but some sort of Jewish Bantustan within a Muslim country. That worked so well for the Christians and Jews of the Middle East. The American Jewish Historical Society is not only co-sponsoring a one-state event by an anti-Israel hate group. But it’s also hosting it at the Center for Jewish History’s headquarters. AJHS is a component of the Center for Jewish History. And the partnership between AJHS and JVP sheds light on the controversy over the appointment of David N. Myers, an anti-Israel activist, to head the Center for Jewish History. During the Myers controversy, the Center took pains to disassociate Myers and themselves from JVP because a JVP handout had listed him as a “JVP Academic Advisory Board Member.” But in reality the Center, through AJHS, has an ongoing relationship with JVP. The Balfour event was not AJHS’ only partnership with JVP. In December, the AJHS will feature “Rubble Rubble”, a play by Dan Fishback based on his trip to Israel. Fishback is a BDS supporter and a member of the JVP Artists Council. His goal is to “normalize Jewish anti-Zionism”. AJHS and JVP members get discounted admission. The venue is once again the Center for Jewish History. Specifically the Leo and Julia Forchheimer Auditorium at CJH. Leo Forchheimer’s philanthropy had left its mark on Israel. What would he think if he knew the anti-Israel purposes that CJH is putting his gift to? A third AJHS-JVP event featured Efrat Yerday, an anti-Israel activist, accusing Israel of racism. Efrat has claimed that, "Zionism does not only dispossess Palestinians, but it also dispossesses in a very sophisticated way, non-white Jews. Being Jewish is highly identified with being white because of Zionism." AJHS will claim that it is only offering different perspectives. But when it comes to Israel, there’s only one perspective. “Balfour” and “Rubble Rubble” are to be part of AJHS’ “1917: How One Year Changed the World”. The exhibition is supposed to cover WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Balfour Declaration. But the only Balfour program on the list questions whether Israel should even exist. The exhibition closes with Fishback’s anti-Israel agenda. And these are the only listed AJHS programs that focus on Israel. JVP is also the only organization that AJHS chooses to partner with on political events. The American Jewish Historical Society appears to be uninterested in holding any pro-Israel events. It’s uninterested in partnering with pro-Israel groups. Instead it’s providing a forum for a BDS hate group. And it’s no mystery why. The AJHS Academic Council is packed with anti-Israel activists. Lila Corwin-Berman, the chair of the AJHS Academic Council who also serves on its board of trustees, is a member of the Open Hillel Academic Council. Open Hillel seeks to "open" the campus group to BDS and other anti-Israel views. Berman has defended the anti-Israel hate group IfNotNow, which employs JVP tactics, and condemned efforts to fight BDS. She signed a petition in support of BDS activists being allowed to enter Israel. Other AJHS Academic Council members who signed the pro-BDS activist petition include Ari Kelman, Riv-Ellen Prell, Deborah Dash Moore, Rachel Kranson, Libby Garland and Kirsten Fermaglich. When we look at what is going on in CJH’s components like the AJHS, the elevation of David N. Myers to head CJH is unsurprising. Myers is a symptom of the problem. As is AJHS’s partnership with JVP. A great deal of shocking behavior is taking place inside Jewish organizations whose inner workings most people in the Jewish community generally pay very little attention to. Unlike CJH, the American Jewish Historical Society is an organization that dates back to the 19th century. Its perversion by the radical anti-Jewish and anti-Israel left to serve anti-Semitic narratives is tragic. And yet it’s inescapable. Even as the Myers scandal continues to simmer, the AJHS partnership with JVP is making the choice painfully clear. The radical anti-Israel left will not be satisfied with embedding “moderate” opposing voices into Jewish organizations. Instead it seeks to normalize the furthest extremes of anti-Israel hatred. And it will not be satisfied with anything less. During the Myers controversy, defenders of his appointment, including some figures named here, claimed that it was an issue of apolitical scholarship. Is co-sponsoring events with a hate group that has sponsored talks by a woman who accused Jews of drinking blood also apolitical scholarship? The anti-Israel leftists at the AJHS are clearly not leaving their politics at home. And support for them and for Myers cannot be distinguished from support for their views. Not when JVP is at AJHS. We all have choices to make. Sometimes the choices are murky. Other times they are simple and easy. When the American Jewish Historical Society hosts and co-sponsors an event by a BDS hate group attacking the existence of Israel and featuring a speaker who had defended terrorism and anti-Semitism, the choice becomes easy. Either you stand with BDS, Hamas, blood libels and those who want to destroy Israel or with Jews. As the anti-Israel radicalism of the left grows, such choices will become even more obscenely simple. But they will not be any less difficult. Opposing the anti-Israel left makes many important enemies and wins few friends. The anti-Israel left has built networks that can blacklist, smear and silence almost anyone in an academic field. Speaking out against hate is easiest when it’s weakest. It’s hardest when it’s strongest. When we think about Nazi Germany, we remember those who spoke out. We don’t remember those who were too intimidated and uncertain to rise against anti-Semitism when they saw it and heard it. History tells us why so many people are afraid to do the right thing when it counts. It also tells us how irrelevant history makes them. There are lessons here for the Center for Jewish History and the American Jewish Historical Society, for those on the inside who see the corruption of their organizations every day and for those on the outside who are worried about speaking up. There are lessons here for all of us. If you can’t speak out against the American Jewish Historical Society’s partnership with a hate group linked to a literal blood libels and a speaker who defends Hamas, when will your voice be heard?
Ex-Muslim Catholics to Pope Francis: “Naiveté in the face of Islam is suicidal and very dangerous”  “Many ex-Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, are even leaving the Church, disgusted by her cowardice, wounded by equivocal gestures, confused by the lack of evangelization, scandalized by the praise given to Islam.” Yes, and not just ex-Muslims. It has become a superdogma in the Catholic Church: if you don’t believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, you will be ruthlessly harassed and silenced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the hierarchy elsewhere as well. The bishops of the Catholic Church are much more concerned that you believe that Islam is a religion of peace than that you believe in, say, the Nicene Creed. And the Pope is almost certain to ignore this heartfelt appeal, as he has ignored others who have respectfully questioned his departures from Catholic teaching. I have yet to meet a Catholic prelate who believes that the requirement to treat all charitably applies to those who hold opinions that have been deemed unacceptable. “Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) “Islamic Converts Ask Pope in Open Letter To Change His Teaching on Islam,” by Steve Skojec, OnePeterFive.com, January 11, 2018: A new, open letter to the pope is making the rounds on the Internet, and it has gathered over 2,600 signatures so far. “Most Holy Father,” it begins, “‬Many of us ‬have tried to contact you, ‬on many occasions ‬and for several years, ‬and we have never received the slightest acknowledgement of our letters or requests for meetings.” The letter is not from the dubia cardinals, or from the more than 800,000 signers of the 2015 Filial Appeal, or from the signatories of the Filial Correction, but from a group of Islamic converts to Catholicism, who want Francis to answer a simple question: why did they literally risk their lives to become Catholic if Islam is “a good religion in itself” as the pope “seems to teach”? It’s a question he refuses to answer, despite endless platitudes of how important it is to be close to the marginalized and to accompany those on the peripheries of the Church. The signers, however, are not dissuaded in their pursuit of a paternal answer: You do not like to beat around the bush, and neither do we, so allow us to say frankly that we do not understand your teaching about Islam, as we read in paragraphs 252 and 253 of Evangelii Gaudium, because it does not account for the fact that Islam came AFTER Christ, and so is, and can only be, an Antichrist (see 1 Jn 2.22), and one of the most dangerous because it presents itself as the fulfillment of Revelation (of which Jesus would have been only a prophet). If Islam is a good religion in itself, as you seem to teach, why did we become Catholic? Do not your words question the soundness of the choice we made at the risk of our lives? Islam prescribes death for apostates (Quran 4.89, 8.7-11), do you know? How is it possible to compare Islamic violence with so-called Christian violence? “What is the relationship between Christ and Satan? What union is there between light and darkness? What association between the faithful and the unfaithful?” (2 Cor 6: 14-17)In accordance with His teaching (Lk 14:26), we preferred Him, the Christ, to our own life. Are we not in a good position to talk to you about Islam? The letter makes short work of the notion that Islam and Christianity can ever be compatible, or that Islam can serve as a path to salvation: In fact, as long as Islam wants us to be its enemy, we are, and all our protestations of friendship cannot change anything. As a proper Antichrist, Islam exists only as an enemy of all: “Between us and you there is enmity and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone!” (Qur’an 60.4) For the Qur’an, Christians “are only impurity” (Quran 9.28),” “the worst of Creation” (Qur’an 98.6), all condemned to Hell (Qur’an 4.48), so Allah must exterminate them (Quran 9.30). We must not be deceived by the Quranic verses deemed tolerant, because they have all been repealed by the verse of the Sword (Quran 9.5). Where the Gospel proclaims the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the salvation of all, and the fulfillment of the Covenant initiated with the Hebrews, Allah has nothing to offer but war and murder of the “infidels” in exchange for his paradise: “They fight on the way of Allah, they kill and are killed.” (Quran 9:11) We do not confuse Islam with Muslims, but if for you “dialogue” means the voice of peace, for Islam it’s only another way to make war. Also, as it was in the face of Nazism and communism, naiveté in the face of Islam is suicidal and very dangerous. How can you speak of peace and endorse Islam, as you seem to do: “To wring from our hearts the disease that plagues our lives (…) Let those who are Christians do it with the Bible and those who are Muslims do it with the Quran. “(Rome, January 20, 2014)? That the Pope seems to propose the Quran as a way of salvation, is that not cause for worry? Should we return to Islam? The authors say that Islam can be no ally in the battle “against the powers that want to dominate and enslave the world” because “they share the same totalitarian logic based on the rejection of the kingship of Christ (Lk 4.7).” They contest the idea that speaking in an “Islamophilic tone” will help those Christians who are suffering persecution in Muslim countries, professing that “apart from the fact that Jesus has never indicated any other way than that of the Cross, so that we must find our joy therein and not flee with all the damned, we do not doubt that only the proclamation of the Truth brings with it not only salvation, but freedom as well (John 8.32).” The letter also contrasts the stance of Islamic countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia who “do not welcome any refugee” while Pope Francis preaches the welcoming of migrants regardless of the fact that they are Muslims, something forbidden by Apostolic command: “If anyone comes to you but refuses this Gospel, do not receive him among you nor greet him. Whoever greets him participates in his evil works.” (2 John 1.10-11); “If anyone preaches to you a different Gospel, let him be accursed!” (Galatians 1.8-9) The signatories go on to give voice to the utter scandal of the pope’s failure to carry out his evangelical mission as the Vicar of Christ to call home the members of the Islamic faith: The pro-Islam speech of Your Holiness leads us to deplore the fact that Muslims are not invited to leave Islam, and that many ex-Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, are even leaving the Church, disgusted by her cowardice, wounded by equivocal gestures, confused by the lack of evangelization, scandalized by the praise given to Islam … Thus ignorant souls are misled… Taking the matter further, they warn, too, of the physical danger the pope’s disposition toward Islam invites, saying that it has resulted in Christians not preparing for a confrontation with Islam, to which St. John Paul II has called them (Ecclesia in Europa, No. 57). We are under the impression that you do not take your brother Bishop Nona Amel, Chaldean-Catholic Archbishop of Mosul in exile, seriously, when he tells us: “Our present sufferings are the prelude to those that you, Europeans and Western Christians, will suffer in the near future. I have lost my diocese. The headquarters of my archdiocese and my apostolate have been occupied by radical Islamists who want us to convert or die. (…) You are welcoming into your country an ever increasing number of Muslims. You are in danger as well. You must make strong and courageous decisions (…). You think that all men are equal, but Islam does not say that all men are equal. (…) If you do not understand this very quickly, you will become the victims of the enemy that you have invited into your home.” (August 9, 2014) “. This is a matter of life and death, and any complacency towards Islam is treasonous. We do not wish the West to continue with Islamization, nor that your actions contribute to it. Where then would we go to seek refuge? The signatories plea is that the pope will “quickly convene a synod on the dangers of Islam.”
West Virginia Middle School Instructs Children To Write Out Their Submission To Allah  We see this again and again: schoolchildren have to make the Islamic profession of faith or affirm Islam as fact, in public schools. Then when administrators are confronted, they claim it was all just an educational exercise, not proselytizing. But we never, ever see Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism taught as fact in public schools, or schoolchildren being forced to make professions of faith in those religions. 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 * 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. For some reason, this form of educational exercise is only ever used regarding Islam. Now, why is that? “Christian Parent Furious After School Instructs Children To Write Out Their Submission To Allah,” by Joshua Gill, Daily Caller News Foundation, May 17, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report): A West Virginia school has come under fire for instructing junior high students to write the Islamic profession of faith ostensibly to practice calligraphy. Rich Penkoski, a Christian parent and founder of online ministry Warriors for Christ, raised alarms over a packet on Islam his daughter’s seventh grade social studies teacher issued to students, according to Christian Post. The packet, edited from the full version of a world religions workbook, instructed students to practice writing the Shahada, or Islamic profession of faith, in Arabic calligraphy — an assignment that, if left undone, would result in detention, according to Penkoski’s daughter. The Shahada states: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Penkoski called Mountain Ridge Middle School Principal Ron Branch and objected to the packet, saying it disturbed him and had misinformation about the history of calligraphy. “I saw the assignment of writing the Shahada in Arabic. Their excuse was calligraphy,” Penkoski told The Christian Post. “I was like, ‘Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!’ First of all, calligraphy was invented in China 3,000 years prior to Muhammad. The fact that they were trying to get my daughter to write that disturbed me.” “I said, ‘That is not happening. My daughter is not doing that.’ My daughter told me that if she didn’t do the assignment, then she was going to get a [detention] slip,” Penkoski added…. There were two different calligraphy assignments — one involving the Shahada and another instructing students to practice writing English letters in calligraphy, Branch told Christian Post. Hinson “told the students that they could do these activities if they wanted,” Branch claimed. “The teacher has told her class several times that this is a study of world religions and that she is not trying to advocate for any religion over another. She has told her class that if they had questions about religious beliefs, that those conversations should take place with their parents,” Branch added. Penkoski claimed the teacher sent students home with the same packet the day after he lodged a complaint — this time, with certain sections crossed out but still including the Shahada assignment. Penkoksi called the principal again and confronted Hinson over the phone. “I said, ‘This is not OK in asking my kid to write down the Shahada.’ The teacher happened to walk-in and said she made it an option and that the kids didn’t have to do it. My daughter conflicted that story and said, ‘No, that is not what was said.’ What was said was, ‘Do the assignment; and if you want to learn more about the Quran, ask your parents,’” Penkoski told Christian Post. Each religion studied in the class, including Christianity and Judaism, received “equitable treatment,” Branch also told Christian Post. He said the class spent a week and a half on Christianity and Judaism — other religions took one week — and discussed each religion’s beliefs, history and practices. During the section on Christianity, “Jesus was taught,” Branch claimed. “The students read the chapter in our textbook that discusses Christianity’s belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and salvation. They also discussed the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper and Jesus’ Betrayal, the Trinity, and the Lord’s Prayer, among other topics,” Branch said. Penkoski and his daughter, Brielle, contested Branch’s claims. The Lord’s Prayer was not taught, and very little time was spent teaching about Jesus, they told Christian Post. “We did [the unit on Christianity] over a week and two days. We watched two different videos. We didn’t finish them. They taught a little bit about Moses and the Ten Commandments, Peter and Paul,” Brielle explained. “We learned about the Israelites and how they are being persecuted by the Romans. We were told about the Jews and told a little bit about Jesus.” Penkoski also shared with Christian Post the packets on Christianity and Judaism passed out in class and allegedly modified from the original full version. While the packet on Islam contained verses from the Koran, the packets for those religions did not contain scripture and did not encourage students to write prayers or faith statements, he said. “Notice no Bible verses, no reciting the Ten Commandments or the Lord’s Prayer,” he said. “[There’s] no practicing writing in Hebrew as compared to the Islamic packet,” he added…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
“Credible Evidence Of A Terrorist Infiltration”: Congressman Says ‘Secret Intel’ Proves ISIS Connection To Las Vegas Massacre  Congress is in possession of ‘secret intel’ that exposes an ISIS connection to the horrific Las Vegas Massacre, according to a surprising claim made by Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry. Appearing on Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Perry described evidence he had personally seen that suggested that some sort of terrorist infiltration aided the Las Vegas Massacre. One can imagine that said terrorists either helped Paddock or were actually some of the many other shooters reported that night. “Recently, I have been made aware of what i believe to be credible evidence, credible information, regarding potential terrorist infiltration, through the southern border, regarding this event,” Perry shockingly claimed. “Let’s face it, twice before the attack ISIS warned the United States that they would attack Las Vegas and then after the attack claimed responsibility four times,” Perry continued. Keep in mind that this lines up with other alternative media reports regarding the Oct. 1st massacre as well as hints provided in the mainstream media. We also know that it is a conclusive fact that there was more than one shooter, according to literally dozens of eyewitnesses who have continued to come forward with what they saw that fateful night. Interestingly, there are also reports that Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend actually deleted her Facebook page an hour before police released her boyfriends name. Infowars reports:
Cardinal Müller: Blessing homosexual couples would be an ‘atrocity’  NewsCatholic Church BRATISLAVA, Slovakia, February 13, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Former Vatican doctrine chief Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has decried the Church's current adaptation to the modern world and rejected the idea of blessing homosexual couples. The remarks, made in a February 6 talk in Slovakia, indirectly respond to new initiatives coming from Germany, especially from Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode. Cardinal Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke at a conference on John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor at the Comenius University in Bratislava, organized by the Slovakian Bishops' Conference. In remarks after his address, reported by the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, the cardinal made it clear what he thinks about the recently presented German idea of blessing homosexual unions, even if only in individual cases: “If a priest blesses a homosexual couple, then this is an atrocity at a holy site, namely, to approve of something that God does not approve of.” According to the Tagespost report, Cardinal Müller said in his address that he regrets the separation of the Church's doctrinal and moral teaching and called Christianity a “theocentric humanism.” He said the “submissive change of the Church into a NGO for the embetterment of the this-worldly life conditions” is a “suicidal modernization” that denies mankind the Truth of God. In this context, the German cardinal also criticized Martin Luther's own denial of man's free will and his teaching about the total depravity of man that separates morality from the relationship with God. Morality, Müller explained, is rooted in Grace; that is why any teaching about “rules and exceptions” ignores the character of the ethics of the Covenant and of Grace. In the discussion following his talk, Cardinal Müller also responded to questions concerning Pope Francis' post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. The cardinal said that he is “not happy” about the fact that there are different interpretations of this papal text by some bishops' conferences. “In dogmatic questions, there cannot be a plurality,” he added. There is only one Magisterium, he said, and bishops' conferences can only decide about pastoral questions. Contradictory conceptions concerning the Sacraments, said the cardinal, lead into chaotic conditions. Thus, explained the cardinal, the Sacraments have to be celebrated the way Christ Himself willed it when he instituted them. The controversial eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia has to be understood “in an orthodox way,” namely that “he who lives in the state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion.” It is, in Müller's eyes, the pope's duty “to unite the Church, that is what the pope is there for.” This is what he, Müller, himself told the pope: when the bishops' conferences present different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, the Church enters “into a situation like the one before the Reformation.” Archbishop Stanislav Zvolensy, President of the Slovakian Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Bratislava, told Die Tagespost that Veritatis Splendor is not only still valid, but shows timeless truths. Promulgated 25 years ago, the encyclical rejects authoritatively the theory of situation ethics, a theory that seems to be getting again much attention in our time, for example by theologians such as Professor Maurizio Chiodi. Professor Livio Melina, the former President of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, was another speaker at the February 6 conference. He stressed that Amoris Laetitia has to be “read in the context of the magisterial instructions of the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which recalls the connection between conscience and truth, as well as the necessity of a well-formed conscience.” In returning to that encyclical, explained the Italian professor and theologian, Amoris Laetitia could be given a hermeneutic in light of a “continuity with the Magisterium of the Church.” He also said: “The Commandments are an expression of the Love of God for us. If we fulfill them, we are united with God.”
Exposing the Deep State Plotters  President Trump’s sweeping order this week directing intelligence agencies to declassify documents from the more than 18-month-old investigation related to the Left’s electoral collusion conspiracy theory involving Trump and Russia may shed light on what really happened in the 2016 election. In an interview with Hill.TV yesterday, the president said he ordered the mass declassification to show the public that the FBI investigation of the conspiracy theory began as a “hoax.” Exposing it could be one of the “crowning achievements” of his presidency, he said. “What we’ve done is a great service to the country, really,” he said. “I hope to be able to call this, along with tax cuts and regulation and all the things I’ve done… in its own way this might be the most important thing because this was corrupt.” Trump criticized how the FBI handled the Russia probe, accusing it of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, and of spying on his campaign. “They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used [former Trump campaign aide] Carter Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he’s been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States.” “It’s a hoax, beyond a witch hunt,” Trump said. The documents affected involve a FISA warrant against Carter Page and text messages from disgraced ex-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. (Carter Page is not related to Lisa Page.) Although the conspiracy theory is baseless nonsense, it continues to dog the Trump administration, providing cable television news outlets and late-night talk show hosts with endless fodder in the 24-hour news cycle. When Trump defenders have fought back, social media companies have colluded with the Left to silence and intimidate them. This declassification effort won’t make things any worse than they are for President Trump. It may even prove a political masterstroke of sorts for Trump. How else does one fight back against the nameless, faceless bureaucrats of the Deep State who hide behind anonymity to undermine the duly elected 45th president of the United States? Make the documents public and let the chips fall where they may. There is so much leftist dirt to uncover. For example, it was established some time ago that former President Obama was involved on some level in this shameful un-American plot to rig the 2016 election and undermine his successor by using the privacy-invading apparatus of the state. Obama wanted “to know everything” the FBI was doing in its investigation into claims that Russia was interfering in the 2016 election. Specifically, the statement that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing” came in a private Sept. 2, 2016, text message from FBI lawyer Lisa Page to FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an extramarital affair at the time. (The exact message, time-stamped 1:50 p.m., reads "Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are doing.") In a separate text message to Page, Strzok wrote something cryptic about an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump got elected. Apparently, he was referring to the salacious, unverified dossier Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid rent-a-spy Christopher Steele to compile that purports to show Trump’s nefarious links to Russia. President Trump ordered that the relevant documents be released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency,” read a statement issued by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump ordered the “immediate declassification” of “pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page,” “all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation,” and “all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.” Trump also ordered the “the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.” The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes (R -Calif.), reportedly hailed Trump’s order, saying it covers “pretty much everything that he wanted … and the text messages are a bonus.” A handful of Democratic lawmakers alarmed at the prospect of being exposed as frauds and publicly humiliated wrote Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday. The letter, which is an attempt to usurp the powers vested in the president, asks the three agencies to defy the presidential directive. "Your agencies' review, and any communication with the White House on the substance of the material, should not proceed further until you have briefed the Gang of Eight in person." It claims that Trump’s declassification request constitutes improper intervention “in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him.” The authors of the letter even lie about the nature of the broad-based request, claiming Trump is selectively declassifying information to save himself. “The action he has taken, to direct your agencies to selectively disclose classified information that he believes he can manipulate publicly to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Special Counsel’s [Robert Mueller] investigation, is a brazen abuse of power.” The missive is signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who is vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Intelligence agencies have already reportedly begun working to carry out the president’s orders and the first set of documents could be made public in a few days. “When the President issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House Counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department official told Fox News. “The Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.” Coats spokeswoman Kellie Wade also said that the agency was “working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification.” According to Fox News: The documents include all FBI reports on interviews, also known as 302s, with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with applications to surveil Carter Page, as well as 21 pages of one renewed warrant. The 21 pages make up only a small portion of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in a heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year. In comments to reporters and on Twitter, President Trump has been blasting Strzok and Page for months over their inappropriate behavior. Ditto for former FBI Director James Comey and one of his deputies, Andrew McCabe. Trump fired Comey in May 2017 and Attorney General Jeff Sessions canned McCabe in March. Page left the FBI in May and Strzok got the axe last month. That means there are still thousands of unaccountable Deep State operatives in the Trump administration that have yet to be dealt with.
Can the Church Defend Herself Against Bergoglio?  Fisher is rightly incensed by Bergoglio’s cunning response, “I will not say a single word on this , ” concerning Archbishop Viganò’s damning indictment of Bergoglio’s rehabilitation of the monster once known as Cardinal McCarrick for some five years before adverse worldwide press coverage forced to him to punish that serial homosexual rapist of whose crimes Viganò had personally informed him back in 2013—information of which Bergoglio was clearly already aware at that time, as Viganò testifies. I never thought I’d see the day when a preening, Internet-created neo-Catholic doyenne such as Simcha Fisher, as notorious as Mark Shea for her crude and often unprintable invective against traditionalists, would unload on Pope Bergoglio with the following headline: “Does Francis know he sounds like an abuser?” The scales have fallen from Fisher’s eyes and now, at last, she sees Bergoglio, however grudgingly, for what he is: a power-mad ecclesiastical tyrant. (A tyrant, moreover, who has ascended to the papacy in a manner reminiscent of the ascension of the corrupt Benedict IX, another “disgrace to the Chair of Peter,” following the machinations of a Roman cabal, as I discuss below.) Quoth Fisher: I have a number of friends who have escaped abusive marriages. They tell me that Pope Francis is sounding more and more like the men who abused them. He’s sounding like the men who hid that abuse from the world, who taught their victims to blame themselves, who used spiritual pressure to persuade them and their families that it would actually be wrong, sinful, to defend themselves. Just listen to him. After responding to a question about Vigano’s very serious accusations, he said point blank, “I will not say a single word on this.”… [F]or the rest of the week and more, he kept up an unmistakable theme of calling for silence, equating silence with holiness, and painting himself as a Christlike victim in his silence. Then he says it’s “ugly” to accuse others of sinning. Then he suggests that healing and reconciliation will only come if we take a hard look at our own flaws…. To the victims of the Church, and to those who love them, it sounds like he is saying, “Who do you think you are? I don’t have to explain myself to you. You’re the guilty one. You brought this on yourself. If you want to be loved, then know your place. I’m the victim, here, not you. If you know what’s good for you, keep your mouth shut.” This is how abusers talk. They’re not content with power; they have to keep their victims doubting and blaming themselves constantly, so they don’t become a threat. Whether Francis knows it or not, this is how he sounds. We can overlook the fig leaf “whether Francis knows it or not…”. Fisher knows that Francis knows it, even if she still cannot bring herself to say explicitly what should now be apparent to the entire body of the faithful: that Bergoglio’s very presence on the Chair of Peter is a grave threat to the common good of the Church and the integrity of the Faith. Click below to Subscribe to The Remnant's YouTube channel! Yet Fisher maintains a sliver of space for deniability in order to maintain that indispensable distinction between her and those loathsome traditionalists: “I don’t have any ideological reason to want to bring him down. I have defended him as long as I could, up until the Chile debacle. And so I am working as hard as I can not to assume the worst, not to believe that this man who promised so much fresh air is really so intent on slamming doors shut before we find out even worse things hidden inside. But he is not making it easy. I am not saying he is an abuser. But he sounds like one.” That is, Fisher was not concerned about Bergoglio’s relentless assault on traditional Catholic teaching and practice—to her, opposition to Francis on that account is just “ideology”—but only his role in covering up sexual abuse by bishops and priests. But why is Fisher still “working hard not to assume the worst” when there is no longer anything to assume as the ever-mounting evidence of malintent has been in plain view for years? Indeed, why else did Archbishop Viganò risk everything in order to expose this Pope, even to the extent of revealing matters supposedly within the scope of “the Pontifical secret”? On orders of the Vatican Secretary of State, the Vatican secret police are reportedly scouring the globe in search of Viganò, who has gone into hiding, “in order to prevent more unpredictable damage to the image of Pope Francis and the Holy See on the world stage, but also to ‘prepare the terrain’ for the former apostolic nuncio-turned-whistleblower to be prosecuted” under canon law. The Dictator Pope must destroy his most potent critic thus far. Everything depends on it! But it may already be too late to save a regime whose only defense is not truth but raw power. At last count, some 29 bishops have publicly declared Viganò’s allegations against Bergoglio credible and worthy of investigation. Now even the distinguished canonist Edward Peters, who is no less than a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura appointed by Pope Benedict XVI, declares that if Viganò’s allegations are true then Bergoglio must go: Of what was said above concerning resignation from Church office in general, what would not apply to a pope, of all office holders, if he, as alleged by Viganò, from the first months of his papacy knowingly protected and favored a cardinal who was [pick a disgusting verb]-ing seminarians? By what possible stretch of the imagination would such an occupant be suited for the Chair of Peter? Does the historical fact that some pretty bad popes held on to office despite committing various offenses justify other popes acting badly in shirking even the minimal gesture of resigning? Viganò is unquestionably in a position to know, and claims to know, whether his central allegation that Francis’ was covering for McCarrick, big time, for years, is correct. Believing, as he does, that his claims are correct, Viganò, in calling for Francis’ resignation, has done nothing more or less than exercise his right under canon law “to manifest to the sacred pastors [his] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make [his] opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…” 1983 CIC 212 § 3. I have not called for Francis’ resignation because I do not know (with the degree of certitude that a lawyer seeks) whether Viganò’s key allegations against Francis are substantially true; most assuredly, however, if I reach the conclusion that they are true, I would say, without hesitation, that Francis should resign. Bergoglio will not, of course, resign. He will cling to power with his last breath in order to carry out the many other acts of ecclesial subversion he clearly has in mind. The only remedies for the plague of Bergoglio are his natural death or deposition. Yes, deposition. Canon212 has linked to an interesting and timely piece on the role of the Synod of Sutri, near Rome, in 1046, which dealt with the problem of three rival claimants to the papacy, each installed by a Roman faction: First, the execrable Benedict IX, mentioned above. Second, the interloper Sylvester III, installed in the Chair of Peter after Benedict had been driven from Rome. Third, the well-intentioned but dimwitted Gregory VI, whose election was tainted by a seemingly simoniacal negotiation with Benedict, who had returned to Rome in 1045 and ousted Sylvester, according to which Benedict would receive a generous pension if he resigned the papacy, which Benedict did only to rescind his resignation. The Synod was convoked by Henry III, the German king and soon-to-be-crowned Holy Roman Emperor, a pious and austere Christian and an exponent of the Cluniac spirit of reform. The Synod declared that Benedict IX (who had refused to appear) was deposed notwithstanding his attempt to undo his resignation. As for Sylvester, the Synod declared that he be “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery.” Gregory was also declared deposed, either by the act of the Synod itself or by Gregory’s own voluntary resignation in view of the Synod. At Henry III’s designation, the German Bishop of Bamberg became Clement II, but he died after only a year, whereupon Benedict reasserted his claim to the papacy for the third time in 1047, only to be driven from Rome again by Imperial troops in 1048. Damasus II, another German bishop designated by Henry, reigned for a mere three weeks before dying, whereupon Pope St. Leo IX succeeded to the papacy, reigning until 1054. Leo, as John Rao observes, was the first in a line of Popes who “took charge of the movement of innovative Christian restoration” which included a breaking of the dominance of Roman nobility over papal elections. (Rao, Black Legends, 147-148). As the cited article on the Synod of Sutri notes, although the scurrilous Benedict IX objected to his deposition by the Synod, “the Church has always accepted his deposition as valid. The King of Germany then appointed Clement II as Pope, who promptly crowned the King, Holy Roman Emperor. Benedict IX, after the death of Clement, claimed the papacy again! The Church to this day recognizes Clement II as a true Pope.” Moreover, Benedict IX himself is recognized as a true Pope—a valid but deposed Pope—during three separate periods listed as three distinct pontificates in the canon of Popes. This was possible owing to the lack of any set canonical form for papal elections; a Pope could gain or regain the office by various machinations. Indeed, even the Vatican’s own website states that Benedict was Pope from 1047-1048, the very year of his third ascension to the office from which he was finally driven by force. Only with the ascension of Pope Nicholas II in 1059 was it established that henceforth the cardinal-bishops would elect the Pope, with the other cardinals having the right to confirm or veto the nominee. By 1100 what we now know as the College of Cardinals, embracing all the cardinals of different titles, had the exclusive right to elect a Pope, and the members of the College “have held it ever since.” (Eric John, The Popes, 181). These lessons of history should suffice to dispel the pious fable, never a teaching of the Magisterium, that every Pope is chosen by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church. This theological error, which Bergoglio has exploited to the hilt, is a key element in the related error of papalotry, which elevates the person of the Pope above the office he occupies and makes of him the leader of a personality cult everyone is commanded to “love” (in the superficially emotional sense) and obey no matter what he says or does, rather than a custodian and defender of the Deposit of Faith whose lovability, personality and opinions are utterly irrelevant to the exercise and scope of his office. As Pope Benedict has observed, when it comes to the election of a Pope “the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he [sic] dictates the candidate for whom one must vote…. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!” Bergoglio is undeniably one of them. So what can be done to defend the Church against Bergoglio? That the mode of papal election by cardinals has persisted for nearly a thousand years has led to the general impression that it pertains to the irreformable divine constitution of the Church, but it certainly does not. As to matters of purely ecclesiastical law such as this one the Church has always allowed for departures from traditional practice in cases of emergency or grave necessity. And just as a synod was employed to address three rival claimants to the papal throne in 1046, declaring at least two of them deposed, so today might it be possible for reform-minded cardinals and bishops, comprising an imperfect council, to undo the incalculable damage caused by the cabal that lobbied for Bergoglio’s election before the last conclave—a cabal that included none other than McCarrick, whom Bergoglio rewarded by rehabilitating that monster despite the massive evidence of his unspeakable crimes. What would be the grounds for a declaration of deposition at such a gathering of prelates? One could readily point to the evidence that a faction that included Bergoglio himself had agreed upon his election before the conclave, and that all those involved, including Bergoglio, were thereby excommunicated latae sententiae in accordance with Article 81 of John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis, which provides: The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. To quote Cajetan on this point (citations taken from the linked article by Robert Siscoe), deposition by an imperfect council is appropriate “when one or more Popes suffer uncertainty with regard to their election, as seems to have arisen in the schism of Urban VI and others. Then, lest the Church be perplexed, those members of the Church who are available have the power to judge which is the true pope, if it can be known, and if it cannot be known, [it has] the power to provide that the electors agree on one or another of them.” I am not saying that such a case has been proven. Rather, what I am saying is that this hypothetical imperfect council could determine that it has been proven and act accordingly, and that the Church would judge any resulting deposition of Bergoglio in the same manner it judges the deposition of Benedict IX. Another ground for deposition—as determined by the imperfect council, not any of us—would be that Bergoglio has deposed himself by promulgating heresy, fracturing the Church’s universal discipline respecting marriage and the Eucharist, and undermining the teaching of even his own immediate predecessors on matters of fundamental morality upheld by the Magisterium for two millennia. Surely the Church cannot be without any remedy for a Pope who relentlessly attacks her very foundations! To quote Cajetan again: “Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently, it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation; and those that juridically correspond to the crime, are of themselves necessary”—meaning the resort to an imperfect council. If a synod was able to declare the deposition of a pope in 1046, why not an imperfect council today—or, for that matter, another synod? It will be argued that such a deposition would provoke massive schisms in the Church. But that would not be the first time that defense of the Church’s common good has done so, as the Great Western Schism demonstrates. And are we not in the midst of schisms already, provoked by none other than Bergoglio himself, whose insane drive to shatter the Church’s bimillennial discipline has produced the totally unprecedented situation in which what is still considered mortally sinful in one diocese is an imperative of “mercy” in another? In any case, this much is certain: barring Bergoglio’s conversion and reversal of course, the Church cannot abide this pontificate any longer. One way or another, the Church will have to repel an attacker at her very summit. Either the human element of the Church will act according to the means which seem possible, however extraordinary, or Heaven itself will intervene in a manner that might well involve a divine chastisement due to the negligence of time-serving pastors who left their sheep completely undefended against the wolves who preyed upon them, including the wolf the cardinals improvidently elected Pope. Some four months before Archbishop Viganò’s testimony Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, the Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands, perhaps the most liberal territory in the entire Church, protested that Bergoglio’s blatant nod to intercommunion with Protestants in Germany means that “the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and that the situation reminds him of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which refers to the Church’s “final trial” before the Second Coming, “that will shake the faith of many believers… [a] ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. What can the Church do when confronted by a Pope who, as a prominent cardinal declares to the whole world, “fail[s] to maintain and transmit faithfully … the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and is leading “an apostasy from the truth”? It seems absurd to argue that she can do nothing but exhort the faithful to pray and do penance while a papal malefactor, treated as if were an absolute dictator, is allowed to continue wreaking havoc upon faith and morals to the detriment of countless souls, without the least impediment, for so long as he shall live. No, Bergoglio must go. The successors of the Apostles, the only ones in a position to end his rampage, must demand his resignation and, should he refuse as expected, act in this unprecedented emergency to declare his removal from the office he has criminally abused and whose very credibility he threatens to destroy. May God give them the grace to do what must be done and what history will vindicate as a rescue of the Church during the height of the worst crisis in her history.
The Goal Of Eliminating Guns Is Ultimately A Fool’s Errand  It is said that the DOJ's recent settlement with start-up company Defense Distributed (DD) essentially deals a death blow to gun control advocates. DD, based in Austin, TX, was founded by 25-year-old Cody Wilson in 2013. The company's main product is a "gun fabricator" called the Ghost Gunner. With nothing but the Ghost Gunner, an internet connection, and some raw materials, anyone, anywhere can make an unmarked, untraceable gun in their home or garage. The settlement states that 3D printing tutorials are approved “for public release (i.e. unlimited distribution) in any form.” Wilson created a ruckus in May 2013 when he announced his successful design of a plastic gun. In just two days, 100,000 copies of the handgun blueprint were downloaded from Wilson’s website. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. The most downloads came from Spain, followed by the U.S., Brazil and Germany. The heavy downloading in Spain, Brazil and Germany likely reflected attempts to evade extremely restrictive handgun regulations in those countries. Within days of the gun file being uploaded, the Obama State Department served Wilson with a letter threatening criminal prosecution for violating federal export controls. Wilson immediately complied with the order, but there was no way to stop further downloading. Within a week of the initial uploading, the file could be downloaded on the Internet from over 4,000 different computers around the world. In 2015, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and DD sued the State Department, arguing that "sharing instructions on how to make guns with 3D printers counts as constitutionally protected speech. This is an important victory for First Amendment rights." The Justice Department’s recent settlement with Wilson is very favorable to him, allowing Wilson to provide the printing instructions “for public release (meaning unlimited distribution) in any form.” The government also compensated $40,000 of Wilson’s legal costs. While this settlement is a victory for First Amendment rights, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the government to regulate either the printers or the guns that are made with them. How the government will stop people from obtaining these printers isn’t exactly obvious. Proposals to require background checks, mandatory serial numbers and even a registration process for printers are easily defeated. Even if printers are registered with the government, what is going to stop gangs from stealing them? And the designs for making your own printer have been available on the Internet for years. 3D printers make the already extremely difficult job of controlling access to guns practically impossible. The government is not going to be able to ban guns, and limits on the size of bullet magazines will be even more laughable than before. Many parts of a gun can be made on very inexpensive, plastic 3D printers or even from simple machine tools. It will be even more difficult to impose background checks, which have proven quite useless anyway. The government has been no more effective at stopping criminals from getting guns than at stopping them from obtaining drugs. That isn’t too surprising, as drug gangs are the source of both illegal drugs and guns. This was a tough battle for the plaintiff's, SAF and DD. They lost many lower court rulings. Gun-control advocates believe that the government "capitulated" too soon. J. Adam Skaggs, the chief counsel for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the administration “capitulated in a case it had won at every step of the way. This isn’t a case where the underlying facts of the law changed. The only thing that changed was the administration.” The concept of making guns with 3D printers in an age where just one year can render much technology obsolete shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should the fact that instructions for gun assembly are easily available for download over the internet. At the click of a mouse, we can summon almost any information we could possibly need including instructions for making a bomb. The ability to build an untraceable, unregistered gun is definitely a game changer. It's difficult to see how "ghost guns" could ever be regulated by the government.
Congress’ Top Cop: House Democratic Caucus Server VANISHED In Muslim Spy Ring Investigation  Why was the ringleader of the widespread Muslim spy scandal just offered a plea deal? Who has been exposed to blackmail and God knows what else? And how deeply has America been compromised? These crimes are treason and should be prosecuted as such. Break: Ex-Dem IT aide Imran Awan pleads guilty to loan application fraud in federal court, as part of plea agreement. Prosecutors drop charges against his wife. Prosecutors say they investigated allegations of improper behavior in Awan’s Congress role, but will bring no charges. — Alex Pappas (@AlexPappas) July 3, 2018 take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. In Newly Obtained Memo, Congress’ Top Cop Said House Democratic Caucus Server VANISHED https://t.co/gTj2UgSZJr via @dailycaller — Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) July 2, 2018 A secret memo marked “URGENT” detailed how the House Democratic Caucus’s server went “missing” soon after it became evidence in a cybersecurity probe. The secret memo also said more than “40 House offices may have been victims of IT security violations.” In the memo, Congress’s top law enforcement official, Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, along with Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko, wrote, “We have concluded that the employees [Democratic systems administrator Imran Awan and his family] are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.” The memo, addressed to the Committee on House Administration (CHA) and dated Feb. 3, 2017, was recently reviewed and transcribed by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The letter bolsters TheDCNF’s previous reporting about the missing server and evidence of fraud on Capitol Hill. It details how the caucus server, run by then-caucus Chairman Rep. Xavier Becerra, was secretly copied by authorities after the House Inspector General (IG) identified suspicious activity on it, but the Awans’ physical access was not blocked. But after, the report reads, the server appears to have been secretly replaced with one that looked similar. The memo called for firing the Pakistani-born aides, revoking all their computer accounts, and changing the locks on any door they had access to. Rep. Louie Gohmert — a Texas Republican on the House Committee on the Judiciary who has done oversight work on the case — said the missing server contained copies of Congress members’ emails. “They put 40 members of Congress’s data on one server … That server, with that serial number, has disappeared,” he said. Multiple sources connected to the investigation told TheDCNF that shortly after an IG report came out identifying the House Democratic Caucus server as key evidence in a criminal probe, the evidence was stolen. “They [the Awans] deliberately turned over a fake server” to falsify evidence, one official close to the CHA alleged. “It was a breach. The data was completely out of [members’] possession.” The six-page letter says: • In September of 2016 … the CHA and [IG] briefed the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus about suspicious activity related to their server that the [IG] identified. As a result, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus directed the CAO to copy the data from their server and two computers. • The CHA directed the IG to refer the matter to the US Capitol Police. The USCP initiated an investigation that continues to this day. • In late 2016, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced his intention to resign from Congress to assume a new position. The CAO and [sergeant-at-arms] worked with the Chairman to account for his inventory, including the one server. • While reviewing the inventory, the CAO discovered that the serial number of the server did not match that of the one imaged in September. [Investigators] also discovered that the server in question [the replacement server] was still operating under the employee’s control, contrary to the explicit instructions of the former chairman to turn over all equipment and fully cooperate with the inquiry and investigation. [A House source said the "employee” was Abid Awan.] • The USCP interviewed relevant staff regarding the missing server. • On January 24, 2017, the CAO acquired the [r[replacement]erver from the control of the employees and transferred that server to the USCP. President Donald Trump referenced the Democratic Caucus’ missing server in a tweet. But because the letter to the CHA was kept secret, many news outlets have not grasped that the House’s top cop documented a “missing server” connected to the Democratic Caucus. The timeline laid out in the letter also shows that Becerra — now California’s Democratic attorney general — failed to ensure that the Awans didn’t have access to House computer systems during the 2016 election, which was wrought with cybersecurity scandals. An IG presentation from September 2016 shows that Becerra knew of problems months before the server disappeared. “The Caucus Chief of Staff requested one of the shared employees to not provide IT services or access their computers,” it read. “This shared employee continued.” It’s unclear why that request was not granted or why it was a request rather than an order. A House official close to the probe said the employee was Abid, who was not on Becerra or the Caucus’s payroll. The official said Becerra Chief of Staff Sean McCluskie apparently knew Abid was accessing Caucus servers. According to payroll records, Abid’s sister-in-law, Hina Alvi, was the Caucus’ systems administrator. The Awans’ continued physical access to Becerra’s equipment after red flags emerged enabled the server to disappear after it became evidence, House officials close to the investigation told TheDCNF. (RELATED: Becerra Tried To Block Awan From House Democratic Caucus Server, But Logins Continued; He Didn’t Go To Cops) Becerra has refused to comment, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. The February 2017 memo itemizes “numerous and egregious violations of House IT security” by members of the Awan family, including using Congress members’ usernames and “the unauthorized storage of sensitive House information outside the House.” “These employees accessed user accounts and computers for offices that did not employ them, without the knowledge and permission of the impacted Member’s office,” it said, adding, “4 of the employees accessed the Democratic Caucus computers 5,735 times.” More than 100 office computers were open to access from people not on the office’s staff, it said. Chris Gowen — a former aide to Hillary Clinton who is now serving as Imran’s attorney — told TheDCNF, “There is no missing server and never was.” He didn’t provide any support for his claim, which is contrary to evidence Kiko and Irving presented to Congress. The memo said the CHA possesses voluminous evidence, including, “Interview notes with House Members’ Chiefs of Staff,” and “Logon activity and computer access logs.” Prosecutors have not brought charges. The Awans were banned from Congress’s computer network the day the letter was sent, and Kiko held a briefing to convey the message to chiefs of staff for members who employed them. But Democrats claim they were never told about any of the cybersecurity issues itemized in the urgent memo. Rep. Jackie Speier — a California Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who employed Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi — said she never heard of any missing server. Joaquin Castro of Texas — another Democratic intelligence committee member who employed one of the Awans — told TheDCNF that Kiko never told him of any cybersecurity issues whatsoever and that the Awan probe was instead described as a theft issue. Indeed, the CHA issued only one public statement on the case and titled it the “House Theft Investigation” — wording that avoids cybersecurity words while political news coverage raged about other cybersecurity issues in the 2016 election. Yet even the alleged theft has not resulted in criminal charges — even though the letter also says House authorities have “purchase orders and vouchers” that allegedly show procurement fraud, as well as testimony from a Democratic chief of staff to Rep. Yvette Clarke, who warned of procurement fraud. The FBI arrested Imran at the airport in July 2017 for alleged bank fraud that occurred six months prior, and Democrats have since claimed that the case is about nothing but bank fraud. Bank fraud does not explain why the Awans were kicked off the House network concurrent with the urgent memo, which did not cite bank fraud. A Democratic IT aide who alleged that Imran solicited a bribe from him told TheDCNF he believes members of Congress are playing dumb and covering the matter up. Wendy Anderson, a former chief of staff to New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, told House investigators that she suspected that her predecessor, Shelley Davis, was working with Abid on a theft scheme, but Clarke refused to fire Abid until outside investigators got involved, TheDCNF reported. Eighteen months after the evidence was recounted in the urgent memo, prosecution appears to have stalled for reasons not publicly explained. Imran is in court July 3 for a possible plea deal in the bank fraud case. Gohmert said the FBI has refused to accept evidence demonstrating alleged House misconduct, and some witnesses with first-hand knowledge say the bureau has not interviewed them. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
Hundreds of Priests Accused in Pennsylvania, Church of Accompaniment in Crisis  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday released a sweeping grand jury report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church, listing hundreds of accused clergy and detailing 70 years of misconduct and church response across the state.  The release is the culmination of an 18-month probe, led by state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, on six of the state’s eight dioceses — Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Scranton, Erie and Greensburg — and follows other state grand jury reports that revealed abuse and coverups in two other dioceses.  Some details and names that might reveal the 300 clergy listed have been redacted from the report. Legal challenges by clergy delayed the report’s release, after some said it is a violation of their constitutional rights. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled last month that the report must be released but with some redaction.  The report’s release begins an information war, with prosecutors and many victims saying it’s the start of holding church leaders at the top accountable for the first time, while church lawyers and other advocates for the institution say the report depicts an era of another century, unfairly smearing today’s Catholicism in Pennsylvania.  The report has helped renew a crisis many in the church thought and hoped had ended nearly 20 years ago after the scandal erupted in Boston. But recent abuse-related scandals, from Chile to Australia, have reopened wounding questions about accountability and whether church officials are still covering up crimes at the highest levels.  The new wave of allegations has called Pope Francis’s handling of abuse into question as many Catholics look to him to help the church regain its credibility. The pope’s track record has been mixed, something some outsiders attribute to his learning curve or shortcomings and others chalk up to resistance from a notoriously change-averse institution.  The Pennsylvania grand jury report follows the resignation last month of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, a towering figure in the U.S. church and former D.C. archbishop who was accused of sexually abusing minors and adults for decades. Both have further polarized the church on homosexuality, celibacy and whether laypeople should have more power. It has also triggered debate about whether statutes of limitations should be expanded.  “We’re dealing with a long-term struggle not only about the meaning of justice, but about the meaning of memory,” said Jason Berry, a reporter and author who has covered the sexual abuse crisis for decades. “And how honest the church has been about this crisis. Most bishops, besides apologies, have not been on the cutting edge of change.”  Church officials began bracing for the aftermath of the report. On Monday, D.C.’s archbishop, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, former longtime leader of the Pittsburgh diocese, warned his priests in a letter that the probe will be “profoundly disturbing.” REMNANT COMMENT: The report also shows that “more than 90 ‘offenders’ will be listed” in Donald Cardinal Wuerl’s former diocese, which is ironic since Wuerl is one of Pope Francis’s closest U.S. advisers and sits on the Vatican’s bishop oversight committee. Well played, Cardinal Wuerl! So, let me get this straight (I know, lots of luck with that one): These are the people that are going to "accompany us" and our children in the "synodal Church" with its new orientation, overseen by a "God of Surprises" who is uber-merciful and doesn't judge, and headed up by a pope who, according to Father Thomas Rosica, "breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is 'free from disordered attachments'?'' You don't say! All this and rampant homosexuality in the priesthood, too... along with a "trivialized liturgy" (according to Pope Benedict XVI) and widespread apostasy among the faithful? Remind me again: What exactly has Vatican II and the last fifty years of aggiornamento given us? Because I can't seem to think of a darn thing, apart from heretical homilies, sodomitical clergy and an increasingly lavender liturgy. You know what, guys? Thanks, but no thanks. You can take your 'Church of Accompaniment" to prison with you. I'd sooner let my kids be accompanied by fans of the Oakland Raiders than turn them over to you... meaning no disrespect to fans of the Oakland Raiders, of course. #stopthesynod
Vatican Theologian Sacked for Questioning “Merciful” Pope’s Pontificate  By now the whole Catholic world has heard of the publication of a devastating letter to Pope Francis from Father Thomas G. Weinandy. The former head of the theological secretariat of the U.S. Bishop’s conference, Fr. Weinandy has taught at both Oxford and the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. None other than Francis appointed Fr. Weinandy to the International Theological Commission and awarded him the Pro Pontifice et Ecclesiae medal, the ecclesial equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his work on behalf of the Pope and the Church. One of the world’s most renowned theologians, Fr. Weinandy is a “man of the Council” and a prominent figure of the post-conciliar mainstream. Yet Fr. Weinandy’s letter, sent to Francis privately last summer but predictably ignored by him—along with every other private entreaty concerning his destructive activity—is a withering indictment of a papacy that constitutes nothing less than a menace to the Church. The key passages (paragraph breaks added) rebuke Francis for his recklessness, his deliberate ambiguity, his fomenting of error, his sowing of disunity, his unheard-of calumnies of the faithful, and even his reduction of the faith to an ideology—precisely the wrong of which he accuses orthodox Catholics:   Your Holiness, a chronic confusion seems to mark your pontificate…. This fosters within the faithful a growing unease …. In "Amoris Laetitia," your guidance at times seems intentionally ambiguous, thus inviting both a traditional interpretation of Catholic teaching on marriage and divorce as well as one that might imply a change in that teaching…. To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it. [Y]ou seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism. This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry…. Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannotsurvive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by “ad hominem” arguments. [T]oo often your manner seems to demean the importance of Church doctrine. Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life. Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology. But it is precisely Christian doctrine… that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel. Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church [i.e., Francis!] separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth… What they [i.e., Francis] then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death. [F]aithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice…. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the "sensus fidelium," are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd. [T]he Church is one body, the Mystical Body of Christ, and you are commissioned by the Lord himself to promote and strengthen her unity. But your actions and words too often seem intent on doing the opposite…. You have often spoken about the need for transparency within the Church. You have frequently encouraged… all persons, especially bishops, to speak their mind and not be fearful of what the pope may think. But… what many [bishops] have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it… Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse. I have often asked myself: "Why has Jesus let all of this happen?" The only answer that comes to mind is that Jesus wants to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops. Ironically, your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness…. Father Weinandy reveals that he decided to publicize this historic missive only after receiving an unmistakable sign from heaven. As he recounts here, after repeatedly “beseeching Jesus and Mary, St. Peter and all of the saintly popes who are buried there to do something to rectify the confusion and turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused,” he asked for a minutely specific sign from heaven on whether he should write the letter: that the next day he would meet someone he had not seen in a very long time, would never expect to see in Rome, and was not from the United States, Canada or Great Britain, which person would utter the particular phrase: “Keep up the good writing.”  At lunch the next day, the sign was given. An old friend he had not seen in more than twenty years and would never have expected to meet in Rome, who is now an archbishop, appeared suddenly from between two parked cars, renewed acquaintances and, referring to one of Father Weinandy’s books, said: “Keep up the good writing.”  Writes Fr. Weinandy: “I could hardly believe that this just happened in a matter of a few minutes. But there was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something. I also think it significant that it was an Archbishop that Jesus used. I considered it an apostolic mandate.”  Can we doubt that it was indeed an apostolic mandate? Can we not see in Fr. Weinandy a voice raised up by heaven itself to say, from deep within the post-conciliar ecclesial establishment, things that exceed in their candor what even certain traditionalist commentators have ventured to state? This article is featured in the new Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Check out the PREVIEW and Subscribe Today! As if to confirm the validity of his own indictment of this pontificate, only a day after this letter was published, the USCCB demanded that Fr. Weinandy resign his current position as a consultant to the U.S. bishops. He has done so. Fr. Fessio’s Catholic World Report, another voice of the rising mainstream opposition to Francis, notes that “In making such a request, the USCCB, it would appear, reinforces Fr. Weinandy’s very point about fearfulness and lack of transparency.”  Fr. Weinandy’s intervention gives us hope that the plan to remake the Church according to the mind of Bergoglio will ultimately encounter a resistance that will bring an end to the Latin American-style dictatorship Francis has imposed upon the Church, even as he speaks of dialogue, collegiality, decentralization and parreshia (but only for those who agree with him). The plan that ultimately must fail may well fail even while Francis is attempting to carry it out.  May Our Lady of Fatima intercede soon to thwart the designs of Francis and to rectify the grave harm he has already caused. "We don't like you 'rigid' Catholics!" Pope Francis meets meets with Lutheran leader, Bishop Munib Younan, in Sweden
I'll Say What Kavanaugh Wouldn't: Christine Ford Was Part Of The Political Hit On Him & Here's The Audio Evidence  On Thursday, following the hearings where Dr. Christine Ford provided testimony under oath without any evidence at all of a 36-year-old alleged sexual attack by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, Kavanaugh denied the allegations and blasted Senate Democrats for their involvement in ruining his good name. However, when asked by Senator Cory Booker whether or not Kavanaugh thought Ford was part of what Kavanaugh referred to as a "political hit" against him, Kavanaugh rightly steered clear of a public relations disaster. However, I am willing to say would he would not: Of course, she was part of it! I don't say this lightly. There are many things that we heard from Ford on Thursday that indicate there is more going on than she was willing to say. Clearly, Ford has been outed as a radical political activist who promotes baby murder and other unlawful actions. However, her story didn't exactly lend credibility except with Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of which has openly professed to sexual assault. 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 * Email 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. However, Ford claims she never authorized her July letter to Senator Feinstein to be made public and yet, it was. She didn't seem distraught over that. She wasn't angry it was made public. Why? She knew it would be made public. Ricki Seidman, a Democratic operative and former Clinton White House official who is now an advisor to Mrs. Ford, said in July (at roughly the same time as the letter was submitted) that she predicted a "strategy" forming to destroy Brett Kavanaugh. She suggested a “strategy will emerge” to destroy Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court in a conference call with the American Constitution Society in July. “I do think that over the coming days and weeks there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee,” Seidman said in audio that was recorded by the Republican National Committee’s War Room. “And whether or not it ultimately defeats the nominee it will, I think, help people understand why it’s so important that they vote.” If you think Mrs. Ford is ignorant of this considering her father works for the Central Intelligence Agency and her prior criminal political activism, then you aren't thinking clearly. Ford obviously has mental issues and that was on display on Thursday during her testimony. She clearly tried to present herself as a victim while she accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault with absolutely no evidence. Kavanaugh even responded by pointing out that even her friends said they don't recall such an incident and had literally hundreds of people commend his character as the direct opposite of what Ford claims. As I've said before, I don't support Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court on the grounds of lack of constitutional rulings, but that attack on him was orchestrated, it was political and Ford was a part of it. It's wrong. Ford didn't even think to act, according to her testimony, until Kavanaugh was on the short list, but did she go to local law enforcement? Nope. She went to her US Democrat representative, Senator Dianne Feinstein and The Washington Post. If that is not political, I don't know what is. Ford is not seeking justice nor is she seeking to do her "civic duty." She is seeking to slander a man's character for something she cannot prove that she claims happened over 36 years ago. Kavanaugh's nomination was passed out of committee on Friday and will go to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote. For a quick run down of the political hit on Kavanaugh, take a look at this short synopsis by Paul Joseph Watson. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard
In Wake Of Elections, Migrant Caravan Resumes March Towards US Border  Of course, the news of the migrant caravan has largely been abandoned due to the elections and what appears to be voter fraud and election meddling and manipulation across the country, but that doesn't mean that thousands of migrants from Central America have abandoned their quest to enter our country illegally. Despite barbed wires and thousands of troops on the border, they have been undeterred. A report from RT tells the tale: The Central American migrant caravan has just begun another leg of their journey to the US border hastily reinforced by the Army and Marine Corps. The migrants previously made a days-long stop in Mexico City. The caravan, made up mostly of Hondurans, but also nationals of other Central American countries, is now on the move towards the United States border. Migrants resumed their march north on Saturday morning after spending almost a week in Mexico City. 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 * 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. ... To get there, migrants will have to travel some 1,700 miles (2,735km) to the northwest, a much longer route than to the nearest US border crossing at McAllen, Texas, which many consider to be the safest option. Video was also captured showing dozens of people waiting for trains in Mexico subway or boarding heavy trucks or buses somewhere outside the city while others are seen using cars. President Donald Trump has warned these people to turn back and that they will not be accepted into the US. He recently signed an immigration decree requiring asylum seekers to apply at their point of entry to the country and barring illegal immigrants from requesting asylum. “We need people in our country but they have to come in legally and they have to have merit,” Trump told reporters before he departed for Paris. https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jE Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
Avenatti’s Freak Show  On the eve of a historic Supreme Court confirmation hearing, two more women have materialized out of thin air to accuse President Trump’s high court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual improprieties – bringing the total number of accusers to four. Even more eleventh-hour character-assassination attempts may be coming given the enraged Left’s determination to prevent the judge’s ascent to the Supreme Court at all costs. Whether the claims are true is irrelevant to these people. Only the seriousness and luridness of the charges matter as they get aired over and over again in the 24-hour news cycle. They don’t care about the victims they create. Only the headlines. The new allegations surfaced yesterday as the Senate Judiciary Committee battens down the hatches for a hearing today to receive oral evidence from the first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, tried to rape her decades ago when he was a high school student. The third accuser is Julie Swetnick, a 55-year-old certified systems engineer, who on Wednesday claimed that in the early 1980s Kavanaugh and others spiked the drinks of young women at high school parties with intoxicants to clear the way for them to be gang-raped. Incredibly, Swetnick said in a sworn statement that she witnessed gang rapes at these parties but kept on attending them anyway. It gets weirder. Kavanaugh was a “mean drunk,” she stated. He drank excessively at these parties and would grind against girls and try to take their clothing of, she said. Swetnick claimed to have been gang-raped at one of these parties in 1982 as a result of consuming a spiked drink that contained “Quaaludes or something similar.” Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were present at the party at which she was raped, she states, but she doesn’t accuse them of participating in it. In response, Kavanaugh labeled Swetnick's salacious allegations "ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone." "I don't know who this is and this never happened," the judicial nominee added. A CNBC summary describes Swetnick: A 1980 graduate of Gaithersburg High School in Maryland, she said she has held multiple clearances for work done at the Treasury Department, U.S. Mint, IRS, State Department and Justice Department, among other government agencies. Swetnick says in her affidavit that she saw Kavanaugh in the early 1980s "drink excessively at many" house parties in suburban Maryland. At the time, Kavanaugh and Judge were students at Georgetown Prep, a private Catholic all-boys school. She said Kavanaugh and Judge engaged in "abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls," which "included the fondling and groping of girls without their consent" and "not taking 'No' for an answer." Predictably, all 10 Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee urged President Trump to either "immediately withdraw the nomination or order an FBI investigation into all the allegations." There is no indication so far that the president will oblige them. To no one’s surprise, Trump’s legal tormentor, Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti, whom Tucker Carlson has dubbed “creepy porn lawyer,” is representing Swetnick. "There should be an immediate investigation" of Swetnick’s dramatic allegations, Avenatti said on MSNBC, "and there should be no rush to confirm him to the U.S. Supreme Court." The president slammed Avenatti. “Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh[,]” Trump wrote on Twitter. “He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!” He rejected Swetnick’s allegations as “another beauty” and described Avenatti as a “con artist.” “All of a sudden, the hearings are over, and the rumors start coming out,” Trump said. “And then you this other con artist, Avenatti, come out with another beauty today." A fourth accuser popped up yesterday, Politico reports. According to an interview transcript released Wednesday night by the Senate Judiciary Committee: An anonymous woman wrote to Sen. Cory Gardner’s (R-Colo.) office on Sept. 22 alleging that the Supreme Court nominee shoved another woman “up against the wall very aggressively and sexually” in 1998 after leaving a bar where both had been drinking, the transcript states. Kavanaugh denied any involvement in the events alleged in that complaint, which was first reported by NBC. Depending on how you do the counting, there may even be a fifth and sixth accusation against Kavanaugh. The newspaper account continues: The transcript of Kavanaugh's Tuesday interview also cited another anonymous claim of sexual misconduct involving Kavanaugh, dating back to 1985 and sent to the office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), which the judge also flatly denied to investigators. And GOP investigators said late Wednesday they received an additional anonymous claim of rape passed along by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). Accuser number two is Deborah Ramirez, 53, who went public with her claims in a New Yorker magazine article Sunday. Ramirez alleges she was assaulted by Kavanaugh at a drunken party decades ago at Yale College. She claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and brushed his genitals against her. If Kavanaugh isn’t on the bench Monday, the Supreme Court will be shorthanded as it begins hearing cases in its new term. It normally has a complement of nine justices but with Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have been only eight justices. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats are trying to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they may seize control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. The proceedings Thursday are supposed to get underway at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. Committee Republicans considered the political optics and didn’t relish the prospect of their all-male team of 11 senators questioning a woman so they hired sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell of Maricopa County, Arizona, to ask the questions at what promises to be a highly-watched hearing. Democrats predictably freaked out at the decision to have a woman lead the questioning since their primary objective here is to embarrass and discredit Kavanaugh and other Republicans, not get at the truth. “It is going against everything I’ve seen for 44 years," huffed committee member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "They’re not following normal procedure." As expected, at today’s hearing Kavanaugh will firmly rebut the increasingly outrageous claims being leveled at him. According to prepared testimony provided to The Hill newspaper, he will say: I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone. Kavanaugh added: "I am innocent of this charge." Not surprisingly Ford’s prepared testimony also found its way to reporters. “I am here today not because I want to be,” Ford says in her opening statement. “I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.” She describes the nominee as “Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me,” and claims “Brett’s assault on me drastically altered my life,” but at the same time acknowledges “Brett did not rape me.” Given that Kavanaugh has already passed six incredibly intrusive FBI investigations, odds are Ford is lying or suffering from some kind of psychological disorder such as false memory syndrome. Many commentators have drawn parallels between Ford and Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual improprieties. Both women are college professors. Both claim to have reluctantly been drawn into confirmation battles. Ford claims to be a victim of attempted rape; Hill claims to have been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace. Only left-wingers and feminists like Maureen Dowd still believe Hill, now an utterly undistinguished politically correct scholar who discredited herself by –among other things— following her then-boss Thomas as his subordinate when he switched jobs. An abused person wouldn’t do that. But all the lies about Thomas at what he described as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks” had an effect. In the end, the Senate barely approved his nomination 52 to 48 on October 15, 1991. With all the mud Democrats have been slinging at Kavanaugh, he would be thrilled to be approved by a margin as wide as 52 to 48. Conservatives need to remember that the purpose of the Left’s frenzied, demagogic assault is to damage the nominee, and by extension, the president who nominated him. If they can derail Kavanaugh’s nomination, that is an added bonus. The Left’s attacks on Kavanaugh in the #MeToo era are working, a USA Today article suggests: Disapproval for Kavanaugh … is at an unprecedented level for a Supreme Court nominee amid the allegations against him, according to a new USA TODAY/Ipsos Public Affairs Poll. Those surveyed said by 40 percent to 31 percent that the Senate shouldn't vote to approve his nomination, the first time a plurality of Americans have opposed a Supreme Court nominee since polling on the issue began. The case against confirming Kavanaugh may be somewhere between weak and non-existent, but the constant repetition of the unsupported allegations in the Trump-hating media is clearly taking its toll on the nominee. That said, the Senate Judiciary Committee is tentatively scheduled to vote on the nomination Friday at 9:30 a.m. "If we're ready to vote, we will vote,” Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeted Tuesday at 6:46 p.m. “If we aren't ready, we won't.” Obviously, a lot is riding on the confirmation. “We're watching a period where what we have to understand is this is about raw power," former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Tuesday. "And if the Left can stop Kavanaugh we will not get another conservative justice in our lifetime on the Supreme Court." President Trump quoted the nation’s most prominent conservative radio host as he urged GOP senators to get onboard Tuesday: “Rush Limbaugh to Republicans: ‘You can kiss the MIDTERMS goodbye if you don’t get highly qualified Kavanaugh approved.’” Trump is right.
Facebook Bans Outline to Stop Jihadi Attacks on Americans.  [Editors' note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 for his article on how to best prevent more 9/11s, pre-order Jamie's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has successfully built his totalitarian plantation -- on which many in the West are now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.] Reprinted from WND.com. Somewhere in the “community standards” that Facebook demands everyone follow is a real doozy. The social-media company has told author and commentator Jamie Glazov that their standards forbid his article about how to prevent jihadi attacks on Americans. It’s all about Glazov’s new book, “Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.” At FrontPage Magazine, where he is editor, he had posted “9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad,” which included recommendations such as “Label the enemy and make a threat assessment” and “Stop ‘partnering’ with Muslim Brotherhood front groups.” That apparently was too much for Facebook, which declared “only you can see this post” because it “goes against our Community Standards.” He was suspended from Facebook for 30 days on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the Islamic jihadist attack on America that killed nearly 3,000. Glazov told Breitbart, “This is really getting surreal in the creepiest and most harrowing Stalinist sense.”  FrontPage Magazine reported: Facebook’s Unholy Alliance masters are, without doubt, accelerating their totalitarian suffocation of free thought and expression. It is no surprise, therefore, that Frontpage’s editor, and host of ‘The Glazov Gang,’ was suspended from Facebook for 30 days yesterday, on September 11, after posting his article, ‘9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.’ Glazov believed that the article was more relevant and urgent than ever due to the skyrocketing jihadist stabbings in Europe — and to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 that was approaching the next day. The report said it appears “that daring to give suggestions on how our civilization can stop jihadist attacks and another 9/11 is against Facebook’s ‘community standards. '” “Glazov’s advice also involves the promotion of supporting moderate Muslims – a move that is, clearly, horrifying to Facebook’s masters and therefore also violates their ‘community standards,'” the report said. No doubt, Glazov’s consistent campaigning on behalf of Muslim women and girls in his efforts to protect them from FGM, honor killings and other Shariah barbarities, has gained him the anger and hatred of Facebook’s guardians — who are clearly on the side of the Shariah enforcers and oppressors of Muslim women and girls. The report recalls that Facebook censored Glazov in April for posting screenshots of a Muslim’s threat to him. Twitter also lashed out at him for quoting directly from Islamic religious texts, citing its anti-“hate” policies. It is ‘hateful conduct,’ apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed, Frontpage’s editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Quranic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50). Facebook also refused to respond to Glazov’s inquiry about “what it is specifically that violates Facebook’s ‘community standards’ when a person gives advice on how to best defend American lives from jihad.” Glazov has written about the subject in previous books, including “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown” and “United in Hate.” In his “9 Steps” article, he points out that the Obama administration was “cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA.” The government needs, he said, to “implement a concrete ‘countering-jihad’ strategy.” And he said it needs to affirm “Shariah’s assault on the U.S. Constitution as seditious.” A last key point, the said, is to 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 Shariah 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.
US embassy worker in China suffers 'brain injury' amid 'sonic attack' fears  A US embassy worker in China has reported experiencing "abnormal sensations of sounds and pressure" amid fears of a "sonic attack". The state department has issued a health alert to its citizens in the country, adding that the unnamed staff member's symptoms indicate a "mild traumatic brain injury". The findings echo similar reports that caused the US to recall non-essential embassy staff from Cuba in 2017, after at least 24 US citizens suffered symptoms indicating they had been deliberately and covertly targeted. US investigators are looking into whether the employee in China has been affected by a "sonic attack", which was one of the theories behind the still-unexplained illnesses suffered in Havana. The unnamed government worker was based in the southeast port city of Guangzhou, where an American consulate is based. He has now been flown back to the US for assessment, according to reports. The state department has issued a health alert to its staff in China, which states: "While in China, if you experience any unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises, do not attempt to locate their source. "Instead, move to a location where the sounds are not present." Image: US secretary of state Mike Pompeo is set to meet with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi on Wednesday The embassy in Beijing said it could not link the case in China to the health issues suffered by its staff in Cuba. In an email to citizens in China, the state department said: "A US government employee in China recently reported subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure. "The US government is taking these reports seriously and has informed its official staff in China of this event." They added that they are not sure what has caused the employee's symptoms. The US Secretary of Mike Pompeo has said he is concerned about the "serious health incident" that has affected an embassy worker in Guangzhou. China's foreign ministry and national health commission did not immediately respond to questions about the findings, the Associated Press reported. The US reduced its workforce in Havana, Cuba, in 2017 after its personnel and their families reported experiencing a range of health issues. Investigators have drawn theories including that were targeted by sonic attacks, where the symptoms included dizziness, headaches and vomiting. The attacks can sometimes be carried out by emitting "infrasounds", which are low frequency noises that can affect human hearing if they are loud enough. However, Dr Toby Heys told the New Scientist in 2017 that an infrasound attack wouldn't be "very covert" as a "large array of subwoofers" would be needed. Image: The US recalled non-essential embassy staff from Havana, Cuba, after potential sonic attacks in 2017 The other type is an "ultrasound" attack, whereby a high frequency noise inaudible to human ears can be targeted easily at potential victims. They can damage parts of the ear such as hairs that pick up sounds, but again it is reported that large equipment would be needed for such an attack. Other theories behind the health issues in Cuba include the use of electromagnetic weapons, which can target highly-focused energy at potential victims. This can include a laser, microwaves, or particle beams. Investigators also speculated that a flawed spy device could be behind the victims' ailments in Cuba. The US expelled 15 Cuban diplomats from the US after the alleged acoustic attacks. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo met with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi in Washington on Wednesday. They were expected to discuss a planned meeting between President Donald Trump and the North Korea leader Kim Jong-Un, but concerns about the incident in Guangzhou are likely to have been raised. China and the US are considered strategic rivals for influence in Asia, but conduct hundreds of billions of dollars of annual trade with each other.
National Data | December Jobs—TRUMP EFFECT! American Worker Displacement, Immigrant Population, Black Unemployment ALL DECLINE! | Articles  ) Forget the Wolff book brouhaha and Trump’s latest DACA dalliance —the real story is outside the Beltway , where real people live and work. December marked the fifth month in a row in which the immigrant working-age population ( legal and illegal declined from the same month of the prior year. Simultaneously, immigrant displacement of American workers fell, also apparently confirming a trend that began in September. And, by the way, black unemployment is at a record low. What started after the 2016 election as a reduction in the rate of increase in the foreign-born population of working age has turned into an outright retreat. This is in dramatic contrast to the last months of the Obama Regime, which saw year-over-year increases in immigrant working-age population far in excess of the estimated 1 million legal immigrants admitted annually, and which I argued meant that an unreported illegal alien surge was underway. According to the Labor Department employment report released last Friday, December there were 77,000 fewer working-age immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country in December 2017 than in December 2016—a decline of 0.18%. This follows year-over-year drops of 138,000 in August, 143,000 in September, and 117,000 in October, and 64,000 in November. Not since the Great Recession has the foreign-born working-age population declined for five consecutive months—but now, in telling contrast, the economy is expanding. This makes the Trump Era immigrant workforce decline especially striking. Note that this is a net figure. The year-over- year reduction in the immigrant working-age population does not mean new immigrants have stopped coming in. About 300,000 immigrants die annually, and an equal number leave (voluntarily or otherwise), according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. [U.S. Immigrant Population Hit Record 43.7 Million in 2016, By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler,October 16, 2017] So the 77,000 reduction in working-age immigrants from December 2016 to December 2017 is consistent with a gross inflow of about 500,000 new foreign-born workers (legal and illegal) over that period—the gross inflow more than offset by the gross reduction of 600,000 due to deaths, deportations, and immigrant emigrants. This helps explain why a reduction in the immigrant workforce population reduction is compatible with reports of a recent increase in illegal immigration on the U.S. southwest border (albeit still less than at the end of the Obama Regime). The additional good news: Native-born American workers took all the jobs created this month, according to the Household Survey, which records workers’ immigrant status (but not their legal status). The Household Survey reported 103,000 jobs were created last month—well below the 148,000 figure found by the far more widely-cited Payroll Survey. In December 2017: Immigrant employment fell by 246,000, down by 0.93% Native-born American employment rose a whopping 349,000 – up 0.27% The immigrant employment index, set to 100.0 in January 2009, fell from 122.0 to 120.9. The native-born American employment index rose from 105.8 to 106.0.. The New VDARE American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI), our term for the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes, fell fromto(100X (120.9/106.0)) Trump may not have delivered (yet) on his promise to bring back the factory and coal jobs so many of his supporters lost during the Obama years. But by shrinking the pool of immigrants willing to do that work, he has put more money in pockets of his voters. While overall wage growth remains modest – 2.5% per annum in December – Blue collar workers have beat this by a wide margin: “It is commonly said that wage stagnation contributed to an economic anxiety in middle America that carried Donald Trump into the White House…Yet Mr. Trump’s rise seems to have coincided with a turnaround in fortunes for the middle class. … The latest development—one that will be of particular interest to Mr. Trump—is that blue-collar wages have begun to rocket. …In the year [2017] to the third quarter, wage and salary growth for the likes of factory workers, builders and drivers easily outstripped that for professionals and managers. In some cases, blue-collar pay growth now exceeds 4%…” Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?, The Economist, Magazine, November 14th 2017 Eleven months of Trump has not come close to undoing the damage done by eight years of Obama. Native-born American workers lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years and this trend accelerated significantly in the months leading up to the election: Can't render, error Native-born American employment growth is represented by the black line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born American job growth—is in blue. Another way of looking at American worker displacement: the immigrant share of total U.S. employment rose steadily, albeit erratically, throughout the Obama years. It fell sharply in the months after the 2016 election, but roared back to Obama-era levels in the spring. Immigrants held 16.99% of total jobs in December, a significant drop from November’s 17.16% share. Can't render, error A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is available in the Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Nativity table published in the monthly BLS Report. Over the last 12 months (December 2016 to December 2017): The native-born American labor force (employed plus looking for work) grew twice as fast as the immigrant labor force: 0.63% versus 0.30%. ADVANTAGE AMERICANS as the immigrant labor force: 0.63% versus 0.30%. American employment grew 57% faster than immigrant employment: 1.27% versus 0.81%. ADVANTAGE AMERICANS The labor-force participation rate (LPR), a sign of worker confidence and mobility, rose by 0.6 points for immigrants and was unchanged for native-born Americans. At 65.3%, the immigrant LPR this December was considerably above the native-born American rate (61.9%.) ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The number of unemployed Americans fell by 763,000—down 12.7%, while the number of unemployed immigrants fell 129,000—down by 11%. ADVANTAGE AMERICANS Another piece of good news, quite possibly connected to the shrinking of the immigrant working age population, caught our eye: The unemployment rate for black Americans fell to 6.8% in December , the lowest level since the Labor Department began tracking the figure in 1972. [ U.S. economy added 2 million jobs in 2017 , by Patrick Gillespie, CNNMoney, January 5, 2018] By removing foreign competitors, Trump may have done more for blacks in 11 months than Obama did in eight years. Of course, this could be affected by statistical noise—and it could be undone by e.g. a DACA capitulation. But right now it increasingly appears the Trump Effect is real—and achieved entirely through enhanced enforcement. What could happen if the GOP-controlled Congress woke up and enacted an immigration moratorium? Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants.
