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

US Conference of Mayors Call For More Gun Confiscation Legislation The United States Conference of Mayors passed several resolutions last week that called for more gun confiscation legislation following all the debate about guns after several shootings, despite the fact that government has never been given authority to restrict or regulate arms. Part of the hypocrisy of the US Conference of Mayors is that they actually push to infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights while claiming that it is consistent with the Second Amendment. For example, the organization writes in support of David Hogg's #NeverAgain movement, "WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has a 50-year history of formally adopting and aggressively promoting strong policies to reduce gun violence, all consistent with its support for the Second Amendment to the Constitution." take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. And just what kind of policies are we talking about? According to the mayors: Strengthening the Regulation of Gun Sales and Dealers, including: Limiting the number of guns a person may purchase in a single transaction or in a month or other specified period of time; Banning replica handguns; Increasing inspections of licensed gun dealers; and Targeting and holding responsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to straw purchasers; Banning Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines, including: Reinstating a strengthened, effective ban on military-style assault weapons, such as AK-47s, and their component parts; and Banning large capacity ammunition feeding devices and the importation of all large capacity ammunition clips. Supporting Local Efforts to Reduce and Combat Gun Crimes, including: Opposing concealed carry reciprocity policies and legislation that would circumvent city policies established to protect residents; Providing local governments and law enforcement officials access to ATF gun trace data; Opposing "Stand Your Ground" or "Shoot First" laws and urging state legislatures that have adopted such laws to repeal them; and Encouraging mayors to take executive actions to combat gun violence and illegal use and trafficking of guns; Protecting Young People, including: Opposing proposals to allow teachers and other non-law enforcement, non-security personnel to carry firearms in K-12 schools; Raising the youth handgun ban from 18 to 21 years of age; Banning juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault rifles; and Holding gun owners criminally liable when children gain access to improperly stored guns. Protecting Domestic Violence Victims, including: Prohibiting persons convicted of domestic violence crimes or subject to final domestic violence restraining orders from acquiring or possessing firearms; and Requiring prohibited domestic abusers to turn in firearms they already own; How any of this is consistent with support for the Second Amendment is anyone's guess. I think they throw that language in to cover for the fact that they are attacking it head on and attacking the rights of the people. How does any of this stop gun violence? It doesn't. What it does do is infringe on the rights of teachers, law-abiding citizens who want to purchase several guns which they will use lawfully, sides with criminals against law-abiding citizens as it opposes stand your ground and other measures written specifically to protect people who would normally be victims of crime. Banning semi-automatic weapons doesn't stop crime either, as we've pointed out before, and the statistics are available for anyone to see that gun violence didn't go down one bit during the decade of the Clinton/Feinstein assault weapons ban. These geniuses also "Support Enactment of Comprehensive Background Checks, Ban the Sale of Bump Stocks and Related Devices and Prevent the Arming of Teachers in Schools." Again, this will do nothing to stop criminals with guns. Why? Because they won't follow your unconstitutional and unlawful laws in the first place! On top of that, the criminal mayors want to institute red flag laws. "The U.S. Conference of Mayors registers its strong support for extreme risk protection order laws and urges both states and the federal government to enact such laws," the group wrote. They are fully in support of violating the Fifth Amendment rights of otherwise law-abiding citizens based on merely the fact that someone claims that a family member is a harm to themselves or others, even though they have not committed a crime. This is the Trump, "Take the guns first and then due process" mantra. Guns.com reported on some of the statements made by some of these mayors. Karen Freeman-Wilson, mayor of Gary, Indiana and chairwoman of the conference’s criminal and social justice committee, said gun-related tragedies “rips families and communities apart.” “Policies like background checks on all gun sales and Red Flag Laws save lives. It’s as simple as that,” Freeman-Wilson said. “The U.S. Conference of Mayors will continue doing everything in our power to keep our communities safe so that children and families are able to live free of the fear of being gunned down.” St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said the new resolutions show mayors will “lead the way in solving our gun violence crisis.” “We wouldn’t be doing our jobs as mayors if we weren’t focusing on gun violence — an issue that threatens the public safety of every community, big and small,” she said. “Our bipartisan network of mayors knows how to work together and compromise on policies that save lives. If only our partners in Congress did the same.” Gun control groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised the conference for reaffirming its support for stricter regulations. “Mayors are on the frontlines of America’s gun violence crisis, so it’s no surprise they’re also leading the charge to pass common-sense, life-saving laws,” said Everytown president John Feinblatt. “It’s time for our leaders in Washington to follow the lead of America’s mayors and put public safety over NRA priorities.” None of these statements can be backed up by facts. The facts refute their arguments, but beyond that, the Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms is a right given to us by our Creator, not a permission we gain from government. So, while they tell you they support the Second Amendment and that their unlawful policies are consistent with it, nothing could be further from the truth. If you buy into this, you probably think places like Chicago, Illinois are among the safest places to live in the US when the opposite is true. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Nimesh Patel Stand-Up Routine Cut Short Due To Uncomfortable Jokes Nimesh Patel, a comedian known for being the first Indian-American writer for Saturday Night Live, had his stand-up routine at cultureSHOCK cut short earlier tonight due to uncomfortable jokes. cultureSHOCK, an event hosted by the Asian American Alliance, is a charity performance showcase that aims to provide a space to celebrate Asian American expression. Patel was one of the main events promoted beforehand. However, his jokes quickly progressed to uncomfortable territory, including one about a gay black man who lives in his neighborhood and how “[I]t made me realize that being gay is definitely not a choice because no one wants to be gay and black.” The tension in the room increased as Patel told more jokes in this vein until organizers of the event went up on stage to stop him, citing a change in program plans. Patel questioned why this was happening. The organizers replied that the person in charge of tech had to leave early, but Patel continued to claim that he was being cut off because the audience didn’t like his jokes. At one point, one organizer told Patel he was being disrespectful. When asked for closing remarks, Patel responded: “I’m a generation older than all of you I know comedy,” and called the organizers incorrect in ending his set. He tried to continue speaking until his mic was cut. We have reached out to the Asian American Alliance for comment and were told that their board is not yet prepared to release a statement. We will update this post if such a statement is forthcoming. Image via Columbia University Asian American Alliance Tags: breaking, columbia university asian american alliance, cultureSHOCK, nimesh patel

Kavanaugh Accuser's Lawyer is Vice Chair of Soros Funded Org Opposing Kavanaugh Kavanaugh's accuser is being represented by Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. lawyer and the vice chair of the board of the Project On Government Oversight. POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear. Where does PGO gets its funding? From, among other sources, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation tentacles. And, to no one's surprise, she's allegedly a Dem donor. What a surprise! Debra Katz, the lawyer representing the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, has donated thousands of dollars to Obama, Hillary and the DNC! pic.twitter.com/WK5XYTlcqL — Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) September 17, 2018 UPDATE: I've received a message from POGO stating that they wish to be described as a non-partisan watchdog and that they have a Republican board member.

America's Immigration Voice. Candidate Donald Trump may have promised to extricate us from Middle East wars, once ISIS and al-Qaida were routed, yet events and people seem to be conspiring to keep us endlessly enmeshed. Friday night, a drone, apparently modeled on a U.S. drone that fell into Iran's hands, intruded briefly into Israeli airspace over the Golan Heights, and was shot down by an Apache helicopter. Israel seized upon this to send F-16s to strike the airfield whence the drone originated. Returning home, an F-16 was hit and crashed, unleashing the most devastating Israeli attack in decades on Syria. Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu says a dozen Syrian and Iranian bases and antiaircraft positions were struck. Monday's headline on The Wall Street Journal op-ed page blared: "The Pentagon and State Department have already condemned Iran and thrown their support behind Israel. The question now is whether the Trump administration will go further. ... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (has) affirmed that the U.S. seeks not only to ensure its allies' security but to deny Iran its 'dreams of a northern arch' from Tehran to Beirut. A good way to achieve both objectives would be back Israel's response to Iran's aggression--now and in the future." Op-ed writers Tony Badran and Jonathan Schanzer, both from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, The FDD is an annex of the Israeli lobby and a charter member of the War Party. Chagai Tzuriel , who heads the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence, echoed the FDD: "If you (Americans) are committed to countering Iran in the region, then you must do so in Syria--first." Our orders have been cut. Iran has dismissed as "lies" and "ridiculous" the charge that it sent the drone into Israeli airspace. If Tehran did, it would be an act of monumental stupidity. Not only did the drone bring devastating Israeli reprisals against Syria and embarrass Iran's ally Russia, it brought attacks on Russian-provided and possibly Russian-manned air defenses. Moreover, in recent months Iranian policy--suspending patrol boat harassment of U.S. warships--appears crafted to ease tensions and provide no new causes for Trump to abandon the nuclear deal Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani regards as his legacy. Indeed, why would Iran, which, with Assad, Russia and Hezbollah, is among the victors in Syria's six-year civil war, wish to reignite the bloodletting and bring Israeli and U.S. firepower in on the other side? In Syria's southeast, another incident a week ago may portend an indefinite U.S. stay in that broken and bleeding country. To recapture oil fields lost in the war, forces backed by Assad crossed the Euphrates into territory taken from ISIS by the U.S. and our Kurd allies. The U.S. response was a barrage of air and artillery strikes that killed 100 soldiers. What this signals is that, though ISIS has been all but evicted from Syria, the U.S. intends to retain that fourth of Syria as a bargaining chip in negotiations. In the northwest, Turkey has sent its Syrian allies to attack Afrin and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened Manbij, 80 miles to the east, where U.S. troops commingle with the Kurd defenders and U.S. generals were visible last week. Midweek, Erdogan exploded: "(The Americans) tell us, 'Don't come to Manbij.' We will come to Manbij to hand over these territories to their rightful owners." The U.S. and Turkey, allies for six decades, with the largest armies in NATO, may soon be staring down each other's gun barrels. Has President Trump thought through where we are going with this deepening commitment in Syria, where we have only 2,000 troops and no allies but the Kurds, while on the other side is the Syrian army, Hezbollah, Russia and Iran, and Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Clearly, we have an obligation not to abandon the Kurds, who took most of the casualties in liberating eastern Syria from ISIS. And we have a strategic interest in not losing Turkey as an ally. But this calls for active diplomacy, not military action. And now that the rebels have been defeated and the civil war is almost over, what would be the cost and what would be the prospects of fighting a new and wider war? What would victory look like? Bibi and the FDD want to see U.S. power deployed alongside that of Israel, against Iran, Assad and Hezbollah. But while Israel's interests are clear, what would be the U.S. vital interest? What outcome would justify another U.S. war in a region where all the previous wars in this century have left us bleeding, bankrupt, divided and disillusioned? When he was running , Donald Trump seemed to understand this. COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books and are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of His latest book, published May 9, is

FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLINE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976 On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered an address on the desperate state of the Church at that time—42 years ago—that was never transcribed or published until we did so for the December 15, 2017 print edition of The Remnant. It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church. I’m posting the address here because I'm convinced the Archbishop’s words provide recent recruits to Tradition with vital historical context for the diabolical debacle that is the pontificate of Pope Francis. And for those of us who’ve been in the trenches for a long, long time it also provides welcome reminder of why we must continue to fight. Even though I personally was in attendance back in 1976 when Archbishop Lefebvre delivered this address in Minneapolis, I was only ten years old and of course didn't realize how prophetic he was on that occasion, or how devastated by the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the Freemasonic infiltration of the Vatican. In fact, this transcript reads like a message of encouragement at a crucial moment in the history of this movement—Stay in the fight! Keep the Faith. Never surrender! This address also makes it absolutely clear that everything Archbishop Lefebvre did was part of an eleventh-hour defence of the Kingship of Christ (ignored completely by the Second Vatican Council) and a desperate last stand for Tradition, the infallible teachings of Mother Church and of course her ancient liturgy. And now that Pope Francis has inadvertently unmasked the true spirit of Vatican II, it becomes obvious how and why those who resisted that spirit were right to have done so and will certainly be hailed by history as the heroic band of Catholic brothers that mounted the twentieth century’s last stand for Christ the King and, while scorned and mocked at the time, were nevertheless totally vindicated fifty years later. May we continue to earn the right to stand with them today. MJM The Archbishop Speaks Ladies and Gentlemen: As I said to Mr. [Walter] Matt, I can say in bad English what he says in good English, because he said all of the things I want to say [Referring here to Walter Matt’s introductory talk referenced above.] And I thank you, Mr. Matt, very much, for his invitation, and I thank you for your coming, and I thank Fr. Ward for what he said about the Society of St. Pius X. And I hope that you can understand my poor English, but I think it is better to speak some bad English because to translate would take too much time. As Mr. Matt said, the crisis in the Church is very extraordinary. It is very difficult to understand the situation today. My seminary in Econe (in Switzerland) and the seminaries in Germany and here in America, in Armada, are in very difficult situations with Rome. Why? These seminaries are the same as seminaries were before the Second Vatican Council. They have the same discipline and the same studies, they make good priests; I think they are good seminarians. All is done as all the seminaries before the Second Vatican Council. Why are we now in this very sad situation with Rome? I think that because in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, there is a mutation, a change, in the Church. But we do not change. We continue the Tradition. So why do they now say, as Mgr. (Archbishop) Benelli[1] said to me months ago on the 19th of March, “you are out of communion with the Church.” I am out of communion with the Church because I continue the Tradition of the Church? This is possible? I do not understand. Why? I have done nothing. I believe nothing other than what the Church has believed for twenty centuries. Mgr. Benelli then said to me, you must put down in a writing to the Holy Father that you accept the Second Vatican Council, you accept the reform that followed the Council, and that you accept the orientations that have been given by Rome. Mgr. Benelli took the book of the New Ordo, gave it to me, and said, “You must say this New Mass in all of your houses.” I wonder why Mgr. Benelli did not communicate this condition to me before our meeting. [2] He could have done so. For example, one year ago three cardinals sent me a letter (Cardinals Wright, Tabera [Arturo Carinal Tabera Araoz, one of the Council Fathers MJM], and Gabriel-Marie Garrone) telling me (in effect) that I must close the seminaries. Well, I refused, because I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the Church. Because now they are destroying the Church. When I die and go before the judge, God will not be able to say to me, “You destroyed the Church.” I refused to contribute to the destruction of the Church. I am sure that my seminaries are contributing to the restoration of the Church. I do not destroy the Church. And so I said to Mgr. Benelli, “No, I will not sign that writing.” I think that the mutation in the Church came in through the Second Vatican Council. And do you think this change in the Church came suddenly? When, then? At the beginning of the Council? No, this change in the Church began one century before [the Council]. Pope Pius VI said during the French Revolution that if the Church continues to remain under the influence of the prince of the revolution, then, in the future a crisis will come upon the Church. In [1844], Pope Pius IX ordered Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari. [3] The Pope himself asked Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari. And what did these Instructions say? The Instructions said that they [the Carbonari/Freemasons] must begin to fight against the Church by bringing reform into the Church. The Instructions said the infiltration will take perhaps not one year, perhaps not ten years, but perhaps a century. The Carbonari must enter into the seminary, into the convent, into the sacristy, and slowly, very slowly, the priests will have the ideals of the revolution; of the Freemasons. One day these priests, imbued with Masonic principles, will become bishops, and these bishops can then choose a pope. And even if the pope is not a Freemason, he will have the same ideals as the Freemasons. Pope Pius IX called for the publishing of these Instructions in order to warn the bishops and priests of those times of the fight against the church. In 1895, the Catholic Antonia Fogazzaro, a known modernist, founded a masonic lodge in Milan. He wrote in his book, Il Santo, that “We [modernists]…want a reform in the Church…without rebellion, carried out by legitimate authority…even if this takes 20, 30, or 50 years.”[4] “The reform will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.” The modernist ideas in the Church introduced and enacted through obedience! And I think…well, here we are! In this time! The reform is here, and it is brought about through obedience, to the Council, to the bishop, to the priest. And all they say is “Obedience, obedience, obedience.” The Instructions of the Carbonari say the bishop and the priest will think that they are following the tiara of the Pope, but they will be following the flag of Freemasonry [“the banner of revolution”]. They said that. They wrote that! One century before [the Council]! Thus, it is very important to know that they prepared for the beginning of the Second Vatican Council for a century, perhaps two centuries! As the Archbishop of Dakar and President of the Episcopal Commission for French-speaking West Africa, I was appointed member of the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council. There were some seventy cardinals, twenty bishops, and four super-authorities of the religious orders, among others. Before the last meeting of this Commission the members received two schemas on the same subject: one from Cardinal Ottaviani and another from Cardinal Bea. The schema from Cardinal Ottaviani was titled “…On Religious Tolerance” and the other, from Cardinal Bea, was titled “On Religious Freedom [Liberty].” When we read these two schemas, we thought, “This is impossible. How is it we can receive two opposing theses? One says we must not tolerate error. The other says that error has the right to exist in the name of the dignity of the human person.” And so, we go into the meeting. Cardinal Ottaviani, standing, says to Cardinal Bea, “You have no authority to compose this schema, because it is a theological thesis and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” As Cardinal Bea stands up, he says, “I do have the right to compose this schema because if anything concerns Christian Unity it is religious liberty, and I am the President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.” Cardinal Bea, addressing Cardinal Ottaviani, further said, “I am opposed to your schema.” Impossible! We were in a very sad, serious situation. Cardinal Ruffini had to intervene as we were in front of two cardinals, our brothers. He said we must wait for the authority to say who is right and who is wrong. But before the Pope came (because the Pope came many times to present at these meetings) we voted on the schema. Who is with Cardinal Ottaviani? Who is with Cardinal Bea? The conservatives and the liberals. As the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission, it was for me the first image of the future Council. This historic address appeared for the first time ever in a print edition of The Remnant last year. Isn't it time for you to subscribe? And as we go into the Council, you know that on the first day of the Council, Cardinal Lienart was the chief of the liberal cardinals in the Council, [together] with all of the Cardinals of the Rhine (such as Cardinal Alfrink, Cardinal Frings, Cardinal Dopfner, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Leinart, and Cardinal Koenig of Austria). And now one month ago in Rome, the traditional periodical Chiesa Viva published a photo of Cardinal Lienart with all of the appurtenances of Freemasonry, the date of his inscription in Masonry, the date [of his rising to] the 20th Degree of Freemasonry, the date [of his rising to] the 30th Degree of Freemasonry, and the places where he [attended] the meetings of Freemasonry. This Cardinal was the chief of the liberals in the Council. That is my cardinal; he ordained me to the priesthood, and he consecrated me a bishop. And now this is public. Nobody has been able to refute the publication. And so, we have (I am confident) a mutation in the church by the Council and by the reform after the Council. Now, some say the Council is (was) good, but only the reforms were bad. That is not true. Why? Because when the reforms come, Rome always says the reforms are being done in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all of the reforms came from the Council. And if the reforms are bad, then it is impossible that the Council is good and all the reforms are bad, because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome. Rome said in the name of the Declaration of Liturgy, we [implement] the liturgical reform. We can say that [these bad changes are] not in the text of the Declaration, but this man has the authority to say that this is from the Council. They know that. And I am sure that it [the mutation] is in the Council. Even if it is not explicitly [stated] in the Council but [rather] in the spirit of the Council, it is the same! For example, with religious freedom: now the Holy See and all the Nuncios are against the Catholic State in the name of the Council - in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom. I have heard this (personally) twice. The first time I was in Columbia. When I was in Columbia, I read in the paper about the change in the first article of the Constitution of the Republic of Columbia. [The first article] stated that only the Republic of Columbia recognizes only the Catholic religion. They changed it. They removed this article. I read the discourse of the President of Columbia with the Nuncios of Columbia and the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference in Columbia. The President said he is very, very anxious. He said to the people, “even though we remove this article we remain Catholic. I am a Catholic, I shall remain Catholic, and I do everything possible for the Council and the Catholics in our country.” Then, the discourse of the Nuncio was the discourse of a Freemason: all of it was “progress,” “humanity,” “evolution,” and all the hubris of a Freemason. And during the discourse of the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference, [the Secretary] said, “in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom [of Vatican II], we ask the President to remove this article in the Constitution.” I met this Secretary of the Episcopal Conference during my visit in Columbia, and he said for two years they [had been asking] the President, in the name of the Holy See, to change this article in their Constitution. But I will never…I do not accept the concept, because you destroy the Catholic State in the name of the Council. Are you sure? Yes, sure. It is evident. Now I said to the [Secretary], “As I speak with you now about Columbia, I know that you are the one responsible for the change in the constitution of Valais in Switzerland one year ago. The change in the Constitution of Valais was the same.” (Because you know Switzerland is a Federation where some states are Protestant and some states are Catholic. The Valais is Catholic. And in its constitution, the words of the first article [of the constitution] of the State of Valais – Econe, where we are located, is in the State of Valais - only one religion is recognized: The Catholic Church.) And [the Secretary] said, “Yes, I am responsible for this change.” Brother, what did you do with the Social Kingship of Christ? What is this for you? What do you say when you say “thy kingdom come” in your prayer, the Our Father? “Ah,” the Nuncio said to me, “Now it is impossible.” What did you do with the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas? “Ah, but now the Pope cannot write an encyclical like Quas Primas.” It is incredible. And all in the name of the Council. We must take care, because this change in the church is a liberal change. The liberal principles have entered the Church now, and they destroy the Church. If we cannot set out the true principles of the Church, if we in the name of religious freedom said that all religions have the same right in every state in the world… [missing audio...] The truth is the only one King of the World is Jesus Christ. We say in the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, “Tu solus Altissimus,” “Tu solus Dominus,” “You alone are the Highest,” “You alone are the Lord.” But practically, we would refuse this Kingdom of Jesus Christ if we said that Luther, Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus Christ are all the same. We cannot say that. Impossible. We know that in many states (it is a pity) it is impossible [to recognize Catholicism as the state religion]. We must tolerate - have tolerance for the error - but never give the same right to error and truth. That is impossible. And the change in the liturgy is very important. It is very bad. One of the principles of modern man, as they say now, “modern man,” is democracy. And democracy can have a good sense but not if [by that term is meant] that those who govern receive their authority from the people. The authority comes from God. Not from the people. Not from the masses. From God. But today the principle, the democratic principle, is that the authority is in the people. It is in the masses. That is not true. It is impossible. And our liturgy is the school of our Faith. It is the first school of our Faith for all people. I was in Africa as a missionary and as bishop for 30 years. I know the liturgy was the best school of the Faith for people who cannot read. They can see what the priest does. They can see what the priest does at the adoration of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. And they know that Jesus Christ is present - His real presence is on the altar - by the attitude of the priest. They know that. That is very important. But the change in the Mass destroys the Church. Because we know the liturgy teaches us hierarchy. The true liturgy is hierarchical. It is not democratic but hierarchical. Why? Because we have God, the priest, and then the people. That is hierarchy. When we are in Church we know God is on the altar; the priest is between God and the people; and the people receive God at the hand of the priest. That is hierarchy. But now the new liturgy is more democratic - all around the table. The priest is only the president, and sometimes another man can take the role of the president of the meal. That is a new liturgy. That is very bad, because we have no sense of the hierarchical; whereas the sense of hierarchy is very important in our life. We need the authority of God. We need the Real Presence of God on our altar. We need the Sacrifice of the Mass – not a meal only – but the Sacrifice. So, the Victim of the Sacrifice is really present on our altar. That is the school of our Faith. And slowly, slowly, this new Mass equivocates. It moves the minds of the faithful in a Protestant [direction]. I do not say that all [Novus Ordo] Masses are invalid. I do not say that. But perhaps, more and more, they become invalid because [the ministers lose faith in the Real Presence]. Recently, in France, a progressive paper conducted a statistical survey to see how many priests no longer have faith in the Real Presence. They found that twenty-two percent no longer have the faith, the belief in the Real Presence. But I think that if they directed this question to all of the priests who are under 50 years of age, they would find that fifty percent [have lost the faith in the Real Presence], because the young priests have no faith. No faith. Last year, Bishop Adam (in our Diocese of Sion, Switzerland) ordained one priest for my Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers. This one priest came from France. His uncle had died in a road accident when his cab fell in the river. The uncle had nine children. The Bishop said to the new priest, “Now you can say Mass for your uncle. Now you are a priest, and you can say Mass for your uncle.” The new priest said, “No, never.” Why? It is not useful to say Mass for the dead? “No, no, it is impossible. They are already in heaven.” This young priest who was ordained by the Bishop last year for my Congregation is now a professor in the minor seminary in Switzerland. They are not learning theology, not philosophy, not anything. They learn nothing now. Another example. Recently, I had two young [potential] seminarians come to my house near Paris. One of them works in a factory, and the other is a university student. They told me they were [considering] the seminary of Paris. I asked them, “Why do you come to see me?” They told me that they had a meeting in the house of the Oblate of Maria with the priest who oversees young men who may have vocations to the priesthood in the Diocese of Paris. There was a total of fifteen young men for all of the Diocese of Paris. During the meeting, the priest, before he celebrated the Eucharist, said, “Today we celebrate the Eucharist, but we do not believe in the Real Presence.” These two young men said “That is impossible. We cannot remain in this seminary.” So, they came to meet me. They said that Econe is the only seminary where they seem to be able to find the True Faith. They asked for admittance to Econe. And I think that they shall be coming to Econe next October. But that is a new religion. It is a Protestant religion. That is a fact. Perhaps you can say, “How is it possible that the pope gives the authorization to this change? How is it possible the pope signed this decree? Signed this constitution?” I don’t know. I don’t know. It is a big mystery. A big mystery. There are many proposed theological answers. I cannot subscribe to all of them. Some say the pope is not responsible. Perhaps someone gave the pope an injection, a drug, and he is not responsible. Perhaps, I don’t know. Some say there are two popes [(a body double)]. I don’t know. Some say the pope was liberal before he was elected pope, and perhaps (we do not know) he gave his name to Freemasonry (thereby incurring excommunication before the conclave). We do not know. We do know now that Bugnini was primarily responsible for the change in liturgy, and that he is an infamous Freemason. And because he had an indiscretion with his Masonic appurtenances, the Pope sent him as a Nuncio in Iran. I don’t know. We don’t know. Now, you cannot say that Archbishop Lefebvre said the pope gave his name to Freemasonry. No, you cannot say that. It is possible, but we do not know. But if he was excommunicated, then he is not pope. Not pope. Illegitimate. I don’t know. It is a mystery I cannot understand. But the fact is that the Catholic Church is being destroyed, and now even the pope himself says that. This pope has referred to the auto-demolition of the Church. He said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” But where are the men responsible for the destruction of the Church? Well, there they are. They are the men who destroy the Church. We must show where they are. Where is this smoke of Satan that has entered the Church? I do not know, but it is the pope himself who said that. And I have these experiences every day. I visit many countries. I was in Spain during the Christmas Holy Days. Then I was in Bonn, near Cologne, Germany, three weeks ago, to speak at a conference. Many people came. Many people are confused. What is happening in the Church? They are anxious. But many people say that we disobey. Disobey? Obedience is relative. It is not absolute. It is relative to the good, but not to the evil. We cannot obey our parents if they command a bad thing. We cannot obey. It is clear. And I know that in Spain, for example, the situation in the Church is very bad. The new nominees of bishops and many auxiliary bishops are, approximately, communist, Marxist, and socialist. And so, a majority of the bishops in the Episcopal Conference of Spain are progressives. They are modernists. Whereas, the majority of the bishops [from Spain] during the Council were conservative. So, Rome is responsible [for the situation of the Church in Spain] because it is Rome who approves the nominations for bishops. And we know in France, in Germany, and in Europe generally, that all of the young bishops are worse [than the bishops in Spain] in that they are more or less Marxist. That is a fact. That is impossible. How can they do that? I do not know. I do not know. I have not spent my whole life in Rome. I do know Rome very well, because I was an apostolic delegate, and I was in the Secretariate of the Secretary of State. And I know that very well. But I think that the devil is in Rome, as was said by our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of La Salette. We must pray. We must ask God to put an end to this crisis of the Church. Because if this crisis continues, many people will go to hell. They lose the faith. They cannot go into the church. They abandon the faith. You know that many priests have abandoned the faith. Many priests have gotten married. And many sisters have abandoned their congregations. It is a pity. And it is everywhere. I was in Melbourne, Australia, during the 40th International Eucharistic Congress. Cardinal Knox, who was the man responsible for the Eucharistic Congress, is now the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I read in the newspaper about a Mass Cardinal Knox celebrated during the Eucharistic Congress where sensual dancing was performed at the same time the words of the Consecration were pronounced. That is a sacrilege. You cannot go to that Mass. That is sacrilege. This is a fact. They also called me by phone in Melbourne to say I was on the list of the bishops [attending] the Eucharistic Congress. They asked me to concelebrate Mass with a Protestant pastor and a rabbi. Ay. Impossible. Impossible. No, no, no, no. [applause] This change is not accidental. It is not superficial. It is very deep. Very bad. It is against our faith. Against our faith. And so, we cannot accept this Council and this reform and this orientation even though it comes from Rome. From Rome we expect only the good. We do not expect the bad, the ill. We do not expect the abandonment of adoration in the Mass. We need this adoration. We need to have the faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Because all [of this change] is [oriented] against the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, against the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Mass. It is a sin when we abandon the truth of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and we abandon the Faith of the divinity of Jesus Christ. He is King because he is God. He is the Son of God. So, He is King by His nature. This is essential. Essential! And if He is God, we must give Him the adoration of God. And so, we cannot accept the diminution of this Truth. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus Christ is God. That is a fundamental truth of our Faith. And it all depends on this Truth. And we know now that the theologians and the bishops have [a new orientation]. They do not express this truth clearly and perfectly. They are afraid of the truth. That is very bad. And it is the same in Rome. I think they refuse [to grant me an audience with] the pope, [because they are afraid of the Truth]. When I was in Rome one month ago, Mgr. Benelli told me he visits the pope every day. He said that when he left me, he would go immediately to the pope to express the importance of the work we had conducted during our meeting. Immediately, he said, he would be going. So, why do they not grant me the possibility of visiting the pope? Because they are afraid. Meanwhile the Vatican operated a veritable swinging door where actual heretics and schismatics were concerned. Here, again, is Blessed Paul VI, famously meeting for the first time ever with the heretic Archbishop of Canterbury in St. Peter's: Cardinal Villot said, “We are afraid if Msgr. Lefebvre meets and speaks with the pope that perhaps the pope will change his mind.” Because [the pope] is not too sure; the pope is not man of true conviction. He is a mysterious man. We cannot give a definition of the man. He expresses the truth, and then he does the contrary/opposite. Some part of him will speak the truth. Another part of him is open to error. Very curious. And they are afraid that if I reveal the truth [and tell the Pope] “you must affirm the Kingdom of Jesus Christ everywhere and always each day. You must affirm the Real Presence in the Mass - in the Sacrifice of the Mass,” then perhaps it is possible that the Pope will change his mind. And so, Cardinal Villot says, there is a confusion, and they do not want me to visit the pope. It is impossible to admit me. And I know the pope very well! When I was the apostolic delegate to Pius XII, I was going to Rome every year. And during those eleven years, I met Msgr. Montini. I know him very well. He received me twice during the Council, for a private audience with the pope. But, now, with my position against the Council and the reforms, he says: “No, impossible! You must sign in writing that you [accept] the Council and all the reforms before I will receive you in audience.” But I cannot do that. For me, if I do that, then I betray my mother, the Church. The Church! So, I thank you very much for your encouragement, and I must say that we have a very good generation of young men and good vocations. For the coming year we have 59 applications to our seminary in Econe, Switzerland – applications from the United States, from England, from Germany, from France, and Spain. Good young men with good dispositions are coming from everywhere. And why? Why do they come to this seminary when they know we are in difficulties with Rome? They know that. But still they come. I ask them, why do you come to Econe? You know our situation. They say, “Yes, we know your situation, but we want to become true priests and not protestant pastors or modernist priests. We are coming to your seminary because we know that the end of the priest is to offer the true Sacrifice of the Mass. And so, we are Coming to Econe.” And as I have visited my seminary here in Armada for the past five days, I can see it is the same here. We have very good young men. I also have some Americans in my seminary in Econe. In six weeks I will ordain one American priest from Detroit, who is a very good seminarian and will be a good priest. But these young men refuse to become protestants. They refuse to become modernist. They ask to become true priests. And it is a pity there are not 100 bishops opening good seminaries. So, I ask you to pray for these seminarians because when they become priests they will have many worries and many difficulties. I think, however, they are very well prepared to deal with these difficulties and worries. And we have confidence in God. Since I began this work six years ago, now, I have evidence that God is assisting us. Because it is impossible, I realize, to do this by myself. We now have houses in Switzerland (3), Munich, France (6), Brussels (1), England, Armada, San Francisco, and New York. In Albano, near Rome, we have a congregation of sisters where I have five vocations from the states (good sisters). And I am building a seminary in Switzerland. It is impossible to do all this without God’s assistance. So, I have confidence. It is impossible for the Church to change its tradition. The tradition of twenty centuries. That we cannot change. The Church is tradition. The Church is tradition. It is not revolution. I thank you for your attention. NOTES: [1] Archbishop Benelli, who had the title of “Substitute” (meaning the Assistant to the Secretary of State) of the Vatican Secretariat of State, later created Cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Florence in 1977. [2] Until the date of this meeting, March 19, 1976, nothing had been said to Archbishop Lefebvre about this condition of submission, which submission was demanded of him as a condition to his request for a Papal Audience. Many noted that, at the time, it was only of Archbishop Lefebvre that these conditions were demanded. Paul VI received all kinds of people (abortionists, freemasons, etc. ). [3] Otherwise known as the “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,” a secret document written in the early 19th Century that mapped out a blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church. The Alta Vendita was the highest lodge of the Carbonari, an Italian secret society with links to Freemasonry and which, along with Freemasonry, was condemned by the Popes. [4] During the pontificate of St. Pius X, a lay politician and author Antonio Fogazzaro, advocated a path to reform the Church and Papacy in his novel Il Santo, published in 1907. Fogazzaro was a known Modernist whose works were banned by the Church and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Lawyer: Ammo dealer saw nothing suspicious in Vegas gunman An Arizona man who sold ammunition to the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history was disturbed that he didn't spot any suspicious signs about his one-time customer, the man's lawyer said Wednesday. Douglas Haig had no reason to believe Stephen Paddock would launch the Oct. 1 shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people, attorney Marc Victor said. He said Haig wishes he could have figured out the intentions of Paddock but defends the sale of ammunition as legal. "He wishes there was some clue that could have identified him," Victor said. "There was just nothing." Meanwhile, the coroner in Las Vegas started releasing redacted autopsy records about the 58 people killed in the mass shooting at an outdoor concert. Records relating to Paddock were not being provided. The records were released Wednesday in response to a public records lawsuit filed by The Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal. Haig was named as a "person of interest" in the investigation by mistake Tuesday when court documents were released nearly four months after the shooting. The documents did not disclose why authorities considered Haig a person of interest, and officials haven't said whether he has since been cleared of that designation. Victor said his client sold ammunition to Paddock once and doesn't believe they have communicated since. "He is as connected (to Paddock) as the guy who sold him a hamburger for lunch," Victor said. Las Vegas police and officials with the FBI, U.S. attorney's office in Nevada and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives each declined Wednesday to comment about Haig or the investigation. A law enforcement official told The Associated Press in October that Paddock bought 1,000 rounds of tracer ammunition from a private seller he met at a Phoenix gun show three weeks before the shooting. The official spoke anonymously because they weren't authorized to disclose case information. Tracer bullets contain a pyrotechnic charge that illuminates the path of fired bullets so shooters can see whether their aim is correct. Haig told the AP on Tuesday that he sold unspecified ammunition to Paddock. He also told "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday that he sold more than 700 rounds of ammunition to Paddock. "I couldn't detect anything wrong with this guy," he said of Paddock. The ammunition sale took place at Haig's home in Mesa, because he didn't have all the ammunition on hand that Paddock wanted while at the gun show. Victor said a box that Paddock used to carry ammunition out of Haig's house and bore his client's name was later found in the Las Vegas hotel where the attack was launched. It's unknown whether the ammunition Haig sold to Paddock was used in the attack. The lawyer said the type and quantity of ammunition Paddock bought from his client wasn't unusual. Robert Spitzer, an expert on firearms and the Second Amendment, said by and large there are no restrictions on the amount of ammunition a person can buy, but a large sale of tracer ammunition would certainly be unusual. Only six states in the U.S. have laws requiring that ammunition buyers pass a background check. Arizona and Nevada do not have such a requirement, nor do they mandate that dealers keep a record of ammunition transactions. "If you are in the business of selling anything, you are usually happy to make the sale, and there's nothing that says you need to write down this person's name or report the sale," said Spitzer, who is the chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland. Victor said his client has cooperated with investigators who contacted him within 24 hours of the shooting and has spoken to them probably four or five times, though he hasn't talked to them in months. Haig describes himself as a senior engineer for Honeywell Aerospace in his biography on the professional and social media platform LinkedIn. Records show Haig also owns Specialized Military Ammunition LLC. The company's website says it sold tracer and incendiary ammunition but is now "closed indefinitely." Haig's name was blacked out in the more than 270 pages of search warrant records released by a Nevada judge to the AP, but remained on one page of documents provided to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The newspaper published the name online. Clark County District Court Judge Elissa Cadish later ordered the full document not be published without redactions, but she acknowledged she couldn't order the newspaper to retract the name. Haig plans to hold a news conference Friday to discuss his interaction with Paddock. Garcia Cano reported from Las Vegas. Associated Press writers Ken Ritter in Las Vegas and Anita Snow in Phoenix contributed to this report. Billeaud reported from Phoenix.

