Datasets:

Sujithanumala

/

propoganda_detection

like 0

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

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.

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.”

Two DREAMERs Caught Smuggling Illegal Aliens Or rather, "Two illegal aliens caught smuggling less glamorous illegal aliens." The distinction between the illegal aliens who benefited from Obama's illegal amnesty and other illegals has always been a matter of rhetoric, not substance. And illegal aliens are not a racial or ethnic group. They're an industry: an economic industry and a political industry. If you legalize them, you move closer to legalizing all illegals. Meanwhile DREAMERs continue violating the law. In more ways than one. Customs and Border Protection said the first smuggling attempt was broken up on Oct. 4, after Border Patrol agents stopped a car at a checkpoint on Interstate 35 and discovered two illegal immigrants from Brazil hiding in the trunk. The driver of the car was from Guatemala, a juvenile who had been approved by the Obama administration for a DACA permit in 2016. Three days later the same checkpoint snared another DACA recipient from Mexico smuggling an illegal immigrant from Mexico in his trunk. Neither of the Dreamers’ names were released. They and the illegal immigrants they were trying to smuggle are all being processed for deportation, CBP said.

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.”

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.

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

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

Number Of Puerto Rico Residents Without Clean Water And Electricity Keeps Rising In the wake of Hurricane Maria’s wrath, Puerto Rico remains devastated. Newest reports from the island territory now show that the number of residents without clean drinking water and electricity continues to rise, despite humanitarian efforts. Puerto Rico’s government has reported that roughly 10 percent of the islands 3.4 million United States citizens are without electricity Tuesday morning, an increase of about six percent from Monday. Yesterday, 84% of people in Puerto Rico had no power (per govt stats on status.pr). Today, it's gone up, to 90% without power. pic.twitter.com/5WnCA8mrhf — Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) October 11, 2017 The island’s electrical grid was all but completely destroyed during Hurricane Maria, and many are still struggling without the most basic of necessities. This news comes just one day after Puerto Rico’s Governor Ricardo Rossello asked the federal government for an additional $4.6 billion in funding beyond the Trump administration’s request last week for $29 billion from Congress for relief efforts. “Puerto Rico has experienced a natural disaster of a magnitude not seen in over a century, and we are doing everything possible to address the needs of the American citizens of Puerto Rico during this time of crisis,” Rosselló wrote. “However, the unprecedented level of destruction, coupled with the almost complete shut-down of business in Puerto Rico, have made it impossible for us to meet the considerable human needs without the measures proposed above,” he added. The White House also announced Monday that it would allow a 10-day waiver temporarily blocking the Jones Act to expire. This is devastating news for those living in Puerto Rico, as foreign ships can no longer bring aid to the hurricane-ravaged island from U.S. ports. Officials still expect it to be six more months before electricity can be fully restored to Puerto Rico. As the days have become weeks, the weeks will become months, and survival will get more difficult. Many are now fleeing to the mainland United States just so that they can survive. The economy in Puerto Rico is at a standstill, and without clean drinking water, many are finding life too difficult should they remain on the island and isolated.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