Shock: Black Death Patients Are ESCAPING The Hospital Over Fear Of Needles As Officials Worry Plague Could Spread  Patients in Madagascar who are currently suffering from the plague have “escaped” multiple hospitals in the area over fears of needles and hospital treatment as a whole, according to a shocking report in The Sun newspaper. Security guards with at least one hospital have been tasked with forcefully keeping black death patients in the hospital as well as following the strict safety procedures set up in an attempt to quell the outbreak. The Sun reported: Officials at the hospital say the main reason why patients run away is that they are scared of needles and don’t have much experience of hospitals. Jean Benoit Manhes, the deputy representative of Unicef, told the Irish Times: “Some escaped because they’re afraid of needles. People here are not used to the hospital. “The problem of plague is not just a medical response. You can have hospitals but if people don’t come it isn’t enough.” Such incidents have prompted fears that the plague could spread even further with each confirmed case requiring 20 people have been in contact with to be treated as a precaution. Malagasy people have also been told not to carry out their traditional burial tradition of Famidihana which involves digging up their dead relatives every seven years. It means ‘turning the bones’ and sees families cleaning the remains, rewrapping them and reburying them while other family members perform a special dance. The African island’s government has told citizens to pause the tradition for fear the plague bacteria is still active in the corpses and can be spread to the living. News of infected patients running away from hospitals comes on the heels of reports that it is only a matter of time before the plague becomes resistant to the antibiotics that are currently being used to treat the outbreak. Mac Slavo recently reported for SHTFplan: 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. As Slavo noted, should the disease spread to the African mainland, one can assume that it will be all but impossible to control, thus increasing the likelihood of global pandemic.
Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes Resigns Amid Florida Voter Fraud  Why she wasn't fired a long time ago is beyond anyone's ability to answer, but Broward County election supervisor Brenda Snipes has resigned amid what is clearly voter fraud that she oversaw. However, that should not be good enough for the people of Broward County nor the state of Florida. Charges must be made and her arrest should be imminent. The Sun-Sentinel reports: Just hours after finishing a tumultuous election recount, Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes submitted her resignation, ending a 15-year tenure full of botched elections, legal disputes and blistering criticism. 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. “It is true. She did send it,” said Burnadette Norris-Weeks, an attorney who works as counsel to the Supervisor of Elections Office. Evelyn Perez-Verdia, a former office spokeswoman who left several years ago, said Sunday evening she was told by people in the office that the letter was sent “to Tallahassee” earlier in the day. Norris-Weeks said she saw an early draft of the letter. In the version she saw, she said Snipes, 75, expressed a desire to spend more time with her family. In the final version of the resignation letter, sent to Gov. Rick Scott, Snipes said it was her “passion and honor” to have served in the office. “I am ready to pass the torch,” she wrote in the letter, which made no mention of controversies surrounding the 2018 election. By the way, she missed her deadline. “Although I have enjoyed this work tremendously over these many election cycles, both large and small, I am ready to pass the torch,” she wrote. She should be ready for prison bars after the fiasco she has created. Snipes allowed illegal aliens, non-citizens and felons to vote. According to Breitbart, she illegally destroyed ballots. Three statewide races in Florida are headed to a recount and all depend on results from a county whose supervisor of elections has a history of losing ballots and breaking laws by allowing illegal immigrants and felons to vote, as well as illegally destroying ballots. Broward County supervisor of elections Brenda Snipes’ office has admitted “they don’t know” how many ballots there are still to count. Snipes’ latest failure to finalize Tuesday’s election returns days after the polls closed is also in violation of Florida law, which requires elections officials to “report all early voting and all tabulated vote-by-mail results to the Department of State within 30 minutes after the polls close. Thereafter, the canvassing board shall report, with the exception of provisional ballot results, updated precinct election results to the department at least every 45 minutes until all results are completely reported.” The irony that a constitutionally ineligible candidate for the presidency and RINO extraordinaire, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), pointed out that voter fraud going on in Florida just a day after the elections probably didn't help the pressure that Snipes was facing. No evidence of fraud in #FloridaElection? Dems got voters to use altered forms to fix & submit as many mail ballots as possible after FL deadline in hopes that a judge would later order state to count them. Today that’s exactly what a federal judge did. https://t.co/MC4Tlvy9gi — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 15, 2018 Naples Daily News: A day after Florida’s election left top state races too close to call, a Democratic party leader directed staffers and volunteers to share altered election forms with voters to fix signature problems on absentee ballots after the state’s deadline. The altered forms surfaced in Broward, Santa Rosa, Citrus and Okaloosa counties and were reported to federal prosecutors to review for possible election fraud as Florida counties completed a required recount in three top races. But an email obtained by the USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida shows that Florida Democrats were organizing a broader statewide effort beyond those counties to give voters the altered forms to fix improper absentee ballots after the Nov. 5 deadline. Democratic party leaders provided staffers with copies of a form, known as a “cure affidavit,” that had been modified to include an inaccurate Nov. 8 deadline. We also know that a Broward County employee, Chelsey Smith, signed an affidavit affirming that she had seen members of Snipes' staff engaging in voter fraud. She ignored a court order, mixed invalid provisional ballots in with valid ones, and destroyed ballots, but don't worry, a Democrat attorney says that doing so has nothing to do with fraud or corruption. Now that federal prosecutors have gotten involved, perhaps it's time to quit talking about it and actually arrest this woman and charge her with crimes against the people of Broward County before more people end up dead in Broward County over their corrupt voting practices. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard
Trump’s Plan for Iran: Put Terrorists in Charge?  Back in the 2008 presidential race, I explained to then-candidate Rudy Giuliani the concept of “blowback.” Years of US meddling and military occupation of parts of the Middle East motivated a group of terrorists to carry out attacks against the United States on 9/11. They didn’t do it because we are so rich and so free, as the neocons would have us believe. They came over here because we had been killing Muslims “over there” for decades. How do we know this? Well, they told us. Osama bin Laden made it clear why al-Qaeda sought to attack the US. They didn’t like the US taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and they didn’t like US troops on their holy land. Why believe a terrorist, some responded. As I explained to Giuliani ten years ago, the concept of “blowback” is well-known in the US intelligence community and particularly by the CIA. 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 * 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. Unfortunately, it is clear that Giuliani never really understood what I was trying to tell him. Like the rest of the neocons, he either doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it. In a recent speech to the MeK – a violent Islamist-Marxist cult that spent two decades on the US terror watch list – Giuliani promised that the Trump Administration had made “regime change” a priority for Iran. He even told the members of that organization – an organization that has killed dozens of Americans – that Trump would put them in charge of Iran! Giuliani shares with numerous other neocons like John Bolton a strong relationship with this group. In fact, both Giuliani and Bolton have been on the payroll of the MeK and have received tens of thousands of dollars to speak to their followers. This is another example of how foreign lobbies and special interest groups maintain an iron grip on our foreign policy. Does anyone really think Iran will be better off if Trump puts a bunch of “former” terrorists in charge of the country? How did that work in Libya? It’s easy to dismiss the bombastic Giuliani as he speaks to his financial benefactors in the MeK. Unfortunately, however, Giuliani’s claims were confirmed late last week, when the Washington Free Beacon published a three-page policy paper being circulated among National Security Council officials containing plans to spark regime change in Iran. The paper suggests that the US focus on Iran’s many ethnic minority groups to spark unrest and an eventual overthrow of the government. This is virtually the same road map that the US has followed in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on. The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster. Unleashing terrorists on Iran to overthrow its government is not only illegal and immoral: it’s also incredibly stupid. We know from 9/11 that blowback is real, even if Giuliani and the neocons refuse to understand it. Iran does not threaten the United States. Unlike Washington’s Arab allies in the region, Iran actually holds reasonably democratic elections and has a Western-oriented, educated, and very young population. Why not open up to Iran with massive amounts of trade and other contacts? Does anyone (except for the neocons) really believe it is better to unleash terrorists on a population than to engage them in trade and travel? We need to worry about blowback from President Trump’s fully-neoconized Middle East policy! That’s the real threat! Article posted with permission from Ron Paul
The US Is Blatantly Telling Lies  It’s no secret that the Trump administration has a strong distaste for Iran. Iran is one of the only issues on which the U.S. president has remained relatively consistent. Trump berated the country both before and after taking office. However, Trump’s anti-Iran strategy goes against the better judgment of even the most anti-Iranian advisors in his staff who don’t want to see the U.S. isolated on the world stage. Fortunately for Trump, however, he is not alone in his bid to isolate and demonize Iran at all costs. On December 12, Trump’s ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, gave a grandiose speech demonizing Iran that echoed Colin Powell’s infamous performance before the U.N. in 2003. Haley’s essential claim was that Saudi Arabia is under attack by missiles supplied to Yemen by the Iranian government and that the world should not sit idly by as this goes on. “If we do nothing about the missiles fired at Saudi Arabia, we will not be able to stop the violence,” Haley warned. “There is clear evidence that the missiles that landed on Saudi Arabia come from Iran,” she said. “The evidence is undeniable. The weapons might as well have had ‘Made in Iran’ stickers all over it.” Buy Gold at Discounted Prices However, even as Haley opened her mouth, many commentators could already identify a number of issues with her speech. As Common Dream’s Reza Marashi explained: “Haley cited a UN report in her claim regarding Iranian missile transfers to the Houthis. Of course, the UN has reached no such conclusion. Instead, a panel of experts concluded that fired missile fragments show components from an Iranian company, but they have ‘no evidence as to the identity of the broker or supplier.’ Asked about Haley’s claim that Iran is the culprit, Sweden’s ambassador to the UN said, ‘The info I have is less clear.’ Analysts from the U.S. Department of Defense speaking to reporters at Haley’s speech openly acknowledged that they do not know the missiles’ origin. Perhaps most surreal is the very same UN report cited by Haley also says the missile included a component that was manufactured by an American company. Did she disingenuously omit that inconvenient bit from her remarks, or fail to read the entire UN report? The world may never know.” Regardless of the fact that Haley misrepresented the U.N. report in question, it appears the entire premise of the U.N. report is almost completely incorrect, anyway, according to former inspector Scott Ritter. Ritter writes: “The missile debris in question actually contradicts the finding of the UN panel, which held that the missiles launched against Saudi Arabia had been transferred to Yemen in pieces and assembled there by Houthi missile engineers; it is clear that the missiles in question had been in the possession of Yemen well before the Saudi Arabian-led intervention of 2015, and that their source was either Soviet or North Korean. The modification kits, on the other hand, appear to be of Iranian origin, and were transported to Yemen via Oman. The UN panel claims not to have any evidence of ‘external missile specialists’ working alongside the Houthi; indeed, the simplicity of the Burkhan 2-H modification concept is such that anyone already familiar with the SCUD-B missile system would be able to implement the required processes without outside assistance.” [emphasis added] So where did the missiles come from, and who made them? According to Ritter: “Rather than the Iranian-manufactured Qiam-1 missiles Haley and the Saudi Arabian government claimed, the debris presented by Haley were of a modified Soviet-manufactured SCUD-B missile; the airframe and engine are original Soviet-made components, and many of the smaller parts on display bear Cyrillic (i.e., Russian) markings. The transformation to the Burkhan 2-H design required the Houthi engineers to increase the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks, and lengthen the airframe accordingly. This is done by cutting the airframe, and welding in place the appropriate segments (this also required that the fuel supply pipe, which passes through the oxidizer tank, be similarly lengthened.) The difference in quality between the factory welds and the new welds is readily discernable. The increased fuel supply permits a longer engine burn, which in turn increases the range of the missile. The Burkhan 2-H uses a smaller warhead than the SCUD B; as such, the guidance and control section had been reconfigured to a smaller diameter, and an inter-stage section added to connect the warhead/guidance section with the main airframe.”  Those who have been paying attention to this conflict have been well aware that the U.S. has had little material evidence to link Yemen’s Houthis to Iranian arms suppliers. In January of this year, a panel of U.N. experts stated: “The panel has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm any direct large-scale supply of arms from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although there are indicators that anti-tank guided weapons being supplied to the Houthi or Saleh forces are of Iranian manufacture.” [emphasis added] Even if Iran were arming the Houthis, Haley’s hypocritical anti-Iran rhetoric doesn’t excuse the U.S. for continuing a foreign policy that essentially armed ISIS through U.S. weapons transfers, or for arming al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, just to name two examples of Washington’s schizophrenic approach to the region. Why is the U.S. singling out Iran, especially when the Houthi rebels are sworn enemies of al-Qaeda? The issues here go much deeper than nonsensical hypocrisy. According to Ritter, the entire debacle has shown that if Saudi Arabia cannot contain the Houthi’s missile capabilities, it cannot possibly hope to take on Iran, which possesses a significantly more advanced military than the Houthis do on their own. Ritter explains further: “If a relatively unsophisticated foe such as the Houthi, using Iranian-modified Soviet and North Korean missiles derived from 40-year-old technology, can evade an enemy force using the most modern combat aircraft backed up by the most sophisticated intelligence gathering systems available, and successfully launch ballistic missiles that threaten the political and economic infrastructure of the targeted state, what does that say about the prospects of any U.S.-led coalition taking on the far more advanced mobile missile threats that exist in North Korea and Iran today? The fact of the matter is that no military anywhere has shown the ability to successfully interdict in any meaningful way a determined opponent armed with mobile ballistic missile capability. If the Saudi experience in Yemen is to teach us anything, it is that any military plan designed to confront nations such as North Korea, Iran and Russia that are armed with sophisticated mobile ballistic missiles had better count on those capabilities remaining intact throughout any anticipated period of hostility. No amount of chest-thumping and empty rhetoric by American political and/or military leaders can offset this harsh reality. This is the critical lesson of Yemen, and the United States would do well to heed it before it tries to foment a crisis based upon trumped-up charges.” [emphasis added]
South Florida Muslim Leader Sofian Zakkout’s David Duke Day  David Duke, the white supremacist icon and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, has been denounced by many as a hatemonger, and rightfully so. However, one individual who represents the Muslim community of South Florida, Sofian Zakkout, is enamored with Duke and has been promoting Duke’s bigoted work for many years. Last month, once again, Zakkout chose to showcase this work by posting four consecutive Duke videos on his (Zakkout’s) personal Facebook page. The postings can be rivaled only by Zakkout’s own documented bigotry. Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout is the President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA). He has ties to two dozen mosques stretching from Palm Beach County down to Miami-Dade. On September 21, 2017, Zakkout took to Facebook and posted four David Duke videos. Three of the videos were put out by Duke’s official website, DavidDuke.com, one referring to CNN news anchor Wolf Blitzer as a “Jewish Zionist Agent.” The fourth video was a news report featuring a clip of Duke being interviewed at a white nationalist rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia this past August. At this same rally, a white nationalist plowed his car into a group of people who were protesting the rally, killing one. This was not the first time Zakkout has promoted David Duke. Indeed, he has done so for years. In February 2016, Zakkout publicized on his Facebook page a bizarre Duke report, titled in part ‘Dr. David Duke Exposes the Real Racist Jewish Supremacists Who Orchestrate the Destruction of European Mankind…’ Above the posting, Zakkout wrote of Duke, “I respect him for his honesty!” In October 2015, Zakkout posted to Facebook a Duke video, within which Duke makes the wild claim that there has been a “complete takeover of American foreign policy and… American politics by Jewish extremists.” Above the video on Facebook, Zakkout praised Duke, exclaiming “David Duke, a man to believe in!” In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Zakkout and his group AMANA for featuring another anti-Semitic Duke video on the AMANA website. The ADL described the video as “venomous.” Currently, AMANA’s official website contains one more Duke video. David Duke’s bigoted and inciting material is not the only hate Zakkout promotes. He also pedals much bigotry coming from others, including himself. In July 2017, Zakkout posted on his Facebook page a four-minute portion of a speech given by Louis Farrakhan at the Nation of Islam’s February 2017 Saviors’ Day. On the video, Farrakhan repeatedly refers to Jews as “Satan.” He states to his audience: “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.” In June 2016, Zakkout clicked ‘like’ under someone else’s Facebook posting (on Zakkout’s personal Facebook page) of a grotesque cartoon containing a worried-looking religious Jew hiding behind an animated tree with a bearded man brandishing a rifle coming towards them. The tree is speaking to the man in Arabic, saying “Oh Muslim! Oh Muslim! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.” In April 2016, Zakkout promoted a report discussing the absurd notion of Jewish involvement in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A photo from the report shows the burning towers with a Jewish Star affixed to one. The report begins, “It ain’t debatable! Soup to nuts, top to bottom, the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. were an ‘Israeli’-Jewish job.” The website which published the report and which Zakkout linked to is Mouqawamah Music, a site that openly calls for “Death to Israel” and labels the Jewish religion “wicked and filth-ridden.” In February 2016, Zakkout circulated on social media a report claiming that “the Holocaust was faked.” It begins: “The alleged ‘Holocaust’ of ‘6 million Jews’ at the hands of Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany during WWII is the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity.” It was produced by The Realist Report, an anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-gay independent media outlet, which describes Hitler as “the greatest leader in modern Western history.” In December 2015, Zakkout posted a photo of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, who is a decorated veteran of many different wars and battles fought by Israel over the last three-plus decades. Above the picture of Eizenkot, Zakkout wrote in Arabic, “You’re a Jew, the grandson of a monkey and a pig.” He signed it “Sofian.” This is one of many times Zakkout has referred to Jews as “monkeys and pigs.” In July 2014, Zakkout organized a pro-Hamas rally held outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Miami. On video, Zakkout is shown smiling, as event goers repeatedly shout, “We are 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.” South Florida Muslim leader Sofian Zakkout’s promotion of bigotry, whether borrowed from others or his own, has been evident for years. Yet, there is no outcry from the community, not from Muslims, not from non-Muslims. It has been virtually ignored by everyone, save this author and his colleague, Director of Militant Islam Monitor Beila Rabinowitz. Despite their having been notified by this author about Zakkout’s perfidious activities, Zakkout remains an active member of the boards of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County and Crime Stoppers of Miami-Dade County. These organizations have provided and continue to provide Zakkout with a facade of respectability. In reality, he has done nothing to serve the community and only attempts to divide it with his hatemongering. It is time for Zakkout to be exposed and stripped of his public functions. If people like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan can be condemned and repudiated for spreading their toxic hate, their fan and propagator Zakkout can and must be as well. Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
Student says anti-Semitism still an issue in McGill student government  The McGill student at the centre of anti-Semitic allegations says he’s certain the climate within student government will improve, after a report into the incident was made public this week. Noah Lew and two other students were voted off the Students’ Society of McGill University last October after they were identified as having pro-Israel viewpoints. They were since reinstated. A report made public this week by Spencer Boudreau concluded he could not determine if students who organized against the three board members had anti-Semitic intentions. Boudreau, a retired professor of education and former ombudsperson for students, however, said he understood why the students felt they were targeted because they are Jewish. After criticism from several Jewish groups both on and off campus, Boudreau issued a clarification to the report, saying he could not determine if the vote was motivated by anti-Semitism, but he acknowledged there were “in fact anti-Semitic effects felt by members of the Jewish community.” Speaking to the Montreal Gazette on Friday, Lew, the SSMU’s vice-president of finance for the Arts, said he was initially upset with the report, but felt vindicated by Boudreau’s clarification. “I thought this acknowledgement was very important and I really did appreciate that he clarified the matter,” he said. Jewish groups had criticized Boudreau’s report, saying it ignored anti-Semitic language used on Facebook by a group called Democratize SSMU. The group was urging students to vote against Lew, and two other board members who were deemed to be pro-Israel, alleging “layers of corruption” within the student government and favouritism in appointing board members, then singled out three members of the board “who are all either fellows at the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, an organization whose explicit mandate is to promote pro-Israel discourse in Canadian politics, or primary organizers for the anti-BDS initiative at McGill.” Boudreau made his clarification after it was pointed out the anti-Semitic language was published prior to the vote. While Democratize SSMU later apologized for the language and deleted it from its site, the damage had already been done, Boudreau concluded. Lew said he feels vindicated to some extent, but is concerned anti-Semitism is still a problem within student government. “There have been some steps taken by the administration and the student body in the right direction, but it’s certainly not over,” he said. In the months leading up to the vote, there had been other anti-Semitic incidents, including a tweet by Igor Sadikov, an elected representative of students in McGill’s faculty of arts, saying: “punch a zionist.” Among the measures taken by SSMU after the October vote was the creation of a committee looking into the issue of anti-Semitism within the student government, which Lew sits on. On Wednesday, McGill Principal Suzanne Fortier said the University wants to ensure a safe space for all students. “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.” In addition to ordering the report, Fortier set up a hotline to report incidents of of intolerance and a task force to investigate incidents of academic freedom and equity. Rabbi Reuben Poupko, the co-chair for Quebec of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said it should be noted McGill in general is a safe space for Jewish students. However, he said any Jewish students thinking of being involved in student politics or activism “will have encounters that are profoundly disturbing and unpleasant.” He said McGill is not alone in this respect, as this is a continent-wide phenomenon within student politics. Democratize SSMU did not respond to a request for an interview. Related jmagder@postmedia.com Twitter.com/JasonMagder Facebook.com/JasonMagderJournalist
Puerto Rico Hurricane Recovery Worsened By Nearly 1 Million Homes Built Illegally  After Hurricane Maria barreled through Puerto Rico in September 2017, it left hundreds of thousands of people displaced and 80 to 90 percent of homes destroyed in some communities. But even before the hurricane, housing in the U.S. territory—where 43.5 percent of people live below the poverty line—was in crisis, and many homes on the island were built with salvaged fixtures and without permits, insurance or inspections. Government officials say about half of the housing in Puerto Rico was built illegally and without a permit, The Miami Herald reported Wednesday, which could amount to as many as 1 million homes. Puerto Rico's housing secretary, Fernando Gil, says the number of homes destroyed by the hurricane totals about 70,000 so far, and homes with major damage have amounted to 250,000 across the island. RICARDO ARDUENGO/AFP/Getty Images After 2011, the territory adopted a uniform building code that required structures to be built to withstand winds of up to 140 miles per hour. According to the National Weather Service, Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico with winds up to 155 mph. Many buildings on the island were built under a prior code demanding protection against 125-mph winds. Furthermore, numerous homes have been built without any sort of permit at all. "It’s definitely a housing crisis," Gil told Reuters last week. "It was already out there before, and the hurricane exacerbates it." One resident of Puerto Rico's Caño Martín Peña neighborhood, Gladys Peña, told the Herald that her home was built by people in her neighborhood and that fixtures for the dwelling were gathered from abandoned structures. "The one who designed it was me," she said. Florida Governor Rick Scott's office estimated that over 318,000 evacuees arrived in the state in the wake of the hurricane, and Federal Emergency Management Agency aid for Puerto Ricans living in Florida hotels will start to expire Friday. Still, about one-third of Puerto Rico is without power. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now Last Friday, President Donald Trump signed an order giving Puerto Rico $16 billion in disaster recovery aid, $2 billion of which will be used to repair the electric grid under the federal Community Development Block Grant program. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it would provide $1.5 billion to help rebuild housing in Puerto Rico after devastation from both Maria and Hurricane Irma, which skirted the island a couple of weeks before, through HUD's Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló estimated in November that it will take $31 billion to rebuild housing in the territory. The governor requested the money from the federal government, as the territory itself is bankrupt.
The Death Penalty, Instituted by God Himself (The Biblical Basis for Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment)  TO ARGUE AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY is to contend with constituted reality. Ever since Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin, every living creature is subject to it. Every one of us is born on Death Row and lives out his allotted lifespan in its shadow without hope of reprieve. God made that clear when He told Adam that “in what day soever” he preferred his own will above his Creator’s, “thou shalt die the death,” condemning him sooner or later to “return to the earth out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return” (Gen. 3:19). In other words, there has always been a death penalty. God instituted it, and He was the first to impose it, embedding it in the very fabric of natural law. When Cain took it upon himself to inflict death on his brother Abel “in the field,” he soon learned that God furthermore reserved the exercise of this right to himself alone. Cain is told, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth,” and God curses him for his presumption by dooming him to homelessness and unproductive labor. When Cain complains that being a “vagabond . . . on the earth, every one therefore that findeth me, shall kill me,” God laid down that “whoever shall kill Cain shall be punished sevenfold,” setting a mysterious identifying mark on him to protect him from the vengeance of others. The Fifth Commandment later delivered to Moses, “Thou shalt not kill,” therefore dates from adamic times, when it operated as God’s exclusive prerogative, allowing no exceptions.  Although men certainly continued to kill one another in a society which in fact became so wicked "that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times," they did so as murderers, outside God's law without legal right. Only after the Flood, when Noah and his sons set about repopulating the earth, did God delegate to human society His exclusive authority to impose the death penalty for just cause. He told Noah, “For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.” In other words, from that point in history lawful killing in atonement for taking the life of another is sanctioned by God.  After the great theophany on Sinai, Moses codified the death penalty as part of the old law of talion, which in strict justice required “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:21). The supreme penalty was imposed not only for murder, but for many other serious offenses: for adultery, rape, sodomy, kidnapping, for striking or cursing parents, for sacrificing a child to Moloch. Idolatry, fortune-telling, acting as a medium, preaching apostasy or attempting in any way to entice another from the faith were also punishable by death, as was blasphemy, an offense considered so heinous that the Law specified, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger” (Lev. 24:16). Death was also decreed for refusing to accept the decision of the priests in a legal case, and an incorrigible son could be put to death on the testimony of his parents before the proper court.  A priest’s daughter convicted of fornication was burned to death (Lev. 21:9), but usually the sentence was carried out by stoning, in which the whole community took part as evidence that no private parties were authorized to execute a criminal, but only society as a whole, after due judgment. Everyone was furthermore responsible for the atonement due to God for a crime whose evil consequences would otherwise have affected them all: “The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people; that thou mayest take away the evil out of the midst of thee” (Deut. 17:7). The Law read, “Defile not the land of your habitation which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another” (Num. 35:33).  In order to emphasize the fact that it is God, and not man, who is always the principal party to be avenged, provision was made for a heifer to be killed as propitiation in the case of an unsolved murder whose perpetrator could not be found (Deut. 20:1-9). After all, it is not the injury to relatives or any other human consideration that makes homicide the serious sin that it is, but as God Himself pointed out to Noah, it is the fact that “man was made to the image of God” that makes an assault on him tantamount to an assault on God. It is therefore to God, and not to His creatures that reparation is primarily due. This point was brought out by Pope Pius XII in an address to Italian Catholic jurists on May 12, 1954, when he said: A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium . . . . A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty . . . . In the metaphysical order, penalty is a consequence of dependence on the supreme will, dependence which exists in the deepest recesses of created being. If it is ever necessary to hold back the revolt of the free being and re-establish the violated law, it is when that is required by the supreme Judge and supreme Justice. Today the death penalty is imposed ever more rarely, even in cases of proven premeditated murder. Despite the fact that it was instituted by God Himself, growing numbers of Catholics actually consider it immoral. John Paul II, stopping just short of declaring it wrong in principle, has declared that it should be imposed very seldom, if ever. But doesn’t admitting the penalty in principle demand that it be put into practice? In the U.S., following the lead of the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago and like minded prelates won to the new man-centered conciliar religion, the faithful are beginning to equate abortion, nuclear war and capital punishment as common “threats to the sacredness of human life” without any reference whatever to the innocence or guilt involved. If they are aware that the Church has upheld from Apostolic times the right to use force in self-defense, to kill in a just war and to inflict the death penalty on those duly judged guilty of serious crime, they now apparently subscribe to the notion propagated by Dei Verbum at the Second Vatican Council that the unchanging Catholic “tradition which comes from the Apostles” actually “develops in the Church” and keeps pace with changing times (II,8).  The circumstances pertaining to our day would therefore dictate a reassessment of the death penalty, which the new man-centered theology insists on viewing almost exclusively from the standpoint of the criminal and human society rather than from God’s. At the same time, there is more and more discussion about society’s responsibility for having produced criminals in the first place, together with our moral obligation to rehabilitate them rather than to wreak what is now considered a form of fruitless, guilty “vengeance” on them. The idea that man is by nature good and perfectible is allowed to override all documented evidence that hardened criminals are in fact almost impossible to rehabilitate and that those handed life sentences rarely repent of their wrongdoing.  According to one widely held opinion, the death penalty has proved to be no effective deterrent to crime in any case, and should be discarded as impractical. What proof of this can possibly be offered? How can we know? Deterrence from evil is not the primary purpose of meting out punishment in any case, yet Scripture attests to deterrence as an important side effect of any penalty. To a man proven to have given false witness against another, Deuteronomy laid down, “They shall render to him as he meant to do to his brother. . . that others hearing may fear and may not dare to do such things. Thou shalt not pity him, but shalt require life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:19-21). And the Preacher notes that when “sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear” (Eccles. 8:11).  To illustrate how shallow Catholic thinking on the death penalty has become and how far it has deviated from the age-old doctrine of the Church, a priest of a presumably traditional Catholic Fraternity writes in answer to a query addressed to him on the subject by saying: The death penalty is based on the common teachings of theologians, but is not itself a declared dogma. Therefore it is not permissible to call those who hold it is, immoral heretics. To approach this as a dogmatic teaching is imprudent. Those who argue for its abolition do not necessarily put society in danger considering possibilities of penal systems. Those, however, who maintain its continued use often see it more as a tool for revenge. Please consider that in anger and tragedy, the desire for revenge usually overrides reason and an honest answering of the question “must this person’s life be taken to preserve society?” The desire for swift and firm convictions has sent many to death who never deserved such a punishment, nor was such a punishment truly necessary for the safety of society. I do not believe the death penalty is necessary in 90 percent of the cases where it is applied. Thus to call for a moratorium . . . is not unjust or incorrect. That the death penalty can become an instrument of revenge, and that unjust sentences are sometimes handed down can be dismissed as irrelevant to the argument. Given the fallen human condition, such injustices are bound to occur in any judicial system, and everyone agrees that they should be ruthlessly remedied. What is not irrelevant is that the author of the letter falls headlong into the very error Pius XII warns against. Considering the physical safety of society as the only real reason for executing a criminal, he feels the death penalty can now be safely discarded, allegedly on the grounds that we now have at our disposal many better ways of protecting people from him. That the penalty is due primarily as expiation to God in justice, and only secondarily to man has been lost sight of altogether. The supernatural dimension of the punishment as an agent for the spiritual good of both society and the criminal is furthermore not only not addressed, but treated as non-existent. This first appeared in The Remnant nearly 20 years ago. Isn't it time to subscribe to the 'paper of record' for the traditional Catholic counterrevolution?  The source of this kind of materialistic thinking in the Church is not hard to trace. According to statistics published in the National Review for September 16, 1983, out of 9,140 murders committed in the U.S. in 1960 just before the Council, 56 persons were executed. In 1965, the year the Council closed, although the tally of murders had risen to 9,850, only 7 were executed. In the decade from 1967 to 1977 a moratorium was declared during which not one single execution took place. At its close the number of murders had more than doubled, and in any six month period, more Americans were being murdered than those executed during the whole course of the century. At this point, although the murder rate has continued to rise dramatically, executions continue to be rare. Many nations, notably England, France, Sweden, South Africa and our neighbors Canada and Mexico, have abolished the death penalty altogether. Whether or not the U. S. will follow suit and outlaw it nationally still remains to be seen.  What leaps to the eye from the mounting statistics is that decline in the exercise of the death penalty has kept close pace with decline in the Faith and church attendance. It is sober fact that death sentences were liberally handed out in the heyday of Christendom, when the Faith was strong and governments legislated with an eye to the spiritual welfare of citizens whose sights were primarily on future bliss in heaven. In modern times, which find the Church strictly separated from the state on principle and denied any active part in civil government, secularism has become the state religion, directing legislation exclusively to temporal objectives. It is only to be expected that materialists—for whom the immortal soul does not exist and who believe that this present life of the senses on earth is the only one man has—should be reluctant to punish anyone by killing him. In their eyes this means total extinction, a penalty certainly in excess of any transgression of which he may be guilty.  Not even God completely obliterates a human existence, not even for the most odious sins, for He made the human soul immortal and hell eternal. (It might be argued, however, that if the criminal is thought to have to have totally terminated his victim, why not do the same to him?) In the days of Christendom, condemned criminals were given every opportunity to make their peace with God, in many cases the date of execution being delayed in order to accomplish this purpose. Justice was served, but not at the expense of charity, and there was no question of taking vengeance on the culprit. Nor was the idea of “rehabilitation” with possible re-entry into society ever entertained where crimes deserving death were concerned. It has been noted by prison chaplains in our century that swift execution in most cases leads to admission of guilt and sincere repentance, whereas those who receive life sentences or suffer long delays are likely to maintain their innocence in hopes of a parole and eventually die in their sins.  As it is, the death penalty as administered by society must be viewed against the backdrop of divine revelation if it is to make any real sense. When Catholic society puts a man to death, it terminates only his temporal life on earth, catapulting him into eternity for his final judgment before almighty God. Suffering the penalty not only allows the criminal to render expiation to God and to society, but if accepted in Christ’s grace with due repentance, it preserves his soul from hell and eliminates much of his purgatory. If his contrition is perfect, it’s conceivable that he could go straight to heaven! In any case, neither he nor society is any longer burdened with the guilt of his wrongdoing.  As Michel Martin pointed out in an article in Rome et d’Ailleurs for September-October 1983, “The truth is that the problem of the death penalty is insoluble except from a Christian point of view.” That it figured so prominently in Christian societies is due to the fact that, in the order of charity, atonement to God was sought above any atonement due to man, and the spiritual welfare of citizens above their physical well-being. Modern secularized society assumes that physical extinction is the worst thing that can happen to a human being, whereas the faith teaches that eternal damnation is incalculably worse. In the context of the faith, the importance of a man’s present short life on earth cannot be compared with his future endless existence in heaven. +++ As we have seen, the death penalty has a very long history. Dating from its institution by God in Eden to its delegation after the Flood to men who would wield it in God’s name, it has threaded its way without interruption through the fabric of human civilizations until these latter days. One might expect that after the Incarnation, when God became man and replaced the Old Testament’s law of talion based on strict justice with a new dispensation based on love and grace, the death penalty could be safely abolished as outmoded. Converts to the prevailing conciliar religion and its “New Pentecost” would in fact argue in this wise, perhaps citing the Council’s famous declaration in Gaudium et Spes that, “Thanks to the experience of past ages ...the nature of man himself is more clearly revealed and new roads to truth are opened,” and the world now has “a keener awareness of human dignity” ( 44, 73).  Far from obliterating the death penalty, however, the Incarnation only laid bare its deepest significance, hidden from the beginning. As the new dispensation’s foremost theologian, St. Paul would declare, the old penalty remained very much in force: “Almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is still “appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb. 9: 22,27), but now with the possibility of eternal bliss in heaven. This possibility is owed, furthermore, to a death by one of the cruelest means ever devised, unjustly inflicted on one supremely innocent Man who was God, in a miscarriage of human justice beyond any the world could ever have imagined. When God set the death penalty in Eden He pronounced it on Himself, to be carried out in the fullness of time through the malicious free wills of his own creatures. The Cross which was its instrument is the very sign of Christianity, the only means of salvation.  Not even from the Cross did Christ decry the death penalty, either for himself or for the two thieves crucified with Him. It would continue to be dealt out to men by other men on earth, with only one significant change: Henceforth it would be administered under the authority of the glorified man who is Christ the King, as part and parcel of that universal power “in heaven and on earth” which He received from His Father (Matt. 28:18) after His Resurrection. From that point on it is Christ who delegates the divine authority to punish by killing, and both Scripture and tradition testify that it is lawfully wielded by those to whom He entrusts the temporal sword in His Kingdom. As He told Pontius Pilate at the time of His trial, “Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above” (John 19:10).  Pope Leo XIII re-affirmed this truth in Sapientiae Christianae in 1890, when he declared that “true and legitimate authority is devoid of sanction unless it proceed from God the supreme Ruler and Lord of all. The Almighty alone can commit power to a man over his fellow men.” Even though they may be unaware of the true source of their power, it is always the duty of legitimate authorities to ensure public order by punishing evil-doers, by death if appropriate. As St. Paul said: Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves eternal damnation. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God: and avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil (Rom. 13:2-4). Sufficient of itself to expiate every sin which the children of Adam could ever commit, the execution of the Man-God nevertheless did not abolish the penalty of death. It continues to be the wages of sin (Rom 6:23), and men must still submit to it sooner or later by forfeiting their lives, either willingly or unwillingly. A share in making restitution for sin was thus accorded to all of us, for although our Lord’s ignominious death removed from us the guilt of the original transgression through Baptism, it did not remove its effects. These were allowed to remain as restraints on men who, now raised to a new supernatural existence, were capable of committing incalculably more grievous sins than heretofore. As for the death penalty, it remains the inescapable consequence of our fallen nature and is of the highest utility in deterring us from following our hereditary inclination to evil.  What Christ did was to sanctify the death penalty, transforming it into a sacrament of life for those who believe. As St. Paul declared, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?. . . For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15: 54-55; 21-22). The first of that numberless host of Christian martyrs who would be put to death by constituted authority for testifying to the truth, Christ commanded His disciples to “Follow me!” Inviting all to Calvary to “suffer under Pontius Pilate” with Him, He granted a meritorious share in accomplishing “the mystery which hath been hidden for ages and generations, but is now made manifest to his saints” to all who, like St. Paul, would “now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things which are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for his body which is the church. . .” (Col. 1:26, 24).  Criminals put to death undergo a penalty no different from the one exacted from the most innocent amongst us. As with everyone else the moment of death ushers them either into heaven, hell or purgatory. The most that can be said is that their lives here on earth are shortened, and they must settle their accounts sooner than expected. This could be a great mercy for them as well as for society, both in terms of expiation and protection from any future crimes they might have perpetrated. The death penalty, from the first one imposed on man by God in the beginning in Eden, to the one imposed on God by man on that Good Friday in Jerusalem, on down to those still being imposed today, transcends human legislation. By divine decree it will perdure until the end of time, when “the former things are passed away.” Only then “death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more,” and not one minute sooner. (Apo. 21:4).
We Should Be More Like Sweden: Gov May Use Army Against Immigrant Gangs  Progressives say we should be more like Sweden. That means turning our country into a hopeless hellhole where the native population is overtaxed and terrorized by warring foreign gangs. We're getting there too. What should we do? Maybe we should be more like Sweden? Sweden will do whatever it takes, including sending in the army, to end a wave of gang violence that has seen a string of deadly shootings, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said in Wednesday. Sweden's murder rate is relatively low in international terms, but gang violence has surged in recent years and Swedes are worried that the police are unable to cope. Of course they can't cope. It's Demolition Man in real life pitting refugee war criminals and terrorists against bureaucrats with badges who are used to telling people not to raise their voices. Four people were shot dead in the first week of this year. One man died after picking up a hand grenade outside a subway station in a suburb of Stockholm. Law and order is likely to be a major issue in a parliamentary election scheduled for September with the populist, opposition Sweden Democrats linking public concern about the rising crime rate to a large increase in the numbers of immigrants. "It would not be my first option to bring in the military, but I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that serious, organized crime is stamped out," Lofven told news agency TT. Bringing in the military comes in as an option ahead of cutting migration to Sweden. That tells you everything. Why would anyone associate rising crime and immigration? Maybe because the gangs in question are immigrant gangs. The government has promised police an extra 7.1 billion crowns ($880 million) through 2020, toughened laws on gun crimes and made it easier for the police to monitor private phone calls and emails, among other measures. Sound familiar? Mass repression and police powers that don't actually address the cause of the problem. Meanwhile the Grenade Amnesty doesn't seem to have worked. And the gang violence keeps rising. But who are these gangs? The criminal gang Loyal to Familia has already spread across Denmark from its base in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen and now it appears to have set its sights on Sweden. Swedish police told the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet that the gang is trying to build a presence in both Malmö and Helsingborg. An expansion into Malmö could be a recipe for increased violence in light of the fact that gun violence claimed the lives of 11 people in the southern Swedish city last year. The gang's leader, Shuaib Khan, confirmed that the group is eyeing the two Swedish cities but denied that Loyal to Familia was a “criminal gang”. Just one of those Danish gangs led by a fellow named Khan.
Pilger Excoriates Media  DB: John, what is the latest we know about how Julian Assange is being treated and his current state? John Pilger: His state of health is just about the same, as I understand it. He needs medical attention, the kind of treatment you get only in a hospital. But it has been made clear to him that if he attempts to go to a hospital he will not be given free passage and he will be arrested. Since he was arrested in 2010, Assange has not been charged with a single crime. His treatment amounts to the most unprecedented persecution. Julian could leave the embassy if his own government, the government of his homeland, Australia, applied legitimate diplomatic pressure on behalf of its citizen. We must ask ourselves why this hasn’t happened. My own feeling is that there is a great deal of collusion between the Australian, the British and the US governments–meant to close down WikiLeaks completely and/or deliver Julian Assange to the Americans. Recently the Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, traveled with senior officials to London and to Washington and raised the whole matter of Julian. But they raised it in a way that didn’t support the idea that a government should represent its citizens. These people listened to the more powerful governments. In Washington they met Mr. Pompeo, who refused to discuss Assange altogether. I think there is collusion which amounts to an attempt to try to do a deal with Assange whereby he might be allowed free passage of return to Australia if he shuts down WikiLeaks. I think that is very, very likely. As I understand Julian, this is something he would not even contemplate. But that might be one of the so-called “wretched deals” that are being offered Assange. Some very strange things are being said by senior members of these two governments. The new foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, Jeremy Hunt, said sarcastically that the British police would offer Julian “a warm welcome” when he came out, when he would face serious charges. There are no serious charges. He hasn’t been charged with anything. Special Ed: Voices fro... Dennis Bernstein Best Price: $2.49 Buy New $5.00 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) Was Hunt referring to a deal which has already been done with the United States on extradition? I don’t know. But this is the milieu of machination around someone who has the right of natural justice concerning his freedom. Putting aside freedom of speech, the persecution of this man has been something that should horrify all free-thinking people. If it doesn’t horrify us, then we have surrendered something very valuable. DB: Among those who should be especially horrified are those of us in the journalistic community. John, I would like you to explain once again why Julian Assange is such a significant journalist, why so many journalistic institutions have collaborated with him based on the information he provided. We are talking about a publisher and reporter who has changed history. JP: Nothing in my time as a journalist has equaled the rise of WikiLeaks and its extraordinary impact on journalism. It is probably the only journalistic organization that has a 100% record of accuracy and authenticity! All of WikiLeaks’ revelations have been authentic. And it has been done “without fear or favor.” Although there has been a concentration on, say, the release of the Hillary Clinton/Podesta emails, or the Iraq and Afghan war logs, WikiLeaks has released information that people have a right to know across the spectrum. It has released something like 800,000 documents from Russia, and now WikiLeaks is accused of being an agent of Russia! WikiLeaks’ journalism has covered a universal space and that is the first time this has happened. In Tunisia, the release of WikiLeaks documents foretold the Arab Spring. The people at the forefront of the uprising in Tunisia credit WikiLeaks for informing them of what their repressive government was doing behind their backs. In Venezuela, WikiLeaks released cables which described in great detail how the United States intended to subvert the government of Hugo Chavez. Some of this was published in the mainstream media, when there was still a collaboration with WikiLeaks. The Clinton/Podesta emails, which appear to have made a number of people resentful, were published in the New York Times. These emails showed the close role that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation played in support of extreme jihadism in the Middle East. That was a very important piece of information for people to know and understand. By doing that, WikiLeaks performed an extraordinary public service, while at the same time making some very serious enemies. Randy Credico: People sometimes forget that, apart from being a journalist, Julian Assange is a human being. You have known him a long time. Could you give us a feel for the kind of person Julian Assange is? JP: Julian is a very principled individual. He feels very strongly about the moral basis of WikiLeaks. When he first put up WikiLeaks, he wrote that the whole idea of transparency, honoring people’s right to know, was the central aim of the website. He feels that very strongly. Any attempt to do a deal with Julian to shut down WikiLeaks will no doubt be resisted. As a person, Julian is an extremely interesting man. He is very well read. He studied physics. He has a very good sense of humor, and I have often laughed out loud with him about situations that others might consider too bleak to discuss. His black humor is a part of his survival kit. Obviously, he is incredibly resilient. Personally, I could never endure what he has, especially in recent years. But this comes with a cost and his health is continuing to deteriorate. Those close to him are extremely worried. Cypherpunks: Freedom a... Julian Assange Best Price: $3.04 Buy New $9.55 (as of 06:45 EDT - Details) In a letter to the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, Julian’s father, John Shipton, wrote: “I ask the prime minister to do all within his power to return Julian home before Julian’s situation becomes an irreversible tragedy.” That is why this is such an urgent case of justice toward a single human being as well as a case of a journalistic organization’s right to function and our right to have the information it provides. Only seven years ago, the current prime minister said that when an Australian citizen is threatened in this way the prime minister should respond. That was Turnbull before he became prime minister. Now the government is playing its usual role of being the fifty-first state of the United States. It is a true disgrace. RC: What about Theresa May and the British government? Are they getting pressure from the United States or are there internal reasons why they want to keep Julian Assange quiet? JP: Everything comes down to the relationship with the United States. Australia has an almost totally servile relationship with America, in which its national security structure, much of its academic life and certainly much of its media is integrated into the US system. That is not entirely the case in Britain. Since the loss of its empire after the Second World War, Britain has been eager to play a secondary role to the new imperial power. In many parts of the world, Britain is still the biggest corporate investor. But it does move in lockstep with the US on much of its foreign policy. It is interesting to see the corruption that this kind of relationship produces. Information has come out that the Crown Prosecution Service tried to prevent the Swedes from giving up the case against Julian on bogus sexual assault charges. The pressure was on from London to keep it going. Julian is also seen as defying a system and that is just not acceptable. There is a real element of vindictiveness here. The Crown Prosecution Service kept this case going when otherwise the European warrant put out by the Swedes would have been abandoned in 2013. When Julian came up to a bail hearing last year, it was an absolute disgrace. The judge described Julian’s circumstances as if he were on some sort of extended vacation. What didn’t emerge was the whole conflict of interest in this hearing. The judge’s husband is a figure deep within the national security establishment in Britain who was named in WikiLeaks documents. Because there is no serious media examining the whole WikiLeaks witch hunt, virtually none of this emerges. DB: The corporate press has a major responsibility if Julian Assange goes down, don’t you agree? JP: As you know, Dennis, governments do respond to pressure from powerful media interests. It rarely happens but when it does governments do change their tune. There has been no pressure from media in the United States, Britain, Australia or pretty much anywhere except in programs like yours outside the mainstream. You are absolutely right in that the responsibility of journalists for what has happened to Julian Assange and what might happen to WikiLeaks is undeniable. I was looking this morning at a report by Media Lens in Britain describing how the British press has reported on Julian Assange. It describes the tsunami of vindictive personal abuse that has been heaped upon Julian from well-known journalists, many claiming liberal credentials. The Guardian, which used to consider itself the most enlightened newspaper in the country, has probably been the worst. The frontal attacks have been coming not from governments but from journalists. I described this recently as “Vichy journalism,” a term which now fits so much of the mainstream media. It collaborates in the same way that the Vichy government in France collaborated with the Nazis. The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.75 Buy New $7.00 (as of 12:00 EDT - Details) There used to be spaces within the so-called mainstream for unbiased discussion, for the airing of real grievances and injustices. These spaces have closed completely. The attacks on Julian Assange illustrate what has happened to the so-called free media in the West. I have been a journalist for a very long time and I have always worked within the mainstream, but the journalism I see now is part of a rapacious establishment and one of its prime targets is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. This is precisely because WikiLeaks is producing the kind of journalism that they ought to be doing. WikiLeaks has in fact shamed journalists, which might help to explain the deeply personal abuse he has suffered. WikiLeaks has revealed what journalists should have revealed a long time ago. DB: Even the attorney for the New York Times happened to mention that if Julian Assange gets prosecuted, the Times could get prosecuted under the same laws. JP: It could but I don’t believe it would be, because power respects power. The New York Times is part of the establishment. The difference with WikiLeaks is that it is outside of the establishment and is truly independent. DB: What would be your strongest plea for Julian Assange? JP: It’s very simple. This is about justice. In a famous speech given in the 1930’s by Parson Martin Niemoller, he said that first the Nazis came for socialists, but he didn’t speak up because that didn’t concern him. Then they came for trade unionists, but he didn’t speak up because that didn’t concern him. He didn’t speak up when they came for the Jews because he wasn’t a Jew. And, of course, finally they came for him. That might not be a precise parallel, but if Julian Assange is allowed to literally go under, it represents the conquest of all of us. It means that we have kept quiet. Keeping quiet has allowed the great atrocities of histories to take place. If Julian is allowed to be spirited away to some super-max hellhole, it will be a great atrocity. DB: In the library, silence is golden. In the world of human rights, silence equals mass murder. They say you shouldn’t yell fire in a crowded theater just to get a reaction. But if you know the theater is in fact on fire and you do not shout out, what happens after is your responsibility. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.
Anti-Gay Imam Featured Yet Again at Florida Democrat Gala  The Democratic Party promotes itself as an advocacy group for all matters concerning homosexuals and labels politicians, who take stances opposite theirs on politically charged issues such as same-sex marriage, as bigots. Yet, the party keeps on inviting an imam, who has a long record of hostility toward homosexuals, to participate at its annual functions. This blatant hypocrisy shows the political bankruptcy of their leadership’s claims to be pro-gay and anti-bigotry and reveals their intention to pander to those in the Muslim community who spew intolerance and would wish others harm. On Saturday, October 7, 2017, the Palm Beach Democratic Party held its 2017 Truman Kennedy Johnson (TKJ) Dinner at the West Palm Beach Marriott Hotel, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Keynote Speaker at the event was Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe. Other speakers included: United States Representative Alcee Hastings; then-Florida Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Bittel, who resigned in November over allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior; and then-Palm Beach County Party Chairwoman Terrie Rizzo, who was elected in December to take over for Bittel as Chair of the Florida Democratic Party. Prior to the speakers, there was a joint invocation performed by a rabbi, two pastors and an imam. The imam, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, is notorious for his unapologetic vilification of homosexuals. Shafayat Mohamed is the imam of the Darul Uloom Institute, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. The mosque has been a haven for terror-related individuals and activity. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student of Shafayat Mohamed’s at Darul Uloom. Now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, was a prayer leader at Darul Uloom. And Darul Uloom Arabic teacher Imran Mandhai, along with mosque goers Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan, hatched a plot at the mosque to blow up different South Florida structures, including area power stations, Jewish businesses, and a National Guard armory. While terrorism plays a huge role in his mosque’s history – and he has been around for all of it – Shafayat Mohamed’s personal history deals much more in bigotry than terror. One stop on Shafayat Mohamed’s Facebook page and one can view his profile photo of him holding a dark green book with gold border and letters on the cover. The book is “The Meaning of THE HOLY QUR’AN,” a version of the Quran that was banned by the Los Angeles public school system, in February 2002, for containing numerous anti-Semitic commentaries. In it, Jews are described as: “arrogant,” “jealous,” “selfish,” “spiteful,” “greedy,” “cursed,” “apes and swine,” and “under divine displeasure.” This may seem an innocent mistake on the imam’s part, but his actions against the gay community and sinister views are anything but. In February 2005, an article written by Shafayat Mohamed was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God.’ In it, he claims that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and that most Jews and Christians, whom he refers to as “People of the Book,” are “perverted transgressors.” It is writings such as these that have gotten Shafayat Mohamed thrown off a number of Broward County boards. Even so, the imam has been unrepentant. In a speech he gave at Darul Uloom, in August 2015, titled ‘Quraan Torah Bible Forbid Man Marrying Man,’ he admitted that he “got sacked from many [county] boards, because there were a lot of gay people who said, ‘We don’t want him on that board.’” He said he had a choice, to “sit in Paradise or… sit on the board and go to Hell.” He began his speech by attacking President Barack Obama for supporting same-sex marriage. He asked the following, “Did you hear what President Obama said?… Do you know what a sad situation we are in this country?... Here you have the President of the United States of America saying that a man could marry a man?… Are we sleeping? Do you believe in the Quran? Are we gonna sit and have the Quran be ridiculed?” He then cited the Christian and Jewish Bible, barking loudly, “The Bible says that if a man sleeps with a man, he should be killed!” Shafayat Mohamed later lamented the existence of Muslim homosexuals. He decried, “Listen. Don’t deny it. They already got Muslim gay communities.” He as well spoke of his support for polygamy, an act that is illegal in the United States. He exclaimed, “Here the President says a man can marry a man, but you can’t say a man can have four wives…!” The October TKJ Dinner was not the first Democrat event Shafayat Mohamed has participated in. In fact, he has been involved in many, including giving the invocations at the Florida Democratic Party’s annual Leadership Blue Gala in 2014 (featuring Bill Clinton), 2015 and 2016. And given that this author has written about this before, the October event will probably not be the last occasion that he is embraced by the Democratic Party. Shafayat Mohamed is not the only Muslim extremist that has participated in the Democratic Party’s TKJ Dinner. In October 2015, the dinner invocation was performed by Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, the legal adviser of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), a group that actively promotes former KKK leader and white supremacist David Duke. Ruiz, as well, founded AMANA’s Connecticut and Puerto Rico chapters. In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Ruiz’s AMANA for posting what the ADL called a “venomous” anti-Semitic Duke video onto the group’s official website. AMANA is currently promoting another anti-Semitic Duke-produced video, on the AMANA site. The President of AMANA, Sofian Zakkout, has referred to Duke as “David Duke, a man to believe in!” By inviting people like Shafayat Mohamed, an avowed enemy of the gay community, and Wilfredo Ruiz, whose group promotes white supremacists, to participate in its functions, the Democratic Party has effectively revealed its disregard for the concerns of those it disingenuously claims to advocate for and protect. It is time for Democrats to reject the bigotry of these radicals and see them for the liability they present. Failure to do so exposes the party’s liberal agenda as a sham. Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick: Yet Another Fruit of Vatican II  Still, we’re also averse to speaking in terms of good and evil. Right and wrong? Maybe. But good and evil have a supernatural ring we usually reserve for dramatic and abominable crimes, like genocide. Yet everything right is good, and everything wrong is evil. The evils we encounter in our day-to-day lives might not be a spectacle, like jihadists beheading a journalist on live television. All the same, evil is part of ordinary life. It dwells deep in our hearts – each and every one of us. The Prince of this World has made a grand display of his authority in the last few centuries. Our saving grace is that, while Westerners no longer believe in God, they still believe in the Devil. We’re at least clear-eyed enough to recognize true evil at work in the world, even if we can no longer see the great Good hidden behind the veil. This is the point about the McCarrick scandal that even religious commentators tend to overlook. How was he allowed to go on molesting young priests and seminarians when virtually the entire Church hierarchy knew what he was up to? And how was such a depraved individual ordained in the first place, let alone promoted to Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington? The answer is, ultimately, demonic. As Catholics, we ask St. Michael to “cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.” McCarrick and his fellow perverts in the clergy are responsible, not only for their sexual abuses, but also for chasing good men away from the priesthood. Spend enough time in Catholic World and you inevitably meet good men who quit the seminary because of some rampant (and often violent) depravity. What could suit the Devil more than to watch the Church burn her wheat as she gathers the chaff? The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, as Our Lord promised. But they won’t stop trying, either. They’ve attacked from the front, sending the Roman pagans, French Revolutionaries, and British American secularists. They flank us by sending heretics like Arius, Luther, and Hans Kung. Today, there’s also a fifth column working to tear down the walls from within – not only pedophiles like John Geoghan, but also predators like Theodore McCarrick. Where did those fifth columnists enter? Why, there’s only one possible explanation: the Second Vatican Council. Aggiornamento sounds like a Lefebvrist slur. The idea that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church would openly seek to “bring itself up to date” is ridiculous. Yet that was precisely the aim. As St Pope John XXIII explained, “Its principal task will be concerned with the conditions and modernization of the Church after 20 centuries of life.” It was not supposed (as some have claimed) to simply update the liturgy from its last redesign in 1570. The goal was to align the Church more with modern world: a world defined, to a considerable extent, by its rejection of the Catholic world that flourished before the Protestant Reformation and French Revolution. Now, I don’t believe Pope John saw himself as endangering either orthodoxy or sacred, immutable tradition. I share Pope Paul IV’s view. When he heard that the Council was being convened, then-Cardinal Montini is supposed to have sighed, “This holy old boy doesn’t realise what a hornet’s nest he’s stirring up.” Nonetheless, he stirred it. The spirit of aggiornamento quickly spread through the Church in the 1960s – and the seminaries especially. Seminarians called for a more “participatory” administration. They became involved in socialist politics. They formed trade unions to demand the right to marry. They practiced sauvage intercommunion. Of course, they had their enablers in the hierarchy as well. Perhaps the worst was Archbishop Marty of Paris, a leader of the “priest-worker movement” who defended Marxist and existentialist atheisms on the floor of the Council. During a homily at the Cathedral, he also praised the soixantehuitards: “the great outburst of the younger generation that suddenly wanted to take its place in life” that occurred in his city in May of 1968. “One also felt that, in these events of May,” Marty continued, “the seriousness of the working class, which wants not only to earn a living wage, but also to find its freedom, its independence.” Theaggiornamentistas was never purged from the Church, and certainly not from the seminaries. As the modern world continued to reject traditional Christian mores, so too does the Church seem increasingly “out of step” and in need of “modernizing”. Inevitably, this came to mean the acceptance of homosexuality. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, infamously spoke of “an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.” But that predominance has very little to do with homosexuality per se. Rather, the 1960s rejection of celibacy in the seminaries naturally provided more (shall we say) opportunities for gay men – given that there are, of course, no women in Catholic seminaries. This began driving away heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals who upheld the Church’s teachings on chastity and celibacy. Needless to say, not all gay priests are violent predators like McCarrick. But the toleration of sexually active priests gave McCarrick cover to “seduce” his victims. Many have also speculated that, because McCarrick’s victims were overwhelmingly above the age of consent, the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. If he’d fondled a 12-year old altar boy, that would have been one thing. Pedophile priests sell papers. But taking an 18-year-old seminarian to bed? Running that story would simply be outing a closeted gay man: an act the liberal press would no doubt consider “homophobic”, as Ross Douthat pointed out. Meanwhile, those bishops who didn’t approve of his actions knew the culture – both within the Church and without her – were against them. The post-Vatican Church doesn’t like to come off as a nag. She’s not going to cause a fuss by purging sexually active gay men from the clergy just because… what? It’s immoral? That’s not very aggiornamentistic! The world and our worldly bishops were, unsurprisingly, of one mind. And even if they were disgusted by McCarrick, these prelates weren’t willing to jeopardize their careers by standing for justice against vice. We seem to be slouching back to the old traditionalist trope: All the Church’s problems would be solved if we’d just go back to the Latin Mass. Something went critically wrong during Vatican II that extends well beyond the Mass. And we can’t drag the Church out of her present crisis until we have the courage to brave accusations of “Lefebvrism” and say so. Those who love our Holy Mother – those who want to protect her boys and men from all the McCarricks and their perverse appetites – mustn’t be deceived into thinking this is a small or an isolated issue. It isn’t. This is the crisis of an ancient and immortal institution trying desperately to seem young and fashionable; like all old men, it only manages to come across as lecherous and pathetic. Its obsession with “modernization” leads it to only adopt the vices of modernity. Instead of serving as ambassadors from the City of God, far too many of our priests and prelates have become agents of the City of Man. I don’t know what it will take to set things right. I don’t know what it will take to exorcise the “spirit of Vatican II” – the spirit of aggiornamento – from the Church. But we will. Christ promised.
Hungarian Prime Minister Hits Nail On The Head: Refugees Are Actually "Muslim Invaders"  Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban doesn't mince words when it comes to the Muslim invasion in Europe and specifically to his own country. Orban says there is not only Muslim invaders in the mix of "refugees," but also “economic migrants" seeking better lives for themselves. Indeed, both of these are true. There are plenty of these people who are simply happy to have a place to live after many were driven from their homes due to the US, Russia and other countries putting their noses where they didn't belong and funding, training and arming Islamic jihadis there. Then, there are those who clearly come to the country to Islamasize the country because they have an Islamic dominionist attitude borne of the teachings of the Koran and Muhammad . RT reports: Refugees in Europe are just “Muslim invaders” and economic migrants seeking better lives, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has said, adding that the large number of Muslims in the EU had led to the appearance of ‘parallel societies.’ Asked in an interview with the German Bild newspaper why Budapest does not want to accept any refugees, Orban replied: “We don’t consider these people to be Muslim refugees.” Instead, the tough-talking politician said they were regarded as “Muslim invaders.” Asylum seekers must cross four countries to reach Hungary from Syria, all of which are not as rich as Germany but are economically stable, the PM said. He was apparently referring to Turkey, Greece, Macedonia and Serbia – a common route for migrants heading for ‘wealthy’ Europe. “So, they are not running for their lives [in these countries]. They are merely economic migrants seeking a better life,” Orban concluded. He stressed though, that he can only speak for the Hungarians and they “don’t want” immigration. In his view, the government simply can’t go against the will of the people. And Orban has stayed the course, too while governments like that of Germany have ignored their people to allow for a clear invasion of Germany that has led to untold numbers of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants, attacks on Christians and there's no telling the amount of damage to the unethical welfare system in the country. RT continues: Going further, the prime minister noted that no refugee wants to go to Portugal, for example, adding that the majority of asylum seekers simply wanted to live in prosperous Germany. “The reason why people are in your country is not because they are refugees, but because they want a German life,” he said, describing the issue “politically” as a European problem but, “sociologically,” as a German problem. Orban specifically targeted Germany and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ‘open-door’ policy towards asylum seekers. “I’ve never understood how chaos, anarchy and illegal border crossings are viewed as something good in a country like Germany, which we view as the best example of discipline and the rule of law,” he said. The recent wave of refugees reaching Europe is merely an invasion, according to Orban. “If someone wants to come to your house, he knocks on your door and asks: ‘Can we come in, can we stay?’ They [asylum seekers] didn’t do that, they crossed the border illegally,” he stated. Orban then did what most political representatives will simply not do, he told the truth about multiculturalism. He called it an "illusion" and said that Christian and Muslim societies “will never unite.” Of course, they won't. They have absolutely nothing in common. They cannot agree on God's law, which most Western societies were base on, including the united States. They cannot agree on the Scriptures. They cannot agree on the person and work of Jesus the Christ. They can't even agree on the means of proselytizing and of what real spiritual weapons are. PM Orban has remained consistent. He has publicly told the Muslim invaders to leave Hungary and never come back. He has rebuffed Brussels, which is largely Islamic, and told them that Hungary would defend its borders, and it has. Orban's border wall reduced illegal immigration by 99%! He has genuinely reached out his hand to help Christian migrants instead of Muslim migrants and he seems to be one that holds to the Christian faith, as emulated by the Protestant Reformers, saying, "That which serves the glory of God is the best for the people." Furthermore, Orban has also called out the man behind the curtain in a lot of the promoting of this Muslim invasion of the West, George Soros. Anti-jihadist activist Pamela Geller praised Orban for his honesty and wrote, "At last, a politician who speaks the truth about the Muslim invasion of Europe. And while Orban is right that these are 'economic migrants,' they are also 'Muslim invaders.'" "They don’t want a 'German life' in Germany in the sense that they are willing to accept German values," she added. "Many, all too many, of them want to overwhelm German values, and European values in general, with sharia values. They are in Europe to conquer and Islamize it, with willing and eager help from Europe’s short-sighted, self-serving, internationalist intelligentsia." Indeed! Thank you Prime Minister Orban for saying what needed to be said!
Brazilian arms dealer arrested in the United States  RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian police say the man considered to be the country’s largest arms dealer has been arrested in the United States by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Inspector Fabricio Oliveira of Rio de Janeiro’s police department says Frederik Barbieri was arrested Saturday morning at his home in Florida. He did not know the specific location of Barbieri’s house and said that American authorities will provide details on the arrest next week. Oliveira said that police seized 60 AK-47, AR-10 and G3 rifles Barbieri had sent to Rio’s international airport last May to supply drug traffickers operating in Rio de Janeiro slums. He also said that the arms trafficking operation had been dismantled with Barbieri’s arrest. The Justice Ministry said in a brief statement issued Saturday that Barbieri’s extradition has been requested.
No sign of breakthrough after Pompeo meets with Saudi rulers over missing journalist  WASHINGTON — On an emergency mission to resolve a diplomatic crisis, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo held delicate talks Tuesday with the rulers of Saudi Arabia amid growing suspicions that a Virginia-based Saudi columnist was killed on their orders. Pompeo did not report any progress following a day of meetings in Riyadh with Saudi King Salman and his powerful son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler. President Donald Trump on Monday ordered Pompeo to rush to the desert kingdom to try to determine the fate of the missing journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and the diplomat quickly hopped a plane. In his meetings, Pompeo conveyed “U.S. concern” about Khashoggi’s disappearance two weeks ago, the State Department said, and stressed “the importance of a thorough, transparent, and timely investigation.” The talks were “direct and candid,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. Pompeo reminded his hosts that despite the numerous bilateral issues the two governments share, determining Khashoggi’s fate was the urgent purpose of this trip, she said. Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the autocratic Saudi leadership, was last seen entering the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Oct. 2, where he was seeking papers to marry his fiancée. Turkish media reports, based in part on apparent audio recordings, have said Khashoggi was beaten to death and then dismembered in the building. A 15-member Saudi military team had entered the consulate with a bone saw shortly before Khashoggi arrived, and flew out of the country soon after, the reports said. Saudi officials insisted that Khashoggi left the consulate but have provided no video or other evidence. They have denied any responsibility for his disappearance. Hoping to stem a growing furor, Trump on Monday suggested “rogue killers,” not the Saudi royal family, may have carried out the murder. Critics quickly said that Trump was providing an excuse for the Saudi leaders, and participating in a cover-up. That seemed to set the stage for Saudi officials to find a way to explain away the alleged shocking death. They floated the idea later Monday of claiming that Khashoggi, who wrote opinion pieces for the Washington Post and Arab media, was accidentally killed in an interrogation gone awry inside the consulate — supposedly without the approval of the king or crown prince. Publicly, Pompeo and his hosts looked calm and friendly when they met Tuesday in Riyadh. At one point, as they greeted each other, Prince Mohammed noted the two countries were important allies. “Absolutely,” Pompeo said, smiling. The United States long guaranteed Saudi security in exchange for a steady supply of oil. Those ties have frayed even as the Trump administration has embraced the Saudi rulers as a crucial regional ally in efforts to constrain Iran and to craft a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians. The current crisis has put those broader goals at risk, and the White House has scrambled to find a face-saving solution for the Saudi rulers. Trump has said he would impose “severe” punishment if proof emerges that Saudi rulers sanctioned Khashoggi’s murder, but he has not said what that would entail. He has ruled out cancelling or suspending billions of dollars in arms deals with the oil-rich country. Many members of Congress have demanded the White House take tougher actions, including punitive sanctions on Saudi rulers. But Congress has taken no action on its own. — Tracy Wilkinson Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Farrakhan Speech: 'Jews Are My Enemy,' 'White Folks Are Going Down'  With the leftist media entirely focused on the push to ban AR-15s and repeal the Second Amendment, practically no one noticed Louis Farrakhan's Saviours’ Day 2018 Address in which he told an approving audience that "powerful Jews are my enemy," and "white folks are going down," according to The Washington Examiner. Farrakhan, of course, is the raging anti-Semite and race-monger who leads the Nation of Islam, the loony, militant, black nationalist organization whose mission is to throw off the yoke of the inferior white devil. This is the same Farrakhan with whom then-Sen. Barack Obama took a photo at a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting, a photo that was subsequently suppressed in order to protect Obama's political future. “Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men,” Farrakhan said in his keynote speech. “White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through." After Farrakhan's speech Sunday, CNN anchor Jake Tapper, among a few others, began tweeting out a few quotes from it, and declared that Farrakhan was more dangerous than other "alt-reich" leaders because he “has a much larger following and elected officials meet with him openly.” His Twitter thread begins here: Somehow the openly racist and anti-Semitic Farrakhan and his hateful organization have managed for decades to avoid being harshly denounced as such by the news media, which instead has spent the last two years attempting to smear Donald Trump as the new Hitler. For more on Farrakhan, check out his profile here at Discover the Networks, the Horowitz Freedom Center's resource site of the left.
Muslim Cleric: “There Were Jews In Islamic Countries & Caliphates, But We Never Killed Them Just For Being Jews”  When he says that Muslims never killed Jews just for being Jews, he is lying, and relying on the historical ignorance of his audience. In my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , I detail many instances in which Muslims did exactly that. In 1013, Berbers from North Africa entered Spain and took Córdoba in 1013, they began massacring Jews, and initiated a wholesale slaughter of Jews in Granada. And again in 1066, rioting Muslims, enraged by the humiliation of a Jew who had been appointed to rule over Muslims, murdered four thousand Jews in Granada. 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 * 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. The twelfth-century Muslim historian Ibn Baydhaq detailed how the Almohads treated the Jews as they advanced: Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad ibn Tumart the Mahdi…captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…. [In Sijilmasa] one hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith…. All the cities in the Almoravid state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered]…groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews. Don’t allow yourself to be deceived by the likes of Jihad Al-‘Ayesh. Preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. "Kuwaiti Cleric Sheikh Jihad Al-‘Ayesh Denies the Holocaust and the Existence of Gas Chambers: How Big a Bakery Would You Need to Make 50,000 Loaves of Bread?,” MEMRI, May 26, 2018: Kuwaiti cleric Sheikh Jihad Al-‘Ayesh delivered a speech in which he said that the figure of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust was a “historical lie,” but that Hitler “knew the truth about the Jews” and therefore began “tormenting and persecuting them.” “The Jews were banished, tortured and annihilated because of their deeds. They were not banished for being Jews,” he said. In an effort to dispute the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, Sheikh Al-‘Ayesh, who heads the Bait Al-Maqdis Documentary Studies Center, drew the following analogy: “Imagine that you want to build a bakery. What size of bakery would you need to make 10,000 loaves of bread?… What if you wanted to make 50,000 loaves of bread an hour? You would need a larger bakery. How many ovens would you need to burn six million human beings?” Sheikh Al-‘Ayesh’s posted his address on his personal YouTube channel on May 26. The video was also posted on the Facebook account of Bait Al-Maqdis Documentary Studies Center. Following is a transcript: Jihad Al-‘Ayesh: “Some people have shown up with a new fashion. We used to think that fashion has to do with haircuts, clothes, or lifestyle, but the vogue today is to sympathize with the Jews and to shed crocodile tears about their sorrows, their heresy, and their historical lies. This is, indeed, a new fashion. Some esteemed people shed tears about what the Jews call ‘the Holocaust.’ […] “Did the Nazi annihilation – the Holocaust – target only the Jews? Anybody? The Jews claim that it happened to them alone and that the number of Jews who died in that Holocaust was six million. What we have here are historical errors. First of all, the figure of six million is a historical lie. In addition, claiming that it happened to the Jews alone excludes the non-Jews who were tortured by Hitler. So was it annihilation? Yes, it was. Who did Hitler annihilate? He annihilated a group of races and people, some of whom were even German. Hitler annihilated 400,000 Germans who were handicapped or suffered from chronic diseases. Hitler did not annihilate the Jews only. […] “Hitler was not the first in the West to perpetrate a genocide. Inhuman and criminal annihilation runs in the veins of many in the West. Hitler embodies one type of modern Western annihilation. When the Americans occupied the republics of the Indians, they annihilated millions of human beings. It is said that they annihilated 50-100 hundred million, but nobody ever mentions this. […] “Was there annihilation? Yes. Many races were annihilated. The Auschwitz camp, which is in southern Poland, was a major and exceptional camp for detention, torture, and forced labor. Many people were tortured and were starved to death there. […] “The Jews were banished, tortured, and annihilated because of their deeds. They were not banished for being Jews. There were Jews in the Islamic countries and caliphates as well, but we never killed them just for being Jews. No, it never happened. Hitler and the Nazi state knew the truth about the Jews, and therefore, they began tormenting and persecuting them. […] “That is when the Final Solution began. The Nazis called it the ‘Final Solution’ of the Jews. When we say ‘Final Solution,’ we realize that many of the terms used by the Zionist state constitute Nazi terms, ideas, and notions. It is as if they are two faces of the same coin. […] “Since Germany and Europe did not want the Jews, the Nazis came up with the idea of sending the Jews to another country. The Nazis suggested Madagascar, Ecuador, or an Arab country – Syria. But after a while, the Nazis discovered that there were groups of Jews calling for the establishment of a state. They were calling for a Zionist state. That is when the idea of deporting the Jews to Palestine arose…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Kavanaugh Accuser's Lawyer is Vice Chair of Soros Funded Org Opposing Kavanaugh  Kavanaugh's accuser is being represented by Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. lawyer and the vice chair of the board of the Project On Government Oversight. POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear. Where does PGO gets its funding? From, among other sources, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation tentacles. And, to no one's surprise, she's allegedly a Dem donor. What a surprise! Debra Katz, the lawyer representing the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, has donated thousands of dollars to Obama, Hillary and the DNC! pic.twitter.com/WK5XYTlcqL — Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) September 17, 2018 UPDATE: I've received a message from POGO stating that they wish to be described as a non-partisan watchdog and that they have a Republican board member.
Puerto Rico’s Power Grid Failure Is Causing A Public Health Crisis Of Epic Proportions  One month after the devastating Hurricane Maria wreaked havoc on the island of Puerto Rico, the territory is still facing a public health crisis. And it’s a crisis of epic proportions. On Friday, former Puerto Rican Governor Alejandro García Padilla tweeted a photo from inside a hospital, in which scrubbed-up doctors leaned over an operating table performing surgery lit only by a flashlight. According to Slate, the image quickly made the rounds on the internet; it currently has almost 9,000 retweets and many speculate that that’s probably because the blurry picture feels like it’s worth a good deal more than 1,000 words. It illuminates just a small sliver of the public health crisis Puerto Rico is currently facing. This is what POTUS calls a 10! Surgery performed with cellphones as flashlights in Puerto Rico today. pic.twitter.com/5pnK5dkkE6 — Alejandro (@agarciapadilla) October 21, 2017 Millions of residents still don’t have access to electricity or proper health care, and bacteria in the water have exposed many people to disease. And calls for help have gone unanswered besides the few willing to travel to the devastated island privately. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) along with a handful of other lawmakers are calling on the federal government to continue to provide aid to the post-apocalyptic ravaged territory. “Even before Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit the U.S. territories, the islands’ health care system was suffering from the ongoing economic crisis. The islands are grappling with physician shortages, Medicaid programs facing an impending funding cliff, and widespread disparities in Federal health programs—and that was before hurricane season,” the lawmakers stated in a letter. “We are grateful for the public health emergency declaration in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but more can and should be done to help Americans impacted by these disasters.” The senators stressed that much of the islands’ power and communication networks are out and, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), it will take months before power is fully restored. Hospitals have been forced to prioritize patients, ration services, and forgo elective surgeries. The power grid’s failure has caused more problems than many anticipated, like the stall of relief efforts. Without electricity, communications are non-existent too. Some 33 days after Hurricane Maria made landfall on Puerto Rico, only 23 percent of residents have electricity, according to Status.pr, which provides daily updates on basic services on the island. While there are still other problems as well, such as gas stations being slow to reopen, and roads getting badly damaged, the power grid’s utter annihilation in the category 4 winds is not just a temporary inconvenience. The different ways that the lack of electricity can set off a cascade of other crises is becoming increasingly clear. A giant government-owned hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, arrived in Puerto Rico weeks ago to help out, but many people don’t know about the ship. Without electricity, most cell phone towers are down. But even if communications were working, residents can’t get to the port, as many of the island’s roads are impassable and most are without gasoline to power a car. The ship has extensive space and equipment for trauma care and a large staff, but CNN reported that as of last Tuesday, only 33 of 250 beds were full. The looming crisis seems to be getting worse, not better, and Puerto Rico is experiencing a medical crisis of epic proportions.