ICE Arrests Over 150 in Bay Area Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested more than 150 illegals in the San Francisco Bay Area this week -- no thanks to the Democrat mayor of Oakland, who tried to warn the constituents of her sanctuary city of impending ICE raids. Fox News reports that “targeted immigration enforcement operations” resulted in the arrests, about half of which snared fugitives with convictions for assault and battery, crimes against children, weapons charges and DUI. One such fugitive is a documented gang member whose “accumulated criminal convictions in California... have resulted in more than 15 years of prison sentencings” and who had previously been removed by ICE four times. Many of the other arrested illegals had criminal convictions from Mexico and Guatemala throughout Northern California. The arrests came despite a press release tweeted by Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, which noted that “multiple credible sources” told her ICE would be conducting the raids in the Bay Area. This did not win her any friends among law enforcement. ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan said in a statement Tuesday, The Oakland mayor’s decision to publicize her suspicions about ICE operations further increased that risk for my officers and alerted criminal aliens — making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda. Unlike the politicians who attempt to undermine ICE’s critical mission, our officers will continue to fulfill their sworn duty to protect public safety. True to the left's support for criminality over law and order, Mayor Schaaf declared that she considered it her "duty" to warn criminal illegals in her area. Fox News notes that ICE officials are asking the Department of Justice to look into whether she broke any laws by doing so. ICE reports that 864 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions and other public safety threats "remain at large" in the area -- an indeterminate number of whom may have been tipped off by a Democrat mayor who betrayed the law-abiding citizens of Northern California.

Ex-Sailor Pardoned By Trump Says He’s SUING Obama And Comey A former Navy sailor, who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump, is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials. Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, says he was subject to unequal protection of the law. Saucier said that he realizes he had erred in taking the photos, which he said he wanted to show only to his family to show them where he worked. He has also lashed out at Obama officials, saying that his prosecution was politically motivated, prompted by sensitivity about classified information amid the scandal involving Clinton’s emails. According to Fox News, Saucier argues that the same officials who sought out punishment to Saucier for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information. Saucier’s lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. Saucier, who lives in Vermont, pleaded guilty in 2016 to taking photos inside the USS Alexandria while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut, in 2009. He said he only wanted service mementos, but federal prosecutors argued he was a disgruntled sailor who had put national security at risk by taking photos showing the submarine’s propulsion system and reactor compartment and then obstructed justice by destroying a laptop and camera. –Fox News “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must elapse before the lawsuit actually is actually filed. “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” he said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton,” he continued, alleging his life was ruined for political reasons. “With a pardon, there’s no magic wand that gets waved and makes everything right,” Saucier said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” Saucier has had cars repossessed and is in debt due to the loss of income after having a felony on his record. The government actively destroyed his life an made it all but impossible for his family to get back on track. But Hillary Clinton is running around free, to this day. And that is what Saucier is so burnt about, with good reason.

The Eerie Silence In a recent communication between Randy Credico, an Assange supporter, comic and radio producer, and Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, Assange’s fear of arrest and extradition to the US was confirmed by the leader of the Russia-gate frenzy. Credico received the following response from Schiff after meeting the Congressman’s staff, in which Credico was trying to connect Assange with Schiff: “Our committee would be willing to interview Assange when he is in U.S. Custody and not before.” Dennis Bernstein spoke with John Pilger, a close friend and supporter of Assange on May 29. The interview began with the statement Bernstein delivered for Pilger at the Left Forum last weekend in New York on a panel devoted to Assange entitled, “Russia-gate and WikiLeaks”. Pilger’s Statement “There is a silence among many who call themselves left. The silence is Julian Assange. As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity. The Collateral Damage video, the war logs of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Cablegate revelations, the Venezuela revelations, the Podesta email revelations … these are just a few of the storms of raw truth that have blown through the capitals of rapacious power. The fakery of Russia-gate, the collusion of a corrupt media and the shame of a legal system that pursues truth-tellers have not been able to hold back the raw truth of WikiLeaks revelations. They have not won, not yet, and they have not destroyed the man. Only the silence of good people will allow them to win. Julian Assange has never been more isolated. He needs your support and your voice. Now more than ever is the time to demand justice and free speech for Julian. Thank you.” No Place to Hide: Edwa... Glenn Greenwald Best Price: $1.49 Buy New $3.70 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) Dennis Bernstein: We continue our discussion of the case of Julian Assange, now in the Ecuadorian embassy in Great Britain. John Pilger, it is great to talk to you again. But it is a profound tragedy, John, the way they are treating Julian Assange, this prolific journalist and publisher who so many other journalists have depended on in the past. He has been totally left out in the cold to fend for himself. John Pilger: I have never known anything like it. There is a kind of eerie silence around the Julian Assange case. Julian has been vindicated in every possible way and yet he is isolated as few people are these days. He is cut off from the very tools of his trade, visitors aren’t allowed. I was in London recently and I couldn’t see him, although I spoke to people who had seen him. Rafael Correa, the former president of Ecuador, said recently that he regarded what they are doing to Julian now as torture. It was Correa’s government that gave Julian political refuge, which has been betrayed now by his successor, the government led by Lenin Moreno, which is back to sucking up to the United States in the time-honored way, with Julian as the pawn and victim. Should be a ‘Constitutional Hero’ But really it comes down to the British government. Although he is still in a foreign embassy and actually has Ecuadorian nationality, his right of passage out of that embassy should be guaranteed by the British government. The United Nations Working Party on Unlawful Detentions has made that clear. Britain took part in an investigation which determined that Julian was a political refugee and that a great miscarriage of justice had been imposed on him. It is very good that you are doing this, Dennis, because even in the media outside the mainstream, there is this silence about Julian. The streets outside the embassy are virtually empty, whereas they should be full of people saying that we are with you. The principles involved in this case are absolutely clear-cut. Number one is justice. The injustice done to this man is legion, both in terms of the bogus Swedish case and now the fact that he must remain in the embassy and can’t leave without being arrested, extradited to the United States and ending up in a hell hole. But it is also about freedom of speech, about our right to know, which is enshrined in the United States Constitution. If the Constitution were taken literally, Julian would be a constitutional hero, actually. Instead, I understand the indictment they are trying to concoct reads like a charge of espionage! It’s so ridiculous.That is the situation as I see it, Dennis. It is not a happy one but it is one that people should rally to quickly. DB: His journalistic brethren are sounding like his prosecutors. They want to get behind Russia-gate freaks like Congressman Adam Schiff and Mike Pompeo, who would like to see Assange in jail forever or even executed. How do you respond to journalists acting like prosecutors, some of whom used his material to do stories? This is a terrible time for journalism. JP: You are absolutely right: It is a terrible time for journalism. I have never known anything quite like it in my career. That said, it is not new. There has always been a so-called mainstream which really comes down to great power in media. It has always existed, particularly in the United States. The Pulitzer Prize this year was awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for witch-hunting around Russia-gate! They were praised for “how deeply sourced their investigations were.” Their investigations turned up not a shred of real evidence to suggest any serious Russian intervention in the 2016 election. Like Webb The Julian Assange case reminds me of the Gary Webb case. Bob Parry was one of Gary Webb’s few supporters in the media. Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series contained evidence that cocaine trafficking was going on with the connivance of the CIA. Later Webb was hounded by fellow journalists and, unable to find work, he eventually committed suicide. The CIA Inspector General subsequently vindicated him. Now, Julian Assange is a long way from taking his own life. His resilience is remarkable. But he is still a human being and he has taken such a battering. Probably the hardest thing for him to take is the utter hypocrisy of news organizations—like The New York Times, which published the WikiLeaks “War Logs” and “Cablegate,” The Washington Post and The Guardian, which has taken a vindictive delight in tormenting Julian. The Guardian a few years ago got a Pulitzer Prize writing about Snowden. But their coverage of Snowden left him in Hong Kong. It was WikiLeaks that got Snowden out of Hong Kong and to safety. Professionally, I find this one of the most unsavory and immoral things I have seen in my career. The persecution of this man by huge media organizations which have drawn great benefit from WikiLeaks. One of Assange’s great tormentors, The Guardian‘s Luke Harding, made a great deal of money with a Hollywood version of a book that he and David Lee wrote in which they basically attacked their source. I suppose you have to be a psychiatrist to understand all of this. My understanding is that so many of these journalists are shamed. They realize that WikiLeaks has done what they should have done a long time ago, and that is to tell us how governments lie. DB: One thing that disturbs me greatly is the way in which the Western corporate press speculate about Russian involvement in the U.S. 2016 election, that it was a hack through Julian Assange. Any serious investigator would want to know who would be motivated. And yet the possibility that it might be the dozen or so pissed-off people who went to work for the Clinton machine and learned from the inside that the DNC was all about getting rid of Bernie Sanders…this is not a part of the story! Eight Hundred Thousand Disclosures on Russia JP: What happened to Sanders and the way that he was rolled by the Clinton organization, everybody knows that this is the story. And now we have the DNC suing WikiLeaks! There’s a kind of farcical element to this. I mean, none of this came from the Russians. That WikiLeaks is somehow in bed with the Russians is ludicrous. WikiLeaks published about 800,000 major disclosures about Russia, some of them extremely critical of the Russian government. If you are a government and you are doing something untoward or you are lying to your people and WikiLeaks gets the documents to show it, they will publish no matter who you are, be they the United States or Russia. DB: Randy Credico, because of his work and his decision to devote a very high-profile series to the persecution of Julian Assange, recently found himself under attack. He went to the White House Press Roast and, after having a nice discussion with Congressman Schiff, he yelled out “What about Julian Assange?” The room was packed full of reporters but Randy was attacked and dragged out. It was if everyone there was embarrassed to recognize that one of their brethren was being brutalized. JP: Randy shouted some truth. It is very similar to what happened to Ray McGovern. Ray is a former member of the CIA but extremely principled. I might suggest he is a renegade now. DB: It was hysterical to watch these four armed guards who kept shouting “Stop resisting, stop resisting!” and they are beating the hell out of him! JP: I thought the image of Ray being hauled off was particularly telling. These four overweight, obviously ill-trained young men manhandling Ray, who is 78 years old. There was something highly emblematic about that for me. He stood up to challenge the fact that the CIA was about to hand over leadership to a person who had been in charge of torture. It is both shocking and surreal, which of course the Julian Assange case is as well. But real journalism should be able to get through the shocking and the surreal and get to the truth. There is so much collusion now, with all these dark and menacing developments. It is almost as if the word “journalism” is becoming blighted. DB: There has certainly been a lot of collusion when it comes to Israel. Then the word “collusion” is quite appropriate. JP:That’s the ultimate collusion. But that’s collusion with silence. Never has there been a collusion like the one between the U.S. and Israel. It suggests another word and that is “immunity.” It has a moral immunity, a cultural immunity, a geopolitical immunity, a legal immunity, and certainly a media immunity. We see the gunning down of over 60 people on the day of the inauguration of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. Israel has some of the most wickedly experimental munitions in the world and they fired them at people who were protesting the occupation of their homeland and trying to remind people of the Nakba and the right of return. In the media these were described as “clashes.” Although they did become so bad that The New York Times in a later edition changed its front page headline to say that Israel was actually killing people. A rare moment, indeed, when the immunity, the collusion was interrupted. All the talk of Iran and nuclear weapons is without any reference to the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East. DB: What would you say have been the contributions that Julian Assange has made in this age of censorship and cowardice in journalism? Where does he come into the picture? JP:I think it comes down to information. If you go back to when WikiLeaks started, when Julian was sitting in his hotel room in Paris beginning to put the whole thing together, one of the first things he wrote was that there is a morality in transparency, that we have a right to know what those who wish to control our lives are doing in secret. The right to know what governments are doing in our name—on our behalf or to our detriment—is our moral right. Julian feels very passionately about this. There were times when he could have compromised slightly in order to possibly help his situation. There were times when I said to him, “Why don’t you just suspend that for a while and go along with it?” Of course, I knew beforehand what his answer would be and that was “no.” The enormous amount of information that has come from WikiLeaks, particularly in recent years, has amounted to an extraordinary public service. I was reading just the other day a 2006 WikiLeaks cable from the U.S. embassy in Caracas which was addressed to other agencies in the region. This was four years after the U.S. tried to get rid of Chavez in a coup. It detailed how subversion should work. Of course, they dressed it up as human rights work and so on. I was reading this official document thinking how the information contained in it was worth years of the kind of distorted reporting from Venezuela. It also reminds us that so-called “meddling” by Russia in the U.S. is just nonsense. The word “meddling” doesn’t apply to the kind of action implied in this document. It is intervention in another country’s affairs. WikiLeaks has done that all over the world. It has given people the information they have a right to have. They had a right to find out from the so-called “War Logs” the criminality of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They had a right to find out about Cablegate. That’s when, on Clinton’s watch, we learned that the NSA was gathering personal information on members of the United Nations Security Council, including their credit card numbers. You can see why Julian made enemies. But he should also have made a huge number of friends. This is critical information because it tells us how power works and we will never learn about it otherwise. I think WikiLeaks has opened a world of transparency and put flesh on the expression “right to know.” This must explain why he is attacked so much, because that is so threatening. The enemy to great power is not the likes of the Taliban, it is us. DB: And who can forget the release of the “collateral murder” footage by Chelsea Manning? JP: That kind of thing is not uncommon. Vietnam was meant to be the open war but really it wasn’t. There weren’t the cameras around. It is indeed shocking information but it informs people, and we have Chelsea Manning’s courage to thank for that. DB: Yes, and the thanks he got was seven years in solitary confinement. They want to prosecute Assange and maybe hang him from the rafters in Congress, but what about Judith Miller and The New York Times lying the West into war? There is no end of horrific examples of what passes for journalism, in contrast to the amazing contribution that Julian Assange has made. Click here to listen to this interview.

National Data | December Jobs—TRUMP EFFECT! American Worker Displacement, Immigrant Population, Black Unemployment ALL DECLINE! | Articles ) Forget the Wolff book brouhaha and Trump’s latest DACA dalliance —the real story is outside the Beltway , where real people live and work. December marked the fifth month in a row in which the immigrant working-age population ( legal and illegal declined from the same month of the prior year. Simultaneously, immigrant displacement of American workers fell, also apparently confirming a trend that began in September. And, by the way, black unemployment is at a record low. What started after the 2016 election as a reduction in the rate of increase in the foreign-born population of working age has turned into an outright retreat. This is in dramatic contrast to the last months of the Obama Regime, which saw year-over-year increases in immigrant working-age population far in excess of the estimated 1 million legal immigrants admitted annually, and which I argued meant that an unreported illegal alien surge was underway. According to the Labor Department employment report released last Friday, December there were 77,000 fewer working-age immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country in December 2017 than in December 2016—a decline of 0.18%. This follows year-over-year drops of 138,000 in August, 143,000 in September, and 117,000 in October, and 64,000 in November. Not since the Great Recession has the foreign-born working-age population declined for five consecutive months—but now, in telling contrast, the economy is expanding. This makes the Trump Era immigrant workforce decline especially striking. Note that this is a net figure. The year-over- year reduction in the immigrant working-age population does not mean new immigrants have stopped coming in. About 300,000 immigrants die annually, and an equal number leave (voluntarily or otherwise), according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. [U.S. Immigrant Population Hit Record 43.7 Million in 2016, By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler,October 16, 2017] So the 77,000 reduction in working-age immigrants from December 2016 to December 2017 is consistent with a gross inflow of about 500,000 new foreign-born workers (legal and illegal) over that period—the gross inflow more than offset by the gross reduction of 600,000 due to deaths, deportations, and immigrant emigrants. This helps explain why a reduction in the immigrant workforce population reduction is compatible with reports of a recent increase in illegal immigration on the U.S. southwest border (albeit still less than at the end of the Obama Regime). The additional good news: Native-born American workers took all the jobs created this month, according to the Household Survey, which records workers’ immigrant status (but not their legal status). The Household Survey reported 103,000 jobs were created last month—well below the 148,000 figure found by the far more widely-cited Payroll Survey. In December 2017: Immigrant employment fell by 246,000, down by 0.93% Native-born American employment rose a whopping 349,000 – up 0.27% The immigrant employment index, set to 100.0 in January 2009, fell from 122.0 to 120.9. The native-born American employment index rose from 105.8 to 106.0.. The New VDARE American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI), our term for the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes, fell fromto(100X (120.9/106.0)) Trump may not have delivered (yet) on his promise to bring back the factory and coal jobs so many of his supporters lost during the Obama years. But by shrinking the pool of immigrants willing to do that work, he has put more money in pockets of his voters. While overall wage growth remains modest – 2.5% per annum in December – Blue collar workers have beat this by a wide margin: “It is commonly said that wage stagnation contributed to an economic anxiety in middle America that carried Donald Trump into the White House…Yet Mr. Trump’s rise seems to have coincided with a turnaround in fortunes for the middle class. … The latest development—one that will be of particular interest to Mr. Trump—is that blue-collar wages have begun to rocket. …In the year [2017] to the third quarter, wage and salary growth for the likes of factory workers, builders and drivers easily outstripped that for professionals and managers. In some cases, blue-collar pay growth now exceeds 4%…” Blue-collar wages are surging. Can it last?, The Economist, Magazine, November 14th 2017 Eleven months of Trump has not come close to undoing the damage done by eight years of Obama. Native-born American workers lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years and this trend accelerated significantly in the months leading up to the election: Can't render, error Native-born American employment growth is represented by the black line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born American job growth—is in blue. Another way of looking at American worker displacement: the immigrant share of total U.S. employment rose steadily, albeit erratically, throughout the Obama years. It fell sharply in the months after the 2016 election, but roared back to Obama-era levels in the spring. Immigrants held 16.99% of total jobs in December, a significant drop from November’s 17.16% share. Can't render, error A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is available in the Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Nativity table published in the monthly BLS Report. Over the last 12 months (December 2016 to December 2017): The native-born American labor force (employed plus looking for work) grew twice as fast as the immigrant labor force: 0.63% versus 0.30%. ADVANTAGE AMERICANS as the immigrant labor force: 0.63% versus 0.30%. American employment grew 57% faster than immigrant employment: 1.27% versus 0.81%. ADVANTAGE AMERICANS The labor-force participation rate (LPR), a sign of worker confidence and mobility, rose by 0.6 points for immigrants and was unchanged for native-born Americans. At 65.3%, the immigrant LPR this December was considerably above the native-born American rate (61.9%.) ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The number of unemployed Americans fell by 763,000—down 12.7%, while the number of unemployed immigrants fell 129,000—down by 11%. ADVANTAGE AMERICANS Another piece of good news, quite possibly connected to the shrinking of the immigrant working age population, caught our eye: The unemployment rate for black Americans fell to 6.8% in December , the lowest level since the Labor Department began tracking the figure in 1972. [ U.S. economy added 2 million jobs in 2017 , by Patrick Gillespie, CNNMoney, January 5, 2018] By removing foreign competitors, Trump may have done more for blacks in 11 months than Obama did in eight years. Of course, this could be affected by statistical noise—and it could be undone by e.g. a DACA capitulation. But right now it increasingly appears the Trump Effect is real—and achieved entirely through enhanced enforcement. What could happen if the GOP-controlled Congress woke up and enacted an immigration moratorium? Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants.

J Street "Kapos" May Un-Endorse Dem Rep Over "Jewish Question" Anti-Israel activist group J Street was very outraged when its leaders were described as "Kapos". The comparison of the Soros funded group that has stood with Hamas over Israel with Jews who were forced to collaborate with the Nazis during the Holocaust was indeed insulting. To Kapos. Jews under Nazi rule may have been forced to collaborate. No one forced J Street to collaborate with anti-Semites. And here's J Street trying to decide whether to stop endorsing a Democrat who pals around with Farrakhan and defended him by mentioning the "Jewish question." Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The "Jewish Question" is a term generally used by anti-Semites today. But J Street is stuck with its own Jewish Question. How much anti-Semitism is too much even for it. Left-wing advocacy group J Street said it is re-evaluating its endorsement of a congressman who praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. JStreetPAC, the arm of the NGO that funds and endorses candidates, currently lists Rep. Danny Davis, an Illinois Democrat from the virulently anti-Semitic Farrakhan’s home base of Chicago, as a candidate it supports. The endorsement, first reported in the Forward, calls Davis “a longtime supporter of Israel and a two-state solution.” In J Street's home dimension of Oceania, supporter of Israel means Farrakhan supporter. “We take anti-Semitism quite seriously,” J Street’s statement read. “We are currently in conversation with Representative Davis’ office about this issue. We will get back to you shortly with a more extensive response.” So seriously that J Street can't decide what to do about a politician who defends a Hitler-lover and raises the Jewish Question. That's serious all right. Seriously Kapo.

Teen Who Had MAGA Hat Ripped Off Head Gets New One Signed By Trump Sixteen-year-old Hunter Richard was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat while enjoying a calm dinner at a Whataburger in Texas when a stranger, now identified as 30-year-old Kino Jimenez, yanked it off his head and threw a soda in his face. But Richard now has a new hat, and it was signed by Donald Trump himself! *Please note that the below video contains racial slurs and could be considered violent to some.  Jimenez was later arrested and shortly thereafter fired from his job for ripping off Richard’s hat and stealing it. “This is gonna go right in my f**king fireplace, b***h,” Jimenez said, acting like a bully for stealing a teenager’s hat. Jimenez also threw a soda in Richard’s face. Richard’s hat appeared to be gone for good until the video of the incident went viral and he received a new MAGA hat signed by the president himself, reported The Daily Wire. Among those who commented on the video’s original posting was Donald Trump Jr., who retweeted a story about the assault against the teenager. “If someone can get me this young man’s information I’ll get him a new #maga hat… SIGNED by #potus!! !” he wrote on Twitter. If someone can get me this young man’s information I’ll get him a new #maga hat… SIGNED by #potus!!! https://t.co/zHBz4gKpkf — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 5, 2018 “Teen who made national news after having #MAGA hat stolen at a San Antonio fast food restaurant just got this in the mail. A hat signed by @realDonaldTrump,” Joe Gallow wrote on Twitter. #Update: Teen who made national news after having #MAGA hat stolen at a San Antonio fast food restaurant just got this in the mail. A hat signed by @realDonaldTrump. See the video: https://t.co/LAUcjERTNc @News4SA @KABBFOX29 pic.twitter.com/akzNSp4ps8 — Joe Galli (@JoeGalliNews) July 11, 2018 Richard told media outlets that he’s been a bit surprised by everything that’s happened since the video was posted online. “I didn’t think it was going to generate the amount like what people are doing, I was looking at the comments by some people and ‘they are like this is uncalled for’ and other people are like mixed opinions but I didn’t think it would blow up to what it is now,” he said to News-4 San Antonio.

SPECIAL REPORT: Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases The incident was brief: on the Thursday of the pope’s week-long South American trip, in response to an impromptu question tossed out by a Chilean reporter, the pope responded in what one reporter described as a “snippy tone”: “The day I see proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk. There is not a single piece of evidence against him. It is all calumny. Is that clear?” This month has been quite a spectacle, even for this pontificate; an apparently unending stream of outrages and embarrassments, with the pope and his Vatican media support jumping from one scandal to the next. But among secular reporters the sex abuse issue trumps all others and the fallout continues to blaze down on the Bergoglian pontificate in response to his amazing accusation earlier this month that victims of sexual abuse by clergy were engaging in “calumny,” in their accusations against a Chilean bishop, Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid. It seems the shine is coming off the papal penny among leftist secular journalists, his natural constituency. Writing for the Boston Globe, the paper that first broke the clerical sex abuse scandals all the way back in 2001, Kevin Cullen wrote, “Let the record show that the promise of Pope Francis died in Santiago, Chile, on Jan. 18, in the year of our Lord 2018… he has revealed himself like no one else could.” But it gets worse than this. When a “leftist” pope pressing a secularist agenda on the Church starts to lose the support of Michael Sean Winters and the National Catholic Reporter, he must know he’s in trouble. Though he’s “sticking with Francis” for now, Winters wrote, “I wish I knew what it was about Pope Francis that makes him fail to grasp the situation with Bishop Barros, the pain caused to the victims and the damage done to the church. I am gobsmacked that the pope twice declined to accept the bishop’s resignation.” On January 23rd, an unsigned NCR editorial opined, “Within the space of four days, Pope Francis twice slandered abuse survivors.” “These remarks are at the least shameful. At the most, they suggest that Francis now could be complicit in the cover-up. The script is all too familiar: Discredit the survivors’ testimony, support the prelate in question, and bank on public attention moving on to something else. “The insistence with which Francis defends Barros is mystifying. Three separate journalists on the papal flight gave the pope opportunity to say why exactly he believed the bishop instead of the survivors accusing him. The second journalist to ask Francis about Barros on the flight was a Chilean woman. As she spoke to the pope, her voice cracked with nervousness at questioning the church’s top leader. She asked: ‘Why are not the victims’ testimonies proof for you? Why do you not believe them?’ The pope gave no satisfying answer, only repeating a claim of ‘no evidence’ against the bishop.” Indeed, it was understood, as the Washington Post said, that Francis’ trip to Latin America – dogged by protests over Barros both in person at the pope’s appearances and in the press – was in part intended as “an apology tour” to abuse survivors. Which is why his accusation of calumny against those same victims the next day came as such a shock to observers unused to Bergoglio’s ability to turn on a dime. All was going as planned. On Wednesday, January 17, the pope met as scheduled with selected survivors of sexual abuse by priests. He made all the right noises, talking about his “pain and shame,” and reportedly even crying, at what happened. “I know the pain of these cases of child abuse and I am following how much is needed to overcome this serious and painful evil,” he said. 24 hours later he was calling them liars. James Hamilton, 49 and now a doctor, was one of the Barros accusers. He told the BBC at a press conference, “What the Pope has done today is offensive and painful, and not only against us, but against everyone seeking to end the abuses.” The lead voice of the victims in Chile, Juan Carlos Cruz, tweeting to one of Francis’s leading apologists, Austen Ivereigh, said, “Does he need a photo, a selfie, as proof? Sorry Austen, we didn’t think of it as we were being abused and Juan Barros watching.” Although the issue came to the attention of a much broader audience during the most recent papal trip, the outcry has been ongoing since his appointment to the southern Chilean diocese of Osorno in 2015. Barros was a student protégée of the charismatic homosexual/pederast predator Fernando Karadima, and went on to be ordained in 1984, made bishop in 1995 and appointed as bishop of the armed forces. Barros claimed in court that the first he knew of Karadima’s offenses was on a Chilean television programme in 2010. This is refuted by Karadima’s victims – deemed credible both by the secular courts and the Vatican tribunal – who testified that he personally witnessed the abuse at Sacred Heart of Jesus church in Santiago. Last Thursday, however, was not the first time Francis, confronted unexpectedly in public over the Barros question, has responded testily and with insults. In 2015 the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano published a video of him scolding two women who spoke with him in St. Peter’s Piazza, asking that he reconsider the appointment, citing the “suffering” of the Church in Chile over the issue. The pope told the women, “The Church has lost its freedom, letting its head fill with politicians and accusing a bishop without having any proof, after twenty years of service, so think with your head.” He warned them not to allow themselves to be led by “leftists who have set up this thing.” “The only charge against this bishop has been discredited by the Court of Justice, so please do not lose your serenity, you suffer, but because you are foolish...I am the first to judge and punish those accused of similar crimes, but in this case there is not even a proof.” The insults were not forgotten. Among the signs held by protesters in Chile last week were those reading, “Ni zurdos, ni tontos,” (Neither lefties nor stupid). The jab certainly wasn’t lost on Francis, since the signs were being held by protesters the full length of his auto route to Santiago from the airport. One of the protesters told the BBC, “He doesn’t even know us, so how can he accuse us of being such things? He thinks we are politically motivated even though we come from different parishes in Osorno and are doing this because we are against priests being allowed to abuse children.” Apparently His Holiness was informed that the “calumny” comment had caused some blow-back because a couple of days later we got something touted – though somewhat skeptically – as a “contrite” papal apology. This also followed an astonishing public rebuke of the pope by Sean Cardinal O’Malley – a member of the C9 council of cardinals and the former head of the pope’s sex abuse commission – who said, “It is understandable that Pope Francis’ statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator.” “Pope Francis fully recognizes the egregious failures of the Church and its clergy who abused children and the devastating impact those crimes have had on survivors and their loved ones,” O’Malley said. Of course, Francis being Francis the apology was banked around with assertions of how right he was. “I have to ask forgiveness because the word ‘proof’ wounded,” he said. “It wounded many people who were abused…I ask them for forgiveness because I wounded them without realizing it, but it was an unintended wound. And this horrified me a lot, because I had received them.” “And I know how much they suffer, to feel that the Pope says in their face ‘bring me a letter, a proof.’ It’s a slap. And I agree that my expression was not apt, because I didn’t think.” He doubled down, saying, “I have not heard any victim of Barros. They did not come, they did not show themselves, they did not give evidence in court. It’s all in the air. It is true that Barros was in Karadima’s group of young people. But let us be clear: if you accuse someone without evidence with pertinacity, that is calumny.” “This is what I can say with sincerity. Barros will remain there if I don’t find a way to condemn him. I cannot condemn him if I don’t have – I don’t say proof – but evidence. And there are many ways to get evidence. Is that clear?” This “contrite” papal apology didn’t fly well even with the regular news reporters. Philip Pullela, a reporter on the plane for Reuters, described it as “an extremely rare act of self-criticism,” for the “unusually contrite” Bergoglio, and noted that, “While the pope has vowed ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual abuse, his efforts have sputtered.” Indeed, Francis claim that he met with and heard the “pain” of the victims is untrue in the specific case in hand. CBS News reports that though the Osorno group had tried to obtain a meeting during the trip they were refused. Greg Burke, the pope’s press officer, confirmed that “no papal meetings were planned with the Osorno group, which had formally requested to meet with the pope in July but were told by Vatican organizers that his schedule was already final, some six months before the trip.” Who is Barros? Some may remember a video that made the internet rounds of an uproar in a Chilean cathedral at the installation ceremony of a bishop. At the time it didn’t draw much attention from the English language press – mostly at that time distracted by the ongoing battle of the notorious Kasper Proposal and the oncoming Synods. But despite the pope’s claim, the charges against Barros are serious and have been deemed credible by a judge. He is accused of having covered up sexual abuse, including destroying evidence, committed by Karadima in the ‘80s and ‘90s. In fact – and this point has tended to get glossed over in the press – Barros is accused by the victims of having been in the room, watching at the time, and of engaging in sexual activity with Karadima. This is not, therefore, merely a matter of a bishop or colleague discovering the abuse after the fact, but of being a voyeuristic participant. Juan Carlos Cruz, told the press in 2015 that he and another boy – both in their teens at the time – “would lie down on the priest’s [Karadima’s] bed, one resting his head at the man’s shoulder, another sitting near his feet. The priest would kiss the boys and grope them, he said, all while the Rev. Juan Barros watched.” Cruz, now a 51-year-old “gay” journalist, told The Associated Press, “Barros was there, and he saw it all.” A Vatican investigation found Karadima guilty in 2011 and sentenced him to a life of seclusion in a monastery for “penitence and prayer.” Note that date; 2011 was when the processes for investigating and trying priest-abusers, put in place by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, were still in effect, and while he was still sitting on the Petrine throne. Things are a bit different now. Neither was the complaint against Barros without the support of responsible people. The media reported that over 1,300 Catholic faithful in Osorno, including 30 priests of the diocese and 51 members of Parliament, wrote to the pope asking him to rescind the appointment – none of which received any response. Fr. Peter Kleigel, a priest of Osorno, told Associated Press, “We’re convinced that this appointment is not correct because, following canon law, a bishop must be well-regarded. We need a bishop who’s credible.” The problem with getting the news out about Karadima, as in most of these cases, was the bishop, in this case Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz of Santiago, who after the Conclave of 2013 was appointed a member of Pope Francis’s C9 inner council. It was certainly never a secret that Errázuriz was a close, like-minded friend and collaborator of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, the kingpin of South American Catholicism. Allegations against Karadima – that went back to 1962 – had certainly been reported to Church authorities well before a Chilean news agency revealed the case in 2010, but were ignored by Errázuriz. Even the National Catholic Reporter in 2014 pointed to the cover up and the relationship between the new pope and the accused cardinals, “Hamilton had applied for a marriage annulment, after telling his wife of a long psychosexual entanglement with Karadima that began when he was 17 in El Bosque. His wife confided in a priest, who told Errázuriz in 2006. When a canon lawyer and several priests close to the cardinal suggested that Hamilton not mention Karadima, he pressed on with his request in order to force the issue of punishment for the priest while having his marriage annulled. Again, Errázuriz refused to take action against Karadima.” The pope’s claim that there is “no evidence” flies in the face of the ruling of the civil judge in the Karadima case – a fact that ought to be of paramount consideration under the Vatican’s own rules for determining credibility in such cases. While Judge Jessica Gonzalez was forced to drop criminal charges because the statute of limitations had expired, she affirmed that testimony by Cruz and other victims was credible. After a full year of investigation, Gonzalez called their claims “truthful and reliable”. Victims said that a letter written to Church authorities complaining of Karadima’s abuse in 1982 was intercepted and destroyed by Barros, who was serving at the time as secretary to Cardinal Francisco Fresno, Errázuriz’s successor and collaborator. As for Barros’s general credibility as a Catholic bishop, the witness of the victims is damning. In a letter to Bishop Ivo Scapolo, papal nuncio to Chile, that Cruz gave to the Associated Press, he said he witnessed Karadima and Barros in an intimate relationship. “I saw Karadima and Juan Barros kissing and touching each other. The groping generally came from Karadima touching Barros’ genitals”. Barros has never denied having had a close friendship with Karadima. Hamilton confirmed this saying, “I saw how Barros watched it all.” And the matter didn’t end in 2010. Emails published in Chile in 2015 showed that Cardinal Errázuriz also blocked the appointment of Juan Carlos Cruz from the new child protection commission – a group plagued by such scandals and eventually ignored to death by Francis. Which brings us to Francis Bergoglio’s own record in this area. The pope claimed “I am the first to judge and punish those accused of similar crimes,” but this claim is not supported by the reality. Indeed, it has been pointed out that Francis has gone to considerable lengths to dismantle the efforts of his predecessor at “safeguarding” young people, punishing abusers and removing bishops who cover it up. In the case of Barros, the Associated Press obtained a confidential letter from Pope Francis dated 2015 that “reveals the [Chilean] bishops’ concern about Francis naming a Karadima protégé, Bishop Juan Barros.” Just days before the pope’s “calumny” comment, January 11, AP reported that Francis had full knowledge of the controversy he risked in appointing Barros to Osorno. “[H]is ambassador in Chile had tried to find a way to contain the damage well before the case made headlines.” The letter, addressed to the executive committee of the Chilean bishops’ conference, said, “Thank you for having openly demonstrated the concern that you have about the appointment of Monsignor Juan Barros. I understand what you’re telling me and I’m aware that the situation of the church in Chile is difficult due to the trials you’ve had to undergo.” The letter said that in 2014 the nuncio, Archbishop Scapolo, had asked Barros to resign as bishop of the armed forces and had “encouraged him to take a sabbatical year before assuming any other pastoral responsibility as a bishop.” There can also be little doubt the new pope was fully aware of the record of his close friend Cardinal Errázuriz in ignoring complaints of Karadima’s victims when he appointed him to the C9 council. And even if he didn’t then, he certainly knows now, and yet Errazuriz continues in that advisory role. Francis further appointed Cardinal Errázuriz to serve as his Special Envoy to World Apostolic Congress Of Mercy III meeting in Bogotá, Colombia in June 2014. Since 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger and later as Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sexual abuse; Francis in his short five years has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes. Among the earliest indications Catholics had that the new pope had no intention of getting to the bottom of the priest-abuser problem was his appointment of the notorious homosexual, Monsignor Battista Ricca, as head of the Vatican Bank and the man in charge of his own residence, the Casa Santa Martha. It is often forgotten that Bergoglio’s notorious comment “who am I to judge” was in response to a question on a plane-presser about Ricca, and was followed with a similar claim from Francis about there having been no proof of his misbehaviour. As the pseudonymous Marcantonio Colonna wrote in the book, “The Dictator Pope,” “In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.” But even before this was the sinister appearance of Godfried Cardinal Danneels on the loggia on the night of Francis’s election to the papacy. Danneels’s prominence in the Bergoglian pontificate continues to be the most prominent indicator of the pope’s deprioritising of clerical sexual abuse. The former head of the Brussels archdiocese was a leading figure in the so-called St. Gallen Group, which he himself described as a “mafia,” who had worked against the election of Joseph Ratzinger in 2005 and to elect Bergoglio in 2013. At the end of a long career as Europe’s leading “liberal” Catholic prelate, Danneels came under a cloud of scandal when he was accused of having covered for a protégé bishop who admitted to having sexually abused his own minor nephew. In 2010 the publication of an audio recording determined undeniably that Danneels had told the victim to keep quiet and not cause trouble for the soon-to-retire Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges. The cardinal even went so far as to suggest that the victim should “ask forgiveness” for his own role in the scandal. Before the recordings were released, Danneels had also denied all knowledge of sexual abuse by clergy or cover-ups. In the book, Colonna asks the question, “What happened to ‘Zero Tolerance’ for clerical sexual offenders?” He wrote that data presented by the Vatican the UN Human Rights Commission in January 2014 showed that Benedict XVI “had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012,” including the notorious Fr. Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Crucially, it was Ratzinger who moved the competence for sex abuse cases from the Congregation for Bishops to Doctrine of the Faith, with powers to suspend and punish offenders. His reforms specifically included bishops who had refused to act against priest-abusers. A senior member of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendia, confirmed this, saying, “This Pope has removed two or three bishops per month throughout the world... There have been two or three instances in which they said no, and so the Pope simply removed them.” These reforms – and removals – have ceased entirely under Francis. Despite his claims that he punishes the guilty, it was in fact Francis who reversed the previous, Benedict-era sentence against the notorious Italian priest-pederast Mario Inzoli at the request of the now-equally notorious Cardinal Coccopalmerio. Inzoli was found guilty in 2012 by an ecclesiastical court of abusing boys as young as twelve and suspended. Inzoli had even abused boys in the confessional, convincing them that the abuse was approved by God. Following an appeal by Coccopalmerio, Francis reduced the priest’s penalty to a “lifetime of prayer,” with permission to say Mass privately, and a promise to stay away from children. The uproar over this caused the Italian prosecutors to reopen the case against the priest, and eventually Inzoli went to prison and was laicized. As for Ratzinger/Benedict’s procedural reforms, rumours continue to circulate that the pope intends to reverse them as well, placing competence back into the hands of the same dicastery that held it when the scandals broke in 2001. This has been denied by Greg Burke, but given Francis’s usual methods, it’s anyone’s guess who in reality is actually dealing with these cases, if anyone. A tribunal of bishops, requested by his own sex abuse commission, was ignored and then Francis summarily removed two of the CDF staffers in charge of handling such cases, famously refusing to give any reasons to CDF prefect Cardinal Müller who was soon to be dismissed. In fact, the chaos and lack of commitment on the issue has come under harsh criticism from at least one member of the pope’s now-defunct sex abuse commission, a loudly trumpeted part of Bergoglio’s early scheme of reform. Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor, was appointed in 2014 to the new Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. She resigned in 2017, citing “Vatican officials’ reluctance to cooperate with its work to protect children.” Collins released a damning statement, indicating that the commission had never seriously intended to change or reform anything. She said none of the commission’s recommendations had been implemented. “The reluctance of some in the Vatican Curia to implement recommendations or cooperate with the work of a commission when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable,” Collins wrote. As of December last year, the commission has been allowed to lapse, and no longer functions, though it has not been definitively dissolved. The terms of office of its members expired December 17th. This week Collins tweeted her question for Pope Francis on the Chilean situation: “Why does the Pope not believe these three men? They have been consistent over years in what they say. When asked why he believes his fellow cleric and not the survivors he can give no good reason.” Why indeed.