WHO Prepares For “Worst Case” As Congo Ebola Outbreak Spreads This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge In the week since we first noted the new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the number of cases has risen by 50%, and The World Health Organization has now said it is preparing for “the worst case scenario.” The WHO has tallied 32 suspected or confirmed cases in the northwestern area of Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumbathe near the border with the Republic of Congo, including 18 deaths, between April 4 and May 9. The outbreak, declared by the DRC health ministry on Tuesday, is the DRC’s ninth known outbreak of Ebola since 1976,when the deadly viral disease was first identified in then-Zaire by a Belgian-led team. Scientists are greatly concerned that this outbreak in the remote Bikoro region will travel 175 miles to the city of Mbandaka – the capital of Equateur province and home to around 1.2 million residents. We’ve updated this map. Turns out that the provincial capital of Equateur, Mbandaka, is home to roughly 1M people. It’s less than 300 km or 175 miles from Bikoro and reachable by water. pic.twitter.com/3Q3PwAAdsh — Helen Branswell (@HelenBranswell) May 11, 2018 What’s worrisome is that the most recent WHO update says that there are two probable cases at Wangata – which is very close to Mbandaka. #EbolaDRC: This news gives me pause. @WHO‘s latest update says there are 2 probable cases at Wangata, which is adjacent to the provincial capital, Mbandaka. Population of Mbandaka = 1.2 million. https://t.co/LwlMGcAL7J pic.twitter.com/RVVO15m2F9 — Helen Branswell (@HelenBranswell) May 14, 2018 Peter Salma, head of emergency response at the World Health Organization (WHO) said last week: “If we see a town of that size infected with Ebola, then we are going to have a major urban outbreak,” adding “We are very concerned, and we are planning for all scenarios, including the worst-case scenario.” Today I had the chance to see first-hand the #Ebola response in #DRC. Teams are motivated and working hard. I visited the hospital in Bikoro where patients are being treated, and lab technicians are testing samples. We’re working with our partners 24/7 to stop this outbreak. pic.twitter.com/JzYH3snmjM — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) May 13, 2018 The WHO is planning to send up to 40 specialists to the affected area over the next week or so, while Salma adds that the UN hopes to have a mobile lab up and running this weekend, similar to the one set up by the WHO. The WHO and World Food Programme are also working to set up an ‘air-bridge’ to help bring in supplies, however, only helicopters can be used until an airfield is cleared to allow larger planes to land, Mr Salama added. The health body has released £738,000 ($1m) from its Contingency Fund for Emergencies to support response activities for the next three months. –Daily Mail Mobile lab materials being shipped to strength rapid analysis of the samples from Bikoro, the #Ebola affected area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, #DRC 🇨🇩 pic.twitter.com/vgmyqWhLFV — WHO African Region (@WHOAFRO) May 12, 2018 Over 100 Red Cross volunteers in #Equateur province (50 in #Mbandaka, 60 in #Bikoro) now mobilized to fight the spread of #Ebola in #DRCongo. Community volunteers and groups are critical to stopping the spread of diseases, especially in isolated areas. pic.twitter.com/oJ33Dn1CFB — IFRC Africa (@IFRCAfrica) May 13, 2018 This marks the country’s ninth epidemic since the ebola virus was identified in 1976. When a small outbreak hit the DRC last year, eight people were infected and four died. In 2014, 66 were infected out of which 49 died – a 74% fatality rate. In the 2002-2003 outbreak, 90% of those infected died. That said, on average the disease kills around half of those who contract it. Ebola, a haemorrhagic fever, killed at least 11,000 across the world after it decimated West Africa and spread rapidly over the space of two years. The pandemic was officially declared over back in January 2016, when Liberia was announced to be Ebola-free by the WHO. The country, rocked by back-to-back civil wars that ended in 2003, was hit the hardest by the fever, with 40 per cent of the deaths having occurred there. Sierra Leone reported the highest number of Ebola cases, with nearly of all those infected having been residents of the nation. -Daily Mail Experts say the DRC’s vast, remote terrain provides an advantage, as outbreaks often remain localized and easy to isolate. Bikoro, however, is not far from the Congo river – an essential waterway used for transport and commerce. Downstream lies Kinshasa and Brazzaville – the DRC’s capital. The two cities are home to a combined 12 million people. As such, neighboring countries are on high alert. Officials in Nigeria, Guinea and Gambia have incresaed screening measures along their airports and borders, measures which helped contain the virus during the West African epidemic that began in 2013. Angola, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi and the Republic of Congo – which border the DRC – have all been alerted. While Kenya, which does not border the country, has issued warnings over the possible spread of Ebola. Thermal guns to detect anyone with a fever have been put in place along its border with Uganda and at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Concerned health officials in Nigeria, which also does not border the DRC, have put similar measures in place to keep its population safe. -Daily Mail Scientists believe Ebola is most often passed to humans by fruit bats, however porcupines, gorillas, antelope and chimpanzees could also be carriers. It is transmitted between humans through blood, secretions and other bodily fluids (and surfaces) of those infected. There is currently no “proven” treatment for Ebola, however dozens of experimental drugs exist – including a vaccine called rVSV-ZEBOV, which has reportedly protected nearly 6,000 people.

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.

Trump fires Tillerson, replaces with former top spook Following what has appeared for months to be a strained relationship between President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the top diplomat is being replaced. Trump announced Tillerson’s ouster via Twitter Tuesday, saying: “Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!” This is yet another big shake-up for Trump’s still-young administration — and it may be the most important one to date. The move creates some big questions about both the administration’s foreign policy ambitions as well as the president’s relationship with the deep state. If you enjoyed Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, you’ll like Pompeo’s. Like Clinton and her Democrat allies, Pompeo has long subscribed to the belief that Russia is perpetually meddling in U.S. affairs. In fact, he believes Barack Obama got Russian help too. While he was being confirmed as CIA chief, the former lawmaker lashed out at Russia for reasserting ” itself aggressively, invading and occupying Ukraine, threatening Europe, and doing nearly nothing to aid in the destruction and defeat of ISIS.” Again, if you liked Obama-era, world-on-fire, Russians everywhere State Department shenanigans, this is your guy. Pompeo also isn’t a huge fan of calling the federal government out when it is clearly violating the rights of Americans, as shown by his statements last year regarding WikiLeaks. “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence — the GRU — had used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks,” he said. Pompeo favors increased U.S. involvement in Syria (hello, Russian proxy war), ratcheting pressure on Iran and regime change in North Korea. Clinton City… Moving on to Haspel, who will now be heading the CIA, nothing’s looking any brighter. She’s a big fan of torture, according to a 2013 Washington Post article pointed out this morning by The Intercept: IN MAY 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official — whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time — was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime. As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” — part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” — “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah. Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and grand jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute. Bottom line, George W. Bush/Barack Obama era foreign policy and intelligence doctrines aren’t going anywhere under Trump.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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