Patrick J. Buchanan: Boehner's Right—It's Trump's Party Now | Articles  See, earlier Trump Victorious As GOP Transformed Into A National Conservative Party by James Kirkpatrick, May 3, 2016 "There is no Republican Party. There's a Trump party," John Boehner told a Mackinac, Michigan, gathering of the GOP faithful last week. "The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere." Ex-Speaker Boehner should probably re-check the old party's pulse, for the Bush-Boehner GOP may not just be napping. It could be comatose. Consider. That GOP was dedicated to free trade, open borders, amnesty and using U.S. power to punish aggressors and "end tyranny in our world." That GOP set out to create a new world order where dictatorships were threatened with "regime change," and democratic capitalism was the new order of the ages. Yet, Donald Trump captured the Republican nomination and won the presidency—by saying goodbye to all that. How probable is it that a future GOP presidential candidate will revive the Bush-Boehner agenda the party rejected in 2016, run on it, win, and impose it on the party and nation? Bush-Boehner Republicanism appears to be as dead today as was Harding-Coolidge Republicanism after 1933. And if Trumpism is not the future of the GOP, it is hard to see what a promising GOP agenda might look like. A brief history: In seven elections starting in 1992, Republicans won the presidency three times, but the popular vote only once, in 2004, when George W. was still basking in his "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. What fractured and overwhelmed the Bush-Boehner Republican Party? First, demography. The mass immigration of Third World peoples that began with the 1965 immigration act, and the decline in the birth rate of native-born Americans, began to swamp the Nixon-Reagan New Majority. Second, the collapse of the Soviet Empire and USSR removed the party's great unifying cause from Eisenhower to Bush I—the Cold War. After the Red Army went home, "America First" had a new appeal! Third, faithful to the free trade cult in which they were raised, Republicans championed NAFTA, the WTO, and MFN for China. Historians will look back in amazement at how America's free trade zealots gave away the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen, as they quoted approvingly 18th- and 19th-century scribblers whose ideas had done so much to bring down their own country, Great Britain. Between 1997 and 2017, the EU ran up, at America's expense, trade surpluses in goods in excess of $2 trillion, while we also picked up the bill for Europe's defense. Between 1992 and 2016, China was allowed to run $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense, converting herself into the world's first manufacturing power and denuding America of tens of thousands of factories and millions of manufacturing jobs. In Trump's first year, China's trade surplus with the United States hit $375 billion. From January to March of this year, our trade deficit with China was running at close to the same astronomical rate. "Trade deficits do not matter," we hear from the economists. They might explain that to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And perhaps someone can explain the wisdom of handing 4 percent of our GDP each year to an adversary nation, as U.S. admirals talk tough about confronting that adversary nation over islets and reefs in the South China Sea. Why are we enriching and empowering so exorbitantly those whom we are told we may have to fight? Fourth, under Bush II and Obama, the U.S. intervened massively in the Near and Middle East—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. And the forces that pushed up into those conflicts, and so disillusioned the nation that it elected Barack Obama, are back, pushing for a new war, on Iran. They may get this war, too. Yet, given the anti-interventionist and anti-war stance of Trump's winning campaign, and of the Bernie Sanders campaign, U.S. involvement in Middle East wars seems less America's future than it does her past. After his 16 months in office, it appears as though the Trump presidency, no matter how brief, is going to be a watershed moment in U.S. and world history, and in the future of the GOP. The world is changing. NATO and the EU are showing their age. Nationalism, populism and tribalism are pervasive on the Old Continent. And America's willingness to bear the burden of Europe's defense, as they ride virtually free, is visibly waning. It is hard to see why or how Republicans are ever again going to be the Bush-Boehner party that preceded the rise of Trump. What would be the argument for returning to a repudiated platform? Trump not only defeated 16 Bush Republicans, he presented an agenda on immigration, border security, amnesty, intervention abroad, the Middle East, NAFTA, free trade, Putin and Russia that was a rejection of what the Bush-Boehner Party had stood for and what its presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney, had run on. If the Republican Party is "napping," let it slumber on, undisturbed, for its time has come and gone. We are in a new world now. COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. His latest book, published May 9, is “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” See Peter Brimelow’s review: “Wheel And Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book
Two cases of Ebola confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo  Two cases of Ebola have been confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), according to a government health official. Jean Jack Muyembe, head of the national institute for biological research, said that at least ten more cases were also suspected in the northwestern town of Bikoro. Local health officials in Democratic Republic of Congo reported 21 patients showing signs of hemorrhagic fever and 17 deaths in the affected area before an Ebola outbreak was confirmed on Tuesday, the health ministry said. Medical teams have taken five samples from suspected active cases and two tested positive for the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus, the ministry said in a statement. It is the ninth time Ebola has been recorded in the DRC. Last year, eight people were infected and four people died after an outbreak of the disease. Ebola virus disease, formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. It is believed to be spread over long distances by bats, which can host the virus without dying. These animals then infect other tree-dwelling creatures such as monkeys. Ebola can often spread to humans from infected bushmeat. Image: Ebola is a difficult illness to contain and efforts to stop it spreading are vital The World Health Organisation reports that the first Ebola outbreaks occurred in remote villages in Central Africa, near tropical rainforests. The two-year outbreak in West Africa that began in 2014 involved major urban areas as well as rural ones. More than 11,300 people died and some 28,600 were infected, most of them in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Sporadic cases of Ebola have occurred since the epidemic was brought under control, with a small number of patients being confirmed in 2017. The disease was first detected in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreaks, one in what is now Nzara, South Sudan, and the other in Yambuku in the DRC. The latter occurred near the River Ebola, after which the disease is named.
Liberals Agree – Trump Tougher on Putin than Obama Was  Leftwing journalist Glenn Greenwald is no fan of President Trump’s policies, but he simply cannot understand how the leftwing media keeps getting so riled up at everything that Trump does. In Greenwald’s mind, Trump is a fairly standard politician (when it comes to the policies he supports and implements), which is what makes the media’s constant flow of outrage so mystifying. In a recent debate over the Helsinki Hulabaloo, Greenwald told the leftists at Democracy Now! that getting all worked up over Trump’s press conference with Putin was ridiculous. Why? Because, when Trump’s Russia policies are measured against Obama’s… it becomes CLEAR that Trump has obviously been tougher against Russia than Obama ever was. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. Here’s the crux of Greenwald’s argument: So let me just make two points. Number one is, if you look at President Obama versus President Trump, there’s no question that President Obama was more cooperative with and collaborative with Russia and the Russian agenda than President Trump. President Trump has sent lethal arms to Ukraine—a crucial issue for Putin—which President Obama refused to do. President Trump has bombed the Assad forces in Syria, a client state of Putin, something that Obama refused to do because he didn’t want to provoke Putin. Trump has expelled more Russian diplomats and sanctioned more Russian oligarchs than [Obama] has. Trump undid the Iran deal, which Russia favored, while Obama worked with Russia in order to do the Iran deal. So this idea that Trump is some kind of a puppet of Putin, that he controls him with blackmail, is the kind of stuff that you believe if you read too many Tom Clancy novels but isn’t borne out by the facts. The other issue that I want to make is that, you know, again, this idea that somehow that you are endorsing the repression of other countries’ leaders if you meet with them—it is true that Trump has never criticized Putin, although he has taken all the steps I just outlined against Putin. But he’s also never criticized Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s also never criticized the incredibly repressive leaders of Saudi Arabia. He’s never criticized the fascist president of the Philippines. It is true President Trump likes fascist and authoritarian leaders, and that is a problem, but it’s not like Putin is the only leader that he doesn’t criticize. The relevant portion of the debate begins about 21 minutes into the video: Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
America's Immigration Voice.  Ever thought that the academic discipline of history has gone to the Diversity dogs? Here’s proof, from Australia. The (generally libertarian) Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) last week released a major report, The Rise of Identity Politics: An Audit of History Teaching at Australian Universities in 2017 PDF ] by Dr Bella d’Abrera [ Email her ] (PhD in History, University of Cambridge,). All 746 undergraduate history courses taught at Australia’s 35 universities in 2017 were analyzed and it was found that, classified by thematic keyword in course titles and content descriptions, the most common themes were ‘Indigenous’ issues (99 references, 13% of total courses), followed dutifully by ‘Race’ (80), ‘Gender’ (69), ‘Identity’ (55), ‘Women’ (46), ‘Islam’ (39), ‘Colonization’ (39), ‘Sexuality’ (34) and ‘Ethnicity’ (34). Lagging well in the rear were such staples, now mere historiographical curiosities, as ‘Liberalism’ (7), ‘Capitalism’ (8), ‘Industrial’ (11), ‘Communism’ (15) and ‘Democracy’ (21). More history courses study ‘Sexuality' than either ‘Enlightenment' (20) or ‘Reformation' (12). More courses study ‘Islam' than ‘Christianity' (34). The report’s visual representation of the results (right) shows how race, gender and ethnicity (or their variants) stand out as the history chart-toppers at Australian universities. Anyone who still thinks that political, intellectual, demographic and material factors are what really matter to history, and to society, ought to get with the multiculturalist/Identity Politics program – enroll in a history course at an Australian university today!
Hillary Cracks Racist Joke After Mixing Up Cory Booker & Eric Holder: "They All Look The Same"  So, you were actually asking yourself who the real people are who engage in identity politics and viewing people with different skin colors or ethnic backgrounds as inferior people? Well, this didn't come from President Donald Trump. Nope, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mixed up Senator Cory Booker and former Attorney General Eric Holder and blew it off with a joke saying, "They all look the same." Hillary Clinton sat down with Recode’s Kara Swisher over the weekend to talk propaganda against her conservative political opponents and how mean, nasty and evil they have been in the past few months. “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." 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 * Email 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. “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” she added. “And I don’t think it’s politically correct to say we value that," she concluded. "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.” Right, except she does just that and so do many in her party. However, in less than a minute she would insult both Booker and Holder, and every person with dark skin on the planet. Swisher asked her, "What do you think of Cory Booker… saying ‘kick them in the shins,’ essentially?" Of course, Swisher meant Eric Holder and Clinton corrected her, adding, “Yeah, I know they all look alike." What was even more amazing is that the audience laughed hysterically. Can you imagine if a conservative person uttered those comments? There would be a near lynching of them on the spot and surely for days to come. They might lose their livelihood and get death threats, but not "Crooked" Hillary. Clearly, she was speaking of all black people and not being specific to Holder or Booker as they look nothing alike. The only thing the two of them have in common is that they are criminals and have black skin. Clinton's comments were clearly racist, and those fawning over her during the interview laughed it up right along with her. Here, take a look! Disgusting that she continues to move and speak freely in this country with no justice being brought to bear on her for her many crimes, something we were promised from then-candidate Trump.
Florida shooting: Gun control law moves step closer  New gun control measures for Florida have passed another legal hurdle, weeks after one of the worst school shootings in US history.  The state's House of Representatives passed a bill raising the age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 and imposing a three-day waiting period on all gun sales.  The bill, already passed by the Senate, now goes to the state governor.  Seventeen people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February. Expelled former student Nikolas Cruz, 19, has been charged in the attack. He was formally indicted by a grand jury on Wednesday on 34 counts, including 17 counts of premeditated first-degree murder and 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder.  He is suspected of using a legally bought AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to carry out the 10-minute attack, gunning down teachers and students.  What is in the new law? In addition to raising the age and bringing in the three-day waiting period, the legislation:  Introduces a voluntary armed "guardian programme" for schools, named after Aaron Feis, a coach who died in the Parkland shooting. It allows school personnel to be armed, subject to school district approval and specialist training Classroom teachers are excluded from carrying arms unless they have a security forces background Bans devices, such as bump stocks, that modify a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic Raises mental health funding and increases the power to seize or ban guns under mental health concerns The legislation does not include a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons like the AR-15, despite it being a key demand of Parkland students and their parents.  Florida law already mandates a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun but a person as young as 18 can buy a rifle with no waiting period. The Republican-controlled House debated the bill for about eight hours on Wednesday before voting 67-50 in favour.  Has the move been welcomed? Ryan Petty, whose daughter was among those killed, hailed the House's vote in a tweet.  He said: "We know that when it comes to preventing future acts of school violence, today's vote is just the beginning of our journey."  State Democratic Party legislators who backed the bill said it was necessary despite the "poison pill" of allowing more guns in schools under the guardian programme. Florida now joins at least six other states in allowing school employees to carry firearms.  Following the Parkland shooting, many surviving students had lobbied politicians for greater gun control.  Gun control activists will hope the Florida measures will be a turning point in their battle with the powerful National Rifle Association and others who defend firearms ownership under the Second Amendment of the US constitution.  On the day the vote passed, a 17-year-old woman student was killed in a suspected accidental shooting at a high school in Alabama.  What happens now? Governor Rick Scott will need to sign the bill, known as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, into law.  It will automatically become law within 15 days unless he vetoes it.  Mr Scott has not yet said he will back it, telling reporters he would "review the bill line by line" and consult victims' families.  He has previously said he opposes US President Donald Trump's call to arm teachers. He had also previously opposed increasing the purchase age from 18 to 21.
Trump threatens military closure at US border to stop migrants  Personal Liberty Poll Exercise your right to vote. President Donald Trump said he’ll mobilize the U.S. military to close the border with Mexico to stop an “assault” on the nation by a caravan of migrants from Central America, according to a report by Bloomberg.com. Trump, who ran in 2016 promising to tighten U.S. immigration laws and stanch the inflow of undocumented migrants, has called for cutting off foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador if they don’t stop the migrants. He claimed Thursday — without providing evidence — that Democrats are backing the human movement to bolster their case for “open borders and existing weak laws.” “In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught — and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump said on Twitter. Days ago the president threatened to withhold American aid from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador if the flow of immigrants wasn’t stopped. This prompted the Honduran Foreign Ministry to urge its citizens not to join the group, according to Reuters. Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez said in a public address on Tuesday evening some Hondurans in the caravan had already returned home and the government was preparing to support them. He did not specify how many had turned back. Still, the caravan had grown to about 4,000 people today. NBC News reported that many of those in the caravan are unaccompanied children. Mexico is said to have deployed 500 additional federal police to its border with Guatemala in anticipation of the caravan’s arrival. On Wednesday, Congressman Matt Gaeetz said video footage shows Honduran women and children were being given cash to join the caravan.
“We Now Have Urban Ebola” In Congo, WHO Warns Of “Potentially Explosive Increase” In Cases  This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge Experts fear an “explosive increase” in Ebola cases after an outbreak in Congo entered a “new phase” and spread from the countryside to a city. The BBC reports that Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga confirmed a case in Mbandaka, a city of a million people about 130km (80 miles) from the area where the first cases were confirmed earlier this month. The city is a major transportation hub with routes to the capital Kinshasa. Forty-four people have been infected and 23 people are known to have died. Senior World Health Organization (WHO) official Peter Salama said the spread to Mbandaka meant there was the potential for an “explosive increase” in cases. “This is a major development in the outbreak,” he told the BBC. “We have urban Ebola, which is a very different animal from rural Ebola. The potential for an explosive increase in cases is now there.” Mr Salama, the WHO’s deputy director-general for emergency preparedness and response, said Mbandaka’s location on the Congo river, widely used for transportation, raised the prospect of Ebola spreading to surrounding countries such as Congo-Brazzaville and the Central African Republic as well as downstream to Kinshasa, a city of 10 million people. “This puts a whole different lens on this outbreak and gives us increased urgency to move very quickly into Mbandaka to stop this new first sign of transmission,” he said. The BBC adds that the WHO said it was not recommending any trade or travel restrictions either within DR Congo, for example between Mbandaka and Kinshasa, or internationally. But Mr Salama said that 13 countries in the region were boosting border screening measures and said DR Congo itself was increasing exit screening measures. “The good news is that the DR Congo population is very used to Ebola outbreaks,” he added. “They know to protect themselves by avoiding mass gatherings and mass funerals. They know as well that traditional healers can amplify the outbreak.” As The Daily Mail notes, it is the ninth time Ebola has been recorded in Congo since the disease made its first known appearance near its northern Ebola river in the 1970s. Ebola is most feared for the internal and external bleeding it can cause in victims owing to damage done to blood vessels. The Mail reports that health workers have recorded confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola in three health zones of Congo’s Equateur province, and have identified 432 people who may have had contact with the disease, the WHO said. Supplies sent to Congo included more than 300 body bags for safe burials in affected communities. The vaccine will be reserved for people suspected of coming into contact with the disease, as well as health workers. The vaccine requires storage at a temperature between -60 and -80 degrees C, tricky in a country with unreliable electricity.
Solar Storm Will Strike Earth Tonight, ‘Weak Power Grid Fluctuations’ Possible  The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center forecasts an aurora could light up the sky above areas in the United State including Michigan and Maine. A solar storm, which occurred Monday, is expected to strike Earth tonight. On Monday, the sun spit out a slew of charged particles in a moderate solar flare. These particles are now making their way towards Earth. The planet’s magnetic field will block most of the particles, but some will make it into Earth’s atmosphere. The particles collect at the north and south poles and interact with atmospheric gases to create the aurora borealis or the Northern Lights. And some say this show could be quite spectacular. Solar flares have been known to cause power grid failures, but it looks like we’ll only get the light show this time. Although a grid failure is possible, it is unlikely. According to Seeker, the forecast calls for a high probability of a G-1 or “minor” storm, which could strengthen to a G-2 or “moderate” storm depending on how the stream of particles hit the Earth. Geomagnetic storms are ranked on a scale, with G at the bottom, R in the middle, and S as the most severe. Forecasts now say the particles will give our planet a glancing blow. Although this storm has been categorized as “G-1,” which means it is minor, it could still cause some havoc down on Earth. Solar flares and particle ejections are associated with sunspots — dark areas on the sun’s surface — that host intense magnetic activity. As the magnetic fields in a sunspot cross, NASA stated, this can cause a sudden energy explosion, also known as a solar flare. This sends radiation out into space, and that radiation can be hurled toward the Earth. G1-level storms, such as Monday’s, may affect migratory animals, and can cause “weak power grid fluctuations.” The barrage of particles may even have a minor impact on satellites. A gird failure would almost immediately fling the United States into a state of panic, and it’s always good to be prepared just in case. But it doesn’t look like there will be any serious damage to the power grid because of this storm as of right now.
Has Trump Opened the Door?  Sagacious gun owners have always known that the ultimate goal of gun control extremists such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, et al., has always been gun confiscation. The plan is not to “control” the private ownership of firearms; it is to PROHIBIT the private ownership of firearms. Enacting ever-encroaching gun control laws is simply an incremental means to the ultimate end of gun confiscation and prohibition. Donald Trump was elected on the promise of protecting the Second Amendment (among other things). Instead, he has become the poster boy for one of the most egregious gun control machinations of all: gun confiscation. As I reported in this column last week, in a bipartisan meeting with congressmen and senators recently, President Trump “voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights. “‘I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,’ Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence. “‘Take the guns first, go through due process second,’ Trump said. “Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons. “‘Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,’ Pence said. “‘Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,’ Trump responded.” See the column here: Florida School Massacre Proves Police Are Worthless In Protecting Us Well, Trump’s statements are now the rallying cry for gun grabbers all over America to enact gun confiscation laws. So far, five states have passed “red flag” laws that allow police agencies to confiscate guns from someone deemed to be “dangerous” by either a law enforcement officer or a family member BEFORE the individual has committed any crime, and in one State (Rhode Island) the governor issued an executive order implementing a “red flag” law. Here are the six states where the legislatures have already passed—or the governor has already issued an executive order implementing—“red flag” laws: California Connecticut Indiana Oregon Washington Rhode Island And since Trump’s Stalinist statements, there are at least 24 additional states that are currently considering passing “red flag” laws. These are: Alabama Alaska Arizona Delaware Florida Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia And it’s not taking long for law enforcement agencies in the above states to begin their Naziesque assault on gun owners. This report is from Seattle:Doubtless, many other states are also considering passing “red flag” laws. “The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an ‘extreme risk protection order.’ “The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating people for the past year – even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side. “Mental illness is suspected, but that new law allowed police to legally disarm him.” “The man, who we are not naming, is also well known to the bars and restaurants below his unit along Second Ave. The volume of complaints convinced Seattle police to seek an extreme risk protection order – or ‘erpo’ – which allows law enforcement to legally remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others. “In this case, the man refused to comply. Because of the new law, police were then able to return with a warrant and force the man to surrender the firearm.” “A few dozen erpos have been served and executed around the state, but Seattle police said they are the only agency so far to seize a gun because the owner refused to hand it over. “Law enforcement professionals said these specialized protection orders could be a common sense strategy to try and prevent mass shootings – such as what happened in Parkland, Florida. “‘There’s certainly a big concern of the connection between mental health and people exhibiting violent behavior and whether or not they should have access to firearms. The “erpos” give us that tool now as an option,’ said Sgt. Eric Pisconski, who leads the crisis response unit for the Seattle Police Department. “The confiscations only last a year, although they can be renewed.” See the report here: Seattle Police First In State To Seize Gun Under Mental Health Law A few observations are in order here: First, the open carry of a firearm is LEGAL in the area where this took place. So, the fellow was violating NO gun laws whatsoever. Plus, he never removed the pistol from its holster or brandished it in any way. Secondly, the man was “known” to nearby bars and restaurants near his place of residence. That means nothing. Known for what? The report doesn’t even say the man was known for acting weirdly or strangely. It just says he was “known.” And even if he did act weirdly or strangely, if we denied constitutional rights to everyone in that category, a majority of Americans would have no rights, and ALL of Congress would have no rights. Thirdly, what does “volume of complaints” mean? How many complaints were received over a YEAR’S time? Two? Five? Ten? People complaining about other people happens all of the time. Plus, if complaints had been received over the course of an entire year and police just now decided to act, the man must not have been considered much of a threat. Fourthly, there was NO report of the man “exhibiting violent behavior,” as the police sergeant claims. The report says “he had been intimidating people.” How? No specifics except to say he was “staring” at people. Wow! Run for your lives! Fifthly, a U.S. citizen who has committed NO CRIME is denied his Natural right of self-defense for a whole year. And the media report says the confiscations “only” last a year, with the caveat that they may be extended. Indeed. They could and very likely will be extended indefinitely. How many defenseless (unarmed) people are robbed, assaulted, accosted, beaten up, raped, wounded, paralyzed, or killed in a year’s time? It seems many politicians (and many police officers themselves) will not be content until every American citizen is totally defenseless and unable to protect him or herself. I tell you this with all seriousness: At some point, the American people will be forced to view these governmental attacks against our Second Amendment liberties as a declaration of war. Sixthly, the man quoted in the news story who had complained about the armed fellow did so because he said he didn’t like the sight of the man carrying a firearm, as it made him “afraid.” SO WHAT? That the mere sight of a law-abiding citizen openly carrying a sidearm would make someone “afraid” is not sufficient reason to deny the citizen his constitutional right to keep and “bear” arms. This “I’m offended” or “his gun scares me” complaint is nothing but cover for little Nazis to try and deny another person their Natural, God-given liberty. But under this new “red flag” law in Washington State, police are now able to confiscate a person’s firearm without the person committing ANY crime—or even threatening to commit a crime. Even when police forced the man to surrender his firearm, the man made no threatening gesture toward the officers. Gun confiscation has started in America—and President Trump’s Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later is the banner under which this is happening. When Trump promised to add “mental health” regulations to gun purchases and ownership, he opened Pandora’s Box. I go into the “mental health” trap in more detail in this column: Trump Set To Enact More Gun Control “Mental health” regulations for gun ownership is what extremist gun grabbers Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al., have been trying to accomplish for decades. Now, it is the “pro-gun” Republican President Donald Trump who is the one making it happen. Kris Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC Law School. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws: The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” [Most of the “red flag” laws, such as the one in Washington State, do not limit who can claim the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others to family members.] But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns. After the Parkland school shooting, had Donald Trump simply used his bully pulpit to promote arming teachers and school employees as a deterrent and defense against these school shootings without calling for more gun control, it would have been a HUGE boost for the Second Amendment in general and school safety in particular. Instead, Trump fell in with anti-Second Amendment liberals and started calling for more gun control, adding “mental health” restrictions to gun purchases and making his stupid Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later. As a result, anti-gun liberals all over the country are using Trump’s own words and proposed gun control policies as a rallying cry to enact gun confiscation laws. As it stands right now, Donald Trump has opened the door for more damage being done to the Second Amendment than any other president, Democrat or Republican, in our lifetime. Freedomists in the 50 states had better keep a close eye on their State legislatures this year and next, because, thanks to Donald Trump, gun confiscation is going to be on the agenda in virtually every single State in the country. And while you are at it, don’t overlook the federal Congress. No wonder Dianne Feinstein looked so deliriously (and devilishly) happy when Trump uttered his stupid comment about gun confiscation and said he wanted to bring an assault weapons ban (Feinstein’s bill) into proposed gun control legislation. See the video here: Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems To Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban But if you are a freedom-loving American who values your liberties and the God-given right to defend them, happy is NOT what you should be feeling right now. You should be OUTRAGED at Donald Trump, and you should be absolutely determined to be ever vigilant against ANY attempt from Democrats or Republicans from federal, State, or municipal government to enact further restrictions against your right to keep and bear arms—because Trump has opened the door not only for more gun control but also for gun confiscation. P.S. One more time I want to remind readers that self-defense—including defense against tyrannical government—is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in Nature by our Creator. For anyone, especially a Christian, to willingly surrender their means of self-defense is not only a crime against liberty; it is a sin against God. I urge my Christian friends (and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney son and I wrote entitled “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” Mark it down: Any law demanding the citizenry to surrender their AR-15 rifles would be unconstitutional, unnatural, and unbiblical. And NO Christian or other free man should ever comply with such a law. I know that there is a plethora of pastors who teach that Christians ought to obey the government should it outlaw our guns. THEY ARE WRONG. They are wrong biblically, constitutionally, and morally. Our book shows the Natural and Biblical duty of self-defense. I don’t know of another book like it. With all that is happening today, it is CRUCIAL that people (especially Christians) become familiar with the truths contained in this book. I urge you to order one for yourself and one (at least) for your friends and kinfolk. Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin. The Best of Chuck Baldwin
UK: Labour MP Cites Ban of Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller in Calling for Trump to be Banned from Country  The brouhaha over President Trump’s retweets of videos depicting Muslims being violent continues in the UK, and is yet another manifestation of the general tendency to blame those who call attention to jihad atrocities rather than to focus upon the jihad atrocities themselves. Trump himself said it best, tweeting yesterday evening:”. @ Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!” . @Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 30, 2017 I’m not sure we’re doing just fine, but Trump is right that the real problem is jihad terror and Sharia supremacism, and British authorities want to ignore that and shoot the messenger. And so Chris Bryant, “a senior Labour backbencher, has written to May urging her to go further, and issue an official ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds he is condoning fascism and his presence is ‘not conducive to the public good’, a senior Labour MP has said.” For Chris Bryant, apparently “fascism” means “defense of Britain and its values against jihad terror.” Bryant “cited the cases of two US far-right bloggers, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller , who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the UK to take part in English Defence League rallies, as precedents for taking action against Trump.” Why are we “far right”? Everything we do is in defense of the freedom of speech and equality of rights of all people before the law. That’s “far right”? In any case, note well: the letter to me from the UK Home Office said that I was banned for saying that “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers…” That’s a demonstrably true statement. 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.” May’s government 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. Chris Bryant had nothing to say about any of those jihad preachers entering Britain with no problem. “UK ambassador conveys concerns over Trump retweet to White House,” by Rowena Mason, Guardian, November 30, 2017: …Chris Bryant, a senior Labour backbencher, has written to May urging her to go further, and issue an official ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds he is condoning fascism and his presence is “not conducive to the public good”, a senior Labour MP has said. Bryant, a former Foreign Office minister, said the prime minister should issue a prohibition order against the president like those that apply to other far right figures from the US. He cited the cases of two US far right bloggers, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the UK to take part in English Defence League rallies, as precedents for taking action against Trump. In a letter to May, he said: “I am writing to you to ask you and the home secretary to take immediate action to ban the president of the United States, Donald Trump, from entering the United Kingdom, due to his apparent support for far-right groups in this country. “In retweeting Jayda Fransen’s posts, it is absolutely clear to me that President Trump is supporting and condoning fascism and far-right activity. This activity has frequently taken the form of violence on our streets. Ms Fransen herself has a long history of racism and Islamophobia, some of it criminal. Many of the people you have rightly banned from entering the UK were guilty of less than this.”… Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Pope Francis' sexual abuse commission, hit by resignations and criticism, gets a reboot  Last week Pope Francis announced he was reviving a panel he created to advise the Vatican on how to handle sexual abuse by clergy. The issue has dogged the Roman Catholic Church in recent years, and critics have accused Francis and his two predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, of failing to aggressively weed out and punish predator priests. Here’s a look what drove the panel’s creation and what to expect in the future. What is Pope Francis’ commission on sexual abuse? Following criticism he was not focusing on halting child abuse within the church, Francis created the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors in March 2014, naming Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, to run it. O’Malley was not only a member of the pope’s “G9” group of close advisors; he was also the man who sought to clean up the abuse scandal in Boston after the departure of his predecessor, Cardinal Bernard Law, whose shifting of predator priests to new posts was exposed by the Boston Globe and chronicled in the movie “Spotlight.” The revelations about Law, who died in December, emboldened abuse victims across the country and world, who began speaking up about the priests who had molested them. When he created the commission, Francis said: “The commission’s specific task is to propose to me the most opportune initiatives for protecting minors and vulnerable adults, in order that we may do everything possible to ensure that crimes such as those which have occurred are no longer repeated in the Church.” Why is it being renewed now? After the commission’s three-year mandate expired in December, Francis relaunched it on Feb. 17 with some members reappointed and nine new members added, some of whom are victims of abuse, although the Vatican declined to say which, opting to respect their privacy. O’Malley returns as chief. New members come from Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, the Netherlands and Tonga, "reflecting the global reach of the church and the challenge of creating safeguarding structures in diverse cultural context,” the Vatican said. What did the first commission achieve? The Vatican has said it “worked with almost 200 dioceses and religious communities worldwide to raise awareness and to educate people on the need for safeguarding in our homes, parishes, schools, hospitals, and other institutions.” What didn’t it do? Commission members quickly realized they needed to go beyond raising awareness and deal with the bishops who quietly shift offenders to new dioceses when they are exposed as molesters and rapists. Even if church laws already existed to hold bishops accountable for their priests’ behavior, those strictures were not enough, O’Malley said in 2014. “There are, theoretically I guess, canons that could apply here, but obviously they have not been sufficient,” he said. The commission was behind Francis’ decision in 2015 to create a new tribunal to judge bishops caught covering up for abusive priests, and to fund it for five years. But amid myriad legal questions over what exact powers the court would have, it never got off the ground. In 2016, Francis officially killed the plan to create it, issuing a document that essentially called on using existing procedures to tackle the problem. Francis was also criticized when Australian Cardinal George Pell, whom he had brought to Rome to clean up Vatican finances, was forced to return to Australia last year to face charges of sexual assault. Any other problems? Commission members said bishops should call the police when they discovered predator priests, rather than phone the nearest religious retreat to “park” the priest out of harm’s way. But this simple message was hard to get across. It emerged that during a Vatican training course for new bishops in September 2015 a French priest informed bishops they had no obligation to report abuse to the police, forcing the commission to issue a strong statement saying bishops had every obligation to do so. Did commission members persevere? Not all of them. British member Peter Saunders, a former victim of priestly abuse, was ousted in 2016. He said the group was a toothless, paper-shuffling exercise. Irish member Marie Collins, another victim, resigned in March last year and said Vatican bureaucrats had refused to comply with the commission’s request — approved by the pope — to respond to all letters sent to the Vatican by abuse victims. Marie Collins, then a member of the pope's sex abuse commission, in 2015 hands a letter to Cardinal Sean O'Malley detailing the abuse suffered by Juan Carlos Cruz of Chile. Catherine Bonnet / Associated Press Was the pope listening to the commission? Possibly not. In 2015, Collins handed O’Malley a letter addressed to the pope from Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean abused as a boy by Chilean prelate Fernando Karadima, who was sentenced by the Vatican to a lifetime of penance in 2010. Cruz described how the abuse was witnessed and covered up by Juan Barros, a priest whose appointment as a bishop in 2015 prompted huge protests in Chile. The pope has stuck by Barros, dismissing the protesters as “lefties” and hugging Barros publicly during his visit to Chile last month. "I can't condemn [Barros] because I don't have evidence," he said on the plane back to Rome, suggesting he had ignored or never read the letter from Cruz. That was too much for O’Malley, who said Francis had caused "great pain” to victims. If Francis was not listening to the commission about Barros, whom was he listening to? Vatican watchers believe the pope was influenced by Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz, a member of the G9 group who has backed Barros and reportedly helped block moves to make Cruz a member of the abuse commission. So is the pope intransigent on Barros? No. Something changed his mind after his Chilean trip, possibly the scale of the protest against Barros in the country. On Feb. 17, he sent a senior Vatican sex abuse investigator, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, to New York to interview Cruz, who now lives in Philadelphia. "For the first time I felt that someone is listening," Cruz said after the meeting. What happens next? “This should lead to Barros stepping down,” said Saunders, who is forming his own campaign group with Cruz and others to fight clerical abuse. The new papal commission will meanwhile hold its first meeting in April. Support our journalism Please consider subscribing today to support stories like this one. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks. Already a subscriber? Your support makes our work possible. Thank you. Kington is a special correspondent.
ICE removes Guatemalan national wanted for murder  NEW YORK — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) removed a Guatemalan citizen Wednesday who was wanted in his home country on charges of homicide. Rigoberto Gonzalez-Aragon, 66, was returned to Guatemala City, via an ICE Air Operations charter flight, and transferred to the custody of Guatemalan law enforcement authorities. On March 9, ERO New York received a lead from the ICE Assistant Attaché for Removals in Guatemala that Gonzalez-Aragon was wanted for homicide and residing in the New York metropolitan area. On June 8, ERO deportation officers arrested Gonzalez-Aragon in Spring Valley, New York, for immigration violations. He had previously entered the country unlawfully at an unknown date and time. He had been in ICE custody since his June arrest. In September, he was ordered removed by an immigration judge, paving the way for his deportation. Since Oct. 1, 2009, ERO has removed more than 1,700 foreign fugitives from the United States who were sought in their native countries for serious crimes, including kidnapping, rape and murder. In fiscal year 2016, ICE conducted 240,255 removals nationwide. Ninety-two percent of individuals removed from the interior of the United States had previously been convicted of a criminal offense.
Evidence shows Pope Francis is a ‘principal in a cover-up’ of clergy sex-abuse in Chile: Expert  NewsCatholic Church WASHINGTON, D.C., February 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Those familiar with Jorge Bergoglio in Argentina before he became Pope Francis say it is a “classic” move of his to provide “mercy” to clergy who are sexual predators while asking everybody else to simply “move on,” said attorney and child advocate Elizabeth Yore on an EWTN show last week. “I think this is a misplaced mercy. It is mercy for the predator priests,” she told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo on the February 8 episode of World Over. “There are many people who know the Pope from Argentina who have said this is classic Bergoglio to provide mercy to the predators and ask everybody else to move on,” she added. (See original The World Over program segment on this issue that begins at 47 seconds into the video below) Yore, who has handled child abuse investigations and clergy abuse investigations throughout her legal career, was commenting on the latest sexual abuse case to touch the Francis papacy, in this case where the Pope appointed a bishop with a history of complicity in child sex abuse. The Pope’s claim that he had never received any victim testimony regarding the complicity of Chilean Bishop Juan Barros in child sex abuse has proven to be false. “The Barros case is putting the Pope, for the first time, in the middle as a principal in a cover-up,” Yore said during the interview. Yore said that not only is it now known that the Pope received a letter from one of the victims, but it is also now known that he was “told from the moment he appointed Bishop Barros in 2015 that this was a bad decision.” “The Chilean Archbishop conference told him to revoke this appointment. He received petitions and letters and calls, yet, ignored them all,” she said. As details continue to surface, the pontiff’s professed empathy for abuse victims has come into question as well. Yore called the child sex abuse case involving infamous Chilean priest abuser Father Fernando Karadima and Bishop Juan Barros “a scandal of epic proportions.” The scandal signals that the Church under Francis is slipping backwards in its handling of abuse, said Yore. Yore called the example Pope Francis set in the way he handled the abuse information “extremely dangerous.” “But it is extremely dangerous as the head of the Catholic Church — you know, the last appeal — that this is the kind of behavior that is going to be mimicked around the world by bishops, [who will say] ‘Well if the Pope is not going to intervene and impose zero tolerance, why should I?’” Reports say Pope Francis personally received the eight-page letter from the Chilean victim graphically detailing the alleged abuses by Karadima and linking Barros as having witnessed and covered up the abuse. The alleged abuse took place decades prior to Francis’s 2015 appointment of Barros to the Diocese of Osorno in southern Chile. Pope Francis received the victim’s letter in 2015, its author and a member of Francis’s sex abuse commission have said, contradicting the Pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward in the matter and no evidence had been produced. Francis encountered protests in Chile over his defense of Barros during his visit there last month, calling the accusations against the priest “calumny.” While Francis later apologized, he persisted in defending Barros, denying that he had received any testimony himself and restating that such unproven accusations are “slander.” The Pope later said he would send Malta Archbishop Charles Scicluna – the former top Vatican abuse investigator - to Chile to investigate the matter. Expectations were high in 2014 when the Pope created the abuse commission. And while he has continually condemned clergy sex abuse throughout his pontificate, some have argued his actions in some serious cases don’t match his tough stances on abuse. Four members of the commission had met with Cardinal O’Malley in 2015, conveying their objections to Francis’s 2015 appointment of Barros as bishop of Osorno. It was at the meeting with O’Malley that the abuse commission representatives reportedly gave the letter to the cardinal to deliver to Francis, and O’Malley later confirmed to a commission member that he had in fact personally delivered the letter to the Pope. Yore explained that the Pope has been told from the moment he appointed Barros in 2015 that it was a bad decision, between the Chilean bishops’ conference, petitions, letters and calls, that were all ignored. Further, a Chilean judicial inquiry found all the victims who testified — including the letter’s author Juan Carlos — to be credible, and that there was a major cover-up of the abuse by Father Karadima. Arroyo spoke with Cruz as well, who said he was “incredibly frustrated” when Barros was going to be appointed. He’d testified about three bishops who had witnessed abuse, he said, but Barros had special significance for him because Barros’ part went beyond witnessing the abuse, to violating his seal of Confession with Karadima and psychological abuse through intimidation. Cruz recounted how he and other victims had been dismissed or slandered by local Church hierarchy for numerous attempts to be heard. And he spoke about holding out hope that there would be a different response from the Pope, discussing specifics of getting the letter to the Francis via Cardinal O’Malley. Cruz told Arroyo he was really hurt and felt betrayed by the Pope’s comments that the accusations were slander, and there were no witnesses or evidence. “To hear him talk about us that way,” Cruz said, “calling us slanderers, it was terrible because it set the clock back for so many victims.” Scicluna will be meeting with Cruz, who said he hopes other abuse survivors will be heard as a result of his case coming more to the forefront. “This leaves us with very strong evidence that the Pope was, in fact, aware of what has happened,” Yore said. “Here we have victims 10, 15 years after their abuse, begging the Pope, having to take pictures of a letter that’s handed to a cardinal to ensure that there is evidence that the Pope is receiving this information.” The whole of Latin America, including Argentina, was well aware of what was happening when this case broke in Chile in 2010, Yore noted, and yet the Pope continues to shrug his shoulders and say he has no information. This was precisely what he’d been saying when he was cardinal and archbishop in Buenos Aires, she said, that no one ever came forward with information, and there were never any cases of clerical abuse in the entirety of the two-million-plus member Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. “This isn’t just simply a cover-up of a predator priest,” Yore stated. “This is Barros present, in the room when the abuse is ongoing with these young minor boys.” She said she would argue as a child advocate that Barros was involved in sexual exploitation of children. “So I don’t think this is simply just a case, as bad as it is, of a cover-up of an abuser,” she said. “This is also sexual exploitation of children in a grooming gang, a predator priest. This is why it is so heinous.” Yore said that given the Church’s sex abuse crisis, one would have thought going into the 2013 conclave (which elected Francis) that an obvious priority in vetting candidates for the papacy would have meant a serious look at their history of handling abuse allegations in their previous sees. There are more cases out there just like Barros that have been covered up, Yore told Arroyo, maybe even some even worse than the Barros case. “Those cases are going to be haunting this papacy and really causing a rift in the major protection of children that Pope Benedict had worked very hard to really build up,” she said. “Trust within the faithful and to put in a system that was going to root out the predators. And I think that has just been blown up and I think we are back to square one in the Vatican."
FBI Can’t Find Motive of Muslim Who Drove Burning Minivan Onto Travis Air Force Base  “Motive a mystery in car explosion at Travis Air Force Base” was the Los Angeles Times headline, and this one is indeed a real mystery. A Muslim named Hafiz Kazi, according to the Times, “drove a burning minivan filled with propane and gas tanks into the front gate of Travis Air Force Base in Northern California.” After scrutinizing all the evidence closely, the FBI just can’t figure out what could possibly have been Kazi’s motive. And that in a nutshell shows what’s wrong with today’s FBI. Sean Ragan, FBI special agent in charge of the Sacramento field office, stated: “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point. Now the question is, why. Why was he there? What led him there? And we don’t know answers to that, quite frankly.” The Times noted that when emergency responders approached the burning van after it crashed, “they found five propane tanks, three plastic one-gallon gas cans, several lighters, three phones and a gym bag with personal items, Ragan said.” Yes, what Kazi could possibly have been up to is a complete mystery. The Times added that “the dead man’s religious beliefs and affiliation are not known at this point, said Ragan, who debunked a rumor that some sort of ‘jihad’ video was found on Kazi’s phone.” All right. No jihad video. And no “nexus of terrorism,” according to Sean Ragan. What is a nexus of terrorism? Ragan most likely means that investigators didn’t find an ISIS membership card in Kazi’s wallet, or lots of phone calls to Iraq or Syria, or a note from Kazi reading, “I did this for Allah and Islam. Allahu akbar.” Of course, even if they had found those things, given the FBI’s recent track record of denial and deception, they may still be searching for Kazi’s motive. In any case, a larger point is being lost here. And that is that there is a war going on. We know that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups have called upon Muslims in the U.S. to try to kill military personnel and police, as well as civilians. We know that Kazi, with all the propane and gas tanks in his car, was clearly trying to set off a major fire that would kill more people than just himself. Even if he wasn’t on the phone to Baghdadi, the likelihood is that when a Muslim drives into a U.S. Air Force Base with a car full of incendiaries, probably this has something to do with the global jihad. The FBI’s bafflement here is part of its deep, deep corruption. The FBI doesn’t acknowledge that there is a global jihad, or that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. It doesn’t admit that there is a war going on, and treats each act of Islamic terror as if it were a separate and discrete criminal event, unrelated to all the others. So each time something like this happens, they’re back at Square One, trying to figure out motive. It’s as if the U.S. Army stopped to interrogate every German soldier who crashed through the Ardennes Forest at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, to see if each one’s actions had anything to do with the German Army and Adolf Hitler’s war aims. Authorities are also investigating whether or not Kazi was suffering from any mental health issues. Here again, this is just more of the general refusal to acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the living room and screaming “Allahu akbar.” Sean Ragan might explain to us that authorities are also trying to determine whether the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 was motivated by Nazism, or by mental health issues among the German High Command. This willful ignorance leads to a diversion and waste of resources that is astronomical and catastrophic. How long is this comic opera going to continue? If the jihadis advance even into the FBI’s Sacramento offices, will agents there be struggling to determine the jihadis’ motive even as the machete begins to slice through their necks? Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Confessions of an Islamophobe. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Gun Control Is Now Truly Impossible  Gun control is the dream of every wannabe statist dictator and naive do-gooder alike. The latter think that removing guns will suddenly force humanity to stop all animosity toward one another, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya. The former recognizes that an armed populace is a threat to any tyrant and pushes for gun control out of self-preservation. However, a new ruling in a court case over 3-D printer files of guns has now made gun control virtually impossible. FIVE YEARS AGO, 25-year-old radical libertarian Cody Wilson stood on a remote central Texas gun range and pulled the trigger on the world’s first fully 3-D-printed gun. When, to his relief, his plastic invention fired a .380-caliber bullet into a berm of dirt without jamming or exploding in his hands, he drove back to Austin and uploaded the blueprints for the pistol to his website, Defcad.com. Defend Yourself: A Com... Rob Pincus Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $17.99 (as of 03:35 EDT - Details) He’d launched the site months earlier along with an anarchist video manifesto, declaring that gun control would never be the same in an era when anyone can download and print their own firearm with a few clicks. In the days after that first test-firing, his gun was downloaded more than 100,000 times. Wilson made the decision to go all in on the project, dropping out of law school at the University of Texas, as if to confirm his belief that technology supersedes law. The law caught up. Less than a week later, Wilson received a letter from the US State Department demanding that he take down his printable-gun blueprints or face prosecution for violating federal export controls. Under an obscure set of US regulations known as the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Wilson was accused of exporting weapons without a license, just as if he’d shipped his plastic gun to Mexico rather than put a digital version of it on the internet. He took Defcad.com offline, but his lawyer warned him that he still potentially faced millions of dollars in fines and years in prison simply for having made the file available to overseas downloaders for a few days. “I thought my life was over,” Wilson says. … Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First. Straight Talk on Armed... Best Price: $13.95 Buy New $13.95 (as of 03:40 EDT - Details) “If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident,” Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. “So what if this code is a gun?” The Department of Justice’s surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won’t try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses. “I consider it a truly grand thing,” Wilson says. “It will be an irrevocable part of political life that guns are downloadable, and we helped to do that.”
America's Immigration Voice.  Kritarch Patti Saris is in the news again. She is one of many Federal District Court Judges who want to run immigration policy, despite the fact that the Constitution gives authority over immigration to Congress, and Congress has allocated considerable authority to the President. This writer exposed her attempted violation of the Constitution after she initially stopped the deportation of a number of Indonesians back to Indonesia as she saw it unjust and decided to substitute her moral judgment for the laws of the United States. Kritarch Patti Saris Federal courts do not have direct authority over immigration matters, which are handled by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, but Chief Judge Patti Saris of the US District Court in Boston wrote in a court filing on Wednesday that she has a say over the terms of his confinement. US Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Indonesian Immigrant's Lawsuit, Jakarta Globe/Reuters, October 25, 2017 "The district court holds jurisdiction to review habeas [corpus] challenges to unlawful immigration detention," Saris wrote. Writs of habeas corpus challenge illegal detention. At a Friday hearing, Saris expressed concern that ICE had broken its word with Rombot after telling him in 2015 that he would "be given an opportunity to prepare for an orderly departure" before being deported. She also expressed concern he was being held alongside potentially violent criminals. Her problem though was that the law and precedent are on the side of the continued deportation of aliens. Kritarch Saris has apparently seen the SCOTUS writing on the wall, and perhaps had an attack of her legal conscience and decided that she will acquiesce on the major issue, but fight on a minor issue. Commonly this the pattern of Judges who don't want to be overruled as frequently as 9th Circuit Judges do. Saris has apparently decided to bend to the inevitable in the case of Indonesians, who had years of hearings and appeals, all to naught, but do a little sabotage instead.However, she will not let it go quietly into the night.What we have here is that Saris realized she has no authority over the deportation of illegal aliens, but she will do her best to throw a wrench in the works by attempting to get illegal aliens released from custody, so they can then disappear into the United States and consequently not be deported. (a) Arrest, detention, and release On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Except as provided in subsection (c) and pending such decision, the Attorney General—(1) may continue to detain the arrested alien One of the immigrants, Terry Helmuth Rombot, has been in federal custody since appearing for an August check-in. Lawyers submitted a letter to him from ICE saying that as part of the 2010 deal he would be allowed to leave the country in an “orderly” way. “ICE decided that the most orderly way for him to depart was for us to remove him,” Stevens said. Saris expressed a dim view of that move. “The government broke a promise,” Saris said. “That’s the thing I‘m concerned about here.” U.S. Judge Wrestles With Issue Of Indonesian Immigrants, by Scott Malone, Reuters, October 20, 2017 However, the law is quite clear, the United States has the authority to detain illegal aliens; T itle 8 of the United States Code, Section 1226, Arrest And Detention Of Aliens , gives such authority to the Executive Branch.And despite her realization that she has no authority over immigration policy, or that she will just be overruled, Saris again reaches, basing her assumption of authority over immigration based on the past Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty , when illegal aliens weren't deported.Kritarch Saris is in the wrong on both counts; she has neither authority over the detention of illegal aliens nor any authority to continue the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. She is like Derrick Kahala Watson , a treasonous kritarch, unwilling to submit her hunger for power and ideology to the Constitution and the law. Impeachment for her and Watson is the solution.
Our New Muslim Representatives  As expected, two Muslim women, Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, have been overwhelmingly elected to Congress. The establishment media will celebrate these victories as triumphs of America’s “diversity”; unfortunately, in reality neither one is worth celebrating. Tlaib is a vociferous foe of Israel. With the Democrats now regaining control of the House, Tlaib is likely to be an energetic proponent of the new majority’s vendetta against the Middle East’s only democracy. The House is likely to do all it can to roll back President Trump’s pro-Israel polices, with Tlaib as well as Omar as becoming the public faces of the effort. According to the JTA, when Tlaib was asked if she would vote against military aid to Israel, Tlaib responded: “Absolutely, if it has something to do with inequality and not access to people having justice. For me, U.S. aid should be leverage. I will be using my position in Congress so that no country, not one, should be able to get aid from the U.S. when they still promote that kind of injustice.” What kind of injustice? Tlaib, of course, had nothing to say about the genocidal incitement against Jews and Israel that regularly features on Palestinian television. She did say, however, that she favors a one-state, not two-state, “solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.” Indeed it doesn’t. A Palestinian state would be a new base for renewed jihad attacks against Israel. But a “one-state solution” would be even worse, unless that state is the current State of Israel, but that is not the one state Tlaib has in mind. She is calling for an Israeli/Palestinian state that would not be a Jewish State or a homeland for the Jewish people, but a federation in which Palestinians would soon overwhelm Jews demographically. Progressive denial of their rights would soon follow: as I show in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, there has never been a majority Muslim nation in which Jews enjoyed equality of rights with Muslims. Tlaib’s unitary state would be no different. The hijabed (and therefore pro-Sharia) Ilhan Omar, meanwhile, is even more hateful than Tlaib. According to the Daily Wire, in 2012 Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel.” Challenged about this tweet much more recently, she doubled down and attacked the man who called attention to the tweet: “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.” There is much, much worse about Omar. David Steinberg of PJ Media has done extraordinary work in shedding light on aspects of Omar’s record that the establishment media has steadfastly ignored. Steinberg reports that Omar has “faced allegations -- soon backed by a remarkable amount of evidence -- that she had married her own brother in 2009, and was still legally his wife. They officially divorced in December 2017. The motivation for the marriage remains unclear. However, the totality of the evidence points to possible immigration fraud and student loan fraud.” What’s more, she swore to apparent falsehoods in court. But Leftists rarely have to answer for their corruption, and in a Democrat House, Omar will much more likely be celebrated than investigated. She and Tlaib will enjoy establishment media accolades as they pursue their hard-Left, anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. Their presence in the House of Representatives may be evidence of “diversity,” but it is also a disquieting sign of the continued dominance of identity politics, and the increasing balkanization of the American body politic. Forthrightly pro-America, pro-Israel candidates would stand little to no chance in either of their districts. And that is indicative of a much larger problem.
Here are all the sexual misconduct accusations against Sen. Al Franken  Sen. Al Franken announced his resignationon the Senate floor Thursday morning, as Democratic calls for his resignation mount following the latest sexual misconduct accusations against him.  About 30 Senate Democrats, starting with women, have urged the Minnesota Democrat to step down.  Franken on Thursday denied most of the allegations, which started to surface last month. Here are the eight accusations he faces:  Leeann Tweeden, a radio news anchor, says Franken groped and forcibly kissed her during a USO tour in 2006, before the former comedian was a senator. She says Franken "aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth" when the pair rehearsed a skit that featured a kiss. A photo also surfaced showing Franken looking at a camera while pretending to grab Tweeden's breasts as she was sleeping while clothed. The senator apologized for the photo but said he remembered the skit incident differently. Lindsay Menz says Franken grabbed her buttocks when the pair posed for a photo at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010. Franken later said he did not remember taking the picture but "felt badly" that Menz felt disrespected. Two other unidentified women told HuffPost that Franken grabbed their buttocks at separate events in 2007 and 2008. One of the women says Franken suggested that he and she should go to the bathroom together. Franken said he did not remember the events and denied asking anyone to visit the bathroom with him. Stephanie Kemplin, an Army veteran, says Franken put his hand on her breast during a USO tour in 2003. In a statement following that accusation, Franken's office said he has not "intentionally engage in" the "kind of conduct" described. A woman described as a "former elected official in New England" told the Jezebel website that Franken tried to give her a "wet, open-mouthed kiss" during an event in 2006. The senator has not appeared to respond specifically to the allegation. An unnamed former Democratic congressional aide told Politico that the senator tried to forcibly kiss her after he taped a radio show in 2006. She says she avoided the kiss, then heard Franken say "it's my right as an entertainer." Franken called the allegation "categorically not true." Tina Dupuy writes in The Atlantic that Franken put his hand around her waist while the pair posed for a photo and squeezed "at least twice" during an event in 2009. The senator has not specifically responded to that allegation.
German cardinal: liturgical ‘blessing’ for gay unions is ‘truly…sacrilegious’  NewsCatholic Church GERMANY, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes criticized fellow German Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s suggestion that Catholic priests should consider “blessing” same-sex relationships liturgically. Marx’s idea “truly seems sacrilegious” and “ignores the clear Revelation of God,” Cordes wrote in a response on kath.net. Dr. Maike Hickson translated it at One Peter Five. “The Church is in its pastoral care bound to Holy Scripture and to its interpretation through the Church’s Magisterium,” wrote Cordes. “Marx does not even mention that homosexuality always contradicts the Will of God,” citing church teaching through the centuries. Rather than being about receiving “God’s assistance for themselves,” those engaging in sodomy and wishing to have it “blessed” by the Church “aim with their request at the recognition and acceptance of their homosexual way of life and its ecclesial valorization.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “under no circumstances” can homosexual activity “be approved” as it is “intrinsically disordered.” Such acts are “contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CCC 2357). However, Marx said on February 3 that homosexual couples need “closer pastoral care” and “one must also encourage priests and pastoral workers to give people in concrete situations [of homosexual unions] encouragement. I do not really see any problems there.” Marx is the President of the German Bishops’ Conference. As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Marx also said “yes,” he could imagine the creation of a rite for homosexual couples to be blessed in the Church. This “encouragement” from priests which he called for might include some sort of “liturgical” recognition of their union. But “how this would be done publicly, in a liturgical form,” is “another question...that is where one has to be reticent and also reflect upon that in a good way.” After Catholic News Agency’s initial report on Marx’s comments, his office contacted the outlet and said they had mistranslated part of what he said. The cardinal’s office sent CNA “a request for correction of [its] translation of the interview in question, expressing concern that CNA's translation constitutes a false reference and does not properly reflect the position of Cardinal Marx.” The cardinal’s office maintains that rather than saying “yes,” there is a possibility of liturgical “blessing” of gay unions, he answered the question in a more subtle way without giving an explicit “yes.” However, the German Bishops’ Conference doesn’t seem to deny the rest of his statements on how “one must encourage priests” to give encouragement to homosexual couples, which could include public blessings that would take a “liturgical” form. The cardinal’s staff asked that CNA change his answer about liturgically “blessing” gay unions to: “There are no general solutions and I think that would not be right, because we are talking about pastoral care for individual cases, and that applies to other areas as well, which we cannot regulate, where we have no sets of rules.” Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has also spoken out against Marx’s proposal. “Any such ‘blessing rite’ would cooperate in a morally forbidden act, no matter how sincere the persons seeking the blessing,” wrote Chaput. He explained such a “blessing” would encourage people to continue living in a way the Church considers gravely sinful and spiritually damaging, and therefore would be uncharitable. “There is no love – no charity – without truth, just as there is no real mercy separated from a framework of justice informed and guided by truth,” he wrote. “Creating confusion around important truths of our faith, no matter how positive the intention, only makes a difficult task more difficult.” “There are two principles we need to remember,” Chaput wrote. “First, we need to treat all people with the respect and pastoral concern they deserve as children of God with inherent dignity. This emphatically includes persons with same-sex attraction. Second, there is no truth, no real mercy, and no authentic compassion, in blessing a course of action that leads persons away from God.” “This in no way is a rejection of the persons seeking such a blessing, but rather a refusal to ignore what we know to be true about the nature of marriage, the family, and the dignity of human sexuality,” he explained. “Jesus said the truth will make us free. Nowhere did he suggest it will make us comfortable.” Cordes has a history of defending the Church’s moral teaching. Marx, one of the pope’s nine main advisors, said in 2016 that same-sex relationships have “worth” which must be recognized by the Church.
Virginia: Muslim gets 20 years for joining ISIS, says they studied Islam for 8 hours every day  “I didn’t agree with their ideology. Our daily life was basically prayer, eating, and learning about the religion for about eight hours.” Imagine spending all that time studying Islam and yet still misunderstanding its true, peaceful message. We can only hope that learned imams such as Pope Francis and H.R. McMaster will go to Virginia forthwith and explain to Mohamad Jamal Khweis the proper understanding of the Religion of Peace. “Virginia man Mohamad Jamal Khweis sentenced to 20 years in prison for joining ISIS,” by Justin Carissimo, CBS News, October 27, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann): A 28-year-old man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after he was convicted of providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Justice Department said Friday. Mohamad Jamal Khweis from Alexandria, Virginia, was convicted by a federal jury in June. The Justice Department said Khweis left the U.S. in 2015 and eventually crossed into Syria through Turkey late that year. Khweis spent 2.5 months as a member of ISIS in northern Syria. In 2016, he surrendered to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq and was eventually turned over to U.S. authorities, the department said. … The department said Khweis used encrypted devices and mobile applications to hide his activity. After joining the militant group, he agreed to be a suicide bomber, prosecutors said…. “I didn’t agree with their ideology,” Khweis said in an interview with Kurdistan24 in 2016. “Our daily life was basically prayer, eating, and learning about the religion for about eight hours.” Kweis graduated from Alexandria’s Thomas Edison High School in 2007, where friends described him as “one of the guys.” “He wasn’t someone who was an outcast or something like that — he was one of the guys,” Harrison Weinhold told CBS News in March 2016. “There wasn’t anything that would lead me to believe that this was, like, on the radar, that he was just going to go join ISIS.” Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
A colossal Neptunian storm just vanished before our eyes  You don’t have to look far for fresh news about Mars, Saturn, or Jupiter these days, but Neptune doesn’t always get the same kind of attention. The big frigid blue ball is the farthest planet from the Sun — since we don’t count Pluto as a planet anymore — and it hasn’t been studied with the same intensity of many of the others. Thankfully the Hubble Space Telescope hasn’t lost interest in the distant planet, because it just captured one of Neptunes massive storms losing steam as it roars across the planet. Storms on Neptune appear as giant dark ovals, a bit like Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. However, unlike Jupiter’s centuries-old storm, Neptune’s hurricane-like weather events only last a few years at a time before eventually dissipating. Of course, that’s not to say the storms are insignificant — many are large enough to swallow and entire continent here on Earth — so watching one breathe its dying gasps is still a special sight. The planet, which NASA says is the windiest in our Solar System, hosts regular storms which appear as large spots on its surface, but scientists are still at a loss as to how they actually occur. “We have no evidence of how these vortices are formed or how fast they rotate,” Agustín Sánchez-Lavega of the University of the Basque Country in Spain explains. “It is most likely that they arise from an instability in the sheared eastward and westward winds.” The observation of this particular storm dying out is significant because it’s the very first time one of Neptune’s storms has been observed in such a way. It also goes against everything that scientists thought they knew about how forms on Neptune live and die. “It looks like we’re capturing the demise of this dark vortex, and it’s different from what well-known studies led us to expect,” said Michael H. Wong of the University of California at Berkeley says. “Their dynamical simulations said that anticyclones under Neptune’s wind shear would probably drift toward the equator. We thought that once the vortex got too close to the equator, it would break up and perhaps create a spectacular outburst of cloud activity.” But this storm stayed its course, dying out in a horizontal path that didn’t bring it towards the Neptunian equator at all, forcing scientists to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new theory on the planet’s weather habits.
Google Was ‘Working To Get Hillary Clinton Elected’  Tucker Carlson just blew the cover off the 2016 election influence charade, after he read an internal email on Monday night’s show from a senior Google employee who admitted to using company resources to make a “silent donation” to a liberal group that was creating ads and donating funds to bus Latinos to voting stations during the 2016 election in key swing states, in an effort to help Hillary Clinton win. The email was sent by the former head of Google’s multicultural marketing department, Eliana Mario, on November 9, 2016. “That email was subsequently forwarded by two Google VP’s to more staff members throughout the company,” says Carlson, adding “In her email, Mario touts Google’s multi-faceted efforts to boost Hispanic turnout in the election. She noticed that Latino voters did record-breaking numbers, especially in states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona – the last of which she describes as “a key state for us.” She brags that the company used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions, with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election.” Elsewhere in the email Mario says “Google supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states .” Hillary the Other Woman Dolly Kyle Best Price: $3.06 Buy New $8.93 (as of 01:15 EDT - Details) She describes this assistance as a “silent donation” Mario then says that Google helped Voto Latino create ad campaigns to promote those rides. Now officially Voto Latino is a non-partisan entity, but that is a sham. Voto Latino is vocally partisan. Recently the group declared that Hispanics – ALL Hispanics are in President Trump’s “crosshairs.” They said they plan to respond to this by registering another million additional Hispanic voters in the next Presidential cycle. … It was, in effect, an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. … In the end, Google was disappointed. As Mario herself conceded “ultimately after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. –Tucker Carlson Watch:  So it looks like @Google executives have been caught red-handed trying to throw the election to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Maybe that’s why they refused to appear before Congress last week?https://t.co/1YELagt8hH — Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) September 11, 2018 This, of course, isn’t the first evidence of Google doing all they could to help Hillary win the election. In an April 15, 2014 email from Google’s then-Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt found in the WikiLeaked Podesta emails, titled “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign,” Schmidt tells Cheryl Mills that “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better. This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all.” While there are numerous curious nuances in the plan, presented below in its entirety, the one section that caught our – and Wikileaks’ attention – is the following which implicitly suggests Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones: Guilty as Sin: Uncover... Edward Klein Best Price: $2.30 Buy New $3.99 (as of 12:05 EDT - Details) Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.) As a reminder, in late October of 2016 it was revealed that just days prior to the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt had sent another email in which he expressed his eagerness to “fund” the campaign efforts and wants to be a “head outside advisor.” In the email from John Podesta to Robby Mook we learned that: I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on t Another email from February 2015 suggested that the Google Chairman remained active in its collaboration with the Clinton campaign: John Podesta wrote that Eric Schmidt met with HR “about the business he proposes to do with the campaign. He says he’s met with HRC” and adds that “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip” Meanwhile, according to a Breitbart report by Allum Bokhari, “By inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate, search engines like Google can shift the opinions of undecided voters by up to 43.4 percent, according to new research by a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and reported exclusively by Breitbart News.” The lead author of the study, Dr. Robert Epstein, has previously conducted research into what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). This research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic. His latest research looks at how search engines can affect voters by suggesting negative or positive search terms when a political candidate’s name is entered into the search bar. Dr. Epstein’s research found that when negative search terms are suggested for a candidate, it can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion. –Breitbart So, despite Google’s best efforts to help Clinton win the election, it simply wasn’t enough. Meanwhile, Google has yet to answer why their search results for the word “Idiot” are vastly different from DuckDuckGo: VS: Reprinted with permission from Zero Hedge. The Best of Tyler Durden
Kavanaugh Nomination Is Exploding in Trump’s Face  The president is doubling down on an increasingly risky candidate. Justice Anthony Kennedy gave President Donald Trump the biggest political gift possible when he announced his resignation in the spring. Even though not everything that’s gone wrong is Trump’s fault, he has managed to make a complete hash of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to fill the empty seat on the court. It’s a good example of how badly Trump does his job more than a year and a half into his administration.  To begin with, Trump has outsourced his judicial nominations to outside, party-aligned groups, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. That included an unusually central role for the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo.  That wasn’t entirely a Trump mistake. His decision during the campaign to release a list of potential justices drafted by Leo reflected the reality-TV star’s weakness as a presidential candidate. The party was worried that Trump might turn out not to be a conservative; to reassure them, he publicly committed to their top goal. In some ways, that’s successful coalition-building, and what he’s done in office is just keeping his promises on judges.  Still, it’s one thing to form an alliance with conservatives; it’s another to turn the whole process over to them. We don’t know to what extent Kavanaugh was Trump’s choice and to what extent he was manipulated into choosing him. We have plenty of evidence that Trump is easily manipulated by those around him, and that Kavanaugh is a good fit for Trump’s biases: The judge has Ivy League credentials and he passes Trump’s cut-of-his-jib test by looking the part. 1  Either way, Kavanaugh was a poor choice from the point of view of good presidenting. The judge was certain to be a highly controversial selection from the start. After all, he had been a highly controversial selection for his current circuit court seat, eventually getting confirmed with only four Democratic votes after a long delay. Kavanaugh is a longtime Republican operative, a hard-liner during both the Vince Foster and Monica Lewinsky investigations. Nominating him, rather than a conservative with similar views but a different background, was bound to stir up trouble. It was also true, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly warned, that normal disclosure of Kavanaugh’s record, especially his service during the George W. Bush administration, was going to delay confirmation even more. Senate Republicans dealt with that problem by deciding to not bother with any Kavanaugh documents that couldn’t be produced rapidly, which further riled up the Democrats and gave that party some good talking points. 2   Sometimes it’s worth taking risks. Presidents who shy away from anything that’s not a sure thing can fail to exploit opportunities. It’s just very hard to see any upside for Trump in choosing Kavanaugh instead of a safer, but still very conservative, other option. 3  When serious charges of sexual misconduct were raised against Kavanaugh, Trump decided to stick with him instead of moving on to another candidate. It’s still not clear that Kavanaugh’s nomination is doomed, but it’s certainly in severe trouble. Losing a high-profile fight is always going to hurt a president, which is why they should take care to avoid high-risk, low-reward conflicts. But there’s an art to minimizing damage. And Trump hasn’t learned it yet.  For one thing, the president has made this an extremely high-profile episode by stringing out the process as the accusations against Kavanaugh gained credibility and even multiplied. Whether that matters in terms of public opinion for Trump is unclear, but it certainly isn’t good for any Republican senators caught up in the middle, along with any other candidates who have had to weigh in only to find the facts as they knew them constantly changing.  It’s also the case that the more negative information comes out, the more it appears that the Trump and his White House staff failed to do their jobs in vetting and managing Kavanaugh. If the nomination had been pulled right after Christine Blasey Ford made her initial assertions about Kavanaugh, the public might have concluded that it wasn’t Trump’s fault that a previously unaired accusation came to light.  Meanwhile, Trump’s behavior has been as erratic as ever. First he said that Brasey had to be heard; then he attacked her in terms that were a slur on all women who have been assaulted without immediately reporting it to the police, and he also blamed the Senate for not voting before she came forward. He sometimes praises Kavanaugh, but also let it be known that he thought the nominee had performed badly in his Fox News interview. The White House demanded a final up and down vote on Tuesday; by Wednesday, he was saying that the nomination would die if Kavanaugh didn’t do well before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The sum of all this has been, as in many other episodes, that Trump and his White House are a gang that can’t shoot straight and that he’s eager to blame his allies and lash out at his enemies in ugly ways when things go wrong.  A botched nomination matters because allies will be less likely to trust Trump, not just on Supreme Court choices, but on any initiative. And, for that matter, they’ll be less likely to trust him when he asserts that there’s nothing remaining for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to reveal. Trump’s professional reputation is already terrible, but everything counts. As the political scientist Richard Neustadt said, political elites are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating the president. Trump is hurting himself right now, and will have hurt himself more if Kavanaugh is not confirmed.  And yes, I call it the cut-of-his-jib test quite deliberately. It's no surprise that someone who hires based on what he thinks someone doing that job should look like, which seems to be based on hazy old-time Hollywood casting, would wind up with fewer women in his administration than any of his recent predecessors.  I've argued that too much disclosure is required, and that Democrats (and any wavering Republicans) had more than enough information to make up their mind. I still think that's true. But it did leave Republicans vulnerable to claims about transparency which were likely to be popular -- most people, and the entire press corps, love transparency -- and vulnerable to bombshells in the documentary record which hadn't been initially disclosed. In the event, that's not what's causing the trouble, but still it's an example of Trump taking needless risks.  Some have speculated that Kavanaugh would be especially likely to rule in Trump's favor if any cases stemming from the Robert Mueller investigation wind up at the high court. Perhaps. There are plenty of other partisan, conservative judges, and plenty of conservative judges who lean towards an expansive view of presidential powers. And if Kavanaugh is really an outlier on that issue, then he won't be in the majority on any future decision anyway. So, no, I don't think there's any good reason to think Kavanaugh would be especially helpful to Trump compared to others he could have selected.
The Islamization of the Public Schools  Muslims anxious to use schools and textbooks to proselytize for Islam have found a welcoming environment in American public schools that are indefatigably committed to multiculturalism. With the imperative to be “tolerant” robbing many educators of their ability to evaluate non-Western cultures critically, all too many public schools and individual teachers have proven to be susceptible to an organized campaign by U.S.-based Islamic organizations and their primary benefactor, Saudi Arabia, to present a view of Islam that whitewashes its violent history and intolerant doctrines. Many of the Islamic groups that vet American public school textbooks for the accuracy of their material on Islamic doctrine and history are Saudi-funded. They make sure that the Islamic instruction in these textbooks presents a picture of Islam that is so pristine and whitewashed that it sometimes crosses the boundary from mere pro-Muslim bias into outright Islamic proselytizing. The taboo about teaching religion in the public schools, so zealously established and guarded against Christian prayer by the ACLU and the Supreme Court over the last few decades, is increasingly set aside in American public schools, as presentations on Islam frequently cross the line between teaching facts about the religion and teaching the religion as fact. 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 * Email 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. We have seen this just recently, when Mountain Ridge Middle School in Gerrardstown, West Virginia instructed students to copy out the Islamic profession of faith (shahada), ostensibly as a calligraphy exercise. Parent Rich Penkoski recounted: “I saw the assignment of writing the Shahada in Arabic. Their excuse was calligraphy. I was like, ‘Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!’ First of all, calligraphy was invented in China 3,000 years prior to Muhammad. The fact that they were trying to get my daughter to write that disturbed me. I said, ‘That is not happening. My daughter is not doing that.’ My daughter told me that if she didn’t do the assignment, then she was going to get a [detention] slip.” Branch contradicted Penkoski, claiming: “The teacher has told her class several times that this is a study of world religions and that she is not trying to advocate for any religion over another. She has told her class that if they had questions about religious beliefs, that those conversations should take place with their parents.” He said that Christianity and Judaism were given “equitable treatment” in the same class. Penkoski’s daughter, Brielle, however, said that the class spent much less time on Christianity and Judaism than it did on Islam. Penkoski pointed out that the accompanying exercises were also less extensive for Christianity and Judaism than they were for Islam: “Notice no Bible verses, no reciting the Ten Commandments or the Lord’s Prayer. [There’s] no practicing writing in Hebrew as compared to the Islamic packet.” This stealth proselytizing is nationwide. Last January, parents filed a federal complaint against Chatham Middle School in Chatham, New Jersey, for forcing students to watch videos that proselytized for Islam. One video, according to the complaint, describes “Christians and Jews as ‘infidels’ and prais[es] Muhammad in gruesome detail for slaughtering them.” Parent Libby Hilsenrath characterized the accompanying assignment as “replete with biased, chastising statements encouraging the students…to follow the Quran and become Muslim.” Another video, according to Hilsenrath, depicts a Muslim boy teaching his non-Muslim friend about Islam, after which both go to “learn how to pray.” The complaint adds: “Due to the fact that these doctrinal messages calling for conversion to Islam were included in video format with vivid images and text, they possess greater communicative impact and are more likely to be accepted by the students viewing them than information that is spoken in a classroom or even written in a book.” These accounts are not singular. High school students in Newton, Massachusetts in October 2017, according to Fox News, “pretended to be Muslims in the ‘Islamic’ city of Jerusalem as part of a class assignment.” The assignment also included a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel article. Judicial Watch Senior Investigator Bill Marshall remarked: “Citizens of Newton have been waging a minor war with school officials for years now, trying to get them to use balanced curriculum in their teaching materials on the subject of Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Dr. Bill Saxton, chairman of Citizens for National Security, said that the assignment was a “purposeful attempt to indoctrinate our impressionable high-schoolers with the ‘virtues’ of Islam at the expense of Christianity, Judaism and other religions.” Meanwhile, Georgia parent Michelle King noted in 2016: “My daughter had to learn the Shahid and the Five Pillars of Islam, which is what you learn to convert,” while not teaching Christianity or the Ten Commandments. One homework assignment in Walton County, Georgia, stated: “Allah is the [blank] worshiped by Jews & Christians,” with students having to fill in the blank with “same God.” Parent Steve Alsup added: “It seemed like half the truth to me, they didn’t talk about the extreme Islamics.” Kim Embry, a spokesperson for Walton County Public Schools, said revealingly: “We are teaching the same stuff that everyone else is teaching.” Indeed. In 2015, students at Spring Hill Middle School in Spring Hill, Tennessee were forced as part of an assignment to write, “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is his prophet.” Mother Joy Ellis remarked: “This is a seventh grade state standard, and will be on the TCAP. I didn’t have a problem with the history of Islam being taught, but to go so far as to make my child write the Shahada, is unacceptable.” Another mother, Brandee Porterfield, observed: “It really did bother me that they skipped the whole chapter on the rise of Christianity and they spent three weeks just studying Islam….I spoke with the teacher and the principal,” she said. “They are not going to learn any other religion, doctrines or creeds and they are not going back over this chapter. Even though they discuss Christianity a little bit during the Middle Ages, they are not ever going to have this basis for Judaism or Christianity later.” Maury County Director of Schools, Chris Marczak, defended the curriculum: “It is our job as a public school system to educate our students on world history in order to be ready to compete in a global society, not to endorse one religion over another or indoctrinate.” Porterfield, however, shot back: “They are not going over anything else. So for the students to have to memorize this prayer, it does seem like it is indoctrination.” None of the encroachments of Islam in public schools should come as any real surprise. Multiculturalism, after all, amounts to respect for every culture except one’s own. The embarrassment, regret, and even self-hatred that has been inculcated in American public school students for decades now has created a vacuum, which Muslims have shown themselves to be all too eager to fill. Certainly, those who are furthering the Islamization of the schools would deny that they would like to see Islamic law implemented in the United States, and would indignantly reject the claim that their efforts were furthering that end in any way. They would say that they are doing it all for tolerance, pluralism, and multiculturalism. Unfortunately, in the end, it amounts to the same thing. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Willfully Ignorant FBI Can't Discover Motive For Muslim Jihadi Who Drove Into Propane Tanks At Travis Air Force Base  “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point,” Ragan said. That means they didn’t find an ISIS membership card in his wallet, or lots of phone calls to Iraq or Syria, or a note from Kazi reading, “I did this for Allah and Islam. Allahu akbar.” Of course, even if they had found those things, given their track record of denial and deception, they may still be searching for Kazi’s motive. In any case, a larger point is being lost here. And that is that there is a war going on. We know that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups have called upon Muslims in the U.S. to try to kill military personnel and police, as well as civilians. We know that Kazi, with all the propane and gas tanks in his car, was clearly trying to set off a major fire that would kill more people than just himself. Even if he wasn’t on the phone to Baghdadi, the likelihood is that when a Muslim drives into a U.S. Air Force Base with a car full of incendiaries, probably this has something to do with the global jihad. The FBI’s bafflement here is part of its deep, deep corruption. The FBI doesn’t acknowledge that there is a global jihad, or that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. It doesn’t admit that there is a war going on, and treats each act of Islamic terror as if it were a separate and discrete criminal event, unrelated to all the others. So, each time something like this happens, they’re back at Square One, trying to figure out motive. It’s as if the U.S. Army stopped to interrogate every German soldier who crashed through the Ardennes Forest at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, to see if each one’s actions had anything to do with the German Army and Adolf Hitler’s war aims. This willful ignorance leads to a diversion and waste of resources that is astronomical and catastrophic. “Motive a mystery in car explosion at Travis Air Force Base,” by Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2018: Federal investigators on Friday said that the person who drove a burning minivan filled with propane and gas tanks into the front gate of Travis Air Force Base in Northern California was a 51-year-old Bay Area man originally from India. Hafiz Kazi was a legal permanent resident and had lived in the United States since 1993, said Sean Ragan, FBI special agent in charge of the Sacramento field office. Kazi had lived in the Bay Area, including Sausalito, Ragan said, but his most recent place of residence was not known. Investigators have yet to determine a motive for the Wednesday night attack or evidence that anyone else was involved. “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point,” Ragan said, adding that aspect of the case was still being investigated. “Now the question is, why. Why was he there? What led him there? And we don’t know answers to that, quite frankly.” Kazi drove the Kia minivan through the front gate of the military base, which is near Fairfield, around 7 p.m. Wednesday. Security personnel saw flames inside the van, which crashed shortly after going through the gate, Ragan said. Emergency responders initially did not know if it was an attack or some sort of mishap. But when they opened the doors to the minivan they found five propane tanks, three plastic one-gallon gas cans, several lighters, three phones and a gym bag with personal items, Ragan said…. The dead man’s religious beliefs and affiliation are not known at this point, said Ragan, who debunked a rumor that some sort of “jihad” video was found on Kazi’s phone…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
America's Immigration Voice.  The war for dominance in the Middle East, following the crushing of ISIS, appears about to commence in Syria—with NATO allies America and Turkey on opposing sides. Turkey is moving armor and troops south to Syria's border enclave of Afrin, occupied by Kurds, to drive them out, and then drive the Syrian Kurds out of Manbij further south as well. Says President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, " We will destroy all terror nests, one by one, in Syria, starting from Afrin and Manbij." For Erdogan, the Kurdish YPG, the major U.S. ally in Syria, is an arm of the Kurdish PKK in Turkey, which we and the Turks have designated as a terrorist organization. While the Kurds were our most effective allies against ISIS in Syria, Turkey views them as a mortal peril and intends to deal with that threat. If Erdogan is serious, a clash with the U.S. is coming, as our Kurdish allies occupy most of Syria's border with Turkey. Moreover, the U.S. has announced plans to create a 30,000-man Border Security Force of Kurds and Arabs to keep ISIS out of Syria. Erdogan has branded this BSF a "terror army," and President Bashar Assad of Syria has called BSF members "traitors." This U.S. plan to create a BSF inside Syria, Damascus declared , "represents a blatant attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and a flagrant violation of international law." Does not the Syrian government have a point? Now that ISIS has been driven out of Raqqa and Syria, by what authority do U.S. forces remain to arm troops to keep the Damascus government from reimposing its authority on its own territory? Secretary of State Tillerson gave Syria the news Wednesday. The U.S. troop commitment to Syria, he said, is now open-ended. Our goals: Guarantee al-Qaida and ISIS do not return and set up sanctuary; cope with rising Iranian influence in Damascus; and pursue the removal of Bashar Assad's ruthless regime. But who authorized this strategic commitment, of indefinite duration, in Syria, when near two decades in Afghanistan have failed to secure that nation against the return of al-Qaida and ISIS? Again and again, the American people have said they do not want to be dragged into Syria's civil war. Donald Trump won the presidency on a promise of no more unnecessary wars. Have the American people been had again? Will they support a clash with NATO ally Turkey, to keep armed Kurds on Turkey's border, when the Turks regard them as terrorists? Are we prepared for a shooting war with a Syrian army, backed by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to hold onto a fourth of Syria's territory in alliance with Kurds? The U.S. coalition in Syria said this week the BSF will be built up "over the next several years" and "be stationed along the borders ... to include portions of the Euphrates river valley and international borders to the east and north." Remarkable: A U.S.-created border army is going to occupy and control long stretches of Syria's borders with Turkey and Iraq, over Syria's objections. And the U.S. military will stand behind the BSF. Are the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria really up to that task, should the Turks decide to cleanse the Syrian border of Kurds, or should the Syrian regime decide to take back territory occupied by the Kurds? Who sanctioned this commitment to a new army, which, if Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies, and the Turks, do not all back down, risks a major U.S. war with no allies but the Kurds? As for Syria's Kurds casting their lot with the Americans, one wonders: Did they not observe what happened when their Iraqi cousins, after helping us drive ISIS out of Mosul, were themselves driven out of Kirkuk by the Iraqi army, as their U.S. allies watched? In the six-year Syrian civil war, which may be about to enter a new phase, America faces a familiar situation. While our "allies" and adversaries have vital interests there, we do not. The Assads have been in power for the lifetime of most Americans. And we Americans have never shown a desire to fight there. Assad has a vital interest: preservation of his family regime and the reunification of his country. The Turks have a vital interest in keeping armed Kurds out of their border regions adjacent to their own Kurdish minority, which seeks greater independence. The Israelis and Saudi royals want the U.S. to keep Iran from securing a land bridge from Tehran to Damascus to Lebanon. The U.S. War Party wants us to smash Iran and remain in the Middle East forever to assure the hegemony of its favorites. Have the generals taking us into Syria told the president how and when, if ever, they plan to get us out? COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books and are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of His latest book, published May 9, is
NASA releases images captured at a record-breaking 3.79 billion miles from Earth  NASA has a whole lot of fancy image-gathering hardware on Earth and in space, and we’ve seen countless of stunning snapshots taken from here on Earth as well as nearby planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The pictures are often gorgeously detailed eye candy, but the latest batch of images from the space agency is remarkable for an entirely different reason. Captured by NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft, the images were gathered at a greatest distance from Earth than any in the history of mankind. So, just how far is “the farthest ever”? Right around 3.79 billion miles. Yeah, it’s kind of crazy. There are three images in total, each focusing on a different distant object. The subjects include the ‘Wishing Well’ star cluster as well as two large objects in the Kuiper Belt which have never been observed from such a distance before. “New Horizons has long been a mission of firsts — first to explore Pluto, first to explore the Kuiper Belt, fastest spacecraft ever launched,” New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern, of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, notes in a statement. “And now, we’ve been able to make images farther from Earth than any spacecraft in history.” The images, as seen above (Kuiper Belt objects) and below (Wishing Well cluster), are somewhat grainy and not the most detailed we’ve seen from NASA, but that doesn’t make the feat any less remarkable. New Horizons originally launched way back in early 2006, and it the spacecraft has made close passes of a number of planets during its more than a decade of cruising through our Solar System. Its primary mission was set to last roughly 10 years, but was extended once it became clear that the spacecraft was healthy enough to continue sending back observations for a while longer. Its new extended mission will wrap up in early 2021 after it performs a number of flybys of large objects in the Kuiper Belt that scientists want to learn more about. However, that might not be the last we hear from New Horizons, as its power source could continue to provide life into 2026 and beyond. If it makes it that long, NASA plans to use the spacecraft to study the outer heliosphere.