Exposing the Deep State Plotters President Trump’s sweeping order this week directing intelligence agencies to declassify documents from the more than 18-month-old investigation related to the Left’s electoral collusion conspiracy theory involving Trump and Russia may shed light on what really happened in the 2016 election. In an interview with Hill.TV yesterday, the president said he ordered the mass declassification to show the public that the FBI investigation of the conspiracy theory began as a “hoax.” Exposing it could be one of the “crowning achievements” of his presidency, he said. “What we’ve done is a great service to the country, really,” he said. “I hope to be able to call this, along with tax cuts and regulation and all the things I’ve done… in its own way this might be the most important thing because this was corrupt.” Trump criticized how the FBI handled the Russia probe, accusing it of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, and of spying on his campaign. “They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used [former Trump campaign aide] Carter Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he’s been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States.” “It’s a hoax, beyond a witch hunt,” Trump said. The documents affected involve a FISA warrant against Carter Page and text messages from disgraced ex-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. (Carter Page is not related to Lisa Page.) Although the conspiracy theory is baseless nonsense, it continues to dog the Trump administration, providing cable television news outlets and late-night talk show hosts with endless fodder in the 24-hour news cycle. When Trump defenders have fought back, social media companies have colluded with the Left to silence and intimidate them. This declassification effort won’t make things any worse than they are for President Trump. It may even prove a political masterstroke of sorts for Trump. How else does one fight back against the nameless, faceless bureaucrats of the Deep State who hide behind anonymity to undermine the duly elected 45th president of the United States? Make the documents public and let the chips fall where they may. There is so much leftist dirt to uncover. For example, it was established some time ago that former President Obama was involved on some level in this shameful un-American plot to rig the 2016 election and undermine his successor by using the privacy-invading apparatus of the state. Obama wanted “to know everything” the FBI was doing in its investigation into claims that Russia was interfering in the 2016 election. Specifically, the statement that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing” came in a private Sept. 2, 2016, text message from FBI lawyer Lisa Page to FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an extramarital affair at the time. (The exact message, time-stamped 1:50 p.m., reads "Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are doing.") In a separate text message to Page, Strzok wrote something cryptic about an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump got elected. Apparently, he was referring to the salacious, unverified dossier Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid rent-a-spy Christopher Steele to compile that purports to show Trump’s nefarious links to Russia. President Trump ordered that the relevant documents be released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency,” read a statement issued by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump ordered the “immediate declassification” of “pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page,” “all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation,” and “all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.” Trump also ordered the “the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.” The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes (R -Calif.), reportedly hailed Trump’s order, saying it covers “pretty much everything that he wanted … and the text messages are a bonus.” A handful of Democratic lawmakers alarmed at the prospect of being exposed as frauds and publicly humiliated wrote Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday. The letter, which is an attempt to usurp the powers vested in the president, asks the three agencies to defy the presidential directive. "Your agencies' review, and any communication with the White House on the substance of the material, should not proceed further until you have briefed the Gang of Eight in person." It claims that Trump’s declassification request constitutes improper intervention “in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him.” The authors of the letter even lie about the nature of the broad-based request, claiming Trump is selectively declassifying information to save himself. “The action he has taken, to direct your agencies to selectively disclose classified information that he believes he can manipulate publicly to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Special Counsel’s [Robert Mueller] investigation, is a brazen abuse of power.” The missive is signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who is vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Intelligence agencies have already reportedly begun working to carry out the president’s orders and the first set of documents could be made public in a few days. “When the President issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House Counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department official told Fox News. “The Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.” Coats spokeswoman Kellie Wade also said that the agency was “working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification.” According to Fox News: The documents include all FBI reports on interviews, also known as 302s, with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with applications to surveil Carter Page, as well as 21 pages of one renewed warrant. The 21 pages make up only a small portion of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in a heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year. In comments to reporters and on Twitter, President Trump has been blasting Strzok and Page for months over their inappropriate behavior. Ditto for former FBI Director James Comey and one of his deputies, Andrew McCabe. Trump fired Comey in May 2017 and Attorney General Jeff Sessions canned McCabe in March. Page left the FBI in May and Strzok got the axe last month. That means there are still thousands of unaccountable Deep State operatives in the Trump administration that have yet to be dealt with.

French Authorities Blame Attack by Muslim Shouting, "Allahu Akbar" on "Excitement" Over-excitement is a serious problem in the Muslim world. And outside it. While the 69-year-old Jewish man (wearing a kippah on his head) was coming out of the synagogue, heading for a bakery near 17 rue Pelleport in Paris 20 th, he was attacked by a 19-year-old man, of North African descent, who hit him on the body and on the head, knocked down, pulled by the hair and beaten while shouting "Allah Akbar". Long live Hitler, to death the Jews. " It can't be a case of Muslim Judeophobia. (That would be Islamophobic.) And since we're in Europe, it's time to default to the standard excuse, mental illness, current flavor, over-excitement. The police quickly intervened to save the victim who lodged a complaint. The anti-Semitic attacker was arrested and placed in police custody and then transferred to the psychiatric infirmary, on the recommendation of the doctor because of his observed state of excitement. It's okay. Getting really excited about Jews is a common problem among Muslim settlers in France. Earlier this month, the suspect in the alleged murder of a Jewish physician in Paris was deemed not responsible for his actions in a second psychiatric evaluation ordered by a judge even though the defense did not request it. The suspect, Traore Kobili, is scheduled to have a third evaluation to determine his ability to stand trial for the murder of Sarah Halimi in April 2017. He is alleged to have beaten her to death while calling her a demon and shouting about Allah before throwing her body from the window of her third-story apartment. They're all crazy in Europe. A Muslim terrorist stabbed four people at a train station near Munich while screaming, “Allahu Akbar”. In between proclaiming the glory of Allah, he also shouted that his victims were all “unbelievers”. A woman heard him say, “Infidel, you must die”. The German authorities came to the inescapable conclusion that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Instead the Muslim terrorist had been “mentally ill” and was probably not even fit to stand trial. And in Russia. Gyulchekhra Bobokulova beheaded a 4-year-old girl and displayed her head in the street while shouting, “Allahu Akbar. I hate democracy. I am a terrorist. I want you dead.” Faced with these bafflingly inscrutable statements, the authorities blamed mental illness. And Amsterdam. In May, Malek, a Syrian refugee, stabbed three people in The Hague while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” The Syrian had previously thanked the Dutch people for their hospitality by shouting, “Allahu Akbar,” and throwing pieces of furniture out of the window of his apartment and into the street. On the loose, Malek cut a man’s throat. He also stabbed two others. Police shot him in the leg, ruled out terrorism and blamed mental illness. In December of last year, Saleh Ali, a Syrian refugee wearing a keffiyah and waving a terrorist PLO flag, went up to a Jewish restaurant in Amsterdam, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and began smashing the windows. The police stood by and watched until he was done. And then they arrested him. Ali admitted to having fought with Jihadists in Syria. So the system decided that he needed a psychiatric evaluation Maybe it's not the terrorists who are nuts. Maybe it's the authorities who are insane.

Caught on video: Gillum staffer makes racist statements and admits campaign is lying to voters Caught on video: Gillum staffer makes racist statements and admits campaign is lying to voters In the latest Project Veritas midterm election sting, staffers working for Florida Democratic candidate for governor Andrew Gillum are caught on camera revealing Gillum’s campaign promises are lies and making racist statements about Florida voters. Omar Smith, a Gillum campaign staffer who went to college with the candidate, says on video that if Gillum is elected, none of the things outlined in his platform would happen. He says that “that’s not for [voters] to know.” “Remember our saying, modern-day fairy tales start with ‘once I am elected,'” Smith says. NEW VERITAS: FL Gov Candidate Staffer Who Went to College with Gillum: "Not for voters to know" programs won't happen, “Modern day fairy tales start with once I am elected” Florida is a "F***ed up" "cracker state" FULL REPORT: https://t.co/fjmYBsb30k pic.twitter.com/IIGkqzMfbr — PVeritas Action (@PVeritas_Action) November 1, 2018 GILLUM ELECTION STRATEGY: "You whip 'em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote" because Florida is a "F***ed up," "cracker state," "you have to appeal to white guilt" pic.twitter.com/d0fd85zLF8 — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 1, 2018 “The rules in Florida are f***ed up. Alright? This is a f***ed up ass state. It’s a cracker state,” Smith says, explaining that a progressive agenda cannot pass and using a racial slur against white voters. He points to specific campaign promises Gillum has made, including raising the corporate tax in Florida, raising teacher pay, and Medicare for All, admitting they are lies. So, let’s go back to Mr. Gillum’s platform, right? Raise the corporate tax in Florida from 7 to 11 percent. That will never happen. Raise teachers’ pay to $50,000; that will never happen. Give me another position. Medicare for all; that will never happen. The reason being, the legislature that write the bills is all Republican-controlled. Democratic governor, Republican legislature. So, unless the legislature writes a bill, and it got voted on the floor, it cannot pass. The full video shows Smith saying that the strategy to change the Florida legislature is to take “poor” and “middle income” people and “whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote.” He adds that “you have to appeal to white guilt.” Smith defines Gillum’s political beliefs as “part of the crazy crazy crazies” on the progressive Left. More damaging footage includes Democratic operatives explaining Gillum’s positions on gun control and indicating he would support banning AR-15 rifles. Florida Democrat Party community engagement specialist Adrian Young also admits on video that Gillum is not campaigning with that position because it would be unpopular with Florida voters. “I do think he’s not saying specifically like I’m going to ban bump stocks or I’m against ARs, only because he’s running a race right now. I do think he would support anybody doing that stuff, Bill Nelson. … But I don’t think he can say it just [be]cause he’s trying to get the moderates and the gun-toting people in North Florida.” “What we found in the Gillum campaign was just what we found in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona, a candidate lying to the voters he needs to win the election,” said Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe. The video evidence confirms that Gillum is lying to Florida voters. Will there be wall-to-wall coverage in the media eviscerating Gilllum for making promises he can’t keep? Will Gillum be asked to denounce his campaign staffer using a racial slur to demean white voters in Florida? Watch the full video:

Dina Powell, a Valerie Jarrett/Huma Abedin Pal, Should Not Be UN Ambassador President Trump came in promising to drain the swamp. Dina Powell is the swamp. You can see her out there at the Clinton Global Initiative, next to Samantha Power, palling around with Valerie Jarrett or Huma Abedin. Dina Habib Powell was an influential figure in the Bush administration. The Egyptian-American immigrant had served as a gatekeeper for George W. Bush. If you wanted a job, you went through her. Barely 30, Habib Powell had more power than many of the big Bush era names you do know. Then she took on the mission of promoting America to the Muslim world at the State Department. There were cultural exchanges with Iran and money for Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Afterward it was off to make millions through philanthropy at the Goldman Sachs Foundation. Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi. Unlike McFarland, Habib Powell had no national security background. But though her parents were Christians, she had the “right” views on Islam. In Egypt, she had described how Bush after September 11 had, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” "I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year.” Habib Powell had attended such an iftar dinner. Habib Powell has been described as the Republican Huma Abedin. And she was quoted as saying that Abedin “feels a deep responsibility to encourage more mutual understanding between her beliefs and culture and American culture.” And Powell has been on cheerful terms with at least one Obama unmasker. And with Clintonworld people. In 2015, Dina Powell – President Donald Trump’s Deputy National Security Adviser in 2017 – sat down with far left-wing United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power for an interview. In that interview, Powell heaped effusive praise upon Power and can be seen nodding in agreement throughout. Power was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama. At the time, Powell – an executive with Goldman Sachs – was pushing a pet project known as 10,000 women, which is ostensibly intended to foster female entrepreneurship. When Powell was at Goldman Sachs, her right-hand woman in the 10,000 Women program was Noa Meyer. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Meyer worked in the Bill Clinton administration’s speech-writing office of then first-lady Hillary Clinton. Powell herself, is very comfortable with Hillary Clinton. In 2013, she shared a stage with Hillary at the Clinton Global Initiative. In 2007, Powell was named to the Board of a Hillary Clinton project known as ‘Vital Voices’,another women-centric operation that touts Global Ambassadorial missions for women. On June 14, 2016 Powell participated in a Summit known as the United State of Women(USW), which meshed nicely with her pet project. USW was also rife with angry left-wing Democrats seeking to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2016. In fact, Barack Obama’s closest adviser Valerie Jarrett introduced Powell, who returned the introduction with effusive praise for Jarrett. The ex-Goldman Sachs executive has befriended Obama’s closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett. She is also very cozy with Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers Huma Abedin and Philippe Reines. Now there's once again talk of moving Dina Powell in. This time into Nikki Halley's old spot as UN Ambassador. The talk comes from the GOP establishment. Powell should not be at the NSC, where she replaced K.T. McFarland, who was qualified for the job, at the behest of H.R. McMaster. But every job for Powell is a stepping stone to the next one. And the one she has her eyes on now would be an even bigger disaster. Making Dina Powell the US Ambassador to the UN would quickly undo all the progress that Haley made. Before long the US would be right back in the Human Rights Council, there would be moves in favor of the PLO, and the same old failed politics would be back. Haley sent a message that UN members will be punished if they push the US around. Powell would swiftly undo that. Dina Powell would have been a Jeb Bush appointee. Appointing her to the UN would give Trump, Jeb Bush's policies. You don't drain the swamp by appointing the swamp. And Powell is one of the worst swamp creatures in D.C.

America's Immigration Voice. Ever thought that the academic discipline of history has gone to the Diversity dogs? Here’s proof, from Australia. The (generally libertarian) Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) last week released a major report, The Rise of Identity Politics: An Audit of History Teaching at Australian Universities in 2017 PDF ] by Dr Bella d’Abrera [ Email her ] (PhD in History, University of Cambridge,). All 746 undergraduate history courses taught at Australia’s 35 universities in 2017 were analyzed and it was found that, classified by thematic keyword in course titles and content descriptions, the most common themes were ‘Indigenous’ issues (99 references, 13% of total courses), followed dutifully by ‘Race’ (80), ‘Gender’ (69), ‘Identity’ (55), ‘Women’ (46), ‘Islam’ (39), ‘Colonization’ (39), ‘Sexuality’ (34) and ‘Ethnicity’ (34). Lagging well in the rear were such staples, now mere historiographical curiosities, as ‘Liberalism’ (7), ‘Capitalism’ (8), ‘Industrial’ (11), ‘Communism’ (15) and ‘Democracy’ (21). More history courses study ‘Sexuality' than either ‘Enlightenment' (20) or ‘Reformation' (12). More courses study ‘Islam' than ‘Christianity' (34). The report’s visual representation of the results (right) shows how race, gender and ethnicity (or their variants) stand out as the history chart-toppers at Australian universities. Anyone who still thinks that political, intellectual, demographic and material factors are what really matter to history, and to society, ought to get with the multiculturalist/Identity Politics program – enroll in a history course at an Australian university today!

DOJ Surrenders: 3D Print Gun Files Are Protected Under First Amendment For those who remember Cody Wilson, the man who began developing 3D printing files so that you could manufacture your own guns, there is good news out. Cody finally won against the federal beast after intimidation tactics were performed against him by the Obama Justice Department. The Trump DOJ settled with Wilson, finally acknowledging that his 3D print gun files are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. I first reported that 3-D guns were for real back in July of 2012, when an internet gunsmith by the name of "Have Blue" produced an AR style pistol that fired both .22 and .223 caliber bullets. Later, Cody Wilson, 25, a law student at the University of Texas and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, had produced a 3-D printed handgun made entirely of ABS plastic with only a metal firing pin. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. In 2013, Wilson had the information on how to build the gun removed from public access at the request of the United States Department of Defense Trade Controls. According to Wilson, they seized control of the information. Clearly, they were acting unlawfully when they did what they did. "I thought my life was over," Wilson said after his attorneys told him he didn't fair well going up against the government. So, what did he do? He fired them, and got a new legal team. Wired has the story. Instead, Wilson has spent the last years on an unlikely project for an anarchist: Not simply defying or skirting the law but taking it to court and changing it. In doing so, he has now not only defeated a legal threat to his own highly controversial gunsmithing project. He may have also unlocked a new era of digital DIY gunmaking that further undermines gun control across the United States and the world—another step toward Wilson's imagined future where anyone can make a deadly weapon at home with no government oversight. Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First. "If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident," Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. "So what if this code is a gun?” The Department of Justice's surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won't try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses. "I consider it a truly grand thing," Wilson says. "It will be an irrevocable part of political life that guns are downloadable, and we helped to do that." The Second Amendment Foundation has issued the following press release: BELLEVUE, WA – The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms. SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles. Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military. “Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort. “Under this settlement,” he continued, “the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3-D technology.” The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. What does all this mean? Well, it's pretty simple, and I highly recommend the Wired article, which is quite lengthy and has lots of information, but what this does is demonstrates that the genie is out of the bottle and there is just no way for gun grabbing Communists the world over to be able to truly enforce their unlawful acts of fun gun confiscation. Why? Because now, anyone with access to the internet and a 3D printer can print their very own gun that is unregistered. That's right, and it's perfectly legal to do so. And we aren't just talking a rigid looking one-shot handgun. We're talking ARs, 1911s and a host of other guns. This actually may end up undermining the gun manufacturing industry in the future, as people will be able to build their own guns at home in a similar manner to how the internet has had a dramatic effect on the retail brick and mortar stores. Wilson boasted that his efforts have officially killed gun control. "I barely put a million bucks into this and I got you the Second Amendment forever," he told The Daily Wire in a phone interview. "What has the NRA done for you lately?" I don't know that I would go quite that far, after all, the settlement does state that "the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military." Therefore, the government still believes it has a right to regulate certain arms, which it does not have authority to do. "This doesn’t put the rifle in everyone’s hand, but it does that in essence" he added. "The DNA of our culture is preserved. This is the first pillar in the internet gun culture of tomorrow, and it is permanent." This is a huge milestone in the history of our county, and as such, it should be celebrated as a victory. As Joe Wolverton of The New American writes:

What Happens After Islamic Conquest? Constantinople fell to the warriors of jihad on May 29, 1453. Usually after reporting that, Western historians turn their attention away. But in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , I detail what happened next. The Byzantine scholar Bessarion wrote to the Doge of Venice two months after the conquest, in July 1453, saying that Constantinople had been …sacked by the most inhuman barbarians and the most savage enemies of the Christian faith, by the fiercest of wild beasts. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The public treasure has been consumed, private wealth has been destroyed, the temples have been stripped of gold, silver, jewels, the relics of the saints, and other most precious ornaments. Men have been butchered like cattle, women abducted, virgins ravished, and children snatched from the arms of their parents. So much for the much-vaunted Islamic “tolerance” in Europe, the tales of which Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed is using to fool gullible Westerners today, and soften their resistance to mass Muslim migration into Europe and North America. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled: arm yourself with the truth by preordering The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS — click here to do so now. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Trump Threatens To Send Military To Block Honduran Migrant Caravan This is the second time a caravan of migrants have gotten together and seem intent on pushing towards and across the US/Mexico border. As a result of the news, President Donald Trump has threatened to send the military to the border to block them. Reuters reports on the caravan. More Honduran migrants tried to join a caravan of several thousand trekking through Guatemala on Wednesday, defying calls by authorities not to make the journey after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to cut off regional aid in reprisal. The caravan has been growing steadily since it left the violent Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Saturday. The migrants hope to reach Mexico and then cross its northern border with the United States, to seek refuge from endemic violence and poverty in Central America. Several thousand people are now part of the caravan, according to a Reuters witness traveling with the group in Guatemala, where men women and children on foot and riding in trucks filled a road on their long journey to Mexico. In a series of tweets on Thursday, President Trump said the right things. I am watching the Democrat Party led (because they want Open Borders and existing weak laws) assault on our country by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, whose leaders are doing little to stop this large flow of people, INCLUDING MANY CRIMINALS, from entering Mexico to U.S..... take our poll - story continues below Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? * Yes, they will try. No, they won't try. If they do, they'll regret it in 2020. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 ....In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 ....The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border. All Democrats fault for weak laws! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 “I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border,” he added. “All Democrats fault for weak laws!” Not only did Trump threaten to send the military to the border, but he also threatened to stop all federal payments to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador if they didn't block the caravan. The obvious question I have is: Why are you not stopping those payments now, Mr. President? They are unconstitutional and neither Congress nor you have the authority to give American's money to these countries. Trump also seemed ready to back out on his new trade deal, which is hardly a deal for the US, with Mexico if they failed to stop the caravan. He then pointed out that many who cross the border are criminals and are coming to engage in criminal activity. In fact, every single migrant who crosses over into our country will more than likely commit at least 28 crimes in order to present themselves as legal. “The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA,” he wrote. The USMCA is a disaster and should be done away with without this threat of a caravan of migrants. We'll see if these countries stop the migrants or if it continues to the border. If they make it here and Trump does nothing but arrest them and put them through the system rather than simply turning them away, then you know the words are empty and hollow. Time will tell what will take place.

Conference of Mayors passes resolutions favoring gun control “Policies like background checks on all gun sales and Red Flag Laws save lives,” said Karen Freeman-Wilson, mayor of Gary, Ind. | M. Spencer Green/AP Photo Conference of Mayors passes resolutions favoring gun control The bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a series of resolutions calling for more gun control measures during the group's annual meeting in Boston this week. The conference is advocating measures to strengthen the regulation of gun sales and dealers, as well as ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Story Continued Below “The U.S. Conference has a 50-year history of formally adopting and aggressively promoting strong policies to reduce gun violence, all consistent with its support for the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the group said. Additionally, the group called for steps it said would protect young people — like opposing letting teachers and other non-law enforcement personnel be armed in K-12 schools — and cited incidents like February’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, as impetus for its push. The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. The group also passed a resolution backing red flag laws that allow “family members and law enforcement to seek court permission to temporarily remove guns from a person in crisis.” “Policies like background checks on all gun sales and Red Flag Laws save lives,” said Karen Freeman-Wilson, mayor of Gary, Indiana, and chair of the conference’s criminal and social justice committee. “The U.S. Conference of Mayors will continue doing everything in our power to keep our communities safe so that children and families are able to live free of the fear of being gunned down.” Gun control advocates including the group Everytown for Gun Safety lauded the move. “Mayors are on the frontlines of America’s gun violence crisis, so it’s no surprise they’re also leading the charge to pass common-sense, life-saving laws,” Everytown President John Fienblatt said in a statement. “It’s time for our leaders in Washington to follow the lead of America’s mayors and put public safety over NRA priorities.”

Online Sociology Course Founders Over Whether Australia is a Country I'm not all that concerned with students working toward a major in poetry, media studies or some of the more ridiculous courses some colleges offer. It's sociology that worries me. Sociology helped generate a whole range of fake new academic subjects while corrupting existing ones into a toxic stew of racism and meaningless jargon. All too often, all you need is some statistics software (or its online equivalent), a politically correct premise and absolute ignorance. Add the internet and you get a perfect storm of sociology stupidity. The story concerns Ashley Arnold, a 27-year-old working on an online sociology degree. As part of her final class, for which she paid almost $1,000, students were required to complete a project outline last month in which they would compare a social norm in the US and another country. For her "norm" Arnold picked social media use, and for her country she chose Australia. But when Arnold got her grade back on Feb. 1, she was shocked to see her professor had failed her. Why? Because, according to the teacher, "Australia is a continent; not a country." Sociology. You really don't need to know anything. The professor, who has a PhD in philosophy... Of course she does. I believe I got zero or partial credit because the instructor said, 'Australia is a continent; not a country. However, I believe that Australia is a country. The research starter on the SNHU’s Shapiro library written by John Pearson (2013) states, that Australia is the 'sixth-largest country in the world' (n.p.). The full name of the country is the Commonwealth of Australia, meaning Australia is both a continent and a country. Therefore, these sections of the rubric should be amended. Australia's nationhood is not a matter of belief. But we are in the age of, "My truth". And my truth has a different belief about Australia than yours does because of my degree of oppression. Finally, the professor responded: Thank you for this web-address After I do some independent research on the continent/country issue I will review your paper. Who can really say?

Sodom and Gomorrah was Judged by God Because Men Refused to Keep His Commandments in Dealing with the Wicked! “How ridiculous to overlook judgment because of kindness then love wounds itself by killing justice!” -Charles Haddon Spurgeon How often I see and hear the professors of Christianity today walking contrary to the word and spirit of the Living Christ (2 Corinthians 3:6). How willing they are to overlook judgment when it comes to the criminals that run rampant in this country, and on the other hand how willing they are to show compassion to the criminals while overlooking the victims. Why? “Evil men understand not judgment” (Proverbs 28:5). If you read the preceding verse, you will see that Scripture tells us “they that forsake the law praise the wicked.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This is exactly the Scriptural point that I want to make. From the pulpits in America today we here the events unfold of Sodom and Gomorra and how Abraham should have prayed longer in hopes that God would have spared them rather than the righteous people in Sodom and Gomorra doing what God had commanded. And of course, not a second thought on man's behalf is given concerning the victims in these two cities. Here is Abraham’s account… “And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto theLord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place." -Genesis 18:16-33 Got questions.org explains very well… Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:4-5 The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..." (Genesis 19:2 4) . In light of the passage, the most common response to the question, "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term ”sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of the reason God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels, who were disguised as men. At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged. Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically. The point is that there were no righteous to be spared and the Lord did what man failed to do when they had the time to do it. Question: How do you show mercy to a people who observe lying vanities (Jonah 2:4) and refuse to return to the Lord (Jeremiah 6:16) on His terms? (Jeremiah 22:3) God must be true and judgment must commence. Men today, like those of Sodom and Gomorrah, are not valiant for the truth. They are valiant to proceed from evil to evil (Jeremiah 5). They care more about the pleasures of sin for a season, than they are grieved for the afflictions of Joseph (Amos 6:6; Hebrews 11:25). Men today care more of compromise (where two men both agree on what they both know is wrong) and diplomacy (seduction in another guise) in promoting anarchy through “antinomianism” than they do the Law of God against the sins unto judgment that enslave men (John 8:34). Instead of establishing judgment within the gate and hating the evil and loving the good (Amos 5:15) in hopes that the Lord may be gracious to their repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), they reject the counsel of God against them by hating the good and loving the evil, and that to their own damnation. They care more about the approbation and favor of men than they do that of the Living God and what His Word declares (Galatians 1:10),not knowing that which his highly favored among men is an abomination unto the Lord (Luke 16:15). They wear the cross. Yet, they have no testimony of the power of God unto salvation by the cross because they do not practice what Christ required: “Deny yourselves and take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 5:15, 13:4-5; Galatians 2:21). Professed Christians in America today talk much of love through inaction, and yet know nothing of it (1 John 3:18). They read what to do, but do it not! In fact, they declare and proclaim how much they love God, and yet if you were to have them read His moral law and look to their own lives, they would find how much they actually hate God through their actions (Matthew 15:8). Then again, these were the same types of people in Jerusalem crying out "Crucify him! Crucify him! We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). And these are the same people today persecuting living Christians while praising the dead ones (Matthew 5:10). They continuously preach of the heroism of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Gideon, Samson and others from the pulpit and fail to understand what these men were doing when serving their generations (Psalm 71:18-19; Isaiah 51:4). Today, instead of doing the same, they simply hide under a false grace (Isaiah 30) and give themselves over to a man, the president, and declare end times. They declare we're in the end times because they have failed to stand up and fight for their posterity in keeping the Lord's commandments and His judgments (Psalm 78:1-11). Ungrateful reprobates, pretenders, counterfeits and hypocrites are what they are (Matthew 23:3). Instead of reaching out to the greatest demographic here in America, public high schools, they send missionaries to foreign lands to do there what they fail to do for their own here. Instead of fighting for their posterity and shutting down the illegalities of sodomy in all 50 states, they teach them to just do their best to understand that they cannot help themselves while God say’s the opposite (Leviticus 20:18). Instead of fighting on their behalf against the federal government that is illegally indoctrinating them, they simply give their kids over to them to be dumbed down. And instead of protesting the murder of 58 million innocent babies (Proverbs 6:17), they merely pass it off as a "choice," that being the lessons that they learned from the media that they say that they do not believe (Romans 1:18). The American Church, instead of protesting corruption in government through the example of the Biblical patriarchs and our American forefathers (Matthew 5:17-18), teach to submit to tyranny as if to suggest that it is somehow obedience to God (Romans 12:21). The Church in America has failed to keep the Commandments of the God of Israel. Instead of preaching out against sin, they advocate for that which God clearly condemns, thereby making war against God (Micah 3:5), which at length destroys our government, our country and our families. Look to their feigned strength that they profess to possess. It is gauged by simply looking to the prevailing immoralities and debauchers of society. They are weak and pathetic and they have no excuses as to why America is where we is today! Why did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah? It's the same reason that he is judging America today (Amos 4:12), He cannot find the righteous in order to spare her (Jeremiah 22:3). Defining the Wicked… Wicked men in the sight of God are those who have the knowledge of what to do when it comes to the right, but over and over again, they turn their shoulders and choose the wrong, through tolerance and apathy Americans are bringing upon themselves destruction (Deuteronomy 30:19) that will not be reversed, which leaves no alternative as to why God judges and is judging America today (Deuteronomy 28:63). Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Agencies scramble to prep Russia probe files for release after sweeping Trump order Intelligence agencies were scrambling Tuesday to comply with a sweeping order by President Trump to declassify key documents that could shed light on the origins of the Russia collusion probe that has hamstrung the administration for more than 18 months. The documents Trump ordered declassified involve a renewed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page and text messages from disgraced former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The president on Monday afternoon ordered that the documents be released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency,” according to a statement issued by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders. It is not immediately clear how and when the documents will be released, but by Monday evening, intelligence agencies said they had already begun working to prepare the documents. “When the President issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House Counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News. “The Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.” ODNI spokeswoman Kellie Wade also said that the agency was “working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification.” The documents include all FBI reports on interviews, also known as 302s, with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with applications to surveil Carter Page, as well as 21 pages of one renewed warrant. The 21 pages make up only a small portion of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in a heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year. The president also ordered the release of unredacted text messages from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The president for months has blasted Strzok and Page for the bias revealed in their text messages, as well as Comey and McCabe for their leadership of the FBI. Comey was fired from the bureau in May 2017; McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March; Page left the bureau in May; and Strzok was fired last month. A source familiar with the timing of the declassification told Fox News they expected the Carter Page warrant application to be declassified first, followed by the FBI reports on agent interviews with Ohr. The source added that the Justice Department is working on a "compressed timeline" and they expect the first release of records in days or sooner. The text messages are expected to take longer because of the sheer number involved and the fact that Trump ordered their release without redactions. Republicans on Capitol Hill, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., are touting the president’s order, saying it covers “pretty much everything that he wanted…and the text messages are a bonus,” a source said of Nunes. Congressional Republicans are hoping the files reveal details about the start of the Russia investigation led by the FBI, which evolved into Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election. But Democrats,including the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are blasting the declassification order as a “clear abuse of power.” "[Trump] has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative," Schiff said. "With respect to some of these materials, I have been previously informed by the FBI and Justice Department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods. "This is evidently of no consequence to a President who cares about nothing about the country and everything about his narrow self-interest," Schiff added. The president’s order is similar to his February move, when he cleared the way for the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee to release a partisan memo about the surveillance warrant on Carter Page. Democrats, weeks later, released their own version of the memo.

FBI Informant “Threatened” After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Case This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge While the mainstream media has largely ignored it, the scandal surrounding Russian efforts to acquire 20% of America’s uranium reserves, a deal which was ultimately approved by the Obama administration, and more specifically the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which included Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, is becoming more problematic for Democrats by the hour. As The Hill pointed out earlier this morning, the latest development in this sordid tale revolves around a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and beyond to build a case against a Russian perpetrator who ultimately admitted to bribery, extortion and money laundering. The informant, who is so far only known as “Confidential Source 1,” says that when he attempted to come forward last year with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the scandal he was promptly silenced by the FBI and the Obama administration. Working as a confidential witness, the businessman made kickback payments to the Russians with the approval of his FBI handlers and gathered other evidence, the records show. Sources told The Hill the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion. In the end, the main Russian executive sent to the U.S. to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear business, an executive of an American trucking firm and a Russian financier from New Jersey pled guilty to various crimes in a case that started in 2009 and ended in late 2015. Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA. “He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,” she said. The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation. At the time, Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said. It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal, transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval. In the midst of the new discoveries revealed yesterday about the Uranium One case (see: FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions), “Confidential Source 1” has once again hired an attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get his story out. Sitting down with The Hill earlier, Toensing said that the last time her client tried to speak out “both his reputation and liberty” were “threatened” by the Obama administration in a effort to force his silence. “All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, ‘This is wrong. What should I do about it?’” Toensing said she also possesses memos that recount how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race as well as helped him recover some of the money Russians stole from him through kickbacks during the FBI probe. The undercover client witnessed “a lot of bribery going on around the U.S.” but was asked by the FBI to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress, Toensing explained. When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” she added. Emails obtained by The Hill show that a civil attorney working with the former undercover witness described the pressure the Justice Department exerted to keep the client from disclosing to a federal court what he knew last summer. “The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,” the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, “As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint.” As we pointed out last summer when Peter Schweizer first released his feature documentary Clinton Cash, the Uranium One deal at the center of this scandal is believed to have netted the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation millions of dollars in donations and ‘speaking fees’ from Uranium One shareholders and other Russian entities. Russian Purchase of US Uranium Assets in Return for $145mm in Contributions to the Clinton Foundation – Bill and Hillary Clinton assisted a Canadian financier, Frank Giustra, and his company, Uranium One, in the acquisition of uranium mining concessions in Kazakhstan and the United States. Subsequently, the Russian government sought to purchase Uranium One but required approval from the Obama administration given the strategic importance of the uranium assets. In the run-up to the approval of the deal by the State Department, nine shareholders of Uranium One just happened to make $145mm in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Moreover, the New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, with ties to the Kremlin, around the same time. Needless to say, the State Department approved the deal giving Russia ownership of 20% of U.S. uranium assets. Meanwhile, the ‘journalists’ over at CNN are still trying to get to the bottom of exactly who spent the $100,000 on Facebook ads…

Facebook Lifts Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov’s 9/11 Ban [Editors' note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 in the first place, pre-order Jamie's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has, with the help of the Left, successfully built his totalitarian plantation in the West -- on which the political and cultural establishment is now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.] Frontpage editors are happy to announce our free speech victory: Facebook has lifted Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov's 30-day ban on Facebook, apologizing and saying that the block was a “mistake”. We have no doubt, of course, that no “mistake” had actually occurred in this matter and that the ban has only been lifted because of the publicity that we engaged in -- and received. While it is a positive development that Facebook has lifted the ban on Jamie (for now), this story is crucial to amplify now more than ever, seeing that Facebook, and all of leftist-run social media, is, at this moment, clearly accelerating its totalitarian attack on the free speech of conservatives. (See Jamie's video on this whole surreal affair HERE). A brief recap of Jamie's story: on Sept. 11, the 17th Anniversary of the 9/11 terror strike, Facebook's Unholy Alliance masters informed Jamie that he was suspended from Facebook for 30 days due to his posting of his article, 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad, which Facebook informed him violated their "community standards." This suggested, of course, that giving advice on how to prevent another 9/11, and all other Jihadist attacks against America, is now against Facebook’s ‘community standards’. (Read the whole story HERE.) Frontpage and Jamie immediately publicized this tyrannical behavior of Facebook. Then, yesterday, on Sept. 13, Facebook notified Jamie that it had made a mistake and that it was lifting his block. It goes without saying that this retraction and surrender by Facebook occurred only because of the wide publicity that Jamie's banning had received. And we are immensely grateful for all the massive support that was given to us across the Internet, including especially from Breitbart, PJMedia, WorldNetDaily and Thomas Lifson at American Thinker. Leading brave conservative figures such as Michelle Malkin and Laura Loomer also stood up for Jamie, tweeting about his ban -- and to them we send our heartfelt appreciation. Jamie is, of course, no stranger to social media censorship -- especially of the insane variety. The Counter Jihad Coalition's (CJC) Facebook page, which Jamie helped run with CJC President Steve Amundson, was removed a few years ago with absolutely no explanation. The CJC is a human rights and pro-national security group that is dedicated to protecting America and the West from Jihad -- and Muslim and non-Muslim people from Sharia oppression. The question remains: why would Facebook remove such a page, let alone in such a fascistic manner -- and never explain why? In April earlier this year, Jamie was suspended from Facebook for posting screenshots of a Muslim's threat to him on the platform. Then, in May, his Twitter account was temporarily suspended and he was forced to delete tweets he posted which directly quoted Islamic religious texts. His account was suspended for violating Twitter’s rules relating to “hateful conduct.” It is "hateful conduct", apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed, Frontpage's editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Qur'anic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50). One thing we know for sure is that, despite this lifting of Jamie’s ban, Facebook and the leftist totalitarians in other social media venues and in the culture at large will continue their unrelenting effort to suffocate dissent and conservative voices. On Facebook, many brave conservative truth-tellers continue to be censored in myriad ways; these individuals include Anni Cyrus, Bosch Fawstin, Mark Lutchman and, of course, Diamond & Silk. The case of #WalkAway leader Brandon Straka is especially disturbing: he was recently banned by Facebook for the crime of announcing that he would be interviewed by Alex Jones. Prager U has had its videos mysteriously disappear off of Facebook and then, only after vociferous protest, re-appear. Facebook is, of course, just one terrain of this leftist brownshirt-style assault on free speech. Everyone knows by now, for instance, what has happened, in the most Orwellian sense, to Alex Jones and InfoWars on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Leading scholar of Islam and JihadWatch.org Director Robert Spencer, meanwhile, is not just a target at Facebook, where his referrals are down 90% from what they once were; he has been banned by Patreon at the behest of MasterCard -- and MasterCard has yet to respond to his lawyer’s letter. GoFundMe has also banned Spencer because of a smear by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hate machine. Speaking of Mastercard, the David Horowitz Freedom Center just recently won a major battle with the credit card, defeating well-financed leftwing groups that are trying to run the Center out of business and suffocate free speech in America. The Freedom Center emerged victorious, but it is clear that leftist hate groups such as the SPLC and Color of Change.org are preparing new attacks against the Freedom Center and other conservative groups and individuals 24/7. To be sure, the Left's attacks on the David Horowitz Freedom Center continue unabated: just recently a hit piece in the Washington Post smeared a stand-up noble gentleman like Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Republican Ron DeSantis, libeling David Horowitz in the process. The article stated falsely and maliciously that Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, that DeSantis had attended, was somehow “a racially charged event” -- a vicious lie that Frontpage has exposed and for which the Washington Post is still to apologize and issue a retraction. (To learn why David Horowitz is one of the central targets of the Left, make sure to watch this video). Thus, we clearly gauge that there is no disgusting and venomous level to which the Left will not stoop in its destructive agenda. Yes, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov has had his ban lifted at Facebook, but this is clearly only a brief reprieve for him on that platform -- and it is only, obviously, a very tiny space in the Stalinist Left's war on America and on everything on which it stands. At this dire moment, we all need to amplify our voices in defense of free speech. And we need to adamantly defend all the truth-tellers at the very moment they come under attack. We also need to contact our representatives and to call for a Congressional investigation into this pernicious assault by the fascist Left on our liberties. The battle for America -- and for the West -- is on. [Editors' postscript: Please make sure to FOLLOW Jamie Glazov on Facebook as well as on Twitter (@JamieGlazov) to strengthen his social media strength in the face of the Left's vicious war on free speech. Thank you!]

Muslim Leader Calls for Conquest of “America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy” Recently a Muslim spokesman in Tunisia named Said Khecharem, who is affiliated with the international pro-Sharia, pro-caliphate organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, declared (to delighted screams of “Allahu akbar” from his audience), that the “establishment of an Islamic state…requires the conquest of America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy – Rome and other infidel lands will be conquered, Allah willing.” According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Khecharem also said: “After the laws of Allah were abandoned, and the heretic regimes were imposed on the Muslims, the most important thing to do is to restore the rule of the Muslims, through the Quran and the Sunna, in order to renew Islamic life and to deliver the Islamic message to the world. My brothers, the implication of this today should be the establishment of an Islamic state over all the lands of the Muslims.”  take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. And no call to restore the caliphate would be complete without a swipe at the Jews, whom the Qur’an designates (5:82) the worst enemies of the Muslims. Khecharem predicted that “this will happen, of course, after the elimination of the filthy Jewish entity, and after liberation of the lands under direct colonization, like Kashmir and others.” If Said Khecharem were a non-Muslim saying that Muslims needed to destroy “the filthy Jewish entity” and conquer America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy, he would be accused of “Islamophobia” and “bigotry.” But no one will take any particular notice of this. They should, however. Khecharem is not some deluded fanatic raving on a Tunisian street corner. He was speaking at Hizb ut-Tahrir’s International Caliphate Conference; although Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries, it still has an international presence, and recently held a conference in Chicago. Nor is the desire to establish a global caliphate limited to Hizb ut-Tahrir alone. The word khalifa means “successor”; the caliph in Sunni Islamic theology is the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and spiritual leader of the Muslims. As I show in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , the great caliphates of history, from the immediate post-Muhammad period of the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” to the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans, as well as other Islamic states, all waged relentless jihad warfare against non-Muslims, subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law and denying them basic rights. These weren’t the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” abhorred by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims for “hijacking” their religion. This was, for fourteen centuries, mainstream, normative Islam, carried forth by the primary authorities in the Islamic world at the time. The History of Jihad shows from the accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers through the ages that in every age and in every place where there were Muslims, some of them believed that they had a responsibility given to them by Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law. And so it is today: Said Khecharem has enunciated that responsibility more clearly and directly than most Muslim spokesmen do these days, but he is by no means the only one who believes that it exists. What is noteworthy also about The History of Jihad is something that it does not contain. As the jihadis move against non-Muslim states without any letup, pause, period of coexistence, period of tolerance, reformation, or reconsideration, there never appears any force of Muslims to oppose them. While it is undoubtedly true that not all Muslims in any given age have ever waged jihad, there has never been in Islamic history an Islamic entity or organization that was opposed to waging jihad and dedicated to stopping those who were waging it. So it is today. Islamic groups in the West issue pro-forma condemnations after every jihad terror attack, but are doing little or nothing to try to prevent the next one. There is still no mosque or Islamic school in the United States that teaches young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam taught by al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other jihad terror groups. Meanwhile, Said Khecharem and other Islamic spokesmen openly call for Muslims to engage in jihad conquest. Western authorities should be pondering his words, and their implications, very carefully. Instead, if they have taken any notice of him at all, which is unlikely, they have dismissed him as an “extremist.” They have yet to come to grips with the fact that “extremism” is and always has been so distressingly widespread in Muslim communities. But they will. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Migrant Caravan Reach Border & Climb Atop Fencing Effortlessly (Video) Members from one of the migrant caravans finally reached the US border on Tuesday. Videos were captured and Border Patrol agents were on the scene as they were witnessed climbing effortlessly up the wall and standing and sitting atop it. Fox 5 reports: SAN DIEGO -- People on the Mexican side of the border could be seen climbing the fence near Border Field State Park Tuesday afternoon after part of the Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Several people scaled the fence and sat on top of it. A few jumped or crawled to openings in the fence onto U.S. soil but quickly ran back as Border Patrol agents approached. Several border agents were seen patrolling the area in trucks, 4-wheelers, a helicopter and on horses. Video of the migrants was captured in various reports. The caravan is here, illegally entering America This is a national disgrace Arrest and deport them all back to their home country pic.twitter.com/zmAvbC13eL — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 14, 2018 Increased activity at the U.S.-Mexico border after part of the Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. Border Patrol has not confirmed whether this group is part of the caravan.STORY: http://via.kswbtv.com/Ky5E4 Posted by FOX 5 San Diego on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 US Customs and Border Patrol San Diego tweeted, "The first group of the migrant caravan arrived at the Tijuana border yesterday afternoon. # CBP has deployed resources to safely secure the area near Imperial Beach. All seeking entry into the U.S. are urged to present themselves at an official Port of Entry." The first group of the migrant caravan arrived at the Tijuana border yesterday afternoon. #CBP has deployed resources to safely secure the area near Imperial Beach. All seeking entry into the U.S. are urged to present themselves at an official Port of Entry. #USBP pic.twitter.com/uGWUKjxJkj — CBP San Diego (@CBPSanDiego) November 14, 2018 Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said, "Border security is national security, and @ DHSgov will enforce our nation's laws. Today, I am at the # Texas border talking with @ CBP officials on how we are securing ports of entry." Border security is national security, and @DHSgov will enforce our nation's laws. Today, I am at the #Texas border talking with @CBP officials on how we are securing ports of entry. pic.twitter.com/fOlIQNF5pW — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 14, 2018 She also met with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Texas. I met with #SecDef in #Texas today to highlight the work that we are doing together to secure our borders. I want to thank @DeptofDefense for their partnership across the full spectrum of @DHSgov missions. pic.twitter.com/eGyzwyXDw9 — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 14, 2018 So far, we are being told that authorities are keeping an eye on the migrants as they celebrate their journey, but no reports have been issued saying they have actually crossed over yet.

Can the Church Defend Herself Against Bergoglio? Fisher is rightly incensed by Bergoglio’s cunning response, “I will not say a single word on this , ” concerning Archbishop Viganò’s damning indictment of Bergoglio’s rehabilitation of the monster once known as Cardinal McCarrick for some five years before adverse worldwide press coverage forced to him to punish that serial homosexual rapist of whose crimes Viganò had personally informed him back in 2013—information of which Bergoglio was clearly already aware at that time, as Viganò testifies. I never thought I’d see the day when a preening, Internet-created neo-Catholic doyenne such as Simcha Fisher, as notorious as Mark Shea for her crude and often unprintable invective against traditionalists, would unload on Pope Bergoglio with the following headline: “Does Francis know he sounds like an abuser?” The scales have fallen from Fisher’s eyes and now, at last, she sees Bergoglio, however grudgingly, for what he is: a power-mad ecclesiastical tyrant. (A tyrant, moreover, who has ascended to the papacy in a manner reminiscent of the ascension of the corrupt Benedict IX, another “disgrace to the Chair of Peter,” following the machinations of a Roman cabal, as I discuss below.) Quoth Fisher: I have a number of friends who have escaped abusive marriages. They tell me that Pope Francis is sounding more and more like the men who abused them. He’s sounding like the men who hid that abuse from the world, who taught their victims to blame themselves, who used spiritual pressure to persuade them and their families that it would actually be wrong, sinful, to defend themselves. Just listen to him. After responding to a question about Vigano’s very serious accusations, he said point blank, “I will not say a single word on this.”… [F]or the rest of the week and more, he kept up an unmistakable theme of calling for silence, equating silence with holiness, and painting himself as a Christlike victim in his silence. Then he says it’s “ugly” to accuse others of sinning. Then he suggests that healing and reconciliation will only come if we take a hard look at our own flaws…. To the victims of the Church, and to those who love them, it sounds like he is saying, “Who do you think you are? I don’t have to explain myself to you. You’re the guilty one. You brought this on yourself. If you want to be loved, then know your place. I’m the victim, here, not you. If you know what’s good for you, keep your mouth shut.” This is how abusers talk. They’re not content with power; they have to keep their victims doubting and blaming themselves constantly, so they don’t become a threat. Whether Francis knows it or not, this is how he sounds. We can overlook the fig leaf “whether Francis knows it or not…”. Fisher knows that Francis knows it, even if she still cannot bring herself to say explicitly what should now be apparent to the entire body of the faithful: that Bergoglio’s very presence on the Chair of Peter is a grave threat to the common good of the Church and the integrity of the Faith. Click below to Subscribe to The Remnant's YouTube channel! Yet Fisher maintains a sliver of space for deniability in order to maintain that indispensable distinction between her and those loathsome traditionalists: “I don’t have any ideological reason to want to bring him down. I have defended him as long as I could, up until the Chile debacle. And so I am working as hard as I can not to assume the worst, not to believe that this man who promised so much fresh air is really so intent on slamming doors shut before we find out even worse things hidden inside. But he is not making it easy. I am not saying he is an abuser. But he sounds like one.” That is, Fisher was not concerned about Bergoglio’s relentless assault on traditional Catholic teaching and practice—to her, opposition to Francis on that account is just “ideology”—but only his role in covering up sexual abuse by bishops and priests. But why is Fisher still “working hard not to assume the worst” when there is no longer anything to assume as the ever-mounting evidence of malintent has been in plain view for years? Indeed, why else did Archbishop Viganò risk everything in order to expose this Pope, even to the extent of revealing matters supposedly within the scope of “the Pontifical secret”? On orders of the Vatican Secretary of State, the Vatican secret police are reportedly scouring the globe in search of Viganò, who has gone into hiding, “in order to prevent more unpredictable damage to the image of Pope Francis and the Holy See on the world stage, but also to ‘prepare the terrain’ for the former apostolic nuncio-turned-whistleblower to be prosecuted” under canon law. The Dictator Pope must destroy his most potent critic thus far. Everything depends on it! But it may already be too late to save a regime whose only defense is not truth but raw power. At last count, some 29 bishops have publicly declared Viganò’s allegations against Bergoglio credible and worthy of investigation. Now even the distinguished canonist Edward Peters, who is no less than a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura appointed by Pope Benedict XVI, declares that if Viganò’s allegations are true then Bergoglio must go: Of what was said above concerning resignation from Church office in general, what would not apply to a pope, of all office holders, if he, as alleged by Viganò, from the first months of his papacy knowingly protected and favored a cardinal who was [pick a disgusting verb]-ing seminarians? By what possible stretch of the imagination would such an occupant be suited for the Chair of Peter? Does the historical fact that some pretty bad popes held on to office despite committing various offenses justify other popes acting badly in shirking even the minimal gesture of resigning? Viganò is unquestionably in a position to know, and claims to know, whether his central allegation that Francis’ was covering for McCarrick, big time, for years, is correct. Believing, as he does, that his claims are correct, Viganò, in calling for Francis’ resignation, has done nothing more or less than exercise his right under canon law “to manifest to the sacred pastors [his] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make [his] opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…” 1983 CIC 212 § 3. I have not called for Francis’ resignation because I do not know (with the degree of certitude that a lawyer seeks) whether Viganò’s key allegations against Francis are substantially true; most assuredly, however, if I reach the conclusion that they are true, I would say, without hesitation, that Francis should resign. Bergoglio will not, of course, resign. He will cling to power with his last breath in order to carry out the many other acts of ecclesial subversion he clearly has in mind. The only remedies for the plague of Bergoglio are his natural death or deposition. Yes, deposition. Canon212 has linked to an interesting and timely piece on the role of the Synod of Sutri, near Rome, in 1046, which dealt with the problem of three rival claimants to the papacy, each installed by a Roman faction: First, the execrable Benedict IX, mentioned above. Second, the interloper Sylvester III, installed in the Chair of Peter after Benedict had been driven from Rome. Third, the well-intentioned but dimwitted Gregory VI, whose election was tainted by a seemingly simoniacal negotiation with Benedict, who had returned to Rome in 1045 and ousted Sylvester, according to which Benedict would receive a generous pension if he resigned the papacy, which Benedict did only to rescind his resignation. The Synod was convoked by Henry III, the German king and soon-to-be-crowned Holy Roman Emperor, a pious and austere Christian and an exponent of the Cluniac spirit of reform. The Synod declared that Benedict IX (who had refused to appear) was deposed notwithstanding his attempt to undo his resignation. As for Sylvester, the Synod declared that he be “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery.” Gregory was also declared deposed, either by the act of the Synod itself or by Gregory’s own voluntary resignation in view of the Synod. At Henry III’s designation, the German Bishop of Bamberg became Clement II, but he died after only a year, whereupon Benedict reasserted his claim to the papacy for the third time in 1047, only to be driven from Rome again by Imperial troops in 1048. Damasus II, another German bishop designated by Henry, reigned for a mere three weeks before dying, whereupon Pope St. Leo IX succeeded to the papacy, reigning until 1054. Leo, as John Rao observes, was the first in a line of Popes who “took charge of the movement of innovative Christian restoration” which included a breaking of the dominance of Roman nobility over papal elections. (Rao, Black Legends, 147-148). As the cited article on the Synod of Sutri notes, although the scurrilous Benedict IX objected to his deposition by the Synod, “the Church has always accepted his deposition as valid. The King of Germany then appointed Clement II as Pope, who promptly crowned the King, Holy Roman Emperor. Benedict IX, after the death of Clement, claimed the papacy again! The Church to this day recognizes Clement II as a true Pope.” Moreover, Benedict IX himself is recognized as a true Pope—a valid but deposed Pope—during three separate periods listed as three distinct pontificates in the canon of Popes. This was possible owing to the lack of any set canonical form for papal elections; a Pope could gain or regain the office by various machinations. Indeed, even the Vatican’s own website states that Benedict was Pope from 1047-1048, the very year of his third ascension to the office from which he was finally driven by force. Only with the ascension of Pope Nicholas II in 1059 was it established that henceforth the cardinal-bishops would elect the Pope, with the other cardinals having the right to confirm or veto the nominee. By 1100 what we now know as the College of Cardinals, embracing all the cardinals of different titles, had the exclusive right to elect a Pope, and the members of the College “have held it ever since.” (Eric John, The Popes, 181). These lessons of history should suffice to dispel the pious fable, never a teaching of the Magisterium, that every Pope is chosen by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church. This theological error, which Bergoglio has exploited to the hilt, is a key element in the related error of papalotry, which elevates the person of the Pope above the office he occupies and makes of him the leader of a personality cult everyone is commanded to “love” (in the superficially emotional sense) and obey no matter what he says or does, rather than a custodian and defender of the Deposit of Faith whose lovability, personality and opinions are utterly irrelevant to the exercise and scope of his office. As Pope Benedict has observed, when it comes to the election of a Pope “the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he [sic] dictates the candidate for whom one must vote…. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!” Bergoglio is undeniably one of them. So what can be done to defend the Church against Bergoglio? That the mode of papal election by cardinals has persisted for nearly a thousand years has led to the general impression that it pertains to the irreformable divine constitution of the Church, but it certainly does not. As to matters of purely ecclesiastical law such as this one the Church has always allowed for departures from traditional practice in cases of emergency or grave necessity. And just as a synod was employed to address three rival claimants to the papal throne in 1046, declaring at least two of them deposed, so today might it be possible for reform-minded cardinals and bishops, comprising an imperfect council, to undo the incalculable damage caused by the cabal that lobbied for Bergoglio’s election before the last conclave—a cabal that included none other than McCarrick, whom Bergoglio rewarded by rehabilitating that monster despite the massive evidence of his unspeakable crimes. What would be the grounds for a declaration of deposition at such a gathering of prelates? One could readily point to the evidence that a faction that included Bergoglio himself had agreed upon his election before the conclave, and that all those involved, including Bergoglio, were thereby excommunicated latae sententiae in accordance with Article 81 of John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis, which provides: The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. To quote Cajetan on this point (citations taken from the linked article by Robert Siscoe), deposition by an imperfect council is appropriate “when one or more Popes suffer uncertainty with regard to their election, as seems to have arisen in the schism of Urban VI and others. Then, lest the Church be perplexed, those members of the Church who are available have the power to judge which is the true pope, if it can be known, and if it cannot be known, [it has] the power to provide that the electors agree on one or another of them.” I am not saying that such a case has been proven. Rather, what I am saying is that this hypothetical imperfect council could determine that it has been proven and act accordingly, and that the Church would judge any resulting deposition of Bergoglio in the same manner it judges the deposition of Benedict IX. Another ground for deposition—as determined by the imperfect council, not any of us—would be that Bergoglio has deposed himself by promulgating heresy, fracturing the Church’s universal discipline respecting marriage and the Eucharist, and undermining the teaching of even his own immediate predecessors on matters of fundamental morality upheld by the Magisterium for two millennia. Surely the Church cannot be without any remedy for a Pope who relentlessly attacks her very foundations! To quote Cajetan again: “Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently, it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation; and those that juridically correspond to the crime, are of themselves necessary”—meaning the resort to an imperfect council. If a synod was able to declare the deposition of a pope in 1046, why not an imperfect council today—or, for that matter, another synod? It will be argued that such a deposition would provoke massive schisms in the Church. But that would not be the first time that defense of the Church’s common good has done so, as the Great Western Schism demonstrates. And are we not in the midst of schisms already, provoked by none other than Bergoglio himself, whose insane drive to shatter the Church’s bimillennial discipline has produced the totally unprecedented situation in which what is still considered mortally sinful in one diocese is an imperative of “mercy” in another? In any case, this much is certain: barring Bergoglio’s conversion and reversal of course, the Church cannot abide this pontificate any longer. One way or another, the Church will have to repel an attacker at her very summit. Either the human element of the Church will act according to the means which seem possible, however extraordinary, or Heaven itself will intervene in a manner that might well involve a divine chastisement due to the negligence of time-serving pastors who left their sheep completely undefended against the wolves who preyed upon them, including the wolf the cardinals improvidently elected Pope. Some four months before Archbishop Viganò’s testimony Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, the Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands, perhaps the most liberal territory in the entire Church, protested that Bergoglio’s blatant nod to intercommunion with Protestants in Germany means that “the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and that the situation reminds him of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which refers to the Church’s “final trial” before the Second Coming, “that will shake the faith of many believers… [a] ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. What can the Church do when confronted by a Pope who, as a prominent cardinal declares to the whole world, “fail[s] to maintain and transmit faithfully … the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and is leading “an apostasy from the truth”? It seems absurd to argue that she can do nothing but exhort the faithful to pray and do penance while a papal malefactor, treated as if were an absolute dictator, is allowed to continue wreaking havoc upon faith and morals to the detriment of countless souls, without the least impediment, for so long as he shall live. No, Bergoglio must go. The successors of the Apostles, the only ones in a position to end his rampage, must demand his resignation and, should he refuse as expected, act in this unprecedented emergency to declare his removal from the office he has criminally abused and whose very credibility he threatens to destroy. May God give them the grace to do what must be done and what history will vindicate as a rescue of the Church during the height of the worst crisis in her history.

Arizona Democrat Senate Candidate Kyrsten Sinema Refuses To Retract Saying It’s OK For Americans To Join Taliban Fox News reported recently that in a February 2003 radio interview, Green Party activist Ernest Hancock said to Kyrsten Sinema, who is now Arizona’s Democrat candidate for Senate: “As an individual, if I want to go fight in the Taliban army, I go over there, and I’m fighting for the Taliban, I’m saying that’s a personal decision.” Sinema responded: “Fine. I don’t care if you go and do that, go ahead.” And now she is doubling down. Probably she thinks that if she disavows these words now, she will be thought of as “Islamophobic” by a significant portion of her base. take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. There is more. Fox News also reported that Sinema “promoted events at Arizona State University featuring a lawyer convicted for aiding an Islamist terror organization and its leader. Sinema, a co-founder of the activist group Local to Global Justice, invited people in a now-closed Yahoo group to attend two events with Lynn Stewart, both in 2003. At the time of the invite, Stewart had been charged with helping her former client Omar Abdel Rahman, a radical Egyptian spiritual leader of a terror group, to pass on secret messages to his followers to commit terror attacks.” The Left maintains that Islamic jihad terror is not a problem — it’s just a reaction to the evil deeds of the U.S. and Israel. “Islamophobia,” Leftists insist, is a much greater issue. This is the result: Useful Idiots such as Kyrsten Sinema end up promoting the likes of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of aiding the jihad mass murder plotting of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center. If you don’t recognize the reality, nature, and magnitude of the jihad threat, you may well end up abetting the jihad. Sinema is proof: the Left hates America, and considers “right-wing extremists,” a term all too often applied to American patriots, far more of a threat than jihad terrorists. It used to be that this fact was dismissed as hysterical hyperbole. Now it is becoming increasingly clear. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

MAJOR NEW STUDY: Homeschooling Spikes Due to School Violence, Far-Left Bias According to a 33-year-long study conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute in Oregon, the top three reasons that parents choose homeschooling are a desire to provide religious instruction or different values than those offered in public schools; dissatisfaction with the academic curriculum, and worries about the school environment. As reported by The Washington Times, the recent school shooting at Parkland, Fla., was the last straw for scores of parents. The paper noted that “the phones started ringing at the Texas Home School Coalition, and they haven’t stopped yet.” The Times added:The Lubbock-based organization has been swamped with inquiries for months from parents seeking safer options for their kids in the aftermath of this year’s deadly school massacres, first in Parkland and then in Santa Fe, Texas. “When the Parkland shooting happened, our phone calls and emails exploded,” said coalition president Tim Lambert. “In the last couple of months, our numbers have doubled. We’re dealing with probably between 1,200 and 1,400 calls and emails per month, and prior to that it was 600 to 700.” While the debate rages anew over familiar topics following such tragedies — tougher, more restrictive gun control laws and bolstering security at public schools — the revolution in homeschooling has been taking place quietly, behind the scenes and off the radar screens of most political organizations. But again, it’s not just the shootings, which admittedly have increased in the past couple of years. Christopher Chin, head of Homeschool Louisiana, told The Times that parents are fed up with “the violence, the bullying, the unsafe environments.” The Left is driving more kids OUT of public schools There is also the Left-wing social engineering. The craziness over transgender students and bathrooms/locker rooms, allowing students to “take a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem, the Left-wing curriculum, and refusing to allow students to wear shirts that praise POTUS Trump or feature the American flag are also driving parents into homeschooling. REMNANT COMMENT: We here at The Remnant are always eager to promote the home-schooling movement, and this report helps illustrate why. At the moment and personally speaking, my own family’s home-school is going great guns. We have a daughter still in high school and three in grade school. Our family couldn't be happier with our decision to homeschool---yes, all the way through high school. And as for our older home-schooled children: My third-eldest child is preparing to head off to college in the fall. Her older sister just finished a semester studying in Austria and will graduate with a double major and a minor degree next spring. My son will be a junior this fall, working on a Mass Communications degree at Franciscan University. Here's an example of his work: Perhaps this video from a couple of years ago will be useful to those considering home-schooling this fall: Friends, please give serious thought and prayer to home-schooling your children. I realize it’s a challenge, but few challenges have greater payoffs in this world or the next. There is no better way to keep the Catholic family together and committed to the Catholic restoration than the Catholic home school.