Stop Appeasing the Democrats  Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. From the playground to geopolitics, appeasing an aggressor invites only more aggression. This timeless truth of human nature is one that we moderns can’t seem to accept. We reflexively assume that a rational accommodation or concessions will be reciprocated by those proven to be ready to use any means necessary to achieve their aims, no matter how amoral, unfair, or vicious. Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court illustrate that this false assumption leads only to more demands, and ultimately to defeat. The last-minute accusations from Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who claims that decades ago Kavanaugh groped her at a high school party, and Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a frat party at Yale, are transparent acts of aggression against the judge and Republicans, one engineered by the Democrats. Senator Dianne Feinstein sat for months on Ford’s letter and then––just as the Dems did in 1991with Anita Hill’s charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas’s during his hearings––released it only when Kavanaugh appeared to be heading for confirmation. Feinstein still hasn’t given the Judiciary Committee an unredacted copy of the letter. A few weeks after Ford went public, and after Kavanaugh said he had dairies from that summer detailing his whereabouts, The New Yorker published Ramirez’s account of a drunken party filled with obscene drinking games where he exposed himself to Ramirez. Given that the Democrats had made public in advance their intention to derail the hearings and confirmation by any means possible, the timing of both sexual assault charges reeks of premeditated contrivance intended to delay confirmation as long as possible. But in the face of this naked ploy to bork Kavanaugh and derail the confirmation process for partisan advantage, the Republicans seem to be reverting to their customary preemptive cringe. All the Dems have to do is squeal “sexism” and Republicans start negotiating and offering concessions. Of course, after each concession comes another demand. First the Dems demanded that Ford, a long-time Democrat activist, “be heard.” So last week the Chairman of Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, granted another deadline extension for Ford to decide whether to testify before the Committee on Monday. Senator Dianne Feinstein calls these concessions “bullying deadlines.” As Feinstein put it, “Show some heart. Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.” Ford doesn’t “feel” like she can testify on Monday because she’s afraid of flying, despite offers from the Committee to travel to her in California. Then she feared for her life because of death threats ––threats also made to Kavanaugh, his wife and two young daughters–– so she now demands enhanced security measures. The Committee caved and moved the date to Thursday. So of course, Grassley having been intimidated into giving Ford a chance to address the Committee, Ramirez and her handlers are now demanding the same privilege. “Creepy Lawyer” for porn star Stormy Daniels claims to represent a woman who also should be allowed to testify to the Senate Committee about Kavanaugh’s partying habits while at Yale. We’ll have to see whether Grassley can find the stomach to put an end to the farce of allowing unsubstantiated charges from Democrat activists to waste the Committee’s time. Ford and Dianne Feinstein also keep demanding an FBI investigation, even though no federal crime is being alleged, and any investigation 36 years after the offense is impossible. Ford can’t remember where and when the alleged assault took place, nor how she got to or went home from the party where it allegedly occurred. Her own details of the event don’t jibe (Four boys or three? One girl or two?). She told no one about the assault until 30 years later. A “lifelong friend” whom Ford claims was at the party has denied any knowledge of the it, and says she’s never met Kavanaugh. Another friend who reported that the school was abuzz with gossip about the attack (which apparently took place during summer break), retracted her statement. The two men Ford named as possible witnesses to the assault have contradicter her claims under oath. And the accused Judge Kavanaugh also under oath vehemently denies the charges. Given that 36 years have passed since the incident, and the accuser’s memory is so hazy and short on coherent details, the FBI has nothing to investigate. Ramirez’s charge is even flimsier. Here’s a catalogue from the Daily Wire: 1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party. 2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez’s claims. 3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez's allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh’s character. 4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident. 5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself. 6. A woman who claims she was “best friends” with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be “politically motivated.” 7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes. 8. Ramirez wasn’t even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer. 9. Ramirez admits there are holes in her memory due to how much she drank at the party. 10. People who knew Ramirez after her time at Yale say that she never once mentioned the incident — until Kavanaugh's nomination was pending. No law enforcement agency, let alone the FBI, would waste its time with an allegation of a crime decades in the past, and so patently incoherent and lacking in evidence. The “FBI investigation” is another delaying tactic. Ford has finally agreed to testify, set for Thursday for now. But it’s unclear whether Grassley has granted Ford any of her preposterous conditions for testifying: She will take questions from the Committee, but not from outside lawyers, who might not be as gentle as politicians with one eye on the polls. Only one camera can be in the room. Kavanaugh must testify first, a grotesque inversion of our bedrock principle that an accused has the right to confront his accuser’s charges. He can’t be in the room with her, apparently because she’s still traumatized and may start experiencing flashbacks. So much for “I am woman, hear me roar.” Grassley shouldn’t cave on these conditions. They all comprise the old tactic of serially escalating demands that cannot be satisfied in order to compel your enemy to give in. That Grassley and the Republicans would even participate in this absurd show trial is testimony to how deeply the progressive ideological narrative has burrowed into our social and political life. If Ford actually testifies on Thursday, or Ramirez is granted the same concession, nothing material will be gained. Her accusation will not be proved true or false. We will learn nothing about Kavanaugh that makes him any less eminently qualified for the Supreme Court, nothing that can add to the thousands of pages of documents already presented to the Committee, or the hundreds of hours of the judge’s testimony before rabid partisans and office-seekers. But vetting Kavanaugh’s qualifications isn’t the point. The point is to delay confirmation by slandering Kavanaugh and baiting the Republicans into appearing to abuse victims of sexual assault. Why? Facing his likely confirmation, the Dems, egged on by the mainstream media––especially The New Yorker, which published a story too badly sourced even for The New York Times–– are desperately attempting to obstruct and delay the process until after the midterm elections, when they hope they will retake the Senate and thus stop any more Constitutionalist judges from being confirmed to the Court for the rest of Trump’s term. The Democrats have stooped so low with these smears because they know the stakes. The courts and especially the Supreme Court have been critical to the progressives’ program since Woodrow Wilson. The biggest obstacle to the progressive dream of government controlled and managed by a technocratic oligarchy has been the Constitution. Its divided and balanced powers were designed precisely to rein in overreaching ambition and concentrations of power. Hence the Constitutional order must be subverted by the Supreme Court and its unaccountable justices enjoying lifelong tenure. But if Kavanaugh is confirmed, there will be five reliably Constitutionalist justices on the bench, who are unlikely to tolerate judicial usurpation of Congress’s law-making powers. That’s why this current nomination is a hill the Dems are willing to beclown themselves on. Given how obviously partisan and hypocritical this ploy is––doesn’t Keith Ellison’s accuser deserve to be heard and believed too? ––why has Grassley so far allowed himself to be played by the Dems? Because Republicans fear the backlash from all those women voters who presumably agree with the fundamentalist feminists, and insist that every accusation of sexual assault, no matter how much it’s unsupported by corroborating evidence or even plausibility, must be believed. This contention itself is an expression of the radical feminist narrative of innate male feral sexuality that makes them sexual predators. The irony is that today’s feminists have been willing to sacrifice the earlier narrative of female power and agency that had been stifled by traditional views of the sexes and their capabilities. Instead, now women are Victorian hothouse flowers too delicate to make their way through their lives without the paternal federal government protecting them with its coercive power. Women have exchanged one form of dependence, and one double standard for another. The Dems are using Ford and Ramirez as part of the Democrats’ transparently dishonest delaying tactics because they know that most Republicans have accepted this duplicitous feminist narrative and fear challenging it. Especially after the recent spate of sexual assault charges––many of them true, some false, others contested–– politicians consider bucking the narrative to be as politically suicidal as proposing to reform Social Security and Medicare. It’s the new third rail of American politics, one that transcends party affiliation. Hence the widespread virtue-signaling on the part even of conservative writers who preface their comments about Ford and Ramirez with prologues full of truisms about how horrible sexual assault is, how its self-proclaimed victims “must be heard,” and how churlish and sexist it is to question the truth of any charge. Grown-ups know all that and don’t have to be reminded every time the subject arises. The Dems know that most Republicans come to this conflict with the huge disadvantage that results from accepting your opponent’s dubious ideology and dishonest narrative. The progressive party can dare the Republicans to ignore the endless specious demands, stop the show-trial, and proceed to a vote on Kavanaugh, because they know the Republicans, fearful of the “optics,” will cave. They know that the eleven male Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee dread the #MeToo movement casting them as knuckle-dragging Neanderthal sexists who want to “silence” the accuser with their “cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor,” as one Ford lawyer has said. Republicans still don’t get that no amount of appeasement will stop the left from demonizing them anyway. Just ask Boy Scout Mitt Romney, who was savaged for his innocuous “binders full of women.” And don’t forget, the old sorta, kinda moderate Democrats like Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who now have joined the crowd of trendoid socialists armed with torches and pitch-forks, will go along because they’re frightened of their party’s increasingly rabid left-wing base. What can we do to end these confirmation circuses? Just stop holding them. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate’s power to give “advice and consent” to the president regarding his nominee must entail days of televised hearings replete with caterwauling protestors and grandstanding Senators who’ve already made-up their minds. Invite written questions from the Senate, then schedule one day for the nominee to respond. Don’t put it on television, but make public a written transcript. Remove the television cameras, and attention-craving, politically ambitious Senators will be gone like a cool breeze. For now, Grassley needs to end this farce if Ford doesn’t show up on Thursday or continues to negotiate for more delays and concessions. No more concessions. No more delays. No more ceding control of the process to Democrat Party lawyers. Don’t give Ramirez the time of day. Hold the vote no later than Thursday, or Friday if Ford does show up. Make Senators go on the record with their votes, and hold them to account in November. Put to the test the Dems’ claims that a critical mass of women, many of them with sons they don’t want falsely accused, believes the fundamentalist feminist narrative and will vote accordingly. To borrow Churchill’s definition of appeasement, stop feeding the alligator in the hopes that you will be eaten last. For fifty years the Democrats have proven they will demonize conservatives as racist and sexist no matter how often they bow and scrape. How about acting on principle for a change and shoot the alligator.
America's Immigration Voice.  Police identify suspect in death of 2 Ohio police officers by SARAH WYNN, WSYX/WTTE Saturday, February 10th 2018 COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX/WTTE) - The Westerville Division of Police has identified the suspect in the death of two Westerville police officers as Quentin Lamar Smith. According to police, a call came into the Westerville Emergency Dispatch 911 center Saturday as a hang-up. When officers responded to Cross Wind Drive, shots were fired at them, killing Officer Anthony Morelli and Officer Eric Joering. The Westerville city manager said Joering, 39, spent 17 years on the force. Morelli, 54, had 30 years with Westerville police. The City of #Westerville suffered a tremendous loss today. @WestervillePD Officer Anthony Morelli and Officer Eric Joering were killed in the line of duty. Please keep our first responders and the officers’ families in your thoughts and prayers. #WestervilleStrong pic.twitter.com/GcN3Y4FRvr — City of Westerville (@tellwesterville) February 11, 2018 Two white police officers were murdered when they went to a domestic violence call--someone had called 911, and the call had been cut off in the middle. The Latest: Police identify suspect in 2 officers' shootings By The Associated Press WESTERVILLE, Ohio — Feb 10, 2018 Police in Ohio have identified a 30-year-old man as a suspect in the fatal shooting of two police officers in a Columbus suburb, and released reports showing authorities have had several dealings with him, some involving alleged domestic violence. Westerville police late Saturday confirmed that the suspect is Quentin Lamar Smith. Authorities released incident reports showing police had been to his home or had dealings with him several times since 2017. In a Nov. 29 incident, police say his wife, 33-year-old Candace Smith, asked about protection orders because she and Quentin Smith weren't getting along. She accused her husband of threatening to kill her, their daughter and himself. She told police he had a gun. Police say officers Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli were shot around noon after responding to a "potential domestic situation." [More] The suspect, alive and injured, has been named as Quentin Lamar Smith:Neither the police nor the AP has published a picture of Quentin Lamar Smith, but internet detectives have found this guy as the likely perp: Arrest Information: Name: Quentin Lamar Smith Location: Westerville, Ohio Age: 30 years Processing Date: 06-22-2017 Booking Charge: PROHIBITED ACTS A reminder that the Associated Press has an official policy of "not reporting race" when it's not "relevant". I can't think of anything less irrelevant than a black gunman shooting two white cops--after five years of the "Blacks Lives Matter" movement.
DOJ Unseals Indictment Involving Uranium One Scandal  This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge The Department of Justice unsealed an 11-count indictment on Friday to a former DoD intelligence analyst-turned uranium transportation executive who stands accused of a bribery and money laundering scheme involving a Russian nuclear official connected to the Uranium One deal. The indictment corroborates a November report by The Hill that an FBI mole deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry had gathered extensive evidence of the scheme. Mark Lambert, 54, of Mount Airy, Maryland, was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX. According to the indictment, beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. –DOJ While the indictment lists Lambert’s company as “Transportation Corporation A,” a simple search reveals that Lambert is the co-President of DAHER-TLI, “the leading front end freight forwarding company dedicated to Nuclear Cargo,” according to its website. In 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a letter to Lambert with findings that TLI had exported plutonium “in excess of the maximum quantity and type applied for and licensed,” and “exported Australian obligated material, which was not authorized under license conditions.” Prior to his 26 year tenure in the transportation industry – 20 of which have been with TLI, Mr. Lambert was an Arabic Linguist for the Navy for five years, and a Senior Intel Analyst for the Department of Defense (DoD) for three years. Lambert also speaks fluent Arabic and Farsi (Persian), along with French and Italian. The indictment against Lambert corroborates prior reporting by The Hill that an FBI mole buried deep within the Russian nuclear industry had gathered extensive evidence of a scheme involving bribes and kickbacks between Russian nuclear officials and TLI – which would have transported the U.S. uranium sold to Russia in the ’20 percent’ Uranium One deal. “The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.” Based on what the FBI knew – including evidence which purportedly includes a video of Russians preparing briefcases of bribe money – the Uranium One deal never should have gone through. Moreover, both Robert Mueller and current deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were directly involved – and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other Justice Department officials appear to be covering for them. In short, the FBI had ample evidence of the Russian bribery plot before the Obama administration approved the Uranium One deal thanks to their embedded mole in the Russian nuclear industry. The informant – outed as energy consultant William Campbell – was “threatened” by Obama admin AG Loretta Lynch to keep quiet with an iron-clad gag order, according to his attorney – former Reagan Justice Dept. official and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee Victoria Toensing. After Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-VA) demanded Campbell be allowed to testify in front of Congress, the gag order was lifted. Attorney General Jeff Sessions originally tried to claim that there was no connection between Uranium One and the nuclear transport bribery case, however several congressional republicans pushed back: “Attorney General Sessions seemed to say that the bribery, racketeering and money laundering offenses involving Tenex’s Vadim Mikerin occurred after the approval of the Uranium One deal by the Obama administration. But we know that the FBI’s confidential informant was actively compiling incriminating evidence as far back as 2009,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, (R-Fla.) told The Hill. “It is hard to fathom how such a transaction could have been approved without the existence of the underlying corruption being disclosed. I hope AG Sessions gets briefed about the CI and gives the Uranium One case the scrutiny it deserves,” added DeSantis, whose House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittees is one of the investigating panels. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a similar rebuke last week to Rosenstein, saying the deputy attorney general’s first response to the committee “largely missed the point” of the congressional investigations. “The essential question is whether the Obama Justice Department provided notice of the criminal activity of certain officials before the CFIUS approval of the Uranium One deal and other government decisions that enabled the Russians to trade nuclear materials in the U.S,” Grassley scolded.” Meanwhile, journalists John Solomon and journalist Sara Carter claim to have copies of the FBI informant’s evidence, while Carter issued an explosive report in late November laying out the players, the timeline, and the evidence at hand. “By the time the sale of Uranium One was approved by the Obama Administration, the FBI’s investigators had already gathered substantial evidence and the bureau was also aware of Russia’s intentions to enter the U.S. energy market and its desire to purchase a stake in American uranium,” Carter writes. Highlights: FBI mole William Campbell was a highly valued FBI asset – paid $51,000 by FBI officials at a celebration dinner in Chrystal City, VA, where Campbell’s attorney says they thanked him for his service. Campbell was required by the Russians, under threat, to launder large sums of money – which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian “nuclear money laundering apparatus” Campbell collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period Campbell uncovered a Russian plot to penetrate the Obama administration and gain approval for the Uranium One sale, including a 2010 email which describes “Russia’s intent on expanding its Uranium expansion in the United States.” “This is not just about bribery and kickbacks but about a U.S. company that was transporting yellow-cake for the Russians with our approval,” an unnamed U.S. Intelligence official told Carter, adding “This should raise serious questions. At the time everyone was concerned about Russia’s ties to Iran, we still are. And of course, Russia’s intentions and reach into the U.S. energy market.” Given Friday’s unsealed indictment, however it looks like the DOJ may have changed their tune on Campbell. If so, perhaps that “briefcase full of bribe money” video will finally see the light of day.
Caught on video: Gillum staffer makes racist statements and admits campaign is lying to voters  Caught on video: Gillum staffer makes racist statements and admits campaign is lying to voters In the latest Project Veritas midterm election sting, staffers working for Florida Democratic candidate for governor Andrew Gillum are caught on camera revealing Gillum’s campaign promises are lies and making racist statements about Florida voters. Omar Smith, a Gillum campaign staffer who went to college with the candidate, says on video that if Gillum is elected, none of the things outlined in his platform would happen. He says that “that’s not for [voters] to know.” “Remember our saying, modern-day fairy tales start with ‘once I am elected,'” Smith says. NEW VERITAS: FL Gov Candidate Staffer Who Went to College with Gillum: "Not for voters to know" programs won't happen, “Modern day fairy tales start with once I am elected” Florida is a "F***ed up" "cracker state" FULL REPORT: https://t.co/fjmYBsb30k pic.twitter.com/IIGkqzMfbr — PVeritas Action (@PVeritas_Action) November 1, 2018 GILLUM ELECTION STRATEGY: "You whip 'em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote" because Florida is a "F***ed up," "cracker state," "you have to appeal to white guilt" pic.twitter.com/d0fd85zLF8 — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 1, 2018 “The rules in Florida are f***ed up. Alright? This is a f***ed up ass state. It’s a cracker state,” Smith says, explaining that a progressive agenda cannot pass and using a racial slur against white voters. He points to specific campaign promises Gillum has made, including raising the corporate tax in Florida, raising teacher pay, and Medicare for All, admitting they are lies. So, let’s go back to Mr. Gillum’s platform, right? Raise the corporate tax in Florida from 7 to 11 percent. That will never happen. Raise teachers’ pay to $50,000; that will never happen. Give me another position. Medicare for all; that will never happen. The reason being, the legislature that write the bills is all Republican-controlled. Democratic governor, Republican legislature. So, unless the legislature writes a bill, and it got voted on the floor, it cannot pass. The full video shows Smith saying that the strategy to change the Florida legislature is to take “poor” and “middle income” people and “whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote.” He adds that “you have to appeal to white guilt.” Smith defines Gillum’s political beliefs as “part of the crazy crazy crazies” on the progressive Left. More damaging footage includes Democratic operatives explaining Gillum’s positions on gun control and indicating he would support banning AR-15 rifles. Florida Democrat Party community engagement specialist Adrian Young also admits on video that Gillum is not campaigning with that position because it would be unpopular with Florida voters. “I do think he’s not saying specifically like I’m going to ban bump stocks or I’m against ARs, only because he’s running a race right now. I do think he would support anybody doing that stuff, Bill Nelson. … But I don’t think he can say it just [be]cause he’s trying to get the moderates and the gun-toting people in North Florida.” “What we found in the Gillum campaign was just what we found in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona, a candidate lying to the voters he needs to win the election,” said Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe. The video evidence confirms that Gillum is lying to Florida voters. Will there be wall-to-wall coverage in the media eviscerating Gilllum for making promises he can’t keep? Will Gillum be asked to denounce his campaign staffer using a racial slur to demean white voters in Florida? Watch the full video:
Travis Air Force Base terrorist identified as Muslim Hafiz Kazi  Earlier today I wrote: “FBI spokeswoman Gina Swankie and Travis spokesman Airman Christian Conrad declined to elaborate on the matter or identify the driver. Why?” Now it’s clear why. They wanted to hold off as long as possible on identifying this terrorist as another Muslim, and this as another jihad terror attack. Protecting the image of Islam, not protecting the public, still seems to be the most important priority for all too many American officials. “Man whose vehicle exploded at Travis AFB identified,” KGO, March 23, 2018: TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (KGO) — A man who drove into Travis AFB has been identified as 51-year-old Hafiz Kazi, two sources with knowledge of the probe tell ABC News. The sources described Kazi as a “nomad” and a “vagabond,” who lived in many places. Authorities extracted a video from his cell phone and are analyzing it to try and see if it could help point to a motive. Sources wouldn’t offer any details about the video. The FBI is holding a press conference Friday at 3:30 p.m. and will be asking the public for help and any information about Kazi. Sources say the information gathered so far still does not point to a concrete motive, with one source calling the man a “mystery” still. Terrorism, mental health issues, and everything else are still on the table as authorities try to uncover a motive. On Wednesday, the car crashed at the main gate of Travis Air Force Base. Officials are treating it as a possible attempted attack. The FBI is now leading the investigation. “The car basically blew up,” said witness Kamren Hernandez. ” It was nothing anymore.” Hernandez couldn’t believe what he witnessed from his family’s restaurant just feet from the main gate at Travis Air Force Base — a black SUV exploding seconds after breaching security gates. Hernandez’ father, Lamar, saw it too. “It kept exploding — boom boom. Kept on going.” Travis Air Force Base officials are investigating a security incident that occurred at the main gate on Wednesday…. A U.S. official tells ABC News it appears the driver had propane tanks in the vehicle, which they may have ignited deliberately…. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books
Strange ‘Sonic Attacks’ Against Diplomats Reach Epic Proportions  The bizarre “sonic attacks” against diplomats began in Cuba, but have now spread to other countries with over 200 illnesses reported. It all started in the fall of 2016 when diplomats at the United States Embassy in Cuba reported some hearing loss and mild brain damage after hearing unusual and puzzling sounds. SHTFPlan originally detailed the symptoms experienced by US diplomats in Cuba back in September of 2017. Several of the affected diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Daily Mail reported that one diplomat described being jolted awake in a Havana hotel room by a grinding, blaring cacophony. When he moved a few feet across the room, the noise stopped. When he got back into bed, the agonizing sound hit him again; as if, he told doctors, he had walked through some invisible wall cutting straight down the middle of his room. –SHTFPlan But now, the sonic attacks have progressed beyond Cuba. Other embassies have now reported the debilitating conditions of diplomats. The U.S. State Department has remained all but silent on the issue as well, other than to characterize their suspicion as unknown “sonic attacks” targeted U.S. diplomats, according to WND. Diplomats in at least seven cities in four different countries have sought testing for strange symptoms. The victims’ symptoms include “hearing loss, dizziness, tinnitus, balance problems, visual difficulties, headaches, fatigue, cognitive issues and sleeping problems.” The latest incident occurred in conjunction with President Trump’s recent visit with Kim Jong-Un. As Trump was heading to Singapore for the historic summit with North Korea’s leader, a State Department diplomatic security agent who was part of the advanced team reported hearing an unusual sound he believed was similar to what was experienced by U.S. diplomats in Cuba and China who later became ill. The government employee experienced the symptoms from late 2017 until April of 2018, according to the U.S. State Department. “The employee was sent to the United States for further evaluation. On May 18, 2018, the Embassy learned that the clinical findings of this evaluation matched mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI),” Jinnie Lee, U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Beijing, told Gizmodo by email. “The Chinese government has assured us they are also investigating and taking appropriate measures,” Lee continued. –SHTFPlan  And now, some of the strange sounds have been now been recorded and released to the public. The U.S. government has issued an alert warning Americans traveling to China to seek medical attention if they experience “auditory or sensory phenomena” similar to what was reported in Havana. Additionally, the State Department recommended anyone traveling to Cuba should “reconsider” their plans.
Lawmaker makes shocking claim about the Vegas massacre (video)  Personal Liberty Poll Exercise your right to vote. Americans still have no idea what happened in Las Vegas in October. And one lawmaker is hinting that the government is covering up a big story about terrorism. During an appearance with Tucker Carlson on Fox, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said he’s seen credible evidence that ISIS was involved in the devastating Las Vegas shooting. ISIS terrorists, he said, infiltrated the U.S. via the southern border prior to the attack blamed on alleged lone gunman Stephen Paddock. “Recently I have been made aware of what I believe to be credible evidence, credible information regarding potential terrorist infiltration through the southern border regarding this incident,” Perry said. Perry added that ISIS warnings of a forthcoming attack on Las Vegas prior to the shooting make a terror link even more likely. “Well, they could be–lets face it, ISIS twice before the attack, ISIS warned the United States that they would attack Las Vegas in June and August after the attack claimed responsibility four times. Meanwhile, the local law enforcement investigative services are telling us there is no terrorist connection–lone gunman, again, something is not adding up,” Perry replied. An incredulous Carlson asked fellow guest Catherine Lombardo, a lawyer representing families affected by the tragedy, about the law enforcement investigation into the shooting. “The FBI and the Las Vegas metro police department have been conducting the investigation, ” she said. “We’ve seen no evidence of a terrorist attack, and I will ask with all due respect, congressman, unless have you specific evidence to back that up, it seems a bit irresponsible to make that allegation so, if you do, or make that assertion, if do you have any evidence of that, I’m asking you right now to share it with us and tell us what that is. My clients… victims, all 22,000 people have been waiting and waiting and waiting for evidence.” Perry noted that all Americans are still lacking all the evidence. “We’ve all been waiting, and I’m waiting, too. Like I said, nothing adds up, but I’m just telling you, I have received what I feel to be and believe to be credible evidence of a possible terrorist nexus, and we’re gonna have to wait… until the situation develops,” he said. The lawmaker said he wants the nation’s counterterror agencies involved in the investigation. “If ISIS warns about an attack and then an attack occurs and claims responsibility after the fact, it seems to me that at a minimum, they should have some portion of the investigation to clearly debunk that claim and, yet, it hasn’t happened,” he said.
Trump Orders Declassification Of ‘Russian Probe’ Documents, Including Texts  President Donald Trump ordered the feds to declassify documents relating the Russian election meddling investigation yesterday. Among the documents to be declassified are all of the text messages between disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The documents to be declassified include all FBI reports on interviews with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all other applications to surveil Carter Page. Trump also asked that other important documents be declassified as well, including 21 pages worth of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page, according to Fox News. The 21 pages Trump wants to be declassified only make up a small part of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year. According to the redacted version as reported by Fox News, three of the declassified pages contain information included in a section titled “The Russian Government’s Coordinated Efforts to Influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” That section includes reference to the potential coordination between people associated with Trump’s campaign and the alleged Russian election interference effort. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said President Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency.” The text messages are to be released “without redaction,” and those include messages from Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey, and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Carter Page told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday night that the FBI’s investigation was “so incredibly stupid to begin with.” He added, “My biggest concern is all the damage that this did to the U.S. government [and] the mockery it made out of the Constitution and all of the wrongdoing that was done by various officials within the Department of Justice, the FBI and the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” It is so far unknown when these documents will be declassified in an unredacted version, but it is safe to say that Democrats are probably panicking right about now. Fox News further reported that a source familiar with the timing of the declassification told the media outlet that they expected the Carter Page warrant application to be declassified first, followed by the FBI reports on agent interviews with Ohr. A Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News that the DOJ and FBI “are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.”
Why White House Leaker Dina Habib Powell “McMaster’s Huma Abedin” Should Not Be UN Ambassador  The rumor that Dina Habib Powell is the top candidate to replace outgoing U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley comes is devastating. One hopes the rumor mill is wrong. Longtime Geller Report readers have suffered Powell for well over a decade. Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. She is part of the swamp, part of the willfully ignorant McMaster crowd that clearly opposed Trump’s agenda. Back in 2017, she resigned her post of Deputy National Security Adviser NSC under Islamic apologist H. R. McMaster, whose failed views she shared. McMaster subscribed to the Obama view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, despite the numerous Islamic texts and teachings that incite Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. McMaster went so far as to claim that devout jihadis were “irreligious.” 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 * 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. McMaster forced out superb K.T. McFarland from her role as Deputy National Security Advisor and inserted Dina Habib-Powell, former Bush gatekeeper whose pals included Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett. When President Trump finally replaced national security adviser H.R. McMaster with John Bolton, it was the much-needed correction to the failed incoherent foreign policy of the Obama era. Why would President Trump go back to there? Needless to say, the Never Trumpers are. When visiting Egypt, Habib-Powell had assured the locals of how Bush, after September 11, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” “I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year,” she gushed. K.T. McFarland had written that “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western civilization.” It’s not hard to see why McMaster pushed out McFarland and elevated Habib-Powell. Habib-Powell had attended the Iftar dinner with members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. She was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by Hanan Ashrawi. Her achievements under Bush included cultural exchanges with Iran, as well as cash for the Palestinian Authority and for Lebanon after the Hezbollah war with Israel. While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, at his side is the woman who had once bragged onCNN, “Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.” (CFP) Is it any wonder Habib Powell was a major White House source of the negative leaks to the enemedia? Two separate National Security Council sources have confirmed that National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell have been leaking negative material about President Donald J. Trump to their allies in the anti-Trump media, Daniel Greenfield said this about Dina Habib Powell: “The media dubbed her the Republican Huma Abedin. She’s been one of the most powerful women in two Republican administrations. She’s friends with Valerie Jarrett….Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi….Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. Her top role at the NSC represents McMaster’s vision for our approach to Islam. And it’s an echo of the failed approach of the Bush years. Flynn made the NSC into a tool that matched Trump’s vision. McMaster is remaking it to match Jeb Bush’s vision.” Powell has close ties to the Clintons. Breitbart: 1 – When she served as president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Wall Street giant, Powell repeatedly partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative for a globalist women’s project that served as the centerpiece of Goldman’s foundation. 2 – Powell’s organization joined with the Clinton Global Initiative for globalist giving projects. 3 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs fund directly donated to the controversial Clinton Foundation. 4 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs group worked with Hillary Clinton’s State Department in a project announced by Clinton. 5 – Powell was a featured speaker at a Clinton Global Initiative event alongside Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief, John Podesta. On May 11, 2009, Powell was one of ten speakers at a Clinton Global Initiative event co-sponsored with the Economist titled, “Global Challenges, Corporate Solutions: Creating Value for Business and Society.” Other speakers included Bill Clinton and Clinton’s former chief of staff, John Podesta, who at the time was president and chief executive officer of the George Soros-financed Center for American Progress and co-chairman of the Obama White House transition team. Podesta would later become chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Powell also served as a panelist at the second annual Women in the World Summit in 2011, which was keynoted by Hillary Clinton. The summit was launched by longtime Clinton ally Tina Brown, who also founded the Daily Beast, where Powell was a contributor. 6 – There are crossover connections between employees paid by Powell’s 10,000 Women and the Clintons. 7 – Powell served on a global group alongside Hillary Clinton. 8 – In coming to Goldman Sachs, Powell joined a firm that has long been deeply tied to the Clintons. Dina Powell is everything that was wrong with the Bush administration. Back in 2005 Ambassador Nancy Powell, America’s representative in Pakistan, refused to allow the distribution in Pakistan of wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items advertising America’s $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. Instead, thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other material – printed at taxpayer expense and translated into Urdu, Pashto, and other local languages – remained “impounded” on American Embassy grounds from 2002 to 2004, according to Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois. While the American government was engaged in a number of “black” or covert intelligence activities to locate Al Qaeda leaders, Mr. Kirk said, the “white” or public efforts – which have succeeded in the past in leading to the capture of wanted terrorists – were effectively shut down in the months following the September 11 attacks. Mr. Kirk discovered Ms. Powell’s unusual order in January 2004 and, over the past year, launched a series of behind-the-scenes moves that culminated in a blunt conversation with President Bush aboard Air Force One, the removal of the ambassador, and congressional approval for reinvigorating the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
Swiss bishop signs statement calling Pope’s reading of Amoris Laetitia “alien” to the Catholic Faith  NewsCatholic Church, Family, Marriage ROME, February 2, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) —His Excellency Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop of Chur in Switzerland, today added his name to the “Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage,” bringing the total number of signatories to eight bishops and one cardinal, LifeSite has confirmed. Bishop Eleganti’s support of the profession comes just three days after Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakstan, invited the world’s bishops to sign the document and join in raising a common voice in defense of the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. “God decides the time, and the time will come when the Pope and the episcopacy again will proclaim, with all clarity, unambiguity and beauty, the sanctity of marriage, and of the family, and of the Eucharist,” Schneider told LifesiteNews in an exclusive Jan. 15 interview. Raising a Common Voice In conversation with LifeSiteNews, Schneider said greater public support of the document from the world’s 5,000 bishops would be “a stronger voice for professing the constant truths of the Church, and it would be a beautiful common voice defending the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage in the midst of a real neo-pagan society where divorce has become a plague and where sexual depravity is increasingly spreading.” The Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage was issued by three Kazakh Ordinaries, including Bishop Schneider, in early January. In the document, the three bishops solemnly professed the Church’s received teaching and discipline regarding sacramental marriage and the limited conditions (see Familiaris Consortio, n. 84) under which Catholics who are divorced and “remarried” may receive sacramental absolution and Holy Communion. They presented their profession “before God who will judge us,” in response to certain pastoral norms issued by several bishops’ conferences aimed at implementing chapter 8 of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia. Some of these norms, Schneider told LifeSiteNews, give “implicit approval” of divorce and of sexual activity outside a valid marriage. Such a reading is causing “rampant confusion,” will spread “a plague of divorce” in the Church, and is “alien” to the Church’s entire faith and Tradition, the three bishops said in the profession. “This is contrary to Divine Revelation,” Schneider further told LifeSite, adding that the “beautiful explanations” that are being presented to clergy and faithful as “discernment” and “pastoral accompaniment,” or a “change of paradigm” and “discovery of the subjective part of the truth,” when translated into “common sense language,” are tantamount to an allowance to sin. “Our conscience as bishops calls to us to do this,” Schneider explained. “We were forced by our conscience, in the conscience of the Successors of the Apostles and colleagues of the Pope.” As Successors of the Apostles, Schneider said they “could not act in another way.” Bishop Marian Eleganti The profession’s most recent signatory, Bishop Marian Eleganti, O.S.B., is a monk of the abbey of the Missionary Benedictines in St. Otmarsberg in Uznach, located in the canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland. He was ordained to the priesthood on June 23, 1995. In July 1999, the monks of St. Otmarsberg Abbey (the youngest abbey in Switzerland) elected Eleganti the second abbot of the monastery. The Missionary Benedictines in Uznach belong to the Benedictine Congregation of St. Ottilien near Munich, with branches in Europe, East, West and South Africa, South America, Cuba and the USA, India, Korea, China, Kazakhstan and the Philippines. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Abbot Marian Eleganti as auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Chur, Switzerland. He was ordained a bishop on Jan. 31, 2010. Since 2011, Bishop Eleganti has served as the Swiss Youth Bishop for German-speaking Switzerland on behalf of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, and as vicar for religious and monastic communities. He is also the vicar for the philosophical-theological education and ongoing formation and training of pastoral workers. Bishop Marian Eleganti’s public support of the Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage brings the number of signatories to nine. To date, in addition to the three original signatories from Kazakstan, the following prelates have signed the profession: Cardinal Janis Pujats, Emeritus Archbishop Metropolitan of Riga, Latvia; Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States; His Excellency Luigi Negri, Archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy; Bishop Andreas Laun, Emeritus Auxiliary of Salzburg, Austria; and His Excellency Rene Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
What Happens After Islamic Conquest?  Constantinople fell to the warriors of jihad on May 29, 1453. Usually after reporting that, Western historians turn their attention away. But in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , I detail what happened next. The Byzantine scholar Bessarion wrote to the Doge of Venice two months after the conquest, in July 1453, saying that Constantinople had been …sacked by the most inhuman barbarians and the most savage enemies of the Christian faith, by the fiercest of wild beasts. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. The public treasure has been consumed, private wealth has been destroyed, the temples have been stripped of gold, silver, jewels, the relics of the saints, and other most precious ornaments. Men have been butchered like cattle, women abducted, virgins ravished, and children snatched from the arms of their parents. So much for the much-vaunted Islamic “tolerance” in Europe, the tales of which Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed is using to fool gullible Westerners today, and soften their resistance to mass Muslim migration into Europe and North America. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled: arm yourself with the truth by preordering The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS — click here to do so now. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
The Cunning CIA  Whatever else might be said about the assassination of President Kennedy, one thing is for sure: The cover-up of this particular U.S. regime-change operation was one of the most ingenious and cunning plots ever designed. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, given that practically from its inception in 1947 the CIA was specializing in the arts of assassination, regime change, and cover-up. As far back as 1953, the CIA published an assassination manual that the CIA succeeded in keeping secret from the American people for more than 40 years. It came to light in 1997 as a result of a Freedom of Information request. That was around the time that the Assassination Records Review Board, which was overseeing the mandatory release of JFK-related assassination records of the CIA and other federal agencies that had been kept secret from the American people since 1963. Today, Americans can read the CIA’s assassination manual online. Titled “Study of Assassination,” the manual spells out various ways to assassinate people. Here is what the manual states in part regarding the use of firearms: Firearms are often used in assassination, often very ineffectively…. Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be very high. Time to buy old US gold coins The manual also makes it clear that the CIA was studying ways to assassinate people without being detected. Note the following excerpt: For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated. It would be safe to assume that the CIA continued developing and expanding on the assassination principles enunciated in that early assassination manual. That’s what we would expect from an agency whose specialties included assassination. We can also assume that the CIA continued to refine the ways to avoid detection when assassinating someone. The Kennedy Autopsy Jacob G Hornberger Best Price: $9.85 Buy New $9.95 (as of 03:35 EDT - Details) The CIA published that secret assassination manual as part of its preparations for a U.S. regime-change operation in Guatemala, one that was designed to violently remove the nation’s democratically elected socialist president, Jacobo Arbenz, from office and replace him with an unelected, right-wing, pro-U.S. military general. As part of the Guatemala regime-change operation, the CIA prepared a list of Guatemalan officials to be assassinated. While the CIA has never revealed the names of the people it targeted for assassination, there is little doubt that Arbenz, the president, was at the top of the list. There is something important to note: Neither Arbenz nor any other Guatemalan official had ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. So, why were they targeted for assassination? Because Arbenz had reached out to the Russians and Cubans in a spirit of peace and friendship, just as John Kennedy would do ten years later. That’s why the CIA targeted Guatemala for regime change and why it targeted Arbenz and other Guatemalan officials for assassination. Although Arbenz was able to escape the country, the CIA’s regime-change operation was a total success, with Arbenz being replaced by the pro-U.S. Gen. Carlos Castillo Armas, who proceeded to instigate a reign of terror across Guatemala. The Guatemalan operation was brilliant and ingenious. The CIA officials were secretly honored for protecting “national security” by removing President Arbenz from office and replacing him with a pro-U.S. military general. Tracy Barnes, one of the CIA officials responsible for the operation, was awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, the CIA’s second-highest medal. The CIA’s cover-up in the JFK assassination was even more brilliant and ingenious. The doctors at Parkland Hospital stated that President Kennedy had a big exit-sized wound in the back of his head, which implied a shot having been fired from the front. At a press conference immediately after the president died, two treating physicians stated that the other wound — the one in the front of Kennedy’s neck — was an entry wound, which implied that Kennedy had been hit by another shot fired from the front. This necessarily meant that Kennedy had been shot from the front, not the rear, where accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was situated. Keep in mind something important: After he was arrested, Oswald claimed his innocence. But he also went a step further. He said that he was being framed for the crime. The obvious question arises: Why frame an innocent man who is situated in the rear by killing the president with shots fired from the front? Wouldn’t it be more logical to either have the shots fired from the rear, where Oswald was, or, alternatively, place Oswald in the front, where the shots were fired? That’s where the brilliance, ingenuity, and cunningness of the cover-up come into play. If Oswald is in the rear and since shots are fired from the front, that could mean only one thing: that Oswald had confederates firing from the front. Who would those confederates be? There could be only one answer: communists. Soviet and Cuban communists, to be more specific. How would we know this? That’s where Oswald’s trip to Mexico City right before the assassination comes into play. Regime Change: The JFK... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. Oswald traveled to Mexico City where he purportedly visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies and where he supposedly met with a premier assassin for the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that this was the height of the Cold War between the United States and that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, had taken place the previous year. So, President Kennedy has been assassinated. Oswald is immediately arrested. He has confederates firing from the front, who almost certainly are Soviet and Cuban communists, especially since Oswald has supposedly just recently visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City. What does all that mean? An assassination of the president by the Soviet Union and Cuba is obviously an act of war. That means nuclear war is about to break out because there is no way that the United States is going to sit idly by when the Reds have just assassinated America’s president. Except for one thing: The communist part and the nuclear-war part were concocted. That was all part of the plan. That was the ingenious way that the CIA was able to get the investigation into the assassination squelched just as soon as Oswald was murdered. In the early days of the Warren Commission, commission chairman Earl Warren called a top-secret meeting of the commission. Its purpose was to discuss information that Warren had received that Oswald was actually a U.S. intelligence agent or an informant for the FBI or both. How did Warren resolve this troubling issue? He simply asked the heads of the CIA and FBI whether it was true. They said no. That was the end of the matter. The issue was so sensitive that Warren ordered the members of the commission to never reveal the meeting to the American people. He ordered all notes and other written references to be destroyed. He also ordered the court reporter to destroy her notes of the meeting. Unbeknownst to him, the court reporter inadvertently kept a recording of the meeting that ultimately came to light. This troubling issue arose again yesterday, November 2, in the Washington Post in an article entitled “Tantalizing Mystery of JFK Assassination Files Solved – 23 Years Ago.” In the article, author Ian Shapira points out that among the long-secret CIA records that were recently released was a deposition of former CIA Director Richard Helms taken in 1975 before the President’s Commission on CIA Activities, which stated as follows: BELIN: Well, now, the final area of my interrogation relates to charges that the CIA was in some way conspiratorially involved with the assassination of President Kennedy. During the time of the Warren Commission, you were Deputy Director of Plans, is that correct? HELMS: I believe so. BELIN: Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or an age[nt.… The CIA, Terrorism, an... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. That’s where the transcript ends according to few secret records of the CIA that were recently released by the National Archives. Shapira points out, “Several news organizations, including The Washington Post, seized on the truncated file as an example of the government’s continued secrecy about the assassination.” Shapira points out that Helms’ full deposition has been in the public arena since 1994. (The year 1994 was during the tenure of the Assassination Records Review Board, the agency charged with securing the mandated release of JFK assassination records from the CIA and other federal agencies. The ARRB Had been formed after Americans had learned of the official secrecy after watching Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, which posited that the JFK assassination was a U.S. regime-change operation, no different in principle from the one the CIA had carried out in Guatemala nine years before.) Shapira then proceeds to provide the answer that Helms gave, which, as he points out, has been public: HELMS: Mr. Belin, this question, and I think you may recall this, was raised at the time and the Agency was never able to find any evidence whatsoever, and we really searched that it had any contact with Lee Harvey Oswald. As far as the FBI was concerned, my recollection is not all that precise. I believe that Mr. Hoover testified that he had not been an agent of theirs either. He was certainly not an agent of the CIA. He was certainly never used by the CIA. Whether any CIA officer ever talked to him any place or not I don’t know but I certainly felt quite comfortable — I believe Mr. [John] McCone [a previous CIA director] was asked to testify before the Commission on this point. I believe he was asked to testify. It was a hot item anyway at the time. And my recollection is that I informed Mr. McCone that we could find no evidence that Oswald had any connection with the CIA. Shapira ends his article by suggesting that commentators should do more complete research, maybe even use Google, before they jump to conclusions. But Shapira would be wise to follow his own advice because he himself is guilty of what he accuses others of. That’s because he failed to conclude his article with one great big important point about former CIA Director Richard Helms. What is that great big important point that Shapira, who, according to his tagline on his article, “enjoys writing about people who have served in the military and intelligence communities,” left out of his article? Perjury. He left out that former CIA Director Richard Helms was a perjurer. A liar. A CIA official who would tell falsehoods, even under oath, whenever he felt that “national security” required it. Shapira failed to note that Helms was convicted in a federal district court of lying to Congress under oath about another CIA regime-change operation ten years after the Kennedy assassination in Chile. Interesting enough, in the Chile regime-change operation, the CIA and the Pentagon were telling their counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment that they had a moral duty to violate their nation’s constitution and violently remove their nation’s democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, from office. The reason? Allende was reaching out to the Russians and Cubans in a spirit of peace and friendship, just as Arbenz had done and just as Kennedy had done. JFKu2019s War with the... Douglas Horne Check Amazon for Pricing. Thus, given that Helms was an admitted perjurer and convicted liar, what value does his denial that Oswald was an intelligence agent have? It has no value at all. And Shapira, who “enjoys writing about people who have served in the military and intelligence communities” had an ethical duty to point out Helms’ proclivity for lying in his article. The circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence. How often have you ever heard of a U.S. Marine communist? If Oswald was a genuine communist, why would he have joined the Marines in the 1950s, given that the Marines hated communists and had just helped kill millions of them in the Korean War? Why would a genuine communist want to join an organization in which he could be ordered, on a moment’s notice, to return to Korea or be sent to Vietnam, Laos, China, the Soviet Union, or Europe to kill communists? Don’t forget: this is the height of the Cold War! After Oswald supposedly tried to “defect” to the Soviet Union and promised to give the Russians all the secrets he learned about in the military, why would U.S. officials agree to let him back in the country, and with a communist wife? Why wouldn’t they indict him or at least haul him before a federal grand jury to testify as to what secrets he gave the Russians? Why wouldn’t they harass, abuse, humiliate, persecute, or prosecute him, like they did to Martin Luther King, Dalton Trumbo, John Walker Lindh, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and other people they have deemed to be communists or traitors? How is it possible that Oswald could learn fluent Russian while serving in the U.S. military without having U.S. military tutors teaching him? How is it possible that a veteran who embarrasses the U.S. Marine Corps by openly proselytizing for communism in New Orleans is able to saunter across the Cold War stage of history, not long after the McCarthy hearings, without nary a care in the world? The answer: Helms lied. There is no reasonable doubt that Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent, one who was ordered to travel to Mexico City to set the framework for his frame-up. But things obviously went dreadfully wrong in Mexico City, which is why the CIA had to shut down that part of the post-assassination investigation. Not surprisingly, the CIA’s Mexico City operations regarding Oswald are among the 98 percent of the records that Trump and the CIA have chosen to continue keeping secret from the American people, on grounds of “national security” of course. Thus, when Oswald was claiming that he was being framed, there could be only one entity that he could have been thinking about: the CIA, the agency whose officials, as former Washington Post investigative reporter Jefferson Morley has documented, were secretly monitoring his activities in the weeks leading up to the assassination, no doubt to ensure that Oswald had not figured out what was about to happen to him. We can assume that any frame-up by the CIA is going to be good. The operation is going to be carefully planned and executed. But no plan is perfect. Things are inevitably going to go wrong. The pieces aren’t going to fit together perfectly. The Mexico City operation is a good example of that. That’s why the CIA has to continue keeping those records secret. But here’s another example, a small but important one: Recall that Oswald supposedly hid the rifle before he headed down the steps from the sixth floor of the school book depository. Ask yourself: If someone has just assassinated the president of the United States, is he really going to take the time to hide the rifle? What good would that do? Wouldn’t officials conduct a thorough search of the area? Wouldn’t an assassin instead simply leave the rifle there and get out of there as soon as he could? Then why the hidden rifle? Because it’s consistent with a frame-up. The framers had to hide the rifle in advance in a place where no one CIA & JFK: The Secret ... Jefferson Morley Check Amazon for Pricing. would see it during the morning of the assassination, which took place after noon. No matter how good a frame-up was, the CIA knew that it could be detected with an aggressive investigation. That’s where ingenuity and cunning come into play. They had to figure out a way to shut down the investigation so that the frame-up would remain intact. That’s why they had shots fired from the front and placed Oswald in the rear. The idea was that since an investigation would lead to Oswald’s supposed communist confederates in the front, which in turn would lead to nuclear war, the investigation had to be shut down immediately, especially since it was the CIA itself that had started the assassination game by repeatedly attempting, in partnership with the Mafia, to assassinate Castro. It was one of the most brilliant and cunning ruses in history. They get the body out of Parkland by force, in violation of Texas law, and put it in the hands of the military in Maryland, which conducts a secret fraudulent and bogus autopsy. (See my book The Kennedy Autopsy.) Lyndon Johnson telephones Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade on the night of the assassination and orders him to shut down any investigation of a conspiracy because it might lead to nuclear war. As soon as Oswald is assassinated, the FBI orders Wade to turn over all his investigative files to the FBI. At the same time, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and FBI Head J. Edgar Hoover both write secret memos and reports saying any further investigation must stop immediately. Lyndon Johnson gets Earl Warren and Sen. Richard Russel to join the Warren Commission by telling them that the assassination could lead to World War III. Johnson appoints former CIA Director Allan Dulles, who Kennedy had fired as a result of the CIA’s regime-change operation at the Bay of Pigs, to the Warren Commission, thereby guaranteeing that there will be no investigation of the CIA. Then keep all the records secret for decades, when many people won’t care anymore who killed President Kennedy. And employ Operation Mockingbird-like journalistic assets in the private sector to flood the market with alternative “conspiracy theories” to confound and confuse the public. And smear anyone who questions the official narrative as a “communist sympathizer” or a “conspiracy theorist.” The CIA’s cunning cover-up in the JFK assassination worked brilliantly. Thanks to President Trump and the CIA’s decision to continue keeping 98 percent of the CIA’s decades-long secret records secret from the American people, the CIA’s cunning cover-up of the JFK assassination continues to work brilliantly today. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger
New Las Vegas Shooter Theory: “Rushed And Unprepared… Could Have Led To Accident Like Shooting Himself In The Head”  It should be clear by now that the entire official narrative surrounding the Las Vegas shooting that left 59 people dead and hundreds injured is falling apart. From shooter Paddock’s check-in date and the existence of a second person in his room, to possible connections to a terrorist organization, as well as the the actual timeline of events, everything being disseminated by law enforcement and the mainstream media should now come under public scrutiny. In the last 24 hours the Sheriff’s Department has significantly revised the event timeline and a key incident involving the shooting of a Mandalay Bay security guard. Originally, as highlighted by The Daily Sheeple, the security guard was hailed as being responsible for preventing the shooter from continuing his massacre because he interrupted him in the middle of the attack. As it turns out, security guard Jesus Campos was actually shot BEFORE Paddock opened fire on the concert crowd below his 32nd floor hotel suite. As part of the constantly changing story, officials are now saying that police officers who rushed to the hotel room when the shooting began didn’t know a hotel security guard had been shot “until they met him in the hallway after exiting the elevator,” Lombardo said. The security guard, Jesus Campos, was struck in the leg as the gunman, from behind his door, shot into the hallway on the 32nd floor. Paddock apparently detected Campos via surveillance cameras he set up outside his hotel suite, police have said. Paddock shot the guard at 9:59 p.m. local time, Lombardo said, shortly before raining down bullets on the Route 91 Harvest festival in an attack that began at 10:05 p.m. and lasted 10 minutes. Police officers found Campos when they arrived on the floor. And Campos did not summon police to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, according to the timeline recently updated by the authorities. What’s also incredibly interesting, is that eyewitnesses claim to have seen security guards chasing another security guard in the minutes leading up to the massacre. The hotel guest in the room next to Paddock also saw “multiple gunmen.” The Full Report: The Ever-Changing Vegas Narrative: Gunman Shot Security Guard Before Massacre As of today, here is the revised timeline, as outlined by the Los Angeles Times: The new timeline has left investigators and researchers with new questions, two of which are extremely important: What happened during the 6 minutes between Campos being shot and Paddock opening fire, and why weren’t the police rushing to the scene immediately? Why did shooter Stephen Paddock stop shooting? Paddock had already shot the security guard, waited six minutes before opening fire on the concert crowd, and then shot for a full ten minutes. Police didn’t arrive for two additional minutes after the shooting stopped – which is a full 18 minutes from the moment Campos was initially hit. Moreover, did he stop shooting because he was planning his escape from the 32nd floor? Or is it possible that Paddock was rushed and in a state of panic? According to links and information shared by Thomas Wictor and a timeline assessment by Twitter user Mr. Alex, the plausibility of Paddock accidentally killing himself amid the confusion, adrenaline and panic is quite high: Latest LV Sheriff: Saying they still don’t know why he stopped shooting. @drawandstrike theory looking plausiblehttps://t.co/CQF3MZLHaN — Mr Alex ??? (@New_England_) October 10, 2017 While we may never know the exact circumstances surrounding what transpired in the shooter’s hotel room, the information being released not just by law enforcement, but witnesses to the event who recorded hundreds of cumulative hours of video and audio, now calls the entirety official story into question.
Online Sociology Course Founders Over Whether Australia is a Country  I'm not all that concerned with students working toward a major in poetry, media studies or some of the more ridiculous courses some colleges offer. It's sociology that worries me. Sociology helped generate a whole range of fake new academic subjects while corrupting existing ones into a toxic stew of racism and meaningless jargon. All too often, all you need is some statistics software (or its online equivalent), a politically correct premise and absolute ignorance. Add the internet and you get a perfect storm of sociology stupidity. The story concerns Ashley Arnold, a 27-year-old working on an online sociology degree. As part of her final class, for which she paid almost $1,000, students were required to complete a project outline last month in which they would compare a social norm in the US and another country. For her "norm" Arnold picked social media use, and for her country she chose Australia. But when Arnold got her grade back on Feb. 1, she was shocked to see her professor had failed her. Why? Because, according to the teacher, "Australia is a continent; not a country." Sociology. You really don't need to know anything. The professor, who has a PhD in philosophy... Of course she does. I believe I got zero or partial credit because the instructor said, 'Australia is a continent; not a country. However, I believe that Australia is a country. The research starter on the SNHU’s Shapiro library written by John Pearson (2013) states, that Australia is the 'sixth-largest country in the world' (n.p.). The full name of the country is the Commonwealth of Australia, meaning Australia is both a continent and a country. Therefore, these sections of the rubric should be amended. Australia's nationhood is not a matter of belief. But we are in the age of, "My truth". And my truth has a different belief about Australia than yours does because of my degree of oppression. Finally, the professor responded: Thank you for this web-address  After I do some independent research on the continent/country issue I will review your paper. Who can really say?
Brett Kavanaugh accused in letter obtained by FBI of drunkenly forcing himself on woman while in high school; Kavanaugh denies it happened  According to the New York Daily News, Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, held a woman down, covered her mouth and tried to force himself on her while drunk at a party in high school. That’s the nexus of a letter allegedly acquired by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein in July but dropped on the last days before the vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The unidentified woman says the incident took place at a party in the early 1980s while Kavanaugh was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Md., according to the NYDN, which claims to have obtained the letter on Friday. She alleges Kavanaugh and a friend of his, both of whom had been drinking, cornered her in a room and turned up the music to blur out the sound of her protests. Kavanaugh then allegedly covered the woman’s mouth with his hand and attempted to force himself on her, but she says she managed to free herself and bolt out of the room. Kavanaugh, 53, vehemently denied the woman’s allegations. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said in a statement. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” Kavanaugh’s friend, who has not been identified, did not outright deny the woman’s claims but told the New Yorker he has “no recollection of that.” The woman says she has had to undergo psychological treatment as a result of the incident. She first approached her congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., about the allegations in July shortly after Trump tapped Kavanaugh to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Eshoo’s office declined to comment. The woman’s letter was in turn forwarded to Feinstein, D-Calif., who shared it with the FBI and her Democratic committee colleagues on Wednesday night. An FBI official told the New York Daily News on Thursday that the letter has not yet resulted in a criminal investigation. According to Breitbart, on Friday, 65 women from both the Republican and Democrat parties who have known Kavanaugh since high school defended his character and said he has always behaved “honorably” and treaded “women with respect.” The women also said that Kavanaugh has “stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity.” “Judge Kavanaugh has denied this allegation and over 60 women – with a broad range of political views – who’ve known him since high school, have sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee vouching for his integrity and respect for women over that time,” says Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network. “This is nothing more than a last-minute attempt at character assassination, and there should no delay in confirming Judge Kavanaugh.”
Trump calls on Sessions to stop Mueller’s Russia probe, raising specter of attempted obstruction  WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now,” opening the president to further complaints that he is trying to obstruct the investigation into Russia’s election interference and his campaign’s possible complicity. Trump is already reportedly under investigation for potential obstruction of the Russia probe led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. The tweet early Wednesday was the president’s most explicit post or statement to date seemingly aimed at getting his attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, to end the probe The tweet, along with several others Wednesday morning, accelerated the president’s attacks on the investigation, which he claims is tainted by bias. They were likely prompted by the start of the trial on Tuesday of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, on 18 charges of tax evasion, bank fraud and conspiracy. “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!” Trump wrote. The president suggested in a subsequent tweet that Manafort was being treated worse than Al Capone, the notorious Prohibition-era Chicago gangster. “Where is the Russian Collusion?” Trump added. Trump’s tweets prompted Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to accuse the president of obstruction “hiding in plain sight.” “The President of the United States just called on his Attorney General to put an end to an investigation in which the President, his family and campaign may be implicated,” Schiff tweeted. “This is an attempt to obstruct justice hiding in plain sight. America must never accept it.” Although the White House has said that Trump’s tweets are official presidential statements, his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, responded to the latest one as he has before, by brushing off suggestions that Trump’s tweets could be used as evidence of obstruction. “The president was expressing his opinion on his favored medium for asserting his First Amendment right of free speech,” Giuliani said in an interview. “He said ‘should,’ not ‘must,’ and no presidential order was issued or will be.” He said he spoke with Trump to make sure that the president wasn’t actually issuing an order. “I talked to him about it to make sure he was on the same page as we are,” Giuliani said, and the president indicated he was not ordering Sessions to act. On Sunday, Giuliani told CBS’ “Face the Nation”: “Obstruction by tweet is not something I think works real well. Generally obstruction is secret, it’s clandestine, it’s corrupt.” Giuliani added, “I’ve looked at all those tweets and they don’t amount to anything.” For months, Trump’s lawyers also have argued that it’s impossible for the president to obstruct justice because his constitutional authority extends over the Justice Department. That power allows him to direct officials where to focus their resources or to fire them when he chooses, as Trump did when removing James B. Comey as FBI director last year. That firing, however, led to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Wednesday’s tweet was a reminder of Trump’s unabated anger at Sessions, who recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation on March 2, 2017 — as members of both parties and legal experts have contended that he should. Sessions pointed to Justice Department regulations to explain that, as one of Trump’s earliest and most active supporters, he shouldn’t participate in the investigation of the Trump campaign. He announced the decision after controversy over his own undisclosed contacts, both during the campaign and the post-election transition, with the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey Kislyak. Two months ago, Trump tweeted that he should have chosen a different person as attorney general who wouldn’t have needed to recuse himself. “I wish I did!” he wrote. In his tweets, Trump also quoted criticism of the investigation from Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor who frequently defends Trump on television. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Dershowitz said he does not believe Sessions has the authority to end the probe. “You can’t be both recused and making decisions about the investigation,” he said. But Dershowitz also cast doubt on whether Trump’s tweets can be seen as an act of obstruction. “You cannot obstruct justice by openly exercising your First Amendment rights and openly criticizing a prosecution, whether you’re right or wrong,” he said. “Obstruction of justice is generally committed behind the scenes, so I think both sides are a little overwrought here.” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, agreed that Sessions cannot stop the Russia investigation given that he recused himself. “The president, intentionally or not, is misdirecting his ire,” Vladeck said. If Trump wanted to use his power to end the probe, he would have to give the order to Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general supervising the Mueller team’s work, and fire Rosenstein if he does not comply, according to Vladeck. Trump could also try to replace Sessions as attorney general with someone who does not have a conflict of interest from the campaign, allowing that person to relieve Rosenstein of the responsibility to oversee Mueller, Vladeck said. — Noah Bierman and Chris Megerian Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
A popular public school Bible class in West Virginia faces legal challenge  Gym is Trenton Tolliver’s favorite class. But the 7-year-old is also a huge fan of the weekly Bible course at Princeton Primary, his public elementary school. He gets to play matching games about Bible stories and listen to classic tales. Noah and the Ark is a favorite. Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden, of course. And the story about how their son Cain killed his brother, Abel.  “That one was a little bit of a surprise,” Trenton said as he sat with his parents, Brett and Courtney Tolliver, one day this month watching his little sister’s soccer practice on a lush field in this small town in the mountains of southern West Virginia.  This spring, Bible classes such as Trenton’s are on the minds of many here in Mercer County. For decades, the county’s public schools have offered a weekly Bible class during the school day — 30 minutes at the elementary level and 45 minutes in middle school. Bible classes on school time are a rarity in public education, but here they are a long-standing tradition. The program is not mandatory, but almost every child in the district attends. And there is widespread support for the classes: Parents and community members help raise nearly $500,000 a year to pay for the Bible in the Schools program. Now Bible in the Schools is facing a stiff legal challenge. Two county residents with school-age children argue in a lawsuit that the program violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the West Virginia constitution. Filed in January and amended last month by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the suit charges that the Bible class “advances and endorses one religion, improperly entangles public schools in religious affairs, and violates the personal consciences of nonreligious and non-Christian parents and students.”  Supporters are adamant that the weekly class is an elective meant to explore the history and literature of the Bible, not to promote religious belief. “My experience with it has been very positive. I’ve never known of anyone who has been pressured or felt ostracized,” said the Rev. David W. Dockery, senior pastor at First Baptist Church of Princeton. “Any time God’s word can be proclaimed is beneficial and is a good thing.”  Trenton’s parents also find it hard to see why there would be objections.  “I think it’s a great program mainly because it’s the only chance for some of these kids to even see the Bible,” said Brett Tolliver, 27. “More importantly, I don’t know who it harms. The kids aren’t forced to be there.”  Courtney Tolliver, 26, a teacher in the district, agrees.  “It’s not teaching religion, but it teaches character and respect and how important it is to tell the truth,” she said. “The kids love it and the ones who don’t participate aren’t made to feel left out.”  But the plaintiffs in the suit and their backers argue that the program’s popularity shouldn’t matter in the face of Supreme Court rulings such as McCollum v. Board of Education in 1948 that have banned public schools from initiating or sponsoring religious activity. The suit alleges that the lessons in the Mercer schools are similar to what a child would hear in Sunday school and that they advocate the Ten Commandments and treat stories in the Bible as historical fact. The suit quotes from one lesson: “If all of the Israelites had chosen to follow the Ten Commandments, think of how safe and happy they would have been.” Another lesson asks students to imagine that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. It says: “So picture Adam being able to crawl up on the back of a dinosaur! He and Eve could have their own personal water slide! Wouldn’t that be so wild!”  The district declined a request to observe one of the classes. Elizabeth Deal, who describes herself as agnostic, is one of the plaintiffs in the case. Her daughter attended elementary school in nearby Bluefield, but Deal kept her out of the Bible class. Even though the class was optional, Deal said there weren’t any alternative lessons or activities for those who opted out. Her daughter was told to sit in the computer lab for that half-hour and read a book. Bypassing the class left her vulnerable to bullying. Deal said other students told her daughter that she was going to hell. One day a student saw her daughter reading a “Harry Potter” novel and told her, according to the mother: “You don’t need to be reading this. You need to be reading the Bible.”  Eventually Deal moved her daughter to a public school a few miles away in Virginia where there is no Bible class. She pays an out-of-state fee of several hundred dollars, but she no longer worries about her child being taunted.  Deal said she joined the suit because she believes strongly in the separation of church and state. “When something is wrong,” she said, “you have to stand up against it.” God is a big deal in Mercer County, home to about 125 churches that dominate the main streets of its biggest towns, Princeton (population 6,400) and Bluefield (10,400), and smaller burgs such as Athens (1,000), Bramwell (360) and Oakvale (120). A lot of the good jobs in the county have left — 22 percent of its 61,000 residents live below the poverty level — but the churches have stayed. You can find the Church of God here. And the Church of Christ. And the Church of Jesus. There are a couple of Catholic churches, a synagogue and a mosque, but the vast majority of houses of worship are Baptist, Methodist or Pentecostal. The radio in the region is filled with gospel stations, Bible talk shows and Christian rock. Billboards tout the Ten Commandments or offer stern messages on abortion and eternal salvation. Beneath a Chick-fil-A billboard in Princeton, another asks: “If you die tonight. Heaven or Hell?”  The Rev. Ray Hurt has been the lead pastor at the Church of God in Princeton for more than two decades. The church, one of the largest buildings in town, can hold up to 2,000 people for Sunday services and often does. For Hurt, Bible in the Schools, which has been in the public schools here in one form or another since 1939, is simply a way for students to further their knowledge.  “There is a great deal of not just poetry and prose in the Bible, but from what I’ve read almost every piece of history that’s in the Bible has eventually been proven,” he said. “We see the Bible not just as a book of faith but as a pretty accurate account of history that informs us about a lot of things that happened.”  Hurt, whose son, the Rev. J.B. Hurt, is also a minister in the Church of God and a member of the county school board, says he would oppose the program if he thought it was being used to teach religion or if students were required to take the class. But he also embraces the idea that the Bible offers irrefutable lessons in morality and teaches the difference between right and wrong.  “If you read the Bible, you’re going to get a whole lot of good ideas that are going to stick with you and make you a better person,” he said. “You don’t have to push religion with it. It speaks for itself in terms of morals and ethics and those things.” The idea that a weekly Bible class for 6,600 students in 16 public elementary schools and three middle schools is somehow simply an academic offering doesn’t sit well with Lynne White, 54, a former two-term school board member and mother of two sons who went through Mercer schools.   “As a person of faith myself, I don’t see any problem with having an after-school Bible program,” White said. “But to me this seems a pretty clear violation of the Constitution.”  White holds the school board and leadership responsible for spreading what she says is a false sense of what the Bible in the Schools program is and does.  In a commentary for the Charleston Gazette-Mail, White wrote that “the Bible in the schools program in Mercer County is being sustained on a foundation of lies.”  She argued that the classes are character education based on biblical values, that they were not electives because West Virginia doesn’t offer electives in elementary or middle school and that even though the classes are funded by private donations, that doesn’t mean they should be taught during the instructional day. She also said it was untrue that children who didn’t take the class weren’t made to “feel different or ostracized.” When White posted the article on Facebook, she heard from some supporters, but many others questioned her faith. “I will pray for you and all non-believers Lynne White. God Bless! !” one wrote.  Another wrote:  “Lynne White You are not a Christian, a Christian is a person who strives to be more Christ like with everything they do and I do not believe Christ would be working to shut this program down or alter it to include your worldly views.” If it were simply a popularity contest, Bible in the Schools would be allowed to continue as is. Even the president of the local mosque in Princeton says it should stay.  “It’s good to be God-fearing no matter how you approach it,” said Mohammad Iqbal, head of the Islamic Society of the Appalachian Region. “Whether it’s the Bible, whether it’s Koran, whether it’s Torah, whether it’s some other book. But it should be optional, not enforced. If the parents have no objection and the student has no objection, it is okay.”  But the program’s fate will not be resolved by popular vote or on Facebook posts. Instead, the question will be tried in the courtroom of Judge David A. Faber of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Bluefield. (Faber was nominated by President George H.W. Bush.)  Representing the Mercer school district is the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm based in Texas that specializes in religious freedom cases. Hiram Sasser, a lawyer at the firm, said the district’s main objective is to allow the Bible course to remain as an elective while making sure it complies with the law. The district filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Wednesday.  “There are two things to look at,” Sasser said. “The first is whether you can have a Bible course at all. And the other is whether you can have the Bible course as it is presently constituted. It’s fair to say that we’re very confident on the first issue. And on the second issue . . . our client is very, very flexible in terms of making sure that the content is in compliance with the law.”  But the plaintiffs aren’t looking for flexibility. They want the Bible class out of the school day. The program “is unconstitutional at its core and cannot be saved via modifications,” said Patrick Elliott, a lawyer with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “There is no legally permissible way for Mercer County Schools to continue with any type of program like this.”  According to Elliott, the Mercer program is “extremely rare” and there are only a handful of districts around the country with similar courses. The amended complaint, Elliott said, seeks to prevent the school system from “organizing, administering, or otherwise endorsing Bible classes for Mercer County Schools’ students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade.”  Charles C. Haynes, the founding director of the Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum in Washington, doesn’t foresee the program surviving a court challenge in its current form.  “This is a loser for the school district,” Haynes said. “It’s difficult to satisfy the First Amendment in elementary school when it comes to the Bible. Students at that age really aren’t prepared to tell the difference between what is history and what is religious conviction.”  Haynes argues that people of faith are doing their religion a disservice when they try to have it taught by a government entity. They would rightly object, he said, if they lived somewhere where they were the religious minority and supporters of another religion wanted a course on their faith taught in public schools.  “Even if 99.9 percent of the people in the community want it, they need to remember that liberty of conscience is not up for a vote,” he said.  Trenton Tolliver is oblivious to the Bible battle that swirls around him. His first-grade school year ends next month. Hanging in the balance of the court case is what he will learn in the Bible course in second grade. Or if there will be a Bible course at all.
Capitol Police “Accidentally” Gave Treasure Trove of Evidence To Muslim IT Spy's Defense Attorney  Accidentally? Color me skeptical. The Democrats are criminal, treasonous and sleazy. They gave this jihadi unfettered access to national security secrets. He then transferred the data to Pakistan. And the most powerful Democrats continue to protect jihad-treason. The Democrat leadership collusion with Muslim spies is the biggest story of treason and espionage in the recent memory. As the scandal widens and worsens, the media goes to extraordinary lengths not to cover it. 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 * 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. Hellbent to destroy President Trump, they toil in Soviet fictions and titillating porn stories. House investigators found the House server was being used for nefarious purposes and the alleged Muslim spies were removing information and sending it for foreign actors. The aides named are Imran Awan, his wife Hina Alvi, his brothers Abid and Jamal, and his friend Rao Abbas, Pakistani-born aides. Now we hear the father of Muslim spy ring Imran Awan transferred a USB drive to a Pakistani senator and former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency. CAPITOL POLICE ACCIDENTALLY GAVE EVIDENCE TO HOUSE HACKING SUSPECT’S DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Luke Rosiak on May 24, 2018: The House IG said Democratic IT aides made unauthorized access to data, but prosecutors haven’t charged them Democrats appear to want to keep the case out of court; a trial could expose their reckless IT practices Capitol Police didn’t make arrests despite numerous red flags and then ‘inadvertently’ gave evidence to defense attorneys that was supposed to go to prosecutors Prosecutors appear to be sharing info with someone on Capitol Hill who is leaking details to the hacking suspect’s lawyer The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source. And hours after The Daily Caller News Foundation asked prosecutors about the disclosure, Awan’s lawyer said he had learned of the forthcoming story from a source on Capitol Hill. TheDCNF had not told anyone other than prosecutors about it. “The cop came to [Awan’s defense attorney] Chris Gowen’s office with a stack of papers … Then he came back and said, ‘I thought you guys were the other party.’ He was very, very angry. But Gowen made copies,” the source, who’s familiar with The Awans, told TheDCNF. Awan, three relatives and a friend ran IT for one in five House Democrats and could read all their emails and files until they were banned on Feb. 2, 2017, for “numerous violations of House security policies.” The violations alleged by the House Office of Inspector General include logging into the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times without authorization. This allegedly occurred during the same period in 2016 the DNC was hacked. Prosecutor Michael Marando alluded to the disclosure of evidence in court on Oct. 6, 2017. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
France Gives Muslim Killer of Elderly Jewish Woman a Pass  Every other Muslim terrorist or killer in Europe has his actions blamed on mental illness or drug use. This just continues the pattern. I wrote about the murder of Sarah Halimi last year. Sarah Lucy Halimi was thrown out of the window of the third floor Paris apartment while she begged her Muslim killer to spare her life. The 66-year-old director of an Orthodox Jewish nursery was woken from her sleep when she was violently beaten by her twenty something Muslim neighbor who then dragged her to the window. She died on the street outside the building where she had lived for thirty years. The killer had allegedly shouted, “Allahu Akbar”. In the tragic comedy of denial that every Islamic terrorism investigation inevitably becomes, the authorities are still hunting around for his motiv Yonathan Halimi, Sarah Lucy’s son, describes the killer’s family as being known for its anti-Semitism. "One day, one of the killer's sisters pushed my sister down the stairs, and the next time she called her a dirty Jew," he described. Sarah’s brother said that the killer called Sarah and her daughter, “dirty Jews”. The authorities stonewalled at every turn. And, predictably, the killer gets a pass. Allahu Akbar usually means motive unknown. The 28-year-old Muslim man confessed to the killing and was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar” and calling Halimi “Satan” shortly before throwing her out the window of her three-story apartment. In January, Traore was determined to be fit to stand trial. He was placed in a psychiatric hospital for weeks after his arrest in the April 2017 killing despite having no history of mental illness. But a judge requested a second series of tests, which determined that the Malian immigrant was not able to stand trial, 20 Minutes reported Wednesday. This tired farce has dragged on. Kobili Traore was hit with hate crimes charges. Then they were dropped. The authorities allowed him to commit the crime. Now they're letting him get away with it. Three minutes later, a unit of the Anti-Crime Brigade (BAC) — who happened to be patrolling the area — took up position in front of Diara’s door. They heard Kobili Traore chanting Muslim prayers and Koranic verses. Unsure about the situation and the potential threats to the family, they asked for reinforcements. Additional policemen arrived quickly. However, for some unclear reason, the BAC unit still refrained from breaking in. In the meantime, Kobili Traore put on new clothes and climbed out of the window to reach Sarah Halimi’s apartment, which was at the same level as Diara Traore’s. He allegedly assaulted the Jewish woman and hit her mercilessly. From time to time he resumed Koranic recitation. Many neighbours, woken by the old woman’s screams or the assaulter’s religious chanting, called the police Some gave details about the exact location of the assault, the attacker’s identity, the fact he vilified his victim as a Jewish person and as “a Satan” while hitting her, or even — as far as the Muslim neighbours were concerned — the Koranic portions he chanted. Yet the police still failed to storm Sarah Halimi’s apartment and rescue her. Eventually, Kobili Traore is claimed to have shouted that the woman was “mad and about to commit suicide”, and threw her out of the window. He had time enough to climb back to Diara Traore’s apartment where he finally was arrested. His hands were covered in blood. There was blood everywhere in his victim’s apartment. Sure he was crazy. So crazy he tried to contrive an alibi for his crime. Kobili isn't crazy. But the system that keeps on protecting him is.