New Footage From Las Vegas Massacre Reveals Possible Muzzle Flashes From Helicopters That May Have Conducted “Air Assault” Does this new footage reveal muzzle flashes from helicopters, an air assault, on the night of the massacre? What appears to be muzzle flashes emitting from multiple aircraft can be seen on numerous videos captured on the night of the massacre. LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — Newly released footage of the October 1 massacre posted on YouTube by the NICK VEGAS channel appears to confirm what Intellihub’s founder and editor-in-chief Shepard Ambellas pointed out in late October when he presented evidence of the strategic air assault on The Alex Jones Show in great detail. The video shows what appears to be muzzle flashes emanating from the airspace between the Delano Hotel and Mandalay Bay, an airspace that should be free of obstruction altogether. A major analysis of this matter was done by Ambellas in mid-November which revealed that no aircraft should be occupying that airspace between the hours of 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. on the night of the shooting (i.e. no aircraft are visible on the radar in that airspace during that time.) Not to mention the fact that helicopters are not allowed to hover in the City of Las Vegas without a permit nor are they allowed to lurk behind buildings lower than their roof lines. The first of a series of muzzles flashes can be seen coming from several different elevations, possibly from as many as 3 aircraft (helicopters). The flashes which are not consistent with FAA required running lights in any way can be seen starting at 0:19 seconds into the video. Note: To see the flashes you must view the video on ‘1080p’ and set it to ‘full screen’ and look between the two hotels (adjust the video speed to 25%.) The exact same aircraft and apparent muzzles flashes can also be seen in the Arch Angel Studios “First Shots” video which was posted to YouTube on Oct. 2, just one day after the shooting. #LasVegasShooting

Soros-Funded Lawyers Helping Caravan Migrants Get Asylum in the United States Attorneys backed by George Soros are helping caravan migrants get asylum in the United States. 53 SHARES Facebook Twitter Globalist billionaire George Soros is backing attorney’s who are helping the Central American migrant caravans that are headed to the United States border with the intent of entering under the guise of seeking asylum. Currently, there are close to 3,000 migrants in Tijuana, Mexico, awaiting the arrival of other Central American migrants who will continue to travel to the U.S. southern border. There are reports that they plan to “rush” the border knowing that some will be caught, but the larger their numbers the more will have a chance to get through. On Monday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted out photos of CBP officers in riot gear as well as the barbed wire and barriers citing the reports about plans to “rush” the border. . @CBP and @DeptofDefense appropriately responded by blocking the lanes, deploying additional personnel and seeking assistance from other law enforcement and federal assets. #CBP has reopened lanes for legitimate trade and travel. I want to thank them for their swift actions. pic.twitter.com/eJVVuAs0w6 take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 19, 2018 At one point the caravan was anywhere between 7,000 to 10,000 members strong and mostly consists of migrants with ineligible asylum claims, which include job-seekers, previously deported illegal aliens, and Central Americans looking to get away from crime. None of these are eligible asylum claims, Breitbart reports. According to the New York Times, lawyers with the National Lawyers Guild, a Soros-backed organization, are aiding the caravan migrants before they attempt to seek asylum in the U.S.: Others have begun to deal in practicalities, walking a mile from the shelter to enter their names on a waiting list for an asylum interview. Some clustered around volunteer American lawyers who arrived at the shelter to explain the basics of asylum law. [Emphasis added] “People don’t flee their country and go through the arduous trip on foot unless the situation is desperate,” said Gilbert Saucedo, a Los Angeles lawyer who helped organize the volunteers through the National Lawyers Guild. [Emphasis added] “I have talked to maybe 100 people today,” he said on Saturday, “and maybe 70 percent had credible cases on the surface.” Yet many lack the documents they need to provide evidence. [Emphasis added] Last week, Breitbart News reported how caravan migrants in Tijuana began scaling the U.S.-Mexico border fence. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed razor wire along the fence. Locals in Tijuana protested against the arrival of the caravan migrants, as Breitbart News reported, demanding they leave the city. To deal with the perceived threat the US has deployed 5,200 troops to help more than 2,000 National Guardsmen thwart what President Trump describes as an impending migrant“invasion.” Over the past few weeks, the active-duty servicemen deployed under Operation Faithful Patriot have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border in Texas, California and Arizona, as well as building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. To ensure the success of the military operation, in addition to sheer troop numbers, the US forces have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal.

Eyewitness Confessional: There Was An Active Shooter Targeting The Bellagio Hotel During The Las Vegas Massacre In yet another astonishing eyewitness report that contradicts the official story surrounding the worst mass shooting in American history, a married couple who were celebrating their 10th anniversary in Las Vegas at the time of the shooting have come forward to reveal that there was an active shooter inside the Bellagio Hotel around the same time that supposed lone gunman Stephen Paddock was found dead. During the confessional, a Canadian man by the name of Jeff detailed the fact that he and his wife were in the Bellagio Resort and Casino around 11:20pm on the night of the shooting when panic broke out in the hotels lobby. Jeff begins the interview by making clear his belief that there were multiple active shooters targeting different places in Las Vegas on the night of the attack. “First of all, I think what needs to be said is that, from my perspective, there were multiple events that occurred around Las Vegas, up and down the Strip that night. It wasn’t just centralized around the Mandalay Hotel,” the witness claimed. The eyewitness then goes on to directly say that he and his wife were involved in an active shooter situation at a different hotel that authorities have so far done everything in their power to cover-up. “My wife and I were in Las Vegas celebrating our 10th anniversary and on October 1st we were involved in an incident with an active shooter at the Bellagio. There is no mistake in my mind about it,” he continued. Jeff then describes a scene in which he and his wife were walking through the main lobby when screams and gunfire erupted. Keep in mind, this is all information that the police and the FBI has hidden from the American people. “All of a sudden there was just a crescendo of screams that started behind us in the lobby,” he claimed. “Then I heard somebody yell ‘there’s a shooter! There’s a shooter!’ And then I heard like five or six pops, like unmistakable gunfire, unmistakably.” “That was about 11:20 when we heard the shots and the screams… at that point you could hear and see the screams and see hundreds of people coming towards us.” Amazingly, as Shepard Ambellas noted, “The man’s claims match up to actual events captured in police audio recordings from the night of the shooting which confirms that between 11:15 and 11:18 p.m. on the night of Oct. 1 there was, in fact, something going on at the Bellagio.” This testimony also backs up claims by another eyewitness, Rene Downs, who has spent the past few days doing interviews about a shooter inside the Bellagio Hotel. Slowly but surely we are starting to see the official narrative regarding the Las Vegas Massacre be completely destroyed. At this point it is strikingly obvious that authorities have lied to the American people about the worst mass shooting in our countries history. One can only speculate as to what the reasons for these lies actually are?

Julian Assange During World War II Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty was a huge critic of fascism and wound up in prison. In Oct. 1945 he became head of the Church in Hungary and spoke out just as strongly against Communist oppression. He wound up back in prison for eight more years, including long periods of solitary confinement and endured other forms of torture. In 1949 he was sentenced to life in a show trial that generated worldwide condemnation. Two weeks after the trial began in early 1949, Pope Pius XII (having failed to speak out forcefully against the Third Reich) did summon the courage to condemn what was happening to Mindszenty. Pius excommunicated everyone involved in the Mindszenty trial. Then, addressing a huge crowd on St. Peter’s Square, he asked, “Do you want a Church that remains silent when she should speak … a Church that does not condemn the suppression of conscience and does not stand up for the just liberty of the people … a Church that locks herself up within the four walls of her temple in unseemly sycophancy …?” When the Hungarian revolution broke out in 1956, Mindszenty was freed, but only for four days. When Soviet tanks rolled back into Budapest, he fled to the U.S. embassy and was given immediate asylum by President Eisenhower. Speaking Freely: Ray M... Buy New $1.99 (as of 09:20 EDT - Details) There the Cardinal stayed cooped up for the next 15 years. Mindszenty’s mother was permitted to visit him four times a year, and the communist authorities stationed secret police outside the embassy ready to arrest him should he try to leave. Sound familiar? Where is the voice of conscience to condemn what is happening to Julian Assange, whose only “crime” is publishing documents exposing the criminal activities and corruption of governments and other Establishment elites? Decades ago, the U.S. and “civilized world” had nothing but high praise for the courageous Mindszenty. He became a candidate for sainthood. And Assange? He has been confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six years —from June 19, 2012—the victim of a scurrilous slander campaign and British threats to arrest him, should he ever step outside. The U.S. government has been putting extraordinary pressure on Ecuador to end his asylum and top U.S. officials have made it clear that, as soon as they get their hands on him, they will manufacture a reason to put him on trial and put him in prison. All for spreading unwelcome truth around. A Suppression of Conscience One might ask, is “unseemly sycophancy” at work among the media? The silence of what used to be the noble profession of journalism is deafening. John Pilger — one of the few journalists to speak out on Julian Assange’s behalf, labels journalists who fail to stand in solidarity with Assange in exposing the behavior of the Establishment, “Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served ad enabled the German occupation of France.” Pilger adds: “No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare … When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to ‘a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed.’ He asked why ‘the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought’ of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America’s imperial crimes “never happened … even while [they] were happening, they never happened.’” WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? In an op-ed published several years ago by The Los Angeles Times, two members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic, pointed out that — If WikiLeaks had been up and running before 9/11 — frustrated FBI investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks. “There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.” The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:50 EDT - Details) Fourth Estate on Life Support In 2010, while he was still a free man, the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity gave its annual award to Assange. The citation read: “It seems altogether fitting and proper that this year’s award be presented in London, where Edmund Burke coined the expression “Fourth Estate.” Comparing the function of the press to that of the three Houses then in Parliament, Burke said: “…but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far then they all.” The year was 1787—the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The First Amendment, approved four years later, aimed at ensuring that the press would be free of government interference. That was then. With the Fourth Estate now on life support, there is a high premium on the fledgling Fifth Estate, which uses the ether and is not susceptible of government or corporation control. Small wonder that governments with lots to hide feel very threatened. It has been said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” WikiLeaks is helping make that possible by publishing documents that do not lie. Last spring, when we chose WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for this award, Julian said he would accept only “on behalf or our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.” We do not know if Pvt. Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks the gun-barrel video of July 12, 2007 called “Collateral Murder.” Whoever did provide that graphic footage, showing the brutality of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, was certainly far more a patriot than the “mainstream” journalist embedded in that same Army unit. He suppressed what happened in Baghdad that day, dismissed it as simply “one bad day in a surge that was filled with such days,” and then had the temerity to lavish praise on the unit in a book he called “The Good Soldiers.” Julian is right to emphasize that the world is deeply indebted to patriotic truth-tellers like the sources who provided the gun-barrel footage and the many documents on Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks. We hope to have a chance to honor them in person in the future. Today we honor WikiLeaks, and one of its leaders, Julian Assange, for their ingenuity in creating a new highway by which important documentary evidence can make its way, quickly and confidentially, through the ether and into our in-boxes. Long live the Fifth Estate!” Eventually a compromise was found in 1971 when Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunications and Mindszenty was able to leave the U.S. embassy. Can such a diplomatic solution be found to free Assange? It is looking more and more unlikely with each passing year. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.

Security Guard Jesus Campos Shot During The Vegas Massacre Raises New Questions About Official Narrative The infamous security guard at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, who was allegedly shot stopping the massacre in Las Vegas over a week ago is not listed or registered as such. Jesus Campos, who the narrative is constantly changing around, is still a source of mystery. So who is Jesus Campos? That burning question has bothered many since the release of his name, but there’s been no photograph of this alleged hero, even though we’ve already seen crime scene images of the guns Stephen Paddock allegedly dragged up to his 32nd-floor hotel room. The ever-changing narrative now though, seems to swirl around this unknown mystery security guard. At first, Campos, a guard at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, was hailed a hero for helping guide police to gunman Stephen Paddock’s room on the 32nd floor. Police said Campos was shot in the leg at the end of Paddock’s assault on concertgoers—potentially distracting the gunman and causing him to panic and kill himself. But now, questions have been raised after Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo revised the timeline and said Campos had actually been shot about 9:59 p.m. a (full six minutes before the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m.) which means the guard could have instead led Paddock to start opening fire on the crowd for fear of being caught. Police have said it was difficult to identify the source of the bullets during the attack, and the confusion added more minutes to their lengthy response. But the revised timeline shows officers would have known where Paddock was before the mass shooting even started. Did Campos call 911? What happened during those six minutes? Much of Campos’s story and background remains a mystery. –Newsweek Campos’s co-worker Liliana Rodriguez started a GoFundMe account for him on October 3, explaining that he’d been shot while on “random patrol” and it could have been anyone of us. “Funds will be used to provide relief and financial support for him while he gets back on his feet,” Rodriguez’s online petition says. “This is a young man that I work with day in and day out. Any financial support would be appreciated for the time he would need to recover.” Strangely, a picture of Campos wasn’t displayed as part of the fund because Rodriguez indicated that “due to privacy from the media we do not feel comfortable publishing a photo.” There are obviously certain things that the FBI and other investigators seem intent on covering up. Their own narrative is quickly shattering. Las Vegas Metro Police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill explained more about Campos’s actions the night of the shooting, helping fill in some of what happened ahead of the attack, but unfortunately, it only added more questions and gave little in the way of answers. McMahill told KNPR, a local NPR affiliate, that Campos went up to the 32nd floor to investigate a door alarm. While on the 32nd floor, he found that a stairwell door was jammed and radioed down to maintenance. Campos heard a drilling sound and thought it was odd. A maintenance worker came up to the 32nd floor. As the pair started talking, Paddock began firing through the door of his room, first with a single-fire gun and then with a rapid-fire rifle. Police have said that when Campos radioed what happened, it helped them track where Paddock was holed up – so why change the narrative to make it even more unbelievable? And still, none of this explains why Campos is not registered as a security guard either, and why the timeline is being changed publically. What exactly do they want us to believe? Article posted with permission from SHTFPlan

“Credible Evidence Of A Terrorist Infiltration”: Congressman Says ‘Secret Intel’ Proves ISIS Connection To Las Vegas Massacre Congress is in possession of ‘secret intel’ that exposes an ISIS connection to the horrific Las Vegas Massacre, according to a surprising claim made by Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry. Appearing on Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Perry described evidence he had personally seen that suggested that some sort of terrorist infiltration aided the Las Vegas Massacre. One can imagine that said terrorists either helped Paddock or were actually some of the many other shooters reported that night. “Recently, I have been made aware of what i believe to be credible evidence, credible information, regarding potential terrorist infiltration, through the southern border, regarding this event,” Perry shockingly claimed. “Let’s face it, twice before the attack ISIS warned the United States that they would attack Las Vegas and then after the attack claimed responsibility four times,” Perry continued. Keep in mind that this lines up with other alternative media reports regarding the Oct. 1st massacre as well as hints provided in the mainstream media. We also know that it is a conclusive fact that there was more than one shooter, according to literally dozens of eyewitnesses who have continued to come forward with what they saw that fateful night. Interestingly, there are also reports that Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend actually deleted her Facebook page an hour before police released her boyfriends name. Infowars reports:

Clinton Email IG Report Rips FBI, Comey, & Lynch… Plus A Whole Lot More! Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation has finally been released to the public and while it does indeed lambaste former FBI Director James Comey for his terrible judgment and handling of the Clinton investigation, it stops short of blaming it all on politics. Horowitz’ report not only slams Comey, but it also criticizes former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and immoral FBI philanderers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Horowitz blames Comey, Strzok, and Page for besmirching the good name of the FBI and harming the agencies reputation with the American people. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. At the end of the day, Horowitz was unable to find solid proof that the agency acted in a politically partisan and biased manner in the Clinton email case. However, the Inspector General left the door open to the possibility that political bias did indeed play a role, as his current investigation in the Russia-Collusion probe of the FBI and the DOJ could reveal new evidence to damn the FBI’s Obama era leadership. While the report refuses to say conclusively that political bias was the animus behind the FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe, it also indicates that IG Horowitz may have more to say about the FBI’s political leanings in his Russia report. The Washington Post explains: The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI Director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president… Some senior bureau officials, the report found, exhibited a disturbing “willingness to take official action” to hurt Trump’s chances to become president. Perhaps the most damaging new revelation in the report is a previously-unreported text message in which Peter Strzok, a key investigator on both the Clinton email case and the investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, assured an FBI lawyer in August 2016 that “we’ll stop” Trump from making it to the White House. “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right? !” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok. “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded… The inspector general concluded that Strzok’s text, along with others disparaging Trump, “is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” The messages “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the inspector general wrote… Strzok has argued that he was just trying to reassure Page that Trump couldn’t win, and that he wasn’t implying that they would take action to stop his election. But it wasn’t just Page and Strzok, there were FIVE other investigators on the Clinton case who expressed overtly political views in support of Clinton and/or against Trump… DURING the investigation. Page and Strzok are not the only FBI officials assigned to the Clinton email probe who were found to have exchanged personal messages indicating either an animus against Trump or frustration with the fact that the FBI was investigating Clinton. The report identified five officials with some connection to the email probe who were expressing political views, faulting them for having brought “discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.” The midyear investigation refers to the Clinton email probe. “The messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” Horowitz alleged. “Ultimately the consequences of these actions impact not only the senders of these messages but also other who worked on these investigation and, indeed, the entire FBI.” The IG also found that the FBI moved slowly on new evidence that could have damned Hillary Clinton, and did so for reasons that make no sense. The report took particular aim at FBI officials investigating Clinton’s email server for moving slowly after agents in the New York Field office discovered messages on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner that might be relevant to their case. By no later than September 29, the inspector general alleged, the bureau had learned “virtually every fact” it would cite as justification late the next month to search Weiner’s laptop for messages of Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin. The inspector general derided the bureau’s reasons for not moving more quickly — that agents were waiting for additional information from New York, that they couldn’t move without a warrant and that investigators were more focused on the Russia case — as “unpersuasive,” “illogical,” and inconsistent with their assertion that they would leave no stone unturned on Clinton. The report also faulted the bureau for assigning essentially the same personnel to the Russia and Clinton teams, and singled out Strzok, suggesting his anti-Trump views might have played a role in his not acting more expeditiously on the new lead. “Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias,” the report said. Did you get that? IG Horowitz can’t prove it, but he’s not sure that Strzok wasn’t acting in a politically biased manner when he slow-played the Clinton investigation while moving more quickly on the Russia investigation. How in the world can we trust them even as they express bias while investigating malfeasance? We see this kind of corruption all over the world, why should believe that these officials could be immune to acting on their personal biases? There were 7 of them on the case, and they were comfortable enough with each other to express their biases openly and none of them ever chastised the others for expressing those biases! Not only that, the team that handled Clinton’s investigation so poorly was almost the identical team that was then assigned to handle the Russia investigation! Meaning, the obviously politically biased team that had just cleared the woman that they supported, was now tapped to investigate if the man that they hated was tied to Russian corruption. This is INSANE. Meanwhile, another story just breaking at Fox News provides even more evidence that Peter Strzok is the big bad guy in the FBI mess. Not only was he slow-playing the Clinton investigation, he may be the only reason she was never charged with a crime. In a newly released FBI email, we learned that “foreign actors” gained at least some access to Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system. Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which lays out key interim findings ahead of next week’s hearing with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated report on the Clinton email case later Thursday. The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton’s email security. “Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified ‘Secret,'” the memo says, adding that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers. Here’s the email in question: Peter Strzok email about Clinton emails by Fox News on Scribd The email came from FBI agent Peter Strzok and it’s the first place we see the question of whether or not Clinton can be found as “grossly negligent,” in the handling of classified intel. Remember, Strzok is widely credited as the man who changed FBI Director Comey’s language on the Clinton email investigation from the prosecutable “grossly negligent” to the legally superflous “extremely careless.” At HotAir.com John Sexton explains the importance of this discovery: In the FBI memo, you can already see the genesis of the distinction the FBI would rely on to clear Clinton. Strzok writes that the media has been focused on the question of why Hillary seems to be getting a pass when “Petraeus/Berger/Libby” did not. He writes, “We draw the distinction in noting we have no evidence classified information was ever shared with an unauthorized party, i.e. notwithstanding the server setup, we have not seen classified information shared with a member of the media, an agent of a foreign power, a lover, etc.” In other words, Hillary may have been hacked but she didn’t intentionally give anything away. Of course, the statute itself didn’t make intent a prerequisite. Herridge reports that the House committee memo once again raises this same issue: “Officials from both agencies have created a perception they misinterpreted the Espionage Act by stating Secretary Clinton lacked the requisite ‘intent’ for charges to be filed,” the memo says, before pointing to statements by Comey that indicated a belief that intent was required — which the memo says ignored “meaningful aspects” of the law. It really does seem that Strzok, an agent who had a personal pro-Hillary bias, was the person who pushed to let her off the hook by focusing on her intent rather than her negligence setting up the server in the first place. I fully believe IG Horowitz’ findings here. I believe that he was unable to prove that there was any political motive to the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email case, and I believe that while the case was obviously mishandled, it could have reached the conclusion it did honorably. However, I also think that the IG has purposely left room in his conclusion to amend that decision after he’s concluded his Russia investigation. In fact, there are already signs of him doing that in this report. Much of the information that he uses to chastise Strzok’s behavior and judgment in the Clinton email case, would have actually come from his current investigation into the Russia mess. It’s quite possible that as bad as this report is for Comey, Strzok, Page, and Obama’s FBI leadership… Horowitz’ conclusion in the Russia investigation could prove to be even worse. We’ll see. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com

Uranium One Informant Breaks Silence: Moscow Paid Millions To Influence Hillary Clinton The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution Right off the bat, this appears to be clear bribery, and a case could be made for treason. However, it is now being reported that an FBI informant that was involved in the Uranium One deal, has told congressional committees that Moscow paid lobbyists to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration. The Hill's John Solomon reported on Wednesday: The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton. ... Campbell added in the testimony that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons' Global Initiative." “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement." APCO officials told The Hill that its support for the Clinton Global Initiative and its work with Russia were not connected in any way, and in fact involved different divisions of the firm. They added their lobbying for Russia did not involve Uranium One but rather focused on regulatory issues aimed at helping Russia better compete for nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States. In case you are unfamiliar with Uranium One, it is a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The sale gave the Russians control of part of the US uranium supply, thus why I reference a case could be made for treason. While Democrats have unsurprisingly questioned Campbell's credibility, Campbell's attorney Victoria Toensing told Sean Hannity, “[The Russians] were so confident that they told Mr. Campbell with the Clinton’s help, it was a shoo-in to get CFIUS [The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] approval. They were so confident in that that they even had him open up the new office because they were planning on the kind of business they were going to do as soon as CFIUS approved it.” In a lengthy report by Award-winning National Security/War Correspondent Sara Carter, she pointed out that following: On Wednesday, he shared with the committee information he provided to the FBI and has in the past described his frustration with the Obama administration’s failure to stop Russia’s nuclear giant from purchasing 20 percent of American uranium mining assets. Campbell testified before numerous Congressional investigators that his extensive counterintelligence work on Russia and stated that during his time as an informant, he obtained information that Russia was continuing to aid the Iranian government. According to Campbell Russia provided the resources necessary for the nation’s nuclear reactors, despite promises that they were not sharing such technology with Iran. In an April 16, 2010, summary brief provided to his former FBI handlers and obtained by this reporter, he stressed his deep concerns about Tenex, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear arm Rosatom and its ongoing work to provide Iran with the technology needed for its nuclear reactor program. At the time, Rosatom was seeking the approval to purchase the Canadian mining company Uranium One. “TENEX continues to supply Iran with fuel through their Russian company TVEL,” stated Campbell in a 2010 brief provided to the FBI. TVEL is a Russian nuclear fuel cycle company headquartered in Moscow. “They (TVEL) continue to assist with construction consult and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult of TVEL.” Campbell informed the FBI of the close relationship between TVEL and TENEX, both a part of the Rosatom group. He stated in his brief that while spending time with the Russian executives from both Rosatom and Tenex, that any mention of “TVEL is a subject that is serious to all when mentioned. I do not even raise the subject of TVEL to our friends, but occasionally they speak of it and always in a guarded manner.” In the briefs, he informed the FBI that “occasionally someone will mention having been in Iran but usually it is long after the fact.” And when he asked the Russians about these connections, he stated that they “occasionally speak of the relationship, i.e. equipment, consulting. I asked Vadim (Mikerin) if they felt there was a serious problem, and would they adhere to sanctions and western opinion. His response was a smile and shoulder shrug.” But Campbell had provided the FBI with evidence of the criminal network and delivered the information to the FBI, which was monitoring his work as an informant and approving his transfer of bribery money to the Russians. Those transfers, which were made in bulk $50,000 sums and at times delivered in cash, occurred between senior executives of the American transportation company and the Russian executives connected to Rosatom. He had given the FBI irrefutable evidence showing how contracts obtained from the same Russian energy company Tenex, were based on contract bribery and other nefarious actions, he said. Senior members of the FBI, Department of Treasury, Department of Energy and Department of Justice were also briefed on Campbell’s information and were apprised of the various facets pertaining to Russia’s acquisition of the Canadian company. In fact, Campbell had been told by his FBI handlers that his work had made it at least twice into President Obama’s classified presidential daily briefings. Of course, we know what Obama did with his daily briefings. They are somewhere in the White House sewer system. Campbell's work has resulted in real justice being administered. In January, I reported: On Friday, the Justice Department unsealed an 11-count indictment concerning the Uranium One scandal. Sadly, it did not include former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but rather former DoD intelligence analyst-turned uranium transportation executive Mark Lambert of Mount Airy, Maryland. Lambert, 54, was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX. According to the DOJ: According to the indictment, beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. In order to effectuate and conceal the corrupt and fraudulent bribe payments, Lambert and others allegedly caused fake invoices to be prepared, purportedly from TENEX to Transportation Corporation A, that described services that were never provided, and then Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to wire the corrupt payments for those purported services to shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland. Lambert and others also allegedly used code words like “lucky figures,” “LF,” “lucky numbers,” and “cake” to describe the payments in emails to the Russian official at his personal email account. The indictment also alleges that Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to overbill TENEX by building the cost of the corrupt payments into their invoices, and TENEX thus overpaid for Transportation Corporation A’s services. In June 2015, Lambert’s former co-president, Daren Condrey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, and Vadim Mikerin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering involving violations of the FCPA. Mikerin is currently serving a sentence of 48 months in prison and Condrey is awaiting sentencing. The indictment includes allegations against Lambert based on his role in effectuating the criminal scheme with Condrey, Mikerin, and others. We also know the following about Campbell: Undercover FBI informant William Campbell has given written testimony to Congressional investigators after an "iron clad" gag order was lifted in October Campbell was a highly valued CIA and FBI asset deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI Campbell was required by the Russians, under threat, to launder large sums of money - which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian "nuclear money laundering apparatus " " He collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period, some of which detail efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation Campbell claims to have video evidence of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. The Obama FBI knew about the bribery scheme, yet the administration still approved the Uranium One deal. To thank him for his service, Campbell was paid $51,000 by FBI officials at a 2016 celebration dinner in Chrystal City When it emerged that Campbell had evidence against the Clinton Foundation, a Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff (of FISA warrant application fame) slammed Campbell as a "disaster" potential witness All of this then goes back to things we have pointed out with ranchers in the western united States and how this impacts them, as well as the land grabs that are unconstitutionally orchestrated by the DC government and the Bureau of Land Management. There is also substantial documentation that was discovered in Oregon that relates to this deal during the Oregon occupation in 2016, which got zero coverage in the mainstream media. Are we about to see a serious shakedown in all of this? Time will tell, but I remain skeptical, as in the end, all we ever get is excuses rather than justice.

NASA releases images captured at a record-breaking 3.79 billion miles from Earth NASA has a whole lot of fancy image-gathering hardware on Earth and in space, and we’ve seen countless of stunning snapshots taken from here on Earth as well as nearby planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The pictures are often gorgeously detailed eye candy, but the latest batch of images from the space agency is remarkable for an entirely different reason. Captured by NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft, the images were gathered at a greatest distance from Earth than any in the history of mankind. So, just how far is “the farthest ever”? Right around 3.79 billion miles. Yeah, it’s kind of crazy. There are three images in total, each focusing on a different distant object. The subjects include the ‘Wishing Well’ star cluster as well as two large objects in the Kuiper Belt which have never been observed from such a distance before. “New Horizons has long been a mission of firsts — first to explore Pluto, first to explore the Kuiper Belt, fastest spacecraft ever launched,” New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern, of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, notes in a statement. “And now, we’ve been able to make images farther from Earth than any spacecraft in history.” The images, as seen above (Kuiper Belt objects) and below (Wishing Well cluster), are somewhat grainy and not the most detailed we’ve seen from NASA, but that doesn’t make the feat any less remarkable. New Horizons originally launched way back in early 2006, and it the spacecraft has made close passes of a number of planets during its more than a decade of cruising through our Solar System. Its primary mission was set to last roughly 10 years, but was extended once it became clear that the spacecraft was healthy enough to continue sending back observations for a while longer. Its new extended mission will wrap up in early 2021 after it performs a number of flybys of large objects in the Kuiper Belt that scientists want to learn more about. However, that might not be the last we hear from New Horizons, as its power source could continue to provide life into 2026 and beyond. If it makes it that long, NASA plans to use the spacecraft to study the outer heliosphere.

They Are Coming: Migrant Caravan Resumes March to US Border (Video) Thousands of migrants are making their way to the US border where they will be met with barbed wire and American forces blocking their illegal entry into the United States. 665 SHARES Facebook Twitter The migrant caravan has resumed their march through Mexico towards the U.S. border that is being reinforced by the Army and Marine Corps. President Trump has effectively suspended the granting of asylum to migrants who cross illegally. Trump signed the order on Friday, and it went into effect on Saturday. The order means that migrants will have to present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to qualify for asylum and follow other rules unveiled on Thursday that seek to limit asylum claims. After spending almost a week in Mexico City, where many refused to accept asylum from Mexico, the caravan, made up mostly of male Hondurans, but also nationals of other Central American countries, is now on the move towards the United States border. A Ruptly video shows hundreds of people getting on trains in Mexico subway, and boarding heavy trucks or buses somewhere outside the city. Others are seen using cars to continue their trek towards the border. take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. RT reports: To get there, migrants will have to travel some 1,700 miles (2,735km) to the northwest, a much longer route than to the nearest US border crossing at McAllen, Texas, which many consider to be the safest option. Meanwhile on the other side of the US border, efforts are being made to reinforce it and make it less penetrable from the outside. The US has deployed 5,200 troops to help border protection thwart what Donald Trump has described as an impending migrant “invasion.” Troops setting up barb wire under the Hidalgo Reynosa bridge #RGV -Miltares colocan cerca alámbrica en la frontera #Texas #Telemundo40 vid @AntonioNewsT40 pic.twitter.com/8cr3XfH2T6 — Iris Rodriguez (@IrisNews) November 2, 2018 For now, the active-duty servicemen have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border and building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. In addition to sheer numbers, the US forces will have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal to ensure the success of the military operation.  As the caravan approaches the US border, President Donald Trump has signed an immigration decree requiring asylum seekers to apply at their point of entry to the country and barring illegal immigrants from requesting asylum. “We need people in our country but they have to come in legally and they have to have merit,” Trump told reporters before departing for Paris.