They Are Coming: Migrant Caravan Resumes March to US Border (Video)  Thousands of migrants are making their way to the US border where they will be met with barbed wire and American forces blocking their illegal entry into the United States. 665 SHARES Facebook Twitter The migrant caravan has resumed their march through Mexico towards the U.S. border that is being reinforced by the Army and Marine Corps. President Trump has effectively suspended the granting of asylum to migrants who cross illegally. Trump signed the order on Friday, and it went into effect on Saturday. The order means that migrants will have to present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to qualify for asylum and follow other rules unveiled on Thursday that seek to limit asylum claims. After spending almost a week in Mexico City, where many refused to accept asylum from Mexico, the caravan, made up mostly of male Hondurans, but also nationals of other Central American countries, is now on the move towards the United States border. A Ruptly video shows hundreds of people getting on trains in Mexico subway, and boarding heavy trucks or buses somewhere outside the city. Others are seen using cars to continue their trek towards the border. 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 Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. RT reports: To get there, migrants will have to travel some 1,700 miles (2,735km) to the northwest, a much longer route than to the nearest US border crossing at McAllen, Texas, which many consider to be the safest option. Meanwhile on the other side of the US border, efforts are being made to reinforce it and make it less penetrable from the outside. The US has deployed 5,200 troops to help border protection thwart what Donald Trump has described as an impending migrant “invasion.” Troops setting up barb wire under the Hidalgo Reynosa bridge #RGV -Miltares colocan cerca alámbrica en la frontera #Texas #Telemundo40 vid @AntonioNewsT40 pic.twitter.com/8cr3XfH2T6 — Iris Rodriguez (@IrisNews) November 2, 2018 For now, the active-duty servicemen have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border and building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. In addition to sheer numbers, the US forces will have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal to ensure the success of the military operation.  As the caravan approaches the US border, President Donald Trump has signed an immigration decree requiring asylum seekers to apply at their point of entry to the country and barring illegal immigrants from requesting asylum. “We need people in our country but they have to come in legally and they have to have merit,” Trump told reporters before departing for Paris.
The Sun Is Going DARK: No Sunspots For 96 Days; Ice Age Approaches  NASA’s own data is showing that the star our globe revolves around is dimming. With no sunspots reported in 96 days, the sun is going dark and the evidence could point to an approaching ice age. As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming, says the website Watts Up With That? According to data from NASA’s Spaceweather, so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots. Today at Cape Canaveral, SpaceXlaunched a new sensor to the International Space Station named TSIS-1. Its mission: to measure the dimming of the sun’s irradiance. It will replace the aging SORCE spacecraft. NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum, NASA satellites are tracking a decline in total solar irradiance (TSI). –Watts Up With That? The Daily Sheeple’s Joe Joseph breaks it down for those who don’t closely follow the sun’s changes. He says there is a correlation between major changes on the sun and the behavior of the Earth, especially now as it reaches its 11-year-cycle’s solar minimum. “I guess you could say, in a very generalistic sense…and I mean, this is as vanilla as you can possibly make it…that as the sun gets quieter so does our magnetic field get weaker or so it appears to be,” says Joseph. “Is there a mini ice age coming? I don’t know,” he said. But other sources say it’s more than possible that we will see a mini ice age in the next three years due to the dimming of our sun. A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just four years as the sun prepares for “hibernation” – triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events, says The Express UK in 2016. Solar activity, measured by the appearance of sun spots, has been declining at a greater rate than at any other time in history. And that could have widespread implications. A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilization of the Earth’s crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded. Research by the The Space and Science Research Center in Florida revealed a strong link between low solar activity and seismic events. Scientists say that it could take up to 15 years for solar activity to return to normal with extreme weather and freezing temperatures continuing until 2035. This warning will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 the world faces increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles and a warming of the globe.
Senator Lindsey Graham Unleashes Firestorm At Democrat Senators For "Most Unethical Sham" Since He's Been In Politics  I'm not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and he's my senator, but I have to tell you that he was right on point on Thursday when he berated Senate Democrats in their relentless assault on Judge Brett Kavanaugh while at the same time believing every word of Dr. Christine Ford without any evidence. In fact, all of the evidence and all of the witnesses to date, including Dr. Ford's friend, whom she claims was in the same house that the attack occurred refute her claims. When Graham had his time to speak, he said what many of us thought should have been said. After Kavanaugh unleashed his own refutation of the charges and blasted Democrats for their attacks on him, near the closing of the hearing, Graham finally said what everyone had been waiting on and said it with passion. "What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020," Graham blasted Democrat Senators on the committee. Sen. Lindsey Graham to committee Democrats: "This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics...Boy, y'all want power. Boy, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it." pic.twitter.com/NnpcF33smC 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. — Axios (@axios) September 27, 2018 Graham continued, "Would you say you've been through hell?" Kavanaugh responded, "I've been through hell and then some."
The Remnant Newspaper  The unmasking of McCarrick exposed the pervasive prelate coverup of homosexual sexual predation in the American Catholic Church. These swarmy power brokers have colluded far too long at the tragic expense of innocent boys and seminarians. For 60 years, Ted McCarrick roamed the halls of seminaries, harassing, raping, and assaulting young males around the world. His brother bishops all knew and they all stayed silent. How fortuitous and revelatory that McCarrick, the Molester would divulge his personal role in the pre-Conclave lobbying effort to elect Jorge Bergoglio as Pope. The notorious lavender mafia anxiously sought a simpatico Pope to advance its reformist homosexual agenda. Bergoglio was their man. The now well known McCarrick Villanova Speech on October 13, 2013 where he relayed the story about a prominent Italian man who met with McCarrick to ask him to lobby for the election of Bergoglio to the papacy. In light of the McCarrick scandal, the conversation takes on new meaning... McCarrick described the conversation with the Influential Roman: “Before we went into the General Congregation, a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman came to see me at the Seminary (where else?) where I was staying. We sat down and he’s a very brilliant man, very influential in Rome and said he had a favor to ask of me back home in the U.S., but then he said:” Influential Roman: What about Bergoglio? Molester McCarrick: I was surprised and said, What about Bergoglio? Influential Roman: Does he have a chance? Molester McCarrick: I don’t think so. No one has mentioned his name. He isn’t on anyone’s mind. Influential Roman: He could do it you know. Molester McCarrick: What could he do? Influential Roman: He could reform the Church. If you gave him 5 years, he could get us back on target. He’s 76. If he had 5 years—the Lord working through him, he could make the Church over again. Molester McCarrick: That’s interesting. Influential Roman: I know you are his friend. Molester McCarrick: I hope I am. Influential Roman: Talk him up. Molester McCarrick'll vouch for ya, Francis! #bromance And talk him up, McCarrick the Molester did! Oh, the irony! That the most prolific serial predator Cardinal would divulge the pre-Conclave Bergoglio plot to “reform the Church.” Now we know what “reform the Church” looks like in the Bergoglian papacy. Yes, the clever and tyrannical Bergoglio, through his manipulation of synods, footnotes, exhortations, personal phone calls, airplane pressers, and correspondence has nearly completed his task of modernizing the Roman Catholic Church in the past 5 years. The rallying cry for his homosexual modern agenda was sounded in his July 29, 2013 airplane presser. Who am I to judge set the tone for merciful embrace of homosexual priests. After 5 long years, his unrelenting mercy mantra seemingly extends only to homosexual clerics, not to the laity or clergy victims who protest the cover ups by prelates. Francis’ wink and nod to the homosexual lifestyle landed him on the cover of the Advocate, the gay magazine, as its Man of the Year. He lapped up the accolades from the secular culture and main stream media. Yet, fame is and predation is unrelenting, even for Popes. In the words of Queen Elizabeth, this year has been annus horribilis for Francis. Excuse the gay slang pun but, the chickens have come home to roost. The cascading revelations of papal sex scandals are toppling the barque of Peter. Will Catholic laity pay attention and take action? The McCarrick scandal created an earthquake in the Catholic Church with aftershocks that will last for years. The timing is eerily propitious and providential based on the 5 year deadline. Will the laity step up and reclaim our hijacked Catholic Church? This critical time in the history of the Catholic Church demands that the laity step forward to protect the Church, its children and seminarians from predators. We must close ranks before another precious child is exploited, a holy seminarian is violated, or another homosexual orgy is covered up at the Vatican. The first order of business is to scuttle the upcoming October Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. Remember that influential Roman gentleman friend of McCarrick who said that Bergoglio could reform the Church in 5 years? Bergoglio’s upcoming Synod on Young People will serve as the culminating vehicle for the 5 year modernist reform of the St. Gallen Mafia. This Synod is designed to exploit the youth, like they’ve been doing for the last 60 years. If it weren’t so infuriating, it would be laughable that following the McCarrick scandal of sexual predation of young males and seminarians, by a Cardinal, and covered up by Bishops, the Catholic Church would host a Synod of Bishops on the topic of young people and vocations! Furthermore, this nightmare of a “sinod" is inviting youth from ages 16-29 to mingle with the Bishops to discuss the Church, faith and vocations. Are you thoroughly disgusted by this farce? The Bishops have proven that they cannot be trusted to protect young people and seminarians from predators. The ever growing global list of Bishops and Cardinals that have preyed on /and or covered up the sexual abuse of minors and seminarians over the last 60 years continues to enrage the laity. We are no longer Shocked, just fed up. Let’s start with the Cardinal who will lead the upcoming Synod, none other than Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life. As the DC roommate and protege of Ted McCarrick, Farrell so respected McCarrick, the Molester, that he fashioned his Coat of Arms as a tribute to Uncle Ted. Farrell’s pathetic and laughable defense “I never knew anything about McCarrick” video highlights the continuing conspiracy of denial by the U.S. Catholic hierarchy. Undoubtedly, Farrell as the head of this Synod chose his dear friend gay friendly, Fr. James Martin, S.J. to keynote the Synod. Farrell’s graciously offers notorious praise for Martin’s new book, Building a Bridge (to hell, ed.) exposes his obvious underlying homosexual agenda and aura of the upcoming Synod: “A welcome and much-needed book that will help bishops, priests, pastoral associates, and all church leaders more compassionately minister to the LGBT community. It will also help LGBT Catholics feel more at home in what is, after all, their church.” What merciful praise for Martin’s book, Cardinal Farrell! Contrary to the theme of mercy and compassion to LGBTs, it appears that your mentor, McCarrick set out to groom and grow an LGBT community. Clearly, you and Fr. Martin have much in common since you both claimed you were “shocked” by the McCarrick allegations. Explain to Catholics why would you headline a homosexual affirming speaker at a Synod for youth and seminarians? In case you haven’t been reading the McCarrick headlines or noticing the plunging mass attendance and collections, Catholics don’t trust their boys around priests and are furious that their seminarians are subjected to unrelenting homosexual sexual harassment. McCarrick is the last straw. All credibility is lost. The October Synod is yet another example of Church leaders exploiting Catholic youth for their own personal power agenda and selfish motives. Bergoglio’s five year plan is nearly complete. Catholics must shed their trust and naivety in the papacy and bishops’ conference. Dare, if you will, to read the thrill, the excitement and anticipated results of the Synod in the radical New Ways Gay Catholic Ministry article, entitled, Youth Synod Document shows Vatican evolution on LGBT Topics. The article highlights the New Ways excitement over the shift in the Vatican approach to the LGBT issues at the Synod: “Another significant development is the acknowledgement that LGBT people have a desire to be part of the church. In one section, the document states: “some LGBT youth … wish to benefit from greater closeness and experience greater care from the Church.” “This acknowledgement is a welcome change from the hierarchy’s traditional rhetoric that suggests LGBT people are opposed to religion. As New Ways Ministry knows from over 40 years of pastoral work with the LGBT community, LGBT Catholics have a deep spirituality, often forged by remarkable journeys overcoming rejection, alienation, and marginalization. LGBT Catholics have stayed a part of the church, despite statements and actions which have offended and hurt them.” The New Ways article highlights the efforts of Cardinal Kevin Farrell and his Vatican cronies to promote the LGBT agenda for the upcoming Synod: “A third development is that the document shows that Vatican officials paid attention to concerns about LGBT issues which were raised by youth at a pre-synod meeting in Rome during March of this year, and also from youth around the world who made their views known to the Vatican online.” And what of the infamous Instrumentum Laboris, drafted by the crafty Cardinal Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, noteworthy of the infamous First Synod on the Family? Known for his manipulative polls and magical modernistic results, Baldisseri infamously stated that “dogma has its own evolution.” Baldisseri stayed true to his modernist form and agenda and to the delight of the New Ways Ministry, he announced at the Vatican press conference that his office is using for the first time ever the LGBT acronym to refer to gay people in a spirit of inclusion. Lest there be any doubt about the secret agenda and outcome of this Synod, Cardinal Baldisseri raises the exclusion rainbow flag. Baldisseri notes that the upcoming Synod is to “make the entire Church aware of its important mission to accompany every young person, none excluded.” This papacy is awash in the prissy, pop psycho speak, jargon of accompaniment, listening, and dialogue dazzling the media with empty tropes and luring the uncatechized into its globalist mantra of one world new age religion. Not surprisingly, Baldisseri never once mentions that dreaded word, dogma in the Instrumentum Laboris, but effuses about accompaniment 136 times! This doltish and dimwitted document wreaks of psycho babble, insults the intelligence of young people, and will destroy the future of the Church. Welcome to the dumbing down of the Catholic Faith by the St. Gallen Mafia and their don, Jorge Bergoglio. This Synod will exploit the youth and seminarians, just like Ted McCarrick. The handwriting is all over the 37 foot Vatican wall. The time to take a stand against this radical hijacking of Holy Mother Church is now. Expose and rout every last predator. Purge every homosexual from its clerical ranks. #StopTheSynod. It has all the markings of a Gay Pride Rally. __________________________________________ Elizabeth Yore is an attorney and international child rights advocate who has investigated clergy sex abuse cases.
Pompeo offers defense for Saudi rulers as Trump administration strategy shifts in Khashoggi case  WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo expressed confidence Wednesday that the Saudi government could be trusted to investigate the disappearance and suspected murder of a U.S.-based Saudi journalist in a Saudi diplomatic facility in Turkey — despite the likelihood that senior Saudi officials were involved. Speaking in Ankara, Turkey, Pompeo offered that support hours after President Donald Trump had mounted an even stronger defense for the Saudi rulers, saying, “Here we go again with you’re guilty until proven innocent.” Together they appeared to signal a shift in White House strategy — earlier this week Trump had warned Saudi rulers could face “severe punishment” — and suggested the administration has decided to help its most important ally in the Arab world defuse an international crisis over the fate of Jamal Khashoggi. The dissident journalist, who lived in Virginia, vanished Oct. 2 after he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Neither Trump nor his top diplomat offered any new facts or insights in the case. But unless authorities recover his body or other conclusive evidence of his death, the mystery may remain unsolved. Pompeo wrapped up two days of emergency talks in the region — first with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, and then with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara — and headed back to Washington on Wednesday. Turkish officials have described — but have not released — what they say are audio and video recordings that show the 60-year-old contributor to the Washington Post opinion pages was interrogated, tortured and killed by Saudi intelligence officers inside the consulate. Turkish officials say Khashoggi’s body was cut up with a bone saw, then taken out of the building. Turkish crime scene investigators and forensic specialists were allowed to search for evidence in the Saudi consulate and a nearby residence on Tuesday. Erdogan later complained that the interior walls had been repainted in recent days. On his flight from Riyadh to Ankara, Pompeo reiterated his confidence that the Saudi government would conduct a “thorough, complete, and transparent investigation,” adding that they will “show the entire world” the results. He said Saudi leaders made a commitment “to hold anyone connected to any wrongdoing that may be found accountable for that, whether they are a senior officer or official.” He said they made “no exceptions,” including presumably members of the royal family. Asked if the Saudis had informed him whether Khashoggi was alive or dead, Pompeo said, “I don’t want to talk about any of the facts. They didn’t want to either, in that they want to have the opportunity to complete this investigation in a thorough way.” Asked if he believed the Saudi rulers’ repeated denial of complicity, Pompeo said he was reserving judgment. “I think that’s — I think that’s — I think that’s a reasonable thing to do, to give them that opportunity,” Pompeo said, “(and then) we’ll all get to evaluate the work that they do.” Pompeo refused to discuss possible consequences for those found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, reiterating at least three times the “importance of the investigation.” Later Wednesday, Pompeo said during a refueling stopover in Brussels that Erdogan had informed him the Saudis were cooperating with the Turkish investigation “after a couple of delays.” Turkish officials “seemed pretty confident the Saudis will permit them to do things they need to do to complete” the investigation, Pompeo told reporters traveling with him. In a sign that the administration is looking to help Saudi Arabia get out of its dilemma, Pompeo urged Americans to be mindful of the extensive energy, economic and security ties between Riyadh and Washington, including efforts against what he called the world’s largest supporter of terrorism, Iran. “The Saudis have been great partners in working alongside us on these issues,” Pompeo said. “We need to make sure we are mindful of that as we approach decisions” on whether to impose sanctions or take other punitive steps against Riyadh, as many in Congress and elsewhere have urged. Critics questioned whether the Saudi rulers, who preside over an authoritarian regime that allows little opposition, can be relied on to conduct a credible probe into Khashoggi’s fate — especially without decisive pressure from their close ally, the Trump administration. Saudi leaders for two weeks denied knowing anything about the Khashoggi case. On Monday, they began floating a scenario — initially adopted by Trump — that blamed the murder inside the consulate on “rogue killers,” and then suggested the writer was accidentally killed during an interrogation that went awry. Analysts familiar with the desert kingdom said it was likely Saudi leaders were hoping the scandal would blow over and that they could wait it out. “We received commitments that they would complete this (investigation), and I am counting on them to do that,” Pompeo said. “They gave me their word.” — Tracy Wilkinson Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Clinton Email IG Report Rips FBI, Comey, & Lynch… Plus A Whole Lot More!  Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation has finally been released to the public and while it does indeed lambaste former FBI Director James Comey for his terrible judgment and handling of the Clinton investigation, it stops short of blaming it all on politics. Horowitz’ report not only slams Comey, but it also criticizes former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and immoral FBI philanderers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Horowitz blames Comey, Strzok, and Page for besmirching the good name of the FBI and harming the agencies reputation with the American people. 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 * 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. At the end of the day, Horowitz was unable to find solid proof that the agency acted in a politically partisan and biased manner in the Clinton email case. However, the Inspector General left the door open to the possibility that political bias did indeed play a role, as his current investigation in the Russia-Collusion probe of the FBI and the DOJ could reveal new evidence to damn the FBI’s Obama era leadership. While the report refuses to say conclusively that political bias was the animus behind the FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe, it also indicates that IG Horowitz may have more to say about the FBI’s political leanings in his Russia report. The Washington Post explains: The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI Director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president… Some senior bureau officials, the report found, exhibited a disturbing “willingness to take official action” to hurt Trump’s chances to become president. Perhaps the most damaging new revelation in the report is a previously-unreported text message in which Peter Strzok, a key investigator on both the Clinton email case and the investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, assured an FBI lawyer in August 2016 that “we’ll stop” Trump from making it to the White House. “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right? !” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok. “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded… The inspector general concluded that Strzok’s text, along with others disparaging Trump, “is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” The messages “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the inspector general wrote… Strzok has argued that he was just trying to reassure Page that Trump couldn’t win, and that he wasn’t implying that they would take action to stop his election. But it wasn’t just Page and Strzok, there were FIVE other investigators on the Clinton case who expressed overtly political views in support of Clinton and/or against Trump… DURING the investigation. Page and Strzok are not the only FBI officials assigned to the Clinton email probe who were found to have exchanged personal messages indicating either an animus against Trump or frustration with the fact that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The report identified five officials with some connection to the email probe who were expressing political views, faulting them for having brought “discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.” The midyear investigation refers to the Clinton email probe. “The messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” Horowitz alleged. “Ultimately the consequences of these actions impact not only the senders of these messages but also other who worked on these investigation and, indeed, the entire FBI.” The IG also found that the FBI moved slowly on new evidence that could have damned Hillary Clinton, and did so for reasons that make no sense. The report took particular aim at FBI officials investigating Clinton’s email server for moving slowly after agents in the New York Field office discovered messages on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner that might be relevant to their case. By no later than September 29, the inspector general alleged, the bureau had learned “virtually every fact” it would cite as justification late the next month to search Weiner’s laptop for messages of Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin. The inspector general derided the bureau’s reasons for not moving more quickly — that agents were waiting for additional information from New York, that they couldn’t move without a warrant and that investigators were more focused on the Russia case — as “unpersuasive,” “illogical,” and inconsistent with their assertion that they would leave no stone unturned on Clinton. The report also faulted the bureau for assigning essentially the same personnel to the Russia and Clinton teams, and singled out Strzok, suggesting his anti-Trump views might have played a role in his not acting more expeditiously on the new lead. “Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias,” the report said. Did you get that? IG Horowitz can’t prove it, but he’s not sure that Strzok wasn’t acting in a politically biased manner when he slow-played the Clinton investigation while moving more quickly on the Russia investigation. How in the world can we trust them even as they express bias while investigating malfeasance? We see this kind of corruption all over the world, why should believe that these officials could be immune to acting on their personal biases? There were 7 of them on the case, and they were comfortable enough with each other to express their biases openly and none of them ever chastised the others for expressing those biases! Not only that, the team that handled Clinton’s investigation so poorly was almost the identical team that was then assigned to handle the Russia investigation! Meaning, the obviously politically biased team that had just cleared the woman that they supported, was now tapped to investigate if the man that they hated was tied to Russian corruption. This is INSANE. Meanwhile, another story just breaking at Fox News provides even more evidence that Peter Strzok is the big bad guy in the FBI mess. Not only was he slow-playing the Clinton investigation, he may be the only reason she was never charged with a crime. In a newly released FBI email, we learned that “foreign actors” gained at least some access to Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system. Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which lays out key interim findings ahead of next week’s hearing with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated report on the Clinton email case later Thursday. The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton’s email security. “Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified ‘Secret,'” the memo says, adding that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers. Here’s the email in question: Peter Strzok email about Clinton emails by Fox News on Scribd The email came from FBI agent Peter Strzok and it’s the first place we see the question of whether or not Clinton can be found as “grossly negligent,” in the handling of classified intel. Remember, Strzok is widely credited as the man who changed FBI Director Comey’s language on the Clinton email investigation from the prosecutable “grossly negligent” to the legally superflous “extremely careless.” At HotAir.com John Sexton explains the importance of this discovery: In the FBI memo, you can already see the genesis of the distinction the FBI would rely on to clear Clinton. Strzok writes that the media has been focused on the question of why Hillary seems to be getting a pass when “Petraeus/Berger/Libby” did not. He writes, “We draw the distinction in noting we have no evidence classified information was ever shared with an unauthorized party, i.e. notwithstanding the server setup, we have not seen classified information shared with a member of the media, an agent of a foreign power, a lover, etc.” In other words, Hillary may have been hacked but she didn’t intentionally give anything away. Of course, the statute itself didn’t make intent a prerequisite. Herridge reports that the House committee memo once again raises this same issue: “Officials from both agencies have created a perception they misinterpreted the Espionage Act by stating Secretary Clinton lacked the requisite ‘intent’ for charges to be filed,” the memo says, before pointing to statements by Comey that indicated a belief that intent was required — which the memo says ignored “meaningful aspects” of the law. It really does seem that Strzok, an agent who had a personal pro-Hillary bias, was the person who pushed to let her off the hook by focusing on her intent rather than her negligence setting up the server in the first place. I fully believe IG Horowitz’ findings here. I believe that he was unable to prove that there was any political motive to the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email case, and I believe that while the case was obviously mishandled, it could have reached the conclusion it did honorably. However, I also think that the IG has purposely left room in his conclusion to amend that decision after he’s concluded his Russia investigation. In fact, there are already signs of him doing that in this report. Much of the information that he uses to chastise Strzok’s behavior and judgment in the Clinton email case, would have actually come from his current investigation into the Russia mess. It’s quite possible that as bad as this report is for Comey, Strzok, Page, and Obama’s FBI leadership… Horowitz’ conclusion in the Russia investigation could prove to be even worse. We’ll see. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
Witness: Muslim Democrat IT Aide Awan Wiretapped Her, Then Bank Account She Controlled Was Drained  Longtime Geller Report readers have been hearing about this cybersecurity breach by Muslim IT staffers for well over a year. The Democrat leadership collusion with Muslim spies is the biggest story of treason and espionage in the recent memory, and yet for month after month the media has refused to cover it. Instead, they’re so hellbent on destroying President Trump that they have directed all their energy to retailing Soviet fictions and titillating porn stories. House investigators found the House server was being used for nefarious purposes: the alleged Muslim spies were removing information and sending it for foreign actors. 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 * Email 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. The aides named are Imran Awan, his wife Hina Alvi, his brothers Abid and Jamal, and his friend Rao Abbas, Pakistani-born aides. And the father of Muslim spy ring Imran Awan transferred a USB drive to a Pakistani senator and former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency. Capitol Police are looking into the massive amounts of data the Awans reportedly downloaded off the congressional system, thousands of illegal logins made on the official system, possible theft of tens of thousands of dollars in congressional equipment and fraud and sent to foreign governments and groups. No wonder the Democrats tried to squirrel these jihad spies out of the country. Congress must investigate and act. “Witness Said Awan Wiretapped Her, Then Bank Account She Controlled Was Drained,” by Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller News Foundation, May 21, 2018 (thanks to Todd): After former Democratic IT aide Imran Awan allegedly threatened his stepmother not to talk to police, her email account was accessed in suspicious ways and a lawyer for one of Awan’s brothers found out she emailed the FBI on specific dates and lashed out at her: “You’re a liar, aren’t you?” Days after that, a bank account the stepmother controlled was almost completely drained through a payment to Imran’s brother, Abid Awan, bank records show — but she said she is too afraid to press criminal charges because she claims he has threatened her. The stepmother, Samina Gilani, also previously said Imran stole two laptops from her. Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan — along with Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and a friend — worked as IT administrators for 1 out of every 5 House Democrats and could read all their emails and files until police banned them from the network in February 2017for “numerous violations of House security policies.” Months later, none of the family is in jail, and the stepmother and other witnesses have said Imran and Abid have used their freedom to try to steer the outcome of the case since, including by threatening them not to cooperate with authorities, TheDCNF previously reported. In April 2016, the House’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) detected allegedly falsified purchase orders, and the Inspector General quickly expanded the scope to investigate cyber violations, finding that members of the Awan family improperly accessed congressmen’s servers and the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times. Though House officials suspected that equipment was being stolen, the Capitol Police did not search their homes, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned, and did not ban them from the network until nearly a year later. In the meantime, evidence appears to have been compromised: In December 2016, the CAO notified congressmen that the caucus server had physically disappeared. Though Abid played a prominent role in the late-2016 IG report, he has not been arrested, with congressmen saying a criminal investigation is ongoing. In January 2017, in the days around his father’s death, Abid removed Gilani as the beneficiary of his father’s life insurance and replaced her with himself, which led to a lawsuit, TheDCNF previously reported. Abid’s attorney, Jim Bacon, used the life insurance lawsuit to force Gilani to sit for a sworn deposition Oct. 4, 2017 in which he told her to reveal what she told the FBI about the congressional criminal probe and tried to get her to find out details from investigators. In one exchange, Bacon knew that she had emailed with the FBI. BACON Q: [redacted] is your email address, isn’t it? And you send emails from that address including two emails to the FBI, didn’t you? GILANI A: Yes, a long time ago. Q: No, not a long time ago. March 5th, 2017. March 6th, 2017. Ma’am, you lied to me, didn’t you? You lied to me, didn’t you? You’re a liar, aren’t you? A: I forgot about that. It was not in my mind. BACON: Ah. I think we need to take a break before I explode. Bacon did not respond to questions from the TheDCNF about how he knew Gilani had emailed the FBI on those dates…. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books
Soldiers of the Cross - Who the Real & Counterfeits Are!  “If you want to change the future you are going to have to trouble the present.”-William Booth Before I begin, I need to make clear that the best leaders are the best followers, and that of the Christ (John 14:6). With that said, Isn't it funny how things work in this world, it seems like when you do the wrong thing before God and man, somehow people seem to give it a pass. Yet, when you begin to do the right things and obey God and love man according to the Word of God, all of a sudden, the world acts like you're doing something wrong. After I got saved, as they say (John 3:3), I remember my mother calling me up and saying, “The family wants to know what is wrong with you.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Email 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. "What’s wrong with me?" I laughingly replied. I said, "Mom, when I was in the rock n roll world doing the things that I was doing, nobody said anything, and no one had a problem with what I was doing, that is until I started to emulate (obey) Jesus Christ" (1 John 2:6). This reminds me of when I gave a prayer at the state capital in Minnesota. After the prayer was over, I had a minister come up to me and tell me that I could not be dropping the “J” (Jesus) word in the capital. I said that the reason I dropped the “J” word was because you haven’t in 40 years (Romans 1:16). What of public high schools across the country that we have been going into in order to educate the youth as to who we are, and not what the revisionists and propagandists would have them believe that we are. We have shown the young people that abortion is murder and that 58 million babies have been murdered since 1973 under the guise of woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17). We got kicked out of a public school for re-enforcing America’s value’s by teaching the US Constitution. We have taught that homosexuality is an abomination, and how it is a felony in every state in our union (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Jude 1:7). How true Scripture is when it declares: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" No wonder why the reprobates and hypocrites thought that the Christians who were following the living Christ were turning the world upside down in the book of Acts. They were, in fact, turning the world right side up (Acts 17:6). Identifying the genuine from the counterfeit Last week, I had a woman come up to me at my last meeting in Amery, Wisconsin. She said that she did her research on me and said that the media really attacked me. I responded with, "Of course they did, and of course they still do." They are being exposed for who they are and they do not like it. (John 15:22). I told her that there are too many counterfeits, self-proclaimed leaders, out there who care more about saving face, than they do the souls of men (Luke 19:10), as well as saving their country. Apparently they have a reputation to keep up. Philippians 2:7-9 These are those that sit behind the status of some sort of church or political leader of the pack. Yet, you do not see any warfare or opposition around them and why? because they have simply forsaken the cross. There is no absolutes with these people. They are people pleasers and nothing more. After all you can always tell what a man stands for by the enemies that he has. They hide behind a microphone day after day. Yet, they fail to confront the issues that needed to be confronted. The reason they don't is because they are guilty of what they fail to confront! They are paper tigers. They can write all big and bad but when it comes to what someone else should do. However, when it is time for them to put boots on the ground, they are simply missing in action (MIA). These are willing to live in the freest country in the world as long as it is not them that have to sacrifice to maintain it. There is also a group of people out there that have to be friends with everyone (and have to apologize to any that they may have told the truth lest they should convict them unto godly repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10) as they congregate week after week deceiving themselves into believing that they are demanding a lawful change just as long as it does not offend anyone (Matthew 5:10). As a matter of fact, these counterfeits will be the first ones to get angry with and denounce and attack the ones that are sent by the Spirit of God (Galatians 4:29). Maybe this group of people should ask their enemies for instructions as to how change is brought about, and in a righteous sense reverse the lawlessness-taking place in this country (Matthew 24:12). These groups of people are simply enemies of the cross of Christ and know not the power of God unto salvation (Philippians 3:18). Furthermore, I said to this woman that this is how you can tell who the genuine Christians are that are in the fight and those who are counterfeits. When the church and the world can jog comfortably along together, you can be sure something is wrong. The world has not compromised—its spirit is exactly the same as it ever was. If Christians were equally as faithful to the Lord, separated from the world (2 Corinthians 6:17), and living so that their lives were a reproof to all ungodliness, the world would hate them as much as it ever did. (John 7:7) It is the church that has compromised, not the world. – Catherine Booth The way to gauge those who are actually taking ground for the kingdom is to see who is in the midst of a continuous warfare (always in trouble, slandered, lied about, defamed etc) fighting the good fight of faith because they trust in the living God (Matthew 11:12; 1 Timothy 6:12). John Calvin said, “Whomsoever the Lord has adopted and deemed worthy of His fellowship ought to prepare themselves for a hard, toilsome and unquiet life, crammed with very many and various kinds of evil.” And of course to the counterfeit's this is foreign. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
Migrant Caravan Reach Border & Climb Atop Fencing Effortlessly (Video)  Members from one of the migrant caravans finally reached the US border on Tuesday. Videos were captured and Border Patrol agents were on the scene as they were witnessed climbing effortlessly up the wall and standing and sitting atop it. Fox 5 reports: SAN DIEGO -- People on the Mexican side of the border could be seen climbing the fence near Border Field State Park Tuesday afternoon after part of the Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. 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. Several people scaled the fence and sat on top of it. A few jumped or crawled to openings in the fence onto U.S. soil but quickly ran back as Border Patrol agents approached. Several border agents were seen patrolling the area in trucks, 4-wheelers, a helicopter and on horses. Video of the migrants was captured in various reports. The caravan is here, illegally entering America This is a national disgrace Arrest and deport them all back to their home country pic.twitter.com/zmAvbC13eL — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 14, 2018 Increased activity at the U.S.-Mexico border after part of the Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. Border Patrol has not confirmed whether this group is part of the caravan.STORY: http://via.kswbtv.com/Ky5E4 Posted by FOX 5 San Diego on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 US Customs and Border Patrol San Diego tweeted, "The first group of the migrant caravan arrived at the Tijuana border yesterday afternoon. # CBP has deployed resources to safely secure the area near Imperial Beach. All seeking entry into the U.S. are urged to present themselves at an official Port of Entry." The first group of the migrant caravan arrived at the Tijuana border yesterday afternoon. #CBP has deployed resources to safely secure the area near Imperial Beach. All seeking entry into the U.S. are urged to present themselves at an official Port of Entry. #USBP pic.twitter.com/uGWUKjxJkj — CBP San Diego (@CBPSanDiego) November 14, 2018 Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said, "Border security is national security, and @ DHSgov will enforce our nation's laws. Today, I am at the # Texas border talking with @ CBP officials on how we are securing ports of entry." Border security is national security, and @DHSgov will enforce our nation's laws. Today, I am at the #Texas border talking with @CBP officials on how we are securing ports of entry. pic.twitter.com/fOlIQNF5pW — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 14, 2018 She also met with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Texas. I met with #SecDef in #Texas today to highlight the work that we are doing together to secure our borders. I want to thank @DeptofDefense for their partnership across the full spectrum of @DHSgov missions. pic.twitter.com/eGyzwyXDw9 — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 14, 2018 So far, we are being told that authorities are keeping an eye on the migrants as they celebrate their journey, but no reports have been issued saying they have actually crossed over yet.
Pope Francis vs Contemplative Orders  The Francis Vatican’s approach to the contemplative life is probably the most illustrative of our entire crisis. Contemplative life is aimed only at a purely supernatural end. It has no “use” in the sense that either the Bergoglians – in terms of their political machinations – or the world can understand. There is probably no other place where the differences between the two programmes - the Catholic programme of Christ and the Bergoglian/Kasperian programme - are more sharply contrasted. One aspect of Pope Francis’ character that seems little-explored by the Catholic and secular media alike is his apparent disdain for contemplative religious life – a facet of Catholic life that could be described as the most purely religious of all the Church’s undertakings. The world does not understand it or want it. Therefore, it is something of a thorn in the Bergoglian side, and he has repeatedly expressed his contempt for it. So when, in 2016 he issued a document on contemplative nuns, the faithful braced for impact . In his recent document, ostensibly on holiness, “Gaudete et Exultate,” the pope attacked the religious desire for silence and solitude, to be alone with God in prayer, seeking unity with Him, saying in essence that the Christian life is inherently about social activism, about material, worldly ends. To these foundations of the contemplative life – indeed of any form of religious life in the Church – Francis set up another of his false dichotomies, contemplation in opposition to serving others, giving a Jesuit maxim as an imperative for all Catholics: “We are called to be contemplatives even in the midst of action, and to grow in holiness by responsibly and generously carrying out our proper mission.” Italian Vaticanist Marco Tosatti commented dryly, “Rejoice and be glad… but not if you’re a cloistered contemplative.” In 2016, I wrote that Francis’ Apostolic Constitution, “Vultum dei quaerere” was in some respects the most damaging object of the wrecking-ball pontificate to date. Unfortunately, it was about a subject that the world, and therefore the modern Church, cares so little about that hardly anyone noticed. Aimed specifically at female contemplative religious, the document threatened that in a year or so another would be forthcoming laying out precisely what would now be required of nuns to continue in their vocations. The new document issued last week, “Cor orans,” is juridical, that is, it is not much more than a list of specific norms, or rules – 289 of them! – that all communities of contemplative nuns must now follow. One odd remark in article 19 is maybe the most succinct description of the direction planned for contemplatives: “A monastery of nuns, as every religious house, is erected while keeping in mind its usefulness for the Church and for the Institute.” (emphasis added) Wait… its “usefulness”? I think a fair question for the Faithful to ask this Vatican department might be, “According to what specific criteria is a monastery’s ‘usefulness’ actually determined?” One can’t help but hearken back to the criteria for monasteries that were allowed to survive the revolutionary purges in 18th and 19th century Europe. A house that could prove to the secularists that it was “useful” – that it could care for the indigent elderly, teach children or nurse the sick – would be allowed to continue. Those which were purely contemplative – a single-minded devotion to the adoration of God – were closed. It is not an insignificant quirk of modern history, and one that tells us much about the nature of the current pontificate, that houses of contemplatives are always attacked by secularist regimes, from Henry VIII to the Soviet Union. Rupture? What rupture? The first thing Cor orans does is claim continuity with both pre and post-Vatican II theology. In the Introduction, it seems anxious to establish a “hermeneutic of continuity” with Pius XII and his document Sponsa Christi Ecclesia of 1950. The authors insist there is no contradiction between the two – except, of course, where there are contradictions – and that both Pius XII and Francis are keen to see nuns reaching the “aim of their specific vocation.” It describes Francis as promulgating this document “in the wake” of Pius XII[1]. In fact, Pope Francis, by promulgating the Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei quaerere, on June 29, 2016, to help the contemplatives reach the aim of their specific vocation, invited reflection and discernment on the precise content tied to consecrated life in general and to the monastic tradition in particular, but he did not intend to abrogate Sponsa Christi Ecclesia that was derogated only in some points. As a consequence, the two pontifical documents are to be held as normative in force for monasteries of nuns and must be read in a unitary vision. But of course, the entire game is given away in the next paragraph: Pope Francis, in the wake of the teaching of Pope Pius XII and reaffirmed by Ecumenical Vatican Council II, intended to present in Vultum Dei quaerere the intense and fruitful path taken by the Church in the last decades, in the light of the teachings of the same Council and considering the changed socio-cultural conditions. Yes, that’s what it said. Here’s my translation: “The Church’s ‘path’ of the last 50 years has been ‘fruitful’. How do you know? Because we’re telling you it has.” In other words, there have been absolutely no problems whatever with the direction taken either by the Church or by the religious life since Vatican II. Everything that has happened has been in complete and perfect continuity between the Before Church and the After Church; there has been no rupture or break with the past. All changes undertaken by religious houses were perfectly legitimate and good - “fruitful” if, perhaps, a bit “intense” – and have been made in “light of the teachings” of Vatican II and “changed socio-cultural conditions.” There is, therefore, no legitimate reason whatever for any religious house to attempt to “turn back the clock” to the pre-Vatican II norms or styles of religious life. Anyone attempting to do this are Bad Nuns [insert string of incomprehensible papal insults here.] This is what might be considered the guiding principle of the document; “Nothing to see here. And if you say there is, you’re the problem.” Of course, this kind of bold proclamation is very much in keeping with the habit of this pontificate to simply claim there are no problems and become gravely offended and outraged when the contrary is pointed out. It’s your fault if you find contradictions, not theirs; they’ve said there are no contradictions, therefore there aren’t any. After all, this is the papacy where 2 + 2 = 5 if the pope says it does. The irony, of course, is built in, since this document is intended as a legal chopping block for the dissolution of any house of contemplative nuns that is judged to be hovering on the edge of extinction or is for some other reason in need of the chop. Why would the Vatican need a document giving extensive norms for the closure of monasteries that have too few nuns or do not follow their originally intended charisms if everything about the religious life since Vatican II has been hunky dory? Let’s remember that this comes from the Congregation for Religious of Braz de’Aviz and Jose Rodriguez Carballo. This is the Cardinal Braz de’Aviz[2] who wasted no time in orienting himself in the New Paradigm when, close on the heels of the Conclave he slammed the attempt by his predecessor – and by extension Pope Benedict – to reign in the notorious Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the US. He complained that he had been shut out of the process under Cardinal Rode, and later made a large and public point of appeasing and mollifying the most outspokenly heretical and politicised organisation of female religious in the world. Apparently the total statistical collapse of the religious life following Vatican II[3] had nothing to do with the massive systemic changes to the forms of that life – always claimed to be “mandated” by “the Council”. And of course we are talking about the priorities of a pope who has said that seeing a “restorationist” community enjoying a large number of vocations makes him “worry.” Apparently this worry was serious enough to move him to torpedo one of the most flourishing communities in the modern Church; the gaunt spectre of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate haunts this document. Autonomy vs. Independence One of the talking points the media have latched onto is the whole business of “autonomy” of monasteries. Many of the headlines crowed: “Vatican confirms nuns’ autonomy,” or similar. But that word does not mean what they think it means. In fact, the word “autonomy” is the key to understanding this whole thing. It appears in the document 16 times and “autonomous” 30 times. In fact, “autonomy” is held up as the single most important criterion for determining a monastery’s viability. This emphasis is repeated so often one might almost think there is a concern in Rome that the “fruitful” post-conciliar monastic life is in danger of fizzling out… for… some reason… Monastery sui juris refers to the religious house of a female monastic community that, having the requisites for real autonomy of life, was legitimately erected by the Holy See and enjoys juridical autonomy under the law. 18 In order to obtain juridical autonomy for a monastery of nuns, it must presuppose a real autonomy of life, that is, the ability to manage the life of the monastery in all its dimensions (vocational, formative, governmental, relational, liturgical, economic ...). In this case, an autonomous monastery is alive and vital. 43 Autonomy of life, a constant prerequisite for maintaining juridical autonomy, must be constantly verified by the Federal President who, when in her judgment a monastery lacks autonomy of life, must inform the Holy See in view of the nomination of an ad hoc commission. 67 Affiliation [with another monastery, appointed by the Vatican] can be an opportunity for recovery and rebirth when autonomy of life is partially compromised. If the situation of incapacity is irreversible, the solution, as painful as it is necessary, is the suppression of the monastery. no longer possesses a real autonomy of life , it is the responsibility of the Federation President to report the matter to the Holy See. When an autonomous monastery , it is the responsibility ofto the Holy See. At the same time, this document is redefining the term “autonomous” to exclude independence. What got no mention in the brief press interest was the document’s insistence that all monasteries of nuns must belong to a federation and while monasteries must demonstrate “autonomy” they will be granted little in the way of powers of self-governance. As we will see, the federations are now a multilayered system of internal surveillance and centralised control that leaves Orwell in the dust: overcome isolation and promote regular observance and contemplative life. Federation of monasteries means a structure of communion among some autonomous monasteries of the same Institute [4] , erected by the Holy See that approves the Statutes, so that in sharing the same charism, the federated monasteriesand promote regular observance and contemplative life. Note the change: “independent” is replaced with “isolated[5].” It reminds me of a conversation I had with a superior of a Benedictine house in the UK. She said she thought that the psychiatric testing, that in 2008 was still all the rage among the houses of her monastery’s federation, was excessive and not helpful. She didn’t trust the heavily secularised field of psychology to help in determining a candidate’s suitability for religious life, so she didn’t require these tests of her monastery’s postulants. She also said that she was under constant pressure, both the subtle pressure of general peer disapproval and overt requests to conform by the federation’s leadership. Was that monastery “isolated”? Or just exercising lawful self-governance? And given that autonomy is being held up as the sole criterion for viability of a monastery, it seems the Holy See is not interested in asking whether it is actually faithful to the charism, or even to the Catholic Faith, a question that has burned brightly for serious Catholics for some time. The word “fidelity” appears in the document four times, which may give an idea of how much interest the Vatican has in this issue. Funny you should mention autonomy: Bioethics and the dissolution of “unviable” monasteries It’s funny that the buzzword of the day in Rome should be “autonomy”. As we shall see, the document is what I’ve called above a “chopping block”. Vultum dei quaerere made it clear that this juridical document would provide a set of legal criteria by which a monastery can be considered viable, religious life worthy of life, so to speak, and that those considered to have failed the test would be closed. Note the language used here: If the situation of incapacity is irreversible, the solution, as painful as it is necessary, is the suppression of the monastery. It jogged a memory for me. “Incapacity”… Where had I heard that language used before? Most pro-life observers in Britain will tell you that it was the “Mental Capacity Act” of 2005 that established in British law the concept that a person with permanently “reduced capacity” could be legally starved and/or dehydrated to death by doctors. This is the world, the language, of Bioethics, applied utilitarianism, also called “Principlism” after its three bioethical criteria of “justice, beneficence[6] and autonomy” – it is a patient’s ability to demonstrate his “autonomy” or “quality of life,[7]” either currently or potentially, that decides his fate. This set of criteria is being applied in medical institutions across the western world now, a “new paradigm” of ethics replacing traditional “Hippocratic” or “Natural Law” medical ethics. Under this system the onus, effectively, is on the patient to prove according to the new criteria that he is worthy of receiving medical treatment – of continuing to live. Medical treatment (which legally includes food and water) can be withdrawn from patients who fail to demonstrate that they will recover sufficiently to return to an autonomous lifestyle. Health care systems like that of the UK have government regulatory boards giving out “guidelines” to determine in a uniform way how health care resources are allocated. These guidelines are collated by professional Bioethicists applying their utilitarian criteria. If the equation doesn’t come out in the patient’s favour, the “treatment” recommended for the patient’s “best interests” will include his demise, often procured by withdrawing nutrition and hydration and/or administering slowly lethal doses of sedatives. The NHS in the UK has actually gone to court, and won, declaring that they must retain the right to kill patients who fail the Bioethics test. The result has been a quiet reign of terror in which elderly and disabled people have started carrying cards stating in legalese that they do not want to be killed by their doctors. In one case a man with ALS took the NHS to court in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to preemptively preclude his medical murder when his illness left him incapacitated. The system, in other words, is stacked against the patient, in favour of the government that holds all the cards. Keep these facts in mind as we read through the rest of the document. I think we can find an almost perfect analogy by replacing the term “patient” with “monastery.” Think about how one would apply concepts like “autonomy,” “viability,” “incapacity,” “quality of life” and “equitable distribution of scarce resources” to this context. When the language of utilitarianism appears in Vatican documents as guiding criteria for the contemplative religious life, one has to wonder at what point has the entire project gone so disastrously off the rails. Federations as Vatican watchdogs Under this law, all monasteries of contemplative nuns must belong to a federation. Previously only voluntary and consultative, federations will now have the power to supervise and guide the formation of candidates, nuns and of their formators, as well as possess broad powers over temporal goods of individual monasteries and powers of suppression. The document makes it inarguable that the federation’s main role will be to establish and monitor for conformity to a particular programme – the “intense and fruitful path” of the Church since 1965 – both within the various orders and between them: The Federal Assembly: deals with issues of major importance; makes decisions and issues norms that all nuns are required to observe, after the definitive approval of the Holy See; More than just federations; a multi-tier system of control Conference of monasteries means a structure of communion among autonomous monasteries, belonging to diverse Institutes and present in the same region... in particular geographical or linguistic contexts. In other words, Benedictine federations of a given area will form a “Conference” with Carmelite federations and Dominican federations and Poor Clare federations, etc. This will be of interest to Carmelite houses especially, since they tend to be generally more on the “conservative” end of things. Imagine a house of traditional Carmelites attending regional Conference meetings – and attempting to keep up their Office schedule – with the balloons-and-guitars, break dancing Franciscans…What fun! And finally, just in case one entire federation decides to turn back the clock, there will be an umbrella for the umbrellas; there will be watchers watching the watchers: Confederation means a structure of connection among Federations of monasteries, erected by the Holy See that approves the Statutes, for the study of themes relative to contemplative life in relation to the same charism, to give unitary direction and a certain coordination to the activity of the individual Federations. Broad powers Federations will now have extremely broad powers both over money and property and, crucially, over formation of nuns. It is the Federation that now has the power to monitor for compliance with the rules, to report non-compliance to the Holy See, to make new foundations and, apparently, to “encourage” individual monasteries to “communicate” their goods. The legitimately established Federation is a public juridic person in the Church and is therefore able to acquire, possess, administer, and alienate temporal, movable and immovable goods, which are ecclesiastical assets, in accordance with the universal and proper law. To keep alive and strengthen the union of monasteries, implementing one of the aims of the Federation, a certain communication of goods is encouraged among the monasteries, coordinated by the Federal President. The communication of goods in a Federation is implemented through contributions, gifts, loans that monasteries offer other monasteries that have financial difficulties, and for the common needs of the Federation. The Federation considers the assets in its possession as necessary and useful means to achieve its goals. Financial incentives Given that we shall see below that the provisions for suppression of monasteries include vague and indefinable qualities like “vitality in living and transmitting the charism” and “dynamic fidelity” to the order’s charism, and that the goods of extinct monasteries will be assumed by the federation, one might be forgiven for asking if this creates an incentive to see to it that certain houses go extinct[8]. Since the document provides several mechanisms by which a federation can move nuns out of a monastery, this could be one of those indelicate questions some superiors might want to keep in mind. Article 94 requires that once it is canonically erected the federation is to seek “legal recognition also in the civil sphere.” This, presumably, will bear upon legal disputes in civil courts over the property of suppressed monasteries. Article 73, on the disposition of the material assets of a monastery that has gone completely extinct: In the event of the suppression of a totally extinct monastery, when there are no surviving nuns, unless otherwise provided by the Holy See, the destination of the suppressed monastery's assets, in compliance with canon and civil law, go to the respective higher juridical person, that is, to the Federation of monasteries or to another structure of communion among the monasteries equal to it or to the female monastic Congregation. The economic fund [of the federation] is nourished by the free donations of the monasteries, by the donations of benefactors, and by revenues deriving from the alienation of the assets of suppressed monasteries, as established by the present Instruction. Federations in charge of formation The Federation President, in particular, watches over initial and ongoing formation in the monasteries to see if it is in conformity with the charism proper to the Institute, so that every community may be a beacon that illumines the journey of the men and women of our time. At the end of the visit, she will inform the Holy See about the real possibilities that the monastery has or does not have of guaranteeing initial formation. The formation of the formators and their collaborators is entrusted in part to the monasteries and in part to the Federation, therefore, the President of the Federation is called to strengthen formation at the federal level and to require the participation of those who exercise the service of formation; if this does not happen, she will refer the matter to the Holy See. The President of the Federation, having heard the opinion of the Federal Council, chooses the most appropriate places to hold the specific formative courses for the formators and their collaborators, as well as those who are called to exercise the service of authority, establishing the duration of these courses in such a way that they are not detrimental to the needs of the contemplative life and of the community. Who makes new foundations and why? Throughout the history of the Church, it has been the prerogative of bishops to establish houses of contemplatives in their own dioceses. Now, with the pope having forbidden bishops to exercise this ancient right, according to this document, the federations themselves can make foundations. through the action of the Federation, as established by the Federal Assembly The foundation of a monastery of nuns, keeping in mind what is established in no. 39 of the present Instruction, can take place either by a single monastery or, as established by the Federal Assembly [9] A single monastic community that decides to make a foundation, moreover, must be “helped” and guided by the federation: In discerning the foundation of a new monastery on the part of a single monastery, the Federal President and the religious Assistant intervene to help the Superior of the founding monastery. The discernment on the foundation of a new monastery by the Federation is made within the framework of the Federal Assembly. Article 39 tells us some criteria for making foundations that “must be considered in their entirety and from an overall perspective.” the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism,” composed of at least eight nuns of solemn vows, “as long as most are not of advanced age”. a) A community that has given good testimony of fraternal life in common with “” composed of at least eight nuns of solemn vows, “as long as most are not of advanced age”. b) Besides the number, special skills are required of some nuns of the community who must be able to assume: as Superior, the service of authority; as formator, the initial formation of candidates; as financial administrator, the administration of the goods of the monastery. c) Rooms adapted to the lifestyle of the community, to ensure that the nuns can regularly lead the contemplative life according to the nature and spirit of their Institute. d) Economic conditions that guarantee the community itself can provide for the needs of daily life. One of these things is not like the others. Did you notice? One criterion stands out as indeterminate, vague, compared with the other concrete and measurable standards. One aspect of legislative analysis that I learned early was that the terms used are of utmost importance. If a term is vague or is defined incorrectly that is a “loophole”. Or it could perhaps be described as a handle; a place where a person who wants to effect a particular outcome can grasp a piece of legislation to use it like an axe. So, how, exactly, is it to be determined – and by whom – that a group of nuns possess “the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism”? What, precisely, does the term “vitality” mean and exactly how is one to measure out how much is required? Is this one of Pope Francis little personal, secret expressions of which only he knows the meaning? Like the secret to how nuns are to smile properly? Does the inclusion of completely subjective criteria belong in a juridical document? Or is it in there in order to provide cover for prelates? The next article tells us, “It is the responsibility of the Holy See to evaluate the presence of these requisites.” Do they have an electronic meter in a cupboard in the Congregation for Religious that measures “charism vitality”? It seems important to ask because article 70, on how to suppress a monastery, includes it: Among the criteria that can contribute to determine a judgment concerning the suppression of a monastery, after having examined all the circumstances, the following points should be considered as a whole: the number of nuns, the advanced age of the majority of the members, the real capacity for government and formation, lack of candidates for a number of years, lack of the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism in dynamic fidelity[10]. You will be affiliated; resistance is futile… It seems there are two themes running through the document: to establish a certain value of “autonomy” as the indispensable criterion for viability, while at the same time asserting top-down oversight and control over who gets to make this determination. In short, a monastery must be autonomous, but heaven help the community that asserts its independence. Articles 54-64 offer an interim measure in the case of “incapacity” that is really just more of the second thing. Once a lack of autonomy has been established… 54 Affiliation is a particular form of help that the Holy See establishes in particular situations in favor of the community of a monastery sui juris which has only an asserted autonomy, but in reality, very precarious or, in fact, non-existent. 55 Affiliation is configured as a juridical support that must assess whether the inability to manage the life of the autonomous monastery in all its dimensions is only temporary or is irreversible, helping the community of the affiliated monastery to overcome difficulties or to put in place what is necessary to bring about the suppression of this monastery. How does affiliation work? Well, the federation and the Holy See between them work it out: In these cases, it is up to the Holy See to evaluate the opportunity of setting up an ad hoc commission formed by the Ordinary, the Federation President, the Federal Assistant, and the Major Superior of the monastery It’s starting to be clear that the federation is going to be little more than the Big Brother hit-squad of the Congregation for Religious. It’s worth remembering what happened in the case of a German men’s monastery in which the superior tried to return the community to pre-Vatican II practices. Mariawald Trappist monastery – 900 years old – was finally dissolved, affiliated to death. Its superior had made the fatal error of openly declaring – in 2008, after the publication of Summorum Pontificum – that the monastery’s problems all began when it adopted the new liturgical rites and implemented the trends of all religious after Vatican II, and that clearly the solution was to go back to pre-conciliar ways. Mariawald was consequently affiliated, in the manner this document describes, with a liberal house in the Netherlands whose superior, unsurprisingly, discovered that the house was hopelessly divided and could not be saved. What would make forced affiliation a truly devastating weapon against conservative or traditional communities is the proviso that an affiliated monastery may not form its own novices: 60 The affiliated monastery can accept candidates, but the novitiate and initial formation must be performed in the affiliating monastery or in another monastery established by the Federation.” Of course, this means it is the affiliating monastery’s formation team that would make the determination to dismiss recalcitrant, “neo-pelagian” postulants and novices. ~ This brings us to about article 155 of the document. Part two to come. _______________ [1] It would seem, therefore, that a useful task for someone writing about what this pope intends for nuns would be to read Sponsa Christi Ecclesia as well as Francis’ Apostolic Constitution and make a careful comparison. I’m not going to do that here, but it might be helpful to examine the two documents with the help of a expert at some point. [2] Worth remembering, however, is the fact that it was Benedict the “conservative,” not Francis, who appointed Braz de’ Aviz in the office to replace Cardinal Rode – presumably under that good old “conservative” rubric of the “big umbrella” – under whom these culpably belated attempts to save US religious life were started. [3] Just considering the numbers of course. Leaving alone the doctrinal issues. [4] “The same Institute” means the order in question, whether Benedictine, Dominican, Carmelite etc. [5] I’d love to hear from some monastic superior who had the nerve to tell Rome, “Actually, given that all our neighbours in religion are raging neo-modernist heretics, if not schismatics, we think ‘isolation’ is a desirable thing – like quarantine during an outbreak of Bubonic Plague – and would therefore like to be dispensed from the federation requirement.” I’d pay good money to see the shade of purple the well-fed Braz de’Aviz turned. [6] “justice and beneficence” are considered on behalf of the community, not the patient [7] Bioethicists take it as read that in order for a life to have sufficient “quality” it must demonstrate sufficient autonomy. Dependence upon the care of others is, quite literally, a capital offence. [8] Readers may think I’m exaggerating the danger of material motivations for suppressing monasteries, but as we will see, the distinction between the federations and the Holy See is also a matter of paperwork and it is well to recall that the secretary for the Congregation for Religious, Jose Rodrigues Carballo, was a person of interest to international police agencies for the loss of “tens of millions” of Euros from the coffers of the Franciscan Friars Minor, the original Franciscan order of which he had been the head. Shortly after Carballo’s appointment, it was revealed that the Swiss prosecutor’s office was investigating the money missing from the Friars Minor in connection with drugs, money laundering operations and gun running. Carballo was Francis’ very first appointment, April 6, 2013, three weeks after the Conclave and it was to him that the pope gave the task of the destruction of the FFIs, and a major part of that operation was to separate the FFIs from real assets valued at about 30 million Euros. [9] So much for the principle of subsidiarity. I can imagine what a monastery founded by a committee would be like to live in. [10] We’ll pass over “dynamic fidelity” in silence for now…
Don Lemon Is Lying... Again: Biggest Threat Isn't "White Men" - The FBI's Most Wanted Domestic Terrorists Are These People  “So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on — they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that?” –Don Lemon Just to illustrate the absurdity of Don Lemon’s comments, I thought it would be fun to go look at the current list of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists. Below is the list of “domestic” terrorists and, regardless of the list/filter you choose, you won’t find many “white men”. Interestingly enough, it looks like the WOMEN in this country are currently responsible for more terrorism than WHITE MEN. Mr. Lemon, you are very wrong. Below are the 14 profiles currently listed as the “Most Wanted Domestic Terrorists” 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 * 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.  5 women. 3 Hispanic men. 3 black men (one with an Arabic/possibly Islamic surname), and 3 white guys. 14 total and only 3 white men? Is Don Lemon colorblind? Is the FBI racist (and maybe a bit sexist)? Nah, it’s just CNN doing what CNN does… spewing more fake news for your viewing pleasure. Go to https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorism and see for yourself. No matter which category you choose, you won’t be finding many white men. Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison
New Footage From Las Vegas Massacre Reveals Possible Muzzle Flashes From Helicopters That May Have Conducted “Air Assault”  Does this new footage reveal muzzle flashes from helicopters, an air assault, on the night of the massacre? What appears to be muzzle flashes emitting from multiple aircraft can be seen on numerous videos captured on the night of the massacre. LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — Newly released footage of the October 1 massacre posted on YouTube by the NICK VEGAS channel appears to confirm what Intellihub’s founder and editor-in-chief Shepard Ambellas pointed out in late October when he presented evidence of the strategic air assault on The Alex Jones Show in great detail. The video shows what appears to be muzzle flashes emanating from the airspace between the Delano Hotel and Mandalay Bay, an airspace that should be free of obstruction altogether. A major analysis of this matter was done by Ambellas in mid-November which revealed that no aircraft should be occupying that airspace between the hours of 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. on the night of the shooting (i.e. no aircraft are visible on the radar in that airspace during that time.) Not to mention the fact that helicopters are not allowed to hover in the City of Las Vegas without a permit nor are they allowed to lurk behind buildings lower than their roof lines. The first of a series of muzzles flashes can be seen coming from several different elevations, possibly from as many as 3 aircraft (helicopters). The flashes which are not consistent with FAA required running lights in any way can be seen starting at 0:19 seconds into the video. Note: To see the flashes you must view the video on ‘1080p’ and set it to ‘full screen’ and look between the two hotels (adjust the video speed to 25%.) The exact same aircraft and apparent muzzles flashes can also be seen in the Arch Angel Studios “First Shots” video which was posted to YouTube on Oct. 2, just one day after the shooting. #LasVegasShooting
Thousands of Troops and Razor Wire: US Border Reinforced Against Migrant ‘Invasion’ (Videos)  President Trump has initiated the military to protect our border from the invading migrants. 2.3k SHARES Facebook Twitter Sharp barbed wire fences are being erected along the US-Mexico border as thousands of US troops, supported by drones and choppers, prepare to repel what the country’s commander-in-chief called a looming migrant “invasion” approaches the United States border. Anyone who doubts this is an invasion only need look at the size of the caravan and those that make up the majority of those marching towards our border. They are predominantly young men, there are few woman and children that make up the mass of the thousands that will overtake the border. Where are the women and children? There are thousands of predominantly young men marching towards the border. The first coils of the razor-sharp fence were unwound in the vicinity of McAllen–Hidalgo–Reynosa International Bridge crossing in Texas on Friday, after the first units of soldiers were deployed at the border started reinforcing the frontier against any potential breaches. 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 * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The same fortification effort will soon start across other parts of the state as well as in Arizona, and California. “We have enough concertina wire to cover up to 22 miles already deployed, already to the border. We have additional concertina wire that we can string with over 150 miles available,” the head of the Northern Command, Terrence O’Shaughnessy told reporters earlier this week, RT reports. Troops setting up barb wire under the Hidalgo Reynosa bridge #RGV -Miltares colocan cerca alámbrica en la frontera #Texas #Telemundo40 vid @AntonioNewsT40 pic.twitter.com/8cr3XfH2T6 — Iris Rodriguez (@IrisNews) November 2, 2018 Active duty U.S. ARMY Troops at the McAllen Hidalgo Intl Bridge putting up concertina wire. @kgbt pic.twitter.com/AnZFtAl3l3 — Jolanie Martinez (@JolanieKGBT) November 2, 2018 C-wire stretches along the Rio Grande at the Texas-Mexico border, the morning after being installed by US troops – and just days ahead of US midterm elections. #Immigration #CaravanaMigrantes #Border #undocumented #ARMY pic.twitter.com/eNsrqJz9Lu — John Moore (@jbmoorephoto) November 3, 2018 President Trump ordered over 5,200 soldiers to be deployed at the southern border by the end of the week to aid some 2,000 National Guardsmen already in place. By Saturday, more than 3,500 troops had been deployed, including about 1,000 Marines in California, the Pentagon said. Trump, however, said that the number might be increased to 15,000 active US personnel if the initial contingent is not enough. Someone sent my dad this video at the Hidalgo border crossing. Looks like they’re already starting to deploy troops at the border. pic.twitter.com/GSP9JiHpqf — bananas in pajamas (@EverydayDaniel) November 2, 2018 Happening Now: US troops performing maintenance work on security infrastructure at the Hidalgo – Reynosa International Bridge. pic.twitter.com/R88Y9X7lPF — Jose F Sanchez (@JoseBorderTeam) November 2, 2018 Currently, two groups of migrants, according to various estimates numbering up to 6,500 people, mainly families, are heading towards the US through Mexico. Meanwhile, a third caravan of migrants, this time from El Salvador, has reportedly already crossed into Mexico. At the same time, according to military planning documents, the majority of the crowd might dissolve along their long journey to the US. While the US still has very little intel about the composition of the migrant caravans, one way or the other the White House plans to outmatch the number of potential illegals and, if not, suppress them with brutal force. Currently, Washington has allocated roughly the same number of troops it has committed to fighting Islamic State in Syria (2,000) and Iraq (5,000). And if 15,000 troops are deployed to the border, they will outmatch the number of US forces currently fighting in Afghanistan (14,000 troops). U.S. Army troops, part of “Operation Faithful Patriot” arrived to the U.S. border with Mexico, deployed by President Trump ahead of midterms. Soldiers spread out barbed wire along the Rio Grande in south Texas. #immigration #border #caravanamigrante #undocumented #army pic.twitter.com/PVD6YIbCvk — John Moore (@jbmoorephoto) November 2, 2018 In addition to sheer numbers, the US forces will have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal to ensure the success of the military operation. President Trump seems to be pleased with the deployment so far, noting the “beautiful”sight of barbed wire decorating the tranquil scenery of the Rio Grande’s crossing along the US-Mexico border. “We have our military on the border,” Trump said in Montana, while campaigning for the Republicans in the state ahead of next week’s midterm election. “And I noticed all that beautiful barbed wire going up today, the barbed wire used properly can be a beautiful sight.”
As Honduran Caravan Reaches The Border, Trump Threatens To Send In The Military  President Donald Trump has threatened to send the military to the United States’ southern border with Mexico to stop a caravan of illegal immigrants coming from Honduras. As of now, the migrant caravan has grown in size to over 4,000 people. “I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump wrote of the caravan in a series of tweets on Twitter. ….In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 According to Breitbart, the caravan of migrants that began in Honduras has grown to several thousand people after passing into Guatemala as it heads for the Mexican border. Other Hondurans are leaving the country to join the caravan of illegal immigrants attempting to illegally enter the United States against president Trump’s wishes. I am watching the Democrat Party led (because they want Open Borders and existing weak laws) assault on our country by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, whose leaders are doing little to stop this large flow of people, INCLUDING MANY CRIMINALS, from entering Mexico to U.S….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 Trump also threatened to stop all federal foreign aid payments to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador if the countries failed to block the flow of illegal immigrants and blamed Democrats for rejecting a reform of immigration laws allowing them to claim asylum. He also claimed that the caravan included criminals. Trump appeared willing to end his new trade deal with Mexico as well if the caravan was not stopped. ….The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border. All Democrats fault for weak laws! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 According to NBC News, the caravan has increased in size to over 4,000. The media outlet also reported that the Mexican government has sent 500 additional federal police to its border with Guatemala in anticipation of their arrival, according to U.S. government documents obtained by NBC News. Part of the caravan, which has split into two groups, is approaching the Mexico-Guatemala border amid a surge in border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border. In September, U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 41,400 undocumented immigrants, up from 37,544 in August, according to numbers not yet released publicly but obtained by NBC News. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the numbers of families and children traveling on their own surged to record levels in September.
Dear Illegal Alien ‘Caravan’: Say, ‘Hola’ To Trump’s RAZOR Wire  Remember those photos of migrants taunting security forces while sitting on top of the border fence? They won’t be doing any of that now. In fact, It’s got a whole new look now. We won’t be seeing anything near the same bravado with people scaling up and over this one. Not with the changes they’ve made in response to the border-crashers that pushed their way into Mexico. Trending: WATCH: Lingerie Clad Hottie Attempts ‘The Cannonball’ On Lake In The Dead Of Winter – Pain Ensues Here’s the new look: Here’s what the President said with the photo: “The Fake News is showing old footage of people climbing over our Ocean Area Fence. This is what it really looks like – no climbers anymore under our Administration!” Here’s some footage of that razor wire going up. Here’s what the military was REALLY up to, when CNN and the rest had their little fever dreams about cross-border gun battles. If Congress insists on dragging its feet with the building and funding of a permanent solution, Trump will find other ways to secure our Southern border as he had promised to do. Like Razorwire. The Trumpinator: every time his rivals think they’ve got him down and out, he stands back up and keeps on coming. They laughed when he announced his candidacy. They thought he was just some kind of a circus sideshow act. They couldn’t have been more wrong. He survived the primaries and got the nomination. He knocked out Crooked Hillary. He beat CNN at their own game, and their ratings are now circling the toilet. Mueller and the Dossier aren’t just coming up empty, they’re exposing the misdeeds of Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok and all the rest. And Trump is still keeping promises, and getting things done. The economy is doing exactly what he promised it would. #PromisesKept And in 2020, The Trumpinator is gonna do it again. He’ll be back. By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here: Become a Clash Insider! Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop. We’re also moving onto a new platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship. Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group. Do you love what we’re doing at Clash? Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that. Stay Rowdy!
Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning “Regime Change” In Iran  This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t lying. Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including – who else – National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans. The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House. It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. –Free Beacon “The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy. For now – at least – overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran – and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.” “The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.” That will likely change, however. One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change “The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.” The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.” “John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.” That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months: John Bolton – We Will Be Celebrating in Tehran Before 2019 >You can’t say you weren’t warned pic.twitter.com/F1dvZAVQaF — Battle Beagle 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 (@HarmlessYardDog) May 7, 2018 A second source tells The Beacon that the Trump administration recognizes that the “chief impediment to the region is Iran’s tyrannical regime.” “The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” said the source. “Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way.” Regional sources who have spoken to SSG “tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts,” the group states. –Free Beacon “More than one third of Iran’s population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence,” the paper explains. “U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.” Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. “The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low,” the plan states. “Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible.” That said, President Trump made clear earlier in the week that US officials must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime. “Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace,” according to the plan. “We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve.”
Groups of Migrants Heading to San Diego Will Be Met With Barricades And Razor Fences (Videos)  The Military continues to put up razor wire at the border in San Ysidro as a migrant caravan is expected to reach Tijuana. United States military and border protection agents have been erecting barricades with razor wire at the point of entry near San Diego, California, as the first groups of migrants arrived at the US-Mexico border. Hundreds of migrants who had split off from the main ‘caravan’ of thousands arrived in Tijuana early Tuesday on nine buses. Numbering just over 350, they joined an initial smaller group of around 85 people, mostly members of the LGBT community, who’d experienced discrimination within the main crowd and were helped to make it to the Mexican border town even earlier on Sunday. Military crews continue to put up razor wire at the border in San Ysidro as a migrant caravan is expected to reach Tijuana. https://t.co/mQH6eqrBNy pic.twitter.com/4IXGNAfSem — Danielle Radin (@danielleradin) November 13, 2018 Here are the three lanes that were shut down at the San Ysidro port of entry in TJ today in anticipation of the caravan. There are seven US army members here with CBP at the moment. Story with @Haleaziz on this https://t.co/SpLVnl3bAT pic.twitter.com/1nGFRNJanJ 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 * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Adolfo Flores (@aflores) November 13, 2018 RT reports: In anticipation of potential clashes at the border, American soldiers have begun reinforcing their positions. “Department of Defense personnel are installing concertina wire, and pre-positioning jersey barriers, barricades, and fencing,” US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said in a statement. US Marines instal wire along the primary border wall at the port of entry next to Tijuana in San Ysidro, San Diego.🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/aX0bznl2bm — The Real Lonnieღ IV (@lonnieloveiv) November 13, 2018 A snaking line of traffic is visible at the San Ysidro Port of Entry after CBP announced it would close multiple entry lanes into the U.S. at two San Diego-area ports of entry in anticipation of the so-called migrant caravan's arrival. https://t.co/92mOg1XNqu pic.twitter.com/mrQU6HYAgH — #NBC7 San Diego (@nbcsandiego) November 13, 2018 To tackle any “potential safety and security risk,” the CBP also announced lane closures at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa ports of entry, to install “port hardening infrastructure equipment” in preparation for the migrant caravan arrival. Currently, several thousand predominantly male Central American migrants heading for the US are in the western Mexico city of Guadalajara. Most of them intend to take the Pacific coast route to reach the US, which is still about 1,500 miles away. A group of migrants is gathered on the Mexico side of the U.S/Mexico border fence in San Diego. None have fully climbed over, just sitting on the fence. pic.twitter.com/S8nUzjzKyZ — Kelly Biele (@kellytvnews) November 14, 2018 Photos posted on WhatsApp of the San Ysidro port of entry today. pic.twitter.com/MzQoN4mbrr — Andrew Dyer 🛴 (@SDUTdyer) November 13, 2018 Troops getting ready to close off three NB vehicle lanes at the San Ysidro Port Entry and one at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. They’ll be putting up barriers and razor wire in preparation for the migrant caravan headed to the US/Mexico border. @10News pic.twitter.com/rc6YsAF5VQ — Mimi Elkalla (@10NewsMimi) November 13, 2018 To deal with the perceived threat the US has deployed 5,200 troops to help more than 2,000 National Guardsmen thwart what President Trump describes as an impending migrant“invasion.” Over the past few weeks, the active-duty servicemen deployed under Operation Faithful Patriot have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border in Texas, California and Arizona, as well as building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. To ensure the success of the military operation, in addition to sheer troop numbers, the US forces have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal.
The Las Vegas Security Guard Credited With Finding Shooter, Mysteriously Vanished Into Thin Air  By now, we have all heard of Jesus Campos. He’s the heroic security guard that allegedly located the Las Vegas shooter, Steven Paddock. But the narrative surrounding him has changed wildly since the authorities mentioned him, and now, he’s mysteriously vanished into thin air. Of course, this leads many to believe that Campos didn’t even exist, to begin with. His mere existence appears to have been fabricated by the very authorities who are cramming lies down our throats about this massacre for the sake of political agendas. There are two conflicting timelines of Campos’s injury, but what the media has so far made clear, is that they want the public to believe Campos was walking down the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino’s 32nd floor hallway, when Stephen Paddock spotted him on a camera he’d allegedly set up in a room service cart, just outside his suite. Once he saw Campos, Paddock reportedly fired nearly 200 rounds through his suite door, wounding Campos in the leg. Moments later (6 minutes actually, according to the newly revised timeline regarding Campos) Paddock allegedly opened fire on a crowd killing more than 50 and injuring nearly 500. But Campos has been a mysterious subject since being wounded in the first moments of Paddock’s assault. After speaking to hotel and law enforcement officials, Campos was scheduled to appear on local Las Vegas television for an interview but went missing just moments before he was supposed to be on the air. David Hickey, a spokesman for the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Campos’s union, said he got a text that Campos had been taken to an urgent care facility, UMC Quick Care. But UMC Quick Care says none of their clinics filled out an intake request for a patient by that name, and Campos has been silent since the text; vanishing into thin air. He also isn’t listed on the registry that shows the names of licensed security guards in Nevada. “Right now I’m just concerned where my member is, and what his condition is. It’s highly unusual,” Hickey told media. “I’m hoping everything is OK with him and I’m sure MGM or the union will let (media) know when we hear something,” he said. In the meantime, authorities still have not released a conclusive timeline for the shooting they desperately want us to believe was committed by Paddock. And, according to the latest reports, are still looking for a motive for the shooting.
Altered Election Documents Tied To Florida Democrats Reviewed By Federal Prosecutors  It is high time that this begin. The Democrats are committing voter fraud on a massive scale, and not only in Florida, but in Arizona, Georgia, California and elsewhere. In Arizona, it is already over, and a pro-jihad Marxist Democrat who lost the election will be going to the Senate. In Florida, the Democrats are likewise working feverishly to overturn the will of the people. They are insane in their lust for power, and will destroy even our democratic system to get it. “Federal prosecutors reviewing altered election documents tied to Florida Democrats,” by Matt Dixon, Politico, November 14, 2018: TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Department of State last week asked federal prosecutors to investigate dates that were changed on official state election documents, the first voting “irregularities” it has flagged in the wake of the 2018 elections. 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 * 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. The concerns, which the department says can be tied to the Florida Democratic Party, center around date changes on forms used to fix vote-by-mail ballots sent with incorrect or missing information. Known as “cure affidavits,” those documents used to fix mail ballots were due no later than 5 p.m. on Nov. 5 — the day before the election. But affidavits released on Tuesday by the DOS show that documents from four different counties said the ballots could be returned by 5 p.m. on Thursday, which is not accurate. Audio of a Florida Democratic Party caller leaving a voicemail message asking a Palm Beach County voter to fix their vote by mail ballot after Election Day, which is not allowed, was also sent to POLITICO separately. It was not part of the information turned over to federal prosecutors. Among the counties in question is Broward, which emerged as the epicenter of controversy as three statewide races and three local legislative races went into recounts following the Nov. 6 elections. Republicans have pointed to embattled Broward Elections chief Brenda Snipes’ record of past election gaffes in arguing that the largely Democratic country is tilted against them — perhaps fraudulently so. DOS officials have repeatedly told the media that the monitors they sent to Broward County saw no election fraud. It wasn’t until Tuesday that the office revealed publicly that it had turned over information to federal prosecutors. The information was sent on Nov. 9 by Bradley McVay, DOS’ interim general counsel, who asked that the altered dates be investigated. “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 that was sent Nov. 9 and released publicly on Tuesday. The letter was sent to U.S. Attorneys Christopher P. Canova of the Northern District of Florida, Maria Chapa Lopez of the Middle District of Florida and Ariana Fajardo Orshan in the Southern District of Florida. The records released by DOS, which is part of Gov. Rick Scott’s administration, point the finger at the Florida Democratic Party. Political parties can get daily lists of people who had their mail-in ballots rejected. Political parties — or anyone else — can also get the publicly available cure affidavits and send them to voters who had a mail-in ballot rejected to encourage them to fix the ballots. In an email chain released as part of the Department of State’s Tuesday document dump, Citrus County Supervisor of Elections Susan Gill last week told DOS officials that a voter who received one of the cure affidavits with the wrong date had also received a call from a number identified as the Tallahassee office of the Florida Democratic Party, an indication the party was reaching out about her vote by mail ballot. “When I called it, it is the Democratic Party of Florida,” she said in a Nov. 8 email to DOS officials. She went on to write that she thinks the incorrect date was used because whoever sent the cure affidavit mixed up the deadline for cure affidavits with the deadline for provisional ballots. But, she said, “a bigger problem is the fact they actually changed one of the DOE forms.”…
In first public rebuke by the White House, Mnuchin pulls out of Saudi investment conference to protest Khashoggi case  WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said Thursday he was pulling out of a major Saudi investment conference, known as Davos in the Desert, in the first public rebuke by the White House of the Saudi regime over the disappearance and suspected murder of a dissident Saudi journalist who lived in Virginia. Trade and finance ministers from Britain, France, Holland and other countries, the head of the International Monetary Fund, as well as CEOs of multiple major companies already had withdrawn in protest, and Mnuchin was under growing pressure to add his name to the list. Mnuchin tweeted the decision after meeting with President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo at the White House. Pompeo later told reporters that he had urged the president to give the Saudi government “a few more days” to explain what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, who vanished after he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Oct. 2. Turkish authorities and media have said audio recordings show that Khashoggi was tortured and beheaded inside the consulate, although the recordings have not been released. Khashoggi wrote opinion columns for the Washington Post critical of the Saudi royal family. Saudi King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler, have denied to both Trump and Pompeo any knowledge of the alleged murder or having ordered it. Pompeo returned Wednesday night from meetings with Saudi and Turkish leaders in Riyadh and Ankara and went to the White House Thursday morning to brief Trump, who has come under mounting pressure from Congress and rights groups to punish Saudi Arabia. Pompeo said the Saudis “understand the serious nature” of Khashoggi’s disappearance, and would conduct a thorough and “timely” investigation. Their findings, Pompeo said, “will be transparent for everyone to see, to ask questions about, to inquire with respect to its thoroughness.” He said he told the president “that we ought to give them a few more days to complete that so that we too have a complete understanding of the facts” before making decisions on how the U.S. should respond. Turkey is conducting its own probe, and Pompeo said those results will also be taken into consideration. He again stressed the importance of Saudi Arabia as a strategic ally, in a relationship, he noted, that dates back more than 80 years. The administration’s reluctance to condemn the Saudi government has fueled criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, from diplomats and from even some corporations that long have profited from close relations with the Saudi royal family. “We just are going to allow the process to move forward, allow the facts to unfold,” Pompeo said. “And as they unfold, as we make a determination for ourselves about what happened there, based on the facts that are presented to us, the United States will determine what the appropriate response might be.” — Tracy Wilkinson Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Officials Warn: Airborne Black Death Epidemic Could ‘Explode’  The bubonic plague outbreak that is taking Madagascar to its knees will more than likely last another six months. But the worst news is that the epidemic could explode anytime unleashing the sickness on the globe. At least 128 people have been killed and more than 1,300 infected by the deadlier pneumonic strain of the medieval disease. But the oncoming rainy season could see the number of those infected explode exponentially. The rainy season poses a threat to the containment of the plague because outbreaks of this magnitude often seem to be seasonal. The Foreign Office recently warned that the deadly outbreak is entering its most dangerous phase. Its website said that “outbreaks of plague tend to be seasonal and occur mainly during the rainy season.” The African island’s wet season officially began today and will last until the end of April, meaning the downward trend the plague had seen over the past few days, will likely turn upward again. Because the disease can be spread easily through a cough or sneeze, experts are fearful. It would take just one infected traveler who made it to Africa’s mainland or even nearby British honeymoon paradises like Mauritius, the Maldives or the Seychelles to spread the disease globally. The Seychelles is currently putting anyone traveling from Madagascar into quarantine on arrival as a precaution. The outbreak has been fueled by performing the ancient practice of Famadihana. Famadihana is the “dancing with the dead” ritual which sees locals dig up deceased relatives and dance with them before they are reburied. Just contact with a corpse who’s death was because they contracted the plague could sicken a person. The country’s health chief Willy Randriamarotia said: “If a person dies of pneumonic plague and is then interred in a tomb that is subsequently opened for a Famadihana, the bacteria can still be transmitted and contaminate whoever handles the body.” The tradition has been banned since the outbreak began, but it is feared ceremonies have taken place regardless as local continue to balk that their rituals have contributed to the outbreak. This latest warning that the rainy season could worsen the outbreak comes on the heels of the reports that British aid workers said the epidemic will get worse before it gets better. Olivier Le Guillou of Action Against Hunger said: “The epidemic is ahead of us, we have not yet reached the peak.” As many as 50 aid workers are believed to have been among the 1,200 people infected with the more dangerous airborne pneumonic strain of the disease.
Google colluded with Clinton campaign with ‘silent donations’  While the establishment continues to push the notion that a couple hundred thousand dollars of ad spends and some Russian bots on Facebook swayed the election to Donald Trump, more proof of real “collusion” between Google and the Hillary Clinton campaign has been uncovered. And Google likely violated federal election laws — not to mention the privacy of its users — in the services it provided the Clinton campaign. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson read an internal email on Monday night’s show that outlined in a Google’ executive’s own words how the company was providing a “silent donation” to a group that was creating ads and donating funds to bus Latinos to voting stations in key swing states. The email was sent by Eliana Murillo, the former head of Google’s multicultural marketing department. The email was forwarded to Google vice presidents and other staff members throughout the company, Carlson said. According to Carlson: In her email, Mario touts Google’s multi-faceted efforts to boost Hispanic turnout in the election. She noticed that Latino voters did record-breaking numbers, especially in states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona — the last of which she describes as “a key state for us.” She brags that the company used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions, with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election.” Murillo also brags that Google, “used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions, with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election.” Unfortunately for Clinton and Google, as Murillo lamented, “…ultimately after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did.” The assistance Google provided to the Clinton campaign likely violated election laws and served as an unreported in-kind contribution. Of course, anyone who paid attention was aware of Google’s attempts to interfere on Clinton’s behalf. WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange revealed two years ago that Google CEO Eric Schmidt and a number of Google employees created a company in 2015 specifically to place Clinton the White House. Emails obtained by WikiLeaks showed correspondence between Schmidt and Clinton, along with a number of Clinton operatives discussing strategy meetings and campaign ideas. Among the strategies was the creation of a voter tracking database using smart phones. A report by a research team earlier this year found that Google can manipulate opinions of undecided voters by inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate. Meanwhile, Trump took to Twitter early Tuesday morning to note the Department of Justice’s inaction over the fact that disgraced anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress were engaged in a “media leak strategy” to plant negative stories which were then used to secure FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. New Strzok-Page texts reveal “Media Leak Strategy.” @FoxNews So terrible, and NOTHING is being done at DOJ or FBI – but the world is watching, and they get it completely. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2018
'Oumuamua: Space Cigar Is Still Spinning From Mysterious Violent Collision  The solar system’s strange cigar-shaped visitor 'Oumuamua—Hawaiian for “scout” or “messenger”—is tumbling chaotically as the result of a violent collision. And the interstellar object will continue to spin for billions of years as it journeys through space, scientists have reported in a study published in Nature Astronomy. This is the latest of several revelations following the first-ever discovery of a solar system invader last October. Initially believed to be a comet, then an asteroid, scientists think the wandering “interstellar object” is a hunk of ice wrapped in organic sun-blocking material. M Kornmesser/ESO/Flickr "At some point or another it's been in a collision," Queen's University, Belfast, research fellow and lecturer Wes Fraser told the BBC. The research team watched 'Oumuamua’s brightness change over time to model exactly how it was spinning. 'Oumuamua “appears to be in an excited rotational state undergoing non-principal axis rotation” the study authors wrote. This unusual “excited” movement is better known as “tumbling.” “Tumbling is an unusual state of rotation,” Fraser said during Sunday’s episode of the BBC’s long-running Sky at Night show. “It quickly starts to wobble around chaotically.” See all of the best photos of the week in these slideshows The icy cigar was probably knocked askew by a violent collision with another object. The researchers don’t know exactly when this happened, but suspect it took place before 'Oumuamua left its home stellar system. "It's hard to know if it was during planet formation or after the planet formation process," Fraser said during the show. "Certainly, more collisions happen while planets are growing than afterwards, so that’s a very good guess. But unfortunately we can’t get a high-resolution image of this thing to see what kind of crater is on it that might be attributed to the collision that caused it to start tumbling." The team think 'Oumuamua may eventually move less chaotically. "The tumbling actually causes stresses and strains internal to the object, and that slowly but surely squeezes and pulls on the object just like tides on the Earth to remove energy from the spin," Fraser said. But, at least for the next few billion years, the space invader is destined to continue its topsy-turvy spin.
A Sister Speaks: ‘Cor Orans is the Death-Knell of Carmel’  Under the first part of my ongoing analysis of “Cor orans,” a commenter wrote: “When the enemy wants to take a soul, he tries to make it give up prayer.” The Vatican presents a choice: the world, or Christ. “The Prologue [of the Rule of St. Benedict] set this choice before us, the world or Our Lord, as mutually exclusive alternatives; we cannot remain neutral, but must belong wholly to the one or wholly to the other.” Dom Paul Delatte, OSB, Abbot of Solesmes Today I received an email from a monastery of cloistered Carmelite nuns about the new document from the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious. They’re helping me examine this document, having kindly volunteered to serve as consultants, to help me understand it from an inside position. These, I might add, are not what we would consider a “traditionalist” community. They have only the Novus Ordo Mass and use the new rite Divine Office in their native vernacular language. For obvious reasons I can’t identify them, even to say what country they are in. Writing to me in English, by way of introductory comments in their longer analysis of the document that will be forthcoming, Sister T, fully professed and a senior member of the monastery’s council, said, “The Cor Orans document is the death-knell of Carmel. It signals the end of the contemplative monastic life. Not only does it destroy the autonomy of the Monasteries, something Our Holy Mother St. Teresa was extremely insistent about, but it also removes the Superior, dissolves her authority and power, removes the financial independence of each Monastery, and destroys the specificity of each charism. “This is a disaster. Especially for Carmel.” I contrast this frightening comment with those coming from the man immediately responsible for “Cor orans,” Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, the Brazilian prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in a speech to religious formation directors in 2015, in which he laid out pretty clearly what was coming in this piece of legislation, 3 years later. In fact, as the National Catholic Reporter piece said, the meeting itself was “unprecedented,” 1200 formators of religious life gathered by the Congregation for Religious in order to hear the new marching orders. This is the programme: “Do not distance yourself from the great lines of the Second Vatican Council.” “In fact, those that are distancing themselves from the council to make another path are killing themselves – sooner or later, they will die. They will not have sense. They will be outside the church. We need to build, using the Gospel and the Council as a departure point.” After breathing this threat, the cardinal continued, saying that because modern people’s “needs” are fundamentally different from what they were in the past, there was no reason to stick too closely to what the founders and foundresses – people like St. Anthony, St. Augustine, St. John Cassian, St. Benedict, St. Bruno, St. Dominic, Sts. Francis and Clare, Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross - wanted. “These contexts have changed. And the council reminds us that consecrated life must be Christian discipleship ... must be discipleship of the founders that we remember, but also must be open to the culture of the present moment.” “We must not be closed to new things. God is not static,” the cardinal said. “God is always new movement – of light, of heat, of demonstration. He speaks in every time to men and women with the true language of that time.” The congregation’s Secretary, Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo, is reported as saying, “With this explicit reference to the Second Vatican Council, we point to our profound conviction that the council is the point of reference, non-negotiable, in the formation to the consecrated life.” Not the charism of the order, nor the rule, nor the Patristic tradition, nor the Doctors, nor the mystics, nor any of the 2000-year-old tradition of religious life, from the Desert Fathers to the giants of the Tridentine period; just Vatican II. And only, apparently, a single “interpretation” of it, if we are to judge by the soap and oil Braz de Aviz poured on the ruffled feathers of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious – the most virulently anti-Catholic organisation of “Catholic” religious in the world – and by his vicious persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Carballo continues his remarks, giving us a clue as to his feelings towards strictly cloistered, contemplative religious life: “A consecrated life, a life in God but inserted in the ecclesial family, in the church – inserted in the world. Not in conflict with the world, but inserted in continuity,” he said. It is to wonder what this man would make of a comment by the great Dom Paul Delatte, the second abbot of Solesmes and successor to the refounder, Dom Gueranger, who wrote in his commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict: “The Prologue set this choice before us, the world or Our Lord, as mutually exclusive alternatives; we cannot remain neutral, but must belong wholly to the one or wholly to the other.” “After entering into Christ by baptism and by the monastic profession, we should hold ourselves as far aloof from the world as possible and have no connection with it. There shall no longer be more intercourse between us than there is between two corpses: ‘The world is crucified to me and I to the world.’ “Let us be on our guard against thinking that it may sometimes be proper to soften the differences, to lessen the distance which separates us. The Apostle warns us that we can only please God by preserving the integrity of our true life: ‘No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses: that he may please him to whom he hath engaged himself.’ The world itself is scandalised by our condescending to it, and the words of the Imitation [of Christ] are always fulfilled: ‘Sometimes we think to please others by our company; whereas we begin rather to be displeasing to them by reason of the bad qualities they discover in us.’” How Cor orans will end St. Teresa of Avila’s reform of Carmel Sister T. continued, saying that the document explicitly derogates the founding intentions of St. Teresa for whom real autonomy was a crucial element of her Carmelite reform. She acknowledges that cloistered orders of nuns have for some time been gathered into federations. These are already doing the Cor orans programme, having shared initial formation programmes for postulants and novices, “ongoing formation” courses for professed nuns, a federal abbess or president who oversees all the federated monasteries. Their funds are already interconnected and they have regular meetings with and input from the male branches. In 2015, Carmelite monasteries received a questionnaire from the Father General Fr. Saverio Cannistra, a Mexican and devotee of Liberation Theology, to ask if they wanted an International Commission of Nuns to oversee the female houses place of the Carmelite Fathers. This suggestion was rejected, to the annoyance of Maccise. Maccise also promoted the idea of having no superiors in the individual monasteries, but only federation presidents and shared formation of novices. The push for these changes is still on, however, under the current General, an Italian, Saverio Cannistrà. Given the Marxist leanings of the recent crop of Fathers General, it seems clear that what can be expected by “ongoing formation” is, in essence, some form of political indoctrination, sprayed over with a micro-thin layer of pious language. But for Carmelite nuns, Sister said, these ideas are the antithesis of the intentions of St. Teresa. Authentic autonomy, independence of formation and finances, “are essential points of our charism that Our Holy Mother established and to do away with them is to do away with the charism.” “They go against our Constitutions, even though Cor Orans states that everything is to be done in accord with the charism and Constitutions. Each Carmel has its own spirit, its own tempo, it’s own ‘feel.’ Each nun is called not just to the Order, but to a specific Carmel. Formation in common is something we’ve been fighting against for years.” “To have a federal president who can decide to take the novices away, or take all our finances, or tell the Holy See we’re no longer ‘viable’ – this is a disaster. St. Teresa specifically set up the monasteries so that none of this would take place. And now it’s going to be done to us.” She points to the extended length of formation for new nuns - previously six years for Carmelites and under Cor orans now nine years, as absurd, saying it will tend to impede new vocations. “As though the Church is going to ask laypeople to be engaged for nine years before they marry. Our Constitutions already provide a three year extension of temporary vows if needed, but to make it mandatory will dissuade women from entering. It will also help the monastery become ‘less viable’ because by the time anyone younger is professed, the others will be dead.” Another requirement will be for a “religious assistant,” a priest monitoring the monastery in addition to a chaplain, to be assigned by the federation. Sister writes that this was rejected “years ago” by Carmelite monasteries as undue interference. The religious assistant will have unprecedented powers. Article 23 states, for instance, “In discerning the foundation of a new monastery on the part of a single monastery, the Federal President and the religious assistant intervene to help the superior of the founding monastery. The discernment on the foundation of a new monastery by the Federation is made within the framework of the Federal Assembly.” “One other thing that is very striking to me is the complete loss of our rights. There are no options in this document, no choices, no recourse. It’s all being done to us. In this day and age, when Pope Francis is proclaiming, if not Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, then at least license and ‘choice’ for all, plus the ‘rights’ of women, here our rights are completely taken away.” Another nun has written saying that they cannot conceive of what these people mean by “ongoing formation”. Judging from other documents from already-federated Carmelites in Europe, it means in practical terms going in groups away from the monastery for days or weeks at a time to take “courses” together with novices from other monasteries. The content of these course, of course, is to be formulated by teams of “experts” chosen by the Federation. Sister writes, “Cloistered nuns have a very full horarium that does not allow for a lot of other things. We already have to deal with the million unexpected things that come up each day. I have no idea how we are going to implement all these ridiculous plans of ‘on-going formation’. Can they not comprehend that simply faithfully living our daily life provides plenty of on-going formation.” Apparently not. As I wrote in my first analysis piece, the document itself – that we must remember is a piece of legislation, a legal document laying out what all monasteries of contemplative nuns must now do – starts by laying out its working premise: Pope Francis, in the wake of the teaching of Pope Pius XII and reaffirmed by Ecumenical Vatican Council II, intended to present in Vultum Dei quaerere the intense and fruitful path taken by the Church in the last decades, in the light of the teachings of the same Council and considering the changed socio-cultural conditions. In other words, it is the “intense and fruitful path” of the last few decades of the Church since Vatican II that all monasteries of cloistered, contemplative nuns must now take. Anyone who imagines that this document’s authors will allow leeway, that there will be dispensations forthcoming for traditional or “conservative” communities from timid and cowed Vatican bodies like Ecclesia Dei, has failed to pay attention. In the last 20 years, “conservative” Catholics have pointed to the flourishing – mainly in the US – of some groups of sisters who had turned away from the “intense and fruitful path” and re-established some of the traditional accoutrements of the religious life. They point to the Nashville Dominicans, the Missionaries of Charity, the Poor Clares of Alabama, where there are at least habits, (some) chant, common life and common apostolates. But it is these signs of refusal of the programme that have infuriated the despots of the New Paradigm who would not rest until every last individual house of religious life was co-opted, subverted to the new ideology. The little green shoots of hope that the faithful Catholic world so rejoiced to see are to be stamped back into the frost of Vatican II’s perpetual winter. In the continuing analysis that will follow this article, we can see that the purpose of this document is to fulfill the totalitarian fantasies of the anti-Catholic revolutionaries, now nearing the end of their lives 50 years after their initial near-triumph. Its intention is mopping up; either to herd the remaining recalcitrants – those who have resisted even to the softened and conciliating degrees typical of “conservatives” – into the full post-conciliar “reform” instituted by the revolutionaries in the 1960s – or to close them. The thing is, the result will obviously be the same either way. The whole world has seen what happens to religious life that takes on the VaticanTwoist New Paradigm. I have just received a document that was issued privately summarising the findings of a meeting of federated Discalced Carmelite nuns in Europe in 2009. The numbers are absolutely dismal. Federation: Belgium number of convents: 11 Number of nuns: 120 solemnly professed: 119 in formation: 1 average age: 73 Federation: Belgium - Luxembourg. number of convents: 11 number of nuns: 122 solemnly professed: 117 in formation: 5 average age: 75 Federation: Germany number of convents: 14 number of nuns: 178 solemnly professed: 170 in formation: 8 average age: 66 The rest are similar, and I’ll be analysing this document in some detail in the next piece in this series, but the rest of the responses to the Father General’s questionnaire tell a similar story. The German federation gave a summary of the efforts made to address these issues. “Path taken: For 15 years they have organized formation courses: on-going & initial formation, and for formators. Meetings for prioresses. Present Problems: Have got very old. Some sisters are in care-homes run by Franciscans. Possible Solutions: Two convents intend to amalgamate.” This is the death spiral. And it is precisely this “intense and fruitful path” taken by nearly all the Catholic world’s monastics since 1965 that Cor orans is attempting to force on the very, very few holdouts.
Kerry On Edge As Legacy Crumbles  Former Secretary of State John Kerry wasted no time condemning President Trump’s decision not to recertify, and to possibly withdraw from, the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran that Kerry negotiated on behalf of his boss Barack Obama. President Trump insisted on significant improvements to the Joint Plan of Comprehensive Action (JCPOA), as the deal is formally known. The JCPOA’s fundamental flaws that President Trump wants fixed include Iran’s ability to block unfettered international inspections, the wiggle room that Iran is exploiting to continue developing and testing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and the sunset clause on nuclear enrichment that would provide Iran a clear path to becoming a nuclear armed state after the current restrictions are lifted. Obama and Kerry had promised that these issues would be dealt with satisfactorily before agreeing to the final terms of the JCPOA. Instead they caved to Iranian pressure in order to get the deal done. Now that President Trump is trying to clean up the mess Obama and Kerry left him, Kerry has the gall to label President Trump’s decision a "reckless abandonment of facts in favor of ego and ideology" and to accuse the Trump administration of “lying to the American people.” It was the Obama administration that recklessly abandoned the facts in pressing ahead with the deal. The Obama administration lied to the American people, abandoning its own promises to ensure that the deal contained ironclad protections. Moreover, all that President Trump has done so far is to return the JCPOA to Congress for review. Had Obama followed the Constitution and submitted the JCPOA to the Senate as a treaty in the first place, the JCPOA in its present form almost certainly would not have been approved. Congress should now have the opportunity to revisit the JCPOA to determine whether the protections that the Obama administration promised are working as advertised. Congress should also consider whether time limits on Iran’s commitments continue to make sense in light of what we are now experiencing with Iran’s nuclear technology collaborator, North Korea. It bought time to turn into a full-fledged nuclear power under our noses. Kerry had promised that the Iranian regime would be prohibited from testing ballistic missiles. This turned out to be a lie. After the JCPOA was finalized, with no such prohibition included, Iran continued to test such missiles. The Obama administration’s response was that the missiles had become a separate issue, to be dealt with under a new United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing the JCPOA. The new resolution replaced clear prohibitions imposed on Iran’s ballistic missile program with a weak declaration in an annex that simply “calls upon” Iran not to undertake any activity such as development and test launches related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons for eight years. Iran has tested several ballistic missiles during the last two years, including two Qadr H missiles with the phrase “Israel must be wiped out” emblazoned on the sides. The commander of Iran’s Army, Major General Ataollah Salehi, had told reporters just a month before the launch of those missiles that Iran was "neither paying any attention to the resolutions against Iran, nor implementing them. This is not a breach of the JCPOA.” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin, spurning requests from Obama administration officials to impose sanctions against Iran under the Security Council resolution, asserted that the Iranian missile test did not violate the resolution. “A call is different from a ban so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call,” the Russian ambassador said. In short, the JCPOA did not cover the missile tests and the replacement UN Security Council resolution that did mention the missiles is toothless. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told CNN, during an interview aired on April 6, 2015, that under the deal’s terms then still being negotiated, “you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has." Rhodes claimed that “if we see a site that we need to inspect on a military facility, we can get access to that site and inspect it. So if it's a suspicious site that we believe is related to its nuclear efforts, we can get access and inspect that site through the IAEA.” This was another lie. After the JCPOA was finalized in July 2015, Rhodes shamelessly denied that anytime, anywhere inspections were ever considered as part of the negotiations. “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere,” Rhodes said on July 14, 2015. The JCPOA’s supporters, including Kerry, have made much of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has on several occasions verified Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA, keeping its stock of low-enriched uranium below the limit set forth in the JCPOA and not pursuing further construction of the Arak reactor. Iran was found to have slightly exceeded the limit on its stock of heavy water, but has remedied the problem to the IAEA’s satisfaction. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano reiterated in a statement he issued on October 9th that Iran has remained in compliance with its JCPOA commitments. The problem, as any clear-eyed observer of the process recognizes, is that the IAEA relies on Iran for self-inspection of certain sites that the regime does not want the IAEA to inspect freely on its own. IAEA inspectors have avoided examining military sites it knows exists and has no reliable way of tracking undeclared sites. The IAEA’s explanation for not visiting any of Iran’s known military sites is that it had “no reason to ask” for access. Evidently, the IAEA is supposed to block out the fact that Iran had conducted tests relevant to nuclear bomb detonations at a military site before the JCPOA’s finalization in 2015. The IAEA should just pretend that such tests could not possibly happen again. “Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites,” said Iran’s Head of Strategic Research Center at the Expediency Council and adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati. Intimidation works. The IAEA knows not to ask. As to the JCPOA’s sunset provisions, the Obama administration lied about that too. Kerry claimed on September 2, 2015 that the JCPOA “never sunsets. There’s no sunset in this agreement.” This month Kerry has resorted to parsing words. He claims the phrase 'sunset provisions' is a “misnomer,” before then defending the JCPOA’s time limits. "We were comfortable because the cap on Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile remains in place until 2030,” Kerry wrote in an article published in the Washington Post late last month. In other words, let’s just kick the can down the road and hope for a more reasonable Iranian regime in 13 years that would agree to extend the time limits. In the meantime, Kerry advises us not to worry. Kerry declared, “15 or 25 years from now, we still have the same military options we have today.” John Kerry has obviously learned nothing from the North Korean fiasco, which resulted from years of phony agreements with the rogue regime and so-called “strategic patience.” The United States clearly does not have the same military options today to deal with a nuclear armed North Korea as it did 23 years ago when former President Bill Clinton decided not to use military force to stamp out North Korea’s nuclear program at its inception. Instead, Clinton started us down the primrose path of naïve diplomacy with a duplicitous regime that now is on the verge of being able to strike the U.S. mainland with nuclear warheads delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is precisely because North Korea’s actions over the last 23 years have proven that making concessions to a rogue regime in order to obtain denuclearization commitments is so dangerous that President Trump does not want to make the same mistake with Iran. America’s European allies are also upset with President Trump for refusing to recertify the deal and threatening to pull out if certain conditions are not met. British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a joint statement last Friday praising the JCPOA and its implementation. They said that the nuclear deal with Iran was “the culmination of 13 years of diplomacy and was a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is not diverted for military purposes. Therefore, we encourage the US Administration and Congress to consider the implications to the security of the US and its allies before taking any steps that might undermine the JCPOA, such as re-imposing sanctions on Iran lifted under the agreement.” Perhaps these European leaders should remember their own history. Appeasement through phony deals with a rogue dictatorship does not work, as proven by the infamous Munich Pact signed by British and French Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler seventy-nine years ago.
The Obama Era Jade Helm Connection To The Current Illegal Immigration Policy  On the surface, the latest illegal immigration debate between Leftists and the Administration looks like, yet another issue Progressives are trying to undermine progress being done by the president. No one should be surprised by the crackdown on illegals entering the country, especially since it was one of the major campaign promises Donald Trump made before getting elected. When it comes to the separation of children from their families, there is nothing new today that was not being done during the Obama reign. In 2013, Obama began bringing into the US literally over a hundred thousand people, mainly below age 21. They were bused, flown, and met at the US border with Mexico by the Department of Homeland Security under the direction of Obama to do so. Since most of them were adolescents and older teenagers they could not be set free, thus Obama ordered various military bases to house these children. 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 * 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. The surge of children into the US from various countries south of the border was said to be the result of economics, high crime rates, and actual threats from organized crime entities. Another excuse used by the Obama government was to bring them here to find their families already in the US. Thus, the idea that separating children from their parents as being something new, done only by the Trump Administration is absurd, since we really have no idea whether the children brought here during the Obama reign were intentionally separated from their parents by the US government at that time, or not. We have only what little information the government told us then, which was not very much, considering the fact that Obama wanted to keep as much of this situation as secret as possible. What many do not realize is, today's policy of separating underage siblings from their parents once they cross the border illegally into the US seems to be a planned event by the US government going all the way back to the domestic military exercises known as Jade Helm in 2015. Many remember the military taking over several Walmart locations, mainly in Texas, during the Jade Helm exercises. This, along with the federal government grab of millions of acres of land during the Obama years, speaks volumes in the government's plan to be able to handle millions of people. Since Obama planned to have over a million Muslim refugees brought into the US over a short period of time, along with the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming in, one can understand the reason the Feds had to have the Walmart stores and so much land, as they needed housing for the millions they planned to bring in. Despite President Trump signing an Executive Order suspending Syrian refugees from entering the US for 120 days on Jan. 26, 2017 while security measures were reviewed, the US still imported 110,000 refugees from Syria and various other countries into the US in 2017 alone, up from 85,000 the previous year. These numbers follow Obama's projections of the expected amount of refugees permitted to come to the US. Of course, as with the number of illegal immigrants entering our county, the Feds downplay the actual number which always ends up to be more than quadruple their stated number. What we seem to have here with the illegal immigration situation today is some very good actors on the Left accusing the Trump Administration of being cruel and insensitive with separating children from their families once they cross the Mexican border into the US. When in fact, their idol, Obama did the same thing for years during his time in power. What they do not want to admit to is the fact that today's illegal immigration picture is one that follows the Obama plan on dealing with the influx of illegals to a carbon copy. President Trump, on the other hand, is following along with it by detaining illegal immigrants at the border and separating children from their apparent families. Since no one can know if the children really belong to the illegals who say they are their parents, they are separated until that can be verified, along with other background findings. The bottom line is, both the Left and the Trump Administration seem to be following along with a plan of action going back to Jade Helm which paved the way for the housing needed for such a huge influx of illegal immigrants and refugees. All of which seems to be a planned event. In any case, neither side in DC is really interested in solving the illegal immigration problem or cares about the children involved. If they were, there would be no detention and separation after illegally coming into the US, only an immediate deportation by US Border Patrol on the spot.
Next plague outbreak in Madagascar could be 'stronger': WHO  Geneva - The World Health Organisation chief on Wednesday said a deadly plague epidemic appeared to have been brought under control in Madagascar, but warned the next outbreak would likely be stronger.  "The next transmission could be more pronounced or stronger," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters in Geneva, insisting that "the issue is serious."  An outbreak of both bubonic plague, which is spread by infected rats via flea bites, and pneumonic plague, spread person to person, has killed more than 200 people in the Indian Ocean island nation since August.  Madagascar has suffered bubonic plague outbreaks almost every year since 1980, often caused by rats fleeing forest fires.  The disease tends to make a comeback each hot rainy season, from September to April. On average, between 300 and 600 infections are recorded every year among a population approaching 25 million people, according to a UN estimate.  But Tedros voiced alarm that "plague in Madagascar behaved in a very, very different way this year."  Cases sprang up far earlier than usual and, instead of being confined to the countryside, the disease infiltrated towns. The authorities recorded more than 2 000 cases, and Tedros said Wednesday the death toll stood at 207.  He also pointed to the presence of the pneumonic version, which spreads more easily and is more virulent, in the latest outbreak.  He praised the rapid response from WHO and Madagascar authorities that helped bring the outbreak under control, but warned that the danger was not over.  The larger-than-usual outbreak had helped spread the bacteria that causes the plague more widely.  This along with poor sanitation and vector control on Madagascar meant that "when (the plague) comes again it starts from more stock, and the magnitude in the next transmission could be higher than the one that we saw," Tedros said.  "That means that Madagascar could be affected more, and not only that, it could even spill over into neighbouring countries and beyond," he warned.  Complicating vector control is the fact that the fleas that carry the Yersinia pestis bacteria that causes the plague have proven to be widely resistant to chemicals and insecticides.  "That's a dangerous combination," Tedros said.
Confirmed: Authorities LIED About Las Vegas Shooter’s Hotel Check-In Date – What Else Are They Hiding?  Over the last few days the alternative media has spent countless hours conducting their own investigations into what actually happened during the mass shooting in Las Vegas that left 59 dead and over 500 injured. From reports of multiple shooters to officials seemingly covering up the ISIS connection, many different theories have been put forth that counter the mainstream narrative. Now, new information released by investigative reporter Laura Loomer proves that authorities have directly lied to the American people about the case at least once by claiming that supposed shooter Stephen Paddock checked into the Mandalay Bay Hotel on September 28th when valet records (with photos) prove he actually arrived three days earlier. According to Loomer, she obtained the image from a source which shows that Paddock’s car first arrived September 25th. The photo even has a handwritten note that was reportedly written by an FBI agent – proving that the FBI specifically lied to the country. The picture “proves FBI misled public about #StephenPaddock’s check in date,” Loomer Tweeted. EXCLUSIVE PICS: LV Shooter’s car; @FBI note inside @MandalayBay valet center proves FBI misled public about #StephenPaddock‘s check in date. pic.twitter.com/sotjwX3o0i — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) October 6, 2017 Shockingly, another Tweet by Loomer also revealed that the license plate numbers given out by police after the horrific shooting DO NOT match the actual license plate of Paddock’s vehicle. Law enforcement and @FBI misled the public about #Paddock‘s check in date and also provided public & media w/ wrong license plate number. pic.twitter.com/y9hS6GqdKI — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) October 6, 2017 That’s right, photographic evidence from inside the hotel parking garage has confirmed that the FBI, along with state and local police, specifically lied about key details of the shooting. This throws their entire narrative into question and makes one wonder what else is being hidden from the public? Keep in mind that at least four videos from the scene of the shooting have already been released that indicate there were multiple shooters. In fact, there are so many unanswered questions that the Drudge Report even linked to an article asking them directly. As noted above, at this point literally every piece of so-called evidence put forth by authorities and then regurgitated by the mainstream media cannot be trusted and should be considered as disinformation until proven otherwise. And if Paddock really did act alone and this evidence is some sort of mistake, there is surely video footage proving so. Notice #StephenPaddock‘s van was last parked right next to a security camera inside “Garage East” @MandalayBay. There is definitely footage. https://t.co/L1caGn6uqw — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) October 6, 2017 It is also important to note that Paddock’s brother Eric has conducted a series of bizarre interviews that have led to even more questions about what actually happened in Las Vegas and what Paddock’s role was in the worst mass shooting in American history.
Kavanaugh's Nomination Saved?  Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s outstanding performance at yesterday’s evidentiary hearing featuring attempted rape accuser Christine Blasey Ford may have revived his embattled nomination for the highest court in America. The meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee showed the underhanded tactics employed by the Left against Judge Kavanaugh. The nominee and Republican senators used the opportunity to attack desperate Democrats for their efforts at character assassination. President Trump was delighted. “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him[,]” President Trump tweeted at 6:46 p.m. after the hearing wrapped up. “His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!” Ford, who claims Kavanaugh tried to rape her decades ago when he was a high school student, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for several hours Thursday. Kavanaugh testified separately after Ford’s testimony concluded. Kavanaugh stole the show. The judge forcefully stood up for himself as his voice trembled with righteous indignation, calling out Democratic senators for plotting against him. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn't work. When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee, and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then, and then as no doubt was expected, if not planned, came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Afraid of their own shadows, committee Republicans didn’t relish the prospect of their all-male team of 11 senators questioning a woman so they hired sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell of Maricopa County, Arizona, to examine Ford. Opinions differ widely on how Mitchell performed. She tiptoed around the alleged sexual assault itself, instead focusing on process-related questions, presumably in an effort to show undecided senators how Ford and her handlers have been unfairly manipulating the process. In much of her testimony, Ford came across as presentable and seemingly credible, though vague and sometimes evasive, her ridiculous overall story notwithstanding. Ford did well enough that during the break between her testimony and Kavanaugh’s, commentators on Fox News such as Brit Hume and Andrew Napolitano were openly musing about the nominee withdrawing, opinions that were sharply reversed after the nominee completed his testimony hours later. It’s not that Mitchell did a bad job creating an inventory of the irregularities in the process and of the odd behavior of Ford and her lawyers. She could do little else. She had many restrictions placed upon her and was only allowed to question Ford for minutes at a time before surrendering the floor to the next committee Democrat. As commentator Sean Davis tweeted: “Hard to do much else when the witness conveniently has no corroborating evidence, no memory of any verifiable facts of what happened, and everyone she says was present at the alleged incident--even her best friend--has denied it.” Nonetheless, Mitchell’s questioning came across at times as perfunctory, leading many observers to conclude that Republicans threw away a valuable opportunity by using her as a stand-in. She failed to lay a glove on a witness whose implausible, internally contradictory story cried out for vigorous cross-examination. In the end the too-deferential, easygoing Mitchell failed to provide much, if anything, in the way of evidence against Ford or in favor of Kavanaugh. Whether her work will bring over fence-sitting senators to Kavanaugh’s side remains to be seen. Like other Democrats, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii tried to help Ford, lobbing her softballs. After saying she thought she knew what Mitchell was trying to get at in her questions, the senator said, “so I'll just ask you very plainly, Dr. Ford, is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by Brett Kavanaugh?” “No, and I'd like to reiterate that again, I was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other what looked like equally-qualified candidates,” Ford replied. When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Ford “with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?” Ford replied, “one hundred percent.” Strangely, Ford has a bad long-term memory and a bad short-term memory. She doesn’t know when or where the alleged incident took place, yet she is “one hundred percent” certain it was Kavanaugh who attacked her. At the outset of the hearing, Grassley provided an overview of what Kavanaugh had gone through –including the Democrats’ sordid behavior— since President Trump announced the judge’s nomination on July 9. As part of the confirmation process, Kavanaugh endured his sixth background investigation since 1993. “Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there a whiff of any issue – any issue at all related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior,” Grassley said. Ford shared her allegations in a letter to the committee’s ranking member, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), in the summer. The letter remained secret from July 30 through until September 13 when he first learned about it, the chairman said. Instead of sharing the letter with the committee, Feinstein did nothing. Before the hearing, Kavanaugh met privately with 65 senators, including Feinstein, who didn’t ask him about the allegations when she met with him in August. The committee held a four-day public hearing from September 4 to September 7 during which Kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours in public. Feinstein didn’t attend it, Grassley said. Kavanaugh answered almost 1,300 written questions senators submitted after the hearing. That is “more than all prior Supreme Court nominees,” he said. “Throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking member's secret evidence. Then, only at an 11th hour, on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, did the ranking member refer the allegations to the FBI. And then, sadly, the allegations were leaked to the press.” “Every step of the way the Democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation,” Grassley said. After Ford’s identity became public, Grassley’s staff “contacted all the individuals she said attended the 1982 party described in the Washington Post article,” he said. Kavanaugh “immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. He denied the allegations categorically.” “Democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to, but they declined. Which leads me then to wonder: If they're really concerned with going to the truth, why wouldn't you want to talk to the accused?” Grassley said his staff contacted the other individuals who allegedly attended the party at which the conduct Ford complained of allegedly took place: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, and Leland Keyser. “All three submitted statements to the Senate under – under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events described by Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford's lifelong friend, Dr. – Miss Keyser, stated she doesn't know Judge Kavanaugh and doesn't recall ever attending a party with him.” Grassley said his staff repeatedly sought to interview Ford over the past 11 days, “even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony, but her attorneys refused to prevent – present her allegations to Congress.” “Consistent with their stated desires to obstruct Kavanaugh's nomination” by any means possible, “pushed for FBI investigations into the allegations.” “We've been trying to investigate other allegations,” Grassley said. “At this time, we have not had cooperation from attorneys representing other clients, and they have made no attempt to substantiate their claims.” Attorneys for new Kavanaugh accusers Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick have been approached by committee staff on eight and six occasions, respectively, Grassley said. “Neither attorney has made their clients available for interview. The committee can't do an investigation if attorneys are stonewalling.” With his performance at the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is frequently a target of conservatives for going rogue on important issues, partly redeemed himself in the eyes of many conservatives. While questioning Kavanaugh, Graham lambasted the confirmation process the judge has been put through, calling it “the most unethical sham since I've been in politics.” Lashing out at Democrats, Graham said, “If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020.” “Boy, you all want power,” he shouted. “God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.” Graham warned fellow GOPers about voting against the nomination. “To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) attacked Democrats, blaming them for the “circus atmosphere that has been created” since they first Ford's allegations to the media “two weeks ago, after sitting on them for six weeks.” This “has brought us the worst in our politics.” “It certainly has brought us no closer to the truth,” Hatch added. “Anonymous letters with no name and no return address are now being treated as national news.” Taking a shot at Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti, Hatch said “porn star lawyers with facially implausible claims are driving the news cycle.” “I hate to say this, but this is worse than Robert Bork, and I didn't think it could get any worse than that. This is worse than Clarence Thomas. I didn't think it could get any worse than that. This is a national disgrace, the way you're being treated.” The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination today at 9:30 a.m. Asked last night about the nomination moving to the floor of the Senate for a final vote, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reportedly answered, "Depends on what happens tomorrow." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is planning a procedural vote on Saturday to formally move to the nomination, followed by a potential confirmation vote by the full Senate as soon as Tuesday, Politico reports. A handful of Democrat senators, including the perpetually vulnerable red-state senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are reportedly considering voting to confirm Kavanaugh when the nomination goes before the full Senate. If Kavanaugh isn’t on the bench Monday, the Supreme Court will be shorthanded as it begins hearing cases in its new term. It normally has a complement of nine justices but with Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have been only eight justices. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats are trying to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they hope to seize control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. The confirmation drama continues.
Trump formally nominates Gina Haspel to be next CIA director  WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump formally notified Congress on Tuesday that deputy CIA director Gina Haspel is his pick to lead the agency.  Trump tweeted last month that he had selected Haspel to replace Mike Pompeo, who is being considered to be secretary of state. But the president had not sent the formal paperwork to Capitol Hill.  Logistical issues, including an FBI background check that took longer than expected, was to blame, according to a U.S. official, who was not authorized to discuss the issue and spoke only on condition of anonymity.  Still, the delay prompted critics to speculate that the delay signaled the White House was having second thoughts about the nomination. Some lawmakers and human rights groups oppose Haspel’s nomination because of her role in the CIA’s detention and harsh interrogation of terror suspects after 9/11.  The Senate intelligence committee is expected to have a confirmation hearing for Haspel in coming weeks, followed by a vote in the full Senate.
Islamizing the Schools: The Case of West Virginia  This is an outrage, but it is common nationwide: the Daily Caller News Foundation reports that Mountain Ridge Middle School in West Virginia is “instructing junior high students to write the Islamic profession of faith ostensibly to practice calligraphy.” Students are made to write out the Shahada, which states: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”This is exactly what I warned about in my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance , in the chapter “The Mosqueing of the Public Schools.”In order to convert to Islam, one says the shahada. Saying the shahada makes you a Muslim. The shahada is what is on the black flag of jihad. No non-Muslim student should be forced to write or say the shahada without the qualifier “Muslims believe that…” This is because it is a statement of faith. If the school exercise is requiring students to write it, it should be clear from the wording of the exercise that this is Islamic faith, not the student’s faith. That distinction has been glossed over in many, many school textbook presentations. This is in West Virginia, not Baghdad. And it’s a problem not just in West Virginia – it’s a national problem. 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 * Email 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. Rich Penkoski, the father of a Mountain Ridge student, contacted me and explained the situation further. He sent me the packets the school gave out for the Jewish and the Christian lessons and commented: Notice no bible verses, no reciting the 10 commandments or the Lord’s prayer. No practicing writing in Hebrew (not even the 10 commandments) as compared to the Islamic packet. There are no statements of faith, nothing asking the students to write it or practice in any of the Jewish or Christian rituals. Furthermore the principal of Mountain Ridge Middle School Dr. Branch has used my words against me by saying the teacher did tell the students about the Lord’s prayer (my daughter as well as 1 other said this is false)[.] He is using my arguments I made to him yesterday to protect the teacher. The teacher today told the students the assignment was optional. My daughter as well as other students were under the impression all the packet assignments were mandatory (the Jewish one and the Christian ones were mandatory). I wrote to Dr. Branch to share with him the resource that Miss Hinson used and point out that the material she gave the students did not include all the faith aspects for Christianity. The students received 2 pages for Christianity from this resource while all the Islamic sections were left intact. Here’s the link for you to review. You will notice all the faith elements were left out for Judaism and Christianity while the Islamic section was left the way it’s presented. https://www.gvsd.org/cms/lib/PA01001045/Centricity/Domain/610/World%20Religions.pdf So she decided to use the extra resources for Islam and the school is saying that’s not indoctrination or proselytizing? The faith aspects and the same considerations were not given to the others as they were for Islam. This actually further proves my point that Islam was afforded special privilege over the others. The school is backtracking and being deceptive to try and weasel out of this. The teacher today clarified things for the students but that still does not excuse the fact that they are teaching the Islamic faith and asking the kids to participate in Sharia. Look at the Islamic packet again. They are asking the kids to write the beginning of Surahs. The teacher still has not corrected the error that calligraphy was started by the arabs. They are doubling down and only after being called on it are they trying to backtrack. Rich Penkoski is hardly the first to protest this egregious submission to the most vicious and brutal ideology on the face of the Earth. In Volusia County, Florida, hundreds protested Islamic lessons in their “World History” text, a Common Core-approved high school history textbook. With an entire chapter dedicated to the virtues of Islam and not a single chapter for Christianity, the textbook had Floridians in a frenzy. And who is the biggest pusher of Common Core besides leftist progressives? The Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, along with the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In Florida, CAIR is on the offensive (more here). We have seen the increasing Islamization of the public-school curriculum. History lessons in Islam are dawah – proselytizing for Islam. Large public-school publishers have been bought by the Saudis. In West Virginia, it gets even worse. Rich Penkoski has alerted me to the latest development in the forced Islamization of his children’s school curriculum: after the Daily Caller and Geller Report exposed what was happening, Mountain Ridge administrators and teachers began messaging parents who were sharing the story, asking them to remove their posts. What do they have to hide? Apparently, a great deal. Worse still, Penkoski is now being threatened by students who attend the school with his daughter. (And who is behind them? Unidentified “adult friends.”) He sent this message to me: A student in the school threatened to get her adult friends to come to my home and kill me by stabbing me in the chest and ripping my organs out. They told my daughter “we are gonna get some people and kill your dad.” This student, who is known to me but whom I cannot name because she is a minor, has given students our address and is encouraging them to come to my home over this whole thing. Another student told my daughter that she and the first student and her adult friends are going to kill me and carve a satanic star in my chest and rip out my organs. They then threatened to hang my 3-year-old and 1-year-old and kidnap my 14-year-old. All this in school today because of the articles. This is not a joke and needs to be investigated. I have contacted the school’s principal, Dr. Branch, and I trust that he will take this matter seriously and deal with it appropriately. Is the principal acting on this? And do the police have any interest in this? Or would that be “islamofauxbic”? Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books
3rd Highest Ranked Dem Civil Rights Hero Appeared w/Farrakhan, Won't Condemn  The media's Farrakhan embargo is collapsing. And that's due to the hard work of committed conservative journalists who stayed on this story, especially at the Daily Caller, which got the Rep. Davis quotes, twice. Some credit also goes to Jake Tapper at CNN and Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post for a willingness to discuss the subject even when their media outlets didn't want to. The debate over the ties between Women's March leaders and Farrakhan made into a debate on the View. And that debate involved none other than Valerie Jarrett. The New York Times has now run its own explainer piece on Farrakhan and the Dems which mentions the infamous Obama-Farrakhan photo. There's also a quote from an Obama spokeswoman claiming that, “President Obama has denounced racism and anti-Semitism his entire life. That includes his public and repeated repudiations of Louis Farrakhan’s views over the years. Today is no different – he still rejects the harmful and divisive views Farrakhan continues to espouse.” That fails to explain why he met with him. And maybe one of these days someone will ask him that question. And then Obama can give a new remix of his Wright speech. "I can no more disavow Calypso Louie than I can my dead white grandmother." Rep. Danny Davis, after defending Farrakhan, now has a statement condemning him. But we've seen that before. So it likely doesn't represent his views. After a previous statement, Rep. Davis made an infamous comment about the "Jewish question". So it probably still isn't over. The statement though is full of conspiracy theories and blames everyone else for Davis' behavior except him. And now on to "civil rights hero" (TM) Rep. Clyburn. South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn attended a 2011 event with Farrakhan and shared the stage with him, even after Jewish groups voiced their opposition to Clyburn attending the event. Clyburn told the Final Call, a Nation of Islam publication, that he was “not bothered in the least bit” by criticisms of his attendance at the event. As the assistant Democratic leader, Clyburn is the third-highest ranked Democrat in the House. He declined to condemn Farrakhan in a statement released to The Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday. “I have fought all my life to advance the cause of social justice and equality, and I have always opposed bigotry in all its forms,” Clyburn said in the statement. His office declined repeated inquiries regarding whether the congressman is willing to condemn Farrakhan, and whether he stood by his decision in 2011 to shrug off criticisms of Farrakhan. Clyburn is now the eighth House Democrat to have direct ties to Farrakhan. The Republican Jewish Coalition has already called on the seven other Democrats to resign over their ties to Farrakhan. Obviously not going to happen. But the story is breaking through the embargo. We're starting to have that "national dialogue" about racism that the left keeps wanting us to have.
Francis and Farrell’s 'Sinod' on the Youth, #StopThe Synod2018  During the last 5 years of this papacy, Francis and his Synodal Schemers masterfully manipulated, rigged, and exploited the synodal process. The backdoor tactics and machinations were brilliantly documented by Edward Pentin , Henry Sire, George Neumayr and an array of investigative journalists. The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. – Shakespeare, As You Like It Pope Francis and Cardinal Farrell sit with students at the 2018 pre-synodal meeting for young people. The upcoming October 2018 Synod of Bishops guarantees more synodal antics as the doctrinal culmination of the “Who Am I to Judge” mantra and the recantation of Church teaching on homosexuality. Pope Francis announced in the Pre-Synodal meeting that the Church will be listening to all the young people and that “no one will be excluded.” That’s code language that the Pope will be “dialoging” and “accompanying” and “hearing” the pro-LBGT agenda. Oh, the providential irony! The two themes of the upcoming Synod of Bishops in Rome are none other than, Youth and Vocations. Sound familiar? Do I hear the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report? How inconvenient that the two targets of predatory clerics and prelates will be the subject of the Synod of Bishops. How inconvenient that the head of the Synod on Youth and Vocations, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, was the former roommate of the most prolific serial predator of youth and seminarians in the history of the American Church. How inconvenient that Farrell, Head of this Synod on Youth, roomed with the notorious Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for six years and never knew anything about McCarrick’s predatory behavior. How inconvenient that a global homosexual clergy predation scandal is erupting at a time when Francis wants the Synod to minimize that nagging and unmerciful Catholic catechism doctrine of homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” by exploiting the naive views of the youth at the Synod. How inconvenient that homosexual predation is bankrupting the American Church and the Instrumentum Laboris, the working document of this Vatican Synodal Agenda, embraces the relaxation of the Church teachings on homosexuality. How inconvenient that the homosexual network of clergy and prelates were blasted as predators and coverup enablers in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, while the Instrumentum Laboris argues that: “Some LGBT youths, through various contributions that were received by the General Secretariat of the Synod, wish to benefit from greater closeness and experience greater care by the Church, while some Bishop Conferences ask themselves what to suggest to young people who decide to create homosexual instead of heterosexual couples and, above all, would like to be close to the Church.” §197 IL How inconvenient that during a global prelate homosexual coverup scandal, the 2018 Synodal Bishop Conferences are exploring for ways during the Synod to discuss ways in which homosexual youths want to be “closer” to the Church! How inconvenient that since 2013 during Francis’ impromptu airplane presser when he cleverly sent a powerful message to homosexual clerics, “Who Am I to Judge,” now Francis must judge the criminal predatory conduct of homosexual clergy and prelates who preyed on youth and seminarians. The emerging homosexual clergy scandal is just beginning to unfold. The laity will learn over the course of the next few years that the underlying cause of the criminal scandal lies in the homosexual network of priests, bishops and cardinals who preyed on the youth, assaulted seminarians, promoted their own ilk, and punished any whistleblowers or noncompliant priests. Here is the dirty secret that is now emerging. Many in the hierarchy were active homosexuals who intentionally relaxed and ignored the Church’s teaching and moral stance on homosexuality. The personal wreckage brutally portrayed in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report is the direct result of a clerical culture which embraced homosexuality and groomed, recruited, and assaulted young people into this sordid lifestyle. Many priests, bishops, and cardinals practiced what Francis preached, ‘who am I to judge.’ The result? A litany of lives of total moral, physical, emotional devastation suffered by victims of homosexual clerics. This is just the very beginning of the dark night of the soul of the Catholic Church. The upcoming Synod and its embrace of the “LGBT” lifestyle makes a mockery of the suffering of the clergy victims and justifies the decades-old scandal. Be forewarned that inviting young people from ages 16-29 to the Synod to discuss vocations with Bishops poses serious moral and physical dangers to these unsuspecting youth, many of whom think homosexuality is cool. And the Bishops know it. The full extent of the clerical predation in the hierarchy will take years to uncover. Until it has, this Synod must be cancelled while the civil authorities and law enforcement fully investigate the breadth and depth of the homosexual clerical predation. The warning signs and rainbow flags are flamboyantly flashing that the 2018 Synod on the Youth and Vocations in Rome presents great moral and physical exploitation of the youth. According to the Vatican, the chosen topic of the 2018 Synod, is an “expression of the Church’s pastoral concern for the young,” and is in continuity with the findings of the two-fold synod on the family and Francis’s post-synodal document Amoris Laetitia. We’ve caught on to his sneaky synodal tactics. Francis cleverly uses the synodal process to relax church doctrine by employing secular tools of surveys and focus groups. And, if the necessary results aren’t computed, they will skewer the results. Magisterium by majority vote or stuff the ballot box. The only compelling “expression of the Church’s pastoral concern for the young” belongs in the full and transparent cooperation of criminal investigations into predatory homosexual predation. Turn over the documents secret archives involving predation, both in the Vatican and in the chanceries around the globe. That is the only expression that will demonstrate concern for the young. Sign the Petition to Stop the Synod Here.  Editor's Note: The Remnant has lunched its own #StopTheSynod petition, for those who would rather not go to Change.org. Our petition will remain at the top of our site from now until October, or until the Synod is canceled. Please sign and encourage your friends, contacts, and social media associates to do the same. MJM ______________________________ Elizabeth Yore is an attorney who has investigated clerical sex abuse cases.
ICE Deports Guatemalan Man Wanted For Assassination  SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — A Guatemalan man, wanted by law enforcement authorities in his home country for killing a store owner, was removed Thursday by deportation officers. Jose Manuel Ohajacao-Ramos, was transferred Nov. 9 to the custody of Guatemalan law enforcement officials by ERO officers in Guatemala City, Guatemala. According to Guatemalan authorities, Ohajacao-Ramos is accused of fatally shooting a store owner in his store in June 1997. Guatemalan law lists the charge as an assassination. Ohajacao-Ramos legally entered the United States in 1998 as a visitor and overstayed his temporary visa by more than 18 years. He was arrested at his home in Neosho, Missouri, in May 2017. In September, a federal immigration judge ordered him removed to his home country. Ohajacao-Ramos remained in ICE custody since his May arrest. “Removing foreign fugitives trying to escape law enforcement in their home countries is an ICE top priority,” said Ricardo Wong, field office director for ERO Chicago. “The cooperation between the U.S. and our Guatemalan counterparts resulted in returning this man who is a threat to public safety.” Since Oct. 1, 2009, ERO has removed more than 1,700 foreign fugitives from the United States who were sought in their native countries for serious crimes, including kidnapping, rape and murder. In fiscal year 2016, ICE conducted 240,255 removals nationwide. Ninety-two percent of individuals removed from the interior of the United States had previously been convicted of a criminal offense.
Did Saint Francis Predict Pope Francis?  Traditionalists are often derided by neo-Catholic commentators for relying on supposedly apocryphal quotations from Popes or saints bearing on the current ecclesial crisis. But these critics never demonstrate that the oft-cited quotations are apocryphal; they merely assert that they must be, as they seem too probative to be true. This is often done in comment boxes or responses to online queries at neo-Catholic websites, wherein the neo-Catholic commentator professes he can find no source for a given quotation—meaning he hasn’t bothered to do any serious investigation beyond a few Google searches. Take this quotation of Pius XII, for example, speaking in 1931 when he was still Monsignor Pacelli, serving as Pius XI’s Secretary of State: I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul….  I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.  A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?” When I first cited this quotation some 17 years ago, I was contacted by a very prominent neo-Catholic luminary who demanded a source for it, because he and his friends believed it was “apocryphal.” I did not receive the courtesy of a thank-you when I pointed him to pp. 52-53 of Msgr. Roche’s biography of Pius XII, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire (Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 1972), an out-of-print French-language work I managed to obtain after an extensive search of used book seller inventory. The French original text confirms the accuracy of the English translation I had seen before I cited the statement.  A Modernist apostate priest, one Emile Poulet, who left the priesthood and married, attempted to cast doubt on the credibility of Msgr. Roche’s account of the words of the future Pius XII. Small wonder: Poulet, who died in 2014 at the age of 94, belonged to the “worker-priest” movement that none other than Pius XII had condemned, as I note here. His attempt to debunk the quotation involved nit-picking about what he claimed were factual errors elsewhere in the Roche biography. But he had no evidence that the quotation as such was a fabrication. He simply wished that it was so.  Let’s give our neo-Catholic friends another “apocryphal” quotation to dismiss out of hand. This one pertains to an astonishing prophecy by Saint Francis of Assisi about a future occupant of the Chair of Peter:  A short time before the holy Father’s [St. Francis’] death, he called together his children and warned them of the coming troubles:  “Act bravely, my brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power; the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who obey the true Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal ears and perfect charity.  “At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.  “There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God….  “Those who persevere in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth…  “Some preachers will keep silent about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” [paragraph breaks added]  This quotation appears in Works of the Seraphic Father, St. Francis of Assisi, published in 1882 by the London-based Catholic publishing house R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250). It is readily available as a Google book. The same book, it must be noted, contains an appendix setting forth “Doubtful Works of Saint Francis,” of which the quotation is not part. Thus, the publisher itself carefully distinguished the authentic prophecies of Saint Francis from what might be apocryphal. Moreover, in 1882 there could hardly have been any “radical traditionalist” motive to circulate phony quotations of the saint. "St. Francis in Ecstacy", Caravaggio, 1595 Saint Francis’ prophecy is clearly not a prediction of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), which did not involve a “destroyer” on the Chair of Peter who leads the faithful into error, widespread apostasy, and the persecution of faithful Catholics as “schismatics.” But it does contain elements very familiar to us today. And what inference might one draw from the coincidence that Saint Francis’ prophecy of a future “destroyer” in the papal office seems to correspond rather well with the pontificate of the only Pope who has taken Francis’ name as his own?  Something else to consider: Saint Francis, one of the greatest saints in Church history, one of the few who is known and revered by the whole world, freely revealed his vision of an ecclesial destroyer who usurps the papal office. That is, Saint Francis did not suffer from the currently reigning papolatry, which holds that the indefectibility of the Church depends upon defending every word and deed of a given Pope as somehow consistent with Tradition and declares absolutely inadmissible the idea that the holder of the Petrine office could be a threat to the integrity of the Faith. Rather, Saint Francis, illuminated by heaven itself, recognized the coming reality of what Saint Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, hypothesized as possible in principle, to cite another “apocryphal” quotation: Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by preventing his will from being executed… De Controversiis on the Roman Pontiff, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), Book II, Chapter 29, p. 303.  Did Saint Francis predict the coming of Pope Francis? That is not for us to judge, although the Church may­ well issue a judgment of Francis like that of the posthumous anathema of Honorius­­ I. Would Saint Francis have been horrified by the words and deeds of the Pope who has presumed to take his name? That question answers itself.
Top Florida County Election Official Illegally Let People Vote Over Fax & Email  This happened in “heavily Republican Bay County,” and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum is outraged. Meanwhile, Democrat election officials are marking ballots themselves and “finding” boxes of them everywhere to try to get him to victory, and when confronted about that, Gillum says, “Every vote must be counted.” This is a disgrace. Have you ever heard of a close election in which a recount and “found” ballots gave the Republican victory? 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. Of course not. This massive Democrat voter fraud could be the end of our free republic. “Top FL County Election Official Illegally Let People Vote Over Fax, Email,” by Randy DeSoto, Western Journal, November 13, 2018 (thanks to Mark): The top election official in heavily Republican Bay County allowed residents displaced by Hurricane Michael to vote by email and fax, contrary to Florida law. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum and others are expressing outrage at the special provision made for these voters. The Miami Herald reported that Bay County Supervisor of Elections Mark Andersen said on Monday that 11 ballots were accepted by email and 147 were faxed in, though Florida law only permits those serving in the military overseas to use these methods…. According to the Herald, Gov. Rick Scott issued an executive order on Oct. 18 allowing election supervisors in Bay County and other counties impacted by the storm to extend early voting days and designate more early voting locations, but did not make provision for voting by fax or email. Speaking at an African American church in Boynton Beach in Palm Beach County, north of Miami, on Monday night, Gillum expressed outrage that Anderson broke election laws and allowed these approximately 150 Floridians to vote by fax or email, The Associated Press reported. “These are the stories that we know,” Gillum said. “Imagine the ones that we don’t.” Meanwhile, Gillum along with Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson continue to call for all the votes to be counted in heavily Democratic Broward and Palm Beach counties, despite election officials in both missing state mandated deadlines in providing vote tallies. President Donald Trump tweeted late last week, “Mayor Gillum conceded on Election Day and now Broward County has put him ‘back in play.’ Bill Nelson conceded Election — now he’s back in play!? This is an embarrassment to our County and to Democracy!” Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
Shock! The Pope Is Now Openly Attacking Child Sexual Abuse Victims For “Slander”  Pope Francis is now attacking the credibility of child sex abuse victims in a shocking move made at the end of a trip to Chile in which he had hoped to “heal” the wounds of said abuse. That’s right, Pope Francis ended his trip by publicly defending a bishop who victims have accused of covering up widespread pedophilia in the country. According to a report by the Associated Press, Francis made the shocking comments in a discussion about Rev. Fernando Karadima who has been found guilty of sexually abusing a slew of minors as a member of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis accused victims of Chile’s most notorious pedophile of slander Thursday, an astonishing end to a visit meant to help heal the wounds of a sex abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic Church its credibility in the country. Francis said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny.” The pope’s remarks drew shock from Chileans and immediate rebuke from victims and their advocates. They noted the accusers were deemed credible enough by the Vatican that it sentenced Karadima to a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes in 2011. A Chilean judge also found the victims to be credible, saying that while she had to drop criminal charges against Karadima because too much time had passed, proof of his crimes wasn’t lacking. […] The Karadima scandal dominated Francis’ visit to Chile and the overall issue of sex abuse and church cover-up was likely to factor into his three-day trip to Peru that began late Thursday. Karadima’s victims reported to church authorities as early as 2002 that he would kiss and fondle them in the swank Santiago parish he ran, but officials refused to believe them. Only when the victims went public with their accusations in 2010 did the Vatican launch an investigation that led to Karadima being removed from ministry. The emeritus archbishop of Santiago subsequently apologized for having refused to believe the victims from the start. One of the victims made clear his disgust at Pope Francis for essentially covering up for a man who watched as another bishop sexually abused him. “As if I could have taken a selfie or a photo while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros stood by watching it all,” tweeted Juan Carlos Cruz. “These people are truly crazy, and the pontiff talks about atonement to the victims. Nothing has changed, and his plea for forgiveness is empty.” This obviously does not look good for the Pope or the Catholic Church as they are now apparently engaging in attacking the victims instead of actually going after the abusers.
Trump's North Korean gamble ends with 'special bond' with Kim  Nearly five hours of unprecedented and surreal talks between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un culminated on Tuesday with fulsome declarations of a new friendship but just vague pledges of nuclear disarmament.  For Trump, that amounted to a triumphant outcome in his extraordinary gamble with the rogue kingdom's despotic leader. But there were scant details on what new commitments had been secured from Kim, even as Trump announced he would end the regular military exercises the US conducts with South Korea. Whether nuclear disarmament is indeed the final outcome of Tuesday's summit won't be known for years, if not decades. But the dramatic act of extending his hand to one of America's longtime adversaries will forever illustrate Trump's gut-driven, norm-shattering tenure. "We both want to do something. We both are going to do something. And we have developed a very special bond," Trump said at the conclusion of the landmark summit. "People are going to be very impressed. People are going to be very happy." The document he and Kim signed said the North Korean leader "reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." In exchange, Trump agreed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea. But there was no mentioning the previous US aim of "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization." And Kim's commitments did not appear to go beyond what he already pledged to do in April when he met South Korean President Moon Jae-in along their countries' border. Trump insisted during a news conference the agreement went further than many people expected. But he acknowledged the effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear arsenal was in its early stages. "We will do it as fast as it can mechanically and physically be done," he said. More critical, in Trump's telling, was the development of a personal bond with Kim, a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths not only of his own citizens but of at least one American, Otto Warmbier, who was returned to the US in a coma only to die days later. "I think our whole relationship with North Korea and the Korean Peninsula is going to be a very much different situation than it has in the past," Trump said during the summit. Later, during his news conference, Trump said Warmbier's death contributed to the summit taking place. "Without Otto, this would not have happened," Trump said. Trump and Kim -- both intent on making history -- greeted each other early in the day with extended hands in front of a row of US and North Korean flags, a previously unthinkable sight that reflects a new chapter in the two countries' acrimonious relationship. Trump's threats to politely walk out of the meeting if his expectations were unmet did not materialize. Instead he predicted he could "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" alongside his new partner. "Working together, we'll get it taken care of," Trump said. The remarks came amid an improbable series of events that few could have anticipated even three months ago. The unlikely images of US and North Korean counterparts engaging in friendly dialogue lent the day an air of unreality. In a detailed menu, the White House said the men were served Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream for dessert. Other unforeseen events also surrounded the summit, increasing the drama. Minutes before the historic handshake, Trump tweeted that his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow had suffered a heart attack. Immediately after the encounter, Dennis Rodman -- one of the only Americans to have met Kim -- was openly weeping while being interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo. Even Kim seemed to acknowledge the surreality of the day. "Many people in the world will think of this as a (inaudible) form of fantasy ... from a science fiction movie," his translator was overheard saying as the two leaders walked down a white-columned colonnade. At the conclusion of the summit, Trump hailed the talks as a historic, and personal, achievement. "We learned a lot about each other and our countries," Trump said. "I learned he's a very talented man." When pressed about those comments in light of Kim's brutal tactics, Trump continued praising the North Korean leaders' ability to run a country at a young age. "He is very talented," Trump said, citing Kim's ability to "take over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and run it, and run it tough." Kim assumed power after his father Kim Jong Il, also a brutal dictator, died in 2011. Throughout the day, Trump and Kim's body language was openly friendly, a striking warmth given Kim's iron grip on power and dismal record on human rights. Trump's move to meet him attracted fierce criticism for normalizing a regime routinely called out for its human rights abuses, that over years has built an image of fearsome renegade regime, throwing around threats of nuclear war. The day began with Trump patting Kim on the back and placing his hand on the North Korean's shoulder as they walked into their first meeting. Later they were seen smiling and laughing over lunch. Trump told reporters he would "absolutely" extend an invitation to the White House to Kim, who also heralded a new era. "Today, we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind," Kim said through a translator. "The world will see a major change." The meeting came only months after the two men traded nuclear taunts, ratcheting up tensions and leading to fears of war. By contrast, Trump appeared to back off a military footing on Tuesday, declaring the US will stop the "war games," an apparent reference to joint military exercises with South Korea that North Korea has long rebuked as provocative. Trump also said he hopes to eventually withdraw US forces from South Korea, but said "that's not part of the equation right now." "I want to get our soldiers out. I want to bring our soldiers back home," Trump said. "But that's not part of the equation right now. I hope it will be eventually." Tuesday's meeting, convened at a luxury hotel on the island of Sentosa, came just three months after Trump accepted North Korea's invitation for talks on the spot. It was an extraordinarily compressed timeline for the landmark summit, which at one point was called off entirely as communication broke down between Washington and Pyongyang. The talks were quickly revived, leading to the highly choreographed event that unfolded Tuesday. After the men shook hands, they repaired inside for one-on-one talks. In that first meeting they were joined only by translators, a break from standard practice of having at least one aide present for high-stakes huddles. Later in the day, advisers joined the talks for a larger bilateral session and a working lunch. Trump took keen interest in the pageantry of the day, insisting the pictures beamed around the world reflect a commanding leader making a decisive, world-altering move. At the same time, he'd admitted he didn't believe he required extensive preparation to take stock of Kim. As part of the advance work, Trump commissioned a highly produced video meant to convince Kim to relinquish his weapons and open his country to outside investment. Trump showed Kim the movie on an iPad during their talks. Here in futuristic Singapore, however, Kim was able to view the benefits of economic advancement at close range. He was spotted taking a moonlit stroll around the high-end Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino, owned by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, the type of glitzy development few North Koreans could ever imagine coming to their country. Kim was cheered by onlookers who caught sight of the dictator, who until earlier this spring was not believed to have ever left North Korea as supreme leader.
Julian Assange  During World War II Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty was a huge critic of fascism and wound up in prison. In Oct. 1945 he became head of the Church in Hungary and spoke out just as strongly against Communist oppression. He wound up back in prison for eight more years, including long periods of solitary confinement and endured other forms of torture. In 1949 he was sentenced to life in a show trial that generated worldwide condemnation. Two weeks after the trial began in early 1949, Pope Pius XII (having failed to speak out forcefully against the Third Reich) did summon the courage to condemn what was happening to Mindszenty. Pius excommunicated everyone involved in the Mindszenty trial. Then, addressing a huge crowd on St. Peter’s Square, he asked, “Do you want a Church that remains silent when she should speak … a Church that does not condemn the suppression of conscience and does not stand up for the just liberty of the people … a Church that locks herself up within the four walls of her temple in unseemly sycophancy …?” When the Hungarian revolution broke out in 1956, Mindszenty was freed, but only for four days. When Soviet tanks rolled back into Budapest, he fled to the U.S. embassy and was given immediate asylum by President Eisenhower. Speaking Freely: Ray M... Buy New $1.99 (as of 09:20 EDT - Details) There the Cardinal stayed cooped up for the next 15 years. Mindszenty’s mother was permitted to visit him four times a year, and the communist authorities stationed secret police outside the embassy ready to arrest him should he try to leave. Sound familiar? Where is the voice of conscience to condemn what is happening to Julian Assange, whose only “crime” is publishing documents exposing the criminal activities and corruption of governments and other Establishment elites? Decades ago, the U.S. and “civilized world” had nothing but high praise for the courageous Mindszenty. He became a candidate for sainthood. And Assange? He has been confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six years —from June 19, 2012—the victim of a scurrilous slander campaign and British threats to arrest him, should he ever step outside. The U.S. government has been putting extraordinary pressure on Ecuador to end his asylum and top U.S. officials have made it clear that, as soon as they get their hands on him, they will manufacture a reason to put him on trial and put him in prison. All for spreading unwelcome truth around. A Suppression of Conscience One might ask, is “unseemly sycophancy” at work among the media? The silence of what used to be the noble profession of journalism is deafening. John Pilger — one of the few journalists to speak out on Julian Assange’s behalf, labels journalists who fail to stand in solidarity with Assange in exposing the behavior of the Establishment, “Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served ad enabled the German occupation of France.” Pilger adds: “No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare … When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to ‘a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed.’ He asked why ‘the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought’ of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America’s imperial crimes “never happened … even while [they] were happening, they never happened.’” WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? In an op-ed published several years ago by The Los Angeles Times, two members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic, pointed out that — If WikiLeaks had been up and running before 9/11 — frustrated FBI investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks. “There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.” The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:50 EDT - Details) Fourth Estate on Life Support In 2010, while he was still a free man, the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity gave its annual award to Assange. The citation read: “It seems altogether fitting and proper that this year’s award be presented in London, where Edmund Burke coined the expression “Fourth Estate.” Comparing the function of the press to that of the three Houses then in Parliament, Burke said: “…but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far then they all.” The year was 1787—the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The First Amendment, approved four years later, aimed at ensuring that the press would be free of government interference. That was then. With the Fourth Estate now on life support, there is a high premium on the fledgling Fifth Estate, which uses the ether and is not susceptible of government or corporation control. Small wonder that governments with lots to hide feel very threatened. It has been said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” WikiLeaks is helping make that possible by publishing documents that do not lie. Last spring, when we chose WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for this award, Julian said he would accept only “on behalf or our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.” We do not know if Pvt. Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks the gun-barrel video of July 12, 2007 called “Collateral Murder.” Whoever did provide that graphic footage, showing the brutality of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, was certainly far more a patriot than the “mainstream” journalist embedded in that same Army unit. He suppressed what happened in Baghdad that day, dismissed it as simply “one bad day in a surge that was filled with such days,” and then had the temerity to lavish praise on the unit in a book he called “The Good Soldiers.” Julian is right to emphasize that the world is deeply indebted to patriotic truth-tellers like the sources who provided the gun-barrel footage and the many documents on Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks. We hope to have a chance to honor them in person in the future. Today we honor WikiLeaks, and one of its leaders, Julian Assange, for their ingenuity in creating a new highway by which important documentary evidence can make its way, quickly and confidentially, through the ether and into our in-boxes. Long live the Fifth Estate!” Eventually a compromise was found in 1971 when Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunications and Mindszenty was able to leave the U.S. embassy. Can such a diplomatic solution be found to free Assange? It is looking more and more unlikely with each passing year. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.