Nigel Farage Warns “We’ll Lose” A Battle Between the West and Islam British politician Nigel Farage once helped convince Britons to vote for Brexit and separate from the European Union, but British establishment politicians have done everything they could to sabotage that vote since then. Now Farage has apparently decided that if he can’t beat them, he’ll join them — if not on Brexit, then in their stance of denial and appeasement regarding the global jihad threat.’ At a recent dinner of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which he formerly headed, Farage said: “If dealing with Islamic fundamentalism becomes a battle between us and the entire religion, I’ll tell you the result: we’ll lose. We will simply lose….We absolutely have to get that Muslim majority living in many of our towns and cities on our side, more attuned to Western values than some pretty hardline interpretations of the Qur’an.” Sure. Now how does Farage propose to do that? His warning against making the resistance to jihad a “battle between us and the entire religion” is odd. No sane person is saying that the West should go to war with the entire Islamic world. The likeliest interpretation of his statement is that he is saying that we must not speak about how jihadis find justification for their actions in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as that will alienate the “moderates.” take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. But if we don’t speak about such facts, how will we ever convince Muslims not to follow “hardline interpretations of the Qur’an”? Another problem with Farage’s statement is that it manifests a remarkable ignorance of history. While he is deeply concerned that British people not begin to think that resisting jihad terror means that they are in a “battle” with the “entire religion” of Islam, he appears unaware of the fact that many Muslims throughout history have considered their entire religion to be at war with the entire non-Muslim world. I document this abundantly in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS . To take one of innumerable examples, Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi, a fifteenth-century Persian who wrote a biography of the Mongol Muslim warrior Tamerlane, observed that “the Qur’an says the highest dignity man can attain is that of making war in person against the enemies of his religion. Muhammad advises the same thing, according to the tradition of the Muslim doctors: wherefore the great Temur always strove to exterminate the infidels, as much to acquire that glory, as to signalise himself by the greatness of his conquests.” After conquest came dhimmitude, the subjugated status that the Qur’an mandates for “the People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians). In the early twelfth century, the Fatimid caliph Al-Amir bi-Ahkamillah issued this edict: Now, the prior degradation of the infidels in this world before the life to come—where it is their lot—is considered an act of piety; and the imposition of their poll tax [jizya], “until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (Koran 9:29) is a divinely ordained obligation….The dhimmi’s payment of his dues by a bill drawn on a Muslim, or by delegating a real believer to pay it in his name will not be tolerated. It must be exacted from him directly in order to vilify and humiliate him, so that Islam and its people may be exalted and the race of infidels brought low. The jizya is to be imposed on all of them in full, without exception. Underlying this subjugation is a deep contempt for non-Muslims. In the year 718, the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz sent out a message to the governors of the various Islamic provinces: O you who believe! The non-Muslims are nothing but dirt. Allah has created them to be partisans of Satan; most treacherous in regard to all they do; whose whole endeavor in this nether life is useless, though they themselves imagine that they are doing fine work. Upon them rests the curse of Allah, of the Angels and of man collectively We must not think that we are at war with the entire religion. But what, Mr. Farage, are we to think about the Muslims who consider themselves and their religion to be at war with us? Nigel Farage has become just another mainstream hack politician. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

How Many Child Rapists Did a Sanctuary City Mayor Tip Off? The price of a sanctuary city for illegal aliens is paid in abused children. Just ask the abused children of Oakland. A sweep of Northern California by federal immigration officials this week, which was partly thwarted when the Oakland mayor sounded the alarm, nabbed a number of illegal immigrants convicted of a variety of serious and violent crimes. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced this week that the four-day raid led to the arrest of 232 illegal immigrants in the San Francisco Bay Area. Of those 232, 180 “were either convicted criminals, had been issued a final order of removal and failed to depart the United States, or had been previously removed” from the country and had come back illegally. The arrests included 115 who "had prior felony convictions for serious or violent offenses, such as child sex crimes, weapons charges and assault, or had past convictions for significant or multiple misdemeanors." The numbers might have been greater, but for the intervention of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who tweeted out a warning of the impending raid, tipping off others who might have been caught... "I did what I believe was right for my community as well as to protect public safety," Schaaf said Friday, according to NBC Bay Area. "People should be able to live without fear or panic and know their rights and responsibilities as well as their recourses."

Pope Francis vs Contemplative Orders The Francis Vatican’s approach to the contemplative life is probably the most illustrative of our entire crisis. Contemplative life is aimed only at a purely supernatural end. It has no “use” in the sense that either the Bergoglians – in terms of their political machinations – or the world can understand. There is probably no other place where the differences between the two programmes - the Catholic programme of Christ and the Bergoglian/Kasperian programme - are more sharply contrasted. One aspect of Pope Francis’ character that seems little-explored by the Catholic and secular media alike is his apparent disdain for contemplative religious life – a facet of Catholic life that could be described as the most purely religious of all the Church’s undertakings. The world does not understand it or want it. Therefore, it is something of a thorn in the Bergoglian side, and he has repeatedly expressed his contempt for it. So when, in 2016 he issued a document on contemplative nuns, the faithful braced for impact . In his recent document, ostensibly on holiness, “Gaudete et Exultate,” the pope attacked the religious desire for silence and solitude, to be alone with God in prayer, seeking unity with Him, saying in essence that the Christian life is inherently about social activism, about material, worldly ends. To these foundations of the contemplative life – indeed of any form of religious life in the Church – Francis set up another of his false dichotomies, contemplation in opposition to serving others, giving a Jesuit maxim as an imperative for all Catholics: “We are called to be contemplatives even in the midst of action, and to grow in holiness by responsibly and generously carrying out our proper mission.” Italian Vaticanist Marco Tosatti commented dryly, “Rejoice and be glad… but not if you’re a cloistered contemplative.” In 2016, I wrote that Francis’ Apostolic Constitution, “Vultum dei quaerere” was in some respects the most damaging object of the wrecking-ball pontificate to date. Unfortunately, it was about a subject that the world, and therefore the modern Church, cares so little about that hardly anyone noticed. Aimed specifically at female contemplative religious, the document threatened that in a year or so another would be forthcoming laying out precisely what would now be required of nuns to continue in their vocations. The new document issued last week, “Cor orans,” is juridical, that is, it is not much more than a list of specific norms, or rules – 289 of them! – that all communities of contemplative nuns must now follow. One odd remark in article 19 is maybe the most succinct description of the direction planned for contemplatives: “A monastery of nuns, as every religious house, is erected while keeping in mind its usefulness for the Church and for the Institute.” (emphasis added) Wait… its “usefulness”? I think a fair question for the Faithful to ask this Vatican department might be, “According to what specific criteria is a monastery’s ‘usefulness’ actually determined?” One can’t help but hearken back to the criteria for monasteries that were allowed to survive the revolutionary purges in 18th and 19th century Europe. A house that could prove to the secularists that it was “useful” – that it could care for the indigent elderly, teach children or nurse the sick – would be allowed to continue. Those which were purely contemplative – a single-minded devotion to the adoration of God – were closed. It is not an insignificant quirk of modern history, and one that tells us much about the nature of the current pontificate, that houses of contemplatives are always attacked by secularist regimes, from Henry VIII to the Soviet Union. Rupture? What rupture? The first thing Cor orans does is claim continuity with both pre and post-Vatican II theology. In the Introduction, it seems anxious to establish a “hermeneutic of continuity” with Pius XII and his document Sponsa Christi Ecclesia of 1950. The authors insist there is no contradiction between the two – except, of course, where there are contradictions – and that both Pius XII and Francis are keen to see nuns reaching the “aim of their specific vocation.” It describes Francis as promulgating this document “in the wake” of Pius XII[1]. In fact, Pope Francis, by promulgating the Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei quaerere, on June 29, 2016, to help the contemplatives reach the aim of their specific vocation, invited reflection and discernment on the precise content tied to consecrated life in general and to the monastic tradition in particular, but he did not intend to abrogate Sponsa Christi Ecclesia that was derogated only in some points. As a consequence, the two pontifical documents are to be held as normative in force for monasteries of nuns and must be read in a unitary vision. But of course, the entire game is given away in the next paragraph: Pope Francis, in the wake of the teaching of Pope Pius XII and reaffirmed by Ecumenical Vatican Council II, intended to present in Vultum Dei quaerere the intense and fruitful path taken by the Church in the last decades, in the light of the teachings of the same Council and considering the changed socio-cultural conditions. Yes, that’s what it said. Here’s my translation: “The Church’s ‘path’ of the last 50 years has been ‘fruitful’. How do you know? Because we’re telling you it has.” In other words, there have been absolutely no problems whatever with the direction taken either by the Church or by the religious life since Vatican II. Everything that has happened has been in complete and perfect continuity between the Before Church and the After Church; there has been no rupture or break with the past. All changes undertaken by religious houses were perfectly legitimate and good - “fruitful” if, perhaps, a bit “intense” – and have been made in “light of the teachings” of Vatican II and “changed socio-cultural conditions.” There is, therefore, no legitimate reason whatever for any religious house to attempt to “turn back the clock” to the pre-Vatican II norms or styles of religious life. Anyone attempting to do this are Bad Nuns [insert string of incomprehensible papal insults here.] This is what might be considered the guiding principle of the document; “Nothing to see here. And if you say there is, you’re the problem.” Of course, this kind of bold proclamation is very much in keeping with the habit of this pontificate to simply claim there are no problems and become gravely offended and outraged when the contrary is pointed out. It’s your fault if you find contradictions, not theirs; they’ve said there are no contradictions, therefore there aren’t any. After all, this is the papacy where 2 + 2 = 5 if the pope says it does. The irony, of course, is built in, since this document is intended as a legal chopping block for the dissolution of any house of contemplative nuns that is judged to be hovering on the edge of extinction or is for some other reason in need of the chop. Why would the Vatican need a document giving extensive norms for the closure of monasteries that have too few nuns or do not follow their originally intended charisms if everything about the religious life since Vatican II has been hunky dory? Let’s remember that this comes from the Congregation for Religious of Braz de’Aviz and Jose Rodriguez Carballo. This is the Cardinal Braz de’Aviz[2] who wasted no time in orienting himself in the New Paradigm when, close on the heels of the Conclave he slammed the attempt by his predecessor – and by extension Pope Benedict – to reign in the notorious Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the US. He complained that he had been shut out of the process under Cardinal Rode, and later made a large and public point of appeasing and mollifying the most outspokenly heretical and politicised organisation of female religious in the world. Apparently the total statistical collapse of the religious life following Vatican II[3] had nothing to do with the massive systemic changes to the forms of that life – always claimed to be “mandated” by “the Council”. And of course we are talking about the priorities of a pope who has said that seeing a “restorationist” community enjoying a large number of vocations makes him “worry.” Apparently this worry was serious enough to move him to torpedo one of the most flourishing communities in the modern Church; the gaunt spectre of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate haunts this document. Autonomy vs. Independence One of the talking points the media have latched onto is the whole business of “autonomy” of monasteries. Many of the headlines crowed: “Vatican confirms nuns’ autonomy,” or similar. But that word does not mean what they think it means. In fact, the word “autonomy” is the key to understanding this whole thing. It appears in the document 16 times and “autonomous” 30 times. In fact, “autonomy” is held up as the single most important criterion for determining a monastery’s viability. This emphasis is repeated so often one might almost think there is a concern in Rome that the “fruitful” post-conciliar monastic life is in danger of fizzling out… for… some reason… Monastery sui juris refers to the religious house of a female monastic community that, having the requisites for real autonomy of life, was legitimately erected by the Holy See and enjoys juridical autonomy under the law. 18 In order to obtain juridical autonomy for a monastery of nuns, it must presuppose a real autonomy of life, that is, the ability to manage the life of the monastery in all its dimensions (vocational, formative, governmental, relational, liturgical, economic ...). In this case, an autonomous monastery is alive and vital. 43 Autonomy of life, a constant prerequisite for maintaining juridical autonomy, must be constantly verified by the Federal President who, when in her judgment a monastery lacks autonomy of life, must inform the Holy See in view of the nomination of an ad hoc commission. 67 Affiliation [with another monastery, appointed by the Vatican] can be an opportunity for recovery and rebirth when autonomy of life is partially compromised. If the situation of incapacity is irreversible, the solution, as painful as it is necessary, is the suppression of the monastery. no longer possesses a real autonomy of life , it is the responsibility of the Federation President to report the matter to the Holy See. When an autonomous monastery , it is the responsibility ofto the Holy See. At the same time, this document is redefining the term “autonomous” to exclude independence. What got no mention in the brief press interest was the document’s insistence that all monasteries of nuns must belong to a federation and while monasteries must demonstrate “autonomy” they will be granted little in the way of powers of self-governance. As we will see, the federations are now a multilayered system of internal surveillance and centralised control that leaves Orwell in the dust: overcome isolation and promote regular observance and contemplative life. Federation of monasteries means a structure of communion among some autonomous monasteries of the same Institute [4] , erected by the Holy See that approves the Statutes, so that in sharing the same charism, the federated monasteriesand promote regular observance and contemplative life. Note the change: “independent” is replaced with “isolated[5].” It reminds me of a conversation I had with a superior of a Benedictine house in the UK. She said she thought that the psychiatric testing, that in 2008 was still all the rage among the houses of her monastery’s federation, was excessive and not helpful. She didn’t trust the heavily secularised field of psychology to help in determining a candidate’s suitability for religious life, so she didn’t require these tests of her monastery’s postulants. She also said that she was under constant pressure, both the subtle pressure of general peer disapproval and overt requests to conform by the federation’s leadership. Was that monastery “isolated”? Or just exercising lawful self-governance? And given that autonomy is being held up as the sole criterion for viability of a monastery, it seems the Holy See is not interested in asking whether it is actually faithful to the charism, or even to the Catholic Faith, a question that has burned brightly for serious Catholics for some time. The word “fidelity” appears in the document four times, which may give an idea of how much interest the Vatican has in this issue. Funny you should mention autonomy: Bioethics and the dissolution of “unviable” monasteries It’s funny that the buzzword of the day in Rome should be “autonomy”. As we shall see, the document is what I’ve called above a “chopping block”. Vultum dei quaerere made it clear that this juridical document would provide a set of legal criteria by which a monastery can be considered viable, religious life worthy of life, so to speak, and that those considered to have failed the test would be closed. Note the language used here: If the situation of incapacity is irreversible, the solution, as painful as it is necessary, is the suppression of the monastery. It jogged a memory for me. “Incapacity”… Where had I heard that language used before? Most pro-life observers in Britain will tell you that it was the “Mental Capacity Act” of 2005 that established in British law the concept that a person with permanently “reduced capacity” could be legally starved and/or dehydrated to death by doctors. This is the world, the language, of Bioethics, applied utilitarianism, also called “Principlism” after its three bioethical criteria of “justice, beneficence[6] and autonomy” – it is a patient’s ability to demonstrate his “autonomy” or “quality of life,[7]” either currently or potentially, that decides his fate. This set of criteria is being applied in medical institutions across the western world now, a “new paradigm” of ethics replacing traditional “Hippocratic” or “Natural Law” medical ethics. Under this system the onus, effectively, is on the patient to prove according to the new criteria that he is worthy of receiving medical treatment – of continuing to live. Medical treatment (which legally includes food and water) can be withdrawn from patients who fail to demonstrate that they will recover sufficiently to return to an autonomous lifestyle. Health care systems like that of the UK have government regulatory boards giving out “guidelines” to determine in a uniform way how health care resources are allocated. These guidelines are collated by professional Bioethicists applying their utilitarian criteria. If the equation doesn’t come out in the patient’s favour, the “treatment” recommended for the patient’s “best interests” will include his demise, often procured by withdrawing nutrition and hydration and/or administering slowly lethal doses of sedatives. The NHS in the UK has actually gone to court, and won, declaring that they must retain the right to kill patients who fail the Bioethics test. The result has been a quiet reign of terror in which elderly and disabled people have started carrying cards stating in legalese that they do not want to be killed by their doctors. In one case a man with ALS took the NHS to court in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to preemptively preclude his medical murder when his illness left him incapacitated. The system, in other words, is stacked against the patient, in favour of the government that holds all the cards. Keep these facts in mind as we read through the rest of the document. I think we can find an almost perfect analogy by replacing the term “patient” with “monastery.” Think about how one would apply concepts like “autonomy,” “viability,” “incapacity,” “quality of life” and “equitable distribution of scarce resources” to this context. When the language of utilitarianism appears in Vatican documents as guiding criteria for the contemplative religious life, one has to wonder at what point has the entire project gone so disastrously off the rails. Federations as Vatican watchdogs Under this law, all monasteries of contemplative nuns must belong to a federation. Previously only voluntary and consultative, federations will now have the power to supervise and guide the formation of candidates, nuns and of their formators, as well as possess broad powers over temporal goods of individual monasteries and powers of suppression. The document makes it inarguable that the federation’s main role will be to establish and monitor for conformity to a particular programme – the “intense and fruitful path” of the Church since 1965 – both within the various orders and between them: The Federal Assembly: deals with issues of major importance; makes decisions and issues norms that all nuns are required to observe, after the definitive approval of the Holy See; More than just federations; a multi-tier system of control Conference of monasteries means a structure of communion among autonomous monasteries, belonging to diverse Institutes and present in the same region... in particular geographical or linguistic contexts. In other words, Benedictine federations of a given area will form a “Conference” with Carmelite federations and Dominican federations and Poor Clare federations, etc. This will be of interest to Carmelite houses especially, since they tend to be generally more on the “conservative” end of things. Imagine a house of traditional Carmelites attending regional Conference meetings – and attempting to keep up their Office schedule – with the balloons-and-guitars, break dancing Franciscans…What fun! And finally, just in case one entire federation decides to turn back the clock, there will be an umbrella for the umbrellas; there will be watchers watching the watchers: Confederation means a structure of connection among Federations of monasteries, erected by the Holy See that approves the Statutes, for the study of themes relative to contemplative life in relation to the same charism, to give unitary direction and a certain coordination to the activity of the individual Federations. Broad powers Federations will now have extremely broad powers both over money and property and, crucially, over formation of nuns. It is the Federation that now has the power to monitor for compliance with the rules, to report non-compliance to the Holy See, to make new foundations and, apparently, to “encourage” individual monasteries to “communicate” their goods. The legitimately established Federation is a public juridic person in the Church and is therefore able to acquire, possess, administer, and alienate temporal, movable and immovable goods, which are ecclesiastical assets, in accordance with the universal and proper law. To keep alive and strengthen the union of monasteries, implementing one of the aims of the Federation, a certain communication of goods is encouraged among the monasteries, coordinated by the Federal President. The communication of goods in a Federation is implemented through contributions, gifts, loans that monasteries offer other monasteries that have financial difficulties, and for the common needs of the Federation. The Federation considers the assets in its possession as necessary and useful means to achieve its goals. Financial incentives Given that we shall see below that the provisions for suppression of monasteries include vague and indefinable qualities like “vitality in living and transmitting the charism” and “dynamic fidelity” to the order’s charism, and that the goods of extinct monasteries will be assumed by the federation, one might be forgiven for asking if this creates an incentive to see to it that certain houses go extinct[8]. Since the document provides several mechanisms by which a federation can move nuns out of a monastery, this could be one of those indelicate questions some superiors might want to keep in mind. Article 94 requires that once it is canonically erected the federation is to seek “legal recognition also in the civil sphere.” This, presumably, will bear upon legal disputes in civil courts over the property of suppressed monasteries. Article 73, on the disposition of the material assets of a monastery that has gone completely extinct: In the event of the suppression of a totally extinct monastery, when there are no surviving nuns, unless otherwise provided by the Holy See, the destination of the suppressed monastery's assets, in compliance with canon and civil law, go to the respective higher juridical person, that is, to the Federation of monasteries or to another structure of communion among the monasteries equal to it or to the female monastic Congregation. The economic fund [of the federation] is nourished by the free donations of the monasteries, by the donations of benefactors, and by revenues deriving from the alienation of the assets of suppressed monasteries, as established by the present Instruction. Federations in charge of formation The Federation President, in particular, watches over initial and ongoing formation in the monasteries to see if it is in conformity with the charism proper to the Institute, so that every community may be a beacon that illumines the journey of the men and women of our time. At the end of the visit, she will inform the Holy See about the real possibilities that the monastery has or does not have of guaranteeing initial formation. The formation of the formators and their collaborators is entrusted in part to the monasteries and in part to the Federation, therefore, the President of the Federation is called to strengthen formation at the federal level and to require the participation of those who exercise the service of formation; if this does not happen, she will refer the matter to the Holy See. The President of the Federation, having heard the opinion of the Federal Council, chooses the most appropriate places to hold the specific formative courses for the formators and their collaborators, as well as those who are called to exercise the service of authority, establishing the duration of these courses in such a way that they are not detrimental to the needs of the contemplative life and of the community. Who makes new foundations and why? Throughout the history of the Church, it has been the prerogative of bishops to establish houses of contemplatives in their own dioceses. Now, with the pope having forbidden bishops to exercise this ancient right, according to this document, the federations themselves can make foundations. through the action of the Federation, as established by the Federal Assembly The foundation of a monastery of nuns, keeping in mind what is established in no. 39 of the present Instruction, can take place either by a single monastery or, as established by the Federal Assembly [9] A single monastic community that decides to make a foundation, moreover, must be “helped” and guided by the federation: In discerning the foundation of a new monastery on the part of a single monastery, the Federal President and the religious Assistant intervene to help the Superior of the founding monastery. The discernment on the foundation of a new monastery by the Federation is made within the framework of the Federal Assembly. Article 39 tells us some criteria for making foundations that “must be considered in their entirety and from an overall perspective.” the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism,” composed of at least eight nuns of solemn vows, “as long as most are not of advanced age”. a) A community that has given good testimony of fraternal life in common with “” composed of at least eight nuns of solemn vows, “as long as most are not of advanced age”. b) Besides the number, special skills are required of some nuns of the community who must be able to assume: as Superior, the service of authority; as formator, the initial formation of candidates; as financial administrator, the administration of the goods of the monastery. c) Rooms adapted to the lifestyle of the community, to ensure that the nuns can regularly lead the contemplative life according to the nature and spirit of their Institute. d) Economic conditions that guarantee the community itself can provide for the needs of daily life. One of these things is not like the others. Did you notice? One criterion stands out as indeterminate, vague, compared with the other concrete and measurable standards. One aspect of legislative analysis that I learned early was that the terms used are of utmost importance. If a term is vague or is defined incorrectly that is a “loophole”. Or it could perhaps be described as a handle; a place where a person who wants to effect a particular outcome can grasp a piece of legislation to use it like an axe. So, how, exactly, is it to be determined – and by whom – that a group of nuns possess “the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism”? What, precisely, does the term “vitality” mean and exactly how is one to measure out how much is required? Is this one of Pope Francis little personal, secret expressions of which only he knows the meaning? Like the secret to how nuns are to smile properly? Does the inclusion of completely subjective criteria belong in a juridical document? Or is it in there in order to provide cover for prelates? The next article tells us, “It is the responsibility of the Holy See to evaluate the presence of these requisites.” Do they have an electronic meter in a cupboard in the Congregation for Religious that measures “charism vitality”? It seems important to ask because article 70, on how to suppress a monastery, includes it: Among the criteria that can contribute to determine a judgment concerning the suppression of a monastery, after having examined all the circumstances, the following points should be considered as a whole: the number of nuns, the advanced age of the majority of the members, the real capacity for government and formation, lack of candidates for a number of years, lack of the necessary vitality in living and transmitting the charism in dynamic fidelity[10]. You will be affiliated; resistance is futile… It seems there are two themes running through the document: to establish a certain value of “autonomy” as the indispensable criterion for viability, while at the same time asserting top-down oversight and control over who gets to make this determination. In short, a monastery must be autonomous, but heaven help the community that asserts its independence. Articles 54-64 offer an interim measure in the case of “incapacity” that is really just more of the second thing. Once a lack of autonomy has been established… 54 Affiliation is a particular form of help that the Holy See establishes in particular situations in favor of the community of a monastery sui juris which has only an asserted autonomy, but in reality, very precarious or, in fact, non-existent. 55 Affiliation is configured as a juridical support that must assess whether the inability to manage the life of the autonomous monastery in all its dimensions is only temporary or is irreversible, helping the community of the affiliated monastery to overcome difficulties or to put in place what is necessary to bring about the suppression of this monastery. How does affiliation work? Well, the federation and the Holy See between them work it out: In these cases, it is up to the Holy See to evaluate the opportunity of setting up an ad hoc commission formed by the Ordinary, the Federation President, the Federal Assistant, and the Major Superior of the monastery It’s starting to be clear that the federation is going to be little more than the Big Brother hit-squad of the Congregation for Religious. It’s worth remembering what happened in the case of a German men’s monastery in which the superior tried to return the community to pre-Vatican II practices. Mariawald Trappist monastery – 900 years old – was finally dissolved, affiliated to death. Its superior had made the fatal error of openly declaring – in 2008, after the publication of Summorum Pontificum – that the monastery’s problems all began when it adopted the new liturgical rites and implemented the trends of all religious after Vatican II, and that clearly the solution was to go back to pre-conciliar ways. Mariawald was consequently affiliated, in the manner this document describes, with a liberal house in the Netherlands whose superior, unsurprisingly, discovered that the house was hopelessly divided and could not be saved. What would make forced affiliation a truly devastating weapon against conservative or traditional communities is the proviso that an affiliated monastery may not form its own novices: 60 The affiliated monastery can accept candidates, but the novitiate and initial formation must be performed in the affiliating monastery or in another monastery established by the Federation.” Of course, this means it is the affiliating monastery’s formation team that would make the determination to dismiss recalcitrant, “neo-pelagian” postulants and novices. ~ This brings us to about article 155 of the document. Part two to come. _______________ [1] It would seem, therefore, that a useful task for someone writing about what this pope intends for nuns would be to read Sponsa Christi Ecclesia as well as Francis’ Apostolic Constitution and make a careful comparison. I’m not going to do that here, but it might be helpful to examine the two documents with the help of a expert at some point. [2] Worth remembering, however, is the fact that it was Benedict the “conservative,” not Francis, who appointed Braz de’ Aviz in the office to replace Cardinal Rode – presumably under that good old “conservative” rubric of the “big umbrella” – under whom these culpably belated attempts to save US religious life were started. [3] Just considering the numbers of course. Leaving alone the doctrinal issues. [4] “The same Institute” means the order in question, whether Benedictine, Dominican, Carmelite etc. [5] I’d love to hear from some monastic superior who had the nerve to tell Rome, “Actually, given that all our neighbours in religion are raging neo-modernist heretics, if not schismatics, we think ‘isolation’ is a desirable thing – like quarantine during an outbreak of Bubonic Plague – and would therefore like to be dispensed from the federation requirement.” I’d pay good money to see the shade of purple the well-fed Braz de’Aviz turned. [6] “justice and beneficence” are considered on behalf of the community, not the patient [7] Bioethicists take it as read that in order for a life to have sufficient “quality” it must demonstrate sufficient autonomy. Dependence upon the care of others is, quite literally, a capital offence. [8] Readers may think I’m exaggerating the danger of material motivations for suppressing monasteries, but as we will see, the distinction between the federations and the Holy See is also a matter of paperwork and it is well to recall that the secretary for the Congregation for Religious, Jose Rodrigues Carballo, was a person of interest to international police agencies for the loss of “tens of millions” of Euros from the coffers of the Franciscan Friars Minor, the original Franciscan order of which he had been the head. Shortly after Carballo’s appointment, it was revealed that the Swiss prosecutor’s office was investigating the money missing from the Friars Minor in connection with drugs, money laundering operations and gun running. Carballo was Francis’ very first appointment, April 6, 2013, three weeks after the Conclave and it was to him that the pope gave the task of the destruction of the FFIs, and a major part of that operation was to separate the FFIs from real assets valued at about 30 million Euros. [9] So much for the principle of subsidiarity. I can imagine what a monastery founded by a committee would be like to live in. [10] We’ll pass over “dynamic fidelity” in silence for now…

Anti-Gay Imam Featured Yet Again at Florida Democrat Gala The Democratic Party promotes itself as an advocacy group for all matters concerning homosexuals and labels politicians, who take stances opposite theirs on politically charged issues such as same-sex marriage, as bigots. Yet, the party keeps on inviting an imam, who has a long record of hostility toward homosexuals, to participate at its annual functions. This blatant hypocrisy shows the political bankruptcy of their leadership’s claims to be pro-gay and anti-bigotry and reveals their intention to pander to those in the Muslim community who spew intolerance and would wish others harm. On Saturday, October 7, 2017, the Palm Beach Democratic Party held its 2017 Truman Kennedy Johnson (TKJ) Dinner at the West Palm Beach Marriott Hotel, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Keynote Speaker at the event was Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe. Other speakers included: United States Representative Alcee Hastings; then-Florida Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Bittel, who resigned in November over allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior; and then-Palm Beach County Party Chairwoman Terrie Rizzo, who was elected in December to take over for Bittel as Chair of the Florida Democratic Party. Prior to the speakers, there was a joint invocation performed by a rabbi, two pastors and an imam. The imam, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, is notorious for his unapologetic vilification of homosexuals. Shafayat Mohamed is the imam of the Darul Uloom Institute, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. The mosque has been a haven for terror-related individuals and activity. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student of Shafayat Mohamed’s at Darul Uloom. Now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, was a prayer leader at Darul Uloom. And Darul Uloom Arabic teacher Imran Mandhai, along with mosque goers Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan, hatched a plot at the mosque to blow up different South Florida structures, including area power stations, Jewish businesses, and a National Guard armory. While terrorism plays a huge role in his mosque’s history – and he has been around for all of it – Shafayat Mohamed’s personal history deals much more in bigotry than terror. One stop on Shafayat Mohamed’s Facebook page and one can view his profile photo of him holding a dark green book with gold border and letters on the cover. The book is “The Meaning of THE HOLY QUR’AN,” a version of the Quran that was banned by the Los Angeles public school system, in February 2002, for containing numerous anti-Semitic commentaries. In it, Jews are described as: “arrogant,” “jealous,” “selfish,” “spiteful,” “greedy,” “cursed,” “apes and swine,” and “under divine displeasure.” This may seem an innocent mistake on the imam’s part, but his actions against the gay community and sinister views are anything but. In February 2005, an article written by Shafayat Mohamed was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God.’ In it, he claims that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and that most Jews and Christians, whom he refers to as “People of the Book,” are “perverted transgressors.” It is writings such as these that have gotten Shafayat Mohamed thrown off a number of Broward County boards. Even so, the imam has been unrepentant. In a speech he gave at Darul Uloom, in August 2015, titled ‘Quraan Torah Bible Forbid Man Marrying Man,’ he admitted that he “got sacked from many [county] boards, because there were a lot of gay people who said, ‘We don’t want him on that board.’” He said he had a choice, to “sit in Paradise or… sit on the board and go to Hell.” He began his speech by attacking President Barack Obama for supporting same-sex marriage. He asked the following, “Did you hear what President Obama said?… Do you know what a sad situation we are in this country?... Here you have the President of the United States of America saying that a man could marry a man?… Are we sleeping? Do you believe in the Quran? Are we gonna sit and have the Quran be ridiculed?” He then cited the Christian and Jewish Bible, barking loudly, “The Bible says that if a man sleeps with a man, he should be killed!” Shafayat Mohamed later lamented the existence of Muslim homosexuals. He decried, “Listen. Don’t deny it. They already got Muslim gay communities.” He as well spoke of his support for polygamy, an act that is illegal in the United States. He exclaimed, “Here the President says a man can marry a man, but you can’t say a man can have four wives…!” The October TKJ Dinner was not the first Democrat event Shafayat Mohamed has participated in. In fact, he has been involved in many, including giving the invocations at the Florida Democratic Party’s annual Leadership Blue Gala in 2014 (featuring Bill Clinton), 2015 and 2016. And given that this author has written about this before, the October event will probably not be the last occasion that he is embraced by the Democratic Party. Shafayat Mohamed is not the only Muslim extremist that has participated in the Democratic Party’s TKJ Dinner. In October 2015, the dinner invocation was performed by Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, the legal adviser of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), a group that actively promotes former KKK leader and white supremacist David Duke. Ruiz, as well, founded AMANA’s Connecticut and Puerto Rico chapters. In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Ruiz’s AMANA for posting what the ADL called a “venomous” anti-Semitic Duke video onto the group’s official website. AMANA is currently promoting another anti-Semitic Duke-produced video, on the AMANA site. The President of AMANA, Sofian Zakkout, has referred to Duke as “David Duke, a man to believe in!” By inviting people like Shafayat Mohamed, an avowed enemy of the gay community, and Wilfredo Ruiz, whose group promotes white supremacists, to participate in its functions, the Democratic Party has effectively revealed its disregard for the concerns of those it disingenuously claims to advocate for and protect. It is time for Democrats to reject the bigotry of these radicals and see them for the liability they present. Failure to do so exposes the party’s liberal agenda as a sham. Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Las Vegas Massacre Coverup: Clark County Coroner Releases 58 Autopsy Reports With All Names Redacted, No Ballistics, And No Stephen Paddock Autopsy It appears that a further cover-up is underway in regards to the 1 October massacre in which 58 people were killed LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — The Coroner finally released the autopsy for the 58 victims but not for the alleged shooter Stephen Paddock after a judge ruled that the coroner release all the documents and pay $32,000 in legal fees. Not only did the coroner drag his feet and release the autopsy reports late Wednesday, but all of the names were redacted in the reports, with no mention of ballistic data, bullet caliber, or trajectories. This, despite the fact that the report does state that recovered bullet fragments were turned over to the police. Moreover, against public law, the coroner has still not released the autopsy report for “Stephen Paddock” after an Intellihub article definitively proved the body recovered in Mandalay Bay room 32-135 was not Paddock’s. In fact, the coroner claims that he still has to “finalize” the report despite the fact the autopsy was conducted.

Hungary PM Viktor Orban Vows to “Fight Those Who Want to Change the Christian Identity of Europe” Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been somewhat of a lone voice in Europe against the Muslim invasion, and on Wednesday he gave a "Hungary First" speech in which he declared that he would "fight those who want to change the Christian Identity of Europe." “Our presidency has taken a stand: we cannot give in to extortion," Orban said in a video statement on Facebook. "For us, Hungary is first. We will fight those who want to change the Christian identity of Hungary and Europe.” Elnökségi ülés után Elnökségi ülés után // After the meeting of the presidency Posted by Orbán Viktor on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 Orban's words are reminiscent of those of US President Donald Trump, who spoke about putting "America First." "The presidency of Fidesz has discussed yesterday the announcement of the Belgian Prime Minister, that they will – if necessary with force – obligate Central European countries, including Hungary, to accept migrants,” Orban stated. “According to their plan, this will happen in June at the summit of the prime ministers in Brussels," he added. “Our presidency has taken a stand: we cannot give in to extortion. For us, Hungary is first." “We will fight those who want to change the Christian identity of Hungary and Europe,” Orban concluded. According to the Hungarian Government's website, posted about the ultimatum that was given over the weekend. Over the weekend, Belgian prime minister Charles Michel spoke about sending “an ultimatum” to the Visegrád countries which “reject solidarity”. The essence of this ultimatum would be that if by the end of June a consensus is not reached in the council of EU heads of government, then the planned reforms would be adopted with a qualified majority vote which would overrule dissenters. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó said on Tuesday,“Hungary will not become an immigrant country, it has never admitted and will never admit illegal immigrants." He also referred to Michel's ultimatum as unacceptable and shocking. “Hungary has never admitted and will never admit illegal immigrants, irrespective of whether there is any pressure in this direction along the borders or from Brussels,” Szijjártó said. “The Belgian Prime Minister’s statement is also outrageous because this is the first time that people in Brussels are openly planning to push the mandatory resettlement quota through by force while totally ignoring the will of certain EU member states." “We regard this whole thing as unacceptable and we reject it," he added. “The countries of the Visegrád Group do not support the introduction of any kind of mandatory quota.” “Perhaps it doesn’t bother the Belgian Prime Minister that there are no-go zones in many Western European cities, or that people with immigrant backgrounds have committed 27 major terrorist attacks in Europe recently, but this bothers the V4 because they do not want to live on a continent were the threat of terrorism becomes an everyday regularity," he continued. Just this week, we reported that Hungary had grown weary of the talks of pushing illegal Muslim migrants on their country and Europe, and was preparing to walk away from the negotiating table. Orban has taken a tough stance in Hungary. He has ordered all illegal Muslim invaders to get out of Hungary and never come back. In December, he said that he was not concerned with what Brussels wanted, but was determined to defend Hungary's borders. PM Orban has done just that, too. Orban's border wall virtually eliminated illegal immigration. Orban is openly Christian and seems to understand something that many do not and that is you do not allow a wholesale flood of antichrists to pour into your country. Were the Ammonites and Moabites not kept out of the assembly of Israel because of their hatred of the people of God? (Deuteronoy 23:3-6) Yes, they were. While Muslims need the Gospel for sure, one cannot allow such an influx into the country, or all you are asking for is the judgments God warned about in Deuteronomy 28. I say, well done Mr. Orban. I would like to hear more of that kind of talk from America's representatives.