The Left’s Show Trial for Kavanaugh  Two more women accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of dubious improprieties materialized out of thin air late Sunday, throwing Senate Republicans’ hope of finally confirming the Supreme Court nominee this week even more into doubt. The new allegations came yesterday amid reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tentatively scheduled a hearing for this Thursday to take testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, sexually assaulted her decades ago when he was a high school student. Suspiciously, Ford can’t –or won’t— say when or where the alleged incident happened and can provide few details. As Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post, working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and backed financially by George Soros’s money, Ford’s lawyers spent the last few days gaming the system. After stalling Grassley and getting repeated extensions, the attorneys got the chairman to cave on various demands, such as that Kavanaugh not be in the room when Ford gives evidence. Republicans never seem to learn from their mistakes. As usual, Republicans’ seeming reasonableness is rewarded with more abuse by the Left. Give left-wingers an inch and they’ll take a mile. Democrats, it turns out, used the extra time created through their delaying tactics to produce two new women with questionable claims against Kavanaugh. More accusers could be on their way. President Trump continues to support Kavanaugh, who maintains his innocence. “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen,” the nominee said Sunday of Ford’s accusations. “The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building — against these last-minute allegations.” If Kavanaugh isn’t on the bench on October 1, the Supreme Court will be shorthanded as it begins hearing cases in its new term. The high court normally has a complement of nine justices but with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have only been only eight justices in place. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats would prefer to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they stand a good chance of taking control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. Meanwhile, the New Yorker magazine reported Sunday that Deborah Ramirez, 53, suddenly claims to have been assaulted by Kavanaugh at a drunken party decades ago at Yale College. Ramirez claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and brushed his genitals against her. Also on Sunday, media-savvy sleazeball lawyer Michael Avenatti, who represents porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he represents another woman who plans to accuse Kavanaugh of something. “I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify,” Avenatti wrote on Twitter. “My client is not Deborah Ramirez.” Washington insiders still believe Kavanaugh will be confirmed, or at least they did before the two new accusers popped up. For example, at a Friday afternoon preview of upcoming cases in the Supreme Court’s approaching October term that was hosted by the Federalist Society, panelist Thomas C. Goldstein of the law firm of Goldstein & Russell predicted that the high court would have nine members again soon. “There is exactly a zero percent chance that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley will allow this thing to get past the lame-duck” congressional session after Election Day, said the co-founder of SCOTUSblog who has appeared before the Supreme Court many times. “I think we ought to recognize that. The prospect that the Democrats will take the Senate, albeit thin, is realistic, and so they will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure that there is a ninth member of the court there by the time a Democratic majority could take over in the Senate in January.” We’ll see soon enough if Goldstein’s prediction comes true.
How Do You Like Paying For Sexual Harassment Settlements from Your Congress, America?  How Do You Like Paying For Sexual Harassment Settlements from Your Congress, America? Please help support us with cryptocurrency donations. Thank you! We finally have the official numbers, and they aren’t pretty. Reid Wilson, a correspondent for the Hill, has posted to Twitter a year by year breakdown of sexual harassment settlements and awards that he received from the Congressional Office of Compliance. I went ahead and added up each column, and what I discovered is that 264 cases of sexual harassment in Congress have been settled since 1997, and the total amount awarded in those settlements comes to a grand total of $17,250,854. So where has the $17,250,854 come from to pay those settlements? That money has come from the taxpayers of course. That means that you and I have been paying to cover up the epidemic of sexual harassment that has been taking place on Capitol Hill. When U.S. Representative Jackie Speier originally told us that more than 15 million dollars had been paid out to victims of sexual harassment in recent years, I was envisioning a few dozen cases at most. I had no idea that the total number of cases would actually be well over 200. If our leaders were serious about stopping this from happening, they would pass a law making it mandatory that all cases of sexual harassment in Congress be made public, and that members of Congress would be personally responsible for paying out any settlements. If such a law was instituted, I guarantee you that sexual harassment on Capitol Hill would come to a screeching halt. But they don’t want it to stop. For many in Congress, having so many attractive young women around is one of the key benefits of the job. I included the following quote from CNN in an article the other day, but I also believe that it fits just perfectly here… 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.” Do you want to stop this from happening? It isn’t going to stop until we boot out the corrupt career politicians that are engaging in this type of behavior. So I am asking you to support my campaign and other “grassroots deplorables” that are running for office all over the nation. Morality really matters when it comes to serving in public office, and we are not going to send people that engage in sexually inappropriate behavior to Washington anymore. And I am calling on Congress to immediately release the details of all of the 264 cases of sexual harassment that have been settled since 1997. The American people have a right to know, and those that engaged in this type of behavior do not have a right to hide. It is time to drain the swamp, and this would be a really good place to start. Article posted with permission from End of the American Dream
Iranian Aggression Intensifies  Last July, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) military commander and chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, warned that “putting the Revolutionary Guard in the terrorist lists with terrorist groups can be very costly to the United States and its military bases and forces in the region.” IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jafari said on October 8th that "if the news is correct about the stupidity of the American government in considering the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group, then the Revolutionary Guards will consider the American army to be like Islamic State all around the world." The next day the Iranian regime warned of a "crushing" response if the United States were to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. President Trump has called the Iranian regime’s bluff with his announcement last week that he would do just that. Designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization and imposing new sanctions for its aggressive actions in the region is not a restoration of the sanctions lifted by the Obama administration as part of its disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. If Iran insists it can do what it wants militarily in terms of missile launches, support of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and arms transfers without violating the nuclear deal, then the United States can certainly act to curb such activities through financial pressure. The U.S. can impose sanctions against the Iranian regime’s principal instrument for projecting aggressive, destabilizing force outside of its borders without violating the nuclear deal. The Iranian regime does not see it that way, however. With the lifting of the nuclear-related sanctions making available billions of dollars to Iran’s leaders to further finance the IRGC’s exploits in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere, the regime is furious that the Trump administration is tightening the financial screws again, even if for reasons not directly related to Iran’s compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal. Thus, it is threatening U.S. forces and bases in the region. A couple of seemingly unrelated events this past week point to Iran’s positioning itself for more aggressive military actions that could place U.S. forces in harm’s way. On Tuesday, Major General Bagheri landed in Damascus for talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad and senior Syrian officials, including the defense minister and the chief of staff of the Syrian armed forces. Bagheri is quoted as saying that his visit’s purpose was to “put a joint strategy on continuing co-ordination and co-operation at the military level.” Some experts on Iran believe that Bagheri’s visit to Damascus at this time is intended to reinforce a message that Iran will continue to supply weaponry to Syria and to reinforce the presence of its terrorist proxy Hezbollah in Syria. This will not only serve to bolster the Assad regime, but it also will strengthen Iran's ability to follow through on its threats to the U.S. and its allies, principally Israel. Meanwhile, following the departure of the Kurds from Kirkuk, Iraq earlier this week, the IRGC’s operational Al Qods arm reportedly established a command center and five bases there. According to Debkafile, this constitutes “the first military facility Iran has ever established openly in Iraq.” The Kirkuk region holds 45 percent of Iraqi’s oil. The Iraqi branch of Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah has vowed that once ISIS is defeated it will start killing Americans, as it has done before. It is against this backdrop that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley used her entire speech to the UN Security Council on Wednesday to denounce the Iranian regime on multiple grounds. The session was supposed to be devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Ambassador Haley departed from the monthly ritual during which Israel is normally singled out for criticism by other Council members. She went after Iran instead. She explained why the Trump administration decided to take “a comprehensive approach to confronting the Iranian regime,” which does not give the regime a get out of jail free card even if it is in technical compliance with the loophole-ridden nuclear deal agreed to by the Obama administration. “We can’t talk about stability in the Middle East without talking about Iran,” Ambassador Haley said. “That’s because nearly every threat to peace and security in the Middle East is connected to Iran’s outlaw behavior. The United States has now embarked on a course that attempts to address all aspects of Iran’s destructive conduct, not just one aspect. It’s critical that the international community do the same. Judging Iran by the narrow confines of the nuclear deal misses the true nature of the threat. Iran must be judged in totality of its aggressive, destabilizing, and unlawful behavior. To do otherwise would be foolish.” Ambassador Haley accused the Iranian regime of continuing to “play” the Security Council. “Iran hides behind its assertion of technical compliance with the nuclear deal while it brazenly violates the other limits on its behavior. And we have allowed them to get away with it. This must stop.” Ambassador Haley proceeded to list various violations by the Iranian regime of Security Council resolutions pertaining to the transfer of conventional weapons from Iran and the arming of terrorist groups, including the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah. She also pointed to what she called the Iranian regime’s “most threatening act” – its launch of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. “When a rogue regime starts down the path of ballistic missiles, it tells us that we will soon have another North Korea on our hands,” Ambassador Haley said. “If it is wrong for North Korea to do this, why doesn’t that same mentality apply to Iran? “ As for the Iran’s supposed technical compliance with its commitments under the nuclear deal itself, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the UN’s international inspectors are not able to visit Iran’s military sites. Past work on nuclear explosive trigger devices appears to have taken place at one or more such sites in the past. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano admitted last month that when it comes to the IAEA’s capacity to check whether Iran was conducting work on a nuclear explosive device, his agency’s “tools are limited.” The Iranian regime has also attempted to skirt the restrictions in the JCPOA on its procurement of materials, equipment, goods and technology related to Iran’s nuclear activities. The Heritage Foundation noted in its recent report on the JCPOA, for example, that Iran was “caught red-handed trying to purchase nuclear technology and restricted ballistic missile technology from German companies.” U.S. intelligence had discovered North Korea’s transfer of missile parts to Iran at the very same time that Iran was negotiating the nuclear deal, in clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions then in effect. The Obama administration chose to look the other way. Does anybody with a modicum of sense really believe that such collaboration between the two rogue nations is not going on today? Iran is flush with cash, thanks to the JCPOA. It wants to build out its missile and nuclear enrichment capabilities. In addition to covert transfers of materials and technology to Iran in violation of the nuclear deal, the JCPOA may provide a loophole for Iran to exploit in outsourcing some of the development work to North Korea for hard currency, which North Korea desperately needs. They are a perfect match for each other. Proponents of the JCPOA argue that exiting the nuclear deal unless it is changed to the Trump administration’s satisfaction would undermine U.S. credibility with North Korea and thereby kill any chance of negotiations to resolve the crisis caused by North Korea's continued testing of sophisticated nuclear arms and ballistic missiles. "If we want to talk to North Korea now, the possible end for the nuclear deal with Iran would jeopardize the credibility of such treaties," Reuters quoted German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel as saying. Germany is one of the parties to the JCPOA. Other European allies have voiced similar concerns. So have Obama’s former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. This argument is absurd on its face. The whole point is to prevent Iran from becoming the next North Korea, not to kick the can down the road as usual. North Korea’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons and of intercontinental ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads proves that weak agreements full of front-loaded goodies rewarding rogue regimes for elusive promises are worthless.
The ammunition dealer who sold armor-piercing rounds to the Las Vegas gunman has been charged  A member of the FBI leaves the Mandalay Bay hotel following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, October 4, 2017. REUTERS/Chris Wattie An Arizona man who sold ammunition to the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has been charged with manufacturing armor-piercing bullets. A complaint says unfired armor-piercing bullets found inside the Las Vegas hotel room where the attack was launched on Oct. 1 contained the fingerprints of ammunition dealer Douglas Haig of Arizona. The complaint filed Friday in federal court in Phoenix says Haig didn't have a license to manufacture armor-piercing ammunition. He was charged shortly before holding a news conference Friday. He said he noticed nothing suspicious when he sold 720 rounds of ammunition to Stephen Paddock in the weeks before the attack that killed 58 people. Haig is a 55-year-old aerospace engineer who sold ammunition as a hobby for about 25 years.
This Guardian Fake News Story Proves That The Media Can't Be Trusted  November 29, 2018 This Guardian Fake News Story Proves That The Media Can't Be Trusted In 2015 the British Guardian appointed Katherine Viner as editor in chief. Under her lead the paper took a new direction. While it earlier made attempts to balance its shoddier side with some interesting reporting, it is now solidly main stream in the worst sense. It promotes neo-liberalism and a delves into cranky identity grievances stories. It also became an main outlet for manipulative propaganda peddled by the British secret services. Its recent fake news story about Paul Manafort, Wikileaks and Julian Assange aptly demonstrates this. The documentation of it is a bit lengthy but provides that it was a willful fake. On November 27 the Guardian prepared to publish a story which asserted that Paula Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, had met Julian Assange, the publisher of Wikileaks, in the Ecuadorian embassy in London on at least three occasions. Some two hours before the story went public it contacted Manafort and Assange's lawyers to get their comments. Assange's Wikileaks responded through its public Twitter account which has 5.4 million followers. On of those followers is Katherine Viner: WikiLeaks @wikileaks - 13:06 utc - 27 Nov 2018 SCOOP: In letter today to Assange's lawyers, Guardian's Luke Harding, winner of Private Eye's Plagiarist of the Year, falsely claims jailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had secret meetings with Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in story Guardian are "planning to run". It attached the email the Guardian's Luke Harding had send. 90 minutes later the Guardian piece went life. It led the front page and also appeared in print. The first version read: Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told. Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House. It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers. Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits. The piece did not include the public denial Wikileaks issued to its 5.4 million followers one and a half hour before it was published. The Guardian piece came at a critical moment. Currently the U.K. and Ecuador conspire to deliver Julian Assange to U.S. authorities. On Monday special counsel Robert Mueller said Manafort lied to investigators, violating his recent plea deal. The new sensational claim was immediately picked up by prominent reporters and major main stream outlets. They distributed is as a factual account. It is likely that millions of people took note of its claim. But several people who had followed the Russiagate fairytale and the Mueller investigation were immediately suspicious of the Guardian claim. The story was weakly sourced and included some details that seemed unlikely to be true. Glenn Greenwald noted that the Ecuadorian embassy is under heavy CCTV surveillance. There are several guards, and visitors have to provide their identity to enter it. Every visit is logged. If Manafort had really visited Assange, it would have long been known: In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story. Moreover, the main author of the story, Luke Harding, is known to be a notorious fraud, a russo-phobe intelligence asset with a personal grievance towards Assange and Wikileaks. A year ago an important Moon of Alabama piece - From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media - mentioned Harding: The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: it is fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology. The new Guardian story looked like another weak attempt to connect the alleged Russian malfeasance with Assange and the Wikileaks publishing of the DNC emails. Assange and other involved people deny that such a relation existed. There is no public evidence that support such claims. Shortly after the Guardian's fake news story went public Paul Manafort issued an unequivocal denial: “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” the statement said. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.” At 16:05 utc the Guardian silently edited the story. Caveats (here in italic and underlined) were added to the headline and within several paragraphs. No editorial note was attached to inform the readers of the changes: Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say ... It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. ... Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear. ... Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers initially declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits. One paragraph was added to included Wikileaks' denial: In a series of tweets WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met. Assange described the story as a hoax. At 16:30 utc, under fire from other media and journalists, the Guardian issued a statement: This story relied on a number of sources. We put these allegations to both Paul Manafort and Julian Assange's representatives prior to publication. Neither responded to deny the visits taking place. We have since updated the story to reflect their denials. This defensive Guardian claim is, like its story, evidently completely false. Wikileaks publicly denied the Guardian's claims 90 minutes before the story was first published. Manafort asserts that his lawyers had notified the Guardian that the story was false before the Guardian 'proceeded with the story'. At 21:05 utc a third version was published which included Manafort's denial. Half an hour later Julian Assange instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel. Wikileaks opened a fund to support the lawsuit. A day after the Guardian smear piece the Washington Times reported that Manafort's passports, entered into evidence by the Mueller prosecution, show that he did not visit London in any of the years the Guardian claimed he was there to visit Assange. The story was completely false and the Guardian knew it was. It disregarded and left out the denials the subjects of the story had issued before it was published.  The Guardian has become a main outlet for British government disinformation operations aimed at defaming Russia. It smeared Assange and Snowden as Russian collaborators. It uncritically peddled the Russiagate story and the nonsensical Skripal claims which are both obviously concocted by British intelligence services. That seems to have become its main purpose. As Disobediant Media notes (emphasis in the original): While most readers with functional critical thinking capacity may readily dismiss the Guardian’s smear on its face, the fact that the Guardian published this piece, and that Luke Harding is still operating with even the tiniest modicum of respect as a journalist despite his history of deceit, tells us something bone-chilling about journalism. It is no accident that Luke Harding is still employed: in fact, it is because of Harding’s consistent loyalty to establishment, specifically the UK intelligence apparatus, over the truth that determines his “success” amongst legacy press outlets. Harding is not a defacement or a departure from the norm, but the personification of it. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian writer, makes a similar point: The truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative. Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: ... The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do. We have previously shown that the Guardian even uses fascist propaganda tropes to smear the Russian people. It is openly publishing Goebbels' cartoons and rhetoric against Europes biggest state. There is no longer any line that it does not dare to cross. Unfortunately other 'western' media are not much better. Within hours of being published the Guardian piece was debunked as fake news. That did not hinder other outlets to add to its smear. Politico allowed "a former CIA officer," writing under a pen name, to suggest - without any evidence - that the Guardian has been duped - not by its MI5/6 and Ecuadorian spy sources, but by Russian disinformation: Rather than being the bombshell smoking gun that directly connects the Trump campaign to WikiLeaks, perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists? ... Harding is likely a major target for anyone wrapped up in Russia’s intelligence operation against the West’s democratic institutions. ... If this latest story about Manafort and Assange is false—that is, if, for example, the sources lied to Harding and Collyns (or if the sources themselves were lied to and thus thought they were being truthful in their statements to the journalists), or if the Ecuadorian intelligence document is a fake, the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad. The is zero evidence in the Politico screed that supports its suggestions and claims. It is fake news about a fake news story. It also included the false claim that Glenn Greenwald worked with Wikileaks on the Snowden papers. That claim was later removed. We have seen a similar pattern in the Skripal affair. When 'western' intelligence get caught in spreading disinformation, they accuse Russia of being the source of the fake. Unfortunately no western main stream media can any longer be trusted to publish the truth. The Guardian is only one of many which peddle smears and disinformation about the 'enemies' of the ruling 'western interests'. It is on all of us to debunk them and to educate the public about their scheme. --- This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated this one, or any of the 7,000+ others, please consider a donation. Posted by b on November 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM | Permalink Comments
Homeschooling Expands As Parents Seethe Over Liberal Social Engineering And Violence  Homeschooling rates are skyrocketing as parents are continually getting more and more upset at the leftist social engineering taking place in public schools. The indoctrination is getting so bad, that some parents are even concerned about liberal violence against those who reject the brainwashing. According to The Washington Times, the recent school shooting at Parkland, Florida, was the last straw for scores of parents. The paper noted that “the phones started ringing at the Texas Home School Coalition, and they haven’t stopped yet.” “When the Parkland shooting happened, our phone calls and emails exploded,” said coalition president Tim Lambert. “In the last couple of months, our numbers have doubled. We’re dealing with probably between 1,200 and 1,400 calls and emails per month, and prior to that it was 600 to 700.” But according to Natural News, it isn’t just the rampant violence worrying some parents. That’s just the tip of the collectivist agenda iceberg. Christopher Chin, head of Homeschool Louisiana, told The Times that parents are fed up with “the violence, the bullying, the unsafe environments.” Many parents are also disturbed by the social engineering, which amounts to brainwashing and indoctrination that goes on in a public school. For example, a Minnesota public school is forcing Kindergarten students to study ‘white privilege’. The left-wing curriculum and common core are also driving parents to remove their children from public schools. Brian D. Ray, who heads up the National Home Education Research Institute, in Salem, Oregon, who’s conducted homeschooling research for 33 years, told The Times that concern over school curriculum has reached the top of the charts for most parents. Ray said the top three reasons that parents choose homeschooling are a desire to provide religious instruction or different values than those offered in public schools; dissatisfaction with the academic curriculum, and worries about the school environment. Since teachers are not allowed to arm themselves to defend their students against the violence often perpetrated at schools simply because they are gun free zones, homeschooling takes care of that problem. “Most parents homeschool for more than one reason,” Ray told the paper. “But when we ask families why do they homeschool, near the top nowadays is concern about the environment of schools, and that includes safety, pressure to get into drugs, pressure to get into sexual activity. It includes all of that.” Indoctrination means to teach a person to accept a belief uncritically. It’s the very reason the governments of the world still exist. People cannot logically and critically understand that hurting people and taking their things is wrong – even if people who declare themselves government is the one doing it. Governments are nothing more than a handful of people and have no right to aggress against others. But humans are taught at a young age to never question this and that belief has kept most of humanity enslaved for centuries.  It isn’t a surprise that so many have decided to educate their children themselves. And as schools continue to fail, and authoritarian policies continue to wreak havoc on our society, more will wake up to the absolute horror of what allowing the state to educate our children has done to the moral fabric of humanity.
Not So Fast  It’s got to be either one of the stupidest acts that I can recall or a very wicked plan by Washington neocons to sabotage Korean peace talks. How else to describe the decision by Big Brother USA and junior sidekick South Korea to stage major air force exercises on North Korea’s border. The prickly North Koreans had a fit, of course, as always when the US flexes its muscles on their borders. Continuing South and North Korean peace talks scheduled this week were cancelled by the furious North Koreans. The much ballyhooed Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is now threatened with cancellation or delay. Who can blame the North Koreans for blowing their tops? As Trump administration mouthpieces were gabbing about peace and light, the US Air Force was getting ready to fly B-52 heavy bombers and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters around North Korea’s borders and missile-armed subs lurked at sea. This provocation was the first of two major spring military exercises planned by the US and its reluctant South Korean satrap. In case North Korea failed to get the message, the second exercise is code-named ‘Maximum Thunder.’ American Raj: Liberati... Eric Margolis Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $45.86 (as of 09:30 EDT - Details) And this right after Trump and his neocon minions reneged on the sensible nuclear treaty with Iran. In a policy one could call ‘eat sand and die,’ Trump demanded that Iran not only give up any and all nuclear capacity (Iran has no nukes), but also junk its non-nuclear armed medium range missiles, stop backing the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, roll over and be good, don’t do anything to upset Israel, and pull out of Syria. In short, a total surrender policy leading to future regime change. Hardly an encouragement for North Korea. North Korea was right on target when it accused arch-neocon John Bolton of trying to sabotage the peace deal. In 2005-2006, Bolton served as the Bush administration’s ambassador to the UN. He established a tradition for the post of being anti-Muslim, pro-Israel and anti-Russian, a policy continued to this day by the current US UN rep, loud-mouthed neocon Nikki Haley. In the 2005-2006 period, after years of negotiations, the US and North Korea were close to a nuclear/peace deal. Enter John Bolton. He succeeded in sabotaging the US-North Korea deal. Why? Because Bolton, as an arch neocon, was fanatically pro-Israel and feared that North Korea might provide nuclear technology to Israel’s foes. As usual with the neocons, Israel’s interests came before those of the United States. Trump’s newly named Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, is also an ardent neocon. Last week, Bolton went onto US TV and actually suggested North Korea might follow the course set by Libya, of all places. Libya’s then ruler, Muammar Kadaffi, bought some nuclear equipment from Pakistan so he could hand it over to the US as a gesture of cooperation after the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The handover was done with much fanfare, then the US, France and Britain attacked Libya and overthrew Kadaffi. The hapless Libyan leader was eventually murdered by French agents. War at the Top of the ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $2.60 Buy New $24.57 (as of 09:00 EDT - Details) Is this what Bolton has in mind for North Korea? The Northerners certainly seemed to think so. Some wondered if Bolton and perhaps Pompeo were trying to sabotage the North Korea deal. Or were at least being incredibly obtuse and belligerent. Was Trump involved in this intrigue? Hard to tell. But he can’t be happy. His minions and bootlickers are promoting Trump for the Nobel Prize – rather ahead of events. Or was the US military rattling its sabers and trying to protect its huge investments in North Asia? The Pentagon takes a dim view of the proposed Korean nuclear accords. The burst of sweetness and light coming from Pyongyang just sounds too good to be true. Veteran Korea observers, this writer included, find it hard to believe Kim Jong-un will give up his nuclear weapons, particularly after seeing Trump’s deceit in dealing with Iran and Kadaffi’s murder. Speaking of de-nuclearization, why does North Korea not demand that the US get rid of its nuclear weapons based in South Korea, Okinawa, Guam and with the 7th Fleet? Many are targeted on North Korea. US nuclear weapons are based on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Others are secretly based in Japan. Why not demand the US pull out all its 28,500 troops in South Korea and some 2,000 military technicians at air bases? Conclusively halt those spring and fall military maneuvers that raise the threat of war. End the trade embargo of North Korea that amounts to high level economic warfare. Establish normal diplomatic relations. Pyongyang has not even begun to raise these issues. Smiles and hugs are premature. The Best of Eric Margolis
Trump Threatens To Send Military To Block Honduran Migrant Caravan  This is the second time a caravan of migrants have gotten together and seem intent on pushing towards and across the US/Mexico border. As a result of the news, President Donald Trump has threatened to send the military to the border to block them. Reuters reports on the caravan. More Honduran migrants tried to join a caravan of several thousand trekking through Guatemala on Wednesday, defying calls by authorities not to make the journey after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to cut off regional aid in reprisal. The caravan has been growing steadily since it left the violent Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Saturday. The migrants hope to reach Mexico and then cross its northern border with the United States, to seek refuge from endemic violence and poverty in Central America. Several thousand people are now part of the caravan, according to a Reuters witness traveling with the group in Guatemala, where men women and children on foot and riding in trucks filled a road on their long journey to Mexico. In a series of tweets on Thursday, President Trump said the right things. I am watching the Democrat Party led (because they want Open Borders and existing weak laws) assault on our country by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, whose leaders are doing little to stop this large flow of people, INCLUDING MANY CRIMINALS, from entering Mexico to U.S..... take our poll - story continues below Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? * Yes, they will try. No, they won't try. If they do, they'll regret it in 2020. 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. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 ....In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 ....The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border. All Democrats fault for weak laws! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 “I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border,” he added. “All Democrats fault for weak laws!” Not only did Trump threaten to send the military to the border, but he also threatened to stop all federal payments to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador if they didn't block the caravan. The obvious question I have is: Why are you not stopping those payments now, Mr. President? They are unconstitutional and neither Congress nor you have the authority to give American's money to these countries. Trump also seemed ready to back out on his new trade deal, which is hardly a deal for the US, with Mexico if they failed to stop the caravan. He then pointed out that many who cross the border are criminals and are coming to engage in criminal activity. In fact, every single migrant who crosses over into our country will more than likely commit at least 28 crimes in order to present themselves as legal. “The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA,” he wrote. The USMCA is a disaster and should be done away with without this threat of a caravan of migrants. We'll see if these countries stop the migrants or if it continues to the border. If they make it here and Trump does nothing but arrest them and put them through the system rather than simply turning them away, then you know the words are empty and hollow. Time will tell what will take place.
Sanctuary City Mayor Protected Illegal Alien Mexican Rapist  Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf claims to fight for women. Except when she's fighting for their rapists instead. A Democratic mayor’s warning to illegal immigrants of an incoming ICE raid in northern California may have led to a number of illegal immigrants with violent and sex-related convictions evading capture and deportation. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf tweeted out an impending warning of the four-day raid last week, alerting targeted individuals to the imminent arrests, and infuriating Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who say that many more could have been caught if they hadn't been warned. A spokesperson for ICE gave Fox News examples of some of the unsavory characters who evaded officals during the raid. One Mexican citizen had convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), and had been deported in 2003. Another who evaded capture had a conviction for sodomizing a drugged victim in 2012, as well as a DUI from this year -- that Mexican citizen had also been previously deported in 2013. Another illegal immigrant from Mexico, previously deported in 2014 for a conviction for armed robbery, also evaded capture.
Trump To Jeff Sessions: Put An End to Russia Probe - Prosecutors Doing Mueller’s ‘Dirty Work Are A Disgrace’ To America  Finally. President Donald Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to call on his Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Sessions is a weak sister. He has to go. This leftwing witch hunt has been ongoing since day one of Trump’s presidency in order to impair and impede his ability to get the job done. It’s a stealth coup. Sessions is a weak sister. He has to go. BREAKING NEWS: TRUMP TELLS JEFF SESSIONS TO PUT AN END TO RUSSIA PROBE AS HE CLAIMS PROSECUTORS DOING MUELLER’S ‘DIRTY WORK ARE A DISGRACE’ TO AMERICA White House WON’T say if Trump will order Jeff Sessions to fire Robert Mueller But the president tweeted Wednesday that Sessions should end Mueller’s probe Sessions recused himself from Russia-election-meddling matters in March 2017 That led to Mueller’s appointment as an outside investigator, not loyal to Trump New tension comes as former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort goes on trial, facing unrelated financial-crime charges, with Mueller’s team prosecuting him Donald Trump has ratcheted up his pressure on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying in a tweet that the Attorney General of the United States should step in and put an end to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s long-running Russia probe ‘Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now,’ the president tweeted. ‘Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!’ The White House ignored a Wednesday Wednesday about whether Trump will push the envelope further and order Sessions to fire Mueller. Trump’s mention of 17 prosecution lawyers is a reference to what he claims is an abundance of Democrats on Mueller’s staff. The special counsel himself is a Republican. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. Sessions, who was a Trump campaign adviser and the first sitting senator to endorse his candidacy, recused himself from the Russia probe in March 2016 because he expected the campaign to be one focus of the investigation. That gave the reins to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, who later appointed Mueller. Trump has publicly criticized Sessions before, tweeting in June that the Mueller ‘witch hunt’ was only proceeding ‘because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself.’ ‘I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined … and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion’ with the Kremlin,’ he added. The new tensions between the president and the nation’s top law enforcer come as Mueller’s team is prosecuting former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on money laundering, tax evasion and bank fraud charges. The allegations in that trial, which began Tuesday, are related to Manafort’s financial dealings long before he was involved in the 2016 election cycle. But firing Mueller would likely send a signal to Democrats that the White House is worried about potential blowback from a Manafort conviction just three months before the congressional midterm elections. Still, Trump went all-in with a new intensity on Wednesday, opening up on Mueller and his team with both barrels of his massive Twitter following. ‘Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign, one of the most successful in history, is a TOTAL HOAX,’ he wrote. ‘The Democrats paid for the phony and discredited Dossier which was, along with Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, used to begin the Witch Hunt. Disgraceful!’
Homeschooling Protects Children from Violence and Marxism  The February mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida prompted many parents to consider homeschooling. This is hardly surprising, as the misnamed federal “Gun-Free Schools” law leaves schoolchildren defenseless against mass shooters. Removing one’s children from government schools seems a rational response to school shootings. School shootings are not the only form of violence causing more parents to consider homeschooling. Many potential homeschooling parents are concerned about the failure of school administrators to effectively protect children from bullying by other students. Of course, many parents choose homeschooling as a means of protecting their children from federal education “reforms” such as Common Core. Other parents are motivated by a desire to protect their children from the cultural Marxism that has infiltrated many schools. 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. The spread of cultural Marxism has contributed to the dumbing down of public education. Too many government schools are more concerned with promoting political correctness than ensuring that students receive a good education. Even if cultural Marxism did not dumb down education, concerns that government schools are indoctrinating children with beliefs that conflict with parents’ political, social, and even religious beliefs would motivate many families to homeschool. Even when government schools are not intentionally promoting cultural Marxism or other left-wing ideologies, they are still implicitly biased toward big government. For example, how many government schools teach the Austrian economics explanation for the Great Depression — much less question the wisdom of central banking — or critically examine the justifications for America’s hyper-interventionist foreign policy? Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education emphasizing the ideas of liberty should consider looking into my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior oral and verbal communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own internet businesses. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education. While government schools — and even many private schools — pretend religion played no significant role in history, my curriculum addresses the crucial role religion played in the development of Western civilization. However, the materials are drafted in such a way that any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist parent can feel comfortable using the curriculum. Interactive forums allow students to engage with and learn from each other. The forums ensure students are actively engaged in their education as well as give them an opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting. Concern about the safety of students in government-run schools is one reason many parents are considering homeschooling, but it is not the only reason. Many parents are motivated by a desire to give their children something better than a curriculum that has been dumbed down by federal initiatives like Common Core. Other parents do not wish to have their children indoctrinated with views that contradict the parents’ political, social, or even religious beliefs. I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools —alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program. Article posted with permission from Ron Paul
DRC: Fresh Ebola outbreak kills two in Equateur Province  The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday that it was taking steps to help deal with a new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo's rural northwest, after two cases of the deadly virus were confirmed in the market town of Bikoro. Congo's Health Ministry said two of the five samples it sent to the National Institute of Biological Research in Kinshasa, came back positive for the disease. The samples were gathered after health officials in Equateur Province notified Kinshasa on May 3 of about 21 cases of a hemorrhagic fever in the Ikoko Impenge area, including 17 deaths, according to WHO and Congo's government. What is Ebola? Rare but deadly, the viral disease is most commonly affecting primates and humans. Initial symptoms can include fever, headache, joint and muscle aches, weakness, diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach pain lack of appetite and in some cases internal and external bleeding, according to WHO. Where did it originate from? Ebola virus disease (EVD) was first discovered in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreaks. One in what is now Nzara in South Sudan. The other outbreak in Yambuku in Zaire in what is now DR Congo. The latter occurred in a village near the Ebola River, from which the disease takes its name. Why is it so dangerous? The average Ebola fatality rate is about 50 percent. But the rates have varied from 25 percent to 90 percent in recent outbreaks. There is as of yet no proven cure available for Ebola, though some vaccines are being tested. Some people who have recovered from Ebola have developed long-term complications, such as joint and vision problems. It is not known why some people recover from Ebola while most succumb to the disease. Why does it keep coming back? The disease infects humans through close contact with infected animals, including chimpanzees, fruit bats and forest antelope. In Africa where most outbreaks happen, particular species of fruit bats are considered natural hosts for the Ebola virus. Infected bats are believed to transmit the disease to humans, or indirectly through other animals that are hunted for their meat. The family of the first victim of the 2014 outbreak, a two-year-old child, hunted bats and it is believed bushmeat was the origin of the outbreak. An estimated five million tonnes of bushmeat is consumed on the continent every year, according to the Centre for International Forestry Research. The virus then spreads between humans by direct contact with infected blood, bodily fluids or organs, or indirectly through contact with contaminated environments. Even funerals of Ebola victims can be a risk, if mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased.
Et Tu, Benedict? (Some Final Thoughts on Joseph Ratzinger)  Recently an editor of a “conservative” Catholic magazine asked me if I would be interested in contributing a piece about the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, five years on. I declined, telling him that I was morally certain that anything I had to say about it would not be in keeping with his editorial policies. It’s been five years, and I’ve noticed that there are a lot fewer people talking about what a “courageous” act it was to give up the pontificate. The consequences of that act have been so outlandish – even for people who are mostly OK with Francis – that very few people are still willing to make polite noises about it. Editor's Note: In a March 11th letter signed by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and addressed to Msgr. Dario Vigano, prefect of the Secretariat for Communications, the former pope reportedly offers an impassioned defense of Pope Francis against the claim that he lacks theological and philosophical formation. In no uncertain terms, this letter, bearing Benedict's signature, affirms that “there is an internal continuity between the two pontificates.” Whether Benedict actually wrote this letter or not, it gives rise to a number of grave questions that need to be answered rather urgently before history closes the book on this commedia diabolica. Our thanks to Remnant columnist, Hilary White, for addressing the most pertinent of these here below. MJM In fact, five years after the resignation of Pope Benedict the Catholic faithful mostly want to know why; why would a pope – a man with decades of up-close-and-personal experience of the “filth” in the Curia and throughout the church – suddenly just decide to quit? Why would he choose to walk away knowing that his task was not completed? At the time and since then, particularly in light of what has been happening, it seems one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole bizarre situation that the reasons offered have been so trivial, so inappropriately, so disproportionately petty. These absurd responses to serious questions of grave import have raised the inescapable suspicion that Benedict simply did not take the papacy as seriously as the rest of us did. We cannot help but wonder if these trivialised responses reveal some deep flaw that we had never suspected before. Could we have been wrong about him? And if so, could we have been this wrong? For reasons, all we heard at the time was, essentially, “I’m tired.” There was some implication that he didn’t feel up to international travel anymore, so couldn’t make it to World Youth Day and similar events. The trivialising of the resignation seemed to go hand in hand with the modern concept of the pope-as-pop-star, something we had thought Benedict was too serious a man, too serious a Catholic, to believe himself. Of all people, we had assumed that Benedict XVI took the papacy seriously. And since then, as all the poisons that had been lurking for fifty years in the NewChurch mud are busily hatching out, many Catholics want to know why we hear nothing from him? This man whom we had believed a “champion of orthodoxy,” whom we thought we knew. Error, even heresy and blasphemy are pouring daily out of the mouth of his successor, who has, literally, turned the Vatican into a den of thieves, and we hear nothing but the occasional, carefully worded statement on how fine everything is. How content he is with his decision and how happy with his current life. After three years of systematic dismantling of everything he had attempted to do in his pontificate, we got this from an apparently utterly insouciant Ratzinger, addressed to Francis: “Your goodness is my home and the place where I feel safe.” Everyone who had ever read anything he had written were amazed he was capable of producing such maudlin drivel, but the video doesn’t lie: So strange was this new tone that speculation started circulating that he was under some kind of external compulsion, not free to speak his mind. But this is not what we see. There he is, manifestly happy and reading it out loud. “Perhaps it was written for him.” Well, why repeat it then? Why, if he has any qualms, allow himself to be trotted out on such occasions, to read this blatant propaganda? If it is a deception, why participate in it? In fact, all the hopeful commenters on blogs and other social media who keep telling me how much they “miss” him have failed to respect him in one way; they won’t take him at his word. Some insist that his resignation was under some sort of coercion and so isn’t valid. But we have repeatedly heard from him that he was under no constraint, that he had resigned freely. And indeed, far from being an isolated “prisoner of the Vatican,” Benedict has received many guests all of whom report that, though frail, he appears content and never utters a word of criticism. We have yet to hear any report of any notes begging for rescue hidden under a lunch table placemat. There’s no doubt that this is an extremely strange and frankly fishy situation; something doesn’t add up, it’s true. All the questions have gone ignored, or have received frivolous, jokey responses: Why did you resign? Ratzinger: “I was a bit tired and didn’t feel up to partying with the kids at World Youth Day.” If you’re not pope, why do you still wear the white? Ratzinger: “Oh, there wasn’t a black cassock that fit me.” Why do you continue to call yourself Benedict XVI if you are no longer pope? Ratzinger: “Well, I’m an ‘emeritus,’ you see…” And where did this “emeritus” business come from? Does it have any precedent in Catholic history? What does it mean canonically and doctrinally? Ratzinger: “…” What was all that rubbish from Ganswein about there being a divided “munus” – with an active member and a “contemplative member”? Doesn’t that just mean there are two popes now? Ratzinger: “…” And perhaps most agonising of all: “How can you just sit there smiling, issuing bland platitudinous nonsense, while this lunatic drives the sheep off a cliff?” A few days ago, my friend Steve Skojec, of the traditionalist/restorationist website One Peter Five, summed up the consternation of those of us who still feel a lingering affection for (the man we used to call) Pope Benedict. Steve summons up in this brief post all the anger and all the crushing disappointment most of us probably still feel reluctant to express out loud: Five years ago today, Pope Benedict XVI abdicated the papacy. And through the abandonment of his duty to shepherd the Church, he made way for the worst papacy of all time – one he steadfastly refuses to oppose in word, deed, or even the subtlest gesture. You may love him for various reasons, you may miss him by contrast, but you may not excuse the responsibility he has. He walked away from his family, leaving the door open to an abusive stepfather, and he watches his children beaten and led astray not just in silence, but in apparent contentment. And still, he was the best of the post-conciliar popes, which is why he’s the only one who won’t be canonized. Who is the real Joseph Ratzinger? I have had long-time Vatican watchers say to me, more than once, “Maybe it’s really just that he wasn’t who we thought he was.” I suspect there is a lot more to this than most people might imagine. I think we made the mistake of believing the press. We were delighted that the bitterly anti-Catholic media hated and feared him. We failed to recall that they know nothing at all about Catholicism. What the papers never told us was that as a young priest and theologian Joseph Ratzinger was known as a “progressive,” as the term was understood in 1962. This reputation was cemented during his work as the peritus, the theological advisor, of one of the Council’s most influential of the bishops of the progressive camp, Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne. Frings’ claim to fame in that great drama was a speech criticising the CDF – and its prefect Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani – for the “conservatism” in the “schema,” the documents prepared by the CDF for guiding the bishops’ discussions. After this speech, there was an uprising among the bishops of the preparatory committee who demanded that the schema – that had taken years to develop – be abandoned. This was done, over Ottaviani’s futile objections, and new documents were rapidly cobbled together by a coalition of German and French “progressives” who rejoiced that they had, in effect, seized control of the Council from that moment, before it had even started. It has since been revealed that it was Joseph Ratzinger – the maverick “progressive” academic theologian Frings had brought to Rome as his secretary – who wrote that speech. Cardinal Henri de Lubac, writing in 1985, recalling that drama, said: “Joseph Ratzinger, an expert at the Council, was also the private secretary of Card. Frings, Archbishop of Cologne. Blind, the old Cardinal largely utilized his secretary to write his interventions. Now then, one of these interventions became memorable: it was a radical criticism of the methods of the Holy Office. Despite a reply by Card. Ottaviani, Frings sustained his critique.  “It is not an exaggeration to say that on that day the old Holy Office, as it presented itself then, was destroyed by Ratzinger in union with his Archbishop.  “Card. Seper, a man full of goodness, intiated the renovation. Ratzinger, who did not change, continues it.” Ratzinger’s reputation as a “progressive” is not based on one incident, nor was it restricted to his early work. It went unnoticed in the shouting over his running of CDF, that he had written in 1982, a call for the Church “never to return” to the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX. In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Ratzinger proposed the question, “Should the Council be revoked?” and in response recommended the “razing of the bastions” of the Catholic Church in relation to the modern world: The duty is, therefore, not to suppress the Council, but to discover the real Council and delve deep into what it truly wants with regard to what has happened since then.  This implies that there is no possible return to the Syllabus, which could well have been a first step in the combat against Liberalism and the nascent Marxism, but which cannot be the last word. Neither embraces nor the ghetto can resolve the problem of [relations with] the modern world for the Christian. Hence, the 'razing of the bastions' that Hans Urs von Balthasar called for already in 1952 was in effect an urgent duty. It was necessary for her [the Church] to raze the old bastions and confide only in the protection of the faith, the power of the word that is her unique, true, and permanent strength. But to raze the bastions cannot signify that she no longer has anything to protect, or that she can live owing to different forces than those that engendered her: the water and the blood that poured from the open side of her crucified Lord. His was the thesis – a mainstay of “conservative” ideology – that the “real” Council, if only implemented properly, would be the salvation of the Church and the world, a theme he never left. How ironic it must have seemed to those who remembered this history that Ratzinger would himself be given the office he had “destroyed” and would gain the media-generated reputation as an “arch-conservative”. And it starts to suggest an answer, or at least a line of inquiry, about why so little was actually accomplished in his long tenure. With the “arch-conservative” “Rottweiler” Ratzinger in CDF, why do we have the situation we have today? What did he do to stop the explosion of neo-modernism – that burned like an unchecked wildfire throughout the Catholic world through the reign of John Paul II? What did “silencing” by Ratzinger’s CDF do to stop Hans Kung becoming a celebrity “priest-theologian,” courted by the media for his loathing of Catholicism? Kung, who was never removed from the priesthood despite his manifest heresy? Can we think of any other names who were corrected even to this degree? Precious few. But we can certainly think of many, many who spent their lives and vocations blatantly denying and undermining the Catholic Faith – academic theologians, religious, priests, bishops and cardinals around the world – with never a peep of protest from Rome. Moreover, the scandalous pack of frauds we currently have in the episcopate is entirely the product of the “arch-conservative” John Paul II and the “Rottweiler” Benedict XVI pontificates. Why did we think that Ratzinger, in this crucial role of CDF prefect, was a bulwark of orthodoxy? Is it simply that we have moved so far away from the ancient Faith that we no longer have a realistic notion of the Faith ourselves to make a comparison, to make an objective judgement? The “progressive” destroyer of Ottaviani inheriting his office and the epithet “arch-conservative”… Indeed, Ratzinger himself maintained that he had never changed his theological opinions. He was to say that it was his old academic colleagues like Kung and Kasper who had moved further to the ideological “left” after the 1960s while he stayed in place. Perhaps now, as an answer that fits our apparently contradictory puzzle pieces, we can finally accept his word on this. Perhaps the world of Catholic academic theology had become so corrupted that a man called “progressive” in 1963, but whose ideas remained the same, would look like a “champion of traditional Catholic orthodoxy” by 2005. Is this why he resigned? Is it simply that his conception of the Church, of the papacy, was never what Catholics believed about it? Perhaps a hint at the answer comes from La Stampa in 2015 which published some of the memoirs of Silvano Fausti, SJ, who had been confessor and spiritual guide of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the godfather of the “liberal” European Catholic Church, and alleged leader of the “Sankt Gallen Mafia” that Cardinal Danneels admitted conspired for years against Pope Benedict. Fausti said that Benedict met with Martini at the bishops’ palace of Milan in June 2012. Martini, Fausti said, urged Benedict to resign the papacy. Apparently at the time of his election in 2005, Martini had said it would be his main task to reform the Curia. By 2012, this had proved impossible. Why would Benedict take advice from a man like Martini – the “godfather” of the “liberal wing” of European Catholicism? I think the question would not even occur to a man like Ratzinger. They were esteemed academic colleagues. They were brothers of the episcopate. They were members of the club. Any appearance of ideological division between them was, in essence, a product of the media narrative. Why wouldn’t the pope take the advice of his most respected and senior cardinal? Why is Walter Kasper a cardinal? One of the most prominent of those puzzle pieces is the apparent inability of these “conservative” prelates, to detect, let alone effectively oppose, these brazen enemies of the Faith within the episcopate and College of Cardinals. It beggars belief of ordinary people that, after so many years of hearing and reading them, Ratzinger would remain on such friendly terms with men like Walter Kasper and Carlo Maria Martini, the alleged brains of the Sankt Gallen Mafia. When, at his very first Angelus address in 2013, Pope Francis told the crowd how much he loved the writing of Walter Kasper, quite a lot of us who had spent many years watching the Vatican started understanding where we were all headed with the new pope. Jorge Bergoglio might have been unknown to the larger Catholic world, but Walter Kasper was a celebrity heretic, the media-savvy frontman for the “ultra-liberal” “wing” of the post-Vatican II Church. In an article on the cardinal’s life’s work, Thomas Jansen, the editor-in-chief of Katholisch.de, recently noted that Walter Kasper could not possibly have done the damage he has without the direct assistance of both John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The monstrous debacle of Amoris Laetitia is as much Kasper’s work as Bergoglio’s. This is a man who has, for 40 years, never troubled to hide his heterodox opinions and has devoted much of his life to a campaign to bring about precisely this outcome. Jansen points out that Kasper had already tried to bring out the same proposal for Communion for divorced and remarried in 1993, together with Karl Lehmann, another “Sankt Gallen” member. This was stopped by Ratzinger and the CDF. But that raises the next question; if Ratzinger knew so well what kind of creature Kasper was, why wasn’t the next step to pitch him out of the episcopate on his ear? Why was he not – at the very least – given the same “silencing” treatment as Kung? Kasper has recently gone to the media again to complain of being called a heretic. But it’s a simple truth: he’s a heretic. Everyone knows he’s a heretic because we have heard him trumpeting in his blatant heresies from every rooftop he could find for decades. After openly working against the Faith, instead of being demoted, silenced, laicised and/or excommunicated, John Paul II made him a cardinal. Remember that his scheme to Amoris-Latitia-ize the Church was stopped by Ratzinger’s CDF in 1993. But he was not demoted, reprimanded or corrected in any way. Nor was he removed from places of influence. Far from it. In 1994 Kasper was inserted into the Vatican Curia by being named co-chair of the International Commission for Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. In 1999, he made another step up, being appointed secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the “ecumenical” office where his manifest religious indifferentism could be given free reign. In 2001, he was made a Cardinal-deacon with the awesome responsibility of voting in a Conclave. Then Benedict allowed him to remain a cardinal. And, as if to add a finishing touch to the poisoned cake that is Ratzinger’s involvement in the creation of the New Catholic Paradigm, Benedict is now being said to have deliberately timed his resignation in order to allow his old academic colleague to participate in the 2013 Conclave. As Jansen pointed out, and Maike Hickson quoted in a piece for One Peter Five, Cardinal Kasper barely even made it into the last conclave, because he had just turned 80 years of age. But since the date of the death (or abdication, as it was the case in 2013) of the pope is decisive, he was still able to attend and vote in that election. (As some observers noted, it was a generous gesture toward Cardinal Kasper that Pope Benedict XVI had decided to retire in due time.) Excuse me Maike, but I don’t think this is a parenthetical issue. Is it any wonder that so many Catholics have become disaffected? Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope “Emeritus” Benedict – whatever you want to call yourself – I have one question that I would really like you to answer: Why is this man still a cardinal? Why is he still a bishop? Why is he still allowed to call himself a “Catholic theologian”? Why did you, apparently deliberately, ensure that he was able to enter the Conclave to decide who your successor was going to be? Doesn’t anyone else want to know this? Don’t we all want to know why Hans Kung is still a priest? Why was Cardinal Mahony allowed to retire in good standing? Why a man like Weakland, the active homosexual who paid off his ex-lover, was not excommunicated? What are the names we all remember, just off the top of our heads? My own bishop in Victoria, the occultist Remi de Roo, Seattle’s Raymond Hunthausen, Miami’s Favalora, Rochester’s Matthew Clark, Derek Worlock of Liverpool… I sometimes wonder how long that list is going to be when this is all over. For fifty years Catholics have wanted to know why nothing was ever done, as these wolves in the episcopate were allowed, year after year to continue attacking the Church. Why have we so often seen these men – compromised intellectually and morally – elevated to superior rank, despite the incredible brazenness of their hatred of the Catholic Faith? The end of “Big Umbrella Catholicism” The New York Times’ Ross Douthat is among those who are starting to ask these kinds of questions. Maike Hickson quotes him, writing of this bizarre situation – in which each, of the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia” prelates, including Kasper, who openly campaigned for the effective abolition of Catholic moral teaching: “It was characteristic of the church’s effective truce [between conservatives and progressivists] that John Paul II himself had given most of them their red hats, elevating them despite their disagreement with his restorationist approach.” When journalists talk about Catholicism, they often speak of a man like Kasper being – as his Wikipedia page puts it – “one of the main figures of the liberal wing of the Catholic Church.” And this is supposed to make some kind of sense to Catholics, we’re supposed to accept it as the reality of our times. There’s a “liberal wing” and a “conservative wing” and they’re both Catholic. Steve Skojec told me that our willingness to go along with the whole “emeritus pope” charade was an error: “I think the problem is that we all went along with their game of make believe, and we shouldn’t have.” In fact, I am starting to think that the willingness of most Catholics to go along with the entire charade of post-conciliar Catholicism has been a grave error. By playing along, by pretending that we could be “conservative Catholics” in this New Paradigm that also includes “liberal Catholics” we have helped them perpetrate one the most monstrous frauds in human history. Because of this schizophrenic mindset of the Church’s leadership since 1965, we have all come to accept the underlying premise; that the Church is a “big umbrella” with plenty of room for people of all personal opinions, that such issues as liturgy are matters of personal “taste” …that two opposed things can both be Catholic truth. This schizophrenia is the model under which “conservatives” have operated all this time, and by which they have judged a man like Joseph Ratzinger to be a “conservative champion of orthodoxy.” And what has this achieved? It created cover for the men of Kasper’s clique to maneuver their man on the throne of Peter five years ago. And just like that, the jargon of “tolerance” and the “big umbrella” is over and the purge of faithful, believing Catholic religious, seminarians, priests, and academics has begun. As it had to. They, at least, do not harbour this insane contradiction, and understand – and frequently say out loud – that the New Paradigm and the Catholic Church are not the same. And their New Church is the only one left. For five decades we played the Anglican game; as long as we don’t talk about it, there isn’t a problem. Ottaviani’s Holy Office and schema were the last gasp of the old Church – and as de Lubac said above, it was killed by Joseph Ratzinger. We had a long hiatus in which the popes pretended nothing essential had changed, while the institution around them fell to the New Paradigm, until the papacy was the only thing left. One of the things I’ve been saying is a blessing in disguise, and an enormous relief, about the Bergoglian era is that we can finally leave behind us the absurd situation of the Wojtyla/Ratzinger era. We were expected for all those years to pretend we were in the “New Springtime of Vatican II,” while we watched these wolves in shepherds’ clothing eating the sheep. Now we can, at least, finally stop pretending that everything is just dandy under the New Paradigm of Merciful Conciliar Wonderfulness. For those still wondering, Bergoglio isn’t a shock, he isn’t even a surprise; he’s just the logical end result. This pontificate isn’t an anomaly; it was the only possible outcome, and it was as much the work of Joseph Ratzinger as Walter Kasper.
Student organizers boot SNL writer from stage during standup routine for jokes deemed offensive  Saturday Night Live writer and comedian Nimesh Patel was pulled from the stage by event organizers after telling jokes that were criticized as racist and homophobic during his performance at cultureSHOCK: Reclaim, an event held by Columbia Asian American Alliance on Friday night. Patel, 32, was the first Indian-American writer for SNL, and has since been nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing. Patel has previously performed on Late Night with Seth Meyers and opened for comedians such as Chris Rock. During the event, Patel’s performance featured commentary on his experience living in a diverse area of New York City—including a joke about a gay, black man in his neighborhood—which AAA officials deemed inappropriate. Patel joked that being gay cannot be a choice because “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, ‘this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.’” About 30 minutes into Patel’s set, members of AAA interrupted the performance, denounced his jokes about racial identities and sexual orientation, and provided him with a few moments for closing remarks. Compared to his other jokes, ones specifically targeting sexual orientation audibly receive less laughter from the crowd. Patel pushed back on the officials’ remarks, and said that while he stood in solidarity with Asian American identities, none of his remarks were offensive, and he was exposing the audience to ideas that would be found “in the real world.” Before he could finish, Patel’s microphone was cut from off-stage, and he proceeded to leave. cultureSHOCK, an annual charity showcase featuring a fashion show, productions by various student groups and a famous performer, aims to provide a platform for Asian American artistic expression and breakthrough harmful stereotypes. Neither Patel and nor AAA could immediately be reached for comment. Adam Warren, CC ‘22, was in the audience Friday night. Warren said that AAA made the right decision to remove Patel from the stage due to the nature of his jokes, which contradicted the sensitive nature of the event itself. “The message they were trying to send with the event was opposite to the jokes he was making, and using people’s ethnicity as the crux of his jokes could be funny but still offensive...He definitely wasn’t the most crass comedian I’ve ever heard but for the event it was inappropriate,” Warren said. However, audience member Elle Ferguson, BC ‘22, said that while comedians can push the boundaries of social culture, she had heard similar jokes before and did not find them offensive. “While what some of the things that he said might have been a bit provoking to some of the audience, as someone who watches comedy a lot, none of them were jokes that I hadn’t heard before and none of them were jokes that elicited such a response in my experience,” Ferguson said. “[AAA] should have talked to him beforehand especially because comedy is known for being ground-breaking and for pushing boundaries.” For Sofia Jao, BC ‘22, problems with the performance resided not in the set, but with Patel’s closing remarks. “I really dislike when people who are older say that our generation needs to be exposed to the real world. Obviously the world is not a safe space but just accepting that it’s not and continuing to perpetuate the un-safeness of it… is saying that it can’t be changed,” said Jao. “When older generations say you need to stop being so sensitive, it’s like undermining what our generation is trying to do in accepting others and making it safer.”
Las Vegas Massacre Coverup: Clark County Coroner Releases 58 Autopsy Reports With All Names Redacted, No Ballistics, And No Stephen Paddock Autopsy  It appears that a further cover-up is underway in regards to the 1 October massacre in which 58 people were killed LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — The Coroner finally released the autopsy for the 58 victims but not for the alleged shooter Stephen Paddock after a judge ruled that the coroner release all the documents and pay $32,000 in legal fees. Not only did the coroner drag his feet and release the autopsy reports late Wednesday, but all of the names were redacted in the reports, with no mention of ballistic data, bullet caliber, or trajectories. This, despite the fact that the report does state that recovered bullet fragments were turned over to the police. Moreover, against public law, the coroner has still not released the autopsy report for “Stephen Paddock” after an Intellihub article definitively proved the body recovered in Mandalay Bay room 32-135 was not Paddock’s. In fact, the coroner claims that he still has to “finalize” the report despite the fact the autopsy was conducted.
54 Years Ago Today: Government & Media Created & Spread ‘Fake News’ to Start Vietnam War  If you are to believe the official story, one of America’s deadliest wars in history, Vietnam, was started after the United States had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in the South China Sea. However, over the past 54 years, a deluge of information and government officials have come forward showing that most everything the government and the media told Americans about the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war. According to the widely discredited official story, on August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, was pursued by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. The North Vietnamese torpedo boats then attacked with torpedoes and machine gun fire. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. Two days later, according to the official story, on August 4, 1962, the NSA reported that a second Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred and US ships were attacked once again. The next day, without question, on August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim. The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted then-President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression.” The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. As a result, 58,177 Americans would lose their lives. Additionally, over one million North and South Vietnamese, including 627,000 civilians would be slaughtered. But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world. The truth of the matter was that the Maddox was engaged in an aggressive intelligence gathering operation working hand in hand in coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force. When the government announced that it had been the victim of an unprovoked attack—this was a lie. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War , the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened. In 1995, McNamara met with former Vietnam People’s Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on August 4, 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. “Absolutely nothing”, Giáp replied. Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary. In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed. Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam ,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’” If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did and over a million lives would’ve been saved. Now, retired military officials—who pay attention to history—are even warning about more staged events to pull us into war. “I think the president needs to watch carefully for the potential for something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident,” Col. Macgregor said. “Many of your viewers may not remember that it never happened and we could very well be treated to something like that in the Gulf. We should watch for that, and this is an example of President Trump’s comments on fake news, he should not be sabotaged by fake news.” Indeed, as TFTP has reported at length, nearly all wars in US history have been started over false information. To see a full list of our data, you can click this link. Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project
Soros-Funded Lawyers Helping Caravan Migrants Get Asylum in the United States  Attorneys backed by George Soros are helping caravan migrants get asylum in the United States. 53 SHARES Facebook Twitter Globalist billionaire George Soros is backing attorney’s who are helping the Central American migrant caravans that are headed to the United States border with the intent of entering under the guise of seeking asylum. Currently, there are close to 3,000 migrants in Tijuana, Mexico, awaiting the arrival of other Central American migrants who will continue to travel to the U.S. southern border. There are reports that they plan to “rush” the border knowing that some will be caught, but the larger their numbers the more will have a chance to get through. On Monday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted out photos of CBP officers in riot gear as well as the barbed wire and barriers citing the reports about plans to “rush” the border. . @CBP and @DeptofDefense appropriately responded by blocking the lanes, deploying additional personnel and seeking assistance from other law enforcement and federal assets. #CBP has reopened lanes for legitimate trade and travel. I want to thank them for their swift actions. pic.twitter.com/eJVVuAs0w6 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 * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 19, 2018 At one point the caravan was anywhere between 7,000 to 10,000 members strong and mostly consists of migrants with ineligible asylum claims, which include job-seekers, previously deported illegal aliens, and Central Americans looking to get away from crime. None of these are eligible asylum claims, Breitbart reports. According to the New York Times, lawyers with the National Lawyers Guild, a Soros-backed organization, are aiding the caravan migrants before they attempt to seek asylum in the U.S.: Others have begun to deal in practicalities, walking a mile from the shelter to enter their names on a waiting list for an asylum interview. Some clustered around volunteer American lawyers who arrived at the shelter to explain the basics of asylum law. [Emphasis added] “People don’t flee their country and go through the arduous trip on foot unless the situation is desperate,” said Gilbert Saucedo, a Los Angeles lawyer who helped organize the volunteers through the National Lawyers Guild. [Emphasis added] “I have talked to maybe 100 people today,” he said on Saturday, “and maybe 70 percent had credible cases on the surface.” Yet many lack the documents they need to provide evidence. [Emphasis added] Last week, Breitbart News reported how caravan migrants in Tijuana began scaling the U.S.-Mexico border fence. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed razor wire along the fence. Locals in Tijuana protested against the arrival of the caravan migrants, as Breitbart News reported, demanding they leave the city. To deal with the perceived threat the US has deployed 5,200 troops to help more than 2,000 National Guardsmen thwart what President Trump describes as an impending migrant“invasion.” Over the past few weeks, the active-duty servicemen deployed under Operation Faithful Patriot have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border in Texas, California and Arizona, as well as building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. To ensure the success of the military operation, in addition to sheer troop numbers, the US forces have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal.
Jewish and Pro-Israel Students Kicked Off University Board for Opposing BDS  First they came for the Jews. And then they came for everyone else. Jewish students have already faced plenty of harassment and hate at McGill. The latest incident at the Canadian university comes with a rather blatant agenda. A Jewish student at McGill University has been kicked off the student government board for having “conflicts of interest” due to his pro-Israel activism. Third-year student Noah Lew was one of 12 board members up for general assembly ratification on Monday evening following his victory as vice-president finance of the Arts Undergraduate Society. The ratification vote is typically a mere formality, but Monday’s was different due to Democratize Student Society of McGill University (SSMU), an organization that was established to resist the university’s ban of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on campus. Democratize SSMU was able to pass a motion that required each board member to be voted upon separately under the grounds that they weren’t a fan of the names. When it was Lew’s turn, he was voted down, 105 to 73 with 12 abstaining, with applause following the vote. Two other students who had criticized BDS, Alexander Scheffel and Josephine Wright O’Manique, were also voted down. Democratize SSMU had targeted Lew and the other two students on the board because they had connections to the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) and were involved in getting the BDS ban passed, which Democratize SSMU claimed were “conflicts of interests.” Somehow I don't think being a member of a Muslim student group and supporting BDS would be considered a conflict of interest. But the campus anti-Israel crowd has been working rather hard to intimidate and penalize anyone involved in pro-Israel organizations. And to keep their racist boycott movement going by maintaining control over student governments. Lew shared the experience on Facebook. “I have no doubt from the information circulated about me and campaign run against me prior to this vote that this was about my Jewish identity, and nothing more,” wrote Lew. “I was blocked from being able to participate in my student government because I am Jewish, because I have been affiliated with Jewish organizations, and because I believe in the right to Jewish self-determination.” Lew added that the experience shows the inherent anti-Semitism in the BDS movement. “If BDS is not anti-Semitic, why did a BDS-led campaign name and shame me for my affiliation with a Jewish organization, and call on students to remove me from student government for this reason?” wrote Lew. “If BDS is not anti-Semitic, why was I barred from participating in student government because of my Jewish identity?” There are some more details here and a petition. On Monday night, three students were removed from the Board of Directors of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), McGill’s main student government. All three were targeted for removal either because they are Jewish or have vocally opposed anti-Jewish discrimination on campus. This episode is utterly unacceptable, and is merely the latest in a long string of antisemitic incidents at your university. Indeed, according to eyewitnesses, one of the members of the mob that removed the three directors was Igor Sadikov. You will remember Sadikov as the student politician who in February told his followers to “punch a Zionist today.” It is unclear whether Sadikov has faced any disciplinary action for this incitement to violence from your administration. Antisemitism at McGill does not emerge from a vacuum. Rather, it has been nurtured in part by a toxic campus press, especially the McGill Daily, a publication which openly refuses to publish any “Zionist” content. In practice, this prevents McGill’s Jewish community from defending itself against the absurd attacks to which it is subjected. If the Daily is committed to systematically excluding the voices of an ethno-religious community on campus, then it cannot continue to receive automatic student funding, as it does now. The double standard here is pretty clear. And we know exactly what the reaction would be if a student paper refused to publish any pro-Islamist content.
US bloggers banned from entering UK  Two prominent US bloggers have been banned from entering the UK, the Home Office has said.  Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America.  They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was killed.  A government spokesman said individuals whose presence "is not conducive to the public good" could be excluded by the home secretary.  He added: "We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form."  'Right decision' Ms Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog, and Mr Spencer, of Jihad Watch, are also co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, best known for a pro-Israel "Defeat Jihad" poster campaign on the New York subway. On both of their blogs the pair called their bans from entering the UK "a striking blow against freedom" and said the "the nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead".  They were due to attend a march planned by the far-right EDL to mark Armed Forces Day on 29 June, ending in Woolwich, south east London, where soldier Drummer Rigby was murdered last month.  Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who had called for the bloggers to be banned from the UK, said: "I welcome the home secretary's ban on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the country. This is the right decision. The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate."  EDL leader Tommy Robinson, meanwhile, criticised the decision and said Ms Geller and Mr Spencer were coming to the UK to lay flowers at the place where Drummer Rigby died.  "It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said.  "How many hate preachers are living in this country? It just shows what sort of a two-tier system we have here."  'Foster hatred' Anti-fascism campaigners Hope Not Hate had campaigned for the pair to not be allowed into the UK.  A researcher with the organisation, Matthew Collins, said it was "delighted" with the decision.  "These two are among some of the most extreme anti-Muslim activists in the world. They've nothing to contribute to life in this country.  "They're not here to contribute to good community relations. They only wanted to come here and help the EDL stir up more trouble. Britain doesn't need more hate even just for a few days."  Mr Spencer put up a copy of what appears to be the exclusion decision from the Home Office on the Jihad Watch website, while Ms Geller posted a copy of her letter on her website, Atlas Shrugs.  The letters, both dated Tuesday, claim that both activists have fallen within the scope of a list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements which may "foster hatred" and lead to "inter-community violence" in the UK.  Both letters gave examples of anti-Muslim views stated by both and went on to say that should they be allowed to enter the UK the home secretary believes they would "continue to espouse such views".
Dem Congressman Praises Hitler-Loving Anti-Semite  The media is very interested in racism. Except when it's coming from inside the house. It's maintained a solid boycott on reporting on the photo of Obama posing with Farrakhan. Don't count on these comments by a Congressional Black Cacus member to get reported either. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. “I don’t regard Louis Farrakhan as an aberration or anything, I regard him as an outstanding human being who commands a following of individuals who are learned and articulate and he plays a big role in the lives of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people,” he emphasized later. When asked about Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic comments, Davis was dismissive and said that many people in politics have a history of inflammatory comments. Like this. Farrakhan had praised Hitler and declared that the Jews, "can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever.” "Here come the Jews. They don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man." Would a Republican get a pass on meeting with a racist hate group leader? Obviously not. Obama's meeting with Farrakhan was part of a CBC event. The Caucus has yet to apologize for it. Don't expect it to condemn Rep. Davis' comments. He was just saying what most of them think. The media is happy to talk about anti-Semitism. It just won't address left-wing anti-Semitism and racism.
Western Michigan ICE operation nets 16 arrests over 4-day period  KALAMAZOO, Mich. – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers arrested 16 individuals for violating federal immigration laws in western Michigan during a four-day targeted enforcement operation that ended Thursday. Nine of the immigration violators arrested during the operation were convicted criminals. Two individuals illegally re-entered the country after deportation. Depending on the alien’s criminal history, an alien who illegally reenters the United States, after having been previously removed, has committed a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Fourteen men and two women were arrested during the enforcement actions. With the exception of a Congolese man, all of those arrested were nationals of Mexico. Enforcement activities took place primarily in Berrien, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Van Buren counties. “This operation reflects ICE’s commitment to public safety through targeted enforcement efforts,” said Rebecca Adducci, field office director for ERO Detroit. “I applaud the brave men and women of ICE who put themselves in harm’s way daily to keep our community safe.” Criminal convictions of those arrested include but are not limited to domestic violence, DUI, operating while intoxicated, illegal entry, aggravated assault, assault and battery and carrying a concealed weapon. The arrests include: · A 19-year-old male Mexican national with a prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. · A 46-year-old male national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with convictions for aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and other charges. · A 36-year-old male Mexican national with convictions for assault and battery, aggravated assault, and other offenses. · A 56-year-old female Mexican national with a federal conviction for illegal entry. She is facing federal re-entry after deportation charges. All four remain in agency custody. The arrestees who are not being federally prosecuted will be processed administratively for removal from the United States. Those who have outstanding orders of removal, or who returned to the United States illegally after being deported, are subject to immediate removal from the country. The remaining individuals are in ICE custody awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge, or pending travel arrangements for removal in the near future.
FBI IG Report: A Slap On The Wrist  Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has released his 500 plus-page report, which purports to shine a light on the mishandling at top levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State under former President Obama. Such mishandling included violations of Department of Justice standards and FBI protocols. The report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) criticized certain actions and decisions of former FBI Director James Comey, together with those of other senior FBI officials who were involved in the probe, including former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Mr. McCabe is already the subject of an earlier criminal referral from the OIG for his alleged unauthorized leaks to the media and lying to federal investigators about his media contacts. Special FBI agent Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page, an attorney who has since left the FBI, were targeted in this report for their blatantly anti-Trump text messages. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was also criticized for exercising bad judgment in connection with her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Mr. Horowitz’s report focused on process and procedures. The inspector general made clear when he launched his investigation in January 2017 that “his review will not substitute the OIG's judgment for the judgments made by the FBI or the Department regarding the substantive merits of investigative or prosecutive decisions." Moreover, this report did not address whether the Department of Justice or FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain a surveillance order against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, or the government’s reliance on former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified “dossier” in its FISA court application, which the OIG is investigating separately. In analyzing the highly anticipated OIG report’s conclusions, it is clear that either Mr. Horowitz himself decided to pull his punches or that the final version, which had been reviewed by upper echelons in both the FBI and Justice Department before its public release, emerged in a disappointingly watered-down form. To be sure, the report faulted Comey for deviating from FBI and Justice Department procedures in handling the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State, thereby negatively impacting “the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey, according to the OIG report, “engaged in ad hoc decision making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice.” Starting with Comey’s public announcement on July 5, 2016 criticizing Hillary Clinton and her staff for being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” but also announcing that the FBI was “expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case,” Comey was taken to task for insubordination and usurping the authority of the attorney general. He “upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions,” the report said. Comey’s follow-up letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016 were similarly criticized. The first letter informed Congress that agents were reopening their probe into Clinton’s handling of classified material after discovering her e-mails on the laptop of Andrew Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin. This letter was followed on November 6, 2016 by Comey’s statement that the review of the additional information had been completed and that the FBI remained convinced that charges were not appropriate. Comey acted against the advice of senior Justice Department officials in making these disclosures the way he did. The OIG report was highly critical of the FBI’s failure to take immediate action on the Weiner laptop when they first learned about it in late September 2016, rather than waiting another month so close to the election. The criticisms of Comey's undisciplined behavior was all well and good, but it was reasonable to expect something more than the equivalent of a departmental employee review after nearly a year and a half of investigation. Hillary Clinton’s supporters will no doubt jump on the inspector general’s criticisms of Comey’s handling of the July 5th announcement and subsequent letters as proof that he improperly influenced the outcome of the election in President Trump’s favor, even if he did not do so deliberately for political reasons. However, what Comey really did was to give Hillary Clinton a Get Out of Jail Free card. The fix was in as early as May 2016, well before the FBI interviews of Hillary Clinton and of as many as 17 other key witnesses, when Comey began the process of drafting an exoneration memo. Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case based on the facts developed in the investigation. Indeed, Comey admitted in his book that “we started the Clinton investigation aware that it was unlikely to be a case that career prosecutors at the Department of Justice would prosecute.” If putting the cart of exoneration before the horse of investigation were not enough, Comey’s draft statement underwent various language changes over the course of the next two months, including, most importantly, changing the description of Clinton’s handling of classified information from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” This change was critical because “gross negligence” is specifically the legal term used in stating the statutory requirement in 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) for a finding of criminal conduct. Comey’s substitution of a legally meaningless phrase, “extremely careless,” for the “gross negligence” statutory legal standard he had originally used, had the effect of prejudging the facts in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were involved in the edits. Inspector General Horowitz saw no problem with this pattern of obfuscation regarding the deletion of the legally significant phrase “gross negligence” from Comey’s statement. Mr. Horowitz relied in part on opinions from prosecutors that there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton with acting in a manner that rose to a level of criminal gross negligence with respect to sending or receiving e-mails determined to contain classified information. Mr. Horowitz’s report thus concluded, “We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.” This conclusion defies common sense. Gross negligence is not the same as willful intent, which Comey and his team sought to conflate in exonerating Hillary Clinton before the investigation was concluded. Clinton was fully aware of what she was doing when she set up the private server arrangement in the first place and knowingly used it to send and receive e-mails involving official government business, which by their very nature would be expected to include classified information. It turns out that some of the e-mails were accessed by foreign parties. Hillary lied repeatedly when she first denied there were any classified e-mails on her system and then described some of the e-mails involved in the investigation as having been classified after the fact. As Comey has admitted, several e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received by Clinton. Coupled with her agents’ destruction of thousands of e-mails that had been subpoenaed by Congress, Hillary’s conduct was criminally reckless at the very least, if not constituting willful intent to commit an act she knew was wrongful. Yet Mr. Horowitz saw no reason to doubt the sincerity of Comey's explanations for giving Hillary a free pass. The failure to at least empanel a grand jury to compel testimony from Hillary Clinton and key witnesses was itself a complete dereliction of duty, which could have only been motivated by a desire to treat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves for improper reasons. Incredibly, however, Mr. Horowitz’s report “found no persuasive evidence… that the outcome of the investigation would have been different had Clinton been subpoenaed before the grand jury.” Mr. Horowitz also did not deem Comey’s possible perjury in his testimony before Congress to be an appropriate subject for criminal referral. Comey testified that his decision to exonerate Hillary was not made before her interview took place, when for all intents and purposes it was. Mr. Horowitz simply took Comey’s word for what he had meant. Inspector General Horowitz again emphasized form and process over substance in finding a “troubling lack of any direct, substantive communication” between Comey and Attorney General Lynch ahead of Comey’s July 5 press conference on Clinton and his October 28 letter to Congress. Attorney General Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was discussed in the report, but mostly in the context of how it affected Comey’s decision to go rogue, so to speak, in making his July 5th announcement without prior approval from the Justice Department. As to the substance of Ms. Lynch’s decision to meet with Bill Clinton at all before his wife’s FBI interview, all Mr. Horowitz’s report had to say was that it was “an error in judgment.” The OIG report also criticized the conduct of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who had exchanged text messages sharply critical of Mr. Trump before and after the election, for casting “a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.” The report referenced a text message on August 8, 2016, in which Strzok reassured Page that she need not worry about Donald Trump becoming president. Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right? !” Page texted Strzok. “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded. Mr. Horowitz wrote that this exchange was “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” The inspector general questioned whether Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia collusion investigation over following up on the Clinton e-mail-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias. Ultimately, however, he inexplicably concluded that there was no finding of “documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions” discussed in the OIG report. Strzok should have been subject to a criminal referral for arguably violating 18 U.S.C. § 595, enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act, prohibiting any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office including the president of the United States. The punishment for violation is a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year or both. Instead, Strzok's punishment will most likely be limited to disciplinary action and possibly dismissal. In sum, the long-awaited inspector general report on the FBI’s and Justice Department’s handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation is as disappointing as the rigged outcome of the e-mail investigation itself.
Ex-Navy sailor pardoned by Trump says he's suing Comey and Obama  A former Navy sailor who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials, alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law. Specifically, Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, argues that the same officials who meted out punishment to him for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and handling of classified information. His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must lapse before the lawsuit actually is filed. “We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.” While campaigning, and after taking office, Trump frequently voiced support for Saucier, who in March became the second person he pardoned. Trump often compared the Obama administration’s handling of Saucier’s case with that of Clinton. Saucier, who lives in Vermont, pleaded guilty in 2016 to taking photos inside the USS Alexandria while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut, in 2009. He said he only wanted service mementos, but federal prosecutors argued he was a disgruntled sailor who had put national security at risk by taking photos showing the submarine's propulsion system and reactor compartment and then obstructed justice by destroying a laptop and camera. Saucier said that he recognized he had erred in taking the photos, which he said he wanted to show only to his family to show them where he worked. But he lashed out at Obama officials, saying that his prosecution was politically motivated, prompted by sensitivity about classified information amid the scandal involving Clinton's emails. “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” he said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton.” Saucier, 31, said that the pardon has enabled him to pick up the pieces and rebuild his life with his wife and young daughter. A felony conviction left him scrambling to find work; he finally landed a job collecting garbage. Now, he works on design and engineering projects for an industrial boiler company. “Things are starting to go in the right direction,” Saucier said. “I work with a group of really great people, I get to use my skills set.” Because of the loss of income during his imprisonment, as well as earning below his potential when he collected garbage, he and his wife Sadie lost their home to foreclosure. Debt collectors called and his cars were repossessed. “With a pardon there’s no magic wand that that gets waved and makes everything right,” he said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” He praises the pardons that Trump has granted, and takes exception at the criticism. “The Obama administration singled out Dinesh for things most people don’t even get charged for,” Saucier said. “President Trump noticed that my career was exemplary and that I didn’t deserve what happened to me. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, who was pardoned by Trump last week, had pleaded guilty to campaign finance fraud. Trump tweeted Thursday: "Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D'Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!" D'Souza was sentenced in 2014 to five years of probation after he pleaded guilty to violating federal election law by making illegal contributions to a U.S. Senate campaign in the names of others. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Deep State Insurrection Defying POTUS Trump’s Order  Deep State officials like ex-CIA chief John Brennan are in panic mode. Deep State DOJ tool Rod Rosenstein refuses to comply with Trump’s executive order as afforded him by the US Constitution. Establishment Democrats are all over the mainstream media channels calling the act of releasing documents criminal. The US President wants every American citizen to see the full, unredacted version of the FISA documents used to spy on Carter Page. Trump is simply asking for full transparency, in what has become a two year, multi-million dollar witch hunt, to find collusion where there is none. This is all you need to know about the hoax that was and is Trump-Russia collusion and the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the insurrection taking place at the US Department of Justice, as Democrats, ex-Obama officials, and DOJ directors are doing everything in their power to make sure the truth, about how the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page was obtained, remains hidden from the eyes of the American public.  Via Zerohedge… Despite President Trump’s Monday order for the “immediate declassification” of sensitive materials related to the Russia investigation, “without redaction,” the agencies involved are planning to do so anyway, according to Bloomberg, citing three people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence are going through a methodical review and can’t offer a timeline for finishing, said the people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the sensitive matter. –Bloomberg The Deep State: The Fa... Mike Lofgren Best Price: $7.55 Buy New $6.00 (as of 11:45 EDT - Details) Trump ordered the DOJ to release the text messages of former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, now-fired special agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and twice-demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr. Also ordered released are specific pages from the FBI’s FISA surveillance warrant application on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as well as interviews with Ohr. The DOJ and the FBI are expected to submit proposed redactions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – which will prepare a package for Trump to sign off on. “When the president issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department spokesman said in a statement. “The department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the president’s order.” The agencies are likely to cite national security concerns over revealing classified “sources and methods” pertaining to the Russia investigation – which will put them in direct conflict with Trump’s order. Trump, as president, has the power to override the agencies and declassify material on his own. Trump’s order to release the documents comes after months of requests from GOP lawmakers, while the DOJ has repeatedly denied their requests for more transparency. The FBI’s spy… According to Bloomberg, the DOJ is interpreting Trump’s request to include information about the use of confidential informant (spy) Stephan Halper during the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation. After taking in over $400,000 from the Obama Pentagon under the auspices of a research contract, Halper befriended and spied on members of the Trump campaign, including aides Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Showdown? Top Congressional Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner penned a joint letter to ODNI Director Dan Coates, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that the agencies defy President Trump. Showdown? In letter, Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Warner order intel agencies to ignore presidential order on declassification until consulting with Congress. https://t.co/x7JDUJd4t0 pic.twitter.com/o64PC7EEFQ — Byron York (@ByronYork) September 19, 2018 In the letter, the lawmakers “express profound alarm” at the decision to “intervene in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him.” “Any decision by your offices to share this material with the President or his lawyers will violate longstanding Department of Justice polices, as well as assurances you have provided to us.” The letter then demands that the agencies brief the Gang of Eight before releasing the materials “to anyone at the White House.” Reprinted from The Duran.
Democrats Want Us To Believe All Women…Unless They’re Accusing Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton, Al Franken Or George Soros  The Democrats have called upon the Senate to postpone the vote on Kavanaugh. Establishment Republicans are racing for the exits. But over what? An unprovable accusation from decades ago that the accuser said nothing about until years later, and that is uncorroborated by any other testimony or by the evidence of any similar behavior on Kavanaugh’s part. This is clearly a set-up (Christine Ford is also a far-left Democrat operative) designed to derail the nomination of a good man. There is no low to which the Democrats will not sink to attain their nefarious goals of stopping the President from strengthening America and protecting Americans. take our poll - story continues below 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. “Weighing the Allegations against Brett Kavanaugh,” by David French, National Review, September 16, 2018: They’re serious but not solid. The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh — outlined now on the record in the Washington Post by Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford — are substantial and serious. She claims that Kavanaugh knocked her down, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothes. Here’s the core of her story: While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house. Do not count me among those who would minimize this alleged assault. I went to a high school that had more than its share of drunken parties, and my classmates could do crazy and stupid things, but an act like this was beyond the pale. This isn’t “boys will be boys.” Actions have consequences, and it’s hardly unjust to tell a person that if he mistreated another human being like this — even a long time ago — he has to remain “merely” a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Since Kavanaugh has denied the story, however, the question of whether the event is so egregious that it should disqualify him is moot. At the very least, if the attack happened, he should be disqualified for lying. Yet unless all parties start telling the same story, there is no way to know for certain if this event occurred. We don’t need certainty, however, to make a decision on whether a man should sit on the Supreme Court. I have the same standard for Brett Kavanaugh as I did for Roy Moore, for Donald Trump, for Bill Clinton — or for any other politician who’s accused of misconduct. Is it more likely than not that the allegation is true? Given the totality of the evidence, I believe it is more likely than not that Bill Clinton committed rape and sexual harassment. I believe it is more likely than not that Donald Trump has committed sexual assault. I believe it is more likely than not that Roy Moore engaged in sexual misconduct with underage girls. But the evidence against Kavanaugh falls far short of the evidence arrayed against each of these men. So far at least it falls far short of the evidence against virtually any other politician or celebrity who has faced consequences during this #MeToo moment. Here’s why: First, one way to help test the veracity of old claims is to ask whether there is any contemporaneous corroboration. Did the accuser tell a friend or family member or anyone about the alleged assault when it occurred? With Clinton, Trump, Moore, and many other politicians and celebrities, there was ample contemporaneous corroboration. Here, there was not. According to the Washington Post, “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.” That’s almost three decades of silence — three decades when memories can grow cloudy and recollections can change. But even the allegedly corroborating notes of the therapist raise a separate problem. They actually contradict her story on a key detail. According to the Post, “The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy that Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.” Nor do the notes mention Kavanaugh’s name, even though her husband says Ford named Kavanaugh in the sessions. Those are important discrepancies, and if six years ago she told the therapist four men and says two men now, that suggests that her memory of the event may be suspect. As a former trial lawyer, I can tell you that while neither notes nor memories are infallible, in a contest between contemporaneous notes and later verbal testimony about those notes, the content of the written notes usually prevails. Juries are extremely skeptical of witnesses who contradict written notes — after all, the notes are taken when the words are immediate and there isn’t the overwhelming pressure of a trial to conform your testimony to the desired outcome. At least the investigation seems somewhat manageable. If there were only four boys there, who were the other two? Let’s hear from them. In fact, investigators should interview everyone else at the party. Yet given all the years that have passed, would it be possible to find anyone who remembers being at that party? Would they remember any details at all? If someone saw Kavanaugh stumbling drunk at the party, that would obviously bolster Ford’s account. If another attendee says, “He was totally sober and with me the whole time,” that helps Kavanaugh. But the odds of getting details that precise are long indeed, and there is always a chance that a motivated classmate might lie — for either person….
DOJ May Hit #Resistance Mayor Who Warned Illegal Criminals w/Obstruction of Justice  ICE had already called out Oakland's radical leftist boss for helping criminals and endangering ICE personnel by tipping them off that a raid was coming. Her actions were quite clearly illegal, though she claimed that she had cleared her actions with lawyers beforehand, And now, a member of the #Resistance may actually end up fighting obstruction of justice charges. Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, slammed Mayor Schaaf, who on Saturday night released an unprecedented warning that ICE was about to begin arresting people. Schaaf said she issued the alert after receiving confidential tips from “credible sources,” and conferring with attorneys to make sure she wasn’t opening herself up to federal prosecution. The mayor’s move endangered ICE officers and alerted their targets, Homan asserted, “making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda.” He said 864 “criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor’s irresponsible decision.” Fox News, which was given a ride-along with ICE officers during the operation, reported that agency officials were asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether Schaaf broke any laws. Now the DOJ is looking into Schaaf. The Department of Justice is looking into whether Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf obstructed justice by warning Northern California residents of an impending raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agency’s acting director, Thomas Homan, told “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning that the DOJ is “reviewing” whether Schaaf broke any laws by telling her constituents ICE would be raiding the area in order to arrest people violating federal immigration laws. Schaaf, a Democrat, posted the warning to Twitter Saturday, writing that “multiple credible sources” told her the immigration agency was “preparing to conduct an operation in the Bay Area, including Oakland, starting as soon as” Sunday. “What she did is no better than a gang lookout yelling ‘police’ when a police cruiser comes in the neighborhood, except she did it to a whole community,” Homan told "Fox & Friends." "There's over 800 significant public safety threat criminals ... that we are unable to locate because of that warning, so that community's a lot less safe than it would've been." That's exactly it. And Dems have become honorary members of MS-13. And those who collaborate with illegal alien gang members should face the consequences.
‘Silent Donation’: Corporate Emails Reveal Google Executives Tried to Turn Out Latino Voters Who They Thought Would Vote For Clinton  Google, once again, has been implicated in a story about how social media executives and employees are using their platforms to control and shutter conservative ideas. This time? This time, an email chain has emerged showing senior company executives pressing for the company to sway Latino voters to back Hillary Clinton. take our poll - story continues below 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. Specifically, one executive suggests paying for the rides of Latinos to get them to the polls — if they vote for Clinton, that is. First censorship, now this. When will something be done about these tech and social media companies? From Breitbart: An email chain among senior Google executives from the day after the 2016 presidential election reveals the company tried to influence the 2016 United States presidential election on behalf of one candidate, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the emails, a Google executive describes efforts to pay for free rides for a certain sect of the population to the polls–a get-out-the-vote for Hispanic voters operation–and how these efforts were because she thought it would help Hillary Clinton win the general election in 2016. She also used the term “silent donation” to describe Google’s contribution to the effort to elect Clinton president. The main email, headlined, “Election results and the Latino vote,” was sent on Nov. 9, 2016—the day after Clinton’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election—by Eliana Murillo, Google’s Multicultural Marketing department head. The four page email begins with Murillo claiming she and others at Google were engaged in non-partisan activities not designed to help any one candidate or another—only to undercut her own commentary in later passages in the emails by openly admitting the entire effort to boost Latino turnout using Google products with official company resources was to elect Clinton over Trump. The critical miscalculation, Murillo wrote in a stunning admission in the email, was that Latino voters backed Trump by higher margins than any experts had forecast in the lead-up to the election. Trump’s 29 percent among Hispanics nationally blew prognosticators away, and he hit even higher numbers—about 31 percent—in the key battleground state of Florida, Murillo admitted. Murillo wrote at the outset of the lengthy message: We worked very hard. Many people did. We pushed tp get out the Latino vote with our features, our partners, and our voices. We kept our Google efforts non-partisan and followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy. We emphasized our mission to give Latinos access to information so that they can make an informed decision at the polls, and we feel very grateful for all the support to do this important work. Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers, particularly with early votes. A large percentage of Latino voters in Florida were new voters who had become citizens just in time to vote. We saw high traffic for the search queries ‘votar,’ ‘como votar,’ and ‘donde voter,’ in key states like Florida and Nevada. We will be pulling in more info in the coming hours/days but so far we definitely know there was high traffic on search in Spanish. Without translating our tools the users wouldn’t have found the information they needed. Objectively speaking, our goal was met — we pushed and successfully launched the search features in Spanish, and we thank Lisa for her support in advocating for this work. I sent Philipp a note yesterday to thank him because he and others voiced their support for this too, and we greatly appreciate it. Even Sundar gave the effort a shout out and a comment in Spanish, which was really special. “Sundar” presumably refers to Google’s chief executive officer Sundar Pichai, who took the reins of the massive search giant in October 2015. “Lisa” presumably refers to Lisa Gevelber, the vice president of Global Marketing for Google—who forwarded Murillo’s entire four-page email to several other Google executives in another chain also obtained by Breitbart News in which Gevelber praises Murillo’s activities with official company resources as having made a “great difference.” “Philipp” presumably refers to Philipp Schindler, a senior vice president and Google’s chief business officer per his LinkedIn page. The emails were first revealed on Fox News on Monday evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight by anchor Tucker Carlson in a special report. Breitbart News also obtained them, and has reached out to Google with a number of questions about the emails. Carlson, in his exclusive report on Fox News Monday night, compared the revelations in the Google emails to the probe of Russian interference in the U.S. election to Special Counsel Robert Mueller—raising the question about how much influence tech giants like Google and Facebook have on election outcomes in the United States. Carlson cited Dr. Robert Epstein, a social scientist and an expert on Google, who has said, in Carlson’s words, “Google alone could determine the outcome of almost any election just by altering its search selections and we would never know it.” Epstein has published research detailing how Google could influence the results of U.S. elections. Breitbart News has exclusively published several of Epstein’s reports, including a recent one showing that Google search manipulation can swing huge swaths of voters. In his report on Monday night, Carlson then described the emails he obtained, which Breitbart News also obtained. Carlson said: This wasn’t a get-out-the-vote effort or whatever they say. It wasn’t aimed at all potential voters. It wasn’t even aimed at a balanced cross-section of subgroups. Google didn’t try to get out the vote among say Christian Arabs in Michigan or say Persian Jews in Los Angeles—they sometimes vote Republican. It was aimed only at one group, a group that Google cynically assumed would vote exclusively for the Democratic Party. Furthermore, this mobilization effort targeted not only the entire country but swing states vital to the Hillary campaign. This was not an exercise in civics, this was political consulting. It was in effect an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton campaign.” Carlson noted that in communication with Google, the company “did not deny that the email was real or that it showed a clear political preference.” “Their only defense was that the activities they described were either non-partisan or were not officially taken by the company,” Carlson said Monday night, describing Google’s official response to his requests for comment, before challenging the company’s response: “But of course they were both. Plenty of people in Google knew what was going on and we haven’t seen any evidence anyone at Google disapproved of it and tried to rein it in.” The email from Murillo continues by explaining just how expansive the efforts the company undertook to achieve its objective were: We had our partners help spread the word about our features on social media, including YouTubers and influencers like Dulce Candy, Jorge Narvaez, Jessie y Joy, Barbara Bermudo, and Pamela Silva of Univision, Jackie Cruz aka La Flaca from Orange is the New Black, and more. We promoted our partner the Latino Community Foundation’s non-partisan #YoVoyaVotaryTu (I’m going to vote, are you?) campaign and leveraged our social media influencer friends’ reach to hit over 11M impressions with that hashtag. We hosted an event with over 200 people and a hangout with social media influencers about the power of the Latino vote and the new research Nielsen published about the Latino electorate. This reached 4.4M social media impressions and signaled to many that Google and our partners value the Latino community and our role in this election. We brought the same research to the LATISM conference, where people were beyond thrilled to see Google’s support and acknowledgment of the Latino community. If Murillo had ended her email there, this probably would not amount to the level of a national news story. But she did not: She went on for another several paragraphs on the first page and an extra three pages to admit the openly partisan intent of Google’s actions, including a remarkable in-writing confirmation that at least one of Google’s actions amounted to a “silent donation”—something that could raise Federal Election Commission (FEC) red flags if authorities decide to launch an official investigation into this matter, now that these emails have been publicly revealed. It is in the next paragraph that Murillo openly admits that Google made a “silent donation,” in her words, paying for rides to polls via leftist organization Voto Latino. Murillo wrote in the next paragraph: We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help). We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort. The next paragraph is where Murillo begins to make her next major admission: that the effort was not just to increase voter turnout generally but to elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. “Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the ‘sleeping giant’ had awoken.” On the next page, the email continues with a headline from an article in The Atlantic by James Fallows: “2016: The Year Latinos Saved America?” Under that was a tweet from Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports in Nevada saying, among other things, that “Trump is dead” because of Latino turnout in early voting in the state. Trump did not end up winning Nevada in the end, but he did beat Clinton in 30 and a half other states. … At that point, after the Ralston tweet, Murillo openly admits the partisan motives of Google’s electioneering efforts. “On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers,” Murillo wrote. “We read the headline and thought WOW, we did it!” Murillo’s email continues by including another headline, this time from the New Yorker’s Benjamin Wallace-Wells: “Latino Voters Show Trump What It Means to Be American.” That piece was written on Nov. 7, 2016, the day before the election. Then she begins writing again: “But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn’t enough.” The third page of the email begins with another headline and image of a Latina woman in a red Make America Great Again hat and “Latinos for Trump” sign. The story, from Ruben Navarette, Jr., published in the Daily Beast, is headlined: “Why the Latino Vote Didn’t Save America.” The sub-headline, “Hispanic voters were supposed to be one of Clinton’s blue firewalls—but one in three ended up splitting for Trump,” is also included in Murillo’s Google email. From there, Murillo continues writing for another page and a half: The voters we wanted to reach did end up having an influence in the end, most notably in Florida. Latino voters voted for Trump more in Florida than in other states (31%), and FL was critical by popular vote and the electoral college. We’ll keep an eye on any other results that can show us the influence that our efforts had on the election. We know we gave this our best and are now figuring out what comes next. Thanks again for all your help and support in this effort. In the next paragraph, Murillo again openly admits she was not “objective” when it came to the election. “I have tried to stay objective, but I ask that you please give us some time to pause and reflect,” Murillo wrote. “This is devastating for our Democratic Latino community. After all these efforts and what we thought was positive momentum toward change, the results are not what we expected at all. We are afraid for our families, and especially for the millions of immigrants who now don’t know what the future holds for them.” After that, Murillo says she cannot communicate with key organizers of the effort by Google and its partners—a project known as HOLA—because she is afraid of secret pro-Trump spies on the listservs created. She also admits ongoing discussions among these people about meeting to give grieving Hillary Clinton supporters hugs after Trump crushed her on election day. She also says those involved in Google’s get-out-the-vote efforts were openly seeking consolation after Clinton lost, and that she and another person cried after Trump won – for the first time they have cried due to an election result. Murillo wrote: What’s most difficult for us is we can’t even email the HOLA list to reach our community and discuss what this means for us because we know that apparently some may actually be Trump supporters. There is a thread right now among the core HOLA group where people are sharing how much they hurt, how much they need support right now, and that they are coordinating in different offices to meet up to just hold each other. One in a remote office said ‘If you guys do any sort of meetings, I’d love to join virtually. I think I’m currently the only Latinx in my office. It’s kinda hard.’ #understatement. Another said, ‘I’ve never cried after an election until last night.’ Same here. She was not done there. In the next paragraph, Murillo wrote that this election result hurt her badly. She also admits the election result was a “loss,” another indication that Google’s efforts were clearly attempting to use company resources to elect Democrat Clinton over Republican Trump and influence the results of the election. She also says that the company—and herself in particular—will redouble efforts in the future to get a different and more desired result in future elections. “I’m in shock and it hurts more than I could have ever imagined, but trying to stay optimistic and keep my head high,” Murillo wrote. “Loss is a part of life, and I do think frustrations challenge us to work smarter and get creative. My partners have sent notes and are saying the same thing — time to keep working harder.” At the top of the fourth page of the email, Murillo asks her colleagues at Google to give out a “smile” to grieving leftist Latinos who work at the company. “If you see a Latino Googler in the office (California/New York), please give them a smile,” Murillo wrote. “They are probably hurting right now. It’s tough to handle now that we know not all of us were against this, so we may be even more divided than ever. At least in CA/NY though, you can rest assured that the Latinos of these blue states need your thoughts and prayers, at least for them and their families.” Then, she continues by stating she is going on a planned vacation she thought she was taking to “celebrate” a Clinton win, but after Trump won, she says, her vacation “will be time to reflect on how to continue to support my community through these difficult times.” Murillo, in the next line, reveals that she thought she was sharing her viewpoints on these matters in a tight circle that would not leak. “I’m not sharing my personal opinions very broadly, but wanted to share openly here in the circle of trust,” she wrote. This email leaked to Fox News and Breitbart News and is now likely to become a centerpiece in the case that Google is throwing its weight around to interfere in elections in the United States in a partisan manner against the duly elected President of the United States. This email from Murillo was not just from some rogue staffer inside Google. Her original email was forwarded on to other Google executives by the aforementioned Gevelber, according to another email obtained by Breitbart News. “Thought you all would want to read this,” Gevelber wrote in her own message endorsing Murillo’s email in a message to other Google bigwigs. “It’s from Eliana Murillo who runs US Hispanic Marketing on my team and who helped found HOLA our Hispanic ERC.” Gevelber continued by commending everyone she said, “worked so hard to ensure all the Get out the Vote were done in Spanish” that their efforts “made a giant difference” in the election “to Googlers and beyond.” President Trump and Republicans have just begun scratching the surface of bias against them among Silicon Valley’s elite, including, perhaps foremost alongside Facebook, from Google. A source close to the White House who has reviewed these emails ahead of their public release told Breitbart News that in a just world this would amount to, at a minimum, a clear violation of campaign finance law governing in-kind contributions to campaigns and causes. …
The Never-Trumpers Are Never Coming Back  Shop all books by Pat Buchanan With never-Trump conservatives bailing on the GOP and crying out for the Party of Pelosi to save us, some painful truths need to be restated. The Republican Party of Bush I and II, of Bob Dole and John McCain, is history. It’s not coming back. Unlike the Bourbons after the Revolution and the Terror, after Napoleon and the Empire, no restoration is in the cards. It is over. The GOP’s policies of recent decades — the New World Order of George H.W. Bush, the crusades for democracy of Bush II — failed, and are seen as having failed. With Trump’s capture of the party they were repudiated. There will be no turning back. What were the historic blunders? Nixonu2019s White Hous... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $6.38 Buy New $10.01 (as of 10:15 EDT - Details) It was not supporting tax cuts, deregulation, conservative judges and justices, or funding a defense second to none. Donald Trump has delivered on these as well as any president since Reagan. The failures that killed the Bush party, and that represented departures from Reaganite traditionalism and conservatism, are: First, the hubristic drive, despite the warnings of statesmen like George Kennan, to exploit our Cold War victory and pursue a policy of permanent containment of a Russia that had lost a third of its territory and half its people. We moved NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, onto her doorstep. We abrogated the ABM treaty Nixon had negotiated and moved defensive missiles into Poland. John McCain pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and even to send U.S. forces to face off against Russian troops. Thus we got a second Cold War that need never have begun and that our allies seem content to let us fight alone. Europe today is not afraid of Vladimir Putin reaching the Rhine. Europe is afraid of Africa and the Middle East reaching the Danube. Let the Americans, who relish playing empire, pay for NATO. Second, in a reflexive response to 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, dumped over the regime in Libya, armed rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria, and backed Saudi intervention in a Yemeni civil war, creating a humanitarian crisis in that poorest of Arab countries that is exceeded in horrors only by the Syrian civil war. The Greatest Comeback:... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $3.13 Buy New $6.00 (as of 08:50 EDT - Details) Since Y2K, hundreds of thousands in the Middle East have perished, the ancient Christian community has all but ceased to exist, and the refugees now number in the millions. What are the gains for democracy from these wars, all backed enthusiastically by the Republican establishment? Why are the people responsible for these wars still being listened to, rather than confessing their sins at second-thoughts conferences? The GOP elite also played a crucial role in throwing open U.S. markets to China and ceding transnational corporations full freedom to move factories and jobs there and ship their Chinese-made goods back here, free of charge. Result: In three decades, the U.S. has run up $12 trillion in merchandise trade deficits — $4 trillion with China — and Beijing’s revenue from the USA has more than covered China’s defense budget for most of those years. Beijing swept past Italy, France, Britain, Germany and Japan to become the premier manufacturing power on earth and a geo-strategic rival. Now, from East Africa to Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, and from the South and East China Sea to Taiwan, Beijing’s expansionist ambitions have become clear. And where are the Republicans responsible for building up this potentially malevolent power that thieves our technology? Talking of building a Reagan-like Navy to contain the mammoth they nourished. Since the Cold War, America’s elites have been exhibiting symptoms of that congenital blindness associated since Rome with declining and falling empires. Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $6.20 Buy New $6.00 (as of 12:40 EDT - Details) While GOP grass roots have begged for measures to control our bleeding southern border, they were regularly denounced as nativists by party elites, many of whom are now backing Trump’s wall. For decades, America’s elites failed to see that the transnational moment of the post-Cold War era was passing and an era of rising nationalism and tribalism was at hand. “We live in a time,” said U2’s Bono this week, “when institutions as vital to human progress as the United Nations are under attack.” The institutions Bono referenced — the U.N., EU, NATO — all trace their roots to the 1940s and 1950s, a time that bears little resemblance to the era we have entered, an era marked by a spreading and desperate desire of peoples everywhere to preserve who and what they are. No, Trump didn’t start the fire. The world was ablaze with tribalism and was raising up authoritarians to realize nationalist ends — Xi Jinping, Putin, Narendra Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkey, Gen. el-Sissi in Egypt — before he came down that escalator. And so the elites who were in charge when the fire broke out, and who failed to respond and refused even to recognize it, and who now denounce Trump for how he is coping with it, are unlikely to be called upon again to lead this republic. The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan
Teen Who Had MAGA Hat Ripped Off Head Gets New One Signed By Trump  Sixteen-year-old Hunter Richard was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat while enjoying a calm dinner at a Whataburger in Texas when a stranger, now identified as 30-year-old Kino Jimenez, yanked it off his head and threw a soda in his face. But Richard now has a new hat, and it was signed by Donald Trump himself! *Please note that the below video contains racial slurs and could be considered violent to some.  Jimenez was later arrested and shortly thereafter fired from his job for ripping off Richard’s hat and stealing it. “This is gonna go right in my f**king fireplace, b***h,” Jimenez said, acting like a bully for stealing a teenager’s hat. Jimenez also threw a soda in Richard’s face. Richard’s hat appeared to be gone for good until the video of the incident went viral and he received a new MAGA hat signed by the president himself, reported The Daily Wire. Among those who commented on the video’s original posting was Donald Trump Jr., who retweeted a story about the assault against the teenager. “If someone can get me this young man’s information I’ll get him a new #maga hat… SIGNED by #potus!! !” he wrote on Twitter. If someone can get me this young man’s information I’ll get him a new #maga hat… SIGNED by #potus!!! https://t.co/zHBz4gKpkf — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 5, 2018 “Teen who made national news after having #MAGA hat stolen at a San Antonio fast food restaurant just got this in the mail. A hat signed by @realDonaldTrump,” Joe Gallow wrote on Twitter. #Update: Teen who made national news after having #MAGA hat stolen at a San Antonio fast food restaurant just got this in the mail. A hat signed by @realDonaldTrump. See the video: https://t.co/LAUcjERTNc @News4SA @KABBFOX29 pic.twitter.com/akzNSp4ps8 — Joe Galli (@JoeGalliNews) July 11, 2018 Richard told media outlets that he’s been a bit surprised by everything that’s happened since the video was posted online. “I didn’t think it was going to generate the amount like what people are doing, I was looking at the comments by some people and ‘they are like this is uncalled for’ and other people are like mixed opinions but I didn’t think it would blow up to what it is now,” he said to News-4 San Antonio.
ICE arrests 20 in Kansas City during 4-day operation targeting criminal aliens  KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Federal officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 20 criminal aliens and immigration violators in the Kansas City metro area during a four-day enforcement operation, which ended Thursday. During this operation, ERO deportation officers made arrests in the following Missouri cities: St. Joseph (6), Belton (1), Blue Springs (1), Independence (2) and Kansas City (6). ICE officers also made arrests in the Kansas cities of Olathe (3) and Lawrence (1). Fifteen men and five women, ages ranging 18-61, were arrested. Aliens arrested during this operation are from the following countries: Brazil (1), El Salvador (3), Guatemala (6), Honduras (1), Mexico (7), Romania (1) and Sierra Leone (1). Several of the aliens targeted by ERO deportation officers during this operation had prior criminal histories that included driving under the influence, child neglect, child abuse, drug offenses, fraud and larceny. Four of these were arrested for illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported, which is a felony. Two overstayed lawful visits to the U.S. All were amenable to arrest and removal under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. The following are criminal summaries of some of the offenders arrested in the Kansas City area during this operation: A 55-year-old, Mexican citizen who overstayed a lawful visit to the U.S. by more than 12 years. She was arrested Feb. 26, 2018 in Johnson County Kansas. She was previously convicted of child neglect and was sentenced to a year in jail. She is currently in ICE custody pending removal proceedings. On Feb. 28, 2018, a 38-year-old Mexican citizen was arrested in Olathe, Kansas. He has a 2012 conviction for fraud. He was issued a warrant of removal and was placed in ICE custody pending removal from the United States. Depending on an alien’s criminality, an alien who re-enters the United States after having been previously deported commits a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, if convicted. “The continued results of our deportation officers underscore ICE’s ongoing and steady commitment to public safety,” said Ricardo Wong, field office director for ERO Chicago. “As part of this operation, we continue focus on the arrest of individuals who are criminal aliens and public safety threats. Because of the tireless efforts of these professional officers, there are fewer criminals in our communities.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Vote To Send Kavanaugh Nomination To The Floor  The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 along party lines to advance the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh out of committee to the Senate floor for a vote. Of course, RINO Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) wanted to side with Senate Democrats in pushing for a FBI investigation into unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh. Outgoing Flake, and good riddance, said that he sided with his colleagues in having a "limited time and scope" investigation by the FBI into the allegations against Kavanaugh. Flake said that he believed it would be proper to delay the floor vote to allow the FBI to conduct an investigation "limited in time" to no more than one week. 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. "This country is being ripped apart here, and we've got to make sure we do due diligence," Flake said. He added that he would be more "comfortable" with an FBI investigation. Comfort? What about Judge Kavanaugh's comfort in being put through the ringer without a shred of evidence, Senator Flake? It's a good thing he'll be leaving the Senate. Perhaps Arizona will put someone in that actually has a spine rather than living up to Senator Flake's name. Why that investigation is needed is unclear since all the people Dr. Christine Ford named to be at the alleged house where the alleged attack took place all categorically denied the attack took place, including Ford's girl friend. The committee also voted against Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and his motion to subpoena Mark Judge before the committee. While Democrats appeared stunned, specifically self-professed sexual assaulter Cory Booker and Kamila Harris, that they were in the minority and couldn't control things despite eight years under the Obama regime where Republicans were subjected to far worse, the vote carried and Kavanaugh will be voted on in the US Senate. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard
America's Immigration Voice.  From TPM: The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005 By Esme Cribb | January 25, 2018 2:16 pm 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. Muhammad said he did not release his copy of the photograph because he thought it would be perceived as a betrayal of that promise: “I was really, I guess, afraid of them.” Malcolm X wasn’t adequately afraid of them. Here’s what happened to him: https://youtu.be/qSm1t3Uv9QI Muhammad said he thought the photograph would be “damaging politically” if it were released and was afraid that someone might “break into his apartment” looking for it, like “that Watergate crap.” He said he “felt a little bit more at ease” after Farrakhan in 2016 claimed that Obama visited his home in Chicago. Muhammad contacted Farrakhan in autumn 2017 with the “final manuscript” for a self-published book containing the photo. “I sent him a copy of the manuscript suggesting that, showing him the picture, and saying to him, if he did not object, I was going to publish it,” Muhammad said. “He had no objection.” … During Obama’s presidential campaign, conservatives pushed multiple apparently racially motivated conspiracy theories about Obama’s religion and supposed ties to Islam. For example, in Obama’s memoir subtitled A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama recounts his being a regular reader of Minister Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam newspaper The Final Call. Obama recollects Farrakhan’s black nationalist capitalist campaign to get black people to use toothpaste manufactured by black-owned businesses. Farrakhan’s eventual failure suggests to Obama that’s there is more economic upside for blacks in shaking down white institutions than in building their own. During the 2008 presidential election, conservatives questioned the indirect ties between Farrakhan and Obama, who attended a church that gave Farrakhan an award. Obama’s “spiritual advisor” Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave Farrakhan his church’s Lifetime Achievement award in a downtown Chicago Hyatt Regency in November 2007, but the story didn’t make the press until the following year. Similarly, very little media attention was paid to the close relationship between Obama’s fundraiser and private mentor Tony Rezko and the Nation of Islam, even though Rezko’s role was business manager for Nation of Islam assets, such as the career of Muhammad Ali. But after all, what could be more boring than a story than involves a Presidential candidate, the Syrian Christian crook who helped him buy his house, the Nation of Islam, and the most famous boxer of all time? Reading Obama’s 1995 memoir, you might almost get the impression that after a prudent first term, during his second he might side with, I dunno, Black Lives Matter and encourage a wave of black rage and police retreat that drove up the death toll from murder by 20% in his last two years in office, an incremental death toll a little bigger than the U.S. combat death toll from the equally stupid Iraq War.
Hungary PM Viktor Orban Vows to “Fight Those Who Want to Change the Christian Identity of Europe”  Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been somewhat of a lone voice in Europe against the Muslim invasion, and on Wednesday he gave a "Hungary First" speech in which he declared that he would "fight those who want to change the Christian Identity of Europe." “Our presidency has taken a stand: we cannot give in to extortion," Orban said in a video statement on Facebook. "For us, Hungary is first. We will fight those who want to change the Christian identity of Hungary and Europe.” Elnökségi ülés után Elnökségi ülés után // After the meeting of the presidency Posted by Orbán Viktor on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 Orban's words are reminiscent of those of US President Donald Trump, who spoke about putting "America First." "The presidency of Fidesz has discussed yesterday the announcement of the Belgian Prime Minister, that they will – if necessary with force – obligate Central European countries, including Hungary, to accept migrants,” Orban stated. “According to their plan, this will happen in June at the summit of the prime ministers in Brussels," he added. “Our presidency has taken a stand: we cannot give in to extortion. For us, Hungary is first." “We will fight those who want to change the Christian identity of Hungary and Europe,” Orban concluded. According to the Hungarian Government's website, posted about the ultimatum that was given over the weekend. Over the weekend, Belgian prime minister Charles Michel spoke about sending “an ultimatum” to the Visegrád countries which “reject solidarity”. The essence of this ultimatum would be that if by the end of June a consensus is not reached in the council of EU heads of government, then the planned reforms would be adopted with a qualified majority vote which would overrule dissenters. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó said on Tuesday,“Hungary will not become an immigrant country, it has never admitted and will never admit illegal immigrants." He also referred to Michel's ultimatum as unacceptable and shocking. “Hungary has never admitted and will never admit illegal immigrants, irrespective of whether there is any pressure in this direction along the borders or from Brussels,” Szijjártó said. “The Belgian Prime Minister’s statement is also outrageous because this is the first time that people in Brussels are openly planning to push the mandatory resettlement quota through by force while totally ignoring the will of certain EU member states." “We regard this whole thing as unacceptable and we reject it," he added. “The countries of the Visegrád Group do not support the introduction of any kind of mandatory quota.” “Perhaps it doesn’t bother the Belgian Prime Minister that there are no-go zones in many Western European cities, or that people with immigrant backgrounds have committed 27 major terrorist attacks in Europe recently, but this bothers the V4 because they do not want to live on a continent were the threat of terrorism becomes an everyday regularity," he continued. Just this week, we reported that Hungary had grown weary of the talks of pushing illegal Muslim migrants on their country and Europe, and was preparing to walk away from the negotiating table. Orban has taken a tough stance in Hungary. He has ordered all illegal Muslim invaders to get out of Hungary and never come back. In December, he said that he was not concerned with what Brussels wanted, but was determined to defend Hungary's borders. PM Orban has done just that, too. Orban's border wall virtually eliminated illegal immigration. Orban is openly Christian and seems to understand something that many do not and that is you do not allow a wholesale flood of antichrists to pour into your country. Were the Ammonites and Moabites not kept out of the assembly of Israel because of their hatred of the people of God? (Deuteronoy 23:3-6) Yes, they were. While Muslims need the Gospel for sure, one cannot allow such an influx into the country, or all you are asking for is the judgments God warned about in Deuteronomy 28. I say, well done Mr. Orban. I would like to hear more of that kind of talk from America's representatives.
Trump Pardons Hammonds!  Now, this is good news! On Tuesday, President Trump Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been serving sentences for arson. A Statement from the White House read as follows: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences. The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison. This was unjust. Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison. Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison. They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit. The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency. Well, it took long enough, but thank you President Trump. You did the right thing in this matter. And for all those who took the time to keep this story alive and urge people to petition the White House on behalf of the Hammonds, thank you! It should be noted that the protests that took place in Oregon a couple of years ago were a response to the injustice the Hammonds faced. As a result, Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was killed by Oregon State Police. Those who led the protest were all acquitted of all charges and reporter Pete Santilli had all of his charges dismissed. No doubt, Finicum would have been found not guilty as well, but that's not how tyrants work, is it? Today is a day to celebrate a wrong that has not been fully made right, but has definitely turned in the right direction! Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard
Dina Powell, a Valerie Jarrett/Huma Abedin Pal, Should Not Be UN Ambassador  President Trump came in promising to drain the swamp. Dina Powell is the swamp. You can see her out there at the Clinton Global Initiative, next to Samantha Power, palling around with Valerie Jarrett or Huma Abedin. Dina Habib Powell was an influential figure in the Bush administration. The Egyptian-American immigrant had served as a gatekeeper for George W. Bush. If you wanted a job, you went through her. Barely 30, Habib Powell had more power than many of the big Bush era names you do know. Then she took on the mission of promoting America to the Muslim world at the State Department. There were cultural exchanges with Iran and money for Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Afterward it was off to make millions through philanthropy at the Goldman Sachs Foundation. Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi. Unlike McFarland, Habib Powell had no national security background. But though her parents were Christians, she had the “right” views on Islam. In Egypt, she had described how Bush after September 11 had, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” "I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year.” Habib Powell had attended such an iftar dinner. Habib Powell has been described as the Republican Huma Abedin. And she was quoted as saying that Abedin “feels a deep responsibility to encourage more mutual understanding between her beliefs and culture and American culture.” And Powell has been on cheerful terms with at least one Obama unmasker. And with Clintonworld people. In 2015, Dina Powell – President Donald Trump’s Deputy National Security Adviser in 2017 – sat down with far left-wing United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power for an interview. In that interview, Powell heaped effusive praise upon Power and can be seen nodding in agreement throughout. Power was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama. At the time, Powell – an executive with Goldman Sachs – was pushing a pet project known as 10,000 women, which is ostensibly intended to foster female entrepreneurship. When Powell was at Goldman Sachs, her right-hand woman in the 10,000 Women program was Noa Meyer. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Meyer worked in the Bill Clinton administration’s speech-writing office of then first-lady Hillary Clinton. Powell herself, is very comfortable with Hillary Clinton. In 2013, she shared a stage with Hillary at the Clinton Global Initiative. In 2007, Powell was named to the Board of a Hillary Clinton project known as ‘Vital Voices’,another women-centric operation that touts Global Ambassadorial missions for women. On June 14, 2016 Powell participated in a Summit known as the United State of Women(USW), which meshed nicely with her pet project. USW was also rife with angry left-wing Democrats seeking to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2016. In fact, Barack Obama’s closest adviser Valerie Jarrett introduced Powell, who returned the introduction with effusive praise for Jarrett. The ex-Goldman Sachs executive has befriended Obama’s closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett. She is also very cozy with Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers Huma Abedin and Philippe Reines. Now there's once again talk of moving Dina Powell in. This time into Nikki Halley's old spot as UN Ambassador. The talk comes from the GOP establishment. Powell should not be at the NSC, where she replaced K.T. McFarland, who was qualified for the job, at the behest of H.R. McMaster. But every job for Powell is a stepping stone to the next one. And the one she has her eyes on now would be an even bigger disaster. Making Dina Powell the US Ambassador to the UN would quickly undo all the progress that Haley made. Before long the US would be right back in the Human Rights Council, there would be moves in favor of the PLO, and the same old failed politics would be back. Haley sent a message that UN members will be punished if they push the US around. Powell would swiftly undo that. Dina Powell would have been a Jeb Bush appointee. Appointing her to the UN would give Trump, Jeb Bush's policies. You don't drain the swamp by appointing the swamp. And Powell is one of the worst swamp creatures in D.C.
Paul Manafort Secretly Met With Julian Assange Shortly Before Joining Trump's Presidential Campaign: Report  A British newspaper alleges that Paul Manafort secretly met WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London within days or weeks of being brought aboard Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Lawyers for Assange and Manafort denounced the report as false.  If confirmed, the report Tuesday would suggest a direct connection between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, which released tens of thousands of emails stolen by Russian spies during the 2016 election. The campaign seized on the emails to undermine Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton.  The Guardian, which did not identify the sources for its reporting, said that Manafort met with Assange “around March 2016” — the same month that Russian hackers began their all-out effort to steal emails from the Clinton campaign.   In a statement, Manafort called the story “totally false and deliberately libelous” and said he was considering his legal options against the Guardian. “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort said. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”  Assange’s Ecuadorean lawyer, Carlos Poveda, said the Guardian report was false.  And WikiLeaks said on Twitter that it was “willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.” It later tweeted that Assange had instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel.  The Guardian cited two unidentified sources as saying Manafort first met Assange at the embassy in 2013, a year after Assange took refuge there to avoid being extradited to Sweden over sex crime allegations. The Guardian said Manafort returned there in 2015 and 2016 and said its sources had “tentatively dated” the final visit to March. The newspaper added that Manafort’s visit was not entered into the embassy’s log book and cited a source as saying Manafort left after 40 minutes.  There was no detail on what might have been discussed.  The Trump campaign announced Manafort’s hire on March 29, 2016, and he served as the convention manager tasked with lining up delegates for the Republican National Convention. He was promoted to campaign chairman in May 2016.  An AP investigation into Russian hacking shows that government-aligned cyberspies began an aggressive effort to penetrate the Clinton campaign’s email accounts on March 10, 2016.
Gillum Makes Promises He Can’t Keep, “that’s not for [voters] to know” Says Campaign Staff in Undercover Video – PVA  Facebook Twitter Google+ Email Link Embed Copy and paste this HTML code into your webpage to embed. Empty Promises Exposed: “Fairy tales in the modern day begin with ‘once I am elected. '” Deceiving Voters: “None of the programs that people are hoping for would happen” but “That’s not for [voters] to know.” Candidate’s True Politics: “Gillum is a Progressive” and “He is a part of the crazy, crazy, crazies.” Election Strategy: “You whip ’em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote.” Secret Gun Control Agenda Revealed: “three day waiting period for everybody,” “small steps” to ban assault rifles; “I don’t think he can say it [be]cause he’s trying to get the moderates” Florida is a “F***ed up,” “cracker state,” “you have to appeal to white guilt” This is a breaking news story. Refresh the page for updates. (Tallahassee) Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum’s campaign, revealing his election strategy includes making empty promises to voters. This is the seventh undercover video report Project Veritas has released in a series revealing secrets and lies from political campaigns in 2018. Said James O’Keefe, founder and president of Project Veritas Action: “What we found in the Gillum campaign was just what we found in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona, a candidate lying to the voters he needs to win the election.” Gillum campaign makes promises it knows it can’t keep Featured in this report is a campaign staffer who works on Andrew Gillum’s gubernatorial campaign. Omar Smith, who says he went to college with Gillum, reveals Gillum cannot fulfill his campaign promises even if he wanted to. When asked how Gillum would fund all the programs he says he wants to fund, Smith says Gillum “can’t,” and when asked if voters are aware that Gillum cannot deliver on his proposed programs, Smith says: SMITH: “That’s not for them to know… That’s not for them to know. Remember our saying, modern day fairy tales start with ‘once I am elected. '” Smith explains that most of Gillum’s campaign promises could never be implemented, and that the Gillum campaign knows this: SMITH: “So, let’s go back to Mr. Gillum’s platform, right? Raise the corporate tax in Florida from 7 to 11 percent. That will never happen. Raise teacher’s pay to $50,000, that will never happen. Give me another position. Medicare for all, that will never happen. The reason being, the legislature that write the bills is all Republican controlled. Democratic governor, Republican legislature. So, unless the legislature writes a bill, and it got voted on the floor, it cannot pass.” Smith says that “the rules in Florida are f***ed up” and that Florida is a “cracker state,” explaining that the Florida legislature has to become racially black for Gillum’s agenda to advance. “Whip up” the poor into a “frenzy in order for them to vote.” Smith says that in order to get voters on board with Gillum’s fairy tale platform, the campaign must “whip” lower income individuals “into a frenzy.” SMITH: “You whip ’em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote. Once Gillum is in, in another 2 years, other Republican Senators and Legislators will be on the ballot. So, you have to whip up the Andrew Gillum voters again in those counties to vote out the Republican to get a Democratic Legislature in order for his (Gillum) will to be executed.” Smith adds that because not all Democratic voters are the same, that the Gillum campaign needs to appeal to “white guilt” to turn out the vote: SMITH: “You have to appeal to white guilt… [be]cause that’s what it is.” Smith also explains that the Gillum campaign can’t let voters know what Gillum’s true agenda is before election day: SMITH: “… We don’t, do we have to let [the voters] know what the agenda is ahead of time? We can’t… We cannot… You alienate everybody. Then you get painted like, oh, Gillum is being painted, no. You are a socialist, you are way out of left field…” Gillum is a “crazy, crazy,” Democrat Smith also explains Gillum’s political worldview, saying that “Gillum is a progressive… He is a part of the crazy crazy crazies.” Cliff Eserman, who works for the Broward County Democratic Party adds that during the Democratic primary, Gillum had to campaign on values he does not really believe: ESERMAN: “In order to win he had to be… He’s really left of center. So he was being left, not left of center… For the primary. Now [in the general] he’s going back to left of center.” Dale Holeness, who is the Broward County Commissioner and also works on Gillum’s campaign, explains Gillum’s gun control views: HOLENESS: “There ought to be at least a three-day waiting period for everybody and a full background check for everybody… And we need to- And these automatic guns with sixteen rounds a minute, they ought to not be on the streets either, so that’s his plan.” Adrian Young, who works for the Florida Democratic Party also elaborates on Gillum’s gun control views in the report: YOUNG: “… I do think he’s not saying specifically like I’m going to ban bump stocks or I’m against ATs, only because he’s running a race right now. I do think he would support anybody doing that stuff, Bill Nelson… But I don’t think he can say it just [be]cause he’s trying to get the moderates and the gun-toting people in North Florida…” More Elections… This is the seventh release in a series Project Veritas Action Fund began publishing in October 2018 exposing dishonesty and unethical conduct in elections across the country. Project Veritas Action Fund will continue to publish undercover reports in this series. View the other investigative reports in this series:
DOJ Surrenders: 3D Print Gun Files Are Protected Under First Amendment  For those who remember Cody Wilson, the man who began developing 3D printing files so that you could manufacture your own guns, there is good news out. Cody finally won against the federal beast after intimidation tactics were performed against him by the Obama Justice Department. The Trump DOJ settled with Wilson, finally acknowledging that his 3D print gun files are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. I first reported that 3-D guns were for real back in July of 2012, when an internet gunsmith by the name of "Have Blue" produced an AR style pistol that fired both .22 and .223 caliber bullets. Later, Cody Wilson, 25, a law student at the University of Texas and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, had produced a 3-D printed handgun made entirely of ABS plastic with only a metal firing pin. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Email 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. In 2013, Wilson had the information on how to build the gun removed from public access at the request of the United States Department of Defense Trade Controls. According to Wilson, they seized control of the information. Clearly, they were acting unlawfully when they did what they did. "I thought my life was over," Wilson said after his attorneys told him he didn't fair well going up against the government. So, what did he do? He fired them, and got a new legal team. Wired has the story. Instead, Wilson has spent the last years on an unlikely project for an anarchist: Not simply defying or skirting the law but taking it to court and changing it. In doing so, he has now not only defeated a legal threat to his own highly controversial gunsmithing project. He may have also unlocked a new era of digital DIY gunmaking that further undermines gun control across the United States and the world—another step toward Wilson's imagined future where anyone can make a deadly weapon at home with no government oversight. Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First. "If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident," Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. "So what if this code is a gun?” The Department of Justice's surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won't try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses. "I consider it a truly grand thing," Wilson says. "It will be an irrevocable part of political life that guns are downloadable, and we helped to do that." The Second Amendment Foundation has issued the following press release: BELLEVUE, WA – The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms. SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles. Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military. “Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort. “Under this settlement,” he continued, “the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3-D technology.” The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. What does all this mean? Well, it's pretty simple, and I highly recommend the Wired article, which is quite lengthy and has lots of information, but what this does is demonstrates that the genie is out of the bottle and there is just no way for gun grabbing Communists the world over to be able to truly enforce their unlawful acts of fun gun confiscation. Why? Because now, anyone with access to the internet and a 3D printer can print their very own gun that is unregistered. That's right, and it's perfectly legal to do so. And we aren't just talking a rigid looking one-shot handgun. We're talking ARs, 1911s and a host of other guns. This actually may end up undermining the gun manufacturing industry in the future, as people will be able to build their own guns at home in a similar manner to how the internet has had a dramatic effect on the retail brick and mortar stores. Wilson boasted that his efforts have officially killed gun control. "I barely put a million bucks into this and I got you the Second Amendment forever," he told The Daily Wire in a phone interview. "What has the NRA done for you lately?" I don't know that I would go quite that far, after all, the settlement does state that "the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military." Therefore, the government still believes it has a right to regulate certain arms, which it does not have authority to do. "This doesn’t put the rifle in everyone’s hand, but it does that in essence" he added. "The DNA of our culture is preserved. This is the first pillar in the internet gun culture of tomorrow, and it is permanent." This is a huge milestone in the history of our county, and as such, it should be celebrated as a victory. As Joe Wolverton of The New American writes:
Al Franken Is Just The Beginning As The Curtain Is Pulled Back In Washington DC  Al Franken Is Just The Beginning As The Curtain Is Pulled Back In Washington DC Please help support us with cryptocurrency donations. Thank you! For decades, Americans have known that very sick things happen behind the scenes in Washington D.C., but the mainstream media nearly really talks about any of it. But now the curtain is starting to be pulled back, and the revelations about Al Franken are just the beginning. Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how “sexual harassment is rampant in the halls of Congress”, and that was before a female radio anchor named LeeAnn Tweeden revealed that Al Franken had “forcibly kissed” and groped her during a USO tour in 2006. The following comes from an article in which Tweeden shared her story… I couldn’t believe it. He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep. I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated. How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny? I told my husband everything that happened and showed him the picture. I wanted to shout my story to the world with a megaphone to anyone who would listen, but even as angry as I was, I was worried about the potential backlash and damage going public might have on my career as a broadcaster. But that was then, this is now. I’m no longer afraid. When the story initially broke, Franken rushed to issue an apology… “I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann,” said Franken. “As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it.” Needless to say, many were completely unsatisfied with Franken’s very weak statement. In fact, some members of his own party said that his apology was entirely insufficient and are calling for Franken to be held accountable for his actions… Guy Cecil, the former head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and now the boss of a leading Democratic super PAC, voiced his frustration with the inadequacy of Franken’s apology on Twitter. “That was not an apology and was an insufficient response to serious allegations,” Cecil tweeted. “Al Franken must be held accountable if our party wants to live up to our commitment to women & girls.” This scandal has set off a feeding frenzy as Internet sleuths search for other incidents in which Franken has acted inappropriately. And of course, since we are talking about Al Franken, it wasn’t exactly difficult to find material. For example, a photo has surfaced of Franken grabbing Joy Behar in a very creepy manner. The following comes from Breitbart… Amid the emergence of a 2006 photo of Al Franken groping journalist and talk radio anchor Leeann Tweeden, a photo of the embattled Minnesota Senator appearing to grab comedian Joy Behar’s breast has also resurfaced. Franken was a comedian before he ever entered the world of politics, and we understand that. But just because he was a comedian does not mean that he gets to play by a different set of rules. There appears to be an ongoing pattern of behavior, and Fox News has documented some of the other incidents that have come up in the past… Franken, then a comedian, was quoted in a 1995 New York Magazine article discussing a skit for “Saturday Night Live” that involved drugging and raping CBS reporter Lesley Stahl. Franken, at the time a writer for “SNL,” suggested one skit should play out with “60 Minutes” commentator Andy Rooney finding an empty pill bottle on his desk. “’I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when Lesley is passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’ Or ‘That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, ‘When she passes out. I put her in various positions and take pictures of her,’” Franken was quoted saying. The article, along with a 2000 Playboy column in which Franken talked about fantasizing a machine would perform oral sex on him, was used to attack Franken during his 2008 Senate campaign in Minnesota. As much as we may be appalled by some of the things that Al Franken has done, the truth is that there are far worse offenders in Washington. Let’s talk about Bill Clinton for a moment. Democrats have been covering up his sexual crimes for years, and my hope is that now this will start to change. Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Connie Hamzy, Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Lencola Sullivan, Susie Whitacre and Bobbie Ann William are some of the women that have made allegations against Clinton, and if even half of their allegations are true Clinton should be in prison for the rest of his life. In my article yesterday, I discussed how one Secret Service agent is charging former Vice-President Joe Biden of engaging in “Weinstein-level” behavior, and I also talked about how 15 million dollars in settlements have been secretly paid out to victims of sexual harassment in the House of Representatives in recent years. There is a culture of corruption in Washington D.C., and we desperately need to drain the swamp. If you agree, I hope that you will support my campaign and the campaigns of other anti-establishment candidates that want to clean up the halls of Congress. It is time to take our government back because at this point it has become an absolutely disgusting cesspool of filth and corruption. Article posted with permission from End of the American Dream
Man who sold ammo to Las Vegas gunman speaks out  © Provided by CBS Interactive Inc. Douglas Haig New documents reveal the name of the second person of interest in the Las Vegas shooting. Police believe Douglas Haig may have conspired with gunman Stephen Paddock, but it's unclear if he's still under investigation. Haig sold Paddock ammunition the month before the October attack that killed 58 people dead and wounded hundreds of others. Mandalay Bay hotel staff had numerous run-ins with Vegas gunman: companyLas Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock had lost money, been depressed, sheriff says Haig was contacted one day after the attack, after investigators found an Amazon box with his address on it inside Paddock's hotel room, reports CBS News correspondent Mireya Villarreal. But Haig says he had no idea what Paddock was planning to do when he met him just a few weeks before the massacre. Haig says he sold Paddock 720 rounds of ammunition from Haig's home gun business. "I couldn't detect anything wrong with this guy," he said. "He told me exactly what he wanted. I handed him a box with the ammunition in it, and he paid me and he left." The rounds he sold are called "tracer ammunition" – bullets that leave a visible trail when fired. "He said he was going to go put on a light show. And I can't remember whether he said for or with his friends, but that's what he did say," Haig said. But newly released search warrant records filed last fall by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department say Haig "may have conspired with Stephen Paddock to commit murder with a deadly weapon." Haig strongly denies that. "I felt that they were hoping that they could find a connection between myself and Paddock, that would go back showing that I supplied him with most of his ammunition, possibly even some firearms," Haig said. "They're not gonna find it. I talked to the guy three times." It's unclear whether Haig is still a person of interest, but he was the only one mentioned by name in the search warrant, other than Marilou Danley - Paddock's girlfriend. Authorities have since said they don't plan to bring charges against Danley. Las Vegas gunman's motive still unknown Haig does not blame himself, but within weeks of the massacre, he still decided to shut down his business. "I'm still racking my brain for what did I miss. Why didn't I pick this up?" he said. Haig, represented by his Phoenix attorneys Marc Victor and Andrew Marcantel, has not been charged. His attorneys say he continues to cooperate with investigators. CBS News reached out to the FBI and other authorities involved, but none will comment on an active investigation.
Virginia man who wanted to join ISIS pleads guilty to lying about overseas trip  NORFOLK, Va. — While texting with an FBI informant in September 2016, a Williamsburg man expressed admiration for a U.S. Army officer who shot and killed 13 soldiers on Fort Hood, Texas, according to court documents. Later that year, Shivam Patel, 28, tried to join the U.S. Army and Air Force. And in the application process, he lied to military recruiters about a recent trip he'd taken to Jordan in a failed attempt to make contact with the Islamic State and join a "real Muslim Army," the documents said. Patel pleaded guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court to two counts of making false statements. He faces up to 15 years in prison when sentenced June 4. According to court documents and prosecutors, Patel – who was raised Hindu before converting to Islam several years ago – traveled to China in July 2016 to teach English. While there, however, he grew displeased with how that country treated Muslims. His employer arranged for Patel to fly back to Virginia on Aug. 23, 2016, but instead Patel chose to travel to Jordan, a statement of facts filed with his plea agreement said. Jordanian officials arrested Patel a few days later. It's unclear why, but court documents say Patel told taxi drivers and others in Jordan that he supported the Islamic State. A search of Patel's computer also showed he researched how to join the Islamic State before he left for China. Jordanian officials moved for Patel's deportation. On Sept. 2, 2016, he boarded a flight to Chicago, and the next day, he flew to Detroit. There, he met an FBI source and started talking about the Islamic State. He explained he went to Jordan in part to find like-minded Muslims, and because he wanted to do something “bigger, better, and more purposeful” – like dying in the cause of Allah. But, he said, he was afraid of making his parents sad. In the course of their conversations, Patel discussed his desire to see a holy war between Muslims and non-Muslims. He also sang an Islamic State fight song and recalled making a replica of the group’s flag. He said he wanted to replace his neighbor’s American flag with it. Patel returned to Williamsburg on Sept. 6, 2016. Shortly thereafter, he moved into a motel his parents owned and started applying for jobs with the military, as well as some paramilitary organizations – like police and fire departments, correctional facilities and probation offices. While back in Virginia, Patel stayed in touch with the FBI source. He texted the source on Sept. 23, 2016, and expressed support for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 soldiers in 2009 while serving at Fort Hood. In the process, however, he misidentified Hasan as Nidal Hussein and said the shooting happened at Fort Knox in Kentucky. He also said Hasan had died a martyr, though in fact he remains alive on military death row. Court documents show Patel began saying in late 2016 that he did not actually support the Islamic State. Simply expressing support for a terrorist organization or attack is not against the law. Patel's crime was failing to disclose his trips to Jordan when he was trying to join the Army and Air Force in December 2016 and January 2017. Court documents say Patel lied about his travel history, saying his only time out of the country in the past seven years was a family trip to India in 2011 and 2012. Before Patel signed the Army application, a recruiter asked him specifically about the travel question and reminded him providing false information could result in criminal charges. During the interview, the recruiter asked to see Patel's passport to confirm his travel claims. Patel agreed to bring it by, but two days later he told the State Department he had accidentally thrown it away in October and needed a new one. After Patel's arrest in July, investigators found his passport "near" the motel room where he was living, the documents said. ©2018 The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.) Visit The Virginian-Pilot at pilotonline.com Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Why Louis Farrakhan Is Back in the News  Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old head of the Nation of Islam, has been back in the headlines after a previously unreleased photo of him with President Barack Obama was published in January and Mr. Farrakhan gave an anti-Semitic speech at his organization’s annual convention last month.  The Feb. 25 speech, which was given at an event for Saviour’s Day, a religious gathering of the Nation, ran for almost three hours. During it, Mr. Farrakhan said that the “powerful Jews” were his enemies, and that Jews were “responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men,” as well as other incendiary remarks.  A religious fundamentalist whose group has been condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mr. Farrakhan is fervently opposed to the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and his political positions regarding the country frequently spill over into bigoted remarks about Jews, which is why many public officials have avoided association with him. Mr. Farrakhan has denied that he is anti-Semitic and has even said that his father may have been Jewish.  Much of the recent coverage has been focused on Tamika Mallory, one of the heads of the Women’s March organization, who attended the Feb. 25 speech, and on Representative Danny Davis, a Democrat of Illinois, who defended Mr. Obama and Mr. Farrakhan after the photo came to light. Their reluctance to condemn Mr. Farrakhan has led to criticism from across the ideological spectrum this week.  What is the Nation of Islam? The Nation of Islam is a political and religious movement that was started by W.D. Fard Muhammad in 1931 and continued by Elijah Muhammad in 1933. It first became prominent after a man named Malcolm Little joined the organization. Encouraged by Elijah Muhammad, he changed his last name to X and became a minister in the movement.  Edward E. Curtis IV, the author of “Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam,” said that while estimates ranged wildly about how many bona fide members belonged to the Nation, he believes that there were tens of thousands of members in the 1960s and early 1970s. But he said that millions of others sympathized with the movement’s anticolonial stance and were inspired by its most famous member, Muhammad Ali.  Who is Louis Farrakhan? Born Louis Eugene Walcott in New York in 1933, Mr. Farrakhan joined the Nation of Islam in the mid-1950s and rose quickly within the organization, becoming close to Malcolm X. After the assassination of Malcolm X in 1965, he became one of the most powerful members of the Nation and its chief spokesman, the position that Malcolm X had held.  The Nation of Islam had gained followers around the nation in the 1940s and ’50s by providing something of a religious answer to antiblack racism. It was not widely recognized as an anti-Jewish organization during its early years (its early literature, though, focused on “the white man” as “the white devil”). But in 1967, it became outspokenly and flagrantly anti-Zionist, in an expression of solidarity with Palestinians. That political position became a vehicle for Mr. Farrakhan to express his anti-Semitism. (Among his more infamous comments is his 1984 description of Adolf Hitler as “a very great man.”)  In 1975, when Elijah Muhammad died, the Nation split into two factions. The faction reconstituted under Mr. Farrakhan in the late 1970s retained the original name, though not the influence or support that it had when its leaders were Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali and Elijah Muhammad. Mr. Curtis said that today the membership could be in the thousands, and there could even be as many as 10,000 followers. Mr. Farrakhan, whose name, the Anti-Defamation League wrote after the February event, is “virtually synonymous with anti-Semitism,” then drew national attention in 1984, when he exhorted his followers to support Jesse Jackson’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.  In a radio address, he urged listeners to “make an example” of a Washington Post reporter who had reported that Mr. Jackson had used anti-Semitic terms in private. Mr. Jackson repudiated Mr. Farrakhan, but the minister’s support proved troublesome to his 1988 campaign as well.  He was back in the news in 1995 when he organized what became known as the “Million Man March,” a political and religious revival event in Washington.  Why were Tamika Mallory and Danny Davis reluctant to denounce him? Ms. Mallory, who declined to comment for this article, did not respond to calls to condemn Mr. Farrakhan, for whom she had expressed admiration in the past.  On March 3, she said on Twitter that someone had brought to her attention that she had yet to tweet “my absolute position on how wrong anti-Semitism is.” A day later, she said that she was “committed to ending anti-black racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia & transphobia,” but did not mention Mr. Farrakhan.  In an essay posted Wednesday, she said that she had been attending Saviour’s Day celebrations for over 30 years.  “In that most difficult period of my life, it was the women of the Nation of Islam who supported me and I have always held them close to my heart for that reason,” she said. The essay did not mention Mr. Farrakhan. Asked what the appeal of Mr. Farrakhan’s views might be to people like Ms. Mallory, religious scholars emphasized that the Nation of Islam is a religion and can provide comfort and aid to its adherents.  “For those who find it appealing, it is a form of radical black self love that is willing to challenge any potential impediment to black freedom,” Mr. Curtis said.  Yvonne Chireau, a professor of religion at Swarthmore who called Mr. Farrakhan’s remarks about Jews “unbelievably vile,” emphasized that his fundamentalism was comparable to the fundamentalist views found in other religions.  Coincidentally, the photo of Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Obama had been published by the Trice Edney News Wire in January. The News Wire reported that the picture had been taken by the photojournalist Askia Muhammad during a 2005 meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus and that Mr. Muhammad kept the photo under wraps so as not to hurt Mr. Obama’s candidacy.  (Mr. Muhammad, in a 2012 blog post, said that he was an admirer of Mr. Farrakhan and that the minister was not an anti-Semite. He reaffirmed that he admired Mr. Farrakhan in an interview on Friday, though he said that the things the minister says about Jewish people “sometimes make me shudder.”)  Katie Hill, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said on Friday: “President Obama has denounced racism and anti-Semitism his entire life. That includes his public and repeated repudiations of Louis Farrakhan’s views over the years. Today is no different — he still rejects the harmful and divisive views Farrakhan continues to espouse.”  Representative Davis, who was interviewed by The Daily Caller, a conservative news site, after the photo emerged, called Mr. Farrakhan an “outstanding human being,” and later said he was not bothered by the leader’s position on “The Jewish Question.”  After a monthlong backlash about that interview, largely in conservative media, Mr. Davis said in a statement to Forward on Thursday that “I reject, condemn and oppose Minister Farrakhan’s views and remarks regarding the Jewish people and the Jewish religion.”
Communist Door Boy Attacks Teen Trump Supporter  Down in San Antonio, Texas the dangerous and violent predilections of the left reared its ugly head once again. A “man” attacked a teenager who was wearing a #MAGA hat. The criminal attacker, one Kino Jimenez, took the boy’s hat, yelled at him, and then threw a drink in the boy’s face before walking off (and stealing the hat ). The entire event was caught on camera (by the teen’s friend who was with him), and the police are investigating. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. 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. Here’s what happened: Is this the America Maxine Waters wanted? Where Trump supporters can't even have a meal in peace? https://t.co/9g1BSiw8LS — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 5, 2018 The attack took place in a Whataburger restaurant, and the corporation was quick to condemn the man’s actions: “We were shocked to see this video and certainly don’t condone this type of customer behavior in our restaurants. To be clear, no Whataburger employees were involved or witnessed the incident, and we ask that questions be directed to San Antonio PD as we continue supporting their efforts.” Jimenez, who is 30, seems to have only had a part-time job. His employer was a San Antonio nightspot called Rumble. Immediately upon learning of the altercation, the bar announced that it had fired Jimenez because they believed such behavior was immoral, uncalled for, and not in keeping with Rumble’s welcoming personality. On their Facebook page, they wrote, “…We have since terminated this employee, as his actions go against everything that this establishment stands for. Rumble has, and always will be, a bar that is as inclusive as any establishment could possibly be. THIS BAR IS A SAFE SPACE FOR EVERYONE! No matter your race, creed, ethnicity, sexual identity, and political stance, you are welcomed here!” Rumble said on Facebook that Jimenez worked as a “part-time door guy.” They added, “We do not condone these types of actions or behavior. If you have any questions or concerns please message us privately. We support and appreciate your business.” Contrary to what you might believe about Jimenez… he is/was NOT a Democrat! No, he is further to the Left and was an active member of the Green Party. However, upon learning of his behavior the local Green Party told the media that Jimenez had been cut off from the party for his uncalled for attack on a child. “We all have different opinions of our president, but we don’t take it out on innocent kids who just happen to have a hat on,” Gavino Zarate, secretary of the Harris County Green Party told Heavy. “You may not like the hat or you may not like the president, but you don’t show that kind of aggression toward teenagers. It goes against everything the Green Party stands for. We are not violent. We do not take our aggression out on innocent young people.” Some on the right have connected the attack to Maxine Waters’ call for Democrats to confront members of the Trump administration whenever, and wherever they happened to find them. Leftists have said the connection is unfair, because Waters’ was only calling for accosting Trump administration officials. My question is; how big of a leap would it be for a normal, rational adult to go from confronting administration officials to attacking the people who elected them to power? Not much in my mind. The reality is that the Democrats are as much to blame for the corrosive and ugly rhetoric in America today as Donald Trump is. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
UK Bans Free Speech Activists While Admitting Numerous Preachers Of Jihad Violence, Hatred & Sharia  The banning of free speech activists Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone from the UK is just the latest of many, many examples of how the British government bans foes of jihad terror while admitting its proponents. Pamela Geller and I are banned from entering the country for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. According to Breitbart, “Sellner, who described the detention centre as looking akin to a typical American prison, said he was told by authorities that his speaking at Hyde Park could cause violence and disrupt community cohesion.” That’s just what they claimed about Pamela Geller and me: that our visit could cause violence and disrupt community cohesion. But we, of course, have never advocated or approved of any violence. The UK Home Office meant that our visit could cause violence from Muslims. They were bowing to jihadist intimidation. 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. Nor does the UK admit only preachers of jihad terror. It admits jihad terrorists as well, even when it knows they are jihad terrorists. The Muslim migrant teen who bombed the London Tube told border officials that he was trained by ISIS, but was admitted anyway. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Foolish Religion Author Gary Wills: ‘The Religion of the Qur’an Is a Religion of Peace’  Outside of specialists and seekers, the only reason why there is general interest in the Qur’an among non-Muslims is to seek an answer to the question of whether or not it justifies and encourages Islamic terrorism. With What the Qur’an Meant: And Why It Matters, religion author Garry Wills is here to reassure us: What did the scripture of Islam tell me about the duty to kill infidels? Some people are sure it is there, though it isn’t. Then what does it say about Shari’ah law? Not a thing (p. 7). That would be good to know, were Wills a reliable witness. Unfortunately, he proves to be just the opposite: Wills laments “Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calling for a ban on the Qur’an” (p. 58). I have never called for such a ban, and oppose in principle the banning of any book. Wills, not surprisingly, does not offer any quotation from me to back up his false claim. His manifest unreliability on this point casts a shadow on his primary assertions about the Qur’an. Wills seems determined to put the best possible face on the Qur’an, which requires him to ignore a great deal of Qur’anic incitement and hatred. For example, he quotes 5:51 -- “You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies” (p. 114) -- but he nonetheless concludes, after ten pages of tu quoque arguments and other legerdemain, that “the Qur’an is fraternal in its treatment of other faiths” (p. 124). Wills never mentions Qur’an 9:29, which commands Muslims to wage war against Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Sharia. Wills is no more trustworthy when he deals with the question of violence in the Qur’an. He renders one key passage in this way: “Fight then until there is no more persecution, and worship [at the shrine] is devoted to God” (2:193; p. 133). Whence the bracketed interpolation “at the shrine”? Wills doesn’t give any source for it; apparently it comes from none other than Garry Wills himself. By adding “at the shrine” to this verse, Wills restricts the call to fight to the area around the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. He ignores the fact that some Islamic authorities see this passage as calling for nothing less than unlimited warfare against non-Muslims. The prominent Twentieth Century Indian Islamic scholar Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri explains the passage this way: The worst of sins are Infidelity ( Kufr) and Polytheism ( shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah. Wills doesn’t mention the existence of such interpretations, even to dismiss them. Likewise, when he claims that the Qur’an has “not a thing” to say about Sharia, he appears unaware that the Qur’an is one of the sources of Sharia. The Qur’an’s declarations that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s (2:282), that a daughter is to receive a smaller part of an inheritance than a son receives (4:11), that thieves are to have their hands amputated (5:38), and that those who “wage war against Allah and his messenger” are to be crucified or have a hand and foot amputated on opposite sides (5:33) are part of Sharia in all its various expressions. Because these stipulations are found in the Qur’an, they cannot be questioned or set aside. Throughout his book, Wills’ assurances that the Qur’an is not really as bad as “right-wing Islamophobes” say, or that the Bible contains material that is just as bad or worse, dissolve under close scrutiny. Again and again it turns out that Wills has ignored key passages in order to make his case. He asks why the Qur’an is “so ferocious to ‘hypocrites’ and apostates” (p. 124). Then he offers a quotation from the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews saying that “if we sin again on purpose” there is “only a terrifying judgment to come” (p. 126). Wills concludes: “The Qur’an is not as absolute as this, because it always leaves room for God’s inexhaustible mercy and forgiveness” (p. 126). That sounds wonderful, and certainly pleasing to multicultural ears to learn that the Qur’an is more merciful than the New Testament. Until one realizes that, in his discussion of apostasy in the Qur’an, Wills has omitted all mention of the primary Qur’anic passage on this topic: 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 * Email 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. They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper (4:89). To “emigrate in the cause of Allah” is to leave one’s home and join up with the Muslims. This passage envisions some of the disbelievers becoming Muslim, and then turning away again, whereupon the Muslims are told to “kill them wherever you find them.” God’s inexhaustible mercy, indeed. Wills’ peaceful fantasy Qur’an raises one massive question that the author does not and cannot answer: if the Islamic holy book is really as peaceful and benign as Garry Wills makes it out to be, why do so very many Muslims worldwide misunderstand it? The Islamic State (ISIS), in its heyday, quoted the Qur’an frequently -- odd behavior if the group actually was ignorant of, indifferent to, or in violation of the book’s core tenets. ISIS quoted the Qur’an extensively in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos. ISIS also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training. One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an. An Islamic State propagandist’s parents said of him: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.” A Muslim politician from Jordan said that the Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” How would Garry Wills explain all that? He can’t; he has just explained all Qur’anic violence and intolerance away, leaving the manifest fact that all too many Muslims worldwide think that the Qur’an says exactly what he claims it does not say an unanswered conundrum. Wills’ naïve, inaccurate, misleadingly sunny view of the Qur’an, of course, accords with that of his fellow Leftist Catholic, Pope Francis. Francis has proclaimedpreposterously that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” Wills’ book accords well with the present-day Catholic Church’s head-in-the-sand posture toward Qur’an-based Islamic jihad violence and the Muslim persecution of the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. It isn’t remotely accurate, but it feels good, and for the Catholic and Leftist establishment today, that seems to be all that matters. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Congressman: "Credible Evidence" Of “Terrorist Infiltration Through the Southern Border” Related To Las Vegas Shooting  We have had the Islamic State claim over and over that they were taking credit for the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, and that Stephen Paddock was a recent convert to Islam. Now, a congressman is saying there is "credible evidence" of "terrorist infiltration through the southern border" that is related to the Las Vegas shooting. If you recall, the Islamic State has never claimed responsibility for attacks they were not involved in. Here are just a few of those claims. In Naba 100 #ISIS featured an infographic on #LasVegas attack & indicated the shooter, "Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki," converted 6 months ago pic.twitter.com/5JhMFbU2Se — SITE Intel Group (@siteintelgroup) October 5, 2017 On Thursday evening, Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) appeared on Tucker Carlson tonight and said that he has evidence that the Islamic State may be telling the truth and that they may actually have been involved in the deadly attack. Perry brought up the fact that we can't seem to get information in the case that the public needs to be made aware of, something that was brought up in a district courtroom earlier this week. Additionally, the family of Stephen Paddock just received his cremated remains on Thursday and his brother said that the family has yet to receive an autopsy report. Why is that? Everyone who was killed that night had autopsies and those have been released. We're told Paddock shot himself in the head, right? Why would the autopsy report be something that needs to be withheld from the public or his family? "Recently I’ve been made aware of what I believe to be credible evidence regarding potential terrorist infiltration through the southern border regarding this incident," Perry said. "Twice before the attack, ISIS warned the United States they would attack Las Vegas," he added. "In June and August." "And then after the attack claimed responsibility four times," Perry continued. "Something’s not adding up." "I’m just telling you I have received what I feel to be and believe to be credible evidence of a possible terrorist nexus," Perry said. The investigation has been conducted by local and state police, not the feds, and yet, they continue to claim there is not Islamic terrorist involvement. Yet, though they claim that Paddock was a lone gunman, they continue to withhold video of him in Mandalay Bay because they are still investigating other suspects to charge in the shooting. And no one seems to know where alleged Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos is either. None of this is really that surprising. If you recall, we reported on Islamic terrorists settling into Mexico and crossing the border some years back and that came out as the infamous "Gang of Eight" were working on an immigration deal and had rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn't want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built. Three years prior to that report, there was a video report that seems to have provided a bit of evidence to the claim that Islamists were crossing our southern border. And even though Islamic jihadis have been apprehended on our border in 2014, the Homeland Security waved their hand and said, "There's no threat." In fact, DHS had denied Muslim terrorists were crossing the border, but a local investigator produced evidence to the contrary. Reports indicated that some jihadis were paying as much as $50,000 to get across the border. This has been documented for several years now. It's not surprising. What is surprising is the level of secrecy surrounding the Las Vegas shooting and the containment of information more than three months after it occurred.
Scorecard: See If Your Representative Or Senator Supports The Second Amendment Or Not  With just weeks to go till the 2018 midterm elections, there are lots of seats up for grabs. With that in mind, one of the most important areas our representatives need to be strong in is on your right to keep and bear arms, protected in the Second Amendment. Gun Owners of America has put out their scorecard and for some, it will be eye-opening. GOA Executive Director Erich Pratt writes: The anti-gun Left is hopping-mad, now that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court. 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 * Email 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. They are motivated to get to the polls this November. So it is crucial that you and your pro-gun friends get to the polls. And that’s why GOA is putting the 2018 Congressional Voter Scorecard into your hands. There is a lot that’s riding on the line. If the Democrats take over the Congress, Nancy Pelosi has already said that passing gun control is one of her top priorities. But we have an ace up our proverbial sleeve. According to a recent study, the gun issue is an incredibly powerful, motivating issue in politics. The study reported that gun owners are more likely to show up to vote than those who support gun control. This is encouraging news. Having said that, gun owners can’t make informed choices if they don’t know who the pro-gun candidates are. So to that end, Gun Owners of America has released the recent voting records of your congressman and senators.
“It’s gotta be a set-up”: Neighbor of Las Vegas Shooter Claims He Didn’t Do It  This report was originally published by Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars.com A caller to the Michael Savage radio show who says he was neighbors with Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock asserts that Paddock could not have carried out the massacre and that it was actually a “set-up”. The man, a former Marine who called himself Rick, says he was Paddock’s neighbor between December 2015 and June 2016 in Mesquite, Nevada. “I can tell you 100% this is not that kind of guy,” said Rick, adding that he would see Paddock every other day and that the two would go to a local bar and play slot machines. “He never even told me that he owned a gun,” continued the shooter’s neighbor, adding that Paddock did not express any religious or political opinions during their conversations. “I’m not a big conspiracy theory guy, but it don’t sit right,” said Rick, before making the extraordinary claim that the whole shooting was a “set up” and that Paddock’s body may have been left in the hotel room while other assailants carried out the shooting. The caller mentioned how some people in the crowd were warned 45 minutes before the shooting that they were going to die, suggesting that this was evidence of a wider plot and not a “lone wolf” attack. As a firearms expert, he also questioned the lack of flashes coming from the hotel windows where the shooter was supposedly firing from. Rick said he had already contacted the Clark County Sheriff’s Office to relay all the information he knew. Although the claims are intriguing, it is important to remember that after virtually every terror attack and mass shooting, friends and neighbors express shock that the culprit would be capable of carrying out such horrors, with some outright denying it to be possible. If Paddock was planning such a sophisticated operation and hoping to evade detection, he would not be blabbing details about it to his neighbors. However, the neighbor’s claims are certain to attract more attention given that no specific motive has yet to be uncovered for the shooting. What do you think? Let us know in the comments below. SUBSCRIBE on YouTube: Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWatson/ ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.