DOJ May Hit #Resistance Mayor Who Warned Illegal Criminals w/Obstruction of Justice ICE had already called out Oakland's radical leftist boss for helping criminals and endangering ICE personnel by tipping them off that a raid was coming. Her actions were quite clearly illegal, though she claimed that she had cleared her actions with lawyers beforehand, And now, a member of the #Resistance may actually end up fighting obstruction of justice charges. Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, slammed Mayor Schaaf, who on Saturday night released an unprecedented warning that ICE was about to begin arresting people. Schaaf said she issued the alert after receiving confidential tips from “credible sources,” and conferring with attorneys to make sure she wasn’t opening herself up to federal prosecution. The mayor’s move endangered ICE officers and alerted their targets, Homan asserted, “making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda.” He said 864 “criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor’s irresponsible decision.” Fox News, which was given a ride-along with ICE officers during the operation, reported that agency officials were asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether Schaaf broke any laws. Now the DOJ is looking into Schaaf. The Department of Justice is looking into whether Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf obstructed justice by warning Northern California residents of an impending raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agency’s acting director, Thomas Homan, told “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning that the DOJ is “reviewing” whether Schaaf broke any laws by telling her constituents ICE would be raiding the area in order to arrest people violating federal immigration laws. Schaaf, a Democrat, posted the warning to Twitter Saturday, writing that “multiple credible sources” told her the immigration agency was “preparing to conduct an operation in the Bay Area, including Oakland, starting as soon as” Sunday. “What she did is no better than a gang lookout yelling ‘police’ when a police cruiser comes in the neighborhood, except she did it to a whole community,” Homan told "Fox & Friends." "There's over 800 significant public safety threat criminals ... that we are unable to locate because of that warning, so that community's a lot less safe than it would've been." That's exactly it. And Dems have become honorary members of MS-13. And those who collaborate with illegal alien gang members should face the consequences.

Ebola Outbreak Confirmed in Democratic Republic of Congo On Tuesday, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo announced an outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a deadly virus that causes severe bleeding and organ failure, among other unpleasant symptoms. The declaration was made after two cases of the diseases were confirmed in the Bikoro province in the northwestern part of the country ten months after the end of an earlier outbreak. © AP Photo / Abbas Dulleh Ebola-Like Marburg Virus Kills Two People in Uganda According to the country's Health Ministry, five samples were taken from suspected cases in Bikoro. Out of the five samples sent to the National Institute of Biological Research in Kinshasa, two tested positive for Ebola. However, no deaths have been reported among those with the disease. "We will gather more samples, conduct contact tracing, engage the communities with messages on prevention and control and put in place methods for improving data collection and sharing," said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the World Health Organization's (WHO) regional director for Africa, following the outbreak announcement. "WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response," Moeti added. This is the Congo's ninth outbreak of the virus since it was discovered in the country in 1976. The last outbreak occurred in the northern Bas Uele province in 2017. However, it was quickly contained due to swift action taken by the government and the WHO.

'Textbook Definition of Bias' On Monday, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified with FBI boss Christopher Wray before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a predictable performance, the duo cited mistakes and raised concerns but solved none of the lingering mysteries the massive report released last week that found anti-Trump bias did not affect FBI and DOJ decisions. On Tuesday Horowitz performed solo before a joint session of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Oversight chairman Trey Gowdy delivered the opening statement. The attorney general had been accused of “softening or watering down his report,” Gowdy said, “When the reality is it was Jim Comey who softened and watered down his press release, announcing no charges against Secretary Clinton. We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ policies to follow and which to ignore, to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support each and every element of an offense and we see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding whether to send a letter to Congress in the throes of looming election.” In a devastating exchange with Horowitz, Gowdy said that “prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins” is the “textbook definition of bias.” Democrats echoed the IG report’s conclusion that there was no bias. Republicans sought to tie up some loose threads. The IG report confirmed that President Obama communicated with Hillary Clinton on her unsecured email system. Horowitz said the president had been one of 13 who had done so. Rep. Steve King asked about the volume of communications between the president and Clinton. “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” Horowitz said, and the IG was “not sure” if any of the communications had involved classified or top secret material. If the IG did know the subject of the president’s communications with Clinton, he failed to reveal any details. Horowitz “would have to ask” if his team interviewed any officials at the Obama White House but said “not the president himself.” Rep. King asked Horowitz about his first encounter with the switch of “extremely careless” for ‘gross negligence,” which violated a criminal statute. Horowitz found that Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and James Comey were all involved. The IG also said his team focused on the fact that the classified material on Clinton’s server was “not clearly marked,” which repeated one of Clinton’s claims about her negligence. As for the question of her “intent,” Horowitz said it arose “months earlier,” maybe in 2015, though he couldn’t be sure. King said President Obama had suggested the “careless but not intentional” language in a “60 Minutes” appearance in October of 2015. And King had observed that in his July 5, 2016 statement, James Comey used “intent” six times. Horowitz said Comey “concealed from the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, his intention to make a unilateral announcement in July 2016 about the reasons for his recommendations not to prosecute former Secretary Clinton.” The IG also described his report as a “thorough, comprehensive and objective recitation of the facts.” The IG did confirm that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page worked on the Clinton investigation, the Russia and the Mueller team. Horowitz said Strzok and Page had exchanged “tens of thousands of texts.” Ohio Rep. James Jordan asked Horowitz when his team had discovered the message about “we’ll stop” Trump. Horowitz conceded that this meant “stop Trump from becoming president.” The IG said they uncovered that text in May, and Jordan asked “why did we not see it until last Thursday?” “I can’t answer that,” Horowitz said, adding that it had been sent to Rod Rosenstein’s department at the DOJ. Jordan concluded that Rosenstein “made the decision that we had to wait a month.” Several representatives were curious about two FBI agents and one lawyer the IG report had not named. “The FBI raised a concern because they work on counterintelligence matters,” Horowitz said. Rep Mark Meadows asked if the two FBI agents were Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer, which the IG declined to confirm. “They don’t work in counterintelligence,” said Meadows, who charged that the FBI gave the IG “false information” and altered key witness reports. “How did Comey see the report before it came out?” Rep. Darrell Issa wanted to know. Horowitz said Comey didn’t see the whole thing, but explained that he allowed those the IG team had criticized to have a look before release. By the end of the day it was evident that Congress would have to hear from Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok and others. Horowitz confirmed that the IG is investigating whether FBI official Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump bias factored into the launch of the bureau’s Russia probe. Also on Tuesday Peter Strzok was “escorted” from the FBI building. As his lawyer told reporters, Strzok had “played by the rules,” but been targeted by “unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks.” “I hope he comes and portrays himself as a victim,” Trey Gowdy told Fox News. Rep. Bob Goodlatte said the committee would issue a subpoena for Strzok to testify “next week.” That will make for an exciting show on C-SPAN but none of this would be happening if the deep state plot to “stop” Trump had succeeded.

Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning “Regime Change” In Iran This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t lying. Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including – who else – National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans. The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House. It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. –Free Beacon “The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy. For now – at least – overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran – and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.” “The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.” That will likely change, however. One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change “The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.” The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.” “John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.” That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months: John Bolton – We Will Be Celebrating in Tehran Before 2019 >You can’t say you weren’t warned pic.twitter.com/F1dvZAVQaF — Battle Beagle 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 (@HarmlessYardDog) May 7, 2018 A second source tells The Beacon that the Trump administration recognizes that the “chief impediment to the region is Iran’s tyrannical regime.” “The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” said the source. “Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way.” Regional sources who have spoken to SSG “tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts,” the group states. –Free Beacon “More than one third of Iran’s population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence,” the paper explains. “U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.” Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. “The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low,” the plan states. “Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible.” That said, President Trump made clear earlier in the week that US officials must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime. “Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace,” according to the plan. “We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve.”

Brett Kavanaugh accused in letter obtained by FBI of drunkenly forcing himself on woman while in high school; Kavanaugh denies it happened According to the New York Daily News, Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, held a woman down, covered her mouth and tried to force himself on her while drunk at a party in high school. That’s the nexus of a letter allegedly acquired by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein in July but dropped on the last days before the vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The unidentified woman says the incident took place at a party in the early 1980s while Kavanaugh was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Md., according to the NYDN, which claims to have obtained the letter on Friday. She alleges Kavanaugh and a friend of his, both of whom had been drinking, cornered her in a room and turned up the music to blur out the sound of her protests. Kavanaugh then allegedly covered the woman’s mouth with his hand and attempted to force himself on her, but she says she managed to free herself and bolt out of the room. Kavanaugh, 53, vehemently denied the woman’s allegations. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said in a statement. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” Kavanaugh’s friend, who has not been identified, did not outright deny the woman’s claims but told the New Yorker he has “no recollection of that.” The woman says she has had to undergo psychological treatment as a result of the incident. She first approached her congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., about the allegations in July shortly after Trump tapped Kavanaugh to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Eshoo’s office declined to comment. The woman’s letter was in turn forwarded to Feinstein, D-Calif., who shared it with the FBI and her Democratic committee colleagues on Wednesday night. An FBI official told the New York Daily News on Thursday that the letter has not yet resulted in a criminal investigation. According to Breitbart, on Friday, 65 women from both the Republican and Democrat parties who have known Kavanaugh since high school defended his character and said he has always behaved “honorably” and treaded “women with respect.” The women also said that Kavanaugh has “stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity.” “Judge Kavanaugh has denied this allegation and over 60 women – with a broad range of political views – who’ve known him since high school, have sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee vouching for his integrity and respect for women over that time,” says Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network. “This is nothing more than a last-minute attempt at character assassination, and there should no delay in confirming Judge Kavanaugh.”

Brazilian arms dealer arrested in the United States RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian police say the man considered to be the country’s largest arms dealer has been arrested in the United States by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Inspector Fabricio Oliveira of Rio de Janeiro’s police department says Frederik Barbieri was arrested Saturday morning at his home in Florida. He did not know the specific location of Barbieri’s house and said that American authorities will provide details on the arrest next week. Oliveira said that police seized 60 AK-47, AR-10 and G3 rifles Barbieri had sent to Rio’s international airport last May to supply drug traffickers operating in Rio de Janeiro slums. He also said that the arms trafficking operation had been dismantled with Barbieri’s arrest. The Justice Ministry said in a brief statement issued Saturday that Barbieri’s extradition has been requested.

Illegal Alien Wife Beaters Protected by Sanctuary City Mayor Busted Sanctuary cities are the real war on women. And Democrats are the ones fighting it. Democrats like Oakland's Mayor Schaaf. Three illegal immigrants, who avoided capture after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on a raid by federal immigration authorities last month, have since been re-arrested for new crimes including robbery and spousal abuse, ICE officials said. Schaaf tweeted out a warning ahead of the raid in northern California last month, infuriating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and the Trump administration. “How dare you!” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in California this month, addressing Schaaf. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical, open borders agenda.” ICE officials eventually caught 232 illegal immigrants, many of them criminals, in the four-day sweep but said that hundreds more escaped because of Schaaf’s warning. But on Tuesday, officials said that at least three of those who were targeted in the raid, but were not apprehended, had since been arrested for additional crimes. One was a Mexican national arrested for robbery and gun crimes, who was released back into the community for a prior offense despite an ICE detainer request in November. Another Mexican national was arrested for a DUI, despite having been deported three times and prior convictions for false imprisonment, DUI and battery of a spouse. The third was a Mexican national who was arrested for corporal injury of a spouse, despite being deported twice and criminal convictions including drug possession, hit-and-run, DUIs, possessions of narcotics equipment and a parole violation.

One Trillion Stars The nearest neighboring major galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The large galaxy is stunning in size and has around three times as many stars as the Milky Way does. It can easily be seen with the naked eye from Earth, and it is found in the constellation of Andromeda, from which its name originates. Far from being just a pretty sight in the sky, the Andromeda Galaxy is an impressive, turbulent patch of the cosmos. It is even expected to collide with the Milky Way years down the road. If you find that fascinating, then you are going to enjoy these ten amazing facts about the Andromeda Galaxy. 10 Also Known As Messier 31 Celestron NexStar 90SL... Buy New $309.95 (as of 04:50 EDT - Details) Our closest neighboring galaxy is also known as Messier 31 or M31. The name came from Charles Messier, the French astronomer who catalogued the large galaxy. Messier documented many objects in the skies of the Northern Hemisphere, and they are collectively known as the Messier objects or the Messier Catalog. (Note that Messier wasn’t always the first to observe the objects in his catalog.) In 1757, he had begun searching for Halley’s Comet, but the calculations given to him had sent him to a different section of the sky. That wrong section of the sky is where he observed a nebula that became the first entry in the catalog: M1, also known as the Crab Nebula. In 1764, Charles Messier added M31 to his catalog. By the end of the year, he had added a total of 38 objects. By 1781, he had logged a total of 103 objects into his catalog, 40 of which had been found by Messier himself. [1] 9 Named After The Andromeda Constellation Photo credit: Keilana, Roberta Mura If you look up into the northern night sky between Cassiopeia’s “W” asterism and the Great Square of Pegasus, you will find the constellation Andromeda. The star pattern was named after the mythical princess Andromeda, the wife of the Greek hero Perseus. The constellation was first cataloged by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy in the second century, and it is also known by the names of Chained Maiden, Persea, or Cepheis. Celestron Sky Maps Celstron Best Price: $15.97 Buy New $18.95 (as of 04:55 EDT - Details) The Andromeda constellation is also home to various other deep sky objects. Andromeda is located outside the galactic plane, and it does not contain any clusters or nebulae of the Milky Way; it does contain other visible galaxies, though. The most famous of these galaxies is, of course, the Andromeda Galaxy, which gets its name from the large constellation. The constellation is best-known for the Andromeda Galaxy, which is one of the most famous objects in the sky that can be seen with the naked eye. [2] 8 Larger Than The Milky Way In astronomy, a light-year is a commonly used unit to measure distance, but some astronomers prefer to use a unit called the parsec. When referring to something larger, they use kiloparsecs, which are equal to 1,000 parsecs, and megaparsecs, equal to one million parsecs. The Milky Way measures about 100,000 light-years or 30 kiloparsecs across. This may seem large, but it is rather small when compared to other galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy has an approximate diameter of 220,000 light years, which is more than double of that of the Milky Way. It is the largest galaxy in the Local Cluster. If it were bright enough, the Andromeda Galaxy would appear larger than the Moon in the sky (as depicted above), even with it being much farther away. The galaxy is 9.5 trillion kilometers away from Earth, whereas the Moon is only 384,400 kilometers (238,900 mi) away—that should give you a better understanding of just how big the galaxy really is. [3] Read the Whole Article

Pope admits Catholic Church has ‘long ignored’ problem of child abuse VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Monday asked forgiveness for child abuse crimes and cover-ups within the Catholic Church, admitting that the pain of victims “was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced.” The strongly worded statement came ahead of an Aug. 25-26 papal pilgrimage to Ireland, one of the countries rocked by clergy sex abuse scandals, and followed an expose of pedophile priests in the U.S. “The heart-wrenching pain of these victims, which cries out to heaven, was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced,” Francis said in a Letter to the People of God, a rarely-issued address to the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics. On Aug. 17, a Pennsylvania grand jury report, based on hidden archives of the U.S. church, named 301 priests from the state as credibly accused child sex abusers and accused church leaders of a systematic cover-up of their crimes. The report “detailed the experiences of at least a thousand survivors, victims of sexual abuse, the abuse of power and of conscience at the hands of priests over a period of approximately seventy years,” Francis acknowledged. “It is essential that we, as a Church, be able to acknowledge and condemn, with sorrow and shame, the atrocities perpetrated by consecrated persons, clerics, and all those entrusted with the mission of watching over and caring for those most vulnerable,” he said. “Let us beg forgiveness for our own sins and the sins of others,” he added. In the run-up to Francis’ visit to Ireland, the head of the Irish Catholic Church, Archbishop Eamon Martin, said he expected the pope to meet with victims of clergy sex abuse and to promise effective remedies. “I’m not sure what his words will be and I’m not sure that a simple apology is what survivors of abuse want,” Martin said in a BBC interview. “If he expresses an apology, it needs to be more than ‘we’re sorry,’” he added. In his letter, Francis repeated a famous 2005 quote by his predecessor Benedict XVI, who, a month before being elected pope, lamented “how much filth” there was in the Catholic Church. “With shame and repentance, we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives. We showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them,” Francis said. “Looking back to the past, no effort to beg pardon and to seek to repair the harm done will ever be sufficient. Looking ahead to the future, no effort must be spared to create a culture able to prevent such situations from happening, but also to prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated,” he added. Colm O’Gorman, an Irish abuse survivor who founded One in Four, the main survivors’ group in Ireland, commented on Twitter that the pope offered “Much stronger language than ever used before.” But O’Gorman added: “(The pope) begs for forgiveness, but still does not admit or own the deliberate policy of cover up designed & implemented by the #Vatican.” Like his predecessor, Francis has promised “zero tolerance” on child abuse, but scandals have kept recurring in several parts of the world — including in Australia recently. In January, the pope was accused of insensitivity and tone-deafness after insisting, during a visit to Chile, that local abuse survivors had no “proof” against a bishop who allegedly witnessed abuse and failed to report it. Following an outcry, Francis apologized for his remarks, held private meetings with victims at the Vatican, and, after envoys he sent to Chile backed up victims’ claims, the entire leadership of the Chilean Catholic church tendered their resignations. According to church expert John L Allen, an editor at specialized website Crux.com, the Catholic Church has a structural problem when it comes to dealing with cover up accusations. “Sixteen years since the crisis first erupted in the U.S., almost ten years since that happened in Ireland, and now more than five years since Francis was elected, the Catholic Church still has no credible, transparent process for handling cases when the accusation against a bishop isn’t the direct commission of abuse but rather covering up someone else’s crimes,” Allen said in a Sunday column. — Alvise Armellini dpa ——— ©2018 Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Wait! Wait! It’s all a MISTRANSLATION! Thus, it took more than a year-and-a-half for the Factory to roll out the old reliable “mistranslation” defense to explain away the infamous paragraph 303 of Amoris Laetita (AL), which reads as follows in the official English translation on the Vatican website: Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In other words, the conscience can “inform” a sinner that his continued sinning is not only acceptable to God but is even what God is asking “for now,” given one’s particular “limits.” This outrageous proposition, a form of situation ethics that strikes at the very foundation of Catholic moral teaching, has justly provoked a storm of criticism from lay and clerical defenders of the authentic Magisterium. But it’s all a misunderstanding, say Dr. Robert Fastiggi, professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, and Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D., professor of Dogmatic Theology at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. All of the critics of AL are wrong—every one of them!—because, you see, the original Latin text does not say what the English text does. Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Dr. Dawn Goldstein Here we go again. So what does the Latin say? Here is the paragraph in the official Latin: Haec autem conscientia agnoscere potest non modo statum quendam ab universali Evangelii mandato obiective dissidere; etiam sincere honesteque agnoscere poteste quod sit liberale responsum in praesenti Deo reddendum atque eadem conscientia firma quadam morali certitudine intellegere illam esse oblationem quam ipse Deus requirit inter rerum impedientium congeriem, quamvis perfectum nondum sit obiectivum exemplar. Yes, and so what? Well, according to Fastiggi and Goldstein, while the English translation reads: “what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God,” the Latin employs the word oblationem, which means offering. So, What the Pope Really Means® is: “what for now is the most generous offering which can be given to God.” So, it’s an offering to God, not a response to God. Big difference. But just a moment: how can objectively immoral behavior ever be characterized as an “offering” to God? It would seem the Latin version has graver implications than the English because it suggests that falling short of what the moral law requires is an oblation pleasing to God if one’s “limits” make obedience to the moral law difficult. And that is exactly the nonsense Fastiggi and Goldstein expect us to swallow: “Pope Francis is not talking about an offering of an objectively sinful action but a gift of self that moves toward God and the objective moral norm.” So, our intrepid presenters of What the Pope Really Means® would have us believe that objectively immoral behavior, which is the best one can do according “the “concrete complexity of one’s limits,” is no longer simply objectively immoral behavior but rather a gift of self because it moves toward morally licit behavior. Fastiggi and Goldstein have managed to make the problem even worse in their attempt to explain it away. What about the English locution “while yet not fully the objective ideal,” which seems to reduce the negative precepts of the natural law to mere ideals? Not so, Fastiggi and Goldstein contend. Do not all those ignorant critics of AL know that the Latin text employs the phrase “obiectivum exemplar,” which, translated literally into English is “objective exemplar.” They declare triumphantly: “The Latin term exemplar does not mean an unattainable ideal, it specifically means a pattern or model to follow.” Give. Me. A. Break. A pattern or model to follow is an ideal, as a standard Latin dictionary confirms with its definition of exemplar: “(1) copy/reproduction, (2) model, pattern, example, original, ideal. Likewise, the definition of the English word “exemplar” is simply: “an ideal model.” Here too Fastiggi and Goldsetein only worsen the problem they try to explain away. For if moral behavior is now to be viewed as merely “exemplary” rather than divinely mandated by the natural law that binds all men—including Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery—then basic morality becomes a kind of heroic virtue. Thus, continence cannot realistically be expected, at least “for now” (AL 303), of the average Joe or Jane with an “ex” who has “remarried” and is now mired in the “concrete complexity one’s limits.” So, as Fastiggi and Goldstein would have it, all the tumult triggered by AL is just a misunderstanding caused by uninformed people who haven’t consulted the Latin text—including those ignorant Vatican translators. According to their proposed “alternate translation” into English, What the Pope Really Means® is that objectively immoral behavior one feels unable to correct due to one’s “limits” is “the offering that God himself is asking amid the mass of impediments, although it may not yet be the perfect objective model.” Which is what the official English translation already says but with fewer words. It seems Fastiggi and Goldstein are hoping no one will notice that their linguistic tinkering produces no real change in meaning but only an intensification of its perniciousness. Indeed, their “proposed alternate translation” reduces the avoidance of adulterous relations in “second marriages” to the “perfect objective model.” Now, how could anyone but a Pharisee expect perfection from people living in adultery? Are you perfect? Then again, the Pharisees are precisely the ones Our Lord condemned for accommodating divorce and remarriage in violation of the natural law. But such embarrassing truths need not impede the Bergoglian Mercy Train as it barrels toward a train wreck at the end of the line. And Fastiggi and Goldstein are busily helping it along, changing red signals to green. No problem here! has been the mantra of the neo-Catholic establishment for nearly half a century of ecclesial auto-demolition. But wait, there’s more! Our dynamic translators even provide their own dynamic interpretation of AL to mean that the “offering” to God of which Francis speaks is merely the decision by a divorced and “remarried” couple with children not to end their relationship, which would be the “perfect objective model,” but rather to “live in continence until they may—after the hoped for declaration of nullity—enter into a true marriage.” That is, they would have Francis affirming John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio, which repeats the Church’s constant teaching that continence is required of those who have entered into adulterous “second marriage,” failing which they cannot be admitted to the sacraments. But the Fastiggi-Goldstein interpretation is precisely the contrary of the interpretation Francis has assiduously promoted and which Fastiggi and Goldstein just as assiduously ignore: i.e., that people in “second marriages” do not have to live in continence, but rather—in “certain cases”—may continue their adulterous relations while receiving absolution and Holy Communion during a “process of discernment.” As we know, in his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, published on the Vatican website (in response to a query he himself may have solicited), Bergoglio informed them “there is no other interpretation.” Moreover, the Maltese bishops' “guidelines” for implementing AL, published in L’Osservatore Romano—for which Bergoglio thanked them—declare thus: If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351). This Pope’s plan of promulgating a deliberately ambiguous document whose heterodox interpretation and application he would later approve with a series of sub-magisterial winks and nods, both oral and written, is the reason I signed onto the Correctio Filialis. See the piece by Joseph Shaw in this regard. Shaw maintains that AL can be “bent into some kind of orthodoxy.” Perhaps. But it is not our responsibility to bend a Pope’s statements into conformity with the Faith. Moreover, any Pope who promulgates a document that can be read as orthodox only by a forced interpretation imposed by certain readers—while others disagree—has by that very fact inflicted grave harm upon on the Church, which he alone has the duty to correct. But Francis, as any reasonable observer can see, has no intention of offering any such correction. Quite to the contrary, confusion as a cover for the introduction of Holy Communion for “certain” public adulterers by Bergoglio’s co-conspirators in the Vatican and various dioceses is exactly what he was aiming to achieve from the beginning of the whole synodal charade, which was merely a vehicle for promulgation of AL. As Shaw observes of AL: “What we [the signers of the Correctio] are saying is that it has become clear that orthodoxy is not what Pope Francis wants us to find there.” In a sense, what Bergoglio is doing is worse than explicit heresy, which could at least be readily identified and denounced as such. But Bergoglio wants the effects of heresy—undermining Holy Matrimony, Confession and Holy Communion, whose integrity is affirmed verbally—without the guilt of an explicit promulgation. In so acting, he is very much in the mold of Honorius I, who was posthumously anathematized by an ecumenical council (the Third Council of Constantinople) and by his own successor (Leo II) for aiding and abetting the spread of the Monothelite heresy (no human but only a divine will in Christ). Honorius did so by means of private correspondence with the author of the heresy, endorsing the heresy without ever formally proclaiming it as doctrine. And yet Honorius I is listed in the canon of the Popes and is not considered to have fallen from office on account of heresy. A similar judgment might well befall this Pope, but it is not for us to level it. Meanwhile, as Fastiggi and Goldstein labor to convince us that nothing is amiss with AL, Pope Bergoglio is sending clear signals of concern about the rising opposition among the faithful to his master plan to subvert the Church according to his false notion of mercy. In a classic power move, he has just given a sop to Cardinal Burke, the perceived leader of the opposition, by appointing him to a minor position on the Apostolic Signatura—the same tribunal from which Bergoglio brutally removed him as Prefect. And this after also humiliating Burke as the spiritual patron of the Knights of Malta, to which he was exiled after his removal. Will this sop buy Burke’s silence, staving off the feared public correction? We will soon know if the Cardinal can be bought so easily. But this move demonstrates—if more evidence were needed—that Bergoglio has never been the humble apostle of mercy depicted in his carefully crafted public relations narrative, but rather a cunning ecclesiastical politician, constantly plotting and scheming to get what he wants. That the neo-Catholic establishment refuses to recognize the grim reality of this unprecedented pontificate is but another page in the long annals of its shameful defense of the indefensible to the detriment of Holy Mother Church.

Hungarian Prime Minister: ‘Christianity is Europe’s last hope’ NewsFaith, Politics - World BUDAPEST, Hungary, February 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Brushing aside any semblance of political correctness, Hungary’s Prime Minister said in his state of the nation speech on Sunday that, “Christianity is Europe's last hope.” Addressing his country and the world, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that European nations which have encouraged migration have, “opened the way to the decline of Christian culture and the advance of Islam.” Orbán painted an image of Western Europe being overwhelmed by the accelerating influx Muslim immigrants in recent years. “According to estimates, the proportion of immigrants will grow at an accelerated pace in the European countries west of us,” said Orbán. “I won't even say anything about France and Holland, but even the born Germans are being forced back from most large German cities as migrants always occupy big cities first.” Orbán warned that as Western Europe becomes saturated with Muslim occupants, Islamists would soon seek to stream in to his country from both Western Europe as well as from Islamic nations. “This means that the Islamic civilization, which always considers its vocation to convert Europe to what it calls the true faith, in the future will be knocking on the door of Central Europe not only from the south, but from the west, as well,” he said. Prime Minister Orbán said his government will oppose efforts by the United Nations or the European Union to “increase migration” around the world. In June, LifeSiteNews reported that Orbán had taken a strong stand and not backed down against outside globalist influences seeking to control his nation’s politics. Billionaire George Soros, who famously backs many progressive initiatives around the world, locked horns with Orbán over the Central European University (CEU) he founded in 1989, which has been criticized as a funnel for anti-nationalist views. Orbán and Soros have a history, beginning in partnership and ending in acrimony. Orbán started public life as a crusader against communism and attended Oxford University on a Soros scholarship. Soros, who expatriated from Hungary, also funded Orbán’s political organization, the Alliance for Young Democrats. But Orbán’s defense of conservative values has led to breaking ties with Soros, whom he now criticizes as a foreigner meddling in his country’s affairs. After Prime Minister Orbán delivered his strongly worded state of the nation speech, a UK Daily Mail report said, “Orbán has conflated the issue of immigration with the image of Soros, 87, whose name was used in a tough anti-migrant bill sent to Parliament on Wednesday.” The Daily Mail report continued: Soros, for his part, compared Orbán unfavourably to both the Nazis and the Communists, saying his rule evoked dark tones from the 1930's, when Hungary was allied with Nazi Germany. But Orbán remains committed to his policy, claiming that Soros and supporters of migration are losing the fight. He said: “Soros has antagonised not only us but also England, President Trump and Israel too. Everywhere he wants to get migration accepted. It won't work. We are not alone and we will fight together and we will succeed.” In addition to inviting Soros’ ire, Orbán came under fire a couple years ago from the U.S. State Department under President Obama as well as the European Parliament for purportedly discriminating against homosexuals because of Hungary’s insistence on defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that pre-born babies have rights. Last year, Orbán also criticized liberals and encouraged citizens to give life to more children during the 11th conference of the World Congress of Families. Three thousand “natural family” advocates who attended the four-day conference heard Orbán in his opening address lambaste the European Union (EU) for its “relativizing liberal ideology that’s an insult to families.”

Evidence shows Pope Francis is a ‘principal in a cover-up’ of clergy sex-abuse in Chile: Expert NewsCatholic Church WASHINGTON, D.C., February 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Those familiar with Jorge Bergoglio in Argentina before he became Pope Francis say it is a “classic” move of his to provide “mercy” to clergy who are sexual predators while asking everybody else to simply “move on,” said attorney and child advocate Elizabeth Yore on an EWTN show last week. “I think this is a misplaced mercy. It is mercy for the predator priests,” she told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo on the February 8 episode of World Over. “There are many people who know the Pope from Argentina who have said this is classic Bergoglio to provide mercy to the predators and ask everybody else to move on,” she added. (See original The World Over program segment on this issue that begins at 47 seconds into the video below) Yore, who has handled child abuse investigations and clergy abuse investigations throughout her legal career, was commenting on the latest sexual abuse case to touch the Francis papacy, in this case where the Pope appointed a bishop with a history of complicity in child sex abuse. The Pope’s claim that he had never received any victim testimony regarding the complicity of Chilean Bishop Juan Barros in child sex abuse has proven to be false. “The Barros case is putting the Pope, for the first time, in the middle as a principal in a cover-up,” Yore said during the interview. Yore said that not only is it now known that the Pope received a letter from one of the victims, but it is also now known that he was “told from the moment he appointed Bishop Barros in 2015 that this was a bad decision.” “The Chilean Archbishop conference told him to revoke this appointment. He received petitions and letters and calls, yet, ignored them all,” she said. As details continue to surface, the pontiff’s professed empathy for abuse victims has come into question as well. Yore called the child sex abuse case involving infamous Chilean priest abuser Father Fernando Karadima and Bishop Juan Barros “a scandal of epic proportions.” The scandal signals that the Church under Francis is slipping backwards in its handling of abuse, said Yore. Yore called the example Pope Francis set in the way he handled the abuse information “extremely dangerous.” “But it is extremely dangerous as the head of the Catholic Church — you know, the last appeal — that this is the kind of behavior that is going to be mimicked around the world by bishops, [who will say] ‘Well if the Pope is not going to intervene and impose zero tolerance, why should I?’” Reports say Pope Francis personally received the eight-page letter from the Chilean victim graphically detailing the alleged abuses by Karadima and linking Barros as having witnessed and covered up the abuse. The alleged abuse took place decades prior to Francis’s 2015 appointment of Barros to the Diocese of Osorno in southern Chile. Pope Francis received the victim’s letter in 2015, its author and a member of Francis’s sex abuse commission have said, contradicting the Pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward in the matter and no evidence had been produced. Francis encountered protests in Chile over his defense of Barros during his visit there last month, calling the accusations against the priest “calumny.” While Francis later apologized, he persisted in defending Barros, denying that he had received any testimony himself and restating that such unproven accusations are “slander.” The Pope later said he would send Malta Archbishop Charles Scicluna – the former top Vatican abuse investigator - to Chile to investigate the matter. Expectations were high in 2014 when the Pope created the abuse commission. And while he has continually condemned clergy sex abuse throughout his pontificate, some have argued his actions in some serious cases don’t match his tough stances on abuse. Four members of the commission had met with Cardinal O’Malley in 2015, conveying their objections to Francis’s 2015 appointment of Barros as bishop of Osorno. It was at the meeting with O’Malley that the abuse commission representatives reportedly gave the letter to the cardinal to deliver to Francis, and O’Malley later confirmed to a commission member that he had in fact personally delivered the letter to the Pope. Yore explained that the Pope has been told from the moment he appointed Barros in 2015 that it was a bad decision, between the Chilean bishops’ conference, petitions, letters and calls, that were all ignored. Further, a Chilean judicial inquiry found all the victims who testified — including the letter’s author Juan Carlos — to be credible, and that there was a major cover-up of the abuse by Father Karadima. Arroyo spoke with Cruz as well, who said he was “incredibly frustrated” when Barros was going to be appointed. He’d testified about three bishops who had witnessed abuse, he said, but Barros had special significance for him because Barros’ part went beyond witnessing the abuse, to violating his seal of Confession with Karadima and psychological abuse through intimidation. Cruz recounted how he and other victims had been dismissed or slandered by local Church hierarchy for numerous attempts to be heard. And he spoke about holding out hope that there would be a different response from the Pope, discussing specifics of getting the letter to the Francis via Cardinal O’Malley. Cruz told Arroyo he was really hurt and felt betrayed by the Pope’s comments that the accusations were slander, and there were no witnesses or evidence. “To hear him talk about us that way,” Cruz said, “calling us slanderers, it was terrible because it set the clock back for so many victims.” Scicluna will be meeting with Cruz, who said he hopes other abuse survivors will be heard as a result of his case coming more to the forefront. “This leaves us with very strong evidence that the Pope was, in fact, aware of what has happened,” Yore said. “Here we have victims 10, 15 years after their abuse, begging the Pope, having to take pictures of a letter that’s handed to a cardinal to ensure that there is evidence that the Pope is receiving this information.” The whole of Latin America, including Argentina, was well aware of what was happening when this case broke in Chile in 2010, Yore noted, and yet the Pope continues to shrug his shoulders and say he has no information. This was precisely what he’d been saying when he was cardinal and archbishop in Buenos Aires, she said, that no one ever came forward with information, and there were never any cases of clerical abuse in the entirety of the two-million-plus member Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. “This isn’t just simply a cover-up of a predator priest,” Yore stated. “This is Barros present, in the room when the abuse is ongoing with these young minor boys.” She said she would argue as a child advocate that Barros was involved in sexual exploitation of children. “So I don’t think this is simply just a case, as bad as it is, of a cover-up of an abuser,” she said. “This is also sexual exploitation of children in a grooming gang, a predator priest. This is why it is so heinous.” Yore said that given the Church’s sex abuse crisis, one would have thought going into the 2013 conclave (which elected Francis) that an obvious priority in vetting candidates for the papacy would have meant a serious look at their history of handling abuse allegations in their previous sees. There are more cases out there just like Barros that have been covered up, Yore told Arroyo, maybe even some even worse than the Barros case. “Those cases are going to be haunting this papacy and really causing a rift in the major protection of children that Pope Benedict had worked very hard to really build up,” she said. “Trust within the faithful and to put in a system that was going to root out the predators. And I think that has just been blown up and I think we are back to square one in the Vatican."

Paul Manafort Secretly Met With Julian Assange Shortly Before Joining Trump's Presidential Campaign: Report A British newspaper alleges that Paul Manafort secretly met WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London within days or weeks of being brought aboard Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Lawyers for Assange and Manafort denounced the report as false. If confirmed, the report Tuesday would suggest a direct connection between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, which released tens of thousands of emails stolen by Russian spies during the 2016 election. The campaign seized on the emails to undermine Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton. The Guardian, which did not identify the sources for its reporting, said that Manafort met with Assange “around March 2016” — the same month that Russian hackers began their all-out effort to steal emails from the Clinton campaign. In a statement, Manafort called the story “totally false and deliberately libelous” and said he was considering his legal options against the Guardian. “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort said. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.” Assange’s Ecuadorean lawyer, Carlos Poveda, said the Guardian report was false. And WikiLeaks said on Twitter that it was “willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.” It later tweeted that Assange had instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel. The Guardian cited two unidentified sources as saying Manafort first met Assange at the embassy in 2013, a year after Assange took refuge there to avoid being extradited to Sweden over sex crime allegations. The Guardian said Manafort returned there in 2015 and 2016 and said its sources had “tentatively dated” the final visit to March. The newspaper added that Manafort’s visit was not entered into the embassy’s log book and cited a source as saying Manafort left after 40 minutes. There was no detail on what might have been discussed. The Trump campaign announced Manafort’s hire on March 29, 2016, and he served as the convention manager tasked with lining up delegates for the Republican National Convention. He was promoted to campaign chairman in May 2016. An AP investigation into Russian hacking shows that government-aligned cyberspies began an aggressive effort to penetrate the Clinton campaign’s email accounts on March 10, 2016.

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.

Barack Hussein Obama Hid Efforts to Aid Iran’s Windfall A new Senate report reveals that Barack Obama secretly paved the way for Iran to tap into U.S. banks to convert cash it received from sanctions’ relief to dollars — despite the face the White House assured lawmakers it would do no such thing. The report shows how State Department and Treasury Deparment officials during the Obama era quietly gave a special license for a major Omani bank to do business with two U.S. banks. Barack Obama spent considerable time selling the American people on the idea of a cooperative Iran — all the while cutting quiet deals, behind closed doors, with the rogue nation. take our poll - story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? The U.S. banks were pressured into complying with the deal. The Washington Times has more: The Obama administration — despite repeatedly assuring Congress that Iran would remain barred from the U.S. financial system — secretly mobilized to give Tehran access to American banks to convert the windfall of cash it received from sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal into dollars, an investigative report by the Senate has revealed. A copy of the report, obtained by The Washington Times, outlines how Obama-era State and Treasury Department officials discreetly issued a special license for the conversion to a major Omani bank and unsuccessfully pressured two U.S. banks to partake in the transaction, all while misleading lawmakers about the activities. The document, compiled by the Senate’s Republican-led chief investigative subcommittee, began circulating Tuesday, just as the Trump administration issued its harshest warnings to date to foreign governments and companies to avoid doing business with Iran or find themselves in the crosshairs of Washington’s reimposition of sanctions as part of Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. “Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks, and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions,” said Sigal Mandelker, Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. She also called on foreign governments to harden their financial systems against “deceptive” Iranian transactions that ultimately channel money to terrorists. The Iranian government “uses shell and front companies to conceal its tracks” as part of an elaborate scheme designed to procure cash for the Quds Force of Iran’s militant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, Ms. Mandelker said. She issued the warnings in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank as Iran announced Tuesday that it was formally moving ahead with preparations to increase its nuclear enrichment capacities — the sharpest response to date by the Islamic republic to Mr. Trump’s pullout from the nuclear accord. Iranian officials said the increase, while provocative, does not violate its commitments under the nuclear accord. The president sent shock waves around the world with his May 8 decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear pact and begin reimposing U.S. sanctions, which the U.S., Europe, China and Russia had collectively lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran’s promise to curb its suspect nuclear programs and allow international inspections. While Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Tuesday that it plans only to increase enrichment within limits set by 2015 deal, the announcement came with threats from a top Iranian official that the activities could be quickly expanded. The warning put fresh pressure on European leaders to keep the nuclear accord alive despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal. The head of Iran’s nuclear agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Tehran is prepared to dramatically increase its capacity for enrichment but that the work so far is limited to building a facility for assembling the centrifuges. He made the comment a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the increase in capacity and vowed that Iran would preserve its nuclear program despite the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 accord. The Senate report focuses new scrutiny on the lengths President Obama’s team was willing to go to ensure the deal’s success as it was still being negotiated. The Senate Homeland Security Committee’s permanent subcommittee on investigations probe contends that the Obama administration went out of its way to keep U.S. lawmakers in the dark about calculated and secretive efforts to give Tehran a back channel to the international financial system and to U.S. banks, facilitating a massive U.S. currency conversion worth billions of dollars. “Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” according to a draft copy of the document obtained by The Times. “Despite these claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system. “Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system,” the report said. Sen. Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee, is set to outline his panel’s findings Wednesday. Under terms of the nuclear deal, Iran was given the right to reclaim billions of dollars in state assets and bank accounts frozen by international sanctions, but it remained “illegal for U.S. persons, entities, and financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran.” The ban included any “intermediary” transactions by U.S. banks to convert currency for Iran — a development that would have elevated the value of the Iranian assets on the global market and allowed Tehran to more easily move the money through the international banking system. On the day the nuclear deal was implemented in 2015, Tehran had some $5.7 billion worth of assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman, according to Senate investigators, who said Tehran moved quickly to request access to the U.S. dollar. On Tehran’s request, Bank Muscat contacted the U.S. Treasury Department’s office of foreign assets control. According to the Senate report: “Muscat sought to convert $5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros. [But] because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars.” Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2015 that Iran would “continue to be denied access to the [U.S.] financial and commercial market” under the proposed accord, but the Treasury office went ahead with attempts to quietly allow the currency transaction sought by Iran. “On February 24, 2016, OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system,” according to the Senate report, which claims the move was made “even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it.” Even as office of foreign assets control officials directly “encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds,” the Treasury Department continued to deny it was working to facilitate the currency transaction, said the report, which cites a 2016 letter from the department to Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, and Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, that contended the Obama “administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.” The catch, according to Senate investigators, was that neither of the U.S. banks approached by the office of foreign assets control would take on the Iranian currency exchange — in part because of political concerns over the prospect of being found out to have secretly circumvented the remaining ban on U.S. transactions with the Islamic republic. Despite the Obama administration’s efforts, Iran was ultimately forced to convert its Bank Muscat assets to euros in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system, the Senate investigators said. Mr. Portman said in a statement Tuesday night that “the Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran.” “Despite claims both before and after the Iran deal was completed that the U.S. financial system would remain off limits, the Obama administration issued a specific license allowing Iran to convert billions of dollars in assets using the U.S. financial system,” Mr. Portman said. “The only reason this transaction wasn’t executed was because two U.S. banks refused, even though the administration asked them to help convert the money.” Such sanctions, he added, “are a vital foreign policy tool, and the U.S. government should never work to actively undermine their enforcement or effectiveness.”

Dem Congressman Corrects ADL's Claim That He Isn't Into Farrakhan The media has maintained a tight embargo on the release of the photo of Obama meeting with Nation of Islam hate group leader Louis Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting. Almost no national media outlet has covered the story. CNN only mentioned it when it embedded Jake Tapper's tweets about the support for Farrakhan by Women's March leaders. But Rep. Danny Davis had defended Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. The JTA's awkward attempt to whitewash the newly revealed CBC anti-Semitism included a claim from the ADL that Rep. Davis had been misquoted. An ADL official told JTA on Friday that the group had reached out to Rep. Danny Davis, a Democrat, after an article in The Daily Caller said he lauded Farrakhan on Monday as “an outstanding human being.” Farrakhan has calledJews “the enemy of God and the enemy of the righteous,” and said Jews were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century. “The congressman was insistent that The Daily Caller misquoted him during the interview and that he didn’t subscribe to Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements and actions in the past,” the ADL official told JTA in a statement. “He expressed an interest in seeing some of the latest statements made by Farrakhan vis-a-vis Jews, which we promptly shared with him.” The official said the ADL had shared information with Davis about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, and that the organization was waiting to hear back from him. Now, Rep. Davis would really like to emphasize that the ADL is wrong and he loves Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis confirmed in an interview Sunday that he has a personal relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite, and said he isn’t bothered by Farrakhan’s position on “the Jewish question.” Farrakhan has repeatedly denounced Jews as “satanic,” praised Hitler as a “very great man” and has said that white people “deserve to die.” The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The people who talk about the "Jewish question" are generally anti-Semites. Somehow I don't think a white congressman would get away with saying that he agrees with David Duke on the environment but isn't especially concerned about his racism. But black leaders have gotten away with playing that game with Farrakhan repeatedly. But the ADL and the JTA will whitewash this again. And if they can't whitewash this, they'll ignore it.

Pompeo offers defense for Saudi rulers as Trump administration strategy shifts in Khashoggi case WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo expressed confidence Wednesday that the Saudi government could be trusted to investigate the disappearance and suspected murder of a U.S.-based Saudi journalist in a Saudi diplomatic facility in Turkey — despite the likelihood that senior Saudi officials were involved. Speaking in Ankara, Turkey, Pompeo offered that support hours after President Donald Trump had mounted an even stronger defense for the Saudi rulers, saying, “Here we go again with you’re guilty until proven innocent.” Together they appeared to signal a shift in White House strategy — earlier this week Trump had warned Saudi rulers could face “severe punishment” — and suggested the administration has decided to help its most important ally in the Arab world defuse an international crisis over the fate of Jamal Khashoggi. The dissident journalist, who lived in Virginia, vanished Oct. 2 after he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Neither Trump nor his top diplomat offered any new facts or insights in the case. But unless authorities recover his body or other conclusive evidence of his death, the mystery may remain unsolved. Pompeo wrapped up two days of emergency talks in the region — first with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, and then with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara — and headed back to Washington on Wednesday. Turkish officials have described — but have not released — what they say are audio and video recordings that show the 60-year-old contributor to the Washington Post opinion pages was interrogated, tortured and killed by Saudi intelligence officers inside the consulate. Turkish officials say Khashoggi’s body was cut up with a bone saw, then taken out of the building. Turkish crime scene investigators and forensic specialists were allowed to search for evidence in the Saudi consulate and a nearby residence on Tuesday. Erdogan later complained that the interior walls had been repainted in recent days. On his flight from Riyadh to Ankara, Pompeo reiterated his confidence that the Saudi government would conduct a “thorough, complete, and transparent investigation,” adding that they will “show the entire world” the results. He said Saudi leaders made a commitment “to hold anyone connected to any wrongdoing that may be found accountable for that, whether they are a senior officer or official.” He said they made “no exceptions,” including presumably members of the royal family. Asked if the Saudis had informed him whether Khashoggi was alive or dead, Pompeo said, “I don’t want to talk about any of the facts. They didn’t want to either, in that they want to have the opportunity to complete this investigation in a thorough way.” Asked if he believed the Saudi rulers’ repeated denial of complicity, Pompeo said he was reserving judgment. “I think that’s — I think that’s — I think that’s a reasonable thing to do, to give them that opportunity,” Pompeo said, “(and then) we’ll all get to evaluate the work that they do.” Pompeo refused to discuss possible consequences for those found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, reiterating at least three times the “importance of the investigation.” Later Wednesday, Pompeo said during a refueling stopover in Brussels that Erdogan had informed him the Saudis were cooperating with the Turkish investigation “after a couple of delays.” Turkish officials “seemed pretty confident the Saudis will permit them to do things they need to do to complete” the investigation, Pompeo told reporters traveling with him. In a sign that the administration is looking to help Saudi Arabia get out of its dilemma, Pompeo urged Americans to be mindful of the extensive energy, economic and security ties between Riyadh and Washington, including efforts against what he called the world’s largest supporter of terrorism, Iran. “The Saudis have been great partners in working alongside us on these issues,” Pompeo said. “We need to make sure we are mindful of that as we approach decisions” on whether to impose sanctions or take other punitive steps against Riyadh, as many in Congress and elsewhere have urged. Critics questioned whether the Saudi rulers, who preside over an authoritarian regime that allows little opposition, can be relied on to conduct a credible probe into Khashoggi’s fate — especially without decisive pressure from their close ally, the Trump administration. Saudi leaders for two weeks denied knowing anything about the Khashoggi case. On Monday, they began floating a scenario — initially adopted by Trump — that blamed the murder inside the consulate on “rogue killers,” and then suggested the writer was accidentally killed during an interrogation that went awry. Analysts familiar with the desert kingdom said it was likely Saudi leaders were hoping the scandal would blow over and that they could wait it out. “We received commitments that they would complete this (investigation), and I am counting on them to do that,” Pompeo said. “They gave me their word.” — Tracy Wilkinson Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Ebola outbreak declared in Democratic Republic of Congo Story highlights Two cases were confirmed, prompting the outbreak declaration In the past five weeks, there have been 21 suspected cases, including 17 deaths (CNN) The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo declared an outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a rare and deadly disease, on Tuesday, the World Health Organization reported. The declaration came after laboratory results confirmed two cases of the disease in the province of Bikoro in the northwestern part of the country. Ebola virus disease, which most commonly affects people and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees), is caused by one of five Ebola viruses. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. The average case fatality rate is around 50%. A government statement released Tuesday states that the Ministry of Health has "taken all necessary measures to respond promptly and effectively to this new epidemic of Ebola in the DRC's national territory". In the past five weeks, there have been 21 suspected cases of viral hemorrhagic fever , including 17 deaths. "We will gather more samples, conduct contact tracing, engage the communities with messages on prevention and control, and put in place methods for improving data collection and sharing," said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the WHO's regional director for Africa. "WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response." Read More

Stop Comparing Immigration Enforcement to the Holocaust The media has 2 very simple rules for Holocaust analogies. 1. The Muslim Brotherhood's leaders praising Hitler, calling for another Holocaust and killing Jews is nothing like the Holocaust. And only shameless Zionists would attempt to equate killing Jews with killing Jews. 2. Anything a Republican president does is exactly like the Holocaust. A former CIA director compared US immigration policy to Nazi Germany in an ominous Tweet. “Other governments have separated mothers and children,” Former CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden wrote on Saturday, along with a black and white photo of the Birkenau concentration and death-camp in Poland. Then Hayden doubled down on that analogy. It's particularly stupid of Michael Hayden to make that analogy because during the Bush years, the agencies he ran were compared to Nazi Germany. Repeatedly. You might think that would have cured him of facile Nazi analogies. But instead it seems to have whetted his appetite for making them. Yes, the Nazi arrested people, asked them for ID, split up families and... then killed them all. That's the really relevant part. Every country arrests people. Just about every country splits up families when they arrest the parents. That's not unique. Selecting the Jews, based on race, for extermination is more of the reason why the term Nazi is not a positive one. Hayden's thoughtless tweet can just as easily be used to delegitimize any and all law enforcement. The attacks here are motivated by a desire for open borders. Children are being used as human shields in a campaign to end national security forever.

Jewish and Pro-Israel Students Kicked Off University Board for Opposing BDS First they came for the Jews. And then they came for everyone else. Jewish students have already faced plenty of harassment and hate at McGill. The latest incident at the Canadian university comes with a rather blatant agenda. A Jewish student at McGill University has been kicked off the student government board for having “conflicts of interest” due to his pro-Israel activism. Third-year student Noah Lew was one of 12 board members up for general assembly ratification on Monday evening following his victory as vice-president finance of the Arts Undergraduate Society. The ratification vote is typically a mere formality, but Monday’s was different due to Democratize Student Society of McGill University (SSMU), an organization that was established to resist the university’s ban of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on campus. Democratize SSMU was able to pass a motion that required each board member to be voted upon separately under the grounds that they weren’t a fan of the names. When it was Lew’s turn, he was voted down, 105 to 73 with 12 abstaining, with applause following the vote. Two other students who had criticized BDS, Alexander Scheffel and Josephine Wright O’Manique, were also voted down. Democratize SSMU had targeted Lew and the other two students on the board because they had connections to the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) and were involved in getting the BDS ban passed, which Democratize SSMU claimed were “conflicts of interests.” Somehow I don't think being a member of a Muslim student group and supporting BDS would be considered a conflict of interest. But the campus anti-Israel crowd has been working rather hard to intimidate and penalize anyone involved in pro-Israel organizations. And to keep their racist boycott movement going by maintaining control over student governments. Lew shared the experience on Facebook. “I have no doubt from the information circulated about me and campaign run against me prior to this vote that this was about my Jewish identity, and nothing more,” wrote Lew. “I was blocked from being able to participate in my student government because I am Jewish, because I have been affiliated with Jewish organizations, and because I believe in the right to Jewish self-determination.” Lew added that the experience shows the inherent anti-Semitism in the BDS movement. “If BDS is not anti-Semitic, why did a BDS-led campaign name and shame me for my affiliation with a Jewish organization, and call on students to remove me from student government for this reason?” wrote Lew. “If BDS is not anti-Semitic, why was I barred from participating in student government because of my Jewish identity?” There are some more details here and a petition. On Monday night, three students were removed from the Board of Directors of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), McGill’s main student government. All three were targeted for removal either because they are Jewish or have vocally opposed anti-Jewish discrimination on campus. This episode is utterly unacceptable, and is merely the latest in a long string of antisemitic incidents at your university. Indeed, according to eyewitnesses, one of the members of the mob that removed the three directors was Igor Sadikov. You will remember Sadikov as the student politician who in February told his followers to “punch a Zionist today.” It is unclear whether Sadikov has faced any disciplinary action for this incitement to violence from your administration. Antisemitism at McGill does not emerge from a vacuum. Rather, it has been nurtured in part by a toxic campus press, especially the McGill Daily, a publication which openly refuses to publish any “Zionist” content. In practice, this prevents McGill’s Jewish community from defending itself against the absurd attacks to which it is subjected. If the Daily is committed to systematically excluding the voices of an ethno-religious community on campus, then it cannot continue to receive automatic student funding, as it does now. The double standard here is pretty clear. And we know exactly what the reaction would be if a student paper refused to publish any pro-Islamist content.

Spygate Coverup? https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/spygate-coverup/ Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) accuses the Republican House leadership of dragging their heels in the Spygate investigation. This has been evident for months now, as there are many connections and obvious questions that haven’t been investigated. The FBI files contain memos that need to be scoured too. The House leaders are Paul Ryan (Speaker of the House), Kevin McCarthy (Majority Leader), Steve Scalise (Majority Whip) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (House Republican Conference Chair). There is a decided lack of aggressiveness of this investigation. One source is Paul Ryan: Evidence: “House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday that Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy was ‘accurate’ when he argued the FBI has acted appropriately in its ongoing probe of potential Russian links to the Trump campaign.” How could Ryan possibly know this? Isn’t he prejudging the case without even finding out what actually happened? If Ryan is correct, an investigation will show it; but the current evidence suggests he is wrong. By short-circuiting the investigation, Ryan is betraying the interest of the American people to learn what the FBI and CIA actually did against Trump. Another Republican who wants to stop investigating is former RNC Chair, Michael Steele: “There is no Spygate because there are no spies in the campaign.” The attitude of Steve Scalise is wishy-washy. He’s open to a special prosecutor, but his responses come across as passive, lacking push, zeal and enthusiasm to delve deeply into Spygate. There is a kind of coverup at work here in which important Republicans do not want to bolster Trump by adding substance to Spygate, and they do not want to clean up the FBI by aggressively investigating Spygate further. They don’t want the rotten inner workings of the organization to be aired publicly. They want to preserve the FBI’s reputation. They don’t care to see Trump vindicated. The contrast with the Watergate investigation and hearings is startling. 1:33 pm on June 6, 2018 The Best of Michael S. Rozeff

Army Colonel: False Flag ‘Gulf of Tonkin Incident’ May Be Used to Get US Into War with Iran Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war. On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported, “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim. But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed. Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’” If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did. Sadly, the United States has a tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. And now, a US Army Colonel is predicting that another Gulf of Tonkin incident could bring us into war with Iran. As President Donald Trump continues to surround himself with neocon warhawks, the drums are beating for war with Iran. The rhetoric is becoming so strong, that Trump himself — without provocation — began tweeting threats to the sovereign nation. On Tuesday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Colonel Douglas Macgregor addressed the growing prospect of US war with Iran and warned that a new “Gulf of Tonkin incident” could be used to drag us into it. Carlson mocked the neocons’ claims that Iran is the “greatest threat” to America, explicitly noting that “virtually every attack in America has been inspired not by Iran, but by Iran’s Sunni enemies.” Carlson pointed out how the neocons are hellbent on pushing the Trump administration into a new war. “If there was ever a swamp in Washington you are looking at it — the foreign policy establishment — they are working overtime to ensnare the president in a mess in Iran,” Carlson said. “Let’s hope that he understands exactly what’s going on.” Pointing out Trump’s recent attempts at diplomacy with North Korea and Russia, Col. Macgregor weighed in, noting that he thinks Trump will attempt to avoid war with Iran. However, he noted that a false flag could be used to drag us into it. “I think the president needs to watch carefully for the potential for something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident,” Col. Macgregor said. “Many of your viewers may not remember that it never happened and we could very well be treated to something like that in the Gulf. We should watch for that, and this is an example of President Trump’s comments on fake news, he should not be sabotage by fake news.” Carlson then pointed out how the Trump admin has reacted to fake news by attacking Syria—twice. For those who may be unaware, the plan to overthrow Iran has long been in the works. In fact, in April 2012, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained (Mojahedin-e Khalq) MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009. MEK is the Iranian political-militant organization that advocates for the violent overthrow of the current Iranian regime. They are hardly quiet about it. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site until President Barack Obama took office in 2009. Hersh also reported additional names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Coincidentally, MEK was classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and its allies—during this training period—until they suddenly removed them from the list in 2012. While the current Iranian regime is certainly no bastion of freedom, the idea that US intervention or a violent revolution would be beneficial for the people of Iran is outright insane. To see what US intervention—through military support and the support of ‘protesters’—does to countries, one need only look at Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to see the horrific death tolls and war-ravaged dystopias left in America’s wake. To those paying attention over the years, Trump’s desire to intervene in Iran, and his subsequent support in the media should come as no surprise as it has been the plan since Bill Clinton was in office and was documented in the neoconservative PNAC report. This was even admitted by General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, that the U.S. planned on going to war with Iran, according to a 2001 memo from the U.S. Secretary of Defense. “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,” Clark said. “Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.” All presidents since Clinton have crossed countries off this list. Now it’s Trump’s turn. Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project

Here We Go Again - Leaked Documents: White House Planning Regime Change In Iran Don't say you were not warned, America. Apparently, the US didn't learn from its first dealings in regime change decades ago and is now prepared to give it another shot, according to leaked documents. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not for the government of Iran. I despise Islam and I despise the ideology of Muhammad and his devout followers. Overall, the people of Iran are probably some decent people, but those in leadership have issues, but that is something for the people there to deal with. Iran is not an actual threat to the united States. However, the US seems hell-bent on continuing to put its nose into other countries politics, including seeking to change its government while hypocritically pointing at other countries for trying to manipulate our own political system. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The Washington Free Beacon reports: The Trump administration is examining a new plan to help Iranians fighting the hardline regime in Iran following America's exit from the landmark nuclear deal and reimposition of harsh economic sanctions that could topple a regime already beset by protests and a crashing economy, according to a copy of the plan obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials in the White House offers a strategy by which the Trump administration can actively work to assist an already aggravated Iranian public topple the hardline ruling regime through a democratization strategy that focuses on driving a deeper wedge between the Iranian people and the ruling regime. The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009. The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House. Ah, yes, John Bolton. While I applaud Bolton for his willingness to call Islamic jihadis just that, I am not so naive as to consider that his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations has no effect in this decision. "The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command," SSG writes in the paper. "This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months." Well, why is that? It's due to sanctions imposed by the likes of the US. As has been pointed out before, sanctions hurt the people, not the governments that lead them and then those same governments use the effects to propagandize the people against those who are ordering the sanctions. I'm not saying the Iranian government is good, but it is Iran's government. Honestly, I see a ton of corruption and warmongering in our own government that rivals some of that of governments that America stands against. Still, as was pointed out by Matt Agorist, Bolton told an audience of the Grand Gathering of Iranians for Free Iran: “There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” And again, this really has nothing to do with the US. One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change. “The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.” The source told the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.” “John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.” OK, I get they may pose a danger, but let's look at the reality here. Those they pose a danger to, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel can both fend perfectly well for themselves and have demonstrated that ability to do it. There is no need for the US to be involved in it in any way. Why should we be fighting a battle or encouraging, funding, and I'm quite sure arming, a rebellion? Where is that authorized in our Constitution? Simple. It isn't. I care little for the Saudi government as they help push Sharia and is the land where many of the 9-11 hijackers came from. The Iranian government I care for even less, but out of each of those, which one should America have dealt with militarily following 9-11? Both, if you're going to go by information that we have a record on. Why can't America focus on it's own issues and solve those? It's because we are too busy trying to police the world, keeping the spotlight off of those in our government who are attacking our rights and spending us into more and more debt. And lest you think this is about the nuclear deal. It isn't. “The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” the source told the Beacon. “Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way.” Bolton says it will be accomplished in the next six months. I don't doubt it. This will probably end up being another Ukraine situation, something we just don't need to be in, and yes, I know, I'll be called a liberal but honest readers who have followed me for some time know that's not the case. Notice some things that are taking place in Iran that the plan speaks about. “More than one third of Iran’s population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence,” the paper explains. “U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.” “The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low,” the plan states. “Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible.” President Trump did made clear earlier in the week that we must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime. Well, I agree, but that gets real messy when you start intervening in this manner. “Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace,” according to the plan. “We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve.” But the Trump administration has spoken out on other countries where the people want their independence. Remember the Kurds? How about the people in the Catalan region of Spain? No support for those people, and why? Cause it's not part of the agenda. I say if the Iranian people want their freedom, let them first free themselves from the bondage of Islam, and then let the passion that burns inside men to be free rise up as it did in our forefathers due to the teachings fo the Holy Scriptures and stand and fight. Then, they will be in a position to ask for aid, but only then.

Las Vegas Shooting: A THIRD Timeline Emerges Editor's Note: This is probably a reason why reporters Laura Loomer and Mike Tokes were barred from entering the presser. They would have posed real genuine questions of Sheriff Lombardo and forced him to stumble all over himself in answering them. The words “conspiracy theorists” are being bandied about. Are they for real? A well-coordinated, meticulously planned attack on concertgoers leads to the murder of 58 Americans at a country music festival in Las Vegas, with over 500 injured, and they have no explanation or motive. Do the FBI and law enforcement think people won’t talk about it or speculate as to what happened? Are they for real? Further, the FBI insists there is no jihad motive, while saying they don’t know his motive. How can they possibly hold those two contradictory ideas at the same time? The sheriff, alluding to allegations of a conspiracy between his department, the F.B.I., and MGM — supposedly in an effort to establish a legal case — said, “there is no conspiracy.” William Jacobson explains the latest “revise” by the authorities is the now infamously botched Vegas investigation: October 13, 2017, Legal Insurrection Police and hotel still don’t agree on some details. I realize that in the heat of a shooting, particularly a mass shooting, it may take some time for a precise timeline to develop. But it didn’t take very long for the Las Vegas police to release a precise timeline. The initial timeline was that Stephen Paddock’s shooting stopped when, approximately 6 minutes after he started, he was interrupted by a security guard from the Mandalay Bay hotel. Paddock then turned his fire into the hallway, firing some 200 bullets, and after that the shooting stopped as police arrived. That was Version No. 1. Some days later, the Las Vegas police backed away from that timeline, and stated that the security guard actually arrived 6 minutes before Paddock started shooting into the crowd 32 stories below him. That raised a number of question, including why no one called 911 after what must have been a loud volley of shots in a hotel hallway. That was Version No. 2. But now that is disputed, in Version No. 3. WaPo reports: Las Vegas police said Friday that the gunman who opened fire on a country music festival far below his hotel suite did not shoot a security guard six minutes before that rampage, contradicting a timeline they had offered earlier this week…. The confusion began Monday when police said that the gunman fired at the hotel security guard, Jesus Campos, six minutes before the mass shooting began, not during the massacre as they had said. Lombardo also said police had hunted for the source of the gunfire and that officers responding to the gunman’s floor were unaware that a guard was shot until they arrived there, at which point the shooting rampage had ended. MGM Resorts pushed back on this account, first saying Tuesday that there were unspecified inaccuracies and then, on Thursday, releasing a statement directly contradicting parts of what the police had said…. Lombardo had said Monday that Campos, the guard, was shot at 9:59 p.m. and that the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m. This six-minute gap relayed by Lombardo left uncertain whether there was any lag in alerting police to the source of the gunfire during critical moments. Police said officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m., two minutes after Paddock had stopped firing. MGM, though, said it was “confident” that the 9:59 p.m. time was inaccurate and “was derived from a Mandalay Bay report manually created after the fact without the benefit of information we now have.” The company also disputed the suggestion of a lag, saying the shooting rampage began within a minute of Campos reporting his injury on the 32nd floor. On Friday, Lombardo effectively agreed with the company’s statement, though he argued that the 9:59 p.m. time he had offered four days earlier “wasn’t inaccurate when I provided it.” Lombardo said he was told this time had been written by someone in a security log. Upon investigation, Lombardo said, police learned that Campos first encountered a barricaded door on the 32nd floor at 9:59 p.m. The guard was eventually fired upon by Paddock “in close proximity to” 10:05 p.m., when the mass shooting began, Lombardo continued. Clear, right? Not so fast, the police and hotel still have disagreement over important details, such as when police arrived relative to Paddock’s shooting at the crowd: An enormous, important discrepancy has emerged over what happened during the Las Vegas massacre: When did police arrive on the 32nd floor where Stephen Paddock was firing his deadly fusillade onto concertgoers below? Las Vegas police say they didn’t get to the floor until after the shooting was over. But MGM Resorts International, the owner of Mandalay Bay, says police officers were there shortly after the shooting began, responding to a report of a security guard being shot. The discrepancy could raise questions about whether police might have taken steps to intervene while Paddock was launching his devastating 10-minute onslaught…. … on Thursday, in response to inquiries about when Mandalay Bay notified police of the Campos shooting, MGM Resorts issued a statement that was unequivocal: Las Vegas police officers accompanied Mandalay Bay security to the Campos shooting and “immediately responded.” MGM said that “Metro officers were together with armed Mandalay Bay security officers in the building when Campos first reported that shots were fired over the radio. These Metro officers and armed Mandalay Bay security officers immediately responded to the 32nd floor.” The statement says MGM believes Paddock began firing out the window of his room within 40 seconds of Campos reporting his shooting, and Lombardo said Friday, “I agree with the statement.” These discrepancies on basic facts are feeding conspiracy theories. As to Paddock’s motive, still nothing from the investigation. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

CNN's Don Lemon Contradicts Himself In Just One Sentence: "We Have to Stop Demonizing People ... White Men, Most Of Them Radicalized" Talk about an absolute hypocrite! However, it comes as no surprise from a hypocrite who works for a hypocritical, lying, fake news outlet like CNN. Don Lemon wanted to defend the "peaceful" migrants who are headed toward the US border to illegally enter the country against our immigration laws, but said that the "biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right." How can he contradict himself like that and not even bat an eyelid? In discussing the arrival of these migrants who obviously gotten incredible help along the way, busted through customs gates, and pushed at the Mexican border while committing all sorts of crimes against many they come in contact with along the way, Lemon said what is clearly not only racist but utterly insane. "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them,” Lemon said. “There is no travel ban on them… there is no white guy ban.” take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. He then said people need to stop thinking these people are a threat. “I keep trying to point out to people not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity, but we keep thinking the biggest terror threat is something else,” Lemon said. No one is demonizing an ethnicity but Don Lemon. He is the one demonizing white men. How's that for hypocrisy? He's a useful idiot, propagandist snowflake. Demonizing the ideology behind Islamic jihad is not an ethnic issue. It's an ideological one that spans cultures, just like Don Lemon's and Chris Cuomo's statism. Demonizing those intent on violating the law and have demonstrated that they are doing it along the way and declaring that we will not allow such persons across our border is simply common sense, but you won't get common sense on CNN. Don Lemon thinks things like this, are just fine, and wants these people in the US. He just doesn't want white men here. There, I said it! Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard