Datasets:

Sujithanumala

/

propoganda_detection

like 0

A popular public school Bible class in West Virginia faces legal challenge Gym is Trenton Tolliver’s favorite class. But the 7-year-old is also a huge fan of the weekly Bible course at Princeton Primary, his public elementary school. He gets to play matching games about Bible stories and listen to classic tales. Noah and the Ark is a favorite. Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden, of course. And the story about how their son Cain killed his brother, Abel. “That one was a little bit of a surprise,” Trenton said as he sat with his parents, Brett and Courtney Tolliver, one day this month watching his little sister’s soccer practice on a lush field in this small town in the mountains of southern West Virginia. This spring, Bible classes such as Trenton’s are on the minds of many here in Mercer County. For decades, the county’s public schools have offered a weekly Bible class during the school day — 30 minutes at the elementary level and 45 minutes in middle school. Bible classes on school time are a rarity in public education, but here they are a long-standing tradition. The program is not mandatory, but almost every child in the district attends. And there is widespread support for the classes: Parents and community members help raise nearly $500,000 a year to pay for the Bible in the Schools program. Now Bible in the Schools is facing a stiff legal challenge. Two county residents with school-age children argue in a lawsuit that the program violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the West Virginia constitution. Filed in January and amended last month by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the suit charges that the Bible class “advances and endorses one religion, improperly entangles public schools in religious affairs, and violates the personal consciences of nonreligious and non-Christian parents and students.” Supporters are adamant that the weekly class is an elective meant to explore the history and literature of the Bible, not to promote religious belief. “My experience with it has been very positive. I’ve never known of anyone who has been pressured or felt ostracized,” said the Rev. David W. Dockery, senior pastor at First Baptist Church of Princeton. “Any time God’s word can be proclaimed is beneficial and is a good thing.” Trenton’s parents also find it hard to see why there would be objections. “I think it’s a great program mainly because it’s the only chance for some of these kids to even see the Bible,” said Brett Tolliver, 27. “More importantly, I don’t know who it harms. The kids aren’t forced to be there.” Courtney Tolliver, 26, a teacher in the district, agrees. “It’s not teaching religion, but it teaches character and respect and how important it is to tell the truth,” she said. “The kids love it and the ones who don’t participate aren’t made to feel left out.” But the plaintiffs in the suit and their backers argue that the program’s popularity shouldn’t matter in the face of Supreme Court rulings such as McCollum v. Board of Education in 1948 that have banned public schools from initiating or sponsoring religious activity. The suit alleges that the lessons in the Mercer schools are similar to what a child would hear in Sunday school and that they advocate the Ten Commandments and treat stories in the Bible as historical fact. The suit quotes from one lesson: “If all of the Israelites had chosen to follow the Ten Commandments, think of how safe and happy they would have been.” Another lesson asks students to imagine that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. It says: “So picture Adam being able to crawl up on the back of a dinosaur! He and Eve could have their own personal water slide! Wouldn’t that be so wild!” The district declined a request to observe one of the classes. Elizabeth Deal, who describes herself as agnostic, is one of the plaintiffs in the case. Her daughter attended elementary school in nearby Bluefield, but Deal kept her out of the Bible class. Even though the class was optional, Deal said there weren’t any alternative lessons or activities for those who opted out. Her daughter was told to sit in the computer lab for that half-hour and read a book. Bypassing the class left her vulnerable to bullying. Deal said other students told her daughter that she was going to hell. One day a student saw her daughter reading a “Harry Potter” novel and told her, according to the mother: “You don’t need to be reading this. You need to be reading the Bible.” Eventually Deal moved her daughter to a public school a few miles away in Virginia where there is no Bible class. She pays an out-of-state fee of several hundred dollars, but she no longer worries about her child being taunted. Deal said she joined the suit because she believes strongly in the separation of church and state. “When something is wrong,” she said, “you have to stand up against it.” God is a big deal in Mercer County, home to about 125 churches that dominate the main streets of its biggest towns, Princeton (population 6,400) and Bluefield (10,400), and smaller burgs such as Athens (1,000), Bramwell (360) and Oakvale (120). A lot of the good jobs in the county have left — 22 percent of its 61,000 residents live below the poverty level — but the churches have stayed. You can find the Church of God here. And the Church of Christ. And the Church of Jesus. There are a couple of Catholic churches, a synagogue and a mosque, but the vast majority of houses of worship are Baptist, Methodist or Pentecostal. The radio in the region is filled with gospel stations, Bible talk shows and Christian rock. Billboards tout the Ten Commandments or offer stern messages on abortion and eternal salvation. Beneath a Chick-fil-A billboard in Princeton, another asks: “If you die tonight. Heaven or Hell?” The Rev. Ray Hurt has been the lead pastor at the Church of God in Princeton for more than two decades. The church, one of the largest buildings in town, can hold up to 2,000 people for Sunday services and often does. For Hurt, Bible in the Schools, which has been in the public schools here in one form or another since 1939, is simply a way for students to further their knowledge. “There is a great deal of not just poetry and prose in the Bible, but from what I’ve read almost every piece of history that’s in the Bible has eventually been proven,” he said. “We see the Bible not just as a book of faith but as a pretty accurate account of history that informs us about a lot of things that happened.” Hurt, whose son, the Rev. J.B. Hurt, is also a minister in the Church of God and a member of the county school board, says he would oppose the program if he thought it was being used to teach religion or if students were required to take the class. But he also embraces the idea that the Bible offers irrefutable lessons in morality and teaches the difference between right and wrong. “If you read the Bible, you’re going to get a whole lot of good ideas that are going to stick with you and make you a better person,” he said. “You don’t have to push religion with it. It speaks for itself in terms of morals and ethics and those things.” The idea that a weekly Bible class for 6,600 students in 16 public elementary schools and three middle schools is somehow simply an academic offering doesn’t sit well with Lynne White, 54, a former two-term school board member and mother of two sons who went through Mercer schools. “As a person of faith myself, I don’t see any problem with having an after-school Bible program,” White said. “But to me this seems a pretty clear violation of the Constitution.” White holds the school board and leadership responsible for spreading what she says is a false sense of what the Bible in the Schools program is and does. In a commentary for the Charleston Gazette-Mail, White wrote that “the Bible in the schools program in Mercer County is being sustained on a foundation of lies.” She argued that the classes are character education based on biblical values, that they were not electives because West Virginia doesn’t offer electives in elementary or middle school and that even though the classes are funded by private donations, that doesn’t mean they should be taught during the instructional day. She also said it was untrue that children who didn’t take the class weren’t made to “feel different or ostracized.” When White posted the article on Facebook, she heard from some supporters, but many others questioned her faith. “I will pray for you and all non-believers Lynne White. God Bless! !” one wrote. Another wrote: “Lynne White You are not a Christian, a Christian is a person who strives to be more Christ like with everything they do and I do not believe Christ would be working to shut this program down or alter it to include your worldly views.” If it were simply a popularity contest, Bible in the Schools would be allowed to continue as is. Even the president of the local mosque in Princeton says it should stay. “It’s good to be God-fearing no matter how you approach it,” said Mohammad Iqbal, head of the Islamic Society of the Appalachian Region. “Whether it’s the Bible, whether it’s Koran, whether it’s Torah, whether it’s some other book. But it should be optional, not enforced. If the parents have no objection and the student has no objection, it is okay.” But the program’s fate will not be resolved by popular vote or on Facebook posts. Instead, the question will be tried in the courtroom of Judge David A. Faber of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Bluefield. (Faber was nominated by President George H.W. Bush.) Representing the Mercer school district is the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm based in Texas that specializes in religious freedom cases. Hiram Sasser, a lawyer at the firm, said the district’s main objective is to allow the Bible course to remain as an elective while making sure it complies with the law. The district filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Wednesday. “There are two things to look at,” Sasser said. “The first is whether you can have a Bible course at all. And the other is whether you can have the Bible course as it is presently constituted. It’s fair to say that we’re very confident on the first issue. And on the second issue . . . our client is very, very flexible in terms of making sure that the content is in compliance with the law.” But the plaintiffs aren’t looking for flexibility. They want the Bible class out of the school day. The program “is unconstitutional at its core and cannot be saved via modifications,” said Patrick Elliott, a lawyer with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “There is no legally permissible way for Mercer County Schools to continue with any type of program like this.” According to Elliott, the Mercer program is “extremely rare” and there are only a handful of districts around the country with similar courses. The amended complaint, Elliott said, seeks to prevent the school system from “organizing, administering, or otherwise endorsing Bible classes for Mercer County Schools’ students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade.” Charles C. Haynes, the founding director of the Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum in Washington, doesn’t foresee the program surviving a court challenge in its current form. “This is a loser for the school district,” Haynes said. “It’s difficult to satisfy the First Amendment in elementary school when it comes to the Bible. Students at that age really aren’t prepared to tell the difference between what is history and what is religious conviction.” Haynes argues that people of faith are doing their religion a disservice when they try to have it taught by a government entity. They would rightly object, he said, if they lived somewhere where they were the religious minority and supporters of another religion wanted a course on their faith taught in public schools. “Even if 99.9 percent of the people in the community want it, they need to remember that liberty of conscience is not up for a vote,” he said. Trenton Tolliver is oblivious to the Bible battle that swirls around him. His first-grade school year ends next month. Hanging in the balance of the court case is what he will learn in the Bible course in second grade. Or if there will be a Bible course at all.

Trump To Sessions In Series Of Tweets: ‘Stop The Rigged Witch Hunt NOW!’ President Donald Trump has taken to Twitter in order to call upon Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end the investigation into his alleged Russian collusion. Trump wants the Justice Department to “stop the rigged witch hunt” before it can “stain our country and further.” In his Twitter post, Trump also blasted the 17 angry Democrats that are doing a conflicted Mueller’s dirty work. ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 “..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bon Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to [sic] USA!” Trump wrote. And Trump is far from the only American who sees the investigation as a witch hunt. Many Twitter users have taken his side, while many others believe firmly in the Russian conspiracy theory. The president made his comments in a series of Tweets earlier this morning. “FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day one. He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed to.....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 .....remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated. This is a real issue. It won’t go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys. Mueller has an interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation.” ALAN DERSHOWITZ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 Enough is enough!!! This is just a deep state coo attempt (Mueller) to stop the will of We the People!!! It's time to jail Mueller and cancel this witch hunt!!! Lock them all up this has to end!!! Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) August 1, 2018 Attorney General Sessions recused himself from overseeing the investigation early in 2017. The New York Times hypothesized that this was done, in part, to avoid the kind of conflicts such as that which Trump has proposed. Later, a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was appointed to carry out the investigation. Trump’s lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Jay A. Sekulow, said in a telephone interview that the president was not ordering the inquiry closed but simply expressing his opinion via the social media platform. “It’s not a call to action,” Mr. Giuliani said, adding that it was a sentiment that Mr. Trump and his lawyers have expressed publicly before. “He’s expressing his opinion, but he’s not talking of his special powers he has” as president, Giuliani said. “He doesn’t feel that he has to intervene in the process, nor is he intervening,” said Sekulow. The special counsel is also looking into some of Trump’s tweets about Attorney General Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James Comey and whether the messages were intended to “obstruct the inquiry” into his alleged Russian collusion. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of Vermont, suggested on Twitter that the president’s directive to Sessions in these recent Tweets was, in fact, obstruction. When I was a prosecutor, obstruction of justice was often hard to prove, requiring difficult-to-obtain evidence that the individual’s actions were truly intended to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. Oh how times have changed. https://t.co/CjSFJmng7Z — Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) August 1, 2018 The ongoing battle against the Trump presidency and the debate over what constitutes opinion vs. “obstruction of justice” doesn’t appear to have an end date in sight. Although, according to Guiliani, Mueller suggested that the Russia obstruction probe would be wrapping up by September 1. We’ll all be waiting with bated breath.

Puerto Rico says to receive $16 bln in federal disaster aid By Nick Brown Feb 9 (Reuters) - Puerto Rico said on Friday it will receive $16 billion in federal aid under a disaster recovery package signed on Friday by U.S. President Donald Trump. That money includes nearly $7 billion announced on Wednesday and will help the bankrupt U.S. territory recover from September's Hurricane Maria, according to a statement on Friday from Governor Ricardo Rossello and Jenniffer Gonzalez, Puerto Rico's nonvoting member of the U.S. Congress. Rossello said on Wednesday that Puerto Rico would get $4.9 billion to shore up its near-insolvent Medicaid system and another $2 billion or so under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to repair its destroyed electric grid. On Friday, Rossello and Gonzalez said the island would receive a total of $11 billion under CDBG, a program run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The additional portion would be used to help local businesses and repair and build new homes, they said. In addition to a slow recovery from Hurricane Maria, its worst natural disaster in 90 years, Puerto Rico is navigating the largest bankruptcy in U.S. government history, with a combined $120 billion in bond and pension debt. The aid announced on Friday provides just a fraction of the $94.4 billion Rossello has said the island needs to recover from cataclysmic damage to its infrastructure and housing stock, although Puerto Rico is eligible to participate in other programs that could increase the aid to $45 billion, according to Friday's statement. Congress could also appropriate more money later. The governor has asked Congress for $46 billion in CDBG funding alone. Home damage in Puerto Rico, where the poverty rate is around 46 percent, was exacerbated by the existence of hundreds of thousands of sub-standard "informal" homes, which are typically built by the owners themselves, without permits and often in squatter communities. "The work carried out in Washington - together with resident commissioner Jenniffer González - was able to deliver the message of the urgency of an allocation of funds that meets the needs of the Island," the governor said in Friday's statement. The disaster aid package signed by Trump on Friday - around $90 billion in total - covers a number of major disasters, including Hurricanes Irma, Harvey and Maria, as well as the recent California wildfires. (Reporting by Nick Brown; Editing by Cynthia Osterman) Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The Dictator Pope: A Call to Hierarchical Opposition Of that book, no less than Robert Royal—signaling growing alarm over the Bergoglian Debacle in the Catholic mainstream— has written : “About 90 percent of it is simply incontrovertible, and cannot help but clarify who Francis is and what he’s about.” And the picture that emerges in stark relief in The Dictator Pope, as Life Site News reports , is that of “a power-hungry, manipulative dictator, [who] celebrated the abdication of Benedict XVI” because he knew what it meant: that the plan to give him the Keys of Peter in 2005 would finally come to fruition in 2013. “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything!” Thus is Cardinal Leonardi Sandri, a fellow Argentinian and a supporter of Pope Francis at the conclave of 2013, reliably reported literally to have screamed at Pope Francis behind closed doors in the Vatican. Sandri would be one of a number of Bergoglian partisans at the conclave who are now said to be experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” as documented most recently in the explosive best-seller The Dictator Pope . "When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. The true children of Holy Church, at such times, are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable." Francis, writes Royal, “has little use for established procedures, precedents, even legal structures within the Church…. When the head of the Church himself does not much feel bound by the tradition or impartial laws he has inherited, what then?” What then indeed? The Dictator Pope even feels at liberty to demand that the Lord’s Prayer be changed to reflect his dissatisfaction with God’s words: “And lead us not into temptation [et ne nos inducas in tentationem],” which Francis has decided, after 2,000 years, is a “not a good translation.” Apparently lost on Francis, given the disordered mélange of bits and pieces of things he has read that constitutes his theology, is the distinction between sin, a culpable act, and temptation, which arises from concupiscence or what Saint Thomas called the fomes, or the fleshly inclination to sin, which grace enables us to control by the rule of reason over the passions. But now we are witness to the single worst act of tyranny in the entire history of the papacy. The Church has seen a number of Popes who have abused their power, Alexander VI being the most popularly known example. But never, before Francis, has there been a Pope who dared to tyrannize the Magisterium itself by attempting to bend it to his errant personal opinions. By publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), Francis has officially declared that the “authentic Magisterium” includes the guidelines of the bishops of Buenos Aires for the implementation of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (AL), which he expressly approved in his letter to them as the only correct interpretation of his will. The guidelines have been published in the AAS along with Francis’s private missive, which is suddenly declared to be “an apostolic letter.” The normalist narrative has just been stripped of any colorable argument that nothing is too terribly amiss with this pontificate. We are now expected to believe that the “authentic Magisterium”—meaning simply and only AL—teaches what the guidelines preposterously declare, solely in reliance on AL: When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, one may propose that they commit to living in continence…. In other more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be viable. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment…. [I]f one arrives at the recognition that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). As Francis would have it, then, the “authentic Magisterium” has just flatly contradicted itself for the first time in two millennia: The admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion, which John Paul II, in line with all of Tradition, called “ intrinsically impossible ” given their objective state in life, is now deemed possible depending on circumstances—that is, situation ethics applied to violations of the Sixth Commandment. The requirement that people embroiled in such unions commit to living in continence before they can be absolved and partake of the Blessed Sacrament—a moral norm binding “ without exception ” because it is rooted in divine law—is suddenly demoted to a mere “proposal” that may not be “feasible” or “viable” in “the concrete circumstances of the couple.” A valid annulment of a truly invalid marriage, the sine qua non for entering into marital relations with another purported spouse, is now dispensed with in “more complex circumstances… when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity,” the way thus being opened to de facto divorce in the Catholic Church. The meaningless slogan “journey of discernment” cloaks a naked authorization for the official toleration of adulterous sexual relations in the Church’s sacramental life. No less than a Roman Pontiff lends his name to the outrageous claim that children resulting from an adulterous relationship, blithely referred to as a “new union,” could be “damaged” if the partners in adultery were required to cease their adultery in order to be absolved and receive Holy Communion—evidently because the “new union” would dissolve without adulterous sexual relations and there could be a second divorce! This appeared in the last Print-Edition of The Remnant. See what else you missed. Subscribe Today! As recently as seventeen years ago, during the reign of John Paul II, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative texts reaffirmed the immutable truth reflected in Canon 915, which prohibits the administration of Holy Communion to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” That prohibition, declared the Pontifical Council, applies to the divorced and “remarried” not as a matter of mere disciplinary law subject to revocation or modification, but rather “is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws; [and] the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.” Francis, however, has purported to do nothing less invent exceptions to divine law that oppose the doctrine of the Church. The attempt is void, of course, and the appellation “authentic Magisterium” is fraudulent. But the consequences of this Pope’s toying with the teaching office of the Church to advance half-baked theological notions, such as “discernment” (a term he borrows from St. Ignatius of Loyola but strips of its original meaning) are catastrophic. Over the past year, Cardinal Burke and a few other members of the hierarchy have called upon Francis to “clarify” his intention respecting AL. That clarification has now been given: Francis intends, if it were possible, to change the unchangeable teaching of the Church regarding an irrevocable moral norm rooted in divine law. Even if the attempt is void and of no effect before man and God—an immoral law is no law at all—Francis clearly means to impose his will by fiat, daring invoke the “authentic Magisterium” to cloak his absurd novelties. No Pope before him has ever dared to do such a thing. So now it must be asked: Where are the cardinals and the bishops? With one or two noble (however inconsistent) exceptions, their response to the Bergoglian Debacle thus far ranges from silence, to active complicity, to—at best—hand-wringing over the increasingly chaotic state of the Church while begging the Pope to “clarify” his already perfectly clear intentions. At this point, continued pleading for a Bergoglian “clarification” can only give rise to an impression of disingenuousness, whereas continued silence about the papal origin of this ongoing catastrophe is a standing rebuke to all the hierarchs who know what we all know: that at the epicenter of the chaos is the most wayward Pope the Church has ever had to endure. Continued inaction while the laity and a few good priests are left to themselves to defend, as best they can, the constant teaching of the Church against the abuses of a tyrant on the Chair of Peter threatens the hierarchs with a legacy of shame and a terrible accountability before the Just Judge. Their failure to defend the Faith by standing up to the one they know full well is attacking it almost daily lends itself ever more to an indictment for timidity in the face of unprecedented danger to the Church and the cause of the Gospel of which they are divinely charged to be leaders. The time for “prudence” is long past. Prudence now gives way to mere pusillanimity. The time for hierarchical action is now, before the damage to the Church becomes irreparable. The members of a hierarchy seemingly cowed by a papal tyranny the Church has never before seen must rise immediately and give a courageous answer to the challenge posed long ago by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, when an already monumental ecclesial crisis was still in what can now can be seen as merely a preliminary stage: Where in our Church are the leaders who can show us the right path? Where are the bishops courageous enough to cut out the cancerous growth of modernist theology that has implanted itself and is festering within the celebration of even the most sacred mysteries, before the cancer spreads and causes even greater damage? What we need today is a new Athanasius, a new Basil, bishops like those who in the fourth century fought courageously against Arianism when almost the whole of Christendom had succumbed to heresy. Will none of the hierarchs rise to defend the Church as “a new Athanasius, a new Basil”? Even the best among them continue to limit themselves to generalized lamentations at conferences or in interviews about the parlous state of the Church or at most the “confusion” Francis has caused by not “clarifying” precisely what he has just clarified. They avoid the absolutely necessary direct and public exposure of error at its source. That error threatens to overwhelm the Church while they do little more than fret about a situation whose self-evident cause—a reckless Pope in love with his own ideas and filled with contempt for Tradition—they seem incapable of identifying. Concerned clergy and laity throughout the Catholic world are doing what they can according to their stations. But in the midst of that “final battle” over marriage and family of which Sister Lucia warned the late Cardinal Caffarra in light of the Third Secret of Fatima, within the human element of the Church only the cardinals and the bishops possess the divinely bestowed power to repel an assault on marriage, family and the very integrity of the Faith that is now, for the first time in Church history, being led by a Roman Pontiff. This undeniably apocalyptic development imposes upon the hierarchs—first and foremost in the Church—the duty to act. True love for the Church, indeed true charity toward Francis himself, requires of them nothing less than what was required of Saint Paul when the first Pope fell into error that jeopardized the very mission of the Church: that Peter be withstood to his face (Gal. 2:11). May Our Lady of Fatima intercede to obtain for them the grace of fortitude to do what must be done and what only they can do. Our hopes and prayers are with them as the foremost instruments of divine providence in the ecclesia Dei adflicta. Our Lady of Fatima, intercede for us!

Farrakhan Speech: 'Jews Are My Enemy,' 'White Folks Are Going Down' With the leftist media entirely focused on the push to ban AR-15s and repeal the Second Amendment, practically no one noticed Louis Farrakhan's Saviours’ Day 2018 Address in which he told an approving audience that "powerful Jews are my enemy," and "white folks are going down," according to The Washington Examiner. Farrakhan, of course, is the raging anti-Semite and race-monger who leads the Nation of Islam, the loony, militant, black nationalist organization whose mission is to throw off the yoke of the inferior white devil. This is the same Farrakhan with whom then-Sen. Barack Obama took a photo at a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting, a photo that was subsequently suppressed in order to protect Obama's political future. “Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men,” Farrakhan said in his keynote speech. “White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through." After Farrakhan's speech Sunday, CNN anchor Jake Tapper, among a few others, began tweeting out a few quotes from it, and declared that Farrakhan was more dangerous than other "alt-reich" leaders because he “has a much larger following and elected officials meet with him openly.” His Twitter thread begins here: Somehow the openly racist and anti-Semitic Farrakhan and his hateful organization have managed for decades to avoid being harshly denounced as such by the news media, which instead has spent the last two years attempting to smear Donald Trump as the new Hitler. For more on Farrakhan, check out his profile here at Discover the Networks, the Horowitz Freedom Center's resource site of the left.

Ex-Sailor Pardoned By Trump, Sues Obama And Comey For NOT Prosecuting Hillary The former Navy sailor pardoned by President Donald Trump after serving a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of his submarine filed a lawsuit on Monday against Obama administration officials. The ex-sailor is alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law and cites Comey and Obama’s willingness to not prosecute Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and former FBI director James Comey let Hillary off the hook before the election, while Kristian Saucier served hard time. Saucier says that that action was “unfair” and “unequal” compared to the corruption and criminal activity of Hillary Clinton. Saucier told Fox News he was scapegoated by Obama officials who found themselves under fire for not aggressively responding to Clinton’s handling of classified information through her private email servers. According to Fox News, Saucier’s federal lawsuit alleges that the United States government was “overzealous” in prosecuting him for “mishandling classified information” while going easy on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for more serious violations of the same law. Saucier’s lawsuit names as defendants former President Barack Obama, former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who led the inquiry into Clinton’s email account. “I could have just taken the pardon by President Trump and gone on with my life,” Saucier said to Fox News, adding that he feels an obligation to get to the truth of what he sees as a double standard that let Clinton get off scot-free. “The U.S. Constitution clearly states that all citizens are born with inalienable rights to be free from persecution by the government,” Saucier said. “My conviction and subsequent sentence for a minor military infraction compared to the treatment of politically connected individuals is a glaring example of a violation of the rights of all Americans to have equal protection under the law.” The former Navy sailor is acting as his own attorney after the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court New York barred his lawyer, Ronald Daigle, from practicing for one year. The court’s move came just as Daigle was helping Saucier prepare to file the lawsuit, prompting the navy sailor to accuse New York officials of trying to hinder his court fight against Obama, Comey, and others. –Fox News Saucier said that he realizes he had erred in taking the photos of the submarine, which he said he wanted to show only to his family so that they could see 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.

Communion to Adulterers Promulgated as "Authentic Magisterium" Last week, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)—the Vatican's organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See—published Pope Francis' October 2016 letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires in which he praised their episcopal guidelines allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective mortal sin. If papal clarification was ever needed on the long-debated issue of the intended meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII, such clarification has now been provided for the Church at large. Concerning these guidelines that allow "the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist" in "complex circumstances" where "limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt" permit adulterous couples to continue in adultery, the pope said in his letter: "The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations." Until now, the pope's letter to the Argentinian bishops had been considered a private letter with no binding force, whereas AAS has now elevated Pope Francis' letter to the official magisterial status of an "Apostolic Letter," while including a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. The rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends both documents—the papal letter and the episcopal guidelines—to bear the character of his "authentic Magisterium," and that the pope has personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website. Hence Amoris Laetitia VIII, which proposes that people living in adultery can be guiltless and thus be admitted to the sacraments of Confession and Communion when "concrete circumstances" make it difficult to renounce their adulterous state, is now declared "magisterial" by the Holy See. The problem with this is that heresy or sacrilege can never be declared magisterial, so that if it is, it not only has no binding force, but the faithful are obliged to resist and refute such a declaration. St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Theologiae: "If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate [pope] even publicly." The fact is that this latest promulgation is counter-magisterial, but the pope and his right-hand man now feel they have enough support from the dissenting left that enables them to come forward with it. Cardinal Parolin's rescript on the papal and episcopal documents reads as follows: Rescript "from an Audience with His Holiness" The Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two preceding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium. From the Vatican Palace, on the day of June 5 in the year 2017 Pietro Card. Parolin Secretary of State The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a papal rescript as follows: "Rescripts are responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. Some rescripts concern the granting of favors; others the administration of justice, e.g. the interpretation of a law." It appears then that Parolin's rescript constitutes a direct reply to the dubia of the Four Cardinals. Pope Francis' praise of the episcopal guidelines clearly answers the cardinals' query concerning his intention in Amoris Laetitia VIII, so will Cardinals Brandmuller and Burke now proceed to issue the formal correction of it? As reported in The Dictator Pope—a remarkable new book which provides an inside look at the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of recent history—English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor who was largely responsible for the vote canvassing behind Francis' election told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, "Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things." Each day, we see new evidence that this might have been a gross understatement. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that Francis may come forward one day and declare "ex-cathedra" that the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia VIII, as now taught by the Holy See, is promulgated as "extraordinary magisterium." Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope." Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: "In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact."

Trump threatens military closure at US border to stop migrants Personal Liberty Poll Exercise your right to vote. President Donald Trump said he’ll mobilize the U.S. military to close the border with Mexico to stop an “assault” on the nation by a caravan of migrants from Central America, according to a report by Bloomberg.com. Trump, who ran in 2016 promising to tighten U.S. immigration laws and stanch the inflow of undocumented migrants, has called for cutting off foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador if they don’t stop the migrants. He claimed Thursday — without providing evidence — that Democrats are backing the human movement to bolster their case for “open borders and existing weak laws.” “In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught — and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump said on Twitter. Days ago the president threatened to withhold American aid from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador if the flow of immigrants wasn’t stopped. This prompted the Honduran Foreign Ministry to urge its citizens not to join the group, according to Reuters. Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez said in a public address on Tuesday evening some Hondurans in the caravan had already returned home and the government was preparing to support them. He did not specify how many had turned back. Still, the caravan had grown to about 4,000 people today. NBC News reported that many of those in the caravan are unaccompanied children. Mexico is said to have deployed 500 additional federal police to its border with Guatemala in anticipation of the caravan’s arrival. On Wednesday, Congressman Matt Gaeetz said video footage shows Honduran women and children were being given cash to join the caravan.

Swiss bishop signs statement calling Pope’s reading of Amoris Laetitia “alien” to the Catholic Faith NewsCatholic Church, Family, Marriage ROME, February 2, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) —His Excellency Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop of Chur in Switzerland, today added his name to the “Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage,” bringing the total number of signatories to eight bishops and one cardinal, LifeSite has confirmed. Bishop Eleganti’s support of the profession comes just three days after Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakstan, invited the world’s bishops to sign the document and join in raising a common voice in defense of the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. “God decides the time, and the time will come when the Pope and the episcopacy again will proclaim, with all clarity, unambiguity and beauty, the sanctity of marriage, and of the family, and of the Eucharist,” Schneider told LifesiteNews in an exclusive Jan. 15 interview. Raising a Common Voice In conversation with LifeSiteNews, Schneider said greater public support of the document from the world’s 5,000 bishops would be “a stronger voice for professing the constant truths of the Church, and it would be a beautiful common voice defending the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage in the midst of a real neo-pagan society where divorce has become a plague and where sexual depravity is increasingly spreading.” The Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage was issued by three Kazakh Ordinaries, including Bishop Schneider, in early January. In the document, the three bishops solemnly professed the Church’s received teaching and discipline regarding sacramental marriage and the limited conditions (see Familiaris Consortio, n. 84) under which Catholics who are divorced and “remarried” may receive sacramental absolution and Holy Communion. They presented their profession “before God who will judge us,” in response to certain pastoral norms issued by several bishops’ conferences aimed at implementing chapter 8 of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia. Some of these norms, Schneider told LifeSiteNews, give “implicit approval” of divorce and of sexual activity outside a valid marriage. Such a reading is causing “rampant confusion,” will spread “a plague of divorce” in the Church, and is “alien” to the Church’s entire faith and Tradition, the three bishops said in the profession. “This is contrary to Divine Revelation,” Schneider further told LifeSite, adding that the “beautiful explanations” that are being presented to clergy and faithful as “discernment” and “pastoral accompaniment,” or a “change of paradigm” and “discovery of the subjective part of the truth,” when translated into “common sense language,” are tantamount to an allowance to sin. “Our conscience as bishops calls to us to do this,” Schneider explained. “We were forced by our conscience, in the conscience of the Successors of the Apostles and colleagues of the Pope.” As Successors of the Apostles, Schneider said they “could not act in another way.” Bishop Marian Eleganti The profession’s most recent signatory, Bishop Marian Eleganti, O.S.B., is a monk of the abbey of the Missionary Benedictines in St. Otmarsberg in Uznach, located in the canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland. He was ordained to the priesthood on June 23, 1995. In July 1999, the monks of St. Otmarsberg Abbey (the youngest abbey in Switzerland) elected Eleganti the second abbot of the monastery. The Missionary Benedictines in Uznach belong to the Benedictine Congregation of St. Ottilien near Munich, with branches in Europe, East, West and South Africa, South America, Cuba and the USA, India, Korea, China, Kazakhstan and the Philippines. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Abbot Marian Eleganti as auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Chur, Switzerland. He was ordained a bishop on Jan. 31, 2010. Since 2011, Bishop Eleganti has served as the Swiss Youth Bishop for German-speaking Switzerland on behalf of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, and as vicar for religious and monastic communities. He is also the vicar for the philosophical-theological education and ongoing formation and training of pastoral workers. Bishop Marian Eleganti’s public support of the Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage brings the number of signatories to nine. To date, in addition to the three original signatories from Kazakstan, the following prelates have signed the profession: Cardinal Janis Pujats, Emeritus Archbishop Metropolitan of Riga, Latvia; Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States; His Excellency Luigi Negri, Archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy; Bishop Andreas Laun, Emeritus Auxiliary of Salzburg, Austria; and His Excellency Rene Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.

French Jewish woman’s killer found unfit to stand trial in 2nd evaluation The suspect in the alleged murder of a Jewish physician in Paris was not responsible for his actions, a second psychiatric evaluation has determined, contradicting an earlier assessment. The president of the CRIF umbrella of French Jewish communities protested the court’s decision to revisit the issue of suitability to stand trial of Kobili Traore, which the court pursued on its own initiative and not at the request of his defense. In January, Traore was determined to be fit to stand trial. He was placed in a psychiatric hospital for weeks after his arrest in the April 2017 killing of Sarah Halimi despite having no history of mental illness. Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up But a judge requested a second series of tests, which determined that the Malian immigrant was not able to stand trial, 20 Minutes reported Wednesday. “We do not understand the determination and procrastination that consistently seeks to turn this killer into a demented person, when he is a murderer whose presumed detention doesn’t even hide his hateful anti-Semitism,” CRIF’s Francis Kalifat wrote. A third evaluation will follow before the court finally reaches a decision. Traore, 28, is accused of torturing and killing Halimi while shouting about Allah and subsequently throwing her off the balcony of her Paris apartment. An aggravated element of a hate crime was added to Traore’s indictment following vocal protests by CRIF, which said that the omission of such charges may have part of a “cover up” by French authorities. Witnesses said Traore called Halimi a “demon” as he was pummeling her. Halimi’s daughter said following the murder that Traore called her, the daughter, a “dirty Jewess” two years before the killing when they passed each other in the building.

Las Vegas Shooting Victim: “There Was 100% More Than One Shooter,” Gates To Concert Were Locked Shortly Before Attack Las Vegas mass shooting victim Rocky Palermo was shot in the pelvis during the horrific attack and is now speaking out about what he saw and believes happened, including the presence of multiple shooters as well as locked concert gates and police telling frantic civilians to go in the other direction. Palermo, who has done various interviews since the attack, appeared on “The Blast” with a series of shocking comments that correlate with various other reports indicating that multiple shooters carried out the attack and that the FBI is actively covering this up. “I definitely do believe that there was 100% more than one shooter, every other person that I’ve talked to that did unfortunately get hit as well, have all said the same things,” Palermo detailed. The man then goes on to explain that after being shot he ran “about 200 yards” to hide behind a car, all the while hearing bullets fly past him at what he believes was ground level. “I’m waiting and all of a sudden we hear a little whizzing going by us, all of a sudden bullets are just flying by,” he continued. “When something is coming up and down or at least from a different angle they are either going to hit the ground or… alot of different things are going to happen. When someone is shooting form a horizontal line its just going to keep shooting,” Palermo attempted to explain. Take note that what he means here is that people were being shot at from ground level rather than the 32nd floor of the hotel. Palermo then specifically heard the gun shots get “closer and closer” before quickly deciding it was once again time to run. Shockingly, he then goes on to detail the fact that at the end of the concert the previous two nights everyone had exited a specific way but on the night of the shooting this route was locked down shortly before the attack. “Every other night at the concert, everybody kinda exited right off Las Vegas Blvd, that was standard, that was routine, you get out of the concert and you go down to the next casino,” he continued. “At 10pm they closed every exit on Las Vegas Blvd, every single one. They gated them all closed with chain-link fences, 10:08 the shooting started and we were pigs sitting in a corral. We only had one exit to go out of…..everyone was just kinda following the sheep.” Palermo makes clear this confused concert goers who had used the normal exits in the past. “The same exits we had came in and left Friday and Saturday night were definitely closed. There were people that went over there and tried to leave and there were cops that were telling them no, you can’t go out here, you have to go the other way,” he shockingly concluded. This stunning testimony is obviously a huge bombshell in the ongoing investigation of the Las Vegas mass shooting and is sure to continue to add credence to the growing belief that we are not being told what actually happened that fateful night.

Trump's North Korean gamble ends with 'special bond' with Kim Nearly five hours of unprecedented and surreal talks between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un culminated on Tuesday with fulsome declarations of a new friendship but just vague pledges of nuclear disarmament. For Trump, that amounted to a triumphant outcome in his extraordinary gamble with the rogue kingdom's despotic leader. But there were scant details on what new commitments had been secured from Kim, even as Trump announced he would end the regular military exercises the US conducts with South Korea. Whether nuclear disarmament is indeed the final outcome of Tuesday's summit won't be known for years, if not decades. But the dramatic act of extending his hand to one of America's longtime adversaries will forever illustrate Trump's gut-driven, norm-shattering tenure. "We both want to do something. We both are going to do something. And we have developed a very special bond," Trump said at the conclusion of the landmark summit. "People are going to be very impressed. People are going to be very happy." The document he and Kim signed said the North Korean leader "reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." In exchange, Trump agreed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea. But there was no mentioning the previous US aim of "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization." And Kim's commitments did not appear to go beyond what he already pledged to do in April when he met South Korean President Moon Jae-in along their countries' border. Trump insisted during a news conference the agreement went further than many people expected. But he acknowledged the effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear arsenal was in its early stages. "We will do it as fast as it can mechanically and physically be done," he said. More critical, in Trump's telling, was the development of a personal bond with Kim, a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths not only of his own citizens but of at least one American, Otto Warmbier, who was returned to the US in a coma only to die days later. "I think our whole relationship with North Korea and the Korean Peninsula is going to be a very much different situation than it has in the past," Trump said during the summit. Later, during his news conference, Trump said Warmbier's death contributed to the summit taking place. "Without Otto, this would not have happened," Trump said. Trump and Kim -- both intent on making history -- greeted each other early in the day with extended hands in front of a row of US and North Korean flags, a previously unthinkable sight that reflects a new chapter in the two countries' acrimonious relationship. Trump's threats to politely walk out of the meeting if his expectations were unmet did not materialize. Instead he predicted he could "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" alongside his new partner. "Working together, we'll get it taken care of," Trump said. The remarks came amid an improbable series of events that few could have anticipated even three months ago. The unlikely images of US and North Korean counterparts engaging in friendly dialogue lent the day an air of unreality. In a detailed menu, the White House said the men were served Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream for dessert. Other unforeseen events also surrounded the summit, increasing the drama. Minutes before the historic handshake, Trump tweeted that his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow had suffered a heart attack. Immediately after the encounter, Dennis Rodman -- one of the only Americans to have met Kim -- was openly weeping while being interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo. Even Kim seemed to acknowledge the surreality of the day. "Many people in the world will think of this as a (inaudible) form of fantasy ... from a science fiction movie," his translator was overheard saying as the two leaders walked down a white-columned colonnade. At the conclusion of the summit, Trump hailed the talks as a historic, and personal, achievement. "We learned a lot about each other and our countries," Trump said. "I learned he's a very talented man." When pressed about those comments in light of Kim's brutal tactics, Trump continued praising the North Korean leaders' ability to run a country at a young age. "He is very talented," Trump said, citing Kim's ability to "take over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and run it, and run it tough." Kim assumed power after his father Kim Jong Il, also a brutal dictator, died in 2011. Throughout the day, Trump and Kim's body language was openly friendly, a striking warmth given Kim's iron grip on power and dismal record on human rights. Trump's move to meet him attracted fierce criticism for normalizing a regime routinely called out for its human rights abuses, that over years has built an image of fearsome renegade regime, throwing around threats of nuclear war. The day began with Trump patting Kim on the back and placing his hand on the North Korean's shoulder as they walked into their first meeting. Later they were seen smiling and laughing over lunch. Trump told reporters he would "absolutely" extend an invitation to the White House to Kim, who also heralded a new era. "Today, we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind," Kim said through a translator. "The world will see a major change." The meeting came only months after the two men traded nuclear taunts, ratcheting up tensions and leading to fears of war. By contrast, Trump appeared to back off a military footing on Tuesday, declaring the US will stop the "war games," an apparent reference to joint military exercises with South Korea that North Korea has long rebuked as provocative. Trump also said he hopes to eventually withdraw US forces from South Korea, but said "that's not part of the equation right now." "I want to get our soldiers out. I want to bring our soldiers back home," Trump said. "But that's not part of the equation right now. I hope it will be eventually." Tuesday's meeting, convened at a luxury hotel on the island of Sentosa, came just three months after Trump accepted North Korea's invitation for talks on the spot. It was an extraordinarily compressed timeline for the landmark summit, which at one point was called off entirely as communication broke down between Washington and Pyongyang. The talks were quickly revived, leading to the highly choreographed event that unfolded Tuesday. After the men shook hands, they repaired inside for one-on-one talks. In that first meeting they were joined only by translators, a break from standard practice of having at least one aide present for high-stakes huddles. Later in the day, advisers joined the talks for a larger bilateral session and a working lunch. Trump took keen interest in the pageantry of the day, insisting the pictures beamed around the world reflect a commanding leader making a decisive, world-altering move. At the same time, he'd admitted he didn't believe he required extensive preparation to take stock of Kim. As part of the advance work, Trump commissioned a highly produced video meant to convince Kim to relinquish his weapons and open his country to outside investment. Trump showed Kim the movie on an iPad during their talks. Here in futuristic Singapore, however, Kim was able to view the benefits of economic advancement at close range. He was spotted taking a moonlit stroll around the high-end Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino, owned by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, the type of glitzy development few North Koreans could ever imagine coming to their country. Kim was cheered by onlookers who caught sight of the dictator, who until earlier this spring was not believed to have ever left North Korea as supreme leader.

Foolish Religion Author Gary Wills: ‘The Religion of the Qur’an Is a Religion of Peace’ Outside of specialists and seekers, the only reason why there is general interest in the Qur’an among non-Muslims is to seek an answer to the question of whether or not it justifies and encourages Islamic terrorism. With What the Qur’an Meant: And Why It Matters, religion author Garry Wills is here to reassure us: What did the scripture of Islam tell me about the duty to kill infidels? Some people are sure it is there, though it isn’t. Then what does it say about Shari’ah law? Not a thing (p. 7). That would be good to know, were Wills a reliable witness. Unfortunately, he proves to be just the opposite: Wills laments “Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calling for a ban on the Qur’an” (p. 58). I have never called for such a ban, and oppose in principle the banning of any book. Wills, not surprisingly, does not offer any quotation from me to back up his false claim. His manifest unreliability on this point casts a shadow on his primary assertions about the Qur’an. Wills seems determined to put the best possible face on the Qur’an, which requires him to ignore a great deal of Qur’anic incitement and hatred. For example, he quotes 5:51 -- “You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies” (p. 114) -- but he nonetheless concludes, after ten pages of tu quoque arguments and other legerdemain, that “the Qur’an is fraternal in its treatment of other faiths” (p. 124). Wills never mentions Qur’an 9:29, which commands Muslims to wage war against Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Sharia. Wills is no more trustworthy when he deals with the question of violence in the Qur’an. He renders one key passage in this way: “Fight then until there is no more persecution, and worship [at the shrine] is devoted to God” (2:193; p. 133). Whence the bracketed interpolation “at the shrine”? Wills doesn’t give any source for it; apparently it comes from none other than Garry Wills himself. By adding “at the shrine” to this verse, Wills restricts the call to fight to the area around the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. He ignores the fact that some Islamic authorities see this passage as calling for nothing less than unlimited warfare against non-Muslims. The prominent Twentieth Century Indian Islamic scholar Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri explains the passage this way: The worst of sins are Infidelity ( Kufr) and Polytheism ( shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah. Wills doesn’t mention the existence of such interpretations, even to dismiss them. Likewise, when he claims that the Qur’an has “not a thing” to say about Sharia, he appears unaware that the Qur’an is one of the sources of Sharia. The Qur’an’s declarations that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s (2:282), that a daughter is to receive a smaller part of an inheritance than a son receives (4:11), that thieves are to have their hands amputated (5:38), and that those who “wage war against Allah and his messenger” are to be crucified or have a hand and foot amputated on opposite sides (5:33) are part of Sharia in all its various expressions. Because these stipulations are found in the Qur’an, they cannot be questioned or set aside. Throughout his book, Wills’ assurances that the Qur’an is not really as bad as “right-wing Islamophobes” say, or that the Bible contains material that is just as bad or worse, dissolve under close scrutiny. Again and again it turns out that Wills has ignored key passages in order to make his case. He asks why the Qur’an is “so ferocious to ‘hypocrites’ and apostates” (p. 124). Then he offers a quotation from the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews saying that “if we sin again on purpose” there is “only a terrifying judgment to come” (p. 126). Wills concludes: “The Qur’an is not as absolute as this, because it always leaves room for God’s inexhaustible mercy and forgiveness” (p. 126). That sounds wonderful, and certainly pleasing to multicultural ears to learn that the Qur’an is more merciful than the New Testament. Until one realizes that, in his discussion of apostasy in the Qur’an, Wills has omitted all mention of the primary Qur’anic passage on this topic: take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper (4:89). To “emigrate in the cause of Allah” is to leave one’s home and join up with the Muslims. This passage envisions some of the disbelievers becoming Muslim, and then turning away again, whereupon the Muslims are told to “kill them wherever you find them.” God’s inexhaustible mercy, indeed. Wills’ peaceful fantasy Qur’an raises one massive question that the author does not and cannot answer: if the Islamic holy book is really as peaceful and benign as Garry Wills makes it out to be, why do so very many Muslims worldwide misunderstand it? The Islamic State (ISIS), in its heyday, quoted the Qur’an frequently -- odd behavior if the group actually was ignorant of, indifferent to, or in violation of the book’s core tenets. ISIS quoted the Qur’an extensively in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos. ISIS also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training. One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an. An Islamic State propagandist’s parents said of him: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.” A Muslim politician from Jordan said that the Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” How would Garry Wills explain all that? He can’t; he has just explained all Qur’anic violence and intolerance away, leaving the manifest fact that all too many Muslims worldwide think that the Qur’an says exactly what he claims it does not say an unanswered conundrum. Wills’ naïve, inaccurate, misleadingly sunny view of the Qur’an, of course, accords with that of his fellow Leftist Catholic, Pope Francis. Francis has proclaimedpreposterously that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” Wills’ book accords well with the present-day Catholic Church’s head-in-the-sand posture toward Qur’an-based Islamic jihad violence and the Muslim persecution of the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. It isn’t remotely accurate, but it feels good, and for the Catholic and Leftist establishment today, that seems to be all that matters. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

SO MUCH FOR MERCY & DIALOGUE: Member of Vatican International Theological Commission Sacked for Questioning Pope of Mercy & Dialogue The Catholic Twitterverse is alive today with criticism of the USCCB’s decision to sack Fr. Thomas Weinandy, the former head of their doctrinal office. It took a matter of hours for the brave defenders of the status quo to leap into action against the mild Franciscan friar’s polite plea to Pope Francis to defend the Catholic Faith and faithful. Or at least to stop attacking them. In a letter made public November 1st, Fr. Weinandy, a former chief of staff for the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, warned Pope Francis that he has caused “chronic confusion” among the faithful and bishops. He wrote to the pope, “To teach with such an intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth.” He added that Catholics are “disconcerted” by the appointment of bishops “who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief, but who support and even defend them.” In an interview yesterday with John Allen’s Crux, he added, more prophetically than he had perhaps intended, “I don’t think anyone can, or should, associate my letter with the USCCB or the American bishops. Neither was involved in my writing the letter, and its publication will be news to them.” “Bishops are quick learners,” he wrote in his letter, “and what many have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it,” claiming that many bishops don’t speak out publicly for fear they will be “marginalized or worse.” And sure enough, within hours of making his letter public, we learned that Fr. Weinandy had been given the boot. Of course, the Twitterverse is busy commenting on the irony: how a man expressing grave concerns that there is an atmosphere of fear of being punished for expressing grave concerns, was immediately fired. Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of this little incident is just how completely blind the US bishops – as with nearly all the episcopate – are to what political analysts call the “optics”. Political consultants often ask: how does it look? And it looks extremely bad. As though the fog of irony weren’t thick enough, in response to the outrage from Catholics, the USCCB has done what all the other members of Pope Francis’ cabal have done and started blocking critics from its Twitter account. Which, it must be said, only proves Fr. Weinandy’s point once again. Some of the criticism has been unusually sharp. Fr. Hunwicke wrote this afternoon, “This cheap and vulgar ritual humiliation exemplifies the extent to which P[ope] F[rancis] is presiding over a bully-boy Church in which midget bishops and minicardinals compete to defeat each other in the sycophancy stakes. Just as Tom Weinandy has, in effect, just said.” As I write this, the outrage is doing the opposite of dying down, and is surely a sign of how fed up Catholics – even those who would never identify themselves as Traditionalists – have become with this pope and his cadre of episcopal bullies. In his letter, Fr. Weinandy made a point of stating that he is not signatory to the Filial Correction or any other public declaration against Pope Francis’ agenda. In fact, a former student of his wrote to me today saying, “I see that Fr. Thomas Weinandy has been squashed. He was one of my professors in Patristics at Oxford and he was one of the most mild-mannered, least confrontational, kindest academics one could have hoped to meet. To me, the fact that he has chosen to write to express his concern about the crisis in the church and the papacy is very significant. He is neither a traditionalist, nor a controversialist, but a humble and straightforward Friar who is clear-thinking and entirely loyal to the Church and Her teaching. I would be surprised now if we were not see more of this sort of letter/exercise of conscience. I imagine that it’s going to become harder and harder for men of conscience and position to sit on the fence.” When I posted it, this assessment was backed up by Joseph Shaw, the head of the UK’s Latin Mass Society and the spokesman for the Filial Correction, who wrote, “This is absolutely right. Not a man to seek out confrontation.” The Crux piece offered a succinct bullet point list of Fr. Weinandy’s concerns. He said the pope is… Fostering “chronic confusion.” “Demeaning” the importance of doctrine. Appointing bishops who “scandalize” believers with dubious “teaching and pastoral practice.” Giving prelates who object the impression they’ll be “marginalized or worse” if they speak out. Causing faithful Catholics to “lose confidence in their supreme shepherd.” Our friend Edward Pentin has reproduced the full text of the letter at the National Catholic Register which is definitely worth a read. Fr. Weinandy sent the letter to the pope on July 31, the Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Like the Dubia cardinals, he said he made it public only after the pope had ignored it for months. Notable in his critique is its distinct pastoral flavour, his concern on the effect the situation is having on ordinary people. The pope, he said, seems “to censor and even mock” critics of Amoris Laetitia for their desire to interpret it in keeping with Catholic teaching, and in doing so is committing a “kind of calumny…alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry.” In an interview with Crux, Weinandy said he is not afraid of reprisals but “more concerned about the good that my letter might do.” The letter “expresses the concerns of many more people than just me, ordinary people who’ve come to me with their questions and apprehensions. I wanted them to know that I listened.” “I have done what I believe God wanted me to do,[1]” he said. In fact, Fr. Weinandy has bolstered my own “Great Clarifier” theory, saying that this pontificate, and the lack of response to it from priests and bishops, is being allowed by God in order to reveal “just how weak is the faith of many within the Church,” He added that Francis has revealed that many in the Church “hold harmful theological and pastoral views.” Which inevitably brings to mind other responses that have not been quite so clear, nor so pastoral. When Cardinal Muller was removed abruptly from his position as head of the CDF, the conservative Catholic world wailed that it was another case of a “good” prelate being got rid of. And it seems clear from the way it was done, and the way Francis treated Muller in general, that he was indeed got rid of. But his depiction by conservative writers as a beleaguered champion of Catholic orthodoxy persecuted by the regime for his faithfulness betrays a somewhat selective memory and short attention span. Ed Pentin has a long file of interviews and articles about Muller that clearly show his complete inability to make up his mind whose side he’s on. A quick examination of Muller’s interviews and statements reveal an irresolute and ultimately calculating mind of a man who is – so I am told by sources close to him – motivated mainly by a puerile desire to be approved of by the “cool kids” in the Vatican, on the one hand, and an unshakeable conviction of his own theological brilliance on the other. Most recently, on October 30th, Crux quoted him under the headline, “Cardinal Muller backs Pope Francis against critics of ‘Amoris Laetitia’” in which the former head of the CDF has at last climbed on board the Kasperian train on reception of Communion for unrepentant adulterers. Signaling furiously with the trendy FrancisChurch buzzwords and even trendier blithering incoherence, Muller writes that “mitigating factors in guilt,” can lead, couples in “an uncertain marital situation” through a “path of repentance” – always “accompanied” by an exquisitely sensitive confessor – to a point where the reception of Communion is no longer sinful. Presumably because adultery itself is no longer sinful. Or sacrilege either, I guess. Or something. Somehow the “new evangelization” is involved in this, though it’s unclear how exactly it makes adultery and sacrilege OK. Also, it’s very important to fulfill the Sunday Mass obligation, and as everyone knows, one can’t possibly go to Mass on a Sunday without receiving Communion. We hear again, as we did incessantly from the Kasperians at the Synods, about the hard case of the poor, poor woman who has been abandoned by the first husband, and who “finds no other way out than to entrust oneself to a kind-hearted person,” … with whom, I guess, she has also no choice but to have sexual relations. Because of kind-heartedness. Anyway, the result of this is a “marriage-like relationship” about which confessors have to be very careful not to say mean things. Or be too “extreme”. It’s very important for him to avoid a “cheap adaptation to the relativistic Zeitgeist,” on one side, and a “cold application of the dogmatic commandments and the canonical rules,” on the other. Because that could be too polarizing. And mean. And anyway, sins of the flesh aren’t the worst things ever. There are, like, “different levels” of gravity, you know? And, like, it depends on the type of sin, right? “Spirit’s sins” like spiritual pride and avarice and stuff, are worse than “sins of the flesh,” you know? Which are, like, only a result of “human weakness,” right? Apparently the real problem with this whole thing has been that the Kasperian kerfuffle has totally been blown way, way, WAY out of proportion, and the “polarization” it has caused has been “regrettable”. The question of Communion for divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics, he said, has been “falsely elevated to the rank of a decisive question of Catholicism and a measure of ideological comparison in order to decide whether one is conservative or liberal, in favor or against the pope.” For years under Pope Benedict, Muller was engaged in an open war with the German episcopate who insisted that they were going to allow Communion for the divorced and remarried, no matter what Rome said, even threatening to go into schism if they didn’t get their way[2]. Muller, with little backing from Pope Benedict – who appeared content to allow his CDF prefect and the Germans shout out their differences – and with outright opposition from Francis, did indeed strive to hold the line. The fact that Francis orchestrated the Synods to undermine him was certainly not his fault. And it is difficult to imagine anyone being in a worse position than he was at the time. But since then, Muller has demonstrated very little of his former grit, instead attempting from one day to the next to appease both sides. Reportedly removed from CDF – and of course lionized by “conservatives” – for his mild and equivocating opposition to Amoris Laetitia, Muller has gone back and forth in what can easily be seen as a desperate attempt to find friends in both camps. With this in mind one could be forgiven for not taking his October 30th essay too seriously. Perhaps one of the good effects to come from Fr. Weinandy’s persecution will be to demonstrate how a pastor of the Catholic Church is supposed to act. As my friend said, maybe “it’s going to become harder and harder for men of conscience and position to sit on the fence,” assuming there are any left. Catch Hilary's regular column in The Remnant's Print/E-edition. Subscribe Today! [1] In this interview, Fr. Weinandy gave a remarkable story of how his prayer for a “sign” that he ought to write the letter was very specifically answered: “If you want me to write something, you have to give me a clear sign,” Weinandy recalls saying. “Tomorrow morning, I’m going to Saint Mary Major’s to pray, and then I am going to Saint John Lateran. After that, I’m coming back to Saint Peter’s to have lunch with a seminary friend of mine.” “During that interval, I must meet someone that I know but have not seen in a very long time, and would never expect to see in Rome at this time. That person cannot be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain. Moreover, that person has to say to me, ‘Keep up the good writing’.” Weinandy said, exactly that happened the next day, in a chance meeting with an archbishop he’d known a long time ago but not seen for over twenty years, who congratulated him for a book on the Incarnation and then said the right words, “Keep up the good writing.” “There was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something,” Weinandy said. [2] It’s notable that these howling tantrums from the German bishops halted abruptly about the same time as Cardinal Kasper gave his infamous consistory speech in February 2014.

Solar Storm Will Strike Earth Tonight, ‘Weak Power Grid Fluctuations’ Possible The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center forecasts an aurora could light up the sky above areas in the United State including Michigan and Maine. A solar storm, which occurred Monday, is expected to strike Earth tonight. On Monday, the sun spit out a slew of charged particles in a moderate solar flare. These particles are now making their way towards Earth. The planet’s magnetic field will block most of the particles, but some will make it into Earth’s atmosphere. The particles collect at the north and south poles and interact with atmospheric gases to create the aurora borealis or the Northern Lights. And some say this show could be quite spectacular. Solar flares have been known to cause power grid failures, but it looks like we’ll only get the light show this time. Although a grid failure is possible, it is unlikely. According to Seeker, the forecast calls for a high probability of a G-1 or “minor” storm, which could strengthen to a G-2 or “moderate” storm depending on how the stream of particles hit the Earth. Geomagnetic storms are ranked on a scale, with G at the bottom, R in the middle, and S as the most severe. Forecasts now say the particles will give our planet a glancing blow. Although this storm has been categorized as “G-1,” which means it is minor, it could still cause some havoc down on Earth. Solar flares and particle ejections are associated with sunspots — dark areas on the sun’s surface — that host intense magnetic activity. As the magnetic fields in a sunspot cross, NASA stated, this can cause a sudden energy explosion, also known as a solar flare. This sends radiation out into space, and that radiation can be hurled toward the Earth. G1-level storms, such as Monday’s, may affect migratory animals, and can cause “weak power grid fluctuations.” The barrage of particles may even have a minor impact on satellites. A gird failure would almost immediately fling the United States into a state of panic, and it’s always good to be prepared just in case. But it doesn’t look like there will be any serious damage to the power grid because of this storm as of right now.

‘Suicide Note’ Seen in Vegas Shooter’s Hotel Room A mysterious piece of paper discovered last week, when photos from the Las Vegas gunman’s hotel room were leaked to the media, is now back in the news cycle. The pictures were published by numerous news outlets and shared by millions of people on social media. At the time the photos were published by the Daily Mail, police had not mentioned if Paddock left behind a note in his hotel room. Nevada Sheriff Joe Lombardo said police were investigating who leaked the crime scene photos. In one photo in particular, a white piece of paper or notepad on a side table next to a chair is visible, which caused some to speculate that it may have been a suicide note. Soon after the photos were leaked, Twitter was abuzz with chatter referencing the paper, with people spreading cover-up conspiracies and rumors that it was a suicide note. Buy Silver at Discounted Prices Scumbag shooter Stephen Paddock LEFT A NOTE, see new pics from inside hotel room! WHY IS MEDIA NOT REPORTING THIS? #LasVagasShooting pic.twitter.com/U9tULYsk2R — Michael 🇺🇸 (@trendy) October 3, 2017 The #StephenPaddock suicide note that the govt. is hiding from us. pic.twitter.com/z3JRAE80z6 — RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) October 3, 2017 It appears the Las Vegas Shooter left a suicide note. pic.twitter.com/ATtPMR6cUN — STUMP 4 TRUMP (@Stump4TrumpPAC) October 3, 2017 On Thursday, investigators revealed that the note in the photo was not, in fact, a suicide note but neglected to provide further details about the purpose of the note. In their first in-depth interview, which will air on CBS Sunday evening, the officers who stormed Stephen Paddock’s hotel room revealed new details to 60 Minutes that finally explain what was written on the mysterious note. “I could see on it he had written the distance, the elevation he was on, the drop of what his bullet was gonna be for the crowd,” said Officer Dave Newton from the Las Vegas Police in a preview clip of Sunday’s report. “So he had that written down and figured out so he would know where to shoot to hit his targets from there.” Paddock’s note was clearly not a suicide letter. Rather, it detailed bullet trajectory and included calculations about where he needed to aim his weapons to maximize accuracy and optimize his kill rate. Investigators have also been looking for a ‘mystery woman’ who was seen with Stephen Paddock in the days leading up to the Las Vegas shooting. According to ABC News, the ‘mystery woman’ everyone on the internet was talking about has been identified. While officials did not reveal the woman’s name, they did tell reporters she was a prostitute. Police are still investigating whether or not Paddock acted alone. They believe he may have had an accomplice based on the elaborate planning needed to undertake such a massacre and the fact that some ammunition was purchased under someone else’s name. As ABC reported Friday evening: “Meantime, investigators are still trying to figure out whether Paddock acted alone. Authorities believe he may have had an accomplice, based on the elaborate planning on Sunday night’s rampage. Officials also believe he had help because of the amount of guns in his hotel room, and because some of the ammo was bought under someone else’s name.” Though more details are being released each day, Paddock’s motives remain unclear.

Trump calls on Sessions to stop Mueller’s Russia probe, raising specter of attempted obstruction WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now,” opening the president to further complaints that he is trying to obstruct the investigation into Russia’s election interference and his campaign’s possible complicity. Trump is already reportedly under investigation for potential obstruction of the Russia probe led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. The tweet early Wednesday was the president’s most explicit post or statement to date seemingly aimed at getting his attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, to end the probe The tweet, along with several others Wednesday morning, accelerated the president’s attacks on the investigation, which he claims is tainted by bias. They were likely prompted by the start of the trial on Tuesday of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, on 18 charges of tax evasion, bank fraud and conspiracy. “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!” Trump wrote. The president suggested in a subsequent tweet that Manafort was being treated worse than Al Capone, the notorious Prohibition-era Chicago gangster. “Where is the Russian Collusion?” Trump added. Trump’s tweets prompted Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to accuse the president of obstruction “hiding in plain sight.” “The President of the United States just called on his Attorney General to put an end to an investigation in which the President, his family and campaign may be implicated,” Schiff tweeted. “This is an attempt to obstruct justice hiding in plain sight. America must never accept it.” Although the White House has said that Trump’s tweets are official presidential statements, his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, responded to the latest one as he has before, by brushing off suggestions that Trump’s tweets could be used as evidence of obstruction. “The president was expressing his opinion on his favored medium for asserting his First Amendment right of free speech,” Giuliani said in an interview. “He said ‘should,’ not ‘must,’ and no presidential order was issued or will be.” He said he spoke with Trump to make sure that the president wasn’t actually issuing an order. “I talked to him about it to make sure he was on the same page as we are,” Giuliani said, and the president indicated he was not ordering Sessions to act. On Sunday, Giuliani told CBS’ “Face the Nation”: “Obstruction by tweet is not something I think works real well. Generally obstruction is secret, it’s clandestine, it’s corrupt.” Giuliani added, “I’ve looked at all those tweets and they don’t amount to anything.” For months, Trump’s lawyers also have argued that it’s impossible for the president to obstruct justice because his constitutional authority extends over the Justice Department. That power allows him to direct officials where to focus their resources or to fire them when he chooses, as Trump did when removing James B. Comey as FBI director last year. That firing, however, led to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Wednesday’s tweet was a reminder of Trump’s unabated anger at Sessions, who recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation on March 2, 2017 — as members of both parties and legal experts have contended that he should. Sessions pointed to Justice Department regulations to explain that, as one of Trump’s earliest and most active supporters, he shouldn’t participate in the investigation of the Trump campaign. He announced the decision after controversy over his own undisclosed contacts, both during the campaign and the post-election transition, with the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey Kislyak. Two months ago, Trump tweeted that he should have chosen a different person as attorney general who wouldn’t have needed to recuse himself. “I wish I did!” he wrote. In his tweets, Trump also quoted criticism of the investigation from Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor who frequently defends Trump on television. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Dershowitz said he does not believe Sessions has the authority to end the probe. “You can’t be both recused and making decisions about the investigation,” he said. But Dershowitz also cast doubt on whether Trump’s tweets can be seen as an act of obstruction. “You cannot obstruct justice by openly exercising your First Amendment rights and openly criticizing a prosecution, whether you’re right or wrong,” he said. “Obstruction of justice is generally committed behind the scenes, so I think both sides are a little overwrought here.” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, agreed that Sessions cannot stop the Russia investigation given that he recused himself. “The president, intentionally or not, is misdirecting his ire,” Vladeck said. If Trump wanted to use his power to end the probe, he would have to give the order to Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general supervising the Mueller team’s work, and fire Rosenstein if he does not comply, according to Vladeck. Trump could also try to replace Sessions as attorney general with someone who does not have a conflict of interest from the campaign, allowing that person to relieve Rosenstein of the responsibility to oversee Mueller, Vladeck said. — Noah Bierman and Chris Megerian Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Homeschooling Expands As Parents Seethe Over Liberal Social Engineering And Violence Homeschooling rates are skyrocketing as parents are continually getting more and more upset at the leftist social engineering taking place in public schools. The indoctrination is getting so bad, that some parents are even concerned about liberal violence against those who reject the brainwashing. According to The Washington Times, the recent school shooting at Parkland, Florida, was the last straw for scores of parents. The paper noted that “the phones started ringing at the Texas Home School Coalition, and they haven’t stopped yet.” “When the Parkland shooting happened, our phone calls and emails exploded,” said coalition president Tim Lambert. “In the last couple of months, our numbers have doubled. We’re dealing with probably between 1,200 and 1,400 calls and emails per month, and prior to that it was 600 to 700.” But according to Natural News, it isn’t just the rampant violence worrying some parents. That’s just the tip of the collectivist agenda iceberg. Christopher Chin, head of Homeschool Louisiana, told The Times that parents are fed up with “the violence, the bullying, the unsafe environments.” Many parents are also disturbed by the social engineering, which amounts to brainwashing and indoctrination that goes on in a public school. For example, a Minnesota public school is forcing Kindergarten students to study ‘white privilege’. The left-wing curriculum and common core are also driving parents to remove their children from public schools. Brian D. Ray, who heads up the National Home Education Research Institute, in Salem, Oregon, who’s conducted homeschooling research for 33 years, told The Times that concern over school curriculum has reached the top of the charts for most parents. Ray said the top three reasons that parents choose homeschooling are a desire to provide religious instruction or different values than those offered in public schools; dissatisfaction with the academic curriculum, and worries about the school environment. Since teachers are not allowed to arm themselves to defend their students against the violence often perpetrated at schools simply because they are gun free zones, homeschooling takes care of that problem. “Most parents homeschool for more than one reason,” Ray told the paper. “But when we ask families why do they homeschool, near the top nowadays is concern about the environment of schools, and that includes safety, pressure to get into drugs, pressure to get into sexual activity. It includes all of that.” Indoctrination means to teach a person to accept a belief uncritically. It’s the very reason the governments of the world still exist. People cannot logically and critically understand that hurting people and taking their things is wrong – even if people who declare themselves government is the one doing it. Governments are nothing more than a handful of people and have no right to aggress against others. But humans are taught at a young age to never question this and that belief has kept most of humanity enslaved for centuries.  It isn’t a surprise that so many have decided to educate their children themselves. And as schools continue to fail, and authoritarian policies continue to wreak havoc on our society, more will wake up to the absolute horror of what allowing the state to educate our children has done to the moral fabric of humanity.

President Donald Trump Proposes "Simple Immigration Plan": Illegals Have To Go! On Monday, President Donald Trump proposed what he sees as an ideal immigration plan during a meeting with the King and Queen of Jordan at the White House. “We want a system where when people come in illegally, they have to go out,” Trump told reporters. “A nice simple system that works.” Trump said that the system that Mexico uses to deal with illegals by holding them a few hours and then sending them away is preferable to how the long, drawn out process in the united States is conducted. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. I completely agree. In fact, I've often said if we catch people close to the border, we should not even bring them into the system if they are not citizens, but walk them back over the border and make sure they keep walking. Often, by putting illegals into the system, it takes years to deport them, which costs the American people lots of money. That system would require more judges to handle more illegals and Trump ripped the calls for more judges in favor of a more "simple immigration plan." “We want strong borders and we want no crime,” Trump said. “The Democrats want open borders and they don’t care about crime.” Trump then called on Congress to correct the problems created by legislation with more legislation. “The laws are obsolete, the laws are horrible, having to do with the border, both in terms of security and in terms of taking care of people,” he said. “We want children staying together,” Trump said, blasting the New York Times report that said he didn't really want to sign his executive order last week that would keep families together in detention while they awaited the judicial process. Of course, Trump has inherited a problem that has existed for several administrations, both Republican and Democrat, for decades. It is time that Congress sure up things so that America's tax dollars are not bound up in a worthless judicial process when people are clearly in the country illegally. Sadly, too many people want more amnesty which begs the question if any of them take the law seriously in the first place. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

The Cunning CIA Whatever else might be said about the assassination of President Kennedy, one thing is for sure: The cover-up of this particular U.S. regime-change operation was one of the most ingenious and cunning plots ever designed. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, given that practically from its inception in 1947 the CIA was specializing in the arts of assassination, regime change, and cover-up. As far back as 1953, the CIA published an assassination manual that the CIA succeeded in keeping secret from the American people for more than 40 years. It came to light in 1997 as a result of a Freedom of Information request. That was around the time that the Assassination Records Review Board, which was overseeing the mandatory release of JFK-related assassination records of the CIA and other federal agencies that had been kept secret from the American people since 1963. Today, Americans can read the CIA’s assassination manual online. Titled “Study of Assassination,” the manual spells out various ways to assassinate people. Here is what the manual states in part regarding the use of firearms: Firearms are often used in assassination, often very ineffectively…. Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be very high. Time to buy old US gold coins The manual also makes it clear that the CIA was studying ways to assassinate people without being detected. Note the following excerpt: For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated. It would be safe to assume that the CIA continued developing and expanding on the assassination principles enunciated in that early assassination manual. That’s what we would expect from an agency whose specialties included assassination. We can also assume that the CIA continued to refine the ways to avoid detection when assassinating someone. The Kennedy Autopsy Jacob G Hornberger Best Price: $9.85 Buy New $9.95 (as of 03:35 EDT - Details) The CIA published that secret assassination manual as part of its preparations for a U.S. regime-change operation in Guatemala, one that was designed to violently remove the nation’s democratically elected socialist president, Jacobo Arbenz, from office and replace him with an unelected, right-wing, pro-U.S. military general. As part of the Guatemala regime-change operation, the CIA prepared a list of Guatemalan officials to be assassinated. While the CIA has never revealed the names of the people it targeted for assassination, there is little doubt that Arbenz, the president, was at the top of the list. There is something important to note: Neither Arbenz nor any other Guatemalan official had ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. So, why were they targeted for assassination? Because Arbenz had reached out to the Russians and Cubans in a spirit of peace and friendship, just as John Kennedy would do ten years later. That’s why the CIA targeted Guatemala for regime change and why it targeted Arbenz and other Guatemalan officials for assassination. Although Arbenz was able to escape the country, the CIA’s regime-change operation was a total success, with Arbenz being replaced by the pro-U.S. Gen. Carlos Castillo Armas, who proceeded to instigate a reign of terror across Guatemala. The Guatemalan operation was brilliant and ingenious. The CIA officials were secretly honored for protecting “national security” by removing President Arbenz from office and replacing him with a pro-U.S. military general. Tracy Barnes, one of the CIA officials responsible for the operation, was awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, the CIA’s second-highest medal. The CIA’s cover-up in the JFK assassination was even more brilliant and ingenious. The doctors at Parkland Hospital stated that President Kennedy had a big exit-sized wound in the back of his head, which implied a shot having been fired from the front. At a press conference immediately after the president died, two treating physicians stated that the other wound — the one in the front of Kennedy’s neck — was an entry wound, which implied that Kennedy had been hit by another shot fired from the front. This necessarily meant that Kennedy had been shot from the front, not the rear, where accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was situated. Keep in mind something important: After he was arrested, Oswald claimed his innocence. But he also went a step further. He said that he was being framed for the crime. The obvious question arises: Why frame an innocent man who is situated in the rear by killing the president with shots fired from the front? Wouldn’t it be more logical to either have the shots fired from the rear, where Oswald was, or, alternatively, place Oswald in the front, where the shots were fired? That’s where the brilliance, ingenuity, and cunningness of the cover-up come into play. If Oswald is in the rear and since shots are fired from the front, that could mean only one thing: that Oswald had confederates firing from the front. Who would those confederates be? There could be only one answer: communists. Soviet and Cuban communists, to be more specific. How would we know this? That’s where Oswald’s trip to Mexico City right before the assassination comes into play. Regime Change: The JFK... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. Oswald traveled to Mexico City where he purportedly visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies and where he supposedly met with a premier assassin for the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that this was the height of the Cold War between the United States and that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, had taken place the previous year. So, President Kennedy has been assassinated. Oswald is immediately arrested. He has confederates firing from the front, who almost certainly are Soviet and Cuban communists, especially since Oswald has supposedly just recently visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City. What does all that mean? An assassination of the president by the Soviet Union and Cuba is obviously an act of war. That means nuclear war is about to break out because there is no way that the United States is going to sit idly by when the Reds have just assassinated America’s president. Except for one thing: The communist part and the nuclear-war part were concocted. That was all part of the plan. That was the ingenious way that the CIA was able to get the investigation into the assassination squelched just as soon as Oswald was murdered. In the early days of the Warren Commission, commission chairman Earl Warren called a top-secret meeting of the commission. Its purpose was to discuss information that Warren had received that Oswald was actually a U.S. intelligence agent or an informant for the FBI or both. How did Warren resolve this troubling issue? He simply asked the heads of the CIA and FBI whether it was true. They said no. That was the end of the matter. The issue was so sensitive that Warren ordered the members of the commission to never reveal the meeting to the American people. He ordered all notes and other written references to be destroyed. He also ordered the court reporter to destroy her notes of the meeting. Unbeknownst to him, the court reporter inadvertently kept a recording of the meeting that ultimately came to light. This troubling issue arose again yesterday, November 2, in the Washington Post in an article entitled “Tantalizing Mystery of JFK Assassination Files Solved – 23 Years Ago.” In the article, author Ian Shapira points out that among the long-secret CIA records that were recently released was a deposition of former CIA Director Richard Helms taken in 1975 before the President’s Commission on CIA Activities, which stated as follows: BELIN: Well, now, the final area of my interrogation relates to charges that the CIA was in some way conspiratorially involved with the assassination of President Kennedy. During the time of the Warren Commission, you were Deputy Director of Plans, is that correct? HELMS: I believe so. BELIN: Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or an age[nt.… The CIA, Terrorism, an... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. That’s where the transcript ends according to few secret records of the CIA that were recently released by the National Archives. Shapira points out, “Several news organizations, including The Washington Post, seized on the truncated file as an example of the government’s continued secrecy about the assassination.” Shapira points out that Helms’ full deposition has been in the public arena since 1994. (The year 1994 was during the tenure of the Assassination Records Review Board, the agency charged with securing the mandated release of JFK assassination records from the CIA and other federal agencies. The ARRB Had been formed after Americans had learned of the official secrecy after watching Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, which posited that the JFK assassination was a U.S. regime-change operation, no different in principle from the one the CIA had carried out in Guatemala nine years before.) Shapira then proceeds to provide the answer that Helms gave, which, as he points out, has been public: HELMS: Mr. Belin, this question, and I think you may recall this, was raised at the time and the Agency was never able to find any evidence whatsoever, and we really searched that it had any contact with Lee Harvey Oswald. As far as the FBI was concerned, my recollection is not all that precise. I believe that Mr. Hoover testified that he had not been an agent of theirs either. He was certainly not an agent of the CIA. He was certainly never used by the CIA. Whether any CIA officer ever talked to him any place or not I don’t know but I certainly felt quite comfortable — I believe Mr. [John] McCone [a previous CIA director] was asked to testify before the Commission on this point. I believe he was asked to testify. It was a hot item anyway at the time. And my recollection is that I informed Mr. McCone that we could find no evidence that Oswald had any connection with the CIA. Shapira ends his article by suggesting that commentators should do more complete research, maybe even use Google, before they jump to conclusions. But Shapira would be wise to follow his own advice because he himself is guilty of what he accuses others of. That’s because he failed to conclude his article with one great big important point about former CIA Director Richard Helms. What is that great big important point that Shapira, who, according to his tagline on his article, “enjoys writing about people who have served in the military and intelligence communities,” left out of his article? Perjury. He left out that former CIA Director Richard Helms was a perjurer. A liar. A CIA official who would tell falsehoods, even under oath, whenever he felt that “national security” required it. Shapira failed to note that Helms was convicted in a federal district court of lying to Congress under oath about another CIA regime-change operation ten years after the Kennedy assassination in Chile. Interesting enough, in the Chile regime-change operation, the CIA and the Pentagon were telling their counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment that they had a moral duty to violate their nation’s constitution and violently remove their nation’s democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, from office. The reason? Allende was reaching out to the Russians and Cubans in a spirit of peace and friendship, just as Arbenz had done and just as Kennedy had done. JFKu2019s War with the... Douglas Horne Check Amazon for Pricing. Thus, given that Helms was an admitted perjurer and convicted liar, what value does his denial that Oswald was an intelligence agent have? It has no value at all. And Shapira, who “enjoys writing about people who have served in the military and intelligence communities” had an ethical duty to point out Helms’ proclivity for lying in his article. The circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Oswald was working for U.S. intelligence. How often have you ever heard of a U.S. Marine communist? If Oswald was a genuine communist, why would he have joined the Marines in the 1950s, given that the Marines hated communists and had just helped kill millions of them in the Korean War? Why would a genuine communist want to join an organization in which he could be ordered, on a moment’s notice, to return to Korea or be sent to Vietnam, Laos, China, the Soviet Union, or Europe to kill communists? Don’t forget: this is the height of the Cold War! After Oswald supposedly tried to “defect” to the Soviet Union and promised to give the Russians all the secrets he learned about in the military, why would U.S. officials agree to let him back in the country, and with a communist wife? Why wouldn’t they indict him or at least haul him before a federal grand jury to testify as to what secrets he gave the Russians? Why wouldn’t they harass, abuse, humiliate, persecute, or prosecute him, like they did to Martin Luther King, Dalton Trumbo, John Walker Lindh, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and other people they have deemed to be communists or traitors? How is it possible that Oswald could learn fluent Russian while serving in the U.S. military without having U.S. military tutors teaching him? How is it possible that a veteran who embarrasses the U.S. Marine Corps by openly proselytizing for communism in New Orleans is able to saunter across the Cold War stage of history, not long after the McCarthy hearings, without nary a care in the world? The answer: Helms lied. There is no reasonable doubt that Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent, one who was ordered to travel to Mexico City to set the framework for his frame-up. But things obviously went dreadfully wrong in Mexico City, which is why the CIA had to shut down that part of the post-assassination investigation. Not surprisingly, the CIA’s Mexico City operations regarding Oswald are among the 98 percent of the records that Trump and the CIA have chosen to continue keeping secret from the American people, on grounds of “national security” of course. Thus, when Oswald was claiming that he was being framed, there could be only one entity that he could have been thinking about: the CIA, the agency whose officials, as former Washington Post investigative reporter Jefferson Morley has documented, were secretly monitoring his activities in the weeks leading up to the assassination, no doubt to ensure that Oswald had not figured out what was about to happen to him. We can assume that any frame-up by the CIA is going to be good. The operation is going to be carefully planned and executed. But no plan is perfect. Things are inevitably going to go wrong. The pieces aren’t going to fit together perfectly. The Mexico City operation is a good example of that. That’s why the CIA has to continue keeping those records secret. But here’s another example, a small but important one: Recall that Oswald supposedly hid the rifle before he headed down the steps from the sixth floor of the school book depository. Ask yourself: If someone has just assassinated the president of the United States, is he really going to take the time to hide the rifle? What good would that do? Wouldn’t officials conduct a thorough search of the area? Wouldn’t an assassin instead simply leave the rifle there and get out of there as soon as he could? Then why the hidden rifle? Because it’s consistent with a frame-up. The framers had to hide the rifle in advance in a place where no one CIA & JFK: The Secret ... Jefferson Morley Check Amazon for Pricing. would see it during the morning of the assassination, which took place after noon. No matter how good a frame-up was, the CIA knew that it could be detected with an aggressive investigation. That’s where ingenuity and cunning come into play. They had to figure out a way to shut down the investigation so that the frame-up would remain intact. That’s why they had shots fired from the front and placed Oswald in the rear. The idea was that since an investigation would lead to Oswald’s supposed communist confederates in the front, which in turn would lead to nuclear war, the investigation had to be shut down immediately, especially since it was the CIA itself that had started the assassination game by repeatedly attempting, in partnership with the Mafia, to assassinate Castro. It was one of the most brilliant and cunning ruses in history. They get the body out of Parkland by force, in violation of Texas law, and put it in the hands of the military in Maryland, which conducts a secret fraudulent and bogus autopsy. (See my book The Kennedy Autopsy.) Lyndon Johnson telephones Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade on the night of the assassination and orders him to shut down any investigation of a conspiracy because it might lead to nuclear war. As soon as Oswald is assassinated, the FBI orders Wade to turn over all his investigative files to the FBI. At the same time, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and FBI Head J. Edgar Hoover both write secret memos and reports saying any further investigation must stop immediately. Lyndon Johnson gets Earl Warren and Sen. Richard Russel to join the Warren Commission by telling them that the assassination could lead to World War III. Johnson appoints former CIA Director Allan Dulles, who Kennedy had fired as a result of the CIA’s regime-change operation at the Bay of Pigs, to the Warren Commission, thereby guaranteeing that there will be no investigation of the CIA. Then keep all the records secret for decades, when many people won’t care anymore who killed President Kennedy. And employ Operation Mockingbird-like journalistic assets in the private sector to flood the market with alternative “conspiracy theories” to confound and confuse the public. And smear anyone who questions the official narrative as a “communist sympathizer” or a “conspiracy theorist.” The CIA’s cunning cover-up in the JFK assassination worked brilliantly. Thanks to President Trump and the CIA’s decision to continue keeping 98 percent of the CIA’s decades-long secret records secret from the American people, the CIA’s cunning cover-up of the JFK assassination continues to work brilliantly today. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger

National Data | May Jobs: Displacement Stalls, Americans Take All New Jobs—But For How Long? | Articles Finally, the shocking surge in immigrant displacement of American workers and in the immigrant workforce, which began in January and completely undid the improvement we had begun hopefully to call the “Trump Effect” has stalled. May job numbers released Friday show native-born Americans big winners and immigrants (legal and illegal, the Labor Department doesn’t distinguish) big losers. But displacement and immigrant workforce growth are still high in absolute terms and could resume anytime. Only legislation, above all an immigration moratorium, can secure the fruits of the current economic expansion for Americans. In May: Immigrant employment fell by 1.068 million, down by 3.81%. Native-born American employment rose by 1.361 million—up 1.1% The immigrant employment index, set to 100.0 in January 2009, fell to 124.7 from 129.6 in April. The native-born American employment index rose to 106.6 from 105.4 in April. The New VDARE American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI), our term for the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes, fell to 117.0 from the all-time high,123.0, recorded in April. Can't render, error In other words, Trump has not even begun to repair the damage done by eight years of Obama. Native-born American workers lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years. And, shown above, this trend accelerated significantly in the months leading up to the election. While May was a welcome respite, Trump supporters have reason to complain: Since taking office in January 2017 President Trump has presided over a labor market in which immigrants have gained 1.006 million jobs, a 3.9% increase, while native-born Americans gained about 2.4 million jobs —a rise of only 1.9%. As far as the labor market is concerned, “America First” has not translated to Americans First. In normal times, this might be a big story. But the even the conservative non-Main Stream Media is currently too steeped in economic euphoria to notice. Nd anyway, they almost never report the immigration dimension. However, it is now absolutely clear that immigration, and immigrant displacement of American workers, cannot be jawboned away. The only answer is legislation— border wall to stop the illegal alien flow; a second Operation Wetback, including E-Verify, to get the illegal alien self-deporting; a moratorium on legal immigration. May 2018 was the fifth consecutive month in which the foreign-born working age population (including illegals) grew by more than 1 million from the same month the prior year. But May’s growth was less than that in April and March, possibly an emerging trend. Can't render, error In May 2018 there were 1.342 million more working-age immigrants than in May 2017. This comes on the heels of gains of 2.154 million and 1.597 million. year-over-year, in March and April, respectively. It’s hard to believe with the evaporation of the Trump Effect, but less than six months ago we were seeing to year-over-year declines in the immigrant workforce population. The last five months of 2017 saw the foreign-born population fall by an average 100,000 from the same month of the prior year (shown in red on our chart). These are net figures. Over a 12-month period an average of perhaps 300,000 immigrants die and an equal number leave the U.S. voluntarily. So the 1.342 million net rise in foreign-born population, May 2017 to May 2018, implies that nearly 2 million foreign-born individuals may have actually settled in the country over those 12 months. (This excludes tourists and other short-term entrants.) In percentage terms, the immigrant working-age population grew 3.24% over the 12 months. If this growth rate persists, it portends a doubling in 22 years. By contrast, the native-born American population rose 0.63% over this period —a rate that will require 114 years for a doubling. If both rates persist that long, the term “native born” will refer to a minuscule fraction of the U.S. population. Another way of looking at American worker displacement: the immigrant share of total U.S. employment: Can't render, error Immigrants accounted for 17.36% of total employment in May. Note that, while significantly below the all-time high of 18.1% recorded in April, the May figure is third highest among the 113 months for which we have data. A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is available in the Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Nativity table published in the monthly BLS Report. Employment Status by Nativity, May 2017- May 2018 (numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted) May-17 May-18 Change % Change Foreign born, 16 years and older Civilian population 41,390 42,732 1,342 3.24% Civilian labor force 27,315 27,923 608 2.23% Participation rate (%) 66.0 65.3 -0.7 pts. -1.06% Employed 26,290 27,086 796 3.03% Employment/population % 63.5 63.4 -0.1 pts. -0.16% Unemployed 1,025 837 -188 -18.34% Unemployment rate (%) 3.8 3.0 -0.8 pts. -21.05% Not in labor force 14,075 14,809 734 5.21% Native born, 16 years and older Civilian population 213,377 214,722 1,345 0.63% Civilian labor force 132,664 133,842 1,178 0.89% Participation rate (%) 62.2 62.3 0.1 pts. 0.16% Employed 127,117 128,924 1,807 1.42% Employment/population % 59.6 60.0 0.4 pts. 0.67% Unemployed 5,547 4,919 -628 -11.32% Unemployment rate (%) 4.2 3.7 -0.5 pts. -11.90% Not in labor force 80,713 80,880 167 0.21% Source: BLS, The Employment Situation-May 2018, Table A-7, June 1, 2018. PDF Over the past 12 months (May 2017 to May 2018): The immigrant labor force (employed plus looking for work) rose by 608,000, or 2.23%; the native-born labor force grew by 1.178 million, up by 0.9%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS Immigrant employment grew 2.1-times faster than native-born American employment: 3.03% vs. 1.42%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The unemployment rate for immigrants fell 21%, from 3.8% to 3.0%; native-born unemployment rates fell 11.9%, from 4.2% to 3.7%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The number of unemployed native-born Americans fell by 628,000—an 11.3% drop; immigrant unemployment fell by 188,000—an 18.3% reduction. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS The labor-force participation rate, a sign of worker confidence and mobility, fell 0.7 points for immigrants and rose 0.1 points for native-born Americans. This marks the second straight month in which native-born LPRs have risen, year-over-year, relative to those of immigrants ADVANTAGE AMERICANS Border Patrol statistics for May are not yet available. April data showed illegal immigration had rebounded dramatically, after running below the previous year’s level for most of 2017. I will report on this, and on wage growth data, in the next couple weeks.. Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants.

Cardinal Burke to Michael Matt: "Amoris Not An Exercise of Magisterium" (Now what?) Given that Pope Francis has, since that interview took place, attempted to make the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL 'magisterial'--an interpretation that allows public adulterers to receive Holy Communion--Cardinal Burke’s reply to my question on January 9th of this year would seem to take on new relevancy. In my interview of Raymond Cardinal Burke less than one year ago, I asked His Eminence to clarify what, exactly, is the level of authoritative weight of Pope Francis’s post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Now, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, made it very clear to the Catholic News Service on December 5 what the Pope is up to: “The fact that the pope requested that his letter and the interpretations of the Buenos Aires bishops be published in the AAS means that His Holiness has given these documents a particular qualification that elevates them to the level of being official teachings of the church. While the content of the pope’s letter itself does not contain teachings on faith and morals, it does point toward the interpretations of the Argentine bishops and confirms them as authentically reflecting his own mind. Thus together the two documents became the Holy Father’s authentic magisterium for the whole church.” What Cardinal Burke rightly describes as lacking in any magisterial weight whatsoever—and, in fact, in dire need of clarification and correction— has by papal fiat been declared magisterial, and thus binding on us all. Francis made it clear that the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL allowing public adulterers to receive Holy Communion “explains precisely the meaning of Chapter VIII of ‘Amoris Laetitia.’ There are no other interpretations.” I would imagine this outrageous overreach of papal authority on the Pope's part would make it ominously clear to Cardinal Burke that the time has come to issue his public correction of Pope Francis's erroneous teaching. The moment, it would seem, has come. Cardinal Burke, please and in God's Holy Name, we beg you to act now -- before Pope Francis succeeds in tearing the Church in half completely. We fear that your silence now, in the face of this latest papal travesty, may suggest consent to the claim that Amoris Laetitia is magisterial, and thus prove more damaging than if you had never raised your voice at all. We thank God for the courage you've shown in defending His Church thus far, and we pray he will continue to bless and protect you as you do what must now be done.

Apparently, They Think We are Fools As Pope Francis continues his five-year-long tirade against the imaginary Catholic Pharisees who defend the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the integrally related Eucharistic discipline—he is still at it as of yesterday (January 9)—he and his collaborators are busily engineering neo-Pharisaical escape hatches from the negative precepts of the divine and natural law emanating from the Sixth Commandment. Determined to quell any Catholic opposition to his moral subversion, Francis has slapped the label Authentic Magisterium® on his outrageous opinion that in “complex circumstances” wherein it is not “feasible” to live as brother and sister, two people who are not married can be admitted to Holy Communion without ceasing extra-marital sexual relations so long as they engage in an ill-defined “process of discernment.” As Father Brian Harrison has so trenchantly observed, this means that people embroiled in adultery can receive Holy Communion while they “discern” that they should not be receiving Holy Communion because they are embroiled in adultery. Do they think we are fools? Then there is the endlessly double-talking Cardinal Müller. In a recent interview concerning Rocco Buttiglione’s verbal contortions aimed at demonstrating that the administration of Holy Communion to public adulterers is consistent with the Church’s bimillenial prohibition of precisely that, Müller proposed this preposterous “solution” to a “problem” that does not exist: It is possible that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament, certainly with the appropriate precautions as not to scandalize the community of the faithful and not to weaken the conviction of marriage indissolubility. The Cardinal knows this is moral and canonical nonsense. No Catholic, whether or not he consults a priest, can declare for himself that his marriage in the Church was invalid, especially when—indeed because—he lacks canonical proof of invalidity. Moreover, absent an annulment granted by the competent Church tribunal, a purported “second marriage” can only be an invalid civil ceremony and thus a thinly disguised form of continuous public adultery. Cardinal Burke, whom Francis sacked as head of the Church’s highest tribunal because he was a major impediment to the conspiracy culminating in Amoris Laetitia (AL), has observed the obvious in this regard: Such cases do not exist. No priest has the authority to declare a marriage null in the internal forum. Marriage is a public state in the Church, and the judgment regarding an accusation of nullity of marriage must be made in accord with the long practice of the Church. If a college of judges in a matrimonial tribunal is not able to arrive at moral certitude regarding the nullity of a marriage after a careful and thorough examination of the petition of nullity, how can an individual priest be capable of making such a judgment having to do with the eternal salvation of the soul in question? The only case in which a priest could admit a person living in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist is the case of a couple who agree to live “as brother and sister”, that is to respect the marriage to which they are bound by not living in a marital way with another person. Even then, the priest would have to insist that the couple living in continence receive the Sacraments in a place in which they are not well known, lest other faithful be led to believe that persons living in an irregular matrimonial union may receive the Sacraments. Does Cardinal Müller think we are fools? Some of us apparently are, or at least are willing to serve as knowing dupes by defending neo-Pharisaical sophistry that would produce “a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” Apparently, they think they can fool us in the next phase of the program of moral subversion that this incredible Pope seriously expects us to believe is an imperative of “mercy”: the justification of contraception in “complex cases” to which “discernment” must be applied. Consider the recent declaration by one of Francis’s new appointments to the Pontifical Academy for Life, whose entire membership he sacked and whose constitution he ordered rewritten to neutralize it. In a lecture at the Gregorian, one Father Maurizio Chiodi, a “moral theologian” of the post-Vatican II variety, proposed that “an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as anact of responsibilitythat is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situationsresponsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.” That is, Francis’s man at the reconstituted Pontifical Academy declares openly that there is a duty to contracept! Chiodi’s sole “authority” for this lie from the pit of hell is nothing more than Chapter 8 of AL, the only document of its kind in the entire history of the Church. AL will doubtless be providing cover for a whole new line of Authentic Magisterium® products, all of which will be utter fakes, including some form of “pastoral integration” of homosexual unions. Evidently, they do think we are fools or willing to play the fool in exchange for the benefits of respectable conformity in the midst of an unparalleled debacle for the Church. (Consider the example of Catholic Answers, which “defends the Faith” while refusing to recognize that it is under ferocious attack from the very vertices of the Church. Silence at best is the price it must pay for remaining in good standing with the pro-homosexual bishop Francis has installed in San Diego.) But we are not fools. And God will not be mocked. Francis and all his designs will ultimately come to nothing. Meanwhile, ours is but to keep the Faith and protest before God and man the blows now raining down against the Church, even when they come from a wayward Roman Pontiff at her summit. Indeed, especially then.

Senator Lindsey Graham Unleashes Firestorm At Democrat Senators For "Most Unethical Sham" Since He's Been In Politics I'm not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and he's my senator, but I have to tell you that he was right on point on Thursday when he berated Senate Democrats in their relentless assault on Judge Brett Kavanaugh while at the same time believing every word of Dr. Christine Ford without any evidence. In fact, all of the evidence and all of the witnesses to date, including Dr. Ford's friend, whom she claims was in the same house that the attack occurred refute her claims. When Graham had his time to speak, he said what many of us thought should have been said. After Kavanaugh unleashed his own refutation of the charges and blasted Democrats for their attacks on him, near the closing of the hearing, Graham finally said what everyone had been waiting on and said it with passion. "What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020," Graham blasted Democrat Senators on the committee. Sen. Lindsey Graham to committee Democrats: "This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics...Boy, y'all want power. Boy, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it." pic.twitter.com/NnpcF33smC take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Axios (@axios) September 27, 2018 Graham continued, "Would you say you've been through hell?" Kavanaugh responded, "I've been through hell and then some."

Facebook Bans Outline to Stop Jihadi Attacks on Americans. [Editors' note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 for his article on how to best prevent more 9/11s, pre-order Jamie's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has successfully built his totalitarian plantation -- on which many in the West are now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.] Reprinted from WND.com. Somewhere in the “community standards” that Facebook demands everyone follow is a real doozy. The social-media company has told author and commentator Jamie Glazov that their standards forbid his article about how to prevent jihadi attacks on Americans. It’s all about Glazov’s new book, “Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.” At FrontPage Magazine, where he is editor, he had posted “9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad,” which included recommendations such as “Label the enemy and make a threat assessment” and “Stop ‘partnering’ with Muslim Brotherhood front groups.” That apparently was too much for Facebook, which declared “only you can see this post” because it “goes against our Community Standards.” He was suspended from Facebook for 30 days on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the Islamic jihadist attack on America that killed nearly 3,000. Glazov told Breitbart, “This is really getting surreal in the creepiest and most harrowing Stalinist sense.” FrontPage Magazine reported: Facebook’s Unholy Alliance masters are, without doubt, accelerating their totalitarian suffocation of free thought and expression. It is no surprise, therefore, that Frontpage’s editor, and host of ‘The Glazov Gang,’ was suspended from Facebook for 30 days yesterday, on September 11, after posting his article, ‘9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.’ Glazov believed that the article was more relevant and urgent than ever due to the skyrocketing jihadist stabbings in Europe — and to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 that was approaching the next day. The report said it appears “that daring to give suggestions on how our civilization can stop jihadist attacks and another 9/11 is against Facebook’s ‘community standards. '” “Glazov’s advice also involves the promotion of supporting moderate Muslims – a move that is, clearly, horrifying to Facebook’s masters and therefore also violates their ‘community standards,'” the report said. No doubt, Glazov’s consistent campaigning on behalf of Muslim women and girls in his efforts to protect them from FGM, honor killings and other Shariah barbarities, has gained him the anger and hatred of Facebook’s guardians — who are clearly on the side of the Shariah enforcers and oppressors of Muslim women and girls. The report recalls that Facebook censored Glazov in April for posting screenshots of a Muslim’s threat to him. Twitter also lashed out at him for quoting directly from Islamic religious texts, citing its anti-“hate” policies. It is ‘hateful conduct,’ apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed, Frontpage’s editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Quranic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50). Facebook also refused to respond to Glazov’s inquiry about “what it is specifically that violates Facebook’s ‘community standards’ when a person gives advice on how to best defend American lives from jihad.” Glazov has written about the subject in previous books, including “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown” and “United in Hate.” In his “9 Steps” article, he points out that the Obama administration was “cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA.” The government needs, he said, to “implement a concrete ‘countering-jihad’ strategy.” And he said it needs to affirm “Shariah’s assault on the U.S. Constitution as seditious.” A last key point, the said, is to ridicule the enemy. Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Shariah and jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches. Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.

San Francisco Show Trial Sequel Last week, a San Francisco jury acquitted seven-time felon Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a repeatedly deported Mexican national, of all murder and manslaughter charges in the July 1, 2015, fatal shooting of Kate Steinle as she walked with her father and a friend on Pier 14. The jury found the confessed shooter guilty only of felony gun possession. Many observers decried the verdict as a travesty of justice, but they were mistaken if they thought it could not get any worse. San Francisco public defender Matt Gonzalez now seeks to have Zarate’s gun possession charge dismissed. Gonzalez is contending the jury should have been told that “momentary” possession of a gun is not necessarily a crime. “If you possess it just to dispose of it or abandon it, it wouldn’t be a crime,” Gonzalez told reporters. The Steinle family and relatives of murder victims have new cause for outrage, but this gambit is consistent with Gonzalez and the San Francisco show-trial in which he co-starred. Gonzalez hails from McAllen, Texas, and attended Columbia University on a scholarship. As he explained, “I think I was a product of affirmative action,” and ethnic preferences doubtless played a role in admission to Stanford Law School. In San Francisco, Gonzalez became known as “The Great Left Hope,” and a hero to Bay Area radicals. The La Raza Lawyers Association named Gonzalez Lawyer of the Year, and the Mexican American Political Association, a group with roots in the Communist Party, gave him the Bert Corona award, after one of the CPUSA’s most high-profile Stalinists. In 2,000, after a decade as a public defender, Gonzalez gained election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In 2003, as board president, he commissioned a graffiti artist to spray SMASH THE STATE on his office wall, in “traffic cone orange.” As Gonzalez explained, “This is a sentiment I think all of us have had. You have to rally and find ways of opposing what you don’t like.” In 2003 Gonzalez ran for mayor of San Francisco but lost to Gavin Newsom. In 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader tapped Gonzalez for vice president. “He has a great, steadfast commitment to justice,” Nader told reporters. On that score, the Steinle family and other relatives of murder victims have room for reasonable doubt. In jury selection, Gonzalez and the prosecutor, assistant district attorney Diana Garcia, included three “immigrants,” quite possibly false-documented illegals. True to form, judge Samuel Feng sealed the identities of the jurors. So observers have grounds to believe that Garcia and Gonzalez both got the jury they wanted. Garcia told the court Zarate was playing his own “secret version of Russian roulette,” and thus parroted the defense’s contention that the shooting was all a matter of chance. As it happens, in Russian roulette a shooter loads one bullet into a six-shot revolver, spins the cylinder, then puts the gun to his own head and pulls the trigger. In a central fact of the case, Zarate did not aim the gun at himself but fired in the direction of Kate Steinle. In another established fact, the bullet struck her in the lower back and tore through her abdominal aorta. This happened in broad daylight, but as in In the Heat of the Night, they had the body which was dead. Garcia Zarate confessed to firing the shot and had gunpowder residue on his hands. After firing, he tossed the gun in the water. He said he had found the stolen weapon wrapped in a cloth and that it discharged by itself, both utterly unbelievable claims. Even so, the politically correct jury found the career criminal not guilty of murder and manslaughter. Any observer could be forgiven for believing that prosecution and defense both got the outcome they wanted. Unlike Stalin’s trials of the old Bolsheviks, and Fidel Castro’ trial of General Arnaldo Ochoa, this show trial aimed to establish innocence for the guilty, and the dynamics of the left were on full display. Denunciations of “gun violence” were nowhere in evidence and expressions of sympathy for the Steinle family proved pathetically weak. As Arthur Koestler said, on the left the truth is spoken with loathing and falsehood with love. On the left, as Orwell had it in Animal Farm, rats are comrades, and criminals are victims of capitalist society. In the view of Gonzalez, society is progressing toward a social justice paradise ruled by a wise elite that knows what’s best for all. In this inexorable progress, determined by history, some people are going to have to die. As Bertolt Brecht told Sidney Hook about Stalin’s victims, “the more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot.” Out for a summer-day walk with her father and a friend, Kate Steinle was a completely innocent victim, gunned down by a career criminal who was not even supposed to be in the country but found special protection in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, part of the sanctuary state of California. As defense attorney Francisco Ugarte said, the verdict was a “vindication for the rights of immigrants.” Since Donald Trump mentioned the case, former vice-presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez had to establish the complete innocence of the shooter. That explains the effort of “The Great Left Hope” to have his client’s felony gun possession conviction tossed. Any observer of the case could believe it probably will be.

Pope Francis Denounces “Murderous Indifference” To Persecution Of Christians, Of Which He Is A Chief Architect Associated Press reported that the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and other Orthodox Patriarchs met with Pope Francis on Saturday, and that the Pope had some strong words to say about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. The Pope couldn’t resist an anti-Semitic shot at Israeli “occupation,” but he also seemed to denounce Islamic jihad activity, saying: “So many conflicts have been stoked too by forms of fundamentalism and fanaticism that, under the guise of religion, have profaned God’s name – which is peace – and persecuted age-old neighbors.” He decried the “thirst for profit that surreptitiously exploits oil and gas fields without regard for our common home, with no scruples about the fact that the energy market now dictates the law of coexistence among peoples!” The Pope lamented the fact that in recent years the Middle East has been “covered by dark clouds of war, violence and destruction, instances of occupation and varieties of fundamentalism, forced migration and neglect.” And he deplored the fact that “all this has taken place amid the complicit silence of many. The Middle East has become a land of people who leave their own lands behind.” He cried: “Indifference kills, and we desire to lift up our voices in opposition to this murderous indifference. For the Middle East today is weeping, suffering and silent as others trample upon those lands in search of power or riches.” These are odd statements coming from Pope Francis, a world-class Islamopanderer; notice that he said nothing about who was doing the persecuting, and implied that it was the fault of powers outside the Middle East. The Catholic Church as a whole has committed itself to Islamopandering, such that it is largely silent about the Muslim persecution of Christians that has taken place in the Middle East. Why? The Catholic Church is following Pope Francis’ lead, and Francis has said: “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist.” And he has also said: “Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This has had a terrible influence upon the Catholic Church, and aids and abets the Western political and media elites in their determination to cover up the Muslim persecution of Christians. Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, gave an interview to a French reporter in which he was highly critical of the mainstream media and even of his fellow bishops for ignoring the Muslim persecution of Middle Eastern Christians. “The European media,” he charged, “have not ceased to suppress the daily news of those who are suffering in Syria and they have even justified what is happening in our country by using information without taking the trouble to verify it.” And as for his brother bishops in France, “the conference of French bishops should have trusted us, it would have been better informed. Why are your bishops silent on a threat that is yours today as well? Because the bishops are like you, raised in political correctness. But Jesus was never politically correct, he was politically just!” Archbishop Jeanbart was not the first to say this. “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?” asked Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI). Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan himself has in the past appealed to the West“not to forget the Christians in the Middle East.” The former Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.” But Gregory III should have understood, since he was a major part of the problem. He himself said: “No one defends Islam like Arab Christians.” It is to defend Islam that Western clerics do not raise their voice against such acts of brutality. It is to pursue a fruitless and chimerical “dialogue” that bishops in the U.S. and Europe keep silent about Muslim persecution of Christians, and enforce that silence upon others. Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, said it on February 8, 2013 as he was suppressing a planned talk at a Catholic conference on that persecution: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” Remember that Mohamed Atta, about the plane he had hijacked on September 11, 2001, told passengers over the intercom: “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.” The Catholic Church appears to have adopted that statement as its policy regarding Muslim persecution of Christians. “Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

ICE Deports Guatemalan Man Wanted For Assassination SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — A Guatemalan man, wanted by law enforcement authorities in his home country for killing a store owner, was removed Thursday by deportation officers. Jose Manuel Ohajacao-Ramos, was transferred Nov. 9 to the custody of Guatemalan law enforcement officials by ERO officers in Guatemala City, Guatemala. According to Guatemalan authorities, Ohajacao-Ramos is accused of fatally shooting a store owner in his store in June 1997. Guatemalan law lists the charge as an assassination. Ohajacao-Ramos legally entered the United States in 1998 as a visitor and overstayed his temporary visa by more than 18 years. He was arrested at his home in Neosho, Missouri, in May 2017. In September, a federal immigration judge ordered him removed to his home country. Ohajacao-Ramos remained in ICE custody since his May arrest. “Removing foreign fugitives trying to escape law enforcement in their home countries is an ICE top priority,” said Ricardo Wong, field office director for ERO Chicago. “The cooperation between the U.S. and our Guatemalan counterparts resulted in returning this man who is a threat to public safety.” Since Oct. 1, 2009, ERO has removed more than 1,700 foreign fugitives from the United States who were sought in their native countries for serious crimes, including kidnapping, rape and murder. In fiscal year 2016, ICE conducted 240,255 removals nationwide. Ninety-two percent of individuals removed from the interior of the United States had previously been convicted of a criminal offense.

Uranium One Bombshell: Evidence of Bribery, Extortion, Kickbacks, Money Laundering, and More! Right about now the people in the Clinton camp should be getting very nervous about the ongoing investigations into the Uranium One deal. What must be most annoying for the Clinton team is that these investigations all started as a way to undermine the Trump administration and continue to push connections between Trump and Russia. Now, more than a year after the investigations began, it’s looking less likely than ever that President Trump did anything wrong… but the investigations seem to be zeroing in on key Clinton team members (including the Clintons themselves). On Tuesday night Fox News Sean Hannity sat down to talk about the exploding scandal that is the Uranium One deal, and what it could mean for the Clinton family. Hannity spoke with investigative reporter Sara Carter of Circa, John Solomon of The Hill, and Victoria Toensing, an attorney representing the FBI informant who allegedly possesses documents on the sale of Canadian mining company ‘Uranium One’ to Russia interests back in 2010. Now that the NDA (non disclosure agreement) has been lifted Circa’s Sara Carter is “reporting that she has received a treasure trove of documents that in fact prove tonight the FBI informant has knowledge of Russia’s involvement in uranium one.” Not to be outdone, the Hill’s John Solomon had found even more dirt on this ugly Clinton led deal. Apparently, Solomon has learned that the FBI informant “has evidence, was on the inside, directly from Putin’s Russia, the push for nuclear fuel deals, and all the crimes we talked about, bribery, kickback, extortion, money laundering, racketeering, all knelt corroborating and will be corroborated even further. Go into your report.” This is all about to get very ugly. https://youtu.be/_DFeri21hlc HANNITY: Breaking news tonight, the Hills John Solomon, investigative reporter Sara Carter, they released bombshell reports equally tonight. Solomon reporting according to the memos obtained, the FBI informant that now has had his NDA lifted at the center of this case gathered years and years of evidence of Russia’s plot to control U.S. Nuclear fuel, which included the uranium one deal. And Sara Carter reporting that she has received a treasure trove of documents that in fact prove tonight the FBI informant has knowledge of Russia’s involvement in uranium one. Also joining us now is the attorney for the FBI informant, Victoria Toensing along with John and Sara. Sara, let’s start with your report. A treasure trove, that is huge. SARAH CARTER, CIRCA NEWS: It is Sean. I mean there’s over 5,000 documents which include emails, briefs, other documentation, memorandums that the informant had turned over to the FBI and Justice Department, and within these documents, it’s very evident of Russia’s intention to enter the American market, energy market. And their intentions to acquire uranium one. HANNITY: John, you go into extensive detail in a very long and hard-hitting piece tonight and revealing piece, how the FBI informant — you actually said six years, I thought he was only an informant for four years. He has evidence, was on the inside, directly from Putin’s Russia, the push for nuclear fuel deals, and all the crimes we talked about, bribery, kickback, extortion, money laundering, racketeering, all knelt corroborating and will be corroborated even further. Go into your report. JOHN SOLOMON, THE HILL: You know, Sara just said something about the importance of the dominance of the uranium market. This is an email that the FBI has had for six years. It shows that uranium one was part of a Russia strategy to control, not just benefit from the global market, controlled the global market. That would put the United States at a disadvantage. That is the sort of evidence that this FBI informant has right now. If you go back on the last week we heard several things from the Justice Department, there’s no connection to uranium one. These are emails that say uranium one that are in the FBI files. They said that there was no connection between the uranium one case and the criminal case. We now know the criminal case got its first evidence in 2009, a whole year before the uranium one deal was approved by the Obama administration. There are a lot of things that people have been saying that these documents simply don’t agree with. HANNITY: All right. I got a very high ranking Congressman and that knows, let us put it that way, and actually sent me a note. The knowledge of key administration officials will be the next thing proven by both of you, and the links to the Clinton foundation. Sara, is that true? CARTER: I believe that is true. I mean especially when we at — HANNITY: Do believe or you know? I can’t ask Victoria that question because she won’t tell me. CARTER: I know it’s true. I know that looking at these documents following the money, following the money is what’s important here. The Justice Department has not pointed out that they will possibly call a special counsel to this. This is still out there. They are looking into it. That is something that they need to decide. But whether it’s a special counsel or whether it’s a prosecutor that is investigating this, they will be able to follow the money. There are somethings said … HANNITY: When you say follow the money, my suspicion would go to the money came directly from Russia, was funneled through the Canadian donors to the Clinton Foundation. How good are my instincts? CARTER: You have pretty good instincts. I think there’s a lot of other areas that they will be looking at as well. Remember this is like peeling back an onion. You peel one part and then you find another part. And that is what’s going to require somebody to do an extensive investigation. HANNITY: But it is beginning to cascade Sara. CARTER: It is. HANNITY: John, I want her to respond to the same thing, that the Clinton Foundation, that this will be traced back to high-ranking Obama administration officials and the Clinton Foundation, and if you add the money portion Sara mentioned? SOLOMON: I do. I think the place we will be talking about in the next couple weeks as the Clinton global initiative. Sort of a side project of the Clinton Foundation. There are new flows of money there that we will report on then the next couple of weeks. There were also some personal business projects, some very senior Clinton people that got a remarkable infusion of cash from Russia. It will be able to talk about that in the next couple of weeks. Another layer of interest of the story. HANNITY: All right. We have a lot of time in the segment so I want to go very slowly here. Both of you, before I get to Victoria, Sara and John, you both in your pieces said 5,000 documents. I hear the number the FBI informant is much, much greater, tens of thousands. True or false? SOLOMON: That seems to be accurate. We have a subset of the documents and they are very voluminous. HANNITY: Now let me go to Victoria. One of the great attorneys. She is the most difficult to get any information out of. Victoria, one of the things I’ve known about you, and I’ve interviewed you so many times over the years, you now have been doing a deep dive into all of this. You are now representing this FBI informant. I think they will become an American hero out of all of this, but apparently, he was fighting and begging and pleading and saying the Russians are here, they are doing this, why are you paying attention? I hope my instincts are right there, and number two, how devastating it legally is this going to be based on what I was just asking Sara and John about impacting former Obama officials, money, Clinton foundation? VICTORIA TOENSING, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING FBI INFORMANT: Let me go to number one first, that is the whole essence of what John and Sara and I are talking about is that in 2009, 2010, our FBI and presumably our Justice Department, and the White House, as my client was told, all knew about this corruption in the Russian nuclear energy area. There’s no separate companies. They are all related. The Russian nuclear energy is controlled from the top, from Putin. They are all one. They all talk to each other. So the evidence about this corruption was known to our government in 2009, 2010, and why is it that CFIUS either wasn’t told, or CFIUS people knowing about it — HANNITY: Explain CFIUS, 13 agencies, I am sorry 9 agencies approving the deal that gave control of uranium one to the bad actor, hostile regime, Putin Russia. TOENSING: They said, the CFIUS board said that the bad Russians could buy uranium one, which contains access to 20 percent of the U.S. Uranium, why was that decision made? Was CFIUS told? Did Bob Mueller go to Eric Holder and tell him? Eric Holder sat on it. HANNITY: He was one of the nine. TOENSING: Did Bob Mueller go to the White House and tell him? The FBI agents told my client that they were briefing the President about his conduct. Of course, when the CFIUS decision was made. My client said, what happened? HANNITY: Back to my original question, counselor, if I may. You are too good at your job. This is a very serious point. Putting your legal hat on, objectively speaking, yes they knew, the evidence will prove it based on the documents and your client, crimes committed on a high level? National security compromise? TOENSING: Of course, it goes without saying giving the Russians control of the uranium was a national security compromise. I think that we are going to have to do is continue to follow the money because the reporting that John and Sara are going to be doing in a few days will be revealing about where lots of the various money went and where it came from. HANNITY: Always we go back, and I believe at the end of this you guys deserve a Pulitzer, and I’m not the only one thinking that. You have dug so deep on this, this has been a deep dive and I applaud you both. I want to ask as it relates to who knew what, and when. What did they know, when did they know it, John Solomon? I’m talking about Obama, Mueller, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton. SOLOMON: We are at a little disadvantage right now, because we don’t have those records, and also the records that Congress needs to go get, but I can tell you I have a person quoted in my story who has direct knowledge of what the Justice Department knew. This person said without a shred of doubt, we knew in 2009 a year before CFIUS ruled that Thomas were engaged in criminality, without a shadow of a doubt, we knew that Russia was trying to gain a corner on the U.S. market, get a strong hold on our uranium, and without a doubt we knew they were using political levers to try to get their way here. We are talking about control, like this document says, they are trying to gain control of our markets. That has to be national security interest that should have been raised in CFIUS. HANNITY: President daily briefings were told. Had this information in it before CFIUS approves this. CARTER: Sean. That is what we need to find out. We need to see those Presidential daily briefings. Congress can get those. They will be able to know whether or not President Obama was briefed on this and according to a number of people that I have spoken with as well, he was. I think that will reveal a whole other layer of who knew what, where and when. And we follow the money and it will reveal even more about Hillary Clinton and what she knew and when did she know it, and the other members of the CFIUS board. HANNITY: And Obama and Holder and Mueller? John, real quick, we are running out of time. SOLOMON: yes listen, I think even Sessions and Rosenstein have questions to answer. There are people in Congress who don’t think they’ve gotten a straight answer from them. HANNITY: All right. Victoria, we get the last word from you, laws broken? TOENSING: Well, of course. HANNITY: You are so good at your job. You are so annoyingly good. The American people deserve the truth varied our security was compromised, we import uranium, because we don’t have enough. Newt Gingrich will weigh in on this and more things and about the Clintons. Are they facing their day of reckoning? And a big announcement at the end of the show. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com

German cardinal: liturgical ‘blessing’ for gay unions is ‘truly…sacrilegious’ NewsCatholic Church GERMANY, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes criticized fellow German Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s suggestion that Catholic priests should consider “blessing” same-sex relationships liturgically. Marx’s idea “truly seems sacrilegious” and “ignores the clear Revelation of God,” Cordes wrote in a response on kath.net. Dr. Maike Hickson translated it at One Peter Five. “The Church is in its pastoral care bound to Holy Scripture and to its interpretation through the Church’s Magisterium,” wrote Cordes. “Marx does not even mention that homosexuality always contradicts the Will of God,” citing church teaching through the centuries. Rather than being about receiving “God’s assistance for themselves,” those engaging in sodomy and wishing to have it “blessed” by the Church “aim with their request at the recognition and acceptance of their homosexual way of life and its ecclesial valorization.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “under no circumstances” can homosexual activity “be approved” as it is “intrinsically disordered.” Such acts are “contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CCC 2357). However, Marx said on February 3 that homosexual couples need “closer pastoral care” and “one must also encourage priests and pastoral workers to give people in concrete situations [of homosexual unions] encouragement. I do not really see any problems there.” Marx is the President of the German Bishops’ Conference. As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Marx also said “yes,” he could imagine the creation of a rite for homosexual couples to be blessed in the Church. This “encouragement” from priests which he called for might include some sort of “liturgical” recognition of their union. But “how this would be done publicly, in a liturgical form,” is “another question...that is where one has to be reticent and also reflect upon that in a good way.” After Catholic News Agency’s initial report on Marx’s comments, his office contacted the outlet and said they had mistranslated part of what he said. The cardinal’s office sent CNA “a request for correction of [its] translation of the interview in question, expressing concern that CNA's translation constitutes a false reference and does not properly reflect the position of Cardinal Marx.” The cardinal’s office maintains that rather than saying “yes,” there is a possibility of liturgical “blessing” of gay unions, he answered the question in a more subtle way without giving an explicit “yes.” However, the German Bishops’ Conference doesn’t seem to deny the rest of his statements on how “one must encourage priests” to give encouragement to homosexual couples, which could include public blessings that would take a “liturgical” form. The cardinal’s staff asked that CNA change his answer about liturgically “blessing” gay unions to: “There are no general solutions and I think that would not be right, because we are talking about pastoral care for individual cases, and that applies to other areas as well, which we cannot regulate, where we have no sets of rules.” Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has also spoken out against Marx’s proposal. “Any such ‘blessing rite’ would cooperate in a morally forbidden act, no matter how sincere the persons seeking the blessing,” wrote Chaput. He explained such a “blessing” would encourage people to continue living in a way the Church considers gravely sinful and spiritually damaging, and therefore would be uncharitable. “There is no love – no charity – without truth, just as there is no real mercy separated from a framework of justice informed and guided by truth,” he wrote. “Creating confusion around important truths of our faith, no matter how positive the intention, only makes a difficult task more difficult.” “There are two principles we need to remember,” Chaput wrote. “First, we need to treat all people with the respect and pastoral concern they deserve as children of God with inherent dignity. This emphatically includes persons with same-sex attraction. Second, there is no truth, no real mercy, and no authentic compassion, in blessing a course of action that leads persons away from God.” “This in no way is a rejection of the persons seeking such a blessing, but rather a refusal to ignore what we know to be true about the nature of marriage, the family, and the dignity of human sexuality,” he explained. “Jesus said the truth will make us free. Nowhere did he suggest it will make us comfortable.” Cordes has a history of defending the Church’s moral teaching. Marx, one of the pope’s nine main advisors, said in 2016 that same-sex relationships have “worth” which must be recognized by the Church.

Mueller is ‘looking for trouble,’ Trump says cryptically WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump continued bashing Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, saying cryptically Monday the special counsel is “looking for trouble.” Trump alleged in a morning tweet series that the former FBI director is “Disgraced and discredited,” claiming his staff amounts to nothing more than a “group of Angry Democrat Thugs.” That came hours after a Sunday tweet in which he referred to the special counsel team as a “gang.” Both are words with loaded meanings for his conservative political base. The president’s Sunday and Monday attacks on Mueller and his team came after reports that White House Counsel Donald McGahn was interviewed by Mueller and his team for more than one full day. Trump contends he signed off on the testimony; George W. Bush-era White House counsel and attorney general Alberto Gonzales, however, told CNN Monday morning that a sitting White House counsel would be required to fully cooperate with a federal investigation because he is a government lawyer, not a president’s personal attorney. But Trump on Monday morning tweeted that McGahn spoke with the special counsel team for “over 30 hours with the White House Councel, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency.” (The tweet included a misspelling of “counsel.”) The length of the Mueller-McGahn sessions led Trump to the conclusion the special counsel is “looking for trouble” because they “they know there is no Russian Collusion.” But Mueller reportedly is keenly interested in a widely studied June 2016 Trump Tower meeting arranged by Donald Trump Jr., which included a Russian attorney who promised to hand over negative information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The session also was attended by then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner; the president dictated a misleading statement about it a year later and it remains murky just when he learned about the meeting. As Roll Call has reported, Trump was in the tower at the time of the session with the Russian lawyer. The president also continued to push a line first floated by his attorney, former New York mayor and U.S. attorney Rudolph Giuliani, tweeting that campaign collusion with Russia would be a “phony crime.” He’s right, there is no specific collusion statute. But legal experts say anyone in Trump’s orbit would be charged with conspiracy, making false statements to federal investigators or obstructing justice. All are federal crimes. Trump also continued to cast himself as a victim in the matter, saying when he attempts to “FIGHT BACK or say anything bad about the Rigged Witch Hunt,” his critics “scream Obstruction!” Mueller also is looking at whether some of Trump’s actions like firing then-FBI Director James B. Comey or statements about the Russia probe since taking office amount to an attempt to interfere illegally with the special counsel probe. — John T. Bennett CQ-Roll Call ——— ©2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Vatican Theologian Sacked for Questioning “Merciful” Pope’s Pontificate By now the whole Catholic world has heard of the publication of a devastating letter to Pope Francis from Father Thomas G. Weinandy. The former head of the theological secretariat of the U.S. Bishop’s conference, Fr. Weinandy has taught at both Oxford and the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. None other than Francis appointed Fr. Weinandy to the International Theological Commission and awarded him the Pro Pontifice et Ecclesiae medal, the ecclesial equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his work on behalf of the Pope and the Church. One of the world’s most renowned theologians, Fr. Weinandy is a “man of the Council” and a prominent figure of the post-conciliar mainstream. Yet Fr. Weinandy’s letter, sent to Francis privately last summer but predictably ignored by him—along with every other private entreaty concerning his destructive activity—is a withering indictment of a papacy that constitutes nothing less than a menace to the Church. The key passages (paragraph breaks added) rebuke Francis for his recklessness, his deliberate ambiguity, his fomenting of error, his sowing of disunity, his unheard-of calumnies of the faithful, and even his reduction of the faith to an ideology—precisely the wrong of which he accuses orthodox Catholics: Your Holiness, a chronic confusion seems to mark your pontificate…. This fosters within the faithful a growing unease …. In "Amoris Laetitia," your guidance at times seems intentionally ambiguous, thus inviting both a traditional interpretation of Catholic teaching on marriage and divorce as well as one that might imply a change in that teaching…. To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it. [Y]ou seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism. This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry…. Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannotsurvive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by “ad hominem” arguments. [T]oo often your manner seems to demean the importance of Church doctrine. Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life. Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology. But it is precisely Christian doctrine… that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel. Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church [i.e., Francis!] separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth… What they [i.e., Francis] then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death. [F]aithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice…. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the "sensus fidelium," are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd. [T]he Church is one body, the Mystical Body of Christ, and you are commissioned by the Lord himself to promote and strengthen her unity. But your actions and words too often seem intent on doing the opposite…. You have often spoken about the need for transparency within the Church. You have frequently encouraged… all persons, especially bishops, to speak their mind and not be fearful of what the pope may think. But… what many [bishops] have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it… Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse. I have often asked myself: "Why has Jesus let all of this happen?" The only answer that comes to mind is that Jesus wants to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops. Ironically, your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness…. Father Weinandy reveals that he decided to publicize this historic missive only after receiving an unmistakable sign from heaven. As he recounts here, after repeatedly “beseeching Jesus and Mary, St. Peter and all of the saintly popes who are buried there to do something to rectify the confusion and turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused,” he asked for a minutely specific sign from heaven on whether he should write the letter: that the next day he would meet someone he had not seen in a very long time, would never expect to see in Rome, and was not from the United States, Canada or Great Britain, which person would utter the particular phrase: “Keep up the good writing.” At lunch the next day, the sign was given. An old friend he had not seen in more than twenty years and would never have expected to meet in Rome, who is now an archbishop, appeared suddenly from between two parked cars, renewed acquaintances and, referring to one of Father Weinandy’s books, said: “Keep up the good writing.” Writes Fr. Weinandy: “I could hardly believe that this just happened in a matter of a few minutes. But there was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something. I also think it significant that it was an Archbishop that Jesus used. I considered it an apostolic mandate.” Can we doubt that it was indeed an apostolic mandate? Can we not see in Fr. Weinandy a voice raised up by heaven itself to say, from deep within the post-conciliar ecclesial establishment, things that exceed in their candor what even certain traditionalist commentators have ventured to state? This article is featured in the new Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Check out the PREVIEW and Subscribe Today! As if to confirm the validity of his own indictment of this pontificate, only a day after this letter was published, the USCCB demanded that Fr. Weinandy resign his current position as a consultant to the U.S. bishops. He has done so. Fr. Fessio’s Catholic World Report, another voice of the rising mainstream opposition to Francis, notes that “In making such a request, the USCCB, it would appear, reinforces Fr. Weinandy’s very point about fearfulness and lack of transparency.” Fr. Weinandy’s intervention gives us hope that the plan to remake the Church according to the mind of Bergoglio will ultimately encounter a resistance that will bring an end to the Latin American-style dictatorship Francis has imposed upon the Church, even as he speaks of dialogue, collegiality, decentralization and parreshia (but only for those who agree with him). The plan that ultimately must fail may well fail even while Francis is attempting to carry it out. May Our Lady of Fatima intercede soon to thwart the designs of Francis and to rectify the grave harm he has already caused. "We don't like you 'rigid' Catholics!" Pope Francis meets meets with Lutheran leader, Bishop Munib Younan, in Sweden

Newly Released Private Surveillance Footage From The Las Vegas Massacre Shows “Helicopter Hovering Overhead” During The Attack Newly released footage of the Las Vegas Massacre, captured by a private surveillance camera and recently released by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, has once again ignited the theory that helicopters were used during the horrific attack. Over the last month multiple videos have been released that many believe show helicopters either conducting an attack on the Vegas Strip or attempting to stop those that were and now, with this latest evidence release, that possibility seems all the more plausible. As Shepard Ambellas reported for Intellihub, “The [footage] is presumed to have been captured by a nearby business’s southward facing security camera which is located approximately 780 feet due east of the venue where the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival was held on Oct. 1. The tape was given to Fox News by an attorney who represents several shooting victims.” Amazingly, the surveillance camera captured what seems to show a “large amount” of wind and debris being kicked up by a nearby helicopter hovering above the attack and or taking part in it. “Astonishingly, between the times of 10:13 and 10:16 a good amount of debris can be seen being pushed downward and sideways in front of the camera,” Ambellas continued. “By 10:14 much larger crowds of people can be seen streaming through the area to escape the massacre going on,” Carlson reported. “You can see a large amount of wind and debris, apparently that is due to a helicopter hovering overhead.” The footage goes how to show two men attempt to help a victim who had apparently been shot, eventually resorting to covering up the body after they realized it was simply too late. Ambellas also reported on what his research indicates were documented helicopters in the air at the time. A quick review of flight records during that time reveals that a squadron of EC-130 Eurocopters departed from Maverick Leasing LLC at 10:12 p.m., several of which appear to have overflown the parking lot where the victim and debris were seen. However, the departure of the choppers and the fact that several of them overflew the parking lot does not explain all of the debris being kicked up from by a heavy downdraft, prop wash, possibly from a helicopter hovering in place much closer. In fact, the downdraft appears to be constant from 10:13-10:16 p.m. and not intermittent as if several choppers had just passed overhead. As I have reported in the past, multiple other videos taken on the night of the attack also seem to point to helicopters being used throughout the city. “Footage has emerged that may show muzzle flashes coming from the helicopter in what looks to be evidence that a team was firing into the crowd from the air on that fateful night,” read a report in The Daily Sheeple. “Despite claims by some that these are “strobes” it remains unlikely that this is the case, especially when you consider other footage of the helicopter taken on the night as well as research by a group of investigators who believe the first attack on October 1st was carried out from the air.” It is also important to keep in mind that there is footage of a still unidentified team loading up gear in a helicopter near the scene of the attack. “In what can only be described as a “WTF video” the following footage seems to literally show a team of unknown soldiers gearing up next to a helicopter near the Route 91 concert.” Additionally, Carlson also noted during the initial broadcast of the private surveillance footage that the owner of the camera was never approached by the FBI, who have so far never seen the footage, much less investigated it. While we may never know what actually happened during the Las Vegas Massacre, the fact remains that the official story has been proven, time and time again, to be absolutely false and in fact nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a cover-up.

The Las Vegas Security Guard Credited With Finding Shooter, Mysteriously Vanished Into Thin Air By now, we have all heard of Jesus Campos. He’s the heroic security guard that allegedly located the Las Vegas shooter, Steven Paddock. But the narrative surrounding him has changed wildly since the authorities mentioned him, and now, he’s mysteriously vanished into thin air. Of course, this leads many to believe that Campos didn’t even exist, to begin with. His mere existence appears to have been fabricated by the very authorities who are cramming lies down our throats about this massacre for the sake of political agendas. There are two conflicting timelines of Campos’s injury, but what the media has so far made clear, is that they want the public to believe Campos was walking down the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino’s 32nd floor hallway, when Stephen Paddock spotted him on a camera he’d allegedly set up in a room service cart, just outside his suite. Once he saw Campos, Paddock reportedly fired nearly 200 rounds through his suite door, wounding Campos in the leg. Moments later (6 minutes actually, according to the newly revised timeline regarding Campos) Paddock allegedly opened fire on a crowd killing more than 50 and injuring nearly 500. But Campos has been a mysterious subject since being wounded in the first moments of Paddock’s assault. After speaking to hotel and law enforcement officials, Campos was scheduled to appear on local Las Vegas television for an interview but went missing just moments before he was supposed to be on the air. David Hickey, a spokesman for the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Campos’s union, said he got a text that Campos had been taken to an urgent care facility, UMC Quick Care. But UMC Quick Care says none of their clinics filled out an intake request for a patient by that name, and Campos has been silent since the text; vanishing into thin air. He also isn’t listed on the registry that shows the names of licensed security guards in Nevada. “Right now I’m just concerned where my member is, and what his condition is. It’s highly unusual,” Hickey told media. “I’m hoping everything is OK with him and I’m sure MGM or the union will let (media) know when we hear something,” he said. In the meantime, authorities still have not released a conclusive timeline for the shooting they desperately want us to believe was committed by Paddock. And, according to the latest reports, are still looking for a motive for the shooting.

3-D-printed guns put carnage a click away PEOPLE WHO are barred from purchasing firearms or want to own a gun that is illegal in the jurisdiction where they live may soon have an easy way to get around the law. All they would need to do is download a computer file and use a 3-D printer to stamp out a gun. No background check would weed out felons, those with mental illness, domestic abusers or possible terrorists. No serial number would allow police to trace a weapon used in a crime. And there would be no problem getting past metal detectors with a gun molded from high-quality plastic. Plans by a Texas organization to publish, starting Aug. 1, downloadable blueprints for 3-D-printed plastic firearms — so-called ghost guns — have rightly alarmed leading gun safety groups and law enforcement officials. Credit for this dangerous scenario — in which getting an AR-15-style rifle is just a matter of a few computer clicks — goes to the Trump administration for its inexplicable decision to settle a lawsuit it was on the verge of winning. The case involves Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, who sued the government in 2015 after the State Department under the Obama administration made him take down do-it-yourself gunmaking blueprints he had posted online, saying they violated export regulations governing military hardware and technology. Mr. Wilson, an avowed anarchist who hopes for a world in which governments can’t stop individuals from getting guns, claimed his First Amendment right to free speech was being violated. But he lost at every stage of litigation, including a refusal by the Supreme Court to review a decision that the code could not be published during the course of the lawsuit. So it was stunning — but not surprising, given this administration’s worship at the altar of gun rights — that the State Department elected last month to quietly settle the case. In addition to signing off on the public release of the 3-D printing tutorials, the State Department also agreed to pay nearly $40,000 of Mr. Wilson’s legal fees. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how this senseless decision was reached, and whether groups such as the National Rifle Association were involved. It, along with Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tried unsuccessfully Friday to get a federal court in Texas to block what it called a “troubling” and “dangerous” settlement. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was pressed about the issue Wednesday during his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Why on earth would the Trump administration make it easier for terrorists and gunmen to produce undetectable plastic guns?” asked Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Mr. Pompeo promised to “take a look at it.” That’s not enough. Ghost guns are already a problem; they are used not just by lone shooters but as part of criminal enterprises. Releasing instructions for their manufacture, which now only circulate on the dark Web, will lead directly to the loss of more innocent lives. The administration should stop the State Department from going ahead with this foolhardy move, and Congress should act to plug the loopholes that these guns are designed to take advantage of.

Congressman: "Credible Evidence" Of “Terrorist Infiltration Through the Southern Border” Related To Las Vegas Shooting We have had the Islamic State claim over and over that they were taking credit for the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, and that Stephen Paddock was a recent convert to Islam. Now, a congressman is saying there is "credible evidence" of "terrorist infiltration through the southern border" that is related to the Las Vegas shooting. If you recall, the Islamic State has never claimed responsibility for attacks they were not involved in. Here are just a few of those claims. In Naba 100 #ISIS featured an infographic on #LasVegas attack & indicated the shooter, "Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki," converted 6 months ago pic.twitter.com/5JhMFbU2Se — SITE Intel Group (@siteintelgroup) October 5, 2017 On Thursday evening, Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) appeared on Tucker Carlson tonight and said that he has evidence that the Islamic State may be telling the truth and that they may actually have been involved in the deadly attack. Perry brought up the fact that we can't seem to get information in the case that the public needs to be made aware of, something that was brought up in a district courtroom earlier this week. Additionally, the family of Stephen Paddock just received his cremated remains on Thursday and his brother said that the family has yet to receive an autopsy report. Why is that? Everyone who was killed that night had autopsies and those have been released. We're told Paddock shot himself in the head, right? Why would the autopsy report be something that needs to be withheld from the public or his family? "Recently I’ve been made aware of what I believe to be credible evidence regarding potential terrorist infiltration through the southern border regarding this incident," Perry said. "Twice before the attack, ISIS warned the United States they would attack Las Vegas," he added. "In June and August." "And then after the attack claimed responsibility four times," Perry continued. "Something’s not adding up." "I’m just telling you I have received what I feel to be and believe to be credible evidence of a possible terrorist nexus," Perry said. The investigation has been conducted by local and state police, not the feds, and yet, they continue to claim there is not Islamic terrorist involvement. Yet, though they claim that Paddock was a lone gunman, they continue to withhold video of him in Mandalay Bay because they are still investigating other suspects to charge in the shooting. And no one seems to know where alleged Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos is either. None of this is really that surprising. If you recall, we reported on Islamic terrorists settling into Mexico and crossing the border some years back and that came out as the infamous "Gang of Eight" were working on an immigration deal and had rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn't want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built. Three years prior to that report, there was a video report that seems to have provided a bit of evidence to the claim that Islamists were crossing our southern border. And even though Islamic jihadis have been apprehended on our border in 2014, the Homeland Security waved their hand and said, "There's no threat." In fact, DHS had denied Muslim terrorists were crossing the border, but a local investigator produced evidence to the contrary. Reports indicated that some jihadis were paying as much as $50,000 to get across the border. This has been documented for several years now. It's not surprising. What is surprising is the level of secrecy surrounding the Las Vegas shooting and the containment of information more than three months after it occurred.

PROOF: The LVMPD And FBI Failed To Catalog At Least One Deceased Las Vegas Massacre Victim As Death Toll Rises In what can only be described as gross negligence or a massive cover-up of the truth, the F.B.I. and LVMPD have failed to record the death of at least one shooting victim killed in the massacre LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have failed to catalogue at least one deceased victim of the 1 October massacre which reportedly only left 58 people dead. The 59th victim, who is currently unnamed by the completely botched investigation and cover-up, was shot and killed in the parking lot of nearby business during the attack. The woman’s lifeless body can be seen being drug across the parking lot by several men who placed the body behind a pick-up truck while the gunfire continued. The event was reported by Intellihub’s Shepard Ambellas on Nov. 11, 2017, in the article titled Private surveillance footage reveals “helicopter hovering overhead” at time of Las Vegas Massacre, FBI never asked for tape, after an excerpt of the footage aired on Tucker Carlson Tonight. At 10:16 p.m., two men drag a “fallen victim” across the parking lot. The men position the victim behind a Ford pickup truck, presumably to shield themselves and the victim from taking any further incoming rounds as they attempted to give the victim medical assistance. “Later at ten-twenty-four p.m., one of the men places his shirt across the victim’s face and then at ten-thirty-two a man places what appears to be a blanket or towel over the body after they had given up hope,” Tucker Carlson said. “Police only arrive in this area for the first time around ten-forty-five p.m. when the body is still there.” The victim’s body was eventually was loaded into the back of a Ford Raptor pickup truck at 11:50 p.m. and taken away. Astonishingly, between the times of 10:13 p.m. and 10:16 p.m. a good amount of debris can be seen being pushed downward and sideways in front of the camera which Carlson claims is from a “helicopter hovering overhead.” A quick review of flight records during that time reveals that a squadron of EC-130 Eurocopters departed from Maverick Leasing LLC at 10:12 p.m., several of which appear to have overflown the parking lot where the victim and debris were seen. However, the departure of the choppers and the fact that several of them overflew the parking lot does not explain all of the debris being kicked up from by a heavy downdraft, prop wash, possibly from a helicopter hovering in place much closer. In fact, the downdraft appears to be constant from 10:13-10:16 p.m. and not intermittent as if several choppers had just passed overhead. According to Carlson, the owner of the tape maintains that law enforcement investigators have never asked to see the footage. A preliminary report on the shooting released by the LVMPD on Friday only lists seven victims as being “placed” outside of the venue, two of which were over a half mile away. However, the official report failed to catalogue the dead woman who was shot in the parking lot of a Haven Street business. The following image is taken from page 34 of the LVMPD preliminary report which shows the seven victims and their locations of death numbered in yellow. The next photo shows where the unnamed victim was located. The victim can be seen being dragged in the following video. The following day, several men, one of which presumably was Fox News anchor Sean Hannity (who was heavily guarded by a five-man security team), received mobile haircuts in the very same parking lot, in nearly the same spot the victim’s body was dragged to. Who was this victim? Will the F.B.I. and LVMPD please explain what in the Hell is going on here? How was this victim overlooked by investigators but known by Intellihub? Who was this victim? Why were people getting haircuts at the crime scene? How many more victims went ignored by investigators?

The JFK Cover-Up Continues While the mainstream media was announcing for the past two weeks that President Trump was going to release the CIA’s long-secret records on the JFK assassination, I took a different position. On Monday of this week, I predicted that Trump would make a deal with the CIA that would enable the CIA to continue its cover-up of the JFK assassination. (See “I Predict Trump Will Continue the CIA’s JFK Assassination Cover-Up” and “No Smoking Guns in the JFK Records?”) On Thursday, the day of the deadline established by law for releasing the records, Trump granted the CIA’s request for continued secrecy, on grounds of “national security,” more than 50 years after the Kennedy assassination. Please, don’t start calling me Nostradamus. A blind man could see what was happening. Donald “Art of the Deal” Trump was obviously negotiating all week with the CIA, and he was obviously pushing to get what he wanted all the way up to the very last day. On Thursday, the deadline established by law for releasing the records, the CIA undoubtedly blinked and Trump presumably got what he wanted in return for granting the CIA request for continued secrecy. Time to buy old US gold coins Some mainstream media commentators are criticizing the CIA for waiting until the very last day to make its case for continued secrecy. Displaying their naivete, they demonstrate their lack of understanding about how things work in Washington, D.C. As I indicated in my Monday article, when someone in the federal government needs a favor from someone else, the someone else is going to ask for something in return. JFKu2019s War with the... Douglas Horne Check Amazon for Pricing. The fact is that the CIA put in its request to Trump for continued secrecy of its JFK records long before yesterday. But “Art of the Deal” Trump obviously sat on the request, undoubtedly hoping that he could get what he wanted in return if he just continued holding out and conveying that he was ready to release the records. Don’t forget: According to Trump’s own tweets, he had already ostensibly decided to deny the CIA’s request for secrecy before the Thursday deadline: Trump tweet sent on Saturday, October 21: “Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.” Trump tweet sent on Wednesday, October 25: “The long anticipated release of the #JFKFiles will take place tomorrow. So interesting! Now, it’s theoretically possible that the CIA presented Trump with some earthshattering new information on the Thursday deadline that showed that the United States would fall into the ocean if Americans were finally permitted to see the CIA’s long-secret JFK records. But how likely is that? Not likely at all! Instead, it is a virtual certainly that when Art of the Deal Trump sent out those two tweets, he was sending a message to the CIA as part of the negotiations: Give me what I want or I will release the records. In the negotiations, both Trump and the CIA knew that Trump was in the catbird seat. The Kennedy Autopsy Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. In the end, the CIA blinked, just as Trump knew it would. Contrary to what the mainstream press is asserting, the records undoubtedly contain more incriminating circumstantial evidence that fills in the mosaic of a U.S. national-security regime-change operation on November 22, 1963. That’s what the mainstream media, forever wedded to the official story no matter how ridiculous and illogical it is, simply cannot bring themselves to confront. Trump knew that he had the CIA over a barrel. As I indicated in my two articles this week, the CIA was between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it could refuse to grant Trump what he wanted and let the records be released, which it knew would point to the CIA’s guilt in the assassination. On the other hand, it could give Trump what he wanted and have to suffer the obvious inference that people would draw — that the CIA was continuing to cover up incriminatory evidence. What did the CIA give Trump in return for Trump’s extending the CIA’s 50-year-plus secrecy? We don’t know, but my hunch is that it pertains to Russia. Here’s my next prediction: the congressional investigations into Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia are about to fizzle out. That’s because I believe that the CIA, as part of its deal with Trump, will order its assets in Congress to cease and desist with respect to that investigation. In my opinion, that’s the price the CIA had to pay in return for its continued cover-up of its U.S. regime-change operation in November 1963. Notice something else about the deal that Trump has presumably made with the CIA: The secrecy arrangement extends only to April. Ostensibly, the next six months are needed to carefully review the records to determine whether the records really to relate to “national security.” Regime Change: The JFK... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media isn’t even questioning that ludicrous notion. For more than 50 years, the CIA has known why it has wanted those particular records to be kept secret. During the term of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, the CIA decided to keep these particular records secret for another 25 years. There are bound to be lots of CIA memoranda detailing why it was imperative to keep these particular records secret for as long as possible. Finally, the CIA made its request for secrecy to Trump at least several weeks ago. The notion that the CIA suddenly hit Trump yesterday with a new argument as to why “national security” would be threatened, after Trump had supposedly already rejected the arguments that had been presented to him, causing Trump to suddenly change his mind, is, well, laughable. So, why the April deadline? Why not extend the secrecy for another 25 years, which is undoubtedly what the CIA wanted? Because Trump obviously needed collateral to ensure that the CIA complied with its part of the deal. If Trump had extended the secrecy for 25 years, he would have lost leverage to ensure that the CIA complied with its part of the bargain. Let’s say, hypothetically, that I’m right: that the CIA agreed to use its assets in Congress to shut down the Russia investigation. To make certain that the CIA fulfills its part of the bargain, Trump would need the April deadline so that the threat of the records release would continue hanging over the CIA. If the CIA fails to fulfill its part of the bargain, Trump releases the records in April. If the CIA squelches the Russia investigations, Trump grants another extension of time in April. Let’s state the obvious: The CIA records that are still being suppressed have nothing to do with “national security.” They have everything to do with covering up the CIA’s role in the U.S. national-security regime-change operation that took place in Dallas in November 1963, which succeeded in ousting from power a president who was, in the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, engaged in actions The CIA, Terrorism, an... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing. that constituted a grave threat to “national security,” i.e., befriending the Russians (i.e., the Soviets) and Cubans and entering into peaceful coexistence with the communist world. In other words, unlike Lee Harvey Oswald, who had absolutely no motive to kill President Kennedy, the national security establishment did have motive, a powerful motive, the same motive that motivated the CIA and Pentagon to target other political leaders for regime change or assassination around that time, such as Mohamad Mossadegh, Jacobo Arbenz, Patrice Lumumba (who Kennedy admired), Fidel Castro, and Salvador Allende. For a more detailed analysis of motive, read FFF’s ebook JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. Immediately upon the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, the official account was that this was just a lone nut, former U.S. Marine communist who decided, for no apparent reason, to assassinate Kennedy. One big problem is the official story, however, requires a suspension of logic and common sense. For anyone who has a mindset of conformity and deference to authority, that story makes sense because nothing is questioned or challenged. For anyone who has a critical, analytical, independent mindset, the official story is filled with holes. For example, how many communist Marines have you ever heard of? Why would a genuine communist join the Marines in the first place, especially since the Marines had just recently killed millions of North Korean communists? Why would a genuine communist join the Marines knowing that he could be called upon at any moment to go to Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Europe, or elsewhere to kill fellow communists? How many communists do you know who like to kill fellow communists? It gets better. CIA & JFK: The Secret ... Jefferson Morley Check Amazon for Pricing. After Oswald supposedly tried to defect to the Soviet Union and promised U.S. Embassy officials in Moscow that he was going to deliver classified information to the Soviet Union, which was America’s sworn Cold War enemy (and former World War II partner and ally), U.S. officials permitted him to return home with a Red wife, without even one grand-jury summons or even an iota of harassment. Think about Martin Luther King, John Walker Lindh, Edward Snowden, the U.S. Communist Party, or the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Think about how the U.S. national-security establishment treats what it suspects are communists or traitors. It skewers them. Why, just look at how they call Julian Assange a traitor and he isn’t even an American. Recall the McCarthy hearings. Dalton Trumbo. The entire U.S. anti-communist crusade, including Vietnam, which more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers died killing communists. And they’re going to tell us that they just let Lee Harvey Oswald, a supposed self-avowed communist skate blissfully across the Cold War stage of history with nary any abuse or harassment at all? Don’t make me laugh. Soon after the Warren Commission was established, Warren called a super-secret meeting of the commission to address information that had come into Warren’s possession. That information was that Oswald was actually working for U.S. intelligence. Yes, a spy, the type of people that work for the CIA. That would make sense, especially given that the Marine Corps is a prime recruiting place for the CIA. Semper fidelis! Now, suddenly, all the circumstantial evidence in the Kennedy assassination falls into place. It begins to make sense. The mosaic starts to be filled out: They needed to get rid of Kennedy to protect national security and elevate Johnson, who had the same anti-communist mindset as the Pentagon and the CIA, to the presidency. Unlike JFK, who had begun withdrawing troops from Vietnam, Johnson would The Man Who Killed Ken... Roger Stone Check Amazon for Pricing. protect national security by sending more troops to Vietnam. But to avoid detection, they needed a patsy, which is the term that Oswald used after his arrest. They needed to frame someone for the crime. And what better person to frame than a communist or an intelligence agent who the public would believe was a communist? Part of the scheme, obviously, would be to establish Oswald’s communist bona fides. That’s why he was sent to New Orleans, where, contradictorily, he would work for a right-wing business owner, work with a right-wing former FBI agent, and conduct a public protest in favor of Fidel Castro and Cuba. It was also why he was sent to Mexico City, where he would be ordered to visit the Cuban and Soviet Embassies, no doubt being told that he was being prepared for an important mission, maybe to enter Cuba to assassinate Castro. But no government operation ever goes perfectly. Things obviously went dreadfully wrong with the Mexico City operation because the investigation into it after the assassination was quickly shut down. Today, it remains shrouded in mystery. And guess what is included in the records that Trump has now agreed to continue suppressing. You guessed it! The CIA’s records relating to Mexico City! Ever since the assassination, the CIA has argued that the release of any of its JFK records would threaten “national security.” One thing is for sure and undeniable: Despite the release of many of the CIA’s records in the 1990s and yesterday, the United States did not fall into the ocean or fall to the communists. And neither would it have done so if Trump had not granted the CIA’s request for a continued cover-up of what it did on November 22, 1963. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger

Congress’ Top Cop: House Democratic Caucus Server VANISHED In Muslim Spy Ring Investigation Why was the ringleader of the widespread Muslim spy scandal just offered a plea deal? Who has been exposed to blackmail and God knows what else? And how deeply has America been compromised? These crimes are treason and should be prosecuted as such. Break: Ex-Dem IT aide Imran Awan pleads guilty to loan application fraud in federal court, as part of plea agreement. Prosecutors drop charges against his wife. Prosecutors say they investigated allegations of improper behavior in Awan’s Congress role, but will bring no charges. — Alex Pappas (@AlexPappas) July 3, 2018 take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. In Newly Obtained Memo, Congress’ Top Cop Said House Democratic Caucus Server VANISHED https://t.co/gTj2UgSZJr via @dailycaller — Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) July 2, 2018 A secret memo marked “URGENT” detailed how the House Democratic Caucus’s server went “missing” soon after it became evidence in a cybersecurity probe. The secret memo also said more than “40 House offices may have been victims of IT security violations.” In the memo, Congress’s top law enforcement official, Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, along with Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko, wrote, “We have concluded that the employees [Democratic systems administrator Imran Awan and his family] are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.” The memo, addressed to the Committee on House Administration (CHA) and dated Feb. 3, 2017, was recently reviewed and transcribed by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The letter bolsters TheDCNF’s previous reporting about the missing server and evidence of fraud on Capitol Hill. It details how the caucus server, run by then-caucus Chairman Rep. Xavier Becerra, was secretly copied by authorities after the House Inspector General (IG) identified suspicious activity on it, but the Awans’ physical access was not blocked. But after, the report reads, the server appears to have been secretly replaced with one that looked similar. The memo called for firing the Pakistani-born aides, revoking all their computer accounts, and changing the locks on any door they had access to. Rep. Louie Gohmert — a Texas Republican on the House Committee on the Judiciary who has done oversight work on the case — said the missing server contained copies of Congress members’ emails. “They put 40 members of Congress’s data on one server … That server, with that serial number, has disappeared,” he said. Multiple sources connected to the investigation told TheDCNF that shortly after an IG report came out identifying the House Democratic Caucus server as key evidence in a criminal probe, the evidence was stolen. “They [the Awans] deliberately turned over a fake server” to falsify evidence, one official close to the CHA alleged. “It was a breach. The data was completely out of [members’] possession.” The six-page letter says: • In September of 2016 … the CHA and [IG] briefed the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus about suspicious activity related to their server that the [IG] identified. As a result, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus directed the CAO to copy the data from their server and two computers. • The CHA directed the IG to refer the matter to the US Capitol Police. The USCP initiated an investigation that continues to this day. • In late 2016, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced his intention to resign from Congress to assume a new position. The CAO and [sergeant-at-arms] worked with the Chairman to account for his inventory, including the one server. • While reviewing the inventory, the CAO discovered that the serial number of the server did not match that of the one imaged in September. [Investigators] also discovered that the server in question [the replacement server] was still operating under the employee’s control, contrary to the explicit instructions of the former chairman to turn over all equipment and fully cooperate with the inquiry and investigation. [A House source said the "employee” was Abid Awan.] • The USCP interviewed relevant staff regarding the missing server. • On January 24, 2017, the CAO acquired the [r[replacement]erver from the control of the employees and transferred that server to the USCP. President Donald Trump referenced the Democratic Caucus’ missing server in a tweet. But because the letter to the CHA was kept secret, many news outlets have not grasped that the House’s top cop documented a “missing server” connected to the Democratic Caucus. The timeline laid out in the letter also shows that Becerra — now California’s Democratic attorney general — failed to ensure that the Awans didn’t have access to House computer systems during the 2016 election, which was wrought with cybersecurity scandals. An IG presentation from September 2016 shows that Becerra knew of problems months before the server disappeared. “The Caucus Chief of Staff requested one of the shared employees to not provide IT services or access their computers,” it read. “This shared employee continued.” It’s unclear why that request was not granted or why it was a request rather than an order. A House official close to the probe said the employee was Abid, who was not on Becerra or the Caucus’s payroll. The official said Becerra Chief of Staff Sean McCluskie apparently knew Abid was accessing Caucus servers. According to payroll records, Abid’s sister-in-law, Hina Alvi, was the Caucus’ systems administrator. The Awans’ continued physical access to Becerra’s equipment after red flags emerged enabled the server to disappear after it became evidence, House officials close to the investigation told TheDCNF. (RELATED: Becerra Tried To Block Awan From House Democratic Caucus Server, But Logins Continued; He Didn’t Go To Cops) Becerra has refused to comment, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. The February 2017 memo itemizes “numerous and egregious violations of House IT security” by members of the Awan family, including using Congress members’ usernames and “the unauthorized storage of sensitive House information outside the House.” “These employees accessed user accounts and computers for offices that did not employ them, without the knowledge and permission of the impacted Member’s office,” it said, adding, “4 of the employees accessed the Democratic Caucus computers 5,735 times.” More than 100 office computers were open to access from people not on the office’s staff, it said. Chris Gowen — a former aide to Hillary Clinton who is now serving as Imran’s attorney — told TheDCNF, “There is no missing server and never was.” He didn’t provide any support for his claim, which is contrary to evidence Kiko and Irving presented to Congress. The memo said the CHA possesses voluminous evidence, including, “Interview notes with House Members’ Chiefs of Staff,” and “Logon activity and computer access logs.” Prosecutors have not brought charges. The Awans were banned from Congress’s computer network the day the letter was sent, and Kiko held a briefing to convey the message to chiefs of staff for members who employed them. But Democrats claim they were never told about any of the cybersecurity issues itemized in the urgent memo. Rep. Jackie Speier — a California Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who employed Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi — said she never heard of any missing server. Joaquin Castro of Texas — another Democratic intelligence committee member who employed one of the Awans — told TheDCNF that Kiko never told him of any cybersecurity issues whatsoever and that the Awan probe was instead described as a theft issue. Indeed, the CHA issued only one public statement on the case and titled it the “House Theft Investigation” — wording that avoids cybersecurity words while political news coverage raged about other cybersecurity issues in the 2016 election. Yet even the alleged theft has not resulted in criminal charges — even though the letter also says House authorities have “purchase orders and vouchers” that allegedly show procurement fraud, as well as testimony from a Democratic chief of staff to Rep. Yvette Clarke, who warned of procurement fraud. The FBI arrested Imran at the airport in July 2017 for alleged bank fraud that occurred six months prior, and Democrats have since claimed that the case is about nothing but bank fraud. Bank fraud does not explain why the Awans were kicked off the House network concurrent with the urgent memo, which did not cite bank fraud. A Democratic IT aide who alleged that Imran solicited a bribe from him told TheDCNF he believes members of Congress are playing dumb and covering the matter up. Wendy Anderson, a former chief of staff to New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, told House investigators that she suspected that her predecessor, Shelley Davis, was working with Abid on a theft scheme, but Clarke refused to fire Abid until outside investigators got involved, TheDCNF reported. Eighteen months after the evidence was recounted in the urgent memo, prosecution appears to have stalled for reasons not publicly explained. Imran is in court July 3 for a possible plea deal in the bank fraud case. Gohmert said the FBI has refused to accept evidence demonstrating alleged House misconduct, and some witnesses with first-hand knowledge say the bureau has not interviewed them. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Dina Habib Powell: "Not Interested" In Replacing Nikki Haley As Ambassador To The UN Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy Dina Habia Powell is rumored to be among the top candidates to replace outgoing United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley after her resignation earlier this week. However, it's being reported that Powell is "not interested" in the post, which is a good thing for Americans. Powell is on the short list of Trump's considerations to fill the position. Others on the list include Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, who previously served as a spokesman for the US Mission to the UN, and Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to Canada. First, Politico reports: take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Powell, who returned to Goldman in a senior role after leaving her job as President Donald Trump’s deputy national security adviser, is said to be strongly considering the job but also weighing family concerns. Powell already lives in New York, where the U.N. is based, but has young children and left the administration in part to spend more time with family. She is also said to be happy in her job at Goldman. Born in Egypt and raised in the United States, Powell is well liked by Trump as well as the president’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. But she is already coming under criticism from some conservatives on social media who maintain that Powell is a “globalist” not closely enough aligned with Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy. Trump on Tuesday described Powell as a “person I would consider” when asked about her possible nomination. “She is under consideration. We have, actually, many names,” he said. However, according to Bloomberg, Powell isn't interested in the position. She says she is just fine at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner Dina Powell has told some colleagues that she’s leaning against leaving the firm to rejoin the Trump administration as ambassador to the United Nations, according to two people familiar with the matter. President Donald Trump has called Powell about the job twice, first on Sunday -- before current United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation -- and again on Wednesday, the people said. He made it clear that he’s interested in the idea of appointing Powell to the position, they said, though he has also talked to other candidates. Powell is not only a partner at Goldman Sachs, which has a sordid history of its own, but also worked in the George W. Bush administration. As for her ties with Goldman Sachs, Breitbart reported the following: 1 – When she served as president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Wall Street giant, Powell repeatedly partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative for a globalist women’s project that served as the centerpiece of Goldman’s foundation. 2 – Powell’s organization joined with the Clinton Global Initiative for globalist giving projects. 3 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs fund directly donated to the controversial Clinton Foundation. 4 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs group worked with Hillary Clinton’s State Department in a project announced by Clinton. 5 – Powell was a featured speaker at a Clinton Global Initiative event alongside Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief, John Podesta. 6 – There are crossover connections between employees paid by Powell’s 10,000 Women and the Clintons. 7 – Powell served on a global group alongside Hillary Clinton. 8 – In coming to Goldman Sachs, Powell joined a firm that has long been deeply tied to the Clintons. Daniel Greenfield wrote about Dina Habib Powell: “The media dubbed her the Republican Huma Abedin. She’s been one of the most powerful women in two Republican administrations. She’s friends with Valerie Jarrett….Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi….Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. Her top role at the NSC represents McMaster’s vision for our approach to Islam. And it’s an echo of the failed approach of the Bush years. Flynn made the NSC into a tool that matched Trump’s vision. McMaster is remaking it to match Jeb Bush’s vision.” Greenfield also adds: When visiting Egypt, Habib-Powell had assured the locals of how Bush, after September 11, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” “I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year,” she gushed. K.T. McFarland had written that “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western civilization.” It’s not hard to see why McMaster pushed out McFarland and elevated Habib-Powell. Habib-Powell had attended the Iftar dinner with members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. She was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by Hanan Ashrawi. Her achievements under Bush included cultural exchanges with Iran, as well as cash for the Palestinian Authority and for Lebanon after the Hezbollah war with Israel. While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, at his side is the woman who had once bragged on CNN, “Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.” Pamela Geller also pointed out why Powell should not be the UN ambassador. Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. She is part of the swamp, part of the willfully ignorant McMaster crowd that clearly opposed Trump’s agenda. Back in 2017, she resigned her post of Deputy National Security Adviser NSC under Islamic apologist H. R. McMaster, whose failed views she shared. McMaster subscribed to the Obama view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, despite the numerous Islamic texts and teachings that incite Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. McMaster went so far as to claim that devout jihadis were “irreligious.” McMaster forced out superb K.T. McFarland from her role as Deputy National Security Advisor and inserted Dina Habib-Powell, former Bush gatekeeper whose pals included Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett. Again, and I have asked this before, how do you fight the Deep State by putting Deep State operatives in these positions? How do you drain the swamp by adding to it? The answer is clear: You don't. This would actually be the perfect time for Trump not to appoint an ambassador to the UN and call for the US to exit the anti-American organization and demand Congress stop funding it and evict the UN from US soil, but I'm not holding my breath.

Austrian diocese blesses gay couples on Valentine’s Day, makes reference to Amoris Laetitia NewsCatholic Church, Homosexuality AUSTRIA, February 16, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The Diocese of Linz, Austria, invited homosexual couples to participate in the blessing of couples on St. Valentine's Day. The move comes in the wake of the recent debate over the German bishops' initiative to bless homosexual couples, as well as the controversy over Bishop Andreas Laun's own criticism of it. The diocese’s own media report makes a reference to Amoris Laetitia, as well as to Cardinal Reinhard Marx's recent initiative. The official diocesan newspaper, KirchenZeitung, announced on February 9 that in two different parishes in the Diocese of Linz homosexual couples were explicitly invited to receive a Church blessing on St. Valentine's Day. As is explained in the article: St. Valentine is known as the saint of friendship and of love. In many parishes and ecclesial institutions, it is already tradition to offer blessings of couples around the time of his feast day. People in homosexual relationships are welcome at the blessing ceremonies in Wels-St. Franziskus [Church] and in the Ursulinenkirche. Paul Stütz, the author of the article, explains that the blessing of couples “offers an occasion to express love.” “The blessing expresses that one is welcomed by one's partner and by God.” At the end of his article, he adds a link to another report about Cardinal Reinhard Marx's recent 3 February interview showing his openness to the idea of blessings of homosexual couples in individual cases as decided by a pastor. Stütz also quotes in the article itself Father Franz Harant, “a pastoral worker in the field of marriage and the family” at the Ursulinenkirche in Linz. Harant himself shows himself a supporter of blessings for homosexual couples, and he makes here an explicit reference to Amoris Laetitia. As Stütz reports: We give out that universally available blessing. There, we have nothing to forbid,” says Harant. He sees himself in this in union with Pope Francis who himself says in his magisterial document Amoris Laetitia that “each person, independent of his sexual orientation, is to be respected in his dignity and welcomed with respect. As the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net writes, Harant must be quoting here AL 250. Irmgard Lehner, the pastoral assistant of the Wels-St. Franziskus Church, the other of the two parishes that welcome homosexual couples, appreciates this blessing ritual for Valentine's Day, saying it has “an enormous power.” During the ceremony, couples come forward in church and receive a hand on their foreheads and a sign of the cross. “We thus stress the high value of relationships,” explains Lehner. As the KirchenZeitung journalist adds: “This offer can be accepted by lovers in all kinds of life situations – also by lesbians and homosexuals.” Lehner, who is herself a theologian, regrets that, so far, no homosexual couple has come for the blessing. “Here with us, everybody should feel welcome, just as he or she is.” The pastoral assistant adds that “God is love. There are no restrictions.” The Diocesan Working Group on Pastoral Care for Homosexuals (dahop) is rejoicing about such a welcome from a parish. The group says that it repeatedly receives requests from homosexual couples who wish to “receive a blessing in the frame of a liturgy.” The KirchenZeitung then quotes a commentary, saying: It would be good if a clear sign of openness and invitation would be made by many more pastoral workers [male and female], in order to give the clear signal that love between two persons with equal rights are wished by God and thus already blessed. Moreover, the above-quoted Franz Harant himself is the contact person of this Diocesan Working Group – also called “Rainbow Pastoral.” As can be seen on the website of dahop, the Diocese of Linz offers special liturgical services for homosexuals, called “Queer Church Services” (Queer-Gottesdienste) that take place in Harant's own parish. It is not clear whether these church services take place in a form of a Holy Mass. Similar blessings for homosexual couples are currently taking place, or are being considered, also in Gemany, some of them on the diocesan level, some of them on an individual level. As LifeSiteNews reported in January, the Diocese of Limburg is publicly discussing the establishment of a special liturgical rite for the blessing of homosexuals. Publicly presented by Johannes zu Eltz, a high-ranking priest of the diocese, his so-called Frankfurt proposal has the public support of the local bishop, Georg Bätzing. Additionally, the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net reports that there are two Catholics priests in two different German dioceses who publicly state now to have given many blessings to homosexual couples. Father Christoph Simonsen (Diocese of Aachen) says that he has blessed 50 couples in the last fifteen years; Father Siegfried Modenbach (Archdiocese of Paderborn) has blessed two homosexual couples in the last years. He also conducts church services for homosexuals. Kath.net subsequently contacted both Dioceses and requested information about these two priests. As an answer, they were told that the Diocese intends to talk with the concerned priests, but that this matter needs to be addressed among the German bishops in general, such as in the German Bishops' Conference. This moral turmoil in German dioceses has provoked concern and criticism among Catholics. Mathias von Gersdorff, German pro-life activist and book author, states on his own blog, the upcoming Spring Assembly of the German Bishops' Conference will become crucial in this matter. As he sees it, “the bishops of Germany who will meet next week for the Spring Assembly of the Bishops' Conference find themselves in a complicated situation,” where they will have to show their colors. They will either be in favor of the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality and marriage and forbid such blessings, or “essentially accept them,” at least by “saying nothing.” He concludes:

Foolish Religion Author Gary Wills: ‘The Religion of the Qur’an Is a Religion of Peace’ Outside of specialists and seekers, the only reason why there is general interest in the Qur’an among non-Muslims is to seek an answer to the question of whether or not it justifies and encourages Islamic terrorism. With What the Qur’an Meant: And Why It Matters, religion author Garry Wills is here to reassure us: What did the scripture of Islam tell me about the duty to kill infidels? Some people are sure it is there, though it isn’t. Then what does it say about Shari’ah law? Not a thing (p. 7). That would be good to know, were Wills a reliable witness. Unfortunately, he proves to be just the opposite: Wills laments “Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calling for a ban on the Qur’an” (p. 58). I have never called for such a ban, and oppose in principle the banning of any book. Wills, not surprisingly, does not offer any quotation from me to back up his false claim. His manifest unreliability on this point casts a shadow on his primary assertions about the Qur’an. Wills seems determined to put the best possible face on the Qur’an, which requires him to ignore a great deal of Qur’anic incitement and hatred. For example, he quotes 5:51 -- “You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies” (p. 114) -- but he nonetheless concludes, after ten pages of tu quoque arguments and other legerdemain, that “the Qur’an is fraternal in its treatment of other faiths” (p. 124). Wills never mentions Qur’an 9:29, which commands Muslims to wage war against Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Sharia. Wills is no more trustworthy when he deals with the question of violence in the Qur’an. He renders one key passage in this way: “Fight then until there is no more persecution, and worship [at the shrine] is devoted to God” (2:193; p. 133). Whence the bracketed interpolation “at the shrine”? Wills doesn’t give any source for it; apparently it comes from none other than Garry Wills himself. By adding “at the shrine” to this verse, Wills restricts the call to fight to the area around the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. He ignores the fact that some Islamic authorities see this passage as calling for nothing less than unlimited warfare against non-Muslims. The prominent Twentieth Century Indian Islamic scholar Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri explains the passage this way: The worst of sins are Infidelity ( Kufr) and Polytheism ( shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah. Wills doesn’t mention the existence of such interpretations, even to dismiss them. Likewise, when he claims that the Qur’an has “not a thing” to say about Sharia, he appears unaware that the Qur’an is one of the sources of Sharia. The Qur’an’s declarations that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s (2:282), that a daughter is to receive a smaller part of an inheritance than a son receives (4:11), that thieves are to have their hands amputated (5:38), and that those who “wage war against Allah and his messenger” are to be crucified or have a hand and foot amputated on opposite sides (5:33) are part of Sharia in all its various expressions. Because these stipulations are found in the Qur’an, they cannot be questioned or set aside. Throughout his book, Wills’ assurances that the Qur’an is not really as bad as “right-wing Islamophobes” say, or that the Bible contains material that is just as bad or worse, dissolve under close scrutiny. Again and again it turns out that Wills has ignored key passages in order to make his case. He asks why the Qur’an is “so ferocious to ‘hypocrites’ and apostates” (p. 124). Then he offers a quotation from the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews saying that “if we sin again on purpose” there is “only a terrifying judgment to come” (p. 126). Wills concludes: “The Qur’an is not as absolute as this, because it always leaves room for God’s inexhaustible mercy and forgiveness” (p. 126). That sounds wonderful, and certainly pleasing to multicultural ears to learn that the Qur’an is more merciful than the New Testament. Until one realizes that, in his discussion of apostasy in the Qur’an, Wills has omitted all mention of the primary Qur’anic passage on this topic: take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper (4:89). To “emigrate in the cause of Allah” is to leave one’s home and join up with the Muslims. This passage envisions some of the disbelievers becoming Muslim, and then turning away again, whereupon the Muslims are told to “kill them wherever you find them.” God’s inexhaustible mercy, indeed. Wills’ peaceful fantasy Qur’an raises one massive question that the author does not and cannot answer: if the Islamic holy book is really as peaceful and benign as Garry Wills makes it out to be, why do so very many Muslims worldwide misunderstand it? The Islamic State (ISIS), in its heyday, quoted the Qur’an frequently -- odd behavior if the group actually was ignorant of, indifferent to, or in violation of the book’s core tenets. ISIS quoted the Qur’an extensively in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos. ISIS also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training. One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an. An Islamic State propagandist’s parents said of him: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.” A Muslim politician from Jordan said that the Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” How would Garry Wills explain all that? He can’t; he has just explained all Qur’anic violence and intolerance away, leaving the manifest fact that all too many Muslims worldwide think that the Qur’an says exactly what he claims it does not say an unanswered conundrum. Wills’ naïve, inaccurate, misleadingly sunny view of the Qur’an, of course, accords with that of his fellow Leftist Catholic, Pope Francis. Francis has proclaimedpreposterously that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” Wills’ book accords well with the present-day Catholic Church’s head-in-the-sand posture toward Qur’an-based Islamic jihad violence and the Muslim persecution of the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. It isn’t remotely accurate, but it feels good, and for the Catholic and Leftist establishment today, that seems to be all that matters. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Pilger Excoriates Media DB: John, what is the latest we know about how Julian Assange is being treated and his current state? John Pilger: His state of health is just about the same, as I understand it. He needs medical attention, the kind of treatment you get only in a hospital. But it has been made clear to him that if he attempts to go to a hospital he will not be given free passage and he will be arrested. Since he was arrested in 2010, Assange has not been charged with a single crime. His treatment amounts to the most unprecedented persecution. Julian could leave the embassy if his own government, the government of his homeland, Australia, applied legitimate diplomatic pressure on behalf of its citizen. We must ask ourselves why this hasn’t happened. My own feeling is that there is a great deal of collusion between the Australian, the British and the US governments–meant to close down WikiLeaks completely and/or deliver Julian Assange to the Americans. Recently the Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, traveled with senior officials to London and to Washington and raised the whole matter of Julian. But they raised it in a way that didn’t support the idea that a government should represent its citizens. These people listened to the more powerful governments. In Washington they met Mr. Pompeo, who refused to discuss Assange altogether. I think there is collusion which amounts to an attempt to try to do a deal with Assange whereby he might be allowed free passage of return to Australia if he shuts down WikiLeaks. I think that is very, very likely. As I understand Julian, this is something he would not even contemplate. But that might be one of the so-called “wretched deals” that are being offered Assange. Some very strange things are being said by senior members of these two governments. The new foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, Jeremy Hunt, said sarcastically that the British police would offer Julian “a warm welcome” when he came out, when he would face serious charges. There are no serious charges. He hasn’t been charged with anything. Special Ed: Voices fro... Dennis Bernstein Best Price: $2.49 Buy New $5.00 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) Was Hunt referring to a deal which has already been done with the United States on extradition? I don’t know. But this is the milieu of machination around someone who has the right of natural justice concerning his freedom. Putting aside freedom of speech, the persecution of this man has been something that should horrify all free-thinking people. If it doesn’t horrify us, then we have surrendered something very valuable. DB: Among those who should be especially horrified are those of us in the journalistic community. John, I would like you to explain once again why Julian Assange is such a significant journalist, why so many journalistic institutions have collaborated with him based on the information he provided. We are talking about a publisher and reporter who has changed history. JP: Nothing in my time as a journalist has equaled the rise of WikiLeaks and its extraordinary impact on journalism. It is probably the only journalistic organization that has a 100% record of accuracy and authenticity! All of WikiLeaks’ revelations have been authentic. And it has been done “without fear or favor.” Although there has been a concentration on, say, the release of the Hillary Clinton/Podesta emails, or the Iraq and Afghan war logs, WikiLeaks has released information that people have a right to know across the spectrum. It has released something like 800,000 documents from Russia, and now WikiLeaks is accused of being an agent of Russia! WikiLeaks’ journalism has covered a universal space and that is the first time this has happened. In Tunisia, the release of WikiLeaks documents foretold the Arab Spring. The people at the forefront of the uprising in Tunisia credit WikiLeaks for informing them of what their repressive government was doing behind their backs. In Venezuela, WikiLeaks released cables which described in great detail how the United States intended to subvert the government of Hugo Chavez. Some of this was published in the mainstream media, when there was still a collaboration with WikiLeaks. The Clinton/Podesta emails, which appear to have made a number of people resentful, were published in the New York Times. These emails showed the close role that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation played in support of extreme jihadism in the Middle East. That was a very important piece of information for people to know and understand. By doing that, WikiLeaks performed an extraordinary public service, while at the same time making some very serious enemies. Randy Credico: People sometimes forget that, apart from being a journalist, Julian Assange is a human being. You have known him a long time. Could you give us a feel for the kind of person Julian Assange is? JP: Julian is a very principled individual. He feels very strongly about the moral basis of WikiLeaks. When he first put up WikiLeaks, he wrote that the whole idea of transparency, honoring people’s right to know, was the central aim of the website. He feels that very strongly. Any attempt to do a deal with Julian to shut down WikiLeaks will no doubt be resisted. As a person, Julian is an extremely interesting man. He is very well read. He studied physics. He has a very good sense of humor, and I have often laughed out loud with him about situations that others might consider too bleak to discuss. His black humor is a part of his survival kit. Obviously, he is incredibly resilient. Personally, I could never endure what he has, especially in recent years. But this comes with a cost and his health is continuing to deteriorate. Those close to him are extremely worried. Cypherpunks: Freedom a... Julian Assange Best Price: $3.04 Buy New $9.55 (as of 06:45 EDT - Details) In a letter to the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, Julian’s father, John Shipton, wrote: “I ask the prime minister to do all within his power to return Julian home before Julian’s situation becomes an irreversible tragedy.” That is why this is such an urgent case of justice toward a single human being as well as a case of a journalistic organization’s right to function and our right to have the information it provides. Only seven years ago, the current prime minister said that when an Australian citizen is threatened in this way the prime minister should respond. That was Turnbull before he became prime minister. Now the government is playing its usual role of being the fifty-first state of the United States. It is a true disgrace. RC: What about Theresa May and the British government? Are they getting pressure from the United States or are there internal reasons why they want to keep Julian Assange quiet? JP: Everything comes down to the relationship with the United States. Australia has an almost totally servile relationship with America, in which its national security structure, much of its academic life and certainly much of its media is integrated into the US system. That is not entirely the case in Britain. Since the loss of its empire after the Second World War, Britain has been eager to play a secondary role to the new imperial power. In many parts of the world, Britain is still the biggest corporate investor. But it does move in lockstep with the US on much of its foreign policy. It is interesting to see the corruption that this kind of relationship produces. Information has come out that the Crown Prosecution Service tried to prevent the Swedes from giving up the case against Julian on bogus sexual assault charges. The pressure was on from London to keep it going. Julian is also seen as defying a system and that is just not acceptable. There is a real element of vindictiveness here. The Crown Prosecution Service kept this case going when otherwise the European warrant put out by the Swedes would have been abandoned in 2013. When Julian came up to a bail hearing last year, it was an absolute disgrace. The judge described Julian’s circumstances as if he were on some sort of extended vacation. What didn’t emerge was the whole conflict of interest in this hearing. The judge’s husband is a figure deep within the national security establishment in Britain who was named in WikiLeaks documents. Because there is no serious media examining the whole WikiLeaks witch hunt, virtually none of this emerges. DB: The corporate press has a major responsibility if Julian Assange goes down, don’t you agree? JP: As you know, Dennis, governments do respond to pressure from powerful media interests. It rarely happens but when it does governments do change their tune. There has been no pressure from media in the United States, Britain, Australia or pretty much anywhere except in programs like yours outside the mainstream. You are absolutely right in that the responsibility of journalists for what has happened to Julian Assange and what might happen to WikiLeaks is undeniable. I was looking this morning at a report by Media Lens in Britain describing how the British press has reported on Julian Assange. It describes the tsunami of vindictive personal abuse that has been heaped upon Julian from well-known journalists, many claiming liberal credentials. The Guardian, which used to consider itself the most enlightened newspaper in the country, has probably been the worst. The frontal attacks have been coming not from governments but from journalists. I described this recently as “Vichy journalism,” a term which now fits so much of the mainstream media. It collaborates in the same way that the Vichy government in France collaborated with the Nazis. The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.75 Buy New $7.00 (as of 12:00 EDT - Details) There used to be spaces within the so-called mainstream for unbiased discussion, for the airing of real grievances and injustices. These spaces have closed completely. The attacks on Julian Assange illustrate what has happened to the so-called free media in the West. I have been a journalist for a very long time and I have always worked within the mainstream, but the journalism I see now is part of a rapacious establishment and one of its prime targets is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. This is precisely because WikiLeaks is producing the kind of journalism that they ought to be doing. WikiLeaks has in fact shamed journalists, which might help to explain the deeply personal abuse he has suffered. WikiLeaks has revealed what journalists should have revealed a long time ago. DB: Even the attorney for the New York Times happened to mention that if Julian Assange gets prosecuted, the Times could get prosecuted under the same laws. JP: It could but I don’t believe it would be, because power respects power. The New York Times is part of the establishment. The difference with WikiLeaks is that it is outside of the establishment and is truly independent. DB: What would be your strongest plea for Julian Assange? JP: It’s very simple. This is about justice. In a famous speech given in the 1930’s by Parson Martin Niemoller, he said that first the Nazis came for socialists, but he didn’t speak up because that didn’t concern him. Then they came for trade unionists, but he didn’t speak up because that didn’t concern him. He didn’t speak up when they came for the Jews because he wasn’t a Jew. And, of course, finally they came for him. That might not be a precise parallel, but if Julian Assange is allowed to literally go under, it represents the conquest of all of us. It means that we have kept quiet. Keeping quiet has allowed the great atrocities of histories to take place. If Julian is allowed to be spirited away to some super-max hellhole, it will be a great atrocity. DB: In the library, silence is golden. In the world of human rights, silence equals mass murder. They say you shouldn’t yell fire in a crowded theater just to get a reaction. But if you know the theater is in fact on fire and you do not shout out, what happens after is your responsibility. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.

Keith Ellison Defends Louis Farrakhan: "He Had Something To Offer" Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), aka Hakim Muhammad, recently defended his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who recently paralleled Jews with termites. During a debate with Republican opponent Doug Wardlow, Ellison was asked about his previous support of Farrakhan, but then claims that he has distanced himself from Farrakhan. Yeah, right, Hakim! Understand that Ellison attempts to tell the audience and his opponent that he has distanced himself from Farrakhan since the 1990s. Take a look at his comments. take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. “I absolutely, unqualifiedly denounce and reject the views of Louis Farrakhan," said Ellison. "I’ve said that many, many years ago.” “Look, in the early 1990s, Louis Farrakhan was a person speaking the issues of African-American civil rights," Ellison added. "At that time, he had some things, I thought, he had to offer." Ellison then concluded, "He made it very clear in the early 90s that his views and mine were absolutely incompatible, and I’ve been saying that ever since.” Keith, you're lying. It's clear from video evidence that Ellison and fellow Democrat Gregory Meeks had dinner with Farrakhan and Iranian leader President Hassan Rouhani in 2013. Take a look for yourself and understand how pathological liar and accused woman abuser Keith Ellison seeks to deceive you. In case you missed it, here's a still frame of Ellison just a few feet away from a man who has called on 10,000 blacks to stalk and murder white people. Both of these men have the same devil as their father because both men are following after the teaching of the Koran . One of them just actually has the nerve to say it. The other doesn't. Maybe Ellison is attempting to pull an Obama. Remember when Obama's "pastor," Jeremiah Wright uttered "God damn, America!"? Obama tried to say he had been in that church for years and never heard such things, which isn't true. Ellison is attempting to do that same. However, as Michael Ahrens of GOP.com tweeted, Ellison knew what kind of man Farrakhan was then and what kind of man he still is today. Ahrens tweeted, “In 1993, Farrakhan told women: “You’re a failure if you can’t keep a man.” In 1994, Farrakhan said: “Murder and lying comes easy for white people.” All this came *before* Ellison praised him as “a role model” in 1995, and was photographed selling Farrakhan’s newspaper in 1998.” In 1993, Farrakhan told women: "You're a failure if you can't keep a man." In 1994, Farrakhan said: "Murder and lying comes easy for white people." All this came *before* Ellison praised him as "a role model" in 1995, and was photographed selling Farrakhan's newspaper in 1998. pic.twitter.com/5dvnDHTSoB — Michael Ahrens (@michael_ahrens) October 22, 2018 Ellison is a totalitarian-minded individual, who has been supported by Communists and Islamists alike. As the old saying goes, "If you like down with dogs, you're going to get fleas." Consider Keith Ellison to be a flea-infested political con man.

Puerto Rico Hurricane Recovery Worsened By Nearly 1 Million Homes Built Illegally After Hurricane Maria barreled through Puerto Rico in September 2017, it left hundreds of thousands of people displaced and 80 to 90 percent of homes destroyed in some communities. But even before the hurricane, housing in the U.S. territory—where 43.5 percent of people live below the poverty line—was in crisis, and many homes on the island were built with salvaged fixtures and without permits, insurance or inspections. Government officials say about half of the housing in Puerto Rico was built illegally and without a permit, The Miami Herald reported Wednesday, which could amount to as many as 1 million homes. Puerto Rico's housing secretary, Fernando Gil, says the number of homes destroyed by the hurricane totals about 70,000 so far, and homes with major damage have amounted to 250,000 across the island. RICARDO ARDUENGO/AFP/Getty Images After 2011, the territory adopted a uniform building code that required structures to be built to withstand winds of up to 140 miles per hour. According to the National Weather Service, Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico with winds up to 155 mph. Many buildings on the island were built under a prior code demanding protection against 125-mph winds. Furthermore, numerous homes have been built without any sort of permit at all. "It’s definitely a housing crisis," Gil told Reuters last week. "It was already out there before, and the hurricane exacerbates it." One resident of Puerto Rico's Caño Martín Peña neighborhood, Gladys Peña, told the Herald that her home was built by people in her neighborhood and that fixtures for the dwelling were gathered from abandoned structures. "The one who designed it was me," she said. Florida Governor Rick Scott's office estimated that over 318,000 evacuees arrived in the state in the wake of the hurricane, and Federal Emergency Management Agency aid for Puerto Ricans living in Florida hotels will start to expire Friday. Still, about one-third of Puerto Rico is without power. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now Last Friday, President Donald Trump signed an order giving Puerto Rico $16 billion in disaster recovery aid, $2 billion of which will be used to repair the electric grid under the federal Community Development Block Grant program. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it would provide $1.5 billion to help rebuild housing in Puerto Rico after devastation from both Maria and Hurricane Irma, which skirted the island a couple of weeks before, through HUD's Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló estimated in November that it will take $31 billion to rebuild housing in the territory. The governor requested the money from the federal government, as the territory itself is bankrupt.

Chile 'cover-up' letter contradicts Pope © EPA Pope Francis's trip to Chile and Peru was overshadowed by he row A victim of a paedophile priest in Chile has revealed he wrote to the Pope in 2015 about an alleged cover-up after Francis denied getting evidence. Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of cleric Fernando Karadima in the 1980s, accused fellow priest Juan Barros of witnessing the abuse and doing nothing. The Pope caused outrage after a visit to Chile last month by defending Bishop Barros, who was made a bishop in 2015. The Vatican refused to comment on the letter when approached by BBC News. Pope Francis has said in the past that dealing with abuse is vital for the Church's credibility and perpetrators must face "sanctions". What allegations does the letter make? Mr Cruz sent the text of his letter (written in Spanish) to BBC News, showing it was addressed personally to Pope Francis and dated 3 March 2015. That was more than two weeks before the bishop's ordination in the south Chilean city of Osorno, an event dramatically disrupted by hundreds of protesters accusing Bishop Barros of covering up Karadima's sex attacks on young boys. The bishop has denied ever knowing about "the serious abuses" committed by Karadima, who was never prosecuted in Chile because so much time had passed but was convicted and sentenced by the Vatican to a lifetime of "penance and prayer". "Holy Father, I decided to write this letter to you because I'm tired of fighting, crying and suffering," Mr Cruz writes. © AFP Cardinal O'Malley (centre) accompanied the Pope in Latin America "Our story is well known and there's no point reminding you of it, except to tell you of the horror of having experienced this abuse and how I wanted to kill myself." In his letter, he also attaches the full text of a previous letter written a month earlier to the Vatican's top diplomat in Chile, Archbishop Ivo Scapolo. In that letter, Mr Cruz accuses Bishop Barros of "doing all the dirty work of Fernando Karadima", and describes the abuse he suffered and which Bishop Barros allegedly witnessed. "When we were in a room with Karadima and Juan Barros, if he [Barros] wasn't kissing Karadima, he watched as one of us, the youngest, was touched by Karadima and forced to give him kisses," he writes. "Karadima would say to me: 'Put your mouth next to mine and stick out your tongue.' He'd stick out his and kiss us with his tongue. Juan Barros witnessed all of this on countless occasions, not just in my case but in the case of others as well." Addressing himself to Pope Francis, Mr Cruz says: "Holy Father, Juan Barros says he saw nothing and yet, there are dozens of us who can testify to the fact that not only was he present when Karadima abused us, but that he, too, kissed Karadima and they touched each other." He concludes the letter with this appeal: "Please Holy Father, don't be like the others. There are so many of us who despite everything think that you can do something. I treasure my faith, it's what sustains me, but it is slipping away from me." Hasn't the Pope already apologised? © AFP Karadima was only punished by the Vatican The remarks that the Pope had made in January that caused such offence were: "The day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will speak. There is not a single piece of proof against him. Everything is slander. Is this clear?" The Pope later apologised for hurting victims' feelings "without meaning to" but continued to insist there was "no evidence" against the bishop. "In Barros's case, it was studied," he said. "It was restudied. And there is no evidence... I don't have evidence to convict." How far did the letter get? © Reuters Bishop Barros (centre) was greeted by angry protesters at his ordination Members of the Pope's own Commission for the Protection of Minors, set up in 2014 as part of efforts to counter sex abuse by clergy, have told the Associated Press they hand-delivered the letter to Francis's top adviser on sex abuse, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, in April 2015. A photo in the AP report shows Marie Collins, a member of the commission at the time, handing the letter to the cardinal. "When we gave him the letter for the Pope, he assured us he would give it to the Pope and speak of the concerns," she told AP. "And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done." Mr Cruz told the BBC that Cardinal O'Malley had called him later in 2015 to say he had given the letter to the Pope. Cardinal O'Malley, whose spokesman referred requests for comment to the Vatican, has earned respect for his work in tackling sex abuse by clergy in Boston. Cardinal O'Malley's disgraced predecessor, the late Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved paedophile priests between parishes rather than addressing victims' claims. In an unusual step, Cardinal O'Malley openly criticised the Pope last month for his initial remarks in Chile, saying he had left victims feeling abandoned. Pope Francis announced last week he was sending the Vatican's top expert on sexual abuse, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, to Chile to investigate the accusations against Bishop Barros.

Muslim Cleric: “There Were Jews In Islamic Countries & Caliphates, But We Never Killed Them Just For Being Jews” When he says that Muslims never killed Jews just for being Jews, he is lying, and relying on the historical ignorance of his audience. In my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , I detail many instances in which Muslims did exactly that. In 1013, Berbers from North Africa entered Spain and took Córdoba in 1013, they began massacring Jews, and initiated a wholesale slaughter of Jews in Granada. And again in 1066, rioting Muslims, enraged by the humiliation of a Jew who had been appointed to rule over Muslims, murdered four thousand Jews in Granada. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The twelfth-century Muslim historian Ibn Baydhaq detailed how the Almohads treated the Jews as they advanced: Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad ibn Tumart the Mahdi…captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…. [In Sijilmasa] one hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith…. All the cities in the Almoravid state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered]…groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews. Don’t allow yourself to be deceived by the likes of Jihad Al-‘Ayesh. Preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. "Kuwaiti Cleric Sheikh Jihad Al-‘Ayesh Denies the Holocaust and the Existence of Gas Chambers: How Big a Bakery Would You Need to Make 50,000 Loaves of Bread?,” MEMRI, May 26, 2018: Kuwaiti cleric Sheikh Jihad Al-‘Ayesh delivered a speech in which he said that the figure of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust was a “historical lie,” but that Hitler “knew the truth about the Jews” and therefore began “tormenting and persecuting them.” “The Jews were banished, tortured and annihilated because of their deeds. They were not banished for being Jews,” he said. In an effort to dispute the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, Sheikh Al-‘Ayesh, who heads the Bait Al-Maqdis Documentary Studies Center, drew the following analogy: “Imagine that you want to build a bakery. What size of bakery would you need to make 10,000 loaves of bread?… What if you wanted to make 50,000 loaves of bread an hour? You would need a larger bakery. How many ovens would you need to burn six million human beings?” Sheikh Al-‘Ayesh’s posted his address on his personal YouTube channel on May 26. The video was also posted on the Facebook account of Bait Al-Maqdis Documentary Studies Center. Following is a transcript: Jihad Al-‘Ayesh: “Some people have shown up with a new fashion. We used to think that fashion has to do with haircuts, clothes, or lifestyle, but the vogue today is to sympathize with the Jews and to shed crocodile tears about their sorrows, their heresy, and their historical lies. This is, indeed, a new fashion. Some esteemed people shed tears about what the Jews call ‘the Holocaust.’ […] “Did the Nazi annihilation – the Holocaust – target only the Jews? Anybody? The Jews claim that it happened to them alone and that the number of Jews who died in that Holocaust was six million. What we have here are historical errors. First of all, the figure of six million is a historical lie. In addition, claiming that it happened to the Jews alone excludes the non-Jews who were tortured by Hitler. So was it annihilation? Yes, it was. Who did Hitler annihilate? He annihilated a group of races and people, some of whom were even German. Hitler annihilated 400,000 Germans who were handicapped or suffered from chronic diseases. Hitler did not annihilate the Jews only. […] “Hitler was not the first in the West to perpetrate a genocide. Inhuman and criminal annihilation runs in the veins of many in the West. Hitler embodies one type of modern Western annihilation. When the Americans occupied the republics of the Indians, they annihilated millions of human beings. It is said that they annihilated 50-100 hundred million, but nobody ever mentions this. […] “Was there annihilation? Yes. Many races were annihilated. The Auschwitz camp, which is in southern Poland, was a major and exceptional camp for detention, torture, and forced labor. Many people were tortured and were starved to death there. […] “The Jews were banished, tortured, and annihilated because of their deeds. They were not banished for being Jews. There were Jews in the Islamic countries and caliphates as well, but we never killed them just for being Jews. No, it never happened. Hitler and the Nazi state knew the truth about the Jews, and therefore, they began tormenting and persecuting them. […] “That is when the Final Solution began. The Nazis called it the ‘Final Solution’ of the Jews. When we say ‘Final Solution,’ we realize that many of the terms used by the Zionist state constitute Nazi terms, ideas, and notions. It is as if they are two faces of the same coin. […] “Since Germany and Europe did not want the Jews, the Nazis came up with the idea of sending the Jews to another country. The Nazis suggested Madagascar, Ecuador, or an Arab country – Syria. But after a while, the Nazis discovered that there were groups of Jews calling for the establishment of a state. They were calling for a Zionist state. That is when the idea of deporting the Jews to Palestine arose…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Former Navy Sailor Pardoned By Trump To Sue Obama & Comey Kristian Saucier, a former Navy sailor who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine he worked on but was later pardoned by President Donald Trump, says that he is going to pursue a lawsuit against several Obama administration members, including Former FBI Director James Comes and Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah. The same FBI that gave Hillary Clinton a pass for operating an illegal email server, which we have evidence for the fact that she sent and received classified documents through resulting in a national security breach and at least one death, but would not give the same leniency to Saucier who simply took some pictures of his submarine. Fox News reports: take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must lapse before the lawsuit actually is filed. “We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.” Saucier's attorneys attempted to use the Hillary Clinton defense to get him out of hot water for taking pictures of classified systems aboard the USS Alexandria in 2009. Prosecutors sloughed off the defense, saying it was essentially “grasping at highly imaginative and speculative straws in trying to further draw a comparison to the matter of Secretary Hillary Clinton based upon virtually no understanding and knowledge of the facts involved, the information at issue, not to mention any issues if intent and knowledge.” Saucier confessed to taking photos of the submarine back in 2009 when he served as a 22-year-old machinist mate, saying he wanted to show the pictures to his family and future children. Following an interview with the FBI in 2012, he destroyed all evidence of the pictures, meaning the Naval Criminal Investigative Service could not confirm his claims that he did not share the photos with unauthorized people. “It was a foolish mistake by a very young man,” Saucier’s lawyer, Greg Rinckey, said. “It’s a very sad case because Kristian Saucier is a fine young man. We don’t believe this was really his true character.” “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” Saucier said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton,” he continued, alleging his life was ruined for political reasons. President Trump had spoken of his support of Saucier on the campaign trail and blasted the Obama administration's handling of his case. “With a pardon, there’s no magic wand that gets waved and makes everything right,” Saucier said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” That's a good attitude considering he has had his cars repossessed and is in a tremendous amount of debt due to his incarceration and now having a felony on his record. But hey, Hillary is free, right? That's all that matters, cause after all, they're (Bill and Hillary) good people, aren't they, Mr. President? I think it's great that Mr. Saucier has been pardoned, I really do, but I continue to ask what a lot of Americans continue to ask, why does the known criminal Hillary Clinton remain at large in our country with her corrupt foundation taking in billions, her trashing our Republic and continuing to have a national voice? The American people weren't promised pardons, we were promised a special counsel to dig into the Clintons and bring about justice. It's time that occurred.

“They All Look The Same” – Hillary Cracks Racist Joke After Booker/Holder Mix-Up This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge Being the paragon of political-correctness and queen of virtue-signaling opportunism, Hillary Clinton sat down with Recode’s Kara Swisher this weekend to answer questions about just how evil and awful conservative opponents have been in the last few months. The conversation began normally, with Clinton hypocritically toeing the progressive line of identity politics by explaining how each of the groups are different but can be managed by the same liberal movement: “What’s often called political correctness is politeness,” Clinton said. “It’s not being rude and insulting to people. It’s respecting the diversity that we have in our society,” she said. “The Democratic Party is a much more diverse political party, attracting people who are African-American, Latino, LGBT, whatever the reason why people feel more comfortable where they are taken in, where they are included as part of a political movement or party.” “And I don’t think it’s politically correct to say we value that. And I don’t want to go around insulting people. I don’t want to paint with a broad brush every immigrant is this, every African-American is that, every, you know, other person with different religious beliefs or whatever – that’s childish.” Childish, indeed. Insulting, indeed. Just 30 seconds later, as Swisher asked: “what do you think of Cory Booker… saying ‘kick them in the shins,’ essentially…” incorrectly recalling Eric Holder’s recent comments. Which Clinton quickly corrected: “Well that was Eric Holder…” Adding, rather extraordinarily, “Yeah, I know they all look alike,” Clinton joked, triggering howls of laughter from the apparently mind-numbed audience. Sorry Hillary, we don’t think they look anything alike. Or did you mean all black people? Finally, we have one question – what would have happened if Trump said it? As The American Mirror’s Kyle Olsen concludes so eloquently, Hillary Clinton appears to benefit from her progressive privilege – it is the only thing that protects her from getting the ‘Roseanne treatment’, and not being dismissed in disgrace.

Kavanaugh Battle Brews The Left’s continuing success in delaying a confirmation vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court reveals its malicious agenda to block the nominee from sitting on the high court when its new term begins Monday, October 1. Democrats had Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s never-credible accusations of sexual abuse -- including possible attempted rape -- in hand way back in the summer. They deliberately refused to bring up the allegations, as weak and ridiculous as they are, at Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearings because they didn’t want to have a rational discussion. They wanted to hurl the wild claims like a grenade at the last minute to blow up the process. And so far it appears they’re succeeding. If Kavanaugh isn’t in place a week from Monday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing cases in its new term shorthanded. 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 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 hope to take 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. Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers are trying to game the system. They know that Senate Judiciary Committee rules require Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to provide a full week’s notice for a hearing. So, if, for example, the committee followed the rules and agreed Friday (today) to a hearing, the soonest it could be held would be next Friday, the final business day before the Supreme Court’s new term begins. Of course, lawyers are masters of delay, and social justice warrior-lawyers hoping to torpedo President Trump’s agenda have an added incentive to drag the confirmation process out as long as possible. New demands and fake emergencies are bound to arise from Ford’s legal team. It was unclear at press time if the public hearing scheduled for Monday into the allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh would go forward. Kavanaugh informed the committee he was willing to testify Monday. “I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name," he wrote in a letter. Ford's lawyer Debra Katz told the Judiciary Committee her client "wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety." Another Ford attorney reportedly said Wednesday that there are “multiple witnesses” who need to testify. "A hearing on Monday is not possible and the Committee's insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event,” Katz wrote in a letter. “Dr. Ford has asked me to let you know that she appreciates the various options you have suggested. Her strong preference continues to be for the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow for a full investigation prior to her testimony.” GOP lawmakers are figuring out how to respond to Ford’s request, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports: Late Thursday, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee chairman, said that his staff had discussed the issue with Ford’s attorney earlier in the day and that he would consult with his fellow committee members about the next move. Ford’s offer also increased the pressure on several key moderates — particularly GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — whose votes will probably be needed to put Kavanaugh on the high court. Both were already facing heavy pressure from abortion rights groups concerned that Kavanaugh, a staunch conservative and longtime GOP attorney, might vote to restrict access to abortion. The sexual assault allegation, which the nominee has denied, has upended his seemingly sure-bet confirmation and only increased the stakes for the key lawmakers. Chairman Grassley had imposed a Thursday deadline for Ford to submit testimony after her team said Tuesday she wasn’t willing to testify until the FBI investigates her sexual abuse allegations against Kavanaugh. Left-wingers such as Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) echoed Ford’s demand. The demand for an FBI probe is “utter nonsense,” former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova said earlier this week. Ford “really doesn’t want to testify,” he said. “Because when she does, she is going to look like the loon she is. She may very well believe everything she’s saying, and that is one of the signs of lunacy, believing something that isn’t real.” And her lawyer is “even loonier.” Besides, diGenova explained, the eleventh-hour sexual abuse claim leveled against Kavanaugh is a non-federal matter and in this case the alleged assault hasn’t even been clearly outlined by the alleged victim. Ford didn’t report it to anyone for decades and isn’t even certain when or where it happened, so the FBI can’t investigate the matter “because there is nothing to investigate.” Kavanaugh has already undergone six FBI background checks and the agency has ruled out investigating Ford’s allegation of drunken groping at a teenagers’ party 36 years ago. Ford’s request for an FBI probe is “clearly a desire to delay proceedings,” diGenova said. President Trump is taking the high road and is avoiding attacking Ford, which isn’t a risky move given how obviously unbalanced the accuser is. Ford is already doing an excellent job destroying herself without Republican assistance. At the White House on Wednesday, President Trump said it would be "wonderful" if Ford testifies and "unfortunate" if she does not. He indicated he was keeping an open mind about the allegations but that it was "very hard for me to imagine anything happened" between her and the nominee. "I think he's an extraordinary man – I think he's a man of great intellect, as I've been telling you, and he has an unblemished record," Trump said. "This is a very tough thing for him and his family and we want to get over it but at the same time we want to give tremendous amounts of time. If she shows up that would be wonderful – if she doesn't show up that would be unfortunate." CBS News reports that Judge Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley Kavanaugh, has received multiple threats. “The text of three emailed threats, obtained by CBS News, were obscene and violent in nature. CBS News has confirmed that the U.S. Marshal's Service has assigned a protective detail to Kavanaugh's family,” the news website reports. The high-stakes behind-the-scenes jockeying over the confirmation process continues.

Has Trump Opened the Door? Sagacious gun owners have always known that the ultimate goal of gun control extremists such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, et al., has always been gun confiscation. The plan is not to “control” the private ownership of firearms; it is to PROHIBIT the private ownership of firearms. Enacting ever-encroaching gun control laws is simply an incremental means to the ultimate end of gun confiscation and prohibition. Donald Trump was elected on the promise of protecting the Second Amendment (among other things). Instead, he has become the poster boy for one of the most egregious gun control machinations of all: gun confiscation. As I reported in this column last week, in a bipartisan meeting with congressmen and senators recently, President Trump “voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights. “‘I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,’ Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence. “‘Take the guns first, go through due process second,’ Trump said. “Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons. “‘Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,’ Pence said. “‘Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,’ Trump responded.” See the column here: Florida School Massacre Proves Police Are Worthless In Protecting Us Well, Trump’s statements are now the rallying cry for gun grabbers all over America to enact gun confiscation laws. So far, five states have passed “red flag” laws that allow police agencies to confiscate guns from someone deemed to be “dangerous” by either a law enforcement officer or a family member BEFORE the individual has committed any crime, and in one State (Rhode Island) the governor issued an executive order implementing a “red flag” law. Here are the six states where the legislatures have already passed—or the governor has already issued an executive order implementing—“red flag” laws: California Connecticut Indiana Oregon Washington Rhode Island And since Trump’s Stalinist statements, there are at least 24 additional states that are currently considering passing “red flag” laws. These are: Alabama Alaska Arizona Delaware Florida Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia And it’s not taking long for law enforcement agencies in the above states to begin their Naziesque assault on gun owners. This report is from Seattle:Doubtless, many other states are also considering passing “red flag” laws. “The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an ‘extreme risk protection order.’ “The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating people for the past year – even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side. “Mental illness is suspected, but that new law allowed police to legally disarm him.” “The man, who we are not naming, is also well known to the bars and restaurants below his unit along Second Ave. The volume of complaints convinced Seattle police to seek an extreme risk protection order – or ‘erpo’ – which allows law enforcement to legally remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others. “In this case, the man refused to comply. Because of the new law, police were then able to return with a warrant and force the man to surrender the firearm.” “A few dozen erpos have been served and executed around the state, but Seattle police said they are the only agency so far to seize a gun because the owner refused to hand it over. “Law enforcement professionals said these specialized protection orders could be a common sense strategy to try and prevent mass shootings – such as what happened in Parkland, Florida. “‘There’s certainly a big concern of the connection between mental health and people exhibiting violent behavior and whether or not they should have access to firearms. The “erpos” give us that tool now as an option,’ said Sgt. Eric Pisconski, who leads the crisis response unit for the Seattle Police Department. “The confiscations only last a year, although they can be renewed.” See the report here: Seattle Police First In State To Seize Gun Under Mental Health Law A few observations are in order here: First, the open carry of a firearm is LEGAL in the area where this took place. So, the fellow was violating NO gun laws whatsoever. Plus, he never removed the pistol from its holster or brandished it in any way. Secondly, the man was “known” to nearby bars and restaurants near his place of residence. That means nothing. Known for what? The report doesn’t even say the man was known for acting weirdly or strangely. It just says he was “known.” And even if he did act weirdly or strangely, if we denied constitutional rights to everyone in that category, a majority of Americans would have no rights, and ALL of Congress would have no rights. Thirdly, what does “volume of complaints” mean? How many complaints were received over a YEAR’S time? Two? Five? Ten? People complaining about other people happens all of the time. Plus, if complaints had been received over the course of an entire year and police just now decided to act, the man must not have been considered much of a threat. Fourthly, there was NO report of the man “exhibiting violent behavior,” as the police sergeant claims. The report says “he had been intimidating people.” How? No specifics except to say he was “staring” at people. Wow! Run for your lives! Fifthly, a U.S. citizen who has committed NO CRIME is denied his Natural right of self-defense for a whole year. And the media report says the confiscations “only” last a year, with the caveat that they may be extended. Indeed. They could and very likely will be extended indefinitely. How many defenseless (unarmed) people are robbed, assaulted, accosted, beaten up, raped, wounded, paralyzed, or killed in a year’s time? It seems many politicians (and many police officers themselves) will not be content until every American citizen is totally defenseless and unable to protect him or herself. I tell you this with all seriousness: At some point, the American people will be forced to view these governmental attacks against our Second Amendment liberties as a declaration of war. Sixthly, the man quoted in the news story who had complained about the armed fellow did so because he said he didn’t like the sight of the man carrying a firearm, as it made him “afraid.” SO WHAT? That the mere sight of a law-abiding citizen openly carrying a sidearm would make someone “afraid” is not sufficient reason to deny the citizen his constitutional right to keep and “bear” arms. This “I’m offended” or “his gun scares me” complaint is nothing but cover for little Nazis to try and deny another person their Natural, God-given liberty. But under this new “red flag” law in Washington State, police are now able to confiscate a person’s firearm without the person committing ANY crime—or even threatening to commit a crime. Even when police forced the man to surrender his firearm, the man made no threatening gesture toward the officers. Gun confiscation has started in America—and President Trump’s Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later is the banner under which this is happening. When Trump promised to add “mental health” regulations to gun purchases and ownership, he opened Pandora’s Box. I go into the “mental health” trap in more detail in this column: Trump Set To Enact More Gun Control “Mental health” regulations for gun ownership is what extremist gun grabbers Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al., have been trying to accomplish for decades. Now, it is the “pro-gun” Republican President Donald Trump who is the one making it happen. Kris Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC Law School. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws: The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” [Most of the “red flag” laws, such as the one in Washington State, do not limit who can claim the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others to family members.] But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns. After the Parkland school shooting, had Donald Trump simply used his bully pulpit to promote arming teachers and school employees as a deterrent and defense against these school shootings without calling for more gun control, it would have been a HUGE boost for the Second Amendment in general and school safety in particular. Instead, Trump fell in with anti-Second Amendment liberals and started calling for more gun control, adding “mental health” restrictions to gun purchases and making his stupid Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later. As a result, anti-gun liberals all over the country are using Trump’s own words and proposed gun control policies as a rallying cry to enact gun confiscation laws. As it stands right now, Donald Trump has opened the door for more damage being done to the Second Amendment than any other president, Democrat or Republican, in our lifetime. Freedomists in the 50 states had better keep a close eye on their State legislatures this year and next, because, thanks to Donald Trump, gun confiscation is going to be on the agenda in virtually every single State in the country. And while you are at it, don’t overlook the federal Congress. No wonder Dianne Feinstein looked so deliriously (and devilishly) happy when Trump uttered his stupid comment about gun confiscation and said he wanted to bring an assault weapons ban (Feinstein’s bill) into proposed gun control legislation. See the video here: Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems To Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban But if you are a freedom-loving American who values your liberties and the God-given right to defend them, happy is NOT what you should be feeling right now. You should be OUTRAGED at Donald Trump, and you should be absolutely determined to be ever vigilant against ANY attempt from Democrats or Republicans from federal, State, or municipal government to enact further restrictions against your right to keep and bear arms—because Trump has opened the door not only for more gun control but also for gun confiscation. P.S. One more time I want to remind readers that self-defense—including defense against tyrannical government—is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in Nature by our Creator. For anyone, especially a Christian, to willingly surrender their means of self-defense is not only a crime against liberty; it is a sin against God. I urge my Christian friends (and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney son and I wrote entitled “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” Mark it down: Any law demanding the citizenry to surrender their AR-15 rifles would be unconstitutional, unnatural, and unbiblical. And NO Christian or other free man should ever comply with such a law. I know that there is a plethora of pastors who teach that Christians ought to obey the government should it outlaw our guns. THEY ARE WRONG. They are wrong biblically, constitutionally, and morally. Our book shows the Natural and Biblical duty of self-defense. I don’t know of another book like it. With all that is happening today, it is CRUCIAL that people (especially Christians) become familiar with the truths contained in this book. I urge you to order one for yourself and one (at least) for your friends and kinfolk. Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin. The Best of Chuck Baldwin

A Sister Speaks: ‘Cor Orans is the Death-Knell of Carmel’ Under the first part of my ongoing analysis of “Cor orans,” a commenter wrote: “When the enemy wants to take a soul, he tries to make it give up prayer.” The Vatican presents a choice: the world, or Christ. “The Prologue [of the Rule of St. Benedict] set this choice before us, the world or Our Lord, as mutually exclusive alternatives; we cannot remain neutral, but must belong wholly to the one or wholly to the other.” Dom Paul Delatte, OSB, Abbot of Solesmes Today I received an email from a monastery of cloistered Carmelite nuns about the new document from the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious. They’re helping me examine this document, having kindly volunteered to serve as consultants, to help me understand it from an inside position. These, I might add, are not what we would consider a “traditionalist” community. They have only the Novus Ordo Mass and use the new rite Divine Office in their native vernacular language. For obvious reasons I can’t identify them, even to say what country they are in. Writing to me in English, by way of introductory comments in their longer analysis of the document that will be forthcoming, Sister T, fully professed and a senior member of the monastery’s council, said, “The Cor Orans document is the death-knell of Carmel. It signals the end of the contemplative monastic life. Not only does it destroy the autonomy of the Monasteries, something Our Holy Mother St. Teresa was extremely insistent about, but it also removes the Superior, dissolves her authority and power, removes the financial independence of each Monastery, and destroys the specificity of each charism. “This is a disaster. Especially for Carmel.” I contrast this frightening comment with those coming from the man immediately responsible for “Cor orans,” Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, the Brazilian prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in a speech to religious formation directors in 2015, in which he laid out pretty clearly what was coming in this piece of legislation, 3 years later. In fact, as the National Catholic Reporter piece said, the meeting itself was “unprecedented,” 1200 formators of religious life gathered by the Congregation for Religious in order to hear the new marching orders. This is the programme: “Do not distance yourself from the great lines of the Second Vatican Council.” “In fact, those that are distancing themselves from the council to make another path are killing themselves – sooner or later, they will die. They will not have sense. They will be outside the church. We need to build, using the Gospel and the Council as a departure point.” After breathing this threat, the cardinal continued, saying that because modern people’s “needs” are fundamentally different from what they were in the past, there was no reason to stick too closely to what the founders and foundresses – people like St. Anthony, St. Augustine, St. John Cassian, St. Benedict, St. Bruno, St. Dominic, Sts. Francis and Clare, Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross - wanted. “These contexts have changed. And the council reminds us that consecrated life must be Christian discipleship ... must be discipleship of the founders that we remember, but also must be open to the culture of the present moment.” “We must not be closed to new things. God is not static,” the cardinal said. “God is always new movement – of light, of heat, of demonstration. He speaks in every time to men and women with the true language of that time.” The congregation’s Secretary, Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo, is reported as saying, “With this explicit reference to the Second Vatican Council, we point to our profound conviction that the council is the point of reference, non-negotiable, in the formation to the consecrated life.” Not the charism of the order, nor the rule, nor the Patristic tradition, nor the Doctors, nor the mystics, nor any of the 2000-year-old tradition of religious life, from the Desert Fathers to the giants of the Tridentine period; just Vatican II. And only, apparently, a single “interpretation” of it, if we are to judge by the soap and oil Braz de Aviz poured on the ruffled feathers of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious – the most virulently anti-Catholic organisation of “Catholic” religious in the world – and by his vicious persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Carballo continues his remarks, giving us a clue as to his feelings towards strictly cloistered, contemplative religious life: “A consecrated life, a life in God but inserted in the ecclesial family, in the church – inserted in the world. Not in conflict with the world, but inserted in continuity,” he said. It is to wonder what this man would make of a comment by the great Dom Paul Delatte, the second abbot of Solesmes and successor to the refounder, Dom Gueranger, who wrote in his commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict: “The Prologue set this choice before us, the world or Our Lord, as mutually exclusive alternatives; we cannot remain neutral, but must belong wholly to the one or wholly to the other.” “After entering into Christ by baptism and by the monastic profession, we should hold ourselves as far aloof from the world as possible and have no connection with it. There shall no longer be more intercourse between us than there is between two corpses: ‘The world is crucified to me and I to the world.’ “Let us be on our guard against thinking that it may sometimes be proper to soften the differences, to lessen the distance which separates us. The Apostle warns us that we can only please God by preserving the integrity of our true life: ‘No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses: that he may please him to whom he hath engaged himself.’ The world itself is scandalised by our condescending to it, and the words of the Imitation [of Christ] are always fulfilled: ‘Sometimes we think to please others by our company; whereas we begin rather to be displeasing to them by reason of the bad qualities they discover in us.’” How Cor orans will end St. Teresa of Avila’s reform of Carmel Sister T. continued, saying that the document explicitly derogates the founding intentions of St. Teresa for whom real autonomy was a crucial element of her Carmelite reform. She acknowledges that cloistered orders of nuns have for some time been gathered into federations. These are already doing the Cor orans programme, having shared initial formation programmes for postulants and novices, “ongoing formation” courses for professed nuns, a federal abbess or president who oversees all the federated monasteries. Their funds are already interconnected and they have regular meetings with and input from the male branches. In 2015, Carmelite monasteries received a questionnaire from the Father General Fr. Saverio Cannistra, a Mexican and devotee of Liberation Theology, to ask if they wanted an International Commission of Nuns to oversee the female houses place of the Carmelite Fathers. This suggestion was rejected, to the annoyance of Maccise. Maccise also promoted the idea of having no superiors in the individual monasteries, but only federation presidents and shared formation of novices. The push for these changes is still on, however, under the current General, an Italian, Saverio Cannistrà. Given the Marxist leanings of the recent crop of Fathers General, it seems clear that what can be expected by “ongoing formation” is, in essence, some form of political indoctrination, sprayed over with a micro-thin layer of pious language. But for Carmelite nuns, Sister said, these ideas are the antithesis of the intentions of St. Teresa. Authentic autonomy, independence of formation and finances, “are essential points of our charism that Our Holy Mother established and to do away with them is to do away with the charism.” “They go against our Constitutions, even though Cor Orans states that everything is to be done in accord with the charism and Constitutions. Each Carmel has its own spirit, its own tempo, it’s own ‘feel.’ Each nun is called not just to the Order, but to a specific Carmel. Formation in common is something we’ve been fighting against for years.” “To have a federal president who can decide to take the novices away, or take all our finances, or tell the Holy See we’re no longer ‘viable’ – this is a disaster. St. Teresa specifically set up the monasteries so that none of this would take place. And now it’s going to be done to us.” She points to the extended length of formation for new nuns - previously six years for Carmelites and under Cor orans now nine years, as absurd, saying it will tend to impede new vocations. “As though the Church is going to ask laypeople to be engaged for nine years before they marry. Our Constitutions already provide a three year extension of temporary vows if needed, but to make it mandatory will dissuade women from entering. It will also help the monastery become ‘less viable’ because by the time anyone younger is professed, the others will be dead.” Another requirement will be for a “religious assistant,” a priest monitoring the monastery in addition to a chaplain, to be assigned by the federation. Sister writes that this was rejected “years ago” by Carmelite monasteries as undue interference. The religious assistant will have unprecedented powers. Article 23 states, for instance, “In discerning the foundation of a new monastery on the part of a single monastery, the Federal President and the religious assistant intervene to help the superior of the founding monastery. The discernment on the foundation of a new monastery by the Federation is made within the framework of the Federal Assembly.” “One other thing that is very striking to me is the complete loss of our rights. There are no options in this document, no choices, no recourse. It’s all being done to us. In this day and age, when Pope Francis is proclaiming, if not Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, then at least license and ‘choice’ for all, plus the ‘rights’ of women, here our rights are completely taken away.” Another nun has written saying that they cannot conceive of what these people mean by “ongoing formation”. Judging from other documents from already-federated Carmelites in Europe, it means in practical terms going in groups away from the monastery for days or weeks at a time to take “courses” together with novices from other monasteries. The content of these course, of course, is to be formulated by teams of “experts” chosen by the Federation. Sister writes, “Cloistered nuns have a very full horarium that does not allow for a lot of other things. We already have to deal with the million unexpected things that come up each day. I have no idea how we are going to implement all these ridiculous plans of ‘on-going formation’. Can they not comprehend that simply faithfully living our daily life provides plenty of on-going formation.” Apparently not. As I wrote in my first analysis piece, the document itself – that we must remember is a piece of legislation, a legal document laying out what all monasteries of contemplative nuns must now do – starts by laying out its working premise: Pope Francis, in the wake of the teaching of Pope Pius XII and reaffirmed by Ecumenical Vatican Council II, intended to present in Vultum Dei quaerere the intense and fruitful path taken by the Church in the last decades, in the light of the teachings of the same Council and considering the changed socio-cultural conditions. In other words, it is the “intense and fruitful path” of the last few decades of the Church since Vatican II that all monasteries of cloistered, contemplative nuns must now take. Anyone who imagines that this document’s authors will allow leeway, that there will be dispensations forthcoming for traditional or “conservative” communities from timid and cowed Vatican bodies like Ecclesia Dei, has failed to pay attention. In the last 20 years, “conservative” Catholics have pointed to the flourishing – mainly in the US – of some groups of sisters who had turned away from the “intense and fruitful path” and re-established some of the traditional accoutrements of the religious life. They point to the Nashville Dominicans, the Missionaries of Charity, the Poor Clares of Alabama, where there are at least habits, (some) chant, common life and common apostolates. But it is these signs of refusal of the programme that have infuriated the despots of the New Paradigm who would not rest until every last individual house of religious life was co-opted, subverted to the new ideology. The little green shoots of hope that the faithful Catholic world so rejoiced to see are to be stamped back into the frost of Vatican II’s perpetual winter. In the continuing analysis that will follow this article, we can see that the purpose of this document is to fulfill the totalitarian fantasies of the anti-Catholic revolutionaries, now nearing the end of their lives 50 years after their initial near-triumph. Its intention is mopping up; either to herd the remaining recalcitrants – those who have resisted even to the softened and conciliating degrees typical of “conservatives” – into the full post-conciliar “reform” instituted by the revolutionaries in the 1960s – or to close them. The thing is, the result will obviously be the same either way. The whole world has seen what happens to religious life that takes on the VaticanTwoist New Paradigm. I have just received a document that was issued privately summarising the findings of a meeting of federated Discalced Carmelite nuns in Europe in 2009. The numbers are absolutely dismal. Federation: Belgium number of convents: 11 Number of nuns: 120 solemnly professed: 119 in formation: 1 average age: 73 Federation: Belgium - Luxembourg. number of convents: 11 number of nuns: 122 solemnly professed: 117 in formation: 5 average age: 75 Federation: Germany number of convents: 14 number of nuns: 178 solemnly professed: 170 in formation: 8 average age: 66 The rest are similar, and I’ll be analysing this document in some detail in the next piece in this series, but the rest of the responses to the Father General’s questionnaire tell a similar story. The German federation gave a summary of the efforts made to address these issues. “Path taken: For 15 years they have organized formation courses: on-going & initial formation, and for formators. Meetings for prioresses. Present Problems: Have got very old. Some sisters are in care-homes run by Franciscans. Possible Solutions: Two convents intend to amalgamate.” This is the death spiral. And it is precisely this “intense and fruitful path” taken by nearly all the Catholic world’s monastics since 1965 that Cor orans is attempting to force on the very, very few holdouts.

Viganò Doubles Down, Accuses Francis of Losing Sight of Christ Archbishop Viganò has released a new, powerful statement necessitated by the peculiar reaction of Pope Francis to the Aug 22 Testimony. Many thanks to our friends at LifeSiteNews, especially Diane Montagna, for the following translation and release of the follow-up testimony from arguably the most courageous prelate in the Church today—Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. The former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States has, as they say, doubled down. Far from backing-away and making excuses for his early actions, as we’ve all become so accustomed to seeing in these rare cases where a hierarch breaks ranks, Archbishop Viganò is digging in with a 4-page bombshell that restates his initial accusations of abuse cover-up against Francis and other powerful members of the hierarchy, and even concludes with a suggestion that Francis is beginning to act as a “substitute of our Lord.” Read the Archbishop’s words for yourselves and note well the ring of truth that resonates in every sentence. This is clearly the testimony of an honest man who has only the good of the Church in his heart—a modern-day Athanasius standing against something so much worse than Liberius. Friends, let us pray for Archbishop Viganò. He is standing alone now, and not only against the most dangerous pontificate in history, but also the forces of hell itself—forces which will do all in their power to silence this voice crying in the wilderness. Make no mistake about this: Archbishop Viganò is fighting for the very survival of the human element of the Catholic Church. He is standing against corrupt men in high places who cannot be trusted to do what is best for souls, for the Catholic faithful or indeed for Holy Mother Church herself. The enemy is not only at the gates but has now made their way to the thrones of power and the seats of the Apostles. God help us. It goes without saying that we here at The Remnant not only stand with Viganò but we thank God for him every day, we pray the Rosary for him every day, and wish him every blessing and heavenly consolation as he undergoes this passion for the sake of the Master he serves so well. God bless you, Your Excellency, and Mary keep you. We are with you! MJM _________________________________ Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio Scio Cui credidi (2 Tim 1:12) Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days. “As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord, I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to him; For I rejoice in the Lord.” (Psalm 103:33-34) ***** It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital. My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ. Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence. Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony? The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church. Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building. Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know. I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth. ***** Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

America's Immigration Voice. Swedish PM does not rule out use of army to end gang violence JANUARY 17, 2018 / 9:06 AM / A DAY AGO Reuters Staff STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Sweden will do whatever it takes, including sending in the army, to end a wave of gang violence that has seen a string of deadly shootings, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said in Wednesday. Sweden’s murder rate is relatively low in international terms, but gang violence has surged in recent years and Swedes are worried that the police are unable to cope. … Four people were shot dead in the first week of this year. One man died after picking up a hand grenade outside a subway station in a suburb of Stockholm. Law and order is likely to be a major issue in a parliamentary election scheduled for September with the populist, opposition Sweden Democrats linking public concern about the rising crime rate to a large increase in the numbers of immigrants. … “People are shot to death in pizza restaurants, people are killed by hand grenades they find on the street,” Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Akesson said in parliament on Wednesday. “This is the new Sweden; the new, exciting dynamic, multicultural paradise that so many here in this assembly … have fought to create for so many years,” he said sarcastically. From Reuters:Wikipedia has a page devoted to “ List of Grenade Attacks in Sweden ,” which lists 80 different attacks beginning in 2014. That’s crazy.

Why White House Leaker Dina Habib Powell “McMaster’s Huma Abedin” Should Not Be UN Ambassador The rumor that Dina Habib Powell is the top candidate to replace outgoing U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley comes is devastating. One hopes the rumor mill is wrong. Longtime Geller Report readers have suffered Powell for well over a decade. Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. She is part of the swamp, part of the willfully ignorant McMaster crowd that clearly opposed Trump’s agenda. Back in 2017, she resigned her post of Deputy National Security Adviser NSC under Islamic apologist H. R. McMaster, whose failed views she shared. McMaster subscribed to the Obama view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, despite the numerous Islamic texts and teachings that incite Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. McMaster went so far as to claim that devout jihadis were “irreligious.” take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. McMaster forced out superb K.T. McFarland from her role as Deputy National Security Advisor and inserted Dina Habib-Powell, former Bush gatekeeper whose pals included Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett. When President Trump finally replaced national security adviser H.R. McMaster with John Bolton, it was the much-needed correction to the failed incoherent foreign policy of the Obama era. Why would President Trump go back to there? Needless to say, the Never Trumpers are. When visiting Egypt, Habib-Powell had assured the locals of how Bush, after September 11, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” “I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year,” she gushed. K.T. McFarland had written that “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western civilization.” It’s not hard to see why McMaster pushed out McFarland and elevated Habib-Powell. Habib-Powell had attended the Iftar dinner with members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. She was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by Hanan Ashrawi. Her achievements under Bush included cultural exchanges with Iran, as well as cash for the Palestinian Authority and for Lebanon after the Hezbollah war with Israel. While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, at his side is the woman who had once bragged onCNN, “Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.” (CFP) Is it any wonder Habib Powell was a major White House source of the negative leaks to the enemedia? Two separate National Security Council sources have confirmed that National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster and Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell have been leaking negative material about President Donald J. Trump to their allies in the anti-Trump media, Daniel Greenfield said this about Dina Habib Powell: “The media dubbed her the Republican Huma Abedin. She’s been one of the most powerful women in two Republican administrations. She’s friends with Valerie Jarrett….Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi….Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. Her top role at the NSC represents McMaster’s vision for our approach to Islam. And it’s an echo of the failed approach of the Bush years. Flynn made the NSC into a tool that matched Trump’s vision. McMaster is remaking it to match Jeb Bush’s vision.” Powell has close ties to the Clintons. Breitbart: 1 – When she served as president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Wall Street giant, Powell repeatedly partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative for a globalist women’s project that served as the centerpiece of Goldman’s foundation. 2 – Powell’s organization joined with the Clinton Global Initiative for globalist giving projects. 3 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs fund directly donated to the controversial Clinton Foundation. 4 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs group worked with Hillary Clinton’s State Department in a project announced by Clinton. 5 – Powell was a featured speaker at a Clinton Global Initiative event alongside Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief, John Podesta. On May 11, 2009, Powell was one of ten speakers at a Clinton Global Initiative event co-sponsored with the Economist titled, “Global Challenges, Corporate Solutions: Creating Value for Business and Society.” Other speakers included Bill Clinton and Clinton’s former chief of staff, John Podesta, who at the time was president and chief executive officer of the George Soros-financed Center for American Progress and co-chairman of the Obama White House transition team. Podesta would later become chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Powell also served as a panelist at the second annual Women in the World Summit in 2011, which was keynoted by Hillary Clinton. The summit was launched by longtime Clinton ally Tina Brown, who also founded the Daily Beast, where Powell was a contributor. 6 – There are crossover connections between employees paid by Powell’s 10,000 Women and the Clintons. 7 – Powell served on a global group alongside Hillary Clinton. 8 – In coming to Goldman Sachs, Powell joined a firm that has long been deeply tied to the Clintons. Dina Powell is everything that was wrong with the Bush administration. Back in 2005 Ambassador Nancy Powell, America’s representative in Pakistan, refused to allow the distribution in Pakistan of wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items advertising America’s $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. Instead, thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other material – printed at taxpayer expense and translated into Urdu, Pashto, and other local languages – remained “impounded” on American Embassy grounds from 2002 to 2004, according to Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois. While the American government was engaged in a number of “black” or covert intelligence activities to locate Al Qaeda leaders, Mr. Kirk said, the “white” or public efforts – which have succeeded in the past in leading to the capture of wanted terrorists – were effectively shut down in the months following the September 11 attacks. Mr. Kirk discovered Ms. Powell’s unusual order in January 2004 and, over the past year, launched a series of behind-the-scenes moves that culminated in a blunt conversation with President Bush aboard Air Force One, the removal of the ambassador, and congressional approval for reinvigorating the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Muslim Dem IT Aides' Family Member Paid $45,000 After Hiring Attorney Specializing In Money Laundering Cases Abid Awan, a member of a family of highly paid Democratic IT aides, was awarded a $45,000 payout in court after he enlisted a high profile attorney specializing in money laundering cases to defeat his stepmother in a bitter dispute over his father’s life insurance policy. Awan removed the stepmother, Samina Gilani, as the longstanding beneficiary of the policy and replaced her with himself around the period of his father’s death, according to legal and insurance papers. The stepmother, Samina Gilani, also claimed in 2017 that Abid’s brother Imran Awan held her in “captivity” and wiretapped and extorted her, weeks after the House Office of Inspector General separately alleged that they made “unauthorized access” to congressmen’s data. 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. Abid’s attorney James Bacon mocked the elderly, burka-clad widow, who does not drive and speaks only Uurdu. “She’s a wacko lunatic, what are you going to do?” he said just outside the courtroom doors as the judge took a break to deliberate. The Daily Caller News Foundation was present at the court hearing. Associates and relatives have long accused the family of green. “For the sake of money they would have done anything,” Gilani’s cousin, Syed Ahmed, told the Daily Mail. “There are possibilities that [Imran] or them might have been selling [House] information,” he added. (Syed Ahmed knew Abid well enough to loan him money, according to bankruptcy documents filed by Abid.) The FBI arrested Imran, the eldest of the three Awan brothers, at Dulles Airport trying to fly to Pakistan in July, and prosecutors charged him with fraudulently gathering money the prior winter to wire overseas, possibly in an attempt to flee the investigation into the family’s activities involving House computers. “Based on the suspicious timing of that transaction, Awan and [wife Hina] Alvi likely knew they were under investigation at that time” and “there are strong indications of flight in this case,” prosecutors wrote. Abid was making his own efforts to round up money at the same time via the life insurance policy. On Nov. 16, 2016, the brothers made a video of his bedridden father signing over ownership — but not changing the beneficiary — of his life insurance policy to Abid. Abid then used those rights to replace Gilani with himself as beneficiary. When his father died on Jan. 16, 2017, the youngest Awan brother, Jamal, attested on the death certificate provided to the insurance company that his father was divorced, a statement Gilani’s lawyer said would have kept her from the money. A Virginia court later ruled that Jamal’s statement about his marital status on the certificate was wrong. “Why is that even relevant?” Bacon said of Jamal’s misstatement at the March 7 court date. On Dec. 12, 2016, Imran and Alvi – who was also on the House payroll – began taking a series of withdrawals from banks, some of which federal prosecutors say occurred under fraudulent pretenses. In January 2017, Imran wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan. Imran wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan Jan. 18, according to the indictment. On Jan. 17, Abid filed notarized papers using those rights to replace Gilani with himself as beneficiary. The life insurance change’s timing seems to coincide with other moves by Abid to liquidate property and transfer it. Ten weeks prior, on Nov. 1, 2016, Alvi sold a house to Jamal for $620,000, netting another significant profit from the mortgage company. In addition to his primary residence, Abid owned the house where his mother and stepfather lived, and moved in after his death, with Gilani becoming homeless. Abid owned two homes despite a $1 million 2012 bankruptcy that might ordinarily have forced him to sell the second home to pay creditors. At that time, he filed forms “under penalty of perjury” that two houses were needed as “my spouse and I are legally separated under applicable non-bankruptcy law or my spouse and I are living apart other than for the purposes of evading the requirements.” However, his wife, Ukrainian-born Nataliia Sova – who also was on the House payroll – signed as a witness on the 2016 life insurance form as “spouse of Abid,” and they have been photographed living together. Gilani told TheDCNF the brothers were trying to use the life insurance policy as leverage to persuade her to sign a power of attorney giving them access to “assets of my late husband in Pakistan,” which were much more valuable than the $50,000 policy. Americo, the life insurance company, said there was “great doubt” about who the rightful policy holder was, given the allegations of fraud, and sent the decision to the courts to sort out on April 14, two months after the House sargent-at-arms banned the Awans for “suspicious activity.” Gilani alleged the brothers took her financial documents, a laptop, and her husband’s possessions. The only lawyer she could afford, she claimed, was Michael Hadeed, a business attorney who was convicted in 2010 of conspiracy and immigration fraud for helping aliens obtain green cards by setting them up with fake employment relationships. He lost his bar license for two years, according to Virginia State Bar documents. Hadeed did not introduce any evidence to the judge about a pattern of possible fraud by Abid, the timing of the move as it relates to the federal criminal case, or the mental capacity of the dying man to understand paperwork. Hadeed withdrew earlier allegations of fraud and asked the judge to try the case based solely on interpretation of contract language. After court, Hadeed told reporters Bacon had threatened to sue him for defamation. “I don’t want to subject myself to that,” he said outside court. “I don’t want to get myself in a lawsuit over this.” In court, Bacon badgered Hadeed. “Are you going to share any more info with them? I hope not. I hope you learned that lesson,” he said. “You have no control over [Gilani], do you? You’re like, talking to a wall,” he said of Gilani. Hadeed said three different signatures from Abid on financial documents did not match, and put a defiant Abid on the witness stand. Hadeed: Why do your signatures look different? Abid: My signatures are not very consistent, I’m just a human being… Hadeed: You were aware you were changing beneficiary from your father’s spouse to yourself? Abid: That was my father’s request… Hadeed: You’re not answering the question. Abid: I’m not very smart, so it takes a while sometimes… Judge: I don’t understand why the witness is having such trouble with the question. Your job is to answer the question. In court documents, Gilani alleged, “while he was admitted in hospital my telephone conversations were taped and some other recording devices were also installed/planted in my house … Imran Awan showed up and threatened me for me calling the police. [Imran] threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again [he] will do harm to me.” She said that Imran eventually agreed to remove the listening devices and did so in front of her. Based on Hadeed’s narrow legal argument about the life insurance contract’s language, the judge ruled that, “The son as the owner of the policy has the absolute right to change the beneficiary.” After Gilani retained a lawyer, Bacon had offered a settlement where they’d split the money, but Gilani declined it. The court awarded Abid the $50,000 life insurance payout, minus $5,000 that the insurance company took for its expenses in litigating the fraud allegations. “You should have taken the settlement. Now she’s not getting a penny,” Bacon said in court. “You’re not getting anything.” Gilani said after court that her conscience didn’t allow her to settle. “I didn’t do the deal because they had been adopting bad behaviors. I cannot agree to that. It wasn’t about the money,” she said. Article posted with permission from The Daily Caller News Foundation

America's Immigration Voice. The war for dominance in the Middle East, following the crushing of ISIS, appears about to commence in Syria—with NATO allies America and Turkey on opposing sides. Turkey is moving armor and troops south to Syria's border enclave of Afrin, occupied by Kurds, to drive them out, and then drive the Syrian Kurds out of Manbij further south as well. Says President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, " We will destroy all terror nests, one by one, in Syria, starting from Afrin and Manbij." For Erdogan, the Kurdish YPG, the major U.S. ally in Syria, is an arm of the Kurdish PKK in Turkey, which we and the Turks have designated as a terrorist organization. While the Kurds were our most effective allies against ISIS in Syria, Turkey views them as a mortal peril and intends to deal with that threat. If Erdogan is serious, a clash with the U.S. is coming, as our Kurdish allies occupy most of Syria's border with Turkey. Moreover, the U.S. has announced plans to create a 30,000-man Border Security Force of Kurds and Arabs to keep ISIS out of Syria. Erdogan has branded this BSF a "terror army," and President Bashar Assad of Syria has called BSF members "traitors." This U.S. plan to create a BSF inside Syria, Damascus declared , "represents a blatant attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and a flagrant violation of international law." Does not the Syrian government have a point? Now that ISIS has been driven out of Raqqa and Syria, by what authority do U.S. forces remain to arm troops to keep the Damascus government from reimposing its authority on its own territory? Secretary of State Tillerson gave Syria the news Wednesday. The U.S. troop commitment to Syria, he said, is now open-ended. Our goals: Guarantee al-Qaida and ISIS do not return and set up sanctuary; cope with rising Iranian influence in Damascus; and pursue the removal of Bashar Assad's ruthless regime. But who authorized this strategic commitment, of indefinite duration, in Syria, when near two decades in Afghanistan have failed to secure that nation against the return of al-Qaida and ISIS? Again and again, the American people have said they do not want to be dragged into Syria's civil war. Donald Trump won the presidency on a promise of no more unnecessary wars. Have the American people been had again? Will they support a clash with NATO ally Turkey, to keep armed Kurds on Turkey's border, when the Turks regard them as terrorists? Are we prepared for a shooting war with a Syrian army, backed by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to hold onto a fourth of Syria's territory in alliance with Kurds? The U.S. coalition in Syria said this week the BSF will be built up "over the next several years" and "be stationed along the borders ... to include portions of the Euphrates river valley and international borders to the east and north." Remarkable: A U.S.-created border army is going to occupy and control long stretches of Syria's borders with Turkey and Iraq, over Syria's objections. And the U.S. military will stand behind the BSF. Are the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria really up to that task, should the Turks decide to cleanse the Syrian border of Kurds, or should the Syrian regime decide to take back territory occupied by the Kurds? Who sanctioned this commitment to a new army, which, if Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies, and the Turks, do not all back down, risks a major U.S. war with no allies but the Kurds? As for Syria's Kurds casting their lot with the Americans, one wonders: Did they not observe what happened when their Iraqi cousins, after helping us drive ISIS out of Mosul, were themselves driven out of Kirkuk by the Iraqi army, as their U.S. allies watched? In the six-year Syrian civil war, which may be about to enter a new phase, America faces a familiar situation. While our "allies" and adversaries have vital interests there, we do not. The Assads have been in power for the lifetime of most Americans. And we Americans have never shown a desire to fight there. Assad has a vital interest: preservation of his family regime and the reunification of his country. The Turks have a vital interest in keeping armed Kurds out of their border regions adjacent to their own Kurdish minority, which seeks greater independence. The Israelis and Saudi royals want the U.S. to keep Iran from securing a land bridge from Tehran to Damascus to Lebanon. The U.S. War Party wants us to smash Iran and remain in the Middle East forever to assure the hegemony of its favorites. Have the generals taking us into Syria told the president how and when, if ever, they plan to get us out? COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books and are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of His latest book, published May 9, is

Ex-Muslim Catholics to Pope Francis: “Naiveté in the face of Islam is suicidal and very dangerous” “Many ex-Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, are even leaving the Church, disgusted by her cowardice, wounded by equivocal gestures, confused by the lack of evangelization, scandalized by the praise given to Islam.” Yes, and not just ex-Muslims. It has become a superdogma in the Catholic Church: if you don’t believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, you will be ruthlessly harassed and silenced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the hierarchy elsewhere as well. The bishops of the Catholic Church are much more concerned that you believe that Islam is a religion of peace than that you believe in, say, the Nicene Creed. And the Pope is almost certain to ignore this heartfelt appeal, as he has ignored others who have respectfully questioned his departures from Catholic teaching. I have yet to meet a Catholic prelate who believes that the requirement to treat all charitably applies to those who hold opinions that have been deemed unacceptable. “Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) “Islamic Converts Ask Pope in Open Letter To Change His Teaching on Islam,” by Steve Skojec, OnePeterFive.com, January 11, 2018: A new, open letter to the pope is making the rounds on the Internet, and it has gathered over 2,600 signatures so far. “Most Holy Father,” it begins, “‬Many of us ‬have tried to contact you, ‬on many occasions ‬and for several years, ‬and we have never received the slightest acknowledgement of our letters or requests for meetings.” The letter is not from the dubia cardinals, or from the more than 800,000 signers of the 2015 Filial Appeal, or from the signatories of the Filial Correction, but from a group of Islamic converts to Catholicism, who want Francis to answer a simple question: why did they literally risk their lives to become Catholic if Islam is “a good religion in itself” as the pope “seems to teach”? It’s a question he refuses to answer, despite endless platitudes of how important it is to be close to the marginalized and to accompany those on the peripheries of the Church. The signers, however, are not dissuaded in their pursuit of a paternal answer: You do not like to beat around the bush, and neither do we, so allow us to say frankly that we do not understand your teaching about Islam, as we read in paragraphs 252 and 253 of Evangelii Gaudium, because it does not account for the fact that Islam came AFTER Christ, and so is, and can only be, an Antichrist (see 1 Jn 2.22), and one of the most dangerous because it presents itself as the fulfillment of Revelation (of which Jesus would have been only a prophet). If Islam is a good religion in itself, as you seem to teach, why did we become Catholic? Do not your words question the soundness of the choice we made at the risk of our lives? Islam prescribes death for apostates (Quran 4.89, 8.7-11), do you know? How is it possible to compare Islamic violence with so-called Christian violence? “What is the relationship between Christ and Satan? What union is there between light and darkness? What association between the faithful and the unfaithful?” (2 Cor 6: 14-17)In accordance with His teaching (Lk 14:26), we preferred Him, the Christ, to our own life. Are we not in a good position to talk to you about Islam? The letter makes short work of the notion that Islam and Christianity can ever be compatible, or that Islam can serve as a path to salvation: In fact, as long as Islam wants us to be its enemy, we are, and all our protestations of friendship cannot change anything. As a proper Antichrist, Islam exists only as an enemy of all: “Between us and you there is enmity and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone!” (Qur’an 60.4) For the Qur’an, Christians “are only impurity” (Quran 9.28),” “the worst of Creation” (Qur’an 98.6), all condemned to Hell (Qur’an 4.48), so Allah must exterminate them (Quran 9.30). We must not be deceived by the Quranic verses deemed tolerant, because they have all been repealed by the verse of the Sword (Quran 9.5). Where the Gospel proclaims the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the salvation of all, and the fulfillment of the Covenant initiated with the Hebrews, Allah has nothing to offer but war and murder of the “infidels” in exchange for his paradise: “They fight on the way of Allah, they kill and are killed.” (Quran 9:11) We do not confuse Islam with Muslims, but if for you “dialogue” means the voice of peace, for Islam it’s only another way to make war. Also, as it was in the face of Nazism and communism, naiveté in the face of Islam is suicidal and very dangerous. How can you speak of peace and endorse Islam, as you seem to do: “To wring from our hearts the disease that plagues our lives (…) Let those who are Christians do it with the Bible and those who are Muslims do it with the Quran. “(Rome, January 20, 2014)? That the Pope seems to propose the Quran as a way of salvation, is that not cause for worry? Should we return to Islam? The authors say that Islam can be no ally in the battle “against the powers that want to dominate and enslave the world” because “they share the same totalitarian logic based on the rejection of the kingship of Christ (Lk 4.7).” They contest the idea that speaking in an “Islamophilic tone” will help those Christians who are suffering persecution in Muslim countries, professing that “apart from the fact that Jesus has never indicated any other way than that of the Cross, so that we must find our joy therein and not flee with all the damned, we do not doubt that only the proclamation of the Truth brings with it not only salvation, but freedom as well (John 8.32).” The letter also contrasts the stance of Islamic countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia who “do not welcome any refugee” while Pope Francis preaches the welcoming of migrants regardless of the fact that they are Muslims, something forbidden by Apostolic command: “If anyone comes to you but refuses this Gospel, do not receive him among you nor greet him. Whoever greets him participates in his evil works.” (2 John 1.10-11); “If anyone preaches to you a different Gospel, let him be accursed!” (Galatians 1.8-9) The signatories go on to give voice to the utter scandal of the pope’s failure to carry out his evangelical mission as the Vicar of Christ to call home the members of the Islamic faith: The pro-Islam speech of Your Holiness leads us to deplore the fact that Muslims are not invited to leave Islam, and that many ex-Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, are even leaving the Church, disgusted by her cowardice, wounded by equivocal gestures, confused by the lack of evangelization, scandalized by the praise given to Islam … Thus ignorant souls are misled… Taking the matter further, they warn, too, of the physical danger the pope’s disposition toward Islam invites, saying that it has resulted in Christians not preparing for a confrontation with Islam, to which St. John Paul II has called them (Ecclesia in Europa, No. 57). We are under the impression that you do not take your brother Bishop Nona Amel, Chaldean-Catholic Archbishop of Mosul in exile, seriously, when he tells us: “Our present sufferings are the prelude to those that you, Europeans and Western Christians, will suffer in the near future. I have lost my diocese. The headquarters of my archdiocese and my apostolate have been occupied by radical Islamists who want us to convert or die. (…) You are welcoming into your country an ever increasing number of Muslims. You are in danger as well. You must make strong and courageous decisions (…). You think that all men are equal, but Islam does not say that all men are equal. (…) If you do not understand this very quickly, you will become the victims of the enemy that you have invited into your home.” (August 9, 2014) “. This is a matter of life and death, and any complacency towards Islam is treasonous. We do not wish the West to continue with Islamization, nor that your actions contribute to it. Where then would we go to seek refuge? The signatories plea is that the pope will “quickly convene a synod on the dangers of Islam.”

DRC: Fresh Ebola outbreak kills two in Equateur Province The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday that it was taking steps to help deal with a new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo's rural northwest, after two cases of the deadly virus were confirmed in the market town of Bikoro. Congo's Health Ministry said two of the five samples it sent to the National Institute of Biological Research in Kinshasa, came back positive for the disease. The samples were gathered after health officials in Equateur Province notified Kinshasa on May 3 of about 21 cases of a hemorrhagic fever in the Ikoko Impenge area, including 17 deaths, according to WHO and Congo's government. What is Ebola? Rare but deadly, the viral disease is most commonly affecting primates and humans. Initial symptoms can include fever, headache, joint and muscle aches, weakness, diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach pain lack of appetite and in some cases internal and external bleeding, according to WHO. Where did it originate from? Ebola virus disease (EVD) was first discovered in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreaks. One in what is now Nzara in South Sudan. The other outbreak in Yambuku in Zaire in what is now DR Congo. The latter occurred in a village near the Ebola River, from which the disease takes its name. Why is it so dangerous? The average Ebola fatality rate is about 50 percent. But the rates have varied from 25 percent to 90 percent in recent outbreaks. There is as of yet no proven cure available for Ebola, though some vaccines are being tested. Some people who have recovered from Ebola have developed long-term complications, such as joint and vision problems. It is not known why some people recover from Ebola while most succumb to the disease. Why does it keep coming back? The disease infects humans through close contact with infected animals, including chimpanzees, fruit bats and forest antelope. In Africa where most outbreaks happen, particular species of fruit bats are considered natural hosts for the Ebola virus. Infected bats are believed to transmit the disease to humans, or indirectly through other animals that are hunted for their meat. The family of the first victim of the 2014 outbreak, a two-year-old child, hunted bats and it is believed bushmeat was the origin of the outbreak. An estimated five million tonnes of bushmeat is consumed on the continent every year, according to the Centre for International Forestry Research. The virus then spreads between humans by direct contact with infected blood, bodily fluids or organs, or indirectly through contact with contaminated environments. Even funerals of Ebola victims can be a risk, if mourners have direct contact with the body of the deceased.

Lawmaker makes shocking claim about the Vegas massacre (video) Personal Liberty Poll Exercise your right to vote. Americans still have no idea what happened in Las Vegas in October. And one lawmaker is hinting that the government is covering up a big story about terrorism. During an appearance with Tucker Carlson on Fox, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said he’s seen credible evidence that ISIS was involved in the devastating Las Vegas shooting. ISIS terrorists, he said, infiltrated the U.S. via the southern border prior to the attack blamed on alleged lone gunman Stephen Paddock. “Recently I have been made aware of what I believe to be credible evidence, credible information regarding potential terrorist infiltration through the southern border regarding this incident,” Perry said. Perry added that ISIS warnings of a forthcoming attack on Las Vegas prior to the shooting make a terror link even more likely. “Well, they could be–lets face it, ISIS twice before the attack, ISIS warned the United States that they would attack Las Vegas in June and August after the attack claimed responsibility four times. Meanwhile, the local law enforcement investigative services are telling us there is no terrorist connection–lone gunman, again, something is not adding up,” Perry replied. An incredulous Carlson asked fellow guest Catherine Lombardo, a lawyer representing families affected by the tragedy, about the law enforcement investigation into the shooting. “The FBI and the Las Vegas metro police department have been conducting the investigation, ” she said. “We’ve seen no evidence of a terrorist attack, and I will ask with all due respect, congressman, unless have you specific evidence to back that up, it seems a bit irresponsible to make that allegation so, if you do, or make that assertion, if do you have any evidence of that, I’m asking you right now to share it with us and tell us what that is. My clients… victims, all 22,000 people have been waiting and waiting and waiting for evidence.” Perry noted that all Americans are still lacking all the evidence. “We’ve all been waiting, and I’m waiting, too. Like I said, nothing adds up, but I’m just telling you, I have received what I feel to be and believe to be credible evidence of a possible terrorist nexus, and we’re gonna have to wait… until the situation develops,” he said. The lawmaker said he wants the nation’s counterterror agencies involved in the investigation. “If ISIS warns about an attack and then an attack occurs and claims responsibility after the fact, it seems to me that at a minimum, they should have some portion of the investigation to clearly debunk that claim and, yet, it hasn’t happened,” he said.

Hillary Cracks Racist Joke After Mixing Up Cory Booker & Eric Holder: "They All Look The Same" So, you were actually asking yourself who the real people are who engage in identity politics and viewing people with different skin colors or ethnic backgrounds as inferior people? Well, this didn't come from President Donald Trump. Nope, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mixed up Senator Cory Booker and former Attorney General Eric Holder and blew it off with a joke saying, "They all look the same." Hillary Clinton sat down with Recode’s Kara Swisher over the weekend to talk propaganda against her conservative political opponents and how mean, nasty and evil they have been in the past few months. “What’s often called political correctness is politeness,” Clinton said. “It’s not being rude and insulting to people. It’s respecting the diversity that we have in our society." take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. “The Democratic Party is a much more diverse political party, attracting people who are African-American, Latino, LGBT, whatever the reason why people feel more comfortable where they are taken in, where they are included as part of a political movement or party” she added. “And I don’t think it’s politically correct to say we value that," she concluded. "And I don’t want to go around insulting people. I don’t want to paint with a broad brush every immigrant is this, every African-American is that, every, you know, other person with different religious beliefs or whatever – that’s childish.” Right, except she does just that and so do many in her party. However, in less than a minute she would insult both Booker and Holder, and every person with dark skin on the planet. Swisher asked her, "What do you think of Cory Booker… saying ‘kick them in the shins,’ essentially?" Of course, Swisher meant Eric Holder and Clinton corrected her, adding, “Yeah, I know they all look alike." What was even more amazing is that the audience laughed hysterically. Can you imagine if a conservative person uttered those comments? There would be a near lynching of them on the spot and surely for days to come. They might lose their livelihood and get death threats, but not "Crooked" Hillary. Clearly, she was speaking of all black people and not being specific to Holder or Booker as they look nothing alike. The only thing the two of them have in common is that they are criminals and have black skin. Clinton's comments were clearly racist, and those fawning over her during the interview laughed it up right along with her. Here, take a look! Disgusting that she continues to move and speak freely in this country with no justice being brought to bear on her for her many crimes, something we were promised from then-candidate Trump.

The Death Penalty, Instituted by God Himself (The Biblical Basis for Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment) TO ARGUE AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY is to contend with constituted reality. Ever since Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin, every living creature is subject to it. Every one of us is born on Death Row and lives out his allotted lifespan in its shadow without hope of reprieve. God made that clear when He told Adam that “in what day soever” he preferred his own will above his Creator’s, “thou shalt die the death,” condemning him sooner or later to “return to the earth out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return” (Gen. 3:19). In other words, there has always been a death penalty. God instituted it, and He was the first to impose it, embedding it in the very fabric of natural law. When Cain took it upon himself to inflict death on his brother Abel “in the field,” he soon learned that God furthermore reserved the exercise of this right to himself alone. Cain is told, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth,” and God curses him for his presumption by dooming him to homelessness and unproductive labor. When Cain complains that being a “vagabond . . . on the earth, every one therefore that findeth me, shall kill me,” God laid down that “whoever shall kill Cain shall be punished sevenfold,” setting a mysterious identifying mark on him to protect him from the vengeance of others. The Fifth Commandment later delivered to Moses, “Thou shalt not kill,” therefore dates from adamic times, when it operated as God’s exclusive prerogative, allowing no exceptions. Although men certainly continued to kill one another in a society which in fact became so wicked "that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times," they did so as murderers, outside God's law without legal right. Only after the Flood, when Noah and his sons set about repopulating the earth, did God delegate to human society His exclusive authority to impose the death penalty for just cause. He told Noah, “For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.” In other words, from that point in history lawful killing in atonement for taking the life of another is sanctioned by God. After the great theophany on Sinai, Moses codified the death penalty as part of the old law of talion, which in strict justice required “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:21). The supreme penalty was imposed not only for murder, but for many other serious offenses: for adultery, rape, sodomy, kidnapping, for striking or cursing parents, for sacrificing a child to Moloch. Idolatry, fortune-telling, acting as a medium, preaching apostasy or attempting in any way to entice another from the faith were also punishable by death, as was blasphemy, an offense considered so heinous that the Law specified, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger” (Lev. 24:16). Death was also decreed for refusing to accept the decision of the priests in a legal case, and an incorrigible son could be put to death on the testimony of his parents before the proper court. A priest’s daughter convicted of fornication was burned to death (Lev. 21:9), but usually the sentence was carried out by stoning, in which the whole community took part as evidence that no private parties were authorized to execute a criminal, but only society as a whole, after due judgment. Everyone was furthermore responsible for the atonement due to God for a crime whose evil consequences would otherwise have affected them all: “The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people; that thou mayest take away the evil out of the midst of thee” (Deut. 17:7). The Law read, “Defile not the land of your habitation which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another” (Num. 35:33). In order to emphasize the fact that it is God, and not man, who is always the principal party to be avenged, provision was made for a heifer to be killed as propitiation in the case of an unsolved murder whose perpetrator could not be found (Deut. 20:1-9). After all, it is not the injury to relatives or any other human consideration that makes homicide the serious sin that it is, but as God Himself pointed out to Noah, it is the fact that “man was made to the image of God” that makes an assault on him tantamount to an assault on God. It is therefore to God, and not to His creatures that reparation is primarily due. This point was brought out by Pope Pius XII in an address to Italian Catholic jurists on May 12, 1954, when he said: A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium . . . . A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty . . . . In the metaphysical order, penalty is a consequence of dependence on the supreme will, dependence which exists in the deepest recesses of created being. If it is ever necessary to hold back the revolt of the free being and re-establish the violated law, it is when that is required by the supreme Judge and supreme Justice. Today the death penalty is imposed ever more rarely, even in cases of proven premeditated murder. Despite the fact that it was instituted by God Himself, growing numbers of Catholics actually consider it immoral. John Paul II, stopping just short of declaring it wrong in principle, has declared that it should be imposed very seldom, if ever. But doesn’t admitting the penalty in principle demand that it be put into practice? In the U.S., following the lead of the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago and like minded prelates won to the new man-centered conciliar religion, the faithful are beginning to equate abortion, nuclear war and capital punishment as common “threats to the sacredness of human life” without any reference whatever to the innocence or guilt involved. If they are aware that the Church has upheld from Apostolic times the right to use force in self-defense, to kill in a just war and to inflict the death penalty on those duly judged guilty of serious crime, they now apparently subscribe to the notion propagated by Dei Verbum at the Second Vatican Council that the unchanging Catholic “tradition which comes from the Apostles” actually “develops in the Church” and keeps pace with changing times (II,8). The circumstances pertaining to our day would therefore dictate a reassessment of the death penalty, which the new man-centered theology insists on viewing almost exclusively from the standpoint of the criminal and human society rather than from God’s. At the same time, there is more and more discussion about society’s responsibility for having produced criminals in the first place, together with our moral obligation to rehabilitate them rather than to wreak what is now considered a form of fruitless, guilty “vengeance” on them. The idea that man is by nature good and perfectible is allowed to override all documented evidence that hardened criminals are in fact almost impossible to rehabilitate and that those handed life sentences rarely repent of their wrongdoing. According to one widely held opinion, the death penalty has proved to be no effective deterrent to crime in any case, and should be discarded as impractical. What proof of this can possibly be offered? How can we know? Deterrence from evil is not the primary purpose of meting out punishment in any case, yet Scripture attests to deterrence as an important side effect of any penalty. To a man proven to have given false witness against another, Deuteronomy laid down, “They shall render to him as he meant to do to his brother. . . that others hearing may fear and may not dare to do such things. Thou shalt not pity him, but shalt require life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut. 19:19-21). And the Preacher notes that when “sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear” (Eccles. 8:11). To illustrate how shallow Catholic thinking on the death penalty has become and how far it has deviated from the age-old doctrine of the Church, a priest of a presumably traditional Catholic Fraternity writes in answer to a query addressed to him on the subject by saying: The death penalty is based on the common teachings of theologians, but is not itself a declared dogma. Therefore it is not permissible to call those who hold it is, immoral heretics. To approach this as a dogmatic teaching is imprudent. Those who argue for its abolition do not necessarily put society in danger considering possibilities of penal systems. Those, however, who maintain its continued use often see it more as a tool for revenge. Please consider that in anger and tragedy, the desire for revenge usually overrides reason and an honest answering of the question “must this person’s life be taken to preserve society?” The desire for swift and firm convictions has sent many to death who never deserved such a punishment, nor was such a punishment truly necessary for the safety of society. I do not believe the death penalty is necessary in 90 percent of the cases where it is applied. Thus to call for a moratorium . . . is not unjust or incorrect. That the death penalty can become an instrument of revenge, and that unjust sentences are sometimes handed down can be dismissed as irrelevant to the argument. Given the fallen human condition, such injustices are bound to occur in any judicial system, and everyone agrees that they should be ruthlessly remedied. What is not irrelevant is that the author of the letter falls headlong into the very error Pius XII warns against. Considering the physical safety of society as the only real reason for executing a criminal, he feels the death penalty can now be safely discarded, allegedly on the grounds that we now have at our disposal many better ways of protecting people from him. That the penalty is due primarily as expiation to God in justice, and only secondarily to man has been lost sight of altogether. The supernatural dimension of the punishment as an agent for the spiritual good of both society and the criminal is furthermore not only not addressed, but treated as non-existent. This first appeared in The Remnant nearly 20 years ago. Isn't it time to subscribe to the 'paper of record' for the traditional Catholic counterrevolution? The source of this kind of materialistic thinking in the Church is not hard to trace. According to statistics published in the National Review for September 16, 1983, out of 9,140 murders committed in the U.S. in 1960 just before the Council, 56 persons were executed. In 1965, the year the Council closed, although the tally of murders had risen to 9,850, only 7 were executed. In the decade from 1967 to 1977 a moratorium was declared during which not one single execution took place. At its close the number of murders had more than doubled, and in any six month period, more Americans were being murdered than those executed during the whole course of the century. At this point, although the murder rate has continued to rise dramatically, executions continue to be rare. Many nations, notably England, France, Sweden, South Africa and our neighbors Canada and Mexico, have abolished the death penalty altogether. Whether or not the U. S. will follow suit and outlaw it nationally still remains to be seen. What leaps to the eye from the mounting statistics is that decline in the exercise of the death penalty has kept close pace with decline in the Faith and church attendance. It is sober fact that death sentences were liberally handed out in the heyday of Christendom, when the Faith was strong and governments legislated with an eye to the spiritual welfare of citizens whose sights were primarily on future bliss in heaven. In modern times, which find the Church strictly separated from the state on principle and denied any active part in civil government, secularism has become the state religion, directing legislation exclusively to temporal objectives. It is only to be expected that materialists—for whom the immortal soul does not exist and who believe that this present life of the senses on earth is the only one man has—should be reluctant to punish anyone by killing him. In their eyes this means total extinction, a penalty certainly in excess of any transgression of which he may be guilty. Not even God completely obliterates a human existence, not even for the most odious sins, for He made the human soul immortal and hell eternal. (It might be argued, however, that if the criminal is thought to have to have totally terminated his victim, why not do the same to him?) In the days of Christendom, condemned criminals were given every opportunity to make their peace with God, in many cases the date of execution being delayed in order to accomplish this purpose. Justice was served, but not at the expense of charity, and there was no question of taking vengeance on the culprit. Nor was the idea of “rehabilitation” with possible re-entry into society ever entertained where crimes deserving death were concerned. It has been noted by prison chaplains in our century that swift execution in most cases leads to admission of guilt and sincere repentance, whereas those who receive life sentences or suffer long delays are likely to maintain their innocence in hopes of a parole and eventually die in their sins. As it is, the death penalty as administered by society must be viewed against the backdrop of divine revelation if it is to make any real sense. When Catholic society puts a man to death, it terminates only his temporal life on earth, catapulting him into eternity for his final judgment before almighty God. Suffering the penalty not only allows the criminal to render expiation to God and to society, but if accepted in Christ’s grace with due repentance, it preserves his soul from hell and eliminates much of his purgatory. If his contrition is perfect, it’s conceivable that he could go straight to heaven! In any case, neither he nor society is any longer burdened with the guilt of his wrongdoing. As Michel Martin pointed out in an article in Rome et d’Ailleurs for September-October 1983, “The truth is that the problem of the death penalty is insoluble except from a Christian point of view.” That it figured so prominently in Christian societies is due to the fact that, in the order of charity, atonement to God was sought above any atonement due to man, and the spiritual welfare of citizens above their physical well-being. Modern secularized society assumes that physical extinction is the worst thing that can happen to a human being, whereas the faith teaches that eternal damnation is incalculably worse. In the context of the faith, the importance of a man’s present short life on earth cannot be compared with his future endless existence in heaven. +++ As we have seen, the death penalty has a very long history. Dating from its institution by God in Eden to its delegation after the Flood to men who would wield it in God’s name, it has threaded its way without interruption through the fabric of human civilizations until these latter days. One might expect that after the Incarnation, when God became man and replaced the Old Testament’s law of talion based on strict justice with a new dispensation based on love and grace, the death penalty could be safely abolished as outmoded. Converts to the prevailing conciliar religion and its “New Pentecost” would in fact argue in this wise, perhaps citing the Council’s famous declaration in Gaudium et Spes that, “Thanks to the experience of past ages ...the nature of man himself is more clearly revealed and new roads to truth are opened,” and the world now has “a keener awareness of human dignity” ( 44, 73). Far from obliterating the death penalty, however, the Incarnation only laid bare its deepest significance, hidden from the beginning. As the new dispensation’s foremost theologian, St. Paul would declare, the old penalty remained very much in force: “Almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is still “appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb. 9: 22,27), but now with the possibility of eternal bliss in heaven. This possibility is owed, furthermore, to a death by one of the cruelest means ever devised, unjustly inflicted on one supremely innocent Man who was God, in a miscarriage of human justice beyond any the world could ever have imagined. When God set the death penalty in Eden He pronounced it on Himself, to be carried out in the fullness of time through the malicious free wills of his own creatures. The Cross which was its instrument is the very sign of Christianity, the only means of salvation. Not even from the Cross did Christ decry the death penalty, either for himself or for the two thieves crucified with Him. It would continue to be dealt out to men by other men on earth, with only one significant change: Henceforth it would be administered under the authority of the glorified man who is Christ the King, as part and parcel of that universal power “in heaven and on earth” which He received from His Father (Matt. 28:18) after His Resurrection. From that point on it is Christ who delegates the divine authority to punish by killing, and both Scripture and tradition testify that it is lawfully wielded by those to whom He entrusts the temporal sword in His Kingdom. As He told Pontius Pilate at the time of His trial, “Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above” (John 19:10). Pope Leo XIII re-affirmed this truth in Sapientiae Christianae in 1890, when he declared that “true and legitimate authority is devoid of sanction unless it proceed from God the supreme Ruler and Lord of all. The Almighty alone can commit power to a man over his fellow men.” Even though they may be unaware of the true source of their power, it is always the duty of legitimate authorities to ensure public order by punishing evil-doers, by death if appropriate. As St. Paul said: Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves eternal damnation. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God: and avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil (Rom. 13:2-4). Sufficient of itself to expiate every sin which the children of Adam could ever commit, the execution of the Man-God nevertheless did not abolish the penalty of death. It continues to be the wages of sin (Rom 6:23), and men must still submit to it sooner or later by forfeiting their lives, either willingly or unwillingly. A share in making restitution for sin was thus accorded to all of us, for although our Lord’s ignominious death removed from us the guilt of the original transgression through Baptism, it did not remove its effects. These were allowed to remain as restraints on men who, now raised to a new supernatural existence, were capable of committing incalculably more grievous sins than heretofore. As for the death penalty, it remains the inescapable consequence of our fallen nature and is of the highest utility in deterring us from following our hereditary inclination to evil. What Christ did was to sanctify the death penalty, transforming it into a sacrament of life for those who believe. As St. Paul declared, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?. . . For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15: 54-55; 21-22). The first of that numberless host of Christian martyrs who would be put to death by constituted authority for testifying to the truth, Christ commanded His disciples to “Follow me!” Inviting all to Calvary to “suffer under Pontius Pilate” with Him, He granted a meritorious share in accomplishing “the mystery which hath been hidden for ages and generations, but is now made manifest to his saints” to all who, like St. Paul, would “now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things which are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for his body which is the church. . .” (Col. 1:26, 24). Criminals put to death undergo a penalty no different from the one exacted from the most innocent amongst us. As with everyone else the moment of death ushers them either into heaven, hell or purgatory. The most that can be said is that their lives here on earth are shortened, and they must settle their accounts sooner than expected. This could be a great mercy for them as well as for society, both in terms of expiation and protection from any future crimes they might have perpetrated. The death penalty, from the first one imposed on man by God in the beginning in Eden, to the one imposed on God by man on that Good Friday in Jerusalem, on down to those still being imposed today, transcends human legislation. By divine decree it will perdure until the end of time, when “the former things are passed away.” Only then “death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more,” and not one minute sooner. (Apo. 21:4).

Guardian ups its vilification of Julian Assange It is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Reporter Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it. Faced with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed back its initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts. Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so, to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”. The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race. The Guardian’s latest story provides a supposedly stronger foundation for an existing narrative: that Assange and Wikileaks knowingly published emails hacked by Russia from the Democratic party’s servers. In truth, there is no public evidence that the emails were hacked, or that Russia was involved. Central actors have suggested instead that the emails were leaked from within the Democratic party. Nonetheless, this unverified allegation has been aggressively exploited by the Democratic leadership because it shifts attention away both from its failure to mount an effective electoral challenge to Trump and from the damaging contents of the emails. These show that party bureaucrats sought to rig the primaries to make sure Clinton’s challenger for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, lost. To underscore the intended effect of the Guardian’s new claims, Harding even throws in a casual and unsubstantiated reference to “Russians” joining Manafort in supposedly meeting Assange. Manafort has denied the Guardian’s claims, while Assange has threatened to sue the Guardian for libel. ‘Responsible for Trump’ The emotional impact of the Guardian story is to suggest that Assange is responsible for four years or more of Trump rule. But more significantly, it bolsters the otherwise risible claim that Assange is not a publisher – and thereby entitled to the protections of a free press, as enjoyed by the Guardian or the New York Times – but the head of an organisation engaged in espionage for a foreign power. The intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the Wikileaks organisation, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals. That, in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old, corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far greater transparency. The Guardian story will prepare public opinion for the moment when Ecuador’s rightwing government under President Lenin Moreno forces Assange out of the embassy, having already withdrawn most of his rights to use digital media. It will soften opposition when the UK moves to arrest Assange on self-serving bail violation charges and extradites him to the US. And it will pave the way for the US legal system to lock Assange up for a very long time. For the best part of a decade, any claims by Assange’s supporters that avoiding this fate was the reason Assange originally sought asylum in the embassy was ridiculed by corporate journalists, not least at the Guardian. Even when a United Nations panel of experts in international law ruled in 2016 that Assange was being arbitrarily – and unlawfully – detained by the UK, Guardian writers led efforts to discredit the UN report. See here and here. Now Assange and his supporters have been proved right once again. An administrative error this month revealed that the US justice department had secretly filed criminal charges against Assange. Heavy surveillance The problem for the Guardian, which should have been obvious to its editors from the outset, is that any visits by Manafort would be easily verifiable without relying on unnamed “sources”. Glenn Greenwald is far from alone in noting that London is possibly the most surveilled city in the world, with CCTV cameras everywhere. The environs of the Ecuadorian embassy are monitored especially heavily, with continuous filming by the UK and Ecuadorian authorities and most likely by the US and other actors with an interest in Assange’s fate. The idea that Manafort or “Russians” could have wandered into the embassy to meet Assange even once without their trail, entry and meeting being intimately scrutinised and recorded is simply preposterous. According to Greenwald: “If Paul Manafort … visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.” Former British ambassador Craig Murray also points out the extensive security checks insisted on by the embassy to which any visitor to Assange must submit. Any visits by Manafort would have been logged. In fact, the Guardian obtained the embassy’s logs in May, and has never made any mention of either Manafort or “Russians” being identified in them. It did not refer to the logs in its latest story. Murray: The problem with this latest fabrication is that [Ecuador’s President] Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs … What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”. No fact-checking It is worth noting it should be vitally important for a serious publication like the Guardian to ensure its claims are unassailably true – both because Assange’s personal fate rests on their veracity, and because, even more importantly, a fundamental right, the freedom of the press, is at stake. Given this, one would have expected the Guardian’s editors to have insisted on the most stringent checks imaginable before going to press with Harding’s story. At a very minimum, they should have sought out a response from Assange and Manafort before publication. Neither precaution was taken. I worked for the Guardian for a number of years, and know well the layers of checks that any highly sensitive story has to go through before publication. In that lengthy process, a variety of commissioning editors, lawyers, backbench editors and the editor herself, Kath Viner, would normally insist on cuts to anything that could not be rigorously defended and corroborated. And yet this piece seems to have been casually waved through, given a green light even though its profound shortcomings were evident to a range of well-placed analysts and journalists from the outset. That at the very least hints that the Guardian thought they had “insurance” on this story. And the only people who could have promised that kind of insurance are the security and intelligence services – presumably of Britain, the United States and / or Ecuador. It appears the Guardian has simply taken this story, provided by spooks, at face value. Even if it later turns out that Manafort did visit Assange, the Guardian clearly had no compelling evidence for its claims when it published them. That is profoundly irresponsible journalism – fake news – that should be of the gravest concern to readers. A pattern, not an aberration Despite all this, even analysts critical of the Guardian’s behaviour have shown a glaring failure to understand that its latest coverage represents not an aberration by the paper but decisively fits with a pattern. Glenn Greenwald, who once had an influential column in the Guardian until an apparent, though unacknowledged, falling out with his employer over the Edward Snowden revelations, wrote a series of baffling observations about the Guardian’s latest story. First, he suggested it was simply evidence of the Guardian’s long-standing (and well-documented) hostility towards Assange. “The Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him.” It was also apparently evidence of the paper’s clickbait tendencies: “They [Guardian editors] knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false.” And finally, in a bizarre tweet, Greenwald opined, “I hope the story [maligning Assange] turns out true” – apparently because maintenance of the Guardian’s reputation is more important than Assange’s fate and the right of journalists to dig up embarrassing secrets without fear of being imprisoned. I think the Guardian is an important paper with great journalists. I hope the story turns out true. But the skepticism over this story is very widespread, including among Assange's most devoted haters, because it's so sketchy. If Manafort went there, there's video. Let's see it. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 28, 2018 Deeper malaise What this misses is that the Guardian’s attacks on Assange are not exceptional or motivated solely by personal animosity. They are entirely predictable and systematic. Rather than being the reason for the Guardian violating basic journalistic standards and ethics, the paper’s hatred of Assange is a symptom of a deeper malaise in the Guardian and the wider corporate media. Even aside from its decade-long campaign against Assange, the Guardian is far from “solid and reliable”, as Greenwald claims. It has been at the forefront of the relentless, and unhinged, attacks on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for prioritising the rights of Palestinians over Israel’s right to continue its belligerent occupation. Over the past three years, the Guardian has injected credibility into the Israel lobby’s desperate efforts to tar Corbyn as an anti-semite. See here, here and here. Similarly, the Guardian worked tirelessly to promote Clinton and undermine Sanders in the 2016 Democratic nomination process – another reason the paper has been so assiduous in promoting the idea that Assange, aided by Russia, was determined to promote Trump over Clinton for the presidency. The Guardian’s coverage of Latin America, especially of populist leftwing governments that have rebelled against traditional and oppressive US hegemony in the region, has long grated with analysts and experts. Its especial venom has been reserved for leftwing figures like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, democratically elected but official enemies of the US, rather than the region’s rightwing authoritarians beloved of Washington. The Guardian has been vocal in the so-called “fake news” hysteria, decrying the influence of social media, the only place where leftwing dissidents have managed to find a small foothold to promote their politics and counter the corporate media narrative. The Guardian has painted social media chiefly as a platform overrun by Russian trolls, arguing that this should justify ever-tighter restrictions that have so far curbed critical voices of the dissident left more than the right. Heroes of the neoliberal order Equally, the Guardian has made clear who its true heroes are. Certainly not Corbyn or Assange, who threaten to disrupt the entrenched neoliberal order that is hurtling us towards climate breakdown and economic collapse. Its pages, however, are readily available to the latest effort to prop up the status quo from Tony Blair, the man who led Britain, on false pretences, into the largest crime against humanity in living memory – the attack on Iraq. That “humanitarian intervention” cost the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created a vacuum that destabilised much of the Middle East, sucked in Islamic jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, and contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe that has fuelled the resurgence of the far-right. None of that is discussed in the Guardian or considered grounds for disqualifying Blair as an arbiter of what is good for Britain and the world’s future. The Guardian also has an especial soft spot for blogger Elliot Higgins, who, aided by the Guardian, has shot to unlikely prominence as a self-styled “weapons expert”. Like Luke Harding, Higgins invariably seems ready to echo whatever the British and American security services need verifying “independently”. Higgins and his well-staffed website Bellingcat have taken on for themselves the role of arbiters of truth on many foreign affairs issues, taking a prominent role in advocating for narratives that promote US and NATO hegemony while demonising Russia, especially in highly contested arenas such as Syria. That clear partisanship should be no surprise, given that Higgins now enjoys an “academic” position at, and funding from, the Atlantic Council, a high-level, Washington-based think-tank founded to drum up support for NATO and justify its imperialist agenda. Improbably, the Guardian has adopted Higgins as the poster-boy for a supposed citizen journalism it has sought to undermine as “fake news” whenever it occurs on social media without the endorsement of state-backed organisations. The truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative. Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: whether they are a platform like Wikileaks promoting whistle-blowing against a corrupt western elite; or a politician like Jeremy Corbyn seeking to break apart the status quo on the rapacious financial industries or Israel-Palestine; or a radical leader like Hugo Chavez who threatened to overturn a damaging and exploitative US dominance of “America’s backyard”; or social media dissidents who have started to chip away at the elite-friendly narratives of corporate media, including the Guardian. The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do. UPDATE: Excellent background from investigative journalist Gareth Porter, published shortly before Harding’s story, explains why the Guardian’s hit-piece is so important for those who want Assange out of the embassy and behind bars. Read Porter’s article here. No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others, please consider hitting the donate button in the right-hand margin (computer) or below (phone).

Capitol Police “Accidentally” Gave Treasure Trove of Evidence To Muslim IT Spy's Defense Attorney Accidentally? Color me skeptical. The Democrats are criminal, treasonous and sleazy. They gave this jihadi unfettered access to national security secrets. He then transferred the data to Pakistan. And the most powerful Democrats continue to protect jihad-treason. The Democrat leadership collusion with Muslim spies is the biggest story of treason and espionage in the recent memory. As the scandal widens and worsens, the media goes to extraordinary lengths not to cover it. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Hellbent to destroy President Trump, they toil in Soviet fictions and titillating porn stories. House investigators found the House server was being used for nefarious purposes and the alleged Muslim spies were removing information and sending it for foreign actors. The aides named are Imran Awan, his wife Hina Alvi, his brothers Abid and Jamal, and his friend Rao Abbas, Pakistani-born aides. Now we hear the father of Muslim spy ring Imran Awan transferred a USB drive to a Pakistani senator and former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency. CAPITOL POLICE ACCIDENTALLY GAVE EVIDENCE TO HOUSE HACKING SUSPECT’S DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Luke Rosiak on May 24, 2018: The House IG said Democratic IT aides made unauthorized access to data, but prosecutors haven’t charged them Democrats appear to want to keep the case out of court; a trial could expose their reckless IT practices Capitol Police didn’t make arrests despite numerous red flags and then ‘inadvertently’ gave evidence to defense attorneys that was supposed to go to prosecutors Prosecutors appear to be sharing info with someone on Capitol Hill who is leaking details to the hacking suspect’s lawyer The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source. And hours after The Daily Caller News Foundation asked prosecutors about the disclosure, Awan’s lawyer said he had learned of the forthcoming story from a source on Capitol Hill. TheDCNF had not told anyone other than prosecutors about it. “The cop came to [Awan’s defense attorney] Chris Gowen’s office with a stack of papers … Then he came back and said, ‘I thought you guys were the other party.’ He was very, very angry. But Gowen made copies,” the source, who’s familiar with The Awans, told TheDCNF. Awan, three relatives and a friend ran IT for one in five House Democrats and could read all their emails and files until they were banned on Feb. 2, 2017, for “numerous violations of House security policies.” The violations alleged by the House Office of Inspector General include logging into the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times without authorization. This allegedly occurred during the same period in 2016 the DNC was hacked. Prosecutor Michael Marando alluded to the disclosure of evidence in court on Oct. 6, 2017. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Don Lemon Is Lying... Again: Biggest Threat Isn't "White Men" - The FBI's Most Wanted Domestic Terrorists Are These People “So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on — they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that?” –Don Lemon Just to illustrate the absurdity of Don Lemon’s comments, I thought it would be fun to go look at the current list of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists. Below is the list of “domestic” terrorists and, regardless of the list/filter you choose, you won’t find many “white men”. Interestingly enough, it looks like the WOMEN in this country are currently responsible for more terrorism than WHITE MEN. Mr. Lemon, you are very wrong. Below are the 14 profiles currently listed as the “Most Wanted Domestic Terrorists” take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. 5 women. 3 Hispanic men. 3 black men (one with an Arabic/possibly Islamic surname), and 3 white guys. 14 total and only 3 white men? Is Don Lemon colorblind? Is the FBI racist (and maybe a bit sexist)? Nah, it’s just CNN doing what CNN does… spewing more fake news for your viewing pleasure. Go to https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorism and see for yourself. No matter which category you choose, you won’t be finding many white men. Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison

Trump expresses sympathy for Reality Winner, whose mom asks for pardon ATLANTA — The record-setting prison sentence given to Reality Winner has caught the attention of President Donald Trump, who used it to take another dig at Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In an early Friday post on Twitter, Trump wrote that her sentence of 63 months in federal prison was unfair and accused Sessions of having a double standard. “Gee, this is ‘small potatoes’ compared to what Hillary Clinton did!” he tweeted about Winner, a former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a document about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. “So unfair Jeff, Double Standard.” The tweet drew no immediate response from Sessions. But Winner’s mother had a blunt reply: “Please pardon my daughter Reality Winner.” The Twitter exchange marks a bizarre twist in the story of the 26-year-old former U.S. Air Force linguist, who on Thursday apologized to a federal judge and said she takes “full responsibility for my actions.” Before her arrest, Winner called Trump an “orange fascist” on Twitter. Her disillusionment about his election was part of her reason for leaving the Air Force, her mother told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an interview last year. “Something she said, she didn’t like her new boss,” Billie Winner-Davis said in June 2017. “She was not going to serve in his military.” Meanwhile, Trump continued pounding Sessions in other tweets, saying he needed to investigate “deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr…the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems — and so much more.” — Johnny Edwards The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ——— ©2018 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, Ga.), Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Cardinal Müller: Blessing homosexual couples would be an ‘atrocity’ NewsCatholic Church BRATISLAVA, Slovakia, February 13, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Former Vatican doctrine chief Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has decried the Church's current adaptation to the modern world and rejected the idea of blessing homosexual couples. The remarks, made in a February 6 talk in Slovakia, indirectly respond to new initiatives coming from Germany, especially from Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode. Cardinal Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke at a conference on John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor at the Comenius University in Bratislava, organized by the Slovakian Bishops' Conference. In remarks after his address, reported by the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, the cardinal made it clear what he thinks about the recently presented German idea of blessing homosexual unions, even if only in individual cases: “If a priest blesses a homosexual couple, then this is an atrocity at a holy site, namely, to approve of something that God does not approve of.” According to the Tagespost report, Cardinal Müller said in his address that he regrets the separation of the Church's doctrinal and moral teaching and called Christianity a “theocentric humanism.” He said the “submissive change of the Church into a NGO for the embetterment of the this-worldly life conditions” is a “suicidal modernization” that denies mankind the Truth of God. In this context, the German cardinal also criticized Martin Luther's own denial of man's free will and his teaching about the total depravity of man that separates morality from the relationship with God. Morality, Müller explained, is rooted in Grace; that is why any teaching about “rules and exceptions” ignores the character of the ethics of the Covenant and of Grace. In the discussion following his talk, Cardinal Müller also responded to questions concerning Pope Francis' post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. The cardinal said that he is “not happy” about the fact that there are different interpretations of this papal text by some bishops' conferences. “In dogmatic questions, there cannot be a plurality,” he added. There is only one Magisterium, he said, and bishops' conferences can only decide about pastoral questions. Contradictory conceptions concerning the Sacraments, said the cardinal, lead into chaotic conditions. Thus, explained the cardinal, the Sacraments have to be celebrated the way Christ Himself willed it when he instituted them. The controversial eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia has to be understood “in an orthodox way,” namely that “he who lives in the state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion.” It is, in Müller's eyes, the pope's duty “to unite the Church, that is what the pope is there for.” This is what he, Müller, himself told the pope: when the bishops' conferences present different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, the Church enters “into a situation like the one before the Reformation.” Archbishop Stanislav Zvolensy, President of the Slovakian Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Bratislava, told Die Tagespost that Veritatis Splendor is not only still valid, but shows timeless truths. Promulgated 25 years ago, the encyclical rejects authoritatively the theory of situation ethics, a theory that seems to be getting again much attention in our time, for example by theologians such as Professor Maurizio Chiodi. Professor Livio Melina, the former President of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, was another speaker at the February 6 conference. He stressed that Amoris Laetitia has to be “read in the context of the magisterial instructions of the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which recalls the connection between conscience and truth, as well as the necessity of a well-formed conscience.” In returning to that encyclical, explained the Italian professor and theologian, Amoris Laetitia could be given a hermeneutic in light of a “continuity with the Magisterium of the Church.” He also said: “The Commandments are an expression of the Love of God for us. If we fulfill them, we are united with God.”

Kamala Harris & Elizabeth Warren Have Ethics Complaint Filed Against Them In Senate The faces of the criminal Democrat Party, at least two of them, have now had an ethics complaint filed against them in the US Senate, and rightly so. Senators Kamala Harris, who basically said that Judge Brett Kavanaugh was guilty because she believed Christine Blasey Ford's unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations against him, and Elizabeth Warren, also known as "Fauxahontas," are the two members of the Senate who will be investigated. Looks like when you are so gung ho to go after someone based on 36-year-old allegations in which there are no witnesses and no evidence, it will eventually come back to bite you. Both Harris and Warren stand accused of breaking fundraising rules by sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The Washington Times reports: A watchdog group filed a Senate ethics complaint Monday against Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — even before they cast their votes against him. While voting and then asking supporters to back that decision with cash is common, the watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), says asking for money ahead of time crosses the line into vote-buying. FACT asked the Senate ethics committee to probe fundraising emails sent by Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, and Ms. Harris, California Democrat. Ms. Warren’s email said she was demanding a delay on the judge’s confirmation vote and asked for donations for her 2018 election campaign, while Ms. Harris’s emails detailed several of her actions as a member of the Judiciary Committee, including her questioning of the president’s pick for the high court, and asking for contributions. The Senate's own rules prohibit this kind of behavior, but will the Senate hold these women to the standard they've set? “This is a clear violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the appearance or actuality of elected officials ‘cashing in’ on their official position for political purposes,” said Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT. Of course, but like most of these kinds of violations, the only thing that might actually occur here is censure, and that is highly unlikely in the current climate. However, voters should be aware of the unethical practice of both of these senators. While Harris is not up for re-election this year, Warren is. Could the good people of Massachusetts do us all a favor and elect someone else in her place?

The Islamization of the Public Schools Muslims anxious to use schools and textbooks to proselytize for Islam have found a welcoming environment in American public schools that are indefatigably committed to multiculturalism. With the imperative to be “tolerant” robbing many educators of their ability to evaluate non-Western cultures critically, all too many public schools and individual teachers have proven to be susceptible to an organized campaign by U.S.-based Islamic organizations and their primary benefactor, Saudi Arabia, to present a view of Islam that whitewashes its violent history and intolerant doctrines. Many of the Islamic groups that vet American public school textbooks for the accuracy of their material on Islamic doctrine and history are Saudi-funded. They make sure that the Islamic instruction in these textbooks presents a picture of Islam that is so pristine and whitewashed that it sometimes crosses the boundary from mere pro-Muslim bias into outright Islamic proselytizing. The taboo about teaching religion in the public schools, so zealously established and guarded against Christian prayer by the ACLU and the Supreme Court over the last few decades, is increasingly set aside in American public schools, as presentations on Islam frequently cross the line between teaching facts about the religion and teaching the religion as fact. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. We have seen this just recently, when Mountain Ridge Middle School in Gerrardstown, West Virginia instructed students to copy out the Islamic profession of faith (shahada), ostensibly as a calligraphy exercise. Parent Rich Penkoski recounted: “I saw the assignment of writing the Shahada in Arabic. Their excuse was calligraphy. I was like, ‘Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!’ First of all, calligraphy was invented in China 3,000 years prior to Muhammad. The fact that they were trying to get my daughter to write that disturbed me. I said, ‘That is not happening. My daughter is not doing that.’ My daughter told me that if she didn’t do the assignment, then she was going to get a [detention] slip.” Branch contradicted Penkoski, claiming: “The teacher has told her class several times that this is a study of world religions and that she is not trying to advocate for any religion over another. She has told her class that if they had questions about religious beliefs, that those conversations should take place with their parents.” He said that Christianity and Judaism were given “equitable treatment” in the same class. Penkoski’s daughter, Brielle, however, said that the class spent much less time on Christianity and Judaism than it did on Islam. Penkoski pointed out that the accompanying exercises were also less extensive for Christianity and Judaism than they were for Islam: “Notice no Bible verses, no reciting the Ten Commandments or the Lord’s Prayer. [There’s] no practicing writing in Hebrew as compared to the Islamic packet.” This stealth proselytizing is nationwide. Last January, parents filed a federal complaint against Chatham Middle School in Chatham, New Jersey, for forcing students to watch videos that proselytized for Islam. One video, according to the complaint, describes “Christians and Jews as ‘infidels’ and prais[es] Muhammad in gruesome detail for slaughtering them.” Parent Libby Hilsenrath characterized the accompanying assignment as “replete with biased, chastising statements encouraging the students…to follow the Quran and become Muslim.” Another video, according to Hilsenrath, depicts a Muslim boy teaching his non-Muslim friend about Islam, after which both go to “learn how to pray.” The complaint adds: “Due to the fact that these doctrinal messages calling for conversion to Islam were included in video format with vivid images and text, they possess greater communicative impact and are more likely to be accepted by the students viewing them than information that is spoken in a classroom or even written in a book.” These accounts are not singular. High school students in Newton, Massachusetts in October 2017, according to Fox News, “pretended to be Muslims in the ‘Islamic’ city of Jerusalem as part of a class assignment.” The assignment also included a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel article. Judicial Watch Senior Investigator Bill Marshall remarked: “Citizens of Newton have been waging a minor war with school officials for years now, trying to get them to use balanced curriculum in their teaching materials on the subject of Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Dr. Bill Saxton, chairman of Citizens for National Security, said that the assignment was a “purposeful attempt to indoctrinate our impressionable high-schoolers with the ‘virtues’ of Islam at the expense of Christianity, Judaism and other religions.” Meanwhile, Georgia parent Michelle King noted in 2016: “My daughter had to learn the Shahid and the Five Pillars of Islam, which is what you learn to convert,” while not teaching Christianity or the Ten Commandments. One homework assignment in Walton County, Georgia, stated: “Allah is the [blank] worshiped by Jews & Christians,” with students having to fill in the blank with “same God.” Parent Steve Alsup added: “It seemed like half the truth to me, they didn’t talk about the extreme Islamics.” Kim Embry, a spokesperson for Walton County Public Schools, said revealingly: “We are teaching the same stuff that everyone else is teaching.” Indeed. In 2015, students at Spring Hill Middle School in Spring Hill, Tennessee were forced as part of an assignment to write, “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is his prophet.” Mother Joy Ellis remarked: “This is a seventh grade state standard, and will be on the TCAP. I didn’t have a problem with the history of Islam being taught, but to go so far as to make my child write the Shahada, is unacceptable.” Another mother, Brandee Porterfield, observed: “It really did bother me that they skipped the whole chapter on the rise of Christianity and they spent three weeks just studying Islam….I spoke with the teacher and the principal,” she said. “They are not going to learn any other religion, doctrines or creeds and they are not going back over this chapter. Even though they discuss Christianity a little bit during the Middle Ages, they are not ever going to have this basis for Judaism or Christianity later.” Maury County Director of Schools, Chris Marczak, defended the curriculum: “It is our job as a public school system to educate our students on world history in order to be ready to compete in a global society, not to endorse one religion over another or indoctrinate.” Porterfield, however, shot back: “They are not going over anything else. So for the students to have to memorize this prayer, it does seem like it is indoctrination.” None of the encroachments of Islam in public schools should come as any real surprise. Multiculturalism, after all, amounts to respect for every culture except one’s own. The embarrassment, regret, and even self-hatred that has been inculcated in American public school students for decades now has created a vacuum, which Muslims have shown themselves to be all too eager to fill. Certainly, those who are furthering the Islamization of the schools would deny that they would like to see Islamic law implemented in the United States, and would indignantly reject the claim that their efforts were furthering that end in any way. They would say that they are doing it all for tolerance, pluralism, and multiculturalism. Unfortunately, in the end, it amounts to the same thing. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

A Dismal Record: Why Are They Destroying the Nuns? The meeting covered Carmels of the Teresian, Discalced, reform from Germany, five areas of Spain, three from France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Croatia and the Holy Land [1] . The reports from each region showed that many of the provisions found in Cor orans were already in place: federations with broad powers, including financial control and combined formation courses, “religious assistant” priests appointed by the federation and overseeing individual monasteries and superiors giving up their authority to the federations. Given that this was 2009, it is clear that the plans to force all contemplative monasteries in the world into this disastrous European mould were well under way long before Pope Benedict was even considering resigning. Today I’ve received an interesting document issued by the Carmelite Order in Europe following a meeting of the “Federations of Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Europe & the Holy Land” in Avila, February 2009. As a snapshot of the current condition of Carmelite monastic life after it had been completely “federated,” it paints a depressing picture; but as a demonstration of what “federations” are likely to achieve once Cor orans is implemented universally, it clangs in the mind like a funeral bell. Reconciled to managed extinction The report shows average ages of nuns between 65 and 80, “infirmary Carmels,” nuns in state nursing homes, entire communities living in care facilities and half the Carmels with no one in formation. Solutions offered are equally uniform: heaped-up bureaucracy, common formation courses between monasteries developed by “religious psychologists,” ever more powers handed to federations. This is federated Carmelite monastic life under Pope Francis’ New Paradigm of fully implemented VaticanTwoism. Very little is said of any efforts being made to increase vocational outreach using the internet or through diocesan contacts. And perhaps most telling of all, not one word is offered of applying any systematic religious solutions; no one is suggesting increased prayer or fasting, Rosary campaigns or novenas in what has to be the Carmelite Order’s most desperate hour. Nothing is said of increased intensity of devotion to the charism, study of the foundress or returning to sources, still less of strengthening the Carmelites’ traditional independent self-governance or reconsidering the wisdom of “the path taken”. Indeed, in one case in Spain, the sisters themselves advocate abandoning traditional Teresian autonomy altogether. The report from Great Britain notes: “18 Carmels have closed in the last 40 years. There have been two amalgamations in recent years and another one involving three Carmels is in process. Two communities at present are living together in one monastery as a temporary measure.” The case of the Netherlands is downright bizarre; sisters so old that even the federation structures are breaking down. Only one fully autonomous functioning Carmel still exists in the Netherlands, and the remains of four entire communities are living in a single care home run by religious brothers. But in this situation, the “solution” undertaken has been an elaborate bureaucratic reshuffle, including gaining approval from Rome, for “a completely new structure,” whose main task, no doubt, will be the making of funeral arrangements and disposing of library books. The atmosphere is weirdly resigned – one federation report recommended simply “forgetting the numbers” – with many notes of mutual congratulation over “unity,” the creating of “links” and the “building of trust” and “dialogue” between communities. The report from Belgium – federated in 1997, average age 73 with one sister in formation for 11 monasteries – states tersely that their biggest problem is “ageing” but under “possible solutions” says only, “We want to continue along the path we have begun.” It is only in the report from Croatia where the problem changes abruptly from aging nuns and no vocations to too many vocations with not enough room[2]. It is also notable that it is only in the Croatian report that Christ gets a direct mention. Federation of Croatia & Bosnia-Herzegovina: 82 nuns in 5 convents, with an average age of 47, and eleven in formation. This outlier differs from the Western European federations in several respects, notably that it was only federated in 2002. But the effects of the federating/formation courses are already being felt: “Nowadays, two monasteries have difficulty because of a lack of vocations.” Path taken: Have made a foundation in Albania; however this community is not federated. From the beginning, our Association has organized formation courses for the younger sisters as well as courses of permanent formation. Each year, we have one or two seminars, which are also the occasion to the meeting of the Council of the Association. The duration is 3 to 4 days and they take place every time in a different Monastery of the Association. We invite the sisters of other Carmelite convents friends to our formation courses: sisters from Albania, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Present Problems: In general, in our Association the vocations continue growing, but there are differences between the monasteries. Nowadays, two monasteries have difficulty because of a lack of vocations. Possible solutions: We do all what is in our hands in the area of the vocational promotion, collaborating in this way with Christ who calls by his Spirit. These self-generated reports were made in response to a questionnaire set out for the meeting. All speak of nothing but bureaucratic responses: shared “formation courses,” meetings of superiors, amalgamations and suppression of houses and finally “care homes” and houses given over entirely as infirmaries. A tale of controlled, systematized extinction. ~~~ Federation: Germany date when erected: 1980 number of convents: 14 number of nuns: 178 solemnly professed: 170 in formation[3]: 8 average age: 66 Path taken: for 15 years they have organized formation courses: on-going & initial formation, and for formators. Meetings for prioresses. Present problems: have got very old. Some sisters are in care-homes run by Franciscans. Different sisters have volunteered to help there. Possible solutions: two convents intend to amalgamate. ~~~ Federation: Spain – Castile Burgos Date when erected: 1978 Number of convents: 20 Number of nuns: 245 Solemnly professed: In formation: 9 Average age: between 64 Path taken: they have worked on communion and systematic formation of the communities. They have established a formation-house for new vocations and held a month long intensive course according to the ratio, given by the same sisters of the federation. In 2004 they established a Carmelite infirmary to help the communities. Courses have been organized to accompany the youngest sisters of the federation, given by a religious psychologist. Present problems: ageing of the sisters and a lack of vocations; we have not arrived at any practical conclusion in the way of amalgamations-restructuring though attempts have been made. The incorporation of sisters from other countries without due discernment in some cases. Possible solutions: we are making enquiries. ~~~ Federation: Spain - Catalonia Date when erected: 1993 Number of convents 4 Number of nuns: 60 Solemnly professed: In formation: none Average age: 71 What has been done: there has been one suppression and two convents have amalgamated Present problems: ageing of the sisters and a lack of vocations. We need outside help. ~~~ Federation: Spain - Navarre Date of erection: 1994 Number of convents:16 Number of nuns: 229 Solemnly professed: In formation: 10 Average age: 69 What has been done: there has been work on formation: each year, a course on on-going formation and one for those recently professed. There have been 3 suppressions and 3 amalgamations. Work will continue in this area, in order to keep a balance within the communities, based on the present communities and the new vocations. Present Problems: Ageing of the communities, resulting in weakening of life in all its facets. It is not easy to express the reality. A lack of vocations is with us as a reality in everyday life. Moreover, the high number of Carmels makes difficult to maintain all presences. Possible Solutions: It is completely necessary to assume the way of the restructurings, in order to live what is essential, forgetting the numbers. The challenge to grow in confidence and communion should lead us to downgrade the famous and untouchable autonomy because, to a daughter of Saint Teresa, the really important thing is to look for HIM and to live in obedience. Another of our challenges is caring [for] the ecclesial presences. We think this is the way will lead us to recreate from the interior the Charism of the Mother Teresa. ~~~ Federation: France - Toulouse Bordeaux Date when erected: 1955 Number of convents: 20 + 1 abroad, Athens Number of nuns: 274 Solemnly professed: 268 In formation: 6 Average age: 70,6 What has been done: There have been 1 amalgamation & 6 suppressions. The federal priority is the formation. There has been a lot of work in formation: for prioresses, formators & initial. Also with the extern sisters. The infirmary Carmel was closed due to the difficulty of finding a prioress and other personnel. The sisters have gone to other Carmels, except some who have gone to state geriatric homes. ~~~ Federation: Italy - Lombardy Date when erected: 1996 Number of convents: 16 Number of nuns: 220 Solemnly professed: 209 In formation: 11 Average age: 65 Present problems: there are big differences between the various convents. The number of vocations has diminished quickly and the numbers increased of those who have left during formation and during the first years of solemn profession. Nonetheless there have not been amalgamations or suppressions. In some convents old age is a real concern. Possible Solutions: They are working on formation through courses. Also on communion between the communities. There are meetings of the Council with the communities. We are ready to accept sisters who cannot be cared for in their own communities. However, this has not been accepted because they do not want to be separated. The strangest report came from the Netherlands where, for a single surviving autonomous monastery and an average age of 81, resources were mobilised to create “a completely new structure,” complete with approval from the Congregation for Religious: Federation: Netherlands Date when erected: 1971 Number of convents: 6 Number of nuns: 73 Solemnly professed: 73 In formation: .... Average age: 81 [NB, the bold was in the original.] What has been done: 13 Dutch Carmels and one in Iceland have united in a Federation. This has created a close communion from the beginning. Everyone has collaborated in the process of amalgamations and suppressions. Present Problems: Only one Carmel functions fully autonomously in the Netherlands. 4 communities are in a care-home run by the Brothers of the Immaculate Conception. Another Carmel was renewed in 1990. At the original Carmel an infirmary wing has been added for those sisters who require nursing; it is run by Franciscan sisters. With the passing of time the Assembly of the Federation has transferred tasks to the President of the Federation, according to the faculties described in the statutes, in particular regarding our mutual solidarity. Also, with the passing of the years, the Congregation for Religious has placed responsibility directly into the hands of the Council of the Federation. Finally, the autonomous Carmels have asked help from the Federation in order to protect their interests. Due to our very advanced age in the Netherlands we have reached the moment when a General Assembly is no longer possible. We are left with the problem that in the communities there are no sisters who can or who want to be prioresses or council sisters. The structure of the Federation that we have had till now is thus no longer possible. Possible solutions: The Federation Council, the Religious Assistant, together with a canon lawyer of the Dutch Conference of Religious, have worked hard on a completely new structure, in which in its first draft the autonomy of the Carmel has been constantly kept in mind. We began from three points: 1)Maintenance of the formal autonomy of the Carmels that still exist, but with the chance to transfer tasks gradually to the council of the Federation. 2)Appointment of The Federal board or Federal Council of the Federation, preferably appointed by the Superior General. The team will consist of a president and vice-president who are members of one of the convents, appointed to functions, and of three people who are members, or not, of one of the convents. 3)A Supervisory council, also to be appointed periodically by the Superior General, which will be made up of three members, whose president will be, preferably, a member of a religious institute, preferably of the Carmelite Order and appointed to functions. This council sees itself as a supervisory body and to give advice that will more or less replace the Assembly of the Federation. In October 2008, the President, the Religious Assistant and a Lawyer were in Rome where they explained the proposals. They had meetings with Fr. General and with the Congregation for Religious. These were open meetings that helped us to clarify matters. An important concern was that they would allow us to use lay people on the Federal Council of the Federation and the Supervisory council. We were aware that we were not dealing with a simple matter, but we think that, in view of our present situation today, we do not have much choice. It is important to continue to protect the interests of our Federation in the most responsible and careful way, so that all the sisters, even those advanced in years, can continue to live their life in Carmel. Definitive permission came at the 25th of February. ~~~ Given this incredible picture of a Carmelite Order in the last rattle of its death throes, the rest of the summaries of speeches given at the meeting in Avila read as outright surreal, leaving us to wonder if any of these people are attached in any way to reality. Sr. Enrica Rosanna, the representative of the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious told them that the “two great challenges to our contemplative life” are “the challenge of globalization and the challenge of irrelevancy.” She warned the nuns against bringing vocations from other countries to keep their monasteries alive, dropping a hint about what now seems to be a particular obsession of the Congregation. Cor orans would take this subject up definitively in 2018: The nuns were exhorted to “stay awake to welcome the dawn” of a bright new future: “These are difficult and uncertain times, but it is also the time to stay awake as the new dawn is already announcing itself.” “Our aim must be to be open to the future. We should not forget that we are following in the tradition of Teresa of Jesus and in the tradition of all those who have followed in her footsteps. It is a wide road that opens up before us. We must be women of hope and faith. We must always believe that God is the one who directs history. From this derives our task, to be creative and, at the same time, faithful (creative fidelity).” [emphasis in the original.] While there can be no doubt that the impending total extinction of the Carmelite Order in Western Europe was foremost in the minds of the nuns present, it seems that the issue was simply not addressed out loud by the representatives of the bureaucracy. Instead, Sr. Enrica, after this bizarre and cryptic comment, spoke of the “problems and difficulties that we can encounter” in discernment of mostly non-existent vocations, including “consumerism, modern means of communication, difficulties in creating a stable personality, autonomy of the young, the need to be always supported, the ideology of subjectivism.” What are these people smoking? Given that this was three years or more from the abdication of Benedict and the installation of the New Paradigm of Francis/Kasper, one wonders what this “new dawn” was actually about. Perhaps a useful question for one of the nuns present could have been, “A ‘new dawn’ of what, exactly?” This kind of coded language has been popular with the progressivist faction in the Church since the 1960s, when the expectation was for the installation of a totally new Church. Was Sr. Enrica somehow anticipating the fulfillment of those hippie-era dreams in the years to come? It is certainly clear from Francis’ first acts as pope that he had dealing with conservative and Traditionalist nuns high on his list of priorities. His first appointment, no more than three weeks after the Conclave was Jose Rodrigues Carballo, the Religious Congregation’s Secretary and – given the scandal that erupted on his leaving them – the financial wrecking ball of the Franciscan Friars Minor. The first task Francis gave Carballo was the demolition of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Certainly this record of the European Carmelites’ meeting is jammed with hints that Cor orans was on the way. On the final day of the meeting, the “theme for the day” was offered by then-Father General Luis Arostegui: “Government: the need for change. Autonomy and Association; autonomy and Fr. General; other solutions to government.” The devolution of authority of superiors of individual monasteries to federations was obviously on someone’s mind, as was a plan to see to it that monasteries change superiors frequently: “Essential autonomy can fail due to the relationships within the community: abuses by permanent superiors who decide on the freedom and decisions of the community,” the Father General warned. And there were certainly hints that a general re-organisation of structures of authority was in the works. A common tactic of politicians who want to initiate changes is to “ask questions” rather than make suggestions, and Arostegui asked some very leading questions indeed in this closing address: “Who discerns the existence or not of vital autonomy; is it the community or chosen people? “Are there instances that work well within the Church which balance autonomy in a way that can be helpful in these situations? “At the time of St. Teresa she was an example of someone balanced. Stability is one reason [for autonomy], but is stability understood in such a way that it can obstruct the spirit of mission and your availability to the Order and to the Church? “The valiant and prophetic initiative of Pope Pius XII to create Associations and Federations opened up contemplative life, though it was also thought that it could harm cloister and autonomy. Can such essential autonomy continue as it is? “50 years ago there was stability. How do we conceive today the relationship between autonomy and Federation-Association and between autonomy and Fr. General? “Could there be other forms of government?” Following the Father General’s address are notes from the language groups, including the following: “While some communities do not want their autonomy to be touched, and have certain fears of ‘external’ interference, others want a more moderate and flexible autonomy that, without going to the Congregation would have a juridical form, where the President with her Council can intervene in extreme cases that today we watch with pain, our hands tied. Though we want these legal channels to be established, it must remain clear what the limits of the Federation Council are, in order to avoid abuses of power on the part of the same.” “...The absence of vital autonomy is also noticed when… the same person remains prioress for years.” “...We need criteria that expand number 203 of our Constitutions and clarify vital autonomy. We perceive that there is a shortage of authority figures. We do not want new figures but rather those that already exist (Associations, [federation] Presidents, Provincials...) be empowered in a legal way (canonically) to help communities in difficulty, for the mission to discern, to counsel, to accompany.” “...We are also concerned for those communities not affiliated to Federations, we see that we should be close to them.” Maybe this summary document of 2009 can give us an idea what to expect from Rome in 2018, now that the “progressivist” faction in the Vatican is in the ascendancy and is free to act without restriction. What comes clear comparing this document to Cor orans is that the Vatican’s machinery has long been at work forcing a uniform and essentially bureaucratic, heavily authoritarian and legalistic vision of contemplative life on anyone who fails sufficiently to resist it. And with the statistics offered at this meeting we can see clearly where this road leads. So many Catholics in the last 40 years assumed that under the “conservatives” John Paul II and Benedict XVI at least the Vatican was “onside.” At least in Rome they understood the terrible threat of the Bolshie VaticanTwoist revolutionaries. But this report of 2009 shows a clear picture of a Roman congregation determined to see the revolution through to its inevitable conclusion. _____________________ [1] An aside that will perhaps be noteworthy to traditionalist readers is the little comment in the report on the difficulty of having a liturgical observance between all the disparate nations represented at the meeting. “Eucharist and Lauds in Spanish. Fr. Isidore D’Silva had prepared a booklet with the liturgy for each day. Each psalm was in a different language, and was prepared by the corresponding liturgical group. However, having the text in front of us made it easier to follow the recitation in other languages. The end result was that we could all join in the liturgy. We were all united in the praise of the Spirit who had brought us there together from different languages and nations.” [2] Solution: new foundations, the spreading of the Carmelite charism into new territories. [3] This includes all sisters up to final profession, not just postulants and novices.

Vote targeting Jewish student politician was not anti-Semitic: McGill report MONTREAL – It was political disagreement — not anti-Semitism — that led to a Jewish student being voted off the McGill University student council’s board of directors, an investigation ordered by the principal has concluded. But Jewish groups on and off campus have denounced the report as flawed, saying it missed the significance of an anti-Semitic text circulated online before Noah Lew was removed from the board last fall. A joint statement from five campus Jewish groups says the report, released this week by principal Suzanne Fortier, “appears to condone discrimination against Jewish students at McGill based on the cultural and religious organizations they affiliate with.” The controversy has its roots in McGill’s long-running debate over the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. At an Oct. 23 general assembly of the Student Society of McGill University, a routine motion to elect a slate of directors turned contentious. Supporters of a group called Democratize SSMU, formed to fight a decision of the board of directors declaring BDS counter to the SSMU constitution, brought a motion to divide the election vote. In the past they had been ratified as a bloc. The first five candidates were overwhelmingly approved, but when they got to Lew, the only Jewish director, he was rejected 105 to 73. In a subsequent Facebook post, Lew wrote, “My Jewish identity was now public, and a target was placed squarely upon me by the McGill BDS movement.” An outcry followed, leading Fortier to appoint former Ombudsperson for Students, Spencer Boudreau, to investigate. She also created a Task Force on Respect and Inclusion in Campus Life and a support line to report incidents of intolerance. Boudreau interviewed 38 students over his three-and-a-half week investigation. His findings, he wrote, do “not substantiate the notion that the vote was motivated by anti-Semitism,” which he defined as hostility toward or discrimination against Jews. Rather, he found, votes against Lew were “motivated by politics, that is, based on his support for Israel and Zionism and/or for his view of the BDS movement.” Protests about Israel’s policies cannot be equated with anti-Semitism, Boudreau wrote, though he said Lew’s belief that he was targeted because he was Jewish was “honest and even understandable.” A statement Wednesday by Hillel McGill, Chabad at McGill and three other Jewish groups said Boudreau was mistaken about the timing of an anti-Semitic message posted online by Democratize SSMU. Boudreau’s report said the message followed the assembly vote, but in fact it was posted at the beginning of October. Democratize SSMU deleted the message, which targeted Lew and two other candidates, after the meeting and apologized for publishing material that was “insensitive to anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish people as corrupt and politically powerful.” The Jewish groups said this anti-Semitic rhetoric “was used to encourage students to vote specifically against Noah Lew. It is under this context that the (general assembly) occurred, and the report fundamentally misunderstands this, which alters the entire findings of the report.” They say Boudreau’s report “insinuates that Jewish students who engage with mainstream Jewish community organizations are permitted to be precluded from holding political office.” Lew was restored to his post as a director last month after a ruling that the split vote in October had violated the SSMU constitution. He was not immediately available for comment. Michael Mostyn, CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, called the report a whitewash. “The report does not present a full or accurate picture of the hostile atmosphere facing Jewish students at McGill,” he said in a statement. Fortier said the university’s next actions will be based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Respect and Inclusion in Campus Life, due to report in April. “I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that there is absolutely no place for anti-Semitism at McGill University and that, as principal and vice-chancellor, I will remain vigilant to ensure that all members of our community feel safe, welcomed and respected on our campuses,” she said in a statement. • Email: ghamilton@nationalpost.com | Twitter: grayhamilton

UK: Labour MP Cites Ban of Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller in Calling for Trump to be Banned from Country The brouhaha over President Trump’s retweets of videos depicting Muslims being violent continues in the UK, and is yet another manifestation of the general tendency to blame those who call attention to jihad atrocities rather than to focus upon the jihad atrocities themselves. Trump himself said it best, tweeting yesterday evening:”. @ Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!” . @Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 30, 2017 I’m not sure we’re doing just fine, but Trump is right that the real problem is jihad terror and Sharia supremacism, and British authorities want to ignore that and shoot the messenger. And so Chris Bryant, “a senior Labour backbencher, has written to May urging her to go further, and issue an official ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds he is condoning fascism and his presence is ‘not conducive to the public good’, a senior Labour MP has said.” For Chris Bryant, apparently “fascism” means “defense of Britain and its values against jihad terror.” Bryant “cited the cases of two US far-right bloggers, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller , who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the UK to take part in English Defence League rallies, as precedents for taking action against Trump.” Why are we “far right”? Everything we do is in defense of the freedom of speech and equality of rights of all people before the law. That’s “far right”? In any case, note well: the letter to me from the UK Home Office said that I was banned for saying that “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers…” That’s a demonstrably true statement. Meanwhile, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.” May’s government admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. Chris Bryant had nothing to say about any of those jihad preachers entering Britain with no problem. “UK ambassador conveys concerns over Trump retweet to White House,” by Rowena Mason, Guardian, November 30, 2017: …Chris Bryant, a senior Labour backbencher, has written to May urging her to go further, and issue an official ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds he is condoning fascism and his presence is “not conducive to the public good”, a senior Labour MP has said. Bryant, a former Foreign Office minister, said the prime minister should issue a prohibition order against the president like those that apply to other far right figures from the US. He cited the cases of two US far right bloggers, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the UK to take part in English Defence League rallies, as precedents for taking action against Trump. In a letter to May, he said: “I am writing to you to ask you and the home secretary to take immediate action to ban the president of the United States, Donald Trump, from entering the United Kingdom, due to his apparent support for far-right groups in this country. “In retweeting Jayda Fransen’s posts, it is absolutely clear to me that President Trump is supporting and condoning fascism and far-right activity. This activity has frequently taken the form of violence on our streets. Ms Fransen herself has a long history of racism and Islamophobia, some of it criminal. Many of the people you have rightly banned from entering the UK were guilty of less than this.”… Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

SPECIAL REPORT: Papal Cover-up Alleged, Pope Accused in International Sex Abuse Case Hey, remember five minutes ago when Pope Francis shouted at a reporter in Chile that there was “no evidence” supporting complaints against his good friend Bishop Juan Barros? And, just for good measure he accused the people accusing him – victims of sexual abuse by Barros’ mentor, the convicted sex-predator Karadima – of committing “calumny”? [1] And remember when Cardinal O’Malley told the pope off in public over the “pain” these accusations had caused the victims of sexual abuse? And then remember how the pope had apologised-except-not-really because the accusations are, after all, still lies, and that there’s still “no evidence” against Barros…? The press, secular as well as Catholic, is full this week of the story that the pope did indeed see evidence of Barros’ complicity in Karadima’s sexual abuse – not only that Barros had helped to cover it up but that he had been present and a direct witness at the time and therefore a passive participant. Nicole Winfield and the Associated Press dropped the bomb that the information came directly from the victims, whom Francis had dismissed and refused to meet with on his trip, and delivered through his own Commission on sexual abuse: Pope Francis received a victim’s letter in 2015 that graphically detailed how a priest sexually abused him and how other Chilean clergy ignored it, contradicting the pope’s recent insistence that no victims had come forward to denounce the cover-up, the letter’s author and members of Francis’ own sex- abuse commission have told The Associated Press. The fact that Francis received the eight-page letter, obtained by the AP, challenges his insistence that he has “zero tolerance” for sex abuse and cover-ups. It also calls into question his stated empathy with abuse survivors, compounding the most serious crisis of his five-year papacy. Now it appears that Francis had also overruled a 2015 warning from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that Barros should not be made a bishop. The Italian Catholic daily La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana reports that not only did the pope see a letter from victims, but that the CDF, under Muller, “had already conducted an preliminary investigation into Barros and the other bishops close to Karadima which had led to the decision to relieve them of their duties.” “But with a letter signed by the Pope in January 2015 and sent to the Chilean bishops, the request for exemption is blocked and shortly thereafter Barros is promoted to…Osorno.” The article points out that while Karadima was convicted by a Vatican tribunal on the testimony of the victims, it is the same testimony of the same victim-witnesses that Francis now dismisses in the accusations against Barros. The accusations that stood against Karadima come from the same sources as those against Barros, who the victims said was in the room watching at the time. While the specifics are still not known, readers may be reminded by this of a peculiar incident about a year later in which Pope Francis summarily ordered the dismissal of three priests of the CDF, whose remit was investigations of clerics accused of sexual abuse. The website One Peter Five reports, via Marco Tosatti, that the pope ordered their removal without offering any explanation to then-cardinal prefect Gerhard Muller. When, after several attempts and three months later[2], Muller was able to get an audience with the pope to ask the reason, he received the response, “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.” Marco Tosatti reports the CDF incident, but it follows an odd story of a meeting of curial officials to discuss certain bishop appointments. Without naming names, (or, frustratingly, giving dates[3]) Tosatti relates: “It was some time ago to make a bishop, not in Italy. The nuncio has prepared the triad [the “terna” or list of three candidates]. A cardinal, head of the dicastery, perhaps the same holder of the Congregation for Bishops, during the ordinary assembly took the floor, saying: ‘The first candidate indicated is excellent, the second is good. But I would like to warn of the third, whom I know well, since he was a seminarian, and who presents problems both on the level of doctrine and morality. He responds little to the necessary criteria. But the third was a friend of someone and another cardinal, of the circle currently in power, has flung himself at his colleague, accusing him of impropriety.’ The meeting ended without further decisions.” Whatever the details of these strange incidents, what is clear in Chile is that no amount of eyewitness testimony was going to make the slightest difference. Bergoglio wanted Barros as a bishop and that was that. Even while “apologising” the pope had doubled down when questioned about it by journalists, saying, “You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward.” “In the case of Barros it’s been observed, it’s been studied; there’s no evidence. The best thing to do if someone believes it’s the case is to come forward quickly with evidence.” The AP report, however, says exactly the opposite; that members of his own (now defunct[4]) abuse Commission had approached Cardinal O’Malley, the pope’s “top abuse advisor,” with the letter to deliver to the pope. Marie Collins, the Irish abuse survivor and Commission member who resigned, citing the Vatican’s refusal to take meaningful action, told AP, “When we gave him [O’Malley] the letter for the pope, he assured us he would give it to the pope and speak of the concerns. And at a later date, he assured us that that had been done.” Juan Carlos Cruz, the Karadima victim whose membership on the Commission the Vatican had blocked, told AP, “Cardinal O’Malley called me after the pope’s visit here in Philadelphia and he told me, among other things, that he had given the letter to the pope – in his hands.” On the face of it, there are only a few logical possibilities here. In fact, unless Cardinal O’Malley – who has, as of this writing, remained silent – comes forward and says that he didn’t hand the letter over pope, there is really only one; that the pope lied. And this is what is now being said quite openly by a vast array of voices, secular and Catholic, left and right. As Winfield writes, “The revelation could be costly for Francis, whose track record on the abuse crisis was already shaky after a botched Italian abuse case he intervened in became public[5]. More recently, he let the abuse commission lapse at the end of last year. Vatican analysts now openly question whether he ‘gets it,’ and some of his own advisers privately acknowledge that maybe he doesn’t.” “No evidence…” Lie big, lie often, and when caught, keep lying. One of the many things these secular reporters seem not to be paying attention to is that “no evidence” is in fact a well-rehearsed, stock response for Bergoglio. He said almost exactly the same in 2013 when confronted about another predatory homosexual he was sheltering. The hoopla surrounding the “Who am I to judge” comment tends to obscure the context of the comment. It was made in response to a question by a journalist about Monsignore Battista Ricca – a prelate whose promiscuous homosexuality is so well known it was covered by the Telegraph as early as July 2013. Ilze Scamparini asked the pope about Ricca, saying, “What you intend to do about this? How are you confronting this issue and how does Your Holiness intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?” What reply did Bergoglio give? His standard one: “No evidence.” About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response.” He added, “In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything.” But Ricca’s activities, for which the pope claimed there was no evidence, were notorious. They include being caught in flagrante in an elevator with a teenaged male prostitute, and his sexual relationship with a captain in the Swiss army. So flagrant was Ricca’s behaviour that it took intervention by Uruguay’s nuncio to have him removed. It was reported in 1999 and 2000 by L’Espresso, who said the information was confirmed by “numerous bishops, priests, religious and laity” in Uruguay[6]. In fact, the evidence shows that Ricca is completely in line with Bergoglio’s normal procedures. As “Marcantonio Colonna” wrote in the Dictator Pope, “In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.” It was at this early “no evidence” comment on the plane home from Rio that some of those paying attention started to understand that Bergoglio’s policy is in line with that of certain leaders of the past who recommended that if a politician was going to lie, he should lie big and lie brazenly. And in case anyone was wondering what will happen next, the same advice said to keep on lying after you’re caught. The pattern of silence and, when pressed, flat-out denial has been Bergoglio’s policy since long before he came on the international scene. He has a long record in Argentina of shaving close to scandals and vociferously denying involvement, and relying heavily on the broad good will of Catholics towards bishops to pull it off. Perhaps his biggest error with Barros was failing to understand just how little of that capital of trust there is left in the Catholic world as a whole. Indeed, on the subject of priests sexually abusing young people, it could only be measured in the negative numbers. “Argentine Victims Who Tried to Meet with Pope Francis…” Though the website Bishop Accountability is blatantly anti-clerical, their data is unassailable since most of it comes from information that is already public. On their Argentina page is a long list of accusations that Bergoglio/Francis simply isn’t interested in hearing from victims. “In Pope Francis’s 21 years as bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires, the Wall Street Journal reports, including the years when he headed the Argentine bishops’ conference, he declined to meet with victims of sexual abuse.” “All of them tried to contact the cardinal archbishop in 2002 or later,” the same period when Pope Benedict and other bishops were striving to meet with victims and demonstrate an interest in the problem. The site says that “in addition to Bergoglio’s failure to respond to victims, the public record contains no evidence that he released any information about abusers.” In fact, he went so far as to flatly deny there had been any instances of abuse in his archdiocese. Weeks after his election to the papacy, he was quoted by his close friend, Rabbi Abraham Skorka, “In my diocese it never happened to me, but a bishop called me once by phone to ask me what to do in a situation like this.” Francis added that he agreed with the “zero tolerance” attitude of the Irish episcopate and admired Pope Benedict’s reforms – most of which he was later to quietly reverse. It was at exactly this time, however, that victims from Argentina were attempting to get the new pope’s attention. One, known to the press only as “Gabriel,” wanted to talk to Francis about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Julio César Grassi, accused of molesting at least five boys, “who has been avoiding the sentences of the justice of Morón and the Court of Cassation. So far, judges and prosecutors at all instances found him guilty.” In case anyone thinks the Grassi-Gabriel case was not serious enough for the pope’s attention, Bishop Accountability summarises, “A year after Gabriel had filed criminal charges [2003] but before the start of Grassi’s trial, three men ransacked the survivor’s apartment and beat him.” These men threatened to kill him if he did not retract his testimony and quit the case. Ten years [after Gabriel filed criminal charges], in May 2013, with Grassi still free despite his conviction in 2009, “Gabriel and his attorney, Juan Pablo Gallego, brought a two-page letter addressed to Pope Francis to the office of the papal nuncio in Buenos Aires. An employee refused to accept the letter after learning of its topic and threatened to call security if Gabriel and Gallego did not leave the premises.” The group surmises that it was Bergoglio’s direct intervention with judges in the case that prevented a conviction against Grassi for so long and delayed his sentencing through multiple appeals. In 2006, then-Archbishop Bergoglio complained of a “media campaign” and claimed that the Grassi case was “different” from other accusations. During his criminal trial Grassi said Bergoglio “never let go” of his hand. In 2009, Grassi was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and corruption in the case of “Gabriel,” who was aged 13 at the time of the abuse, but the appeals dragged on until he was finally sent to prison in September 2013. Several more similar cases, all of whom were rebuffed in their attempts to meet with Bergoglio, are detailed here, for the strong-of-stomach. A virtuoso performance-liar Looking back and carefully examining his record, Jorge Bergoglio’s mastery of using the weaknesses of morally compromised men is becoming evident. It is arguable that even the members of the so-called “San Gallen Mafia” who apparently conspired to put him on Peter’s throne were used by him. But he is also a master of judging an audience and telling them what they expect to hear; a key skill for all grifters and confidence tricksters. Looking carefully at the infamous “Who am I to judge” comment, this was clear early on. The first part of that interview is a blatant and enormous lie, and it was from there that the pope moved on to his apology for homosexuality in general. Recall that this was the very first airplane interview, on the trip back to Rome from World Youth Day in Rio, a matter of weeks after his election. At the time, the papal apologists sprang instantly into action and we heard all about how the pope was talking strictly within the boundaries of Catholic doctrine. But perhaps in hindsight, we are ready to examine the full implications of his little speech, one that was clearly well-rehearsed. (Don’t forget, no question is asked in a papal interview without being thoroughly vetted ahead of time. Journalists must submit their questions well in advance.) This was the pope laying out his policy regarding homosexuality, a policy for which he was duly rewarded by being lauded on the cover of the homosexualist lobby’s US trade magazine. Read his full answer carefully: I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for “sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question. Many thanks. One of the pope’s favourite rhetorical techniques is a combination of Begging the Question and conspiracy. He starts by assuming, without any effort at defence or explanation, a point that concedes the whole issue. This was the first time a pope had ever used the political term “gay”. Not “homosexual,” not “same-sex attracted,” but “gay,” meaning that he started by adopting the entirety of the homosexualist movement’s linguistic manipulations. Language counts in politics, and a pope using that term means he is by implication starting the discussion – and his pontificate – by aligning himself with the basic tenets of a movement that is violently opposed to Catholic moral teaching, and in direct opposition to his immediate, and still living, predecessor. In this case too, he was addressing a plane load of journalists who were either secular themselves, or for the most part are the kind of Catholic who believes it is fine to “disagree” with Catholic teaching on sexuality. There are very few “conservative” Catholics in the Vatican journalist pool. This means that his use of this language was a conspiratorial wink and nod to his immediate audience, a sly message to say, “People talk all the time about a gay lobby, but you and I both know this is mostly nonsense, propaganda from those people… those conservatives…We cool and hip people don’t hate gays, do we?” This astonishing departure follows an implied but very clear assertion that Ricca has repented and given up his activity, an assertion that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. We are simply asked to take the pope’s word for it, but given that it follows his astoundingly brazen lie that there was no evidence for Ricca’s homosexual activity in the first place, we can take the assurance for what it seems to be worth. Next, after another little inside nudge-nudge-wink-wink joke about the “gay lobby” – implying (but of course never outright saying) that the whole thing is hysterical nonsense – we hear a direct contradiction to Catholic teaching from no less a source than his predecessor, Pope Benedict Ratzinger. “The problem is not having this tendency.” Well, actually, your holiness, yes it is, particularly in the case of priests. The “tendency” is called in the same catechism you quote “intrinsically disordered” and Ratzinger was very clear that this “tendency” is a sign of a serious emotional dysfunction that “must” preclude a man from being ordained. Squandering the capital of trust A few months ago in a piece for the Remnant, I talked about why the Church (and nearly all human societies) regard lying as a sin: A mistake many make about lying is to understand it only in terms of morality. But Thomas makes the point that it is first a matter of metaphysics. Lying is an act at variance in its essence with the nature of reality. Thomistic theology teaches that it is by lying that we become most like the devil, and most unlike God, because we are trying to change the nature of reality to suit our own purposes. Habitual lying in effect changes you into a different kind of being, one that is by nature an opponent of Truth, ordered against Truth. This of course means that a person whose “orientation,” as we might say, is towards falsehood, even when he is at any given moment saying something true, is still servicing his lies. He tells the truth only to continue to control and manipulate reality. It was not by violence, but by lying and manipulation, by issuing half-truths and pretending to be the kind of man he was not, that Shakespeare’s character Iago earned the title of most evil character in English literature. Human beings are naturally ordered towards the truth, and we have to work at assuming a lie. This is why confidence tricksters can be successful, why lying works for getting what you want; people don’t see it coming. The first natural assumption is trust, at least at the basic level of expecting truth most of the time. We therefore instinctively see lying as a betrayal of trust. Considering how much trust the Catholic faithful had in the papacy until about 1965, how much un-earned trust Francis started with just by being elected, this pontificate should be remembered as one of the great confidence scams in history. Believing Catholics have watched aghast as this pope has habitually trampled on every aspect of Catholic teaching. Sandro Magister recently published a piece on his website that listed in dizzying detail the many times, in only the last few months, that pope Francis has falsified with obvious intention, the words of Christ in Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Of course this would be of little interest to secular journalists, who have paid no mind to his habit of rewriting Catholicism, but the sex abuse crisis is something secular journalists are very interested in, a fact Bergoglio seems not to have understood. It is now irrefutable that Pope Bergoglio is a habitual liar – that in fact truth, like reality, seems to mean nothing to him except as a tool. Sociologists talk about the concept of the “high trust society,” one in which citizens believe what they are told by the elites and trust them to govern and protect them adequately. They warn that the general loss of trust in institutions leads to a general state of chaos, in which laws on the books matter little as citizens turn to their last resort of protecting themselves and their own families. This is the way societies disintegrate. It has been said many times that the sex abuse crisis has created a massive loss of trust in prelates among the Catholic faithful, and this is true. With a professional confidence trickster on the papal throne, blatantly using lies and manipulation to maintain power and ram through an agenda at radical variance with Catholic doctrine, how long before that predictable disintegration occurs? Are we seeing it already? Are we seeing it in the declarations of this or that episcopate on Amoris Laetitia and Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics? With Cardinal Marx and others promoting “blessings” for “same-sex unions” are we going to be seeing an escalation of it? I have seen a veritable chorus of Catholics on social media declaring that if Paul VI is canonised, their loss of faith in the Church as an institution will be complete. I am told from contacts inside the Vatican that after the trip to Chile Bergoglio’s support has completely dried up. He has no more resources of trust even among the people he has chosen to surround himself with and after the reports of Cardinal Sandri going toe-to-toe with him in a shouting match, it seems that perhaps even his legendary vicious temper tantrums are failing to have the desired effect of terrorising his subordinates into submission. Marie Collins, by no stretch even a “conservative” Catholic, echoed this concern, saying the Barros affair has “definitely undermined credibility, trust, and hope” in Francis. “All I can say is that people who had a lot of hope in this particular pope, and I am talking about just ordinary Catholics that I know in my own parish, would find it very difficult now…and cannot understand and cannot believe that this particular pope has said the things he has said in the last few weeks,” she told the National Catholic Reporter. It may seem like a moment to enjoy, seeing the apparently unbreachable shell of papal teflon finally cracking, but in reality this situation is potentially very harmful for souls in the long run. There is a multitude of problems this pontificate has created or made worse that we will be dealing with for a long time after Bergoglio is gone, but perhaps one of the bigger ones will be the destruction of trust. Already fractured since the collapse of all Catholic institutions after Vatican II and the horrors of the sex abuse crisis, how much will there be to repair of the once-steadfast trust Catholics instinctively had in the Church after this? Notes: [1] “Not one victim has come forward in Chile; show me the proof. This is slander and calumny. Is that clear?” [2] The book “The Dictator Pope” relates that regular meetings between the pope and dicastery heads have been abolished and even high-ranking curia prefects are often unable to see the pope, whose appointments are now completely controlled by the Secretariat of State. It is certainly clear that no one sees the pope unless Cardinal Parolin approves, which may be the reason Cardinal Zen, in his efforts to warn Francis of the dangers of a Vatican deal with the communist Chinese government had to wait in the rain at a Wednesday general audience. [3] This is common in Italian journalism that has somewhat different standards from that of the Anglo world… and drives the rest of us spare. Italians care about getting a general picture of what’s going on, where Anglo-Saxons are considered weirdly obsessed with trivial details. [4] Though she never blamed the pope, Marie Collins complained that Vatican officialdom had simply not implemented the Commission’s recommendations. The time limit of the Commission’s members was allowed to lapse without renewal and though it was not dissolved formally the Commission has ceased to function with no word of any plan to revive it. [5] Probably a reference to the Inzoli case in which Francis overturned a previous sentence of a Vatican tribunal after the priest – now laicised – approached some of the pope’s close advisors for help, including Cardinal Coccopalmerio. [6] Not that anyone in Rome was trying very hard. Sandro Magister reported after the “Who am I to judge” comment, “Before the appointment, Francis had been shown, as is customary, the personal file on Ricca, in which he had not found anything unseemly. He had also heard from various personalities of the curia, and none of them had raised objections.”

In Wake Of Elections, Migrant Caravan Resumes March Towards US Border Of course, the news of the migrant caravan has largely been abandoned due to the elections and what appears to be voter fraud and election meddling and manipulation across the country, but that doesn't mean that thousands of migrants from Central America have abandoned their quest to enter our country illegally. Despite barbed wires and thousands of troops on the border, they have been undeterred. A report from RT tells the tale: The Central American migrant caravan has just begun another leg of their journey to the US border hastily reinforced by the Army and Marine Corps. The migrants previously made a days-long stop in Mexico City. The caravan, made up mostly of Hondurans, but also nationals of other Central American countries, is now on the move towards the United States border. Migrants resumed their march north on Saturday morning after spending almost a week in Mexico City. take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. ... To get there, migrants will have to travel some 1,700 miles (2,735km) to the northwest, a much longer route than to the nearest US border crossing at McAllen, Texas, which many consider to be the safest option. Video was also captured showing dozens of people waiting for trains in Mexico subway or boarding heavy trucks or buses somewhere outside the city while others are seen using cars. President Donald Trump has warned these people to turn back and that they will not be accepted into the US. He recently signed an immigration decree requiring asylum seekers to apply at their point of entry to the country and barring illegal immigrants from requesting asylum. “We need people in our country but they have to come in legally and they have to have merit,” Trump told reporters before he departed for Paris. https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jE Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Swedish PM does not rule out use of army to end gang violence Sweden will do whatever it takes, including sending in the army, to end a wave of gang violence that has seen a string of deadly shootings, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said in Wednesday. Sweden’s murder rate is relatively low in international terms, but gang violence has surged in recent years and Swedes are worried that the police are unable to cope. In 2016, the latest year for which official statistics are available, 106 people were murdered in Sweden, a country of 10 million. But Swedish TV reported there were over 300 shootings, mostly in turf battles between gangs over drugs, protection rackets and prostitution. Four people were shot dead in the first week of this year. One man died after picking up a hand grenade outside a subway station in a suburb of Stockholm. Law and order is likely to be a major issue in a parliamentary election scheduled for September with the populist, opposition Sweden Democrats linking public concern about the rising crime rate to a large increase in the numbers of immigrants. “It would not be my first option to bring in the military, but I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that serious, organized crime is stamped out,” Lofven told news agency TT. The government has promised police an extra 7.1 billion crowns ($880 million) through 2020, toughened laws on gun crimes and made it easier for the police to monitor private phone calls and emails, among other measures. But a report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention shows increasing numbers of Swedes worried about crime with confidence falling in the police and the judicial system. “People are shot to death in pizza restaurants, people are killed by hand grenades they find on the street,” Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Akesson said in parliament on Wednesday. “This is the new Sweden; the new, exciting dynamic, multicultural paradise that so many here in this assembly ... have fought to create for so many years,” he said sarcastically.

Kavanaugh and Last-Minute Accusations Democrats are pulling out all the stops and enabling salacious last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in order to sink his candidacy. Now that Christine Blasey Ford has finally agreed to testify this Thursday at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her charge that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a long-ago high school party, these new charges have suddenly emerged from left field. On Sunday, a former classmate from Judge Kavanaugh's time at Yale accused the Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her at a party. The New Yorker has just published an article written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, based on information that was reportedly sent to at least four Democratic senators. The article recounted a claim by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s, concerning “a dormitory party gone awry.” As the article acknowledged, however, “her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” The article goes on to say that in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, Ms. Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” It was only after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” that Ms. Ramirez was suddenly able to pinpoint Judge Kavanaugh as having committed an unsavory act, even though she admitted being “foggy” at the time. The New Yorker article also noted that the magazine “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” Meanwhile, the ever-present Michael Avenatti, attorney of porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had information from anonymous sources that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend had "targeted" women with drugs and alcohol at parties to facilitate "gang rape." Haters of Judge Kavanaugh are turning the process of Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee into something worse than a travesty. His opponents in the Senate have transformed their “advise and consent” function into a campaign of no-holds barred character assassination. While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys." A week has already gone by since Ms. Ford went public with her story in an interview with the Washington Post while Ms. Ford and her attorneys stalled for time. They raised one procedural issue after another while claiming that the committee majority was “bullying” Ms. Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-I) has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford’s preferred scheduling for her appearance. He extended the deadline several times for her to come to a decision on whether to testify at all. He had offered various options for her to testify publicly or privately or to be interviewed by committee staff in her home state of California, whichever setting would make her more comfortable. However, in Senator Grassley’s e-mail thanking Ms. Ford for finally agreeing to a time certain for her testimony, Senator Grassley correctly reminded her attorneys that “the committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, and what order to call them and who will question them. These are nonnegotiable.” While the negotiations with Ms. Ford’s attorneys for her testimony were underway, Democrats were sitting on the latest allegations, ready to pounce as soon as Ms. Ford’s accusation was about to be heard. Some Democrats are already using the Ramirez episode to push anew for a fresh FBI investigation and to postpone Thursday’s scheduled hearing. Ideally, if the Democrats cannot apply enough pressure to force a withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through their relentless campaign of character assassination, they want to push any Senate votes until after the midterm elections at the earliest. Then they will claim that the newly elected senators should be involved in the confirmation decision. In the meantime, Judge Kavanaugh’s adversaries in the Senate, the mainstream media and progressive circles continue to bludgeon Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion. All of their stratagems are an obvious attempt to buy time in order to persuade any wavering senators that Judge Kavanaugh is too tainted by sexual assault charges – whether proven or not - to sit on the Supreme Court. Proof does not matter to those wanting to bring Judge Kavanaugh down at any cost. Regarding Ms. Ford’s accusation, they know that the proof so far is non-existent, aside from Ms. Ford’s own assertions contained in her confidential letter given to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, last July, and in her Washington Post interview. While a redacted version of Ms. Ford’s letter has been published, Senator Feinstein has refused to date to give even Senator Grassley a copy of the completely unredacted version. The FBI has already conducted 6 background checks, no federal crime is alleged, and there is no forensic evidence to investigate after 30 years at a site that Ms. Ford cannot even identify. What we do know so far tends to undercut the credibility of Ms. Ford’s accusation. Ms. Ford cannot corroborate her decades-old charge of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Whatever corroboration Ms. Ford was hoping for from “witnesses” she claimed were at the alleged party is non-existent. The individuals she reportedly named in her unredacted confidential letter given to Senator Feinstein have either denied being at such a party or do not recollect what Ms. Ford has alleged. Moreover, by her own admission to the Washington Post, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember some key details of the incident.” She does not remember, for example, where it happened, how the party came together in the first place, or how she got home after the alleged incident. She believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, but reportedly could not be more precise on the day or even the month of the party. Afraid that Ms. Ford’s sexual assault allegation could be readily challenged and anxious to establish some sort of pattern of sexual misconduct beyond this single alleged incident, the Kavanaugh haters have latched onto Ms. Ramirez’s story. The New York Times published an op-ed column last week by a psychiatrist, Richard A. Friedman, who cited neurological science to conclude that Ms. Ford’s claim that she has “a vivid memory of an attack that took place when she was 15” is “credible.” The reason, he wrote, is that “memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.” The only problem with Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that Ms. Ford has apparently forgotten such key details surrounding the alleged sexual assault as when and where it happened and how she got home. Moreover, when Ms. Ford finally told someone about the incident in any detail some 30 years later in 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband, she did not name Judge Kavanaugh specifically, according to the therapist’s notes that Ms. Ford had provided to the Washington Post in connection with her interview. The Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes it reviewed “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’” Ms. Ramirez’s story is even less credible. It took an attorney and six days of very belated reflection to help revive her memory of an incident she claimed happened while she herself was very drunk. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of Judge Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics who told men to “shut up” regarding Ms. Ford’s allegations, said she doubts Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility because of “how he approaches his cases.” Aside from mischaracterizing the constitutional textualist reasoning underlying Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, she is saying that she does not believe Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of the sexual misconduct allegations lodged against him because of the opinions he wrote that she does not like. Such circular “reasoning” would be amusing if it were not so emblematic of what one writer called “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also suffering from the same syndrome. She said Thursday regarding Ms. Ford: "I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story." Ms. Ford’s supporters are exploiting the “Me Too” movement to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty simply because Ms. Ford is a woman who has made what they call, without any corroborating evidence to date, a “credible” charge. The same would presumably be the case for Ms. Ramirez. They argue that since the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal judicial trial, but rather a legislative hearing for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, the normal burden of proof shouldered by the accuser should not apply. Judge Kavanaugh should have to prove that he is not guilty, they are in effect insisting. This is another case of Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the normal burden on the prosecution in a criminal case - to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - is not applicable regarding the charge against Judge Kavanaugh since he is not a defendant in a criminal trial. However, that should not flip the burden of proof onto Judge Kavanaugh altogether. Judge Kavanaugh is being subjected to charges of a criminal nature that could not only deprive him of a seat on the Supreme Court for which he is otherwise eminently qualified. Ms. Ford’s unsubstantiated accusation can completely destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s life by causing irreparable damage to his reputation for integrity and good character and to his career, which he has built up during decades of public service. His family’s lives have been completely upended. Placing the burden on Judge Kavanaugh to prove that he was not involved in an uncorroborated incident from years ago, about which even his accuser does not recall key details, turns the fundamental constitutional principle of due process upside down. Ms. Ford should have the burden to prove her accusations by at least a preponderance of all the evidence presented. This charade must come to an end. No more extensions for Ms. Ford to come forward and testify. If Ms. Ford does not follow through with her agreement to testify in an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this Thursday and do so upon the conditions set by the committee, she should go home while the committee proceeds to an immediate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. If Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh do testify, the senators deciding on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as well as the American public following the testimony must remember one cardinal rule. In a nation guided by fairness and law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, many of Judge Kavanaugh’s haters have thrown that rule aside. If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled as a result of the smears and character assassination, President Trump should immediately nominate someone on his short list such as Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate Republican majority should then push through the new nominee’s confirmation as soon as possible. Delay is not an option.

Travis Air Force Base terrorist identified as Muslim Hafiz Kazi Earlier today I wrote: “FBI spokeswoman Gina Swankie and Travis spokesman Airman Christian Conrad declined to elaborate on the matter or identify the driver. Why?” Now it’s clear why. They wanted to hold off as long as possible on identifying this terrorist as another Muslim, and this as another jihad terror attack. Protecting the image of Islam, not protecting the public, still seems to be the most important priority for all too many American officials. “Man whose vehicle exploded at Travis AFB identified,” KGO, March 23, 2018: TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (KGO) — A man who drove into Travis AFB has been identified as 51-year-old Hafiz Kazi, two sources with knowledge of the probe tell ABC News. The sources described Kazi as a “nomad” and a “vagabond,” who lived in many places. Authorities extracted a video from his cell phone and are analyzing it to try and see if it could help point to a motive. Sources wouldn’t offer any details about the video. The FBI is holding a press conference Friday at 3:30 p.m. and will be asking the public for help and any information about Kazi. Sources say the information gathered so far still does not point to a concrete motive, with one source calling the man a “mystery” still. Terrorism, mental health issues, and everything else are still on the table as authorities try to uncover a motive. On Wednesday, the car crashed at the main gate of Travis Air Force Base. Officials are treating it as a possible attempted attack. The FBI is now leading the investigation. “The car basically blew up,” said witness Kamren Hernandez. ” It was nothing anymore.” Hernandez couldn’t believe what he witnessed from his family’s restaurant just feet from the main gate at Travis Air Force Base — a black SUV exploding seconds after breaching security gates. Hernandez’ father, Lamar, saw it too. “It kept exploding — boom boom. Kept on going.” Travis Air Force Base officials are investigating a security incident that occurred at the main gate on Wednesday…. A U.S. official tells ABC News it appears the driver had propane tanks in the vehicle, which they may have ignited deliberately…. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

The Sun is getting cooler and dimmer, but scientists aren’t worried In what is being considered a particularly rare event, scientists are projecting that the Sun will be an unusually cool customer by the year 2050. By combining data and observations from decades of Sun research, experts are predicting a “Grand Solar Minimum” will occur a few decades from now, making our parent star dimmer and cooler than it has been for a very long time. The Sun might look the same to you today as it has since the first time you laid eyes on it, but our star actually displays plenty of changes. The Sun goes through regular cycles of solar minimums and solar maximums, which are periods where the Sun is either quite calm (the minimum) or incredibly active (the maximum). These patterns repeat every 11 years or so, but new research suggests that there’s a pattern behind the pattern, and that a particularly cool solar minimum is on the way. The study, which was published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, was carried out by a team led by physicist Dan Lubin of the University of California, San Diego. After combing the data, Lubin’s team has forecasted a grand minimum that will be around seven percent cooler than the typical solar minimum, making it a particularly calm moment for our star. During a solar minimum, the Sun produces far fewer solar flares and sunspots, and as a result, much less ultraviolet radiation is shot out into space and towards Earth. This can have a number of effects on our planet, including changes in the thickness of the stratospheric ozone layer and temperatures far above ground. Those changes can affect weather, though forecasting specific differences has proven difficult. The grand minimum will be an exaggerated version of the typical solar minimum, and could produce some very noticeable effects. The most recent grand minimum is thought to have occurred back in the mid 1600s. The event, called the Maunder Minimum, is credited with plunging temperatures to the point where the Thames River and Baltic Sea froze over. However, other parts of the planet heated up, including Alaska and Greenland, to far above their normal highs. This temporary shakeup of temperatures could happen again, though the researchers say it will have very little effect on the overall global warming trend that mankind has created for itself.

Biblical Illiterates Reverse Romans 13: Teach Submit to Tyranny! Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the first his Cromwell; And George the third- Treason! Cried the speaker- May profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it. –Patrick Henry Recently, I received a newspaper article from a confused, biblically illiterate friend asking me what my take was on an article titled, “Scripture teaches to submit to authorities” with reference to Romans Chapter 13. In this article, the author was calling out a Christian for protesting a corrupt representative in government, even going so far as to suggest this protestant ought to have stayed home to read their Bible rather than to protest corruption in government. He went onto say that we are commanded by Scripture to submit to the authorities that have been elected. To start off, maybe this individual should take the time to know a little bit of his own history! There is nothing worse than when a person who doesn’t know what they are talking about tries to tell you what the truth is. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Maybe he should have taken the time to look to the founding forefathers and that document which they drew up called “The Declaration of Independence.” That document alone is 75% of the usurpations that the Tyrant King George committed against our forefathers and what it is that our forefathers would not put up with. Our American history found in that document teaches that our forefathers threw off the tyrant that would not be ruled by God and declared “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!" Furthermore, the motto of the American Revolution was “No King but King Jesus.” America’s original national seal was “REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD” with a picture on the inside of the seal showing the Pharaoh being overthrown by the sea with Moses and the children of Israel safe on the shore. John Hancock, the first signer of the Declaration of Independence, said, “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian duty of each individual… Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which Heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” (History of the United States of America, Volume. 2 p. 229) Apparently, this individual who wrote the article knows nothing of the Black Robed Regiment that the tyrant King George feared the most. The Black Robed regiment, were in fact, the preachers that went before the Forefathers in educating the colonies to resistance when it came to the corrupt King on the other side of the pond. They sacrificed themselves to establish the freedoms in which he enjoys today. The author went on to write that this protestant should know what the Bible says about those in authority. First of all, the authority given to our representative government is derived from “We the People.” We receive our rights from God, and in turn, delegate power to those who serve “We the People.” Representatives work for us, we do not work for them. “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” -The Declaration of Independence He then quotes Romans 13: 1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. The first Scripture says: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. God ordained the power, and that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Did God tell His Church to submit to that which He condemns? (Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15) Absolutely not! Is the Church to transgress His Laws, or to magnify and enforce His Laws unto judgment? (Psalm 40:8; Romans 3:31) Of course not! If He did, that would make God unjust. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). The Lord has, in fact, commanded nowhere in Scripture for the Church to submit to the wicked. The Bible teaches just the exact opposite. We are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” (Ephesians 5:11). Furthermore, it would contradict what Scripture teaches us from Genesis all the way to Revelation every step of the way. Think of this: Those that serve “We the People,” before taking office, swear to uphold the US Constitution with their hand on the Holy Bible. They are appointed to magnify law against crime, not crime against the law (Psalm 94:20). America is based on Common Law, the Mosaic Institution. Read the 5 books of Moses. “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the Law of God.” –William Blackstone, English Common Law Representatives are to magnify the law, not tear it down; and yet, this is what the biblically illiterate are teaching others to do, submit to the tyrants and resist God, His Church and His Word (Micah 3:5). I ask, are Christians to submit to those who have sanctioned the murder of the innocent in the womb (Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17)? Absolutely not! Are Christians to submit to those who have redefined marriage where a man can now "marry" a man and a woman can now "marry" a woman (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:24 etc…)? Absolutely not! Submit to those who lie continuously, to them that steal and even kill? Absolutely not! Submit to what God condemns? Yet, this is what the perverse, modern-day, professing Christians are teaching the sheep in the American Church today. It would do you well to now look to the Christ when He said that we are to beware of the leaven of the Pharisee’s (corrupt doctrines of those who claimed to be the children of God), as well as the leaven of Herod (corrupt doctrines of government) (Mark 8:15). If you remember, it was those same people who called for the crucifixion of Christ while crying out “We have no King but Caesar” (John 19:15). Do these that teach such heresy not realize that every apostle, except John, was killed by hostile corrupt civil authorities opposed to their endeavors? Christians throughout history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by corrupt civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various, lawless policies and prohibitions. Did Christian martyrs violate God’s principles of submission to authority? Of course, not. Also, keep in mind that magistrates have limited and defined authority in civil matters. Take note that civil government is to be, and must be, a “terror to good works.” It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good, law-abiding people. God never gave them that authority and any, and all, government that oversteps the divine authority and its boundaries has no divine authority or protection. Civil government is a “minister for God to thee for good” (Romans 13:4). It is not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Anyone who teaches that they have authority to execute wrath upon "him that doeth good” is ignorant and uneducated in their misleadings (1 John 4:6). To tell Christians to submit to evil civil authority is teaching the opposite of what is true. Common sense does come into play here. I ask, did Moses violate God's principle of submission when he was commanded by God, “Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me” (Exodus 9:1). And when Pharaoh refused, God plagued the Pharaoh and the Egyptians and set His children free. Think of this, the meekest man alive was sent to the face of the Pharaoh to tell him to obey or else. Is this what is being preached from the pulpits across America today? Or what of Gideon who was to deliver the Children of Israel from the Midianites? The first thing the Lord commanded him to do was to tear down his father's altars (Judges 6:25). Was this a violation of God's principles of submission? The sins of the fathers were the reason the Midianites had power to oppress them. What of that lone prophet, Elijah? The tyrant Ahab called him the troubler of Israel. Elijah set the record straight when he answered, "I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim (1 Kings 18:18). Is this a violation of God's principles when it came to submission to authority? Elijah took Ahab and the false prophets to the top of Mount Carmel where the God of Israel consumed the sacrifice by fire, and the false prophets were killed (1 Kings 18:38-40). What of King David? Was he violating God’s principles of submission when he refused to surrender himself to Saul’s troops? David was a king that was to overthrow corrupt governments by dispossessing them and establishing righteousness through justice and judgment (Jeremiah 23:5; Isaiah 51:4). Did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego violate God's principle of submission when they refused to worship King Nebuchadnezzar’s image? Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. Daniel 3:3-6 When they refused to submit to the tyrant, the furnace was heated up 7 times hotter so that the guards were consumed, only to have the fourth man, “like the Son of man,” show up to deliver them where the fire had no power over them, and not a hair of their heads was singed. In the end, Only the corrupt king acknowledges the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.” Daniel 3:28 Did Daniel violate God's principles of submission when he disobeyed the king's order to stop praying to any god but himself? Keep in mind that the punishment was that Daniel was thrown into a den of lions in which God sent forth an angel to protect him. His accusers were then thrown into the den and devoured by the very lions that they meant to have devoured Daniel (Daniel 6). What of Jeremiah? Was he violating God's principles of submission when he was sent to preach repentance to the corrupt church and the corrupt kings? For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. Jeremiah 1:18 Don’t forget about Amos, who was prophesying judgment upon the corrupt priests and the corrupt king of his day (Amos 7:10-16). Was that violating, or fulfilling God's principles and purposes? What of the New Testament? John the Baptist points out all of the evils of King Herod (Luke 3:19). Was this a violation of submission to civil government? No, it was a rebuke to corruption in government to submit to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His laws. Is it a violation of submission to God's principles to keep preaching, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”? Absolutely not! The corrupt Pharisees along with corrupt government did the opposite. “Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:2-20 Or what of the account found in Acts 12:1-11, where the Lord sent an Angel to liberate Peter from the hands of tyrants. “Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him. And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.” Over and over again, you can see that the Church was to stand in protest against the wicked that were at war with Christ (Revelation 12:17), in dealing with not only the corrupt and wicked priests, but also the corrupt and wicked in government. as well as those who submitted to such. It is important for people to know the Scriptures (History), lest you find yourselves to be fighting against God (Acts 5:39). Nowhere in Scripture can you find the Lord telling His children to submit to the wicked in disobedience to His Word. Nowhere! Furthermore, the individual that wrote the article teaching people to submit to authorities might want to take the time to read Romans 12:21 before perverting and twisting Romans 13, so that the next time he will not be guilty of twisting Scripture the way that Satan twists Scripture. “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Willfully Ignorant FBI Can't Discover Motive For Muslim Jihadi Who Drove Into Propane Tanks At Travis Air Force Base “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point,” Ragan said. That means they didn’t find an ISIS membership card in his wallet, or lots of phone calls to Iraq or Syria, or a note from Kazi reading, “I did this for Allah and Islam. Allahu akbar.” Of course, even if they had found those things, given their track record of denial and deception, they may still be searching for Kazi’s motive. In any case, a larger point is being lost here. And that is that there is a war going on. We know that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups have called upon Muslims in the U.S. to try to kill military personnel and police, as well as civilians. We know that Kazi, with all the propane and gas tanks in his car, was clearly trying to set off a major fire that would kill more people than just himself. Even if he wasn’t on the phone to Baghdadi, the likelihood is that when a Muslim drives into a U.S. Air Force Base with a car full of incendiaries, probably this has something to do with the global jihad. The FBI’s bafflement here is part of its deep, deep corruption. The FBI doesn’t acknowledge that there is a global jihad, or that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. It doesn’t admit that there is a war going on, and treats each act of Islamic terror as if it were a separate and discrete criminal event, unrelated to all the others. So, each time something like this happens, they’re back at Square One, trying to figure out motive. It’s as if the U.S. Army stopped to interrogate every German soldier who crashed through the Ardennes Forest at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, to see if each one’s actions had anything to do with the German Army and Adolf Hitler’s war aims. This willful ignorance leads to a diversion and waste of resources that is astronomical and catastrophic. “Motive a mystery in car explosion at Travis Air Force Base,” by Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2018: Federal investigators on Friday said that the person who drove a burning minivan filled with propane and gas tanks into the front gate of Travis Air Force Base in Northern California was a 51-year-old Bay Area man originally from India. Hafiz Kazi was a legal permanent resident and had lived in the United States since 1993, said Sean Ragan, FBI special agent in charge of the Sacramento field office. Kazi had lived in the Bay Area, including Sausalito, Ragan said, but his most recent place of residence was not known. Investigators have yet to determine a motive for the Wednesday night attack or evidence that anyone else was involved. “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point,” Ragan said, adding that aspect of the case was still being investigated. “Now the question is, why. Why was he there? What led him there? And we don’t know answers to that, quite frankly.” Kazi drove the Kia minivan through the front gate of the military base, which is near Fairfield, around 7 p.m. Wednesday. Security personnel saw flames inside the van, which crashed shortly after going through the gate, Ragan said. Emergency responders initially did not know if it was an attack or some sort of mishap. But when they opened the doors to the minivan they found five propane tanks, three plastic one-gallon gas cans, several lighters, three phones and a gym bag with personal items, Ragan said…. The dead man’s religious beliefs and affiliation are not known at this point, said Ragan, who debunked a rumor that some sort of “jihad” video was found on Kazi’s phone…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Francis and Farrell’s 'Sinod' on the Youth, #StopThe Synod2018 During the last 5 years of this papacy, Francis and his Synodal Schemers masterfully manipulated, rigged, and exploited the synodal process. The backdoor tactics and machinations were brilliantly documented by Edward Pentin , Henry Sire, George Neumayr and an array of investigative journalists. The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. – Shakespeare, As You Like It Pope Francis and Cardinal Farrell sit with students at the 2018 pre-synodal meeting for young people. The upcoming October 2018 Synod of Bishops guarantees more synodal antics as the doctrinal culmination of the “Who Am I to Judge” mantra and the recantation of Church teaching on homosexuality. Pope Francis announced in the Pre-Synodal meeting that the Church will be listening to all the young people and that “no one will be excluded.” That’s code language that the Pope will be “dialoging” and “accompanying” and “hearing” the pro-LBGT agenda. Oh, the providential irony! The two themes of the upcoming Synod of Bishops in Rome are none other than, Youth and Vocations. Sound familiar? Do I hear the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report? How inconvenient that the two targets of predatory clerics and prelates will be the subject of the Synod of Bishops. How inconvenient that the head of the Synod on Youth and Vocations, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, was the former roommate of the most prolific serial predator of youth and seminarians in the history of the American Church. How inconvenient that Farrell, Head of this Synod on Youth, roomed with the notorious Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for six years and never knew anything about McCarrick’s predatory behavior. How inconvenient that a global homosexual clergy predation scandal is erupting at a time when Francis wants the Synod to minimize that nagging and unmerciful Catholic catechism doctrine of homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” by exploiting the naive views of the youth at the Synod. How inconvenient that homosexual predation is bankrupting the American Church and the Instrumentum Laboris, the working document of this Vatican Synodal Agenda, embraces the relaxation of the Church teachings on homosexuality. How inconvenient that the homosexual network of clergy and prelates were blasted as predators and coverup enablers in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, while the Instrumentum Laboris argues that: “Some LGBT youths, through various contributions that were received by the General Secretariat of the Synod, wish to benefit from greater closeness and experience greater care by the Church, while some Bishop Conferences ask themselves what to suggest to young people who decide to create homosexual instead of heterosexual couples and, above all, would like to be close to the Church.” §197 IL How inconvenient that during a global prelate homosexual coverup scandal, the 2018 Synodal Bishop Conferences are exploring for ways during the Synod to discuss ways in which homosexual youths want to be “closer” to the Church! How inconvenient that since 2013 during Francis’ impromptu airplane presser when he cleverly sent a powerful message to homosexual clerics, “Who Am I to Judge,” now Francis must judge the criminal predatory conduct of homosexual clergy and prelates who preyed on youth and seminarians. The emerging homosexual clergy scandal is just beginning to unfold. The laity will learn over the course of the next few years that the underlying cause of the criminal scandal lies in the homosexual network of priests, bishops and cardinals who preyed on the youth, assaulted seminarians, promoted their own ilk, and punished any whistleblowers or noncompliant priests. Here is the dirty secret that is now emerging. Many in the hierarchy were active homosexuals who intentionally relaxed and ignored the Church’s teaching and moral stance on homosexuality. The personal wreckage brutally portrayed in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report is the direct result of a clerical culture which embraced homosexuality and groomed, recruited, and assaulted young people into this sordid lifestyle. Many priests, bishops, and cardinals practiced what Francis preached, ‘who am I to judge.’ The result? A litany of lives of total moral, physical, emotional devastation suffered by victims of homosexual clerics. This is just the very beginning of the dark night of the soul of the Catholic Church. The upcoming Synod and its embrace of the “LGBT” lifestyle makes a mockery of the suffering of the clergy victims and justifies the decades-old scandal. Be forewarned that inviting young people from ages 16-29 to the Synod to discuss vocations with Bishops poses serious moral and physical dangers to these unsuspecting youth, many of whom think homosexuality is cool. And the Bishops know it. The full extent of the clerical predation in the hierarchy will take years to uncover. Until it has, this Synod must be cancelled while the civil authorities and law enforcement fully investigate the breadth and depth of the homosexual clerical predation. The warning signs and rainbow flags are flamboyantly flashing that the 2018 Synod on the Youth and Vocations in Rome presents great moral and physical exploitation of the youth. According to the Vatican, the chosen topic of the 2018 Synod, is an “expression of the Church’s pastoral concern for the young,” and is in continuity with the findings of the two-fold synod on the family and Francis’s post-synodal document Amoris Laetitia. We’ve caught on to his sneaky synodal tactics. Francis cleverly uses the synodal process to relax church doctrine by employing secular tools of surveys and focus groups. And, if the necessary results aren’t computed, they will skewer the results. Magisterium by majority vote or stuff the ballot box. The only compelling “expression of the Church’s pastoral concern for the young” belongs in the full and transparent cooperation of criminal investigations into predatory homosexual predation. Turn over the documents secret archives involving predation, both in the Vatican and in the chanceries around the globe. That is the only expression that will demonstrate concern for the young. Sign the Petition to Stop the Synod Here. Editor's Note: The Remnant has lunched its own #StopTheSynod petition, for those who would rather not go to Change.org. Our petition will remain at the top of our site from now until October, or until the Synod is canceled. Please sign and encourage your friends, contacts, and social media associates to do the same. MJM ______________________________ Elizabeth Yore is an attorney who has investigated clerical sex abuse cases.

Former Head of DNC Aided & Abetted Muslim IT Spy, Imran Awan One of the biggest stories of 2017 and 2018 is being ignored by the mainstream media and we all know why that is. It's because it implicates dozens of House Democrats in what could be the biggest crime of spying in US history by Muslim IT spy Imran Awan and his partners. Former head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is on the front line of aiding and abetting Awan and his associates as has been revealed by Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller. In a lengthy report by Rosiak at The Daily Caller News Foundation, he writes: take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Ex-Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she intervened in a Pakistani land deal involving her then–IT aide Imran Awan, according to two House employees. The dispute came after Awan’s father was charged with fraud in relation to the deal, and the mysterious exertion of political influence resulted in Pakistani authorities instead targeting the elderly alleged victims, according to a local report. And when a House Office of Inspector General cybersecurity investigation found that Awan made “unauthorized access” to House servers, including the House Democratic Caucus’ shortly before the election, Wasserman Schultz became “frantic, not normal,” “making the rounds” to House officials in an attempt to kill the investigation, one House employee told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Awan told people Wasserman Schultz chose the name for his daughter, Leza — a Jewish name — and that the Florida congresswoman’s daughter regularly rode a horse that Awan kept at a boarding facility, sources with knowledge of the relationship told TheDCNF. Wasserman Schultz cornered House Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko and called him a “fucking Islamophobe,” saying “you will not so much as take away their parking spots,” the two House employees said Kiko told them. The congresswoman also told Kiko she had invited Awan’s whole family to her daughter’s bat mitzvah and said she had “helped him with a land deal,” the sources said. A spokesman for Kiko declined to comment on this story. A 2009 article in the Pakistani publication Dawn, headlined “Influential expat shields father from long arm of law,” said Awan’s father was facing criminal fraud charges involving a land deal, but Awan used political connections to pressure the police into targeting the alleged victims instead. Awan’s father purchased “huge chunks of land from different farmers in 2008,” but all the checks bounced, the report said. “The police high-ups are ‘ominously’ indifferent to proceed against Awan,” and it’s “noteworthy” how they were “complying with the desires of” Awan, who the paper described as a “White House employee.” “About a dozen farmers of Chak 7-JB, Panjor, including five siblings — all aged between 57 and 70 — have given up hope of justice after they sold their agricultural lands to Ashraf Awan of Bole De Jhugi, who is father of White House employee Shahid Imran,” Dawn reported. Imran Awan also goes by Shahid Imran Awan, Virginia court records show. The police harassed the 19 would-be victims, including the five elderly brothers and even their lawyer, and charged them with “frivolous” cases, apparently to get them to stop trying to get the money they say they were owed, the paper said. “Mohammad Abid, a victim of [Ashraf] Awan’s alleged high-profile swindling, said that [Ashraf] Awan’s son had easy access to the corridors of power and that’s why he was able to [pressure] the police to dance to his tunes,” Dawn reported. The article details a series of people who say they were then subject to retaliation, including widow Bushra Bibi who said, “now Imran was threatening her with dire consequences.” A third source, who’s familiar with Imran Awan, told TheDCNF that Awan recounted the intervention in the foreign criminal matter and that Awan said it was Wasserman Schultz who intervened. A fourth source — a fellow House IT aide — previously told TheDCNF that Awan said now-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wasinvolved. Dr. Zafar Iqbal, one of the alleged victims, told TheDCNF that “Imran came to Pakistan to get [his father] out of jail, since he had some [connections] in the Congress.” Ashraf Awan’s business partner in the land deal, Rashid Minhas, told TheDCNF that the elder Awan gave a USB to a Pakistani senator who is a former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency, and that Imran claimed his IT position in Congress gave him the power to “change the U.S. president.” Minhas is in prison for an unrelated fraud charge. On July 25, 2016, the House Inspector General notified the Committee on House Administration that investigators had detected major cybersecurity violations by the Awan family. Awan, his wife, two brothers, his brother’s wife, and even his elderly father were all being paid by various Democrats to manage their servers, with many of the members from Wasserman Schultz’s Florida. The finding came at a critical time for Democrats: It was three days after WikiLeaks published the first emails from a hacked on the DNC, setting the stage for Wasserman Schultz to lose her position as party chair and for Democrats to begin electioneering on a theme of Russian hacking. In February 2017, Kiko and the House’s top law enforcement official, Paul Irving, outlined serious violations in a letter to the committee, and the family was banned from the House computer network. The letter also noted that the House Democratic Caucus server disappeared soon after the IG report named it as key evidence. But Wasserman Schultz refused to fire Awan, with her spokesman saying he would work on “websites” and “printers,” which a cybersecurity expert previously told TheDCNF would presumably involve network access. The congresswoman also added Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, to her payroll in late 2016, after the investigation was in full swing, but before the family was banned from the network. Wasserman Schultz kept paying her until March 17 — 12 days after Alvi went to Pakistan with $12,000 in a suitcase. Her actions so rattled the Administration Committee’s Democratic staff director, Jamie Fleet, that he planted a negative story in Politico that revealed Wasserman Schultz, his fellow Democrat, was continuing to pay the suspect, two House sources said. The story also said Wasserman Schultz had a “friendly personal relationship” with Awan and Alvi. Fleet did not respond to a request for comment. Kiko said in an April 2018 hearing spurred by the scandal that he was powerless to stop members who refused to fire a bad actor. “Termination, now it’s the member’s responsibility … We can revoke everything but they could still be employed,” he said. He added that his office should have the authority to override members who would want to keep a rule-breaker on the government network. Wasserman Schultz became fixated on finding out everything investigators knew about Awan, the House sources said. House investigators briefed her extensively with significant evidence about Awan and his family, including improper computer evidence. Yet Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, “my office was provided no evidence to indicate that laws had been broken, which over time, raised troubling concerns about due process, fair treatment and potential ethnic and religious profiling.” Wasserman Schultz was defending someone investigators allegedly told her was suspected of cybersecurity violations, despite having resigned from her position as DNC head following a devastating hack during the 2016 election. Despite Wasserman Schultz’s relationship with Awan, in April 2017 — two months after he was banned from the computer network — the IT aide appeared to put the congresswoman at risk. Capitol Police found a laptop with the username RepDWS in a phone booth at midnight along with a copy of Awan’s ID, a letter to prosecutors and a note that said “attorney client privilege,” according to a police report. Awan’s ID caused police to tie it to a criminal suspect and seize it, but the note kept them from looking at it. That led to a tense exchange recorded on video in May 2017, in which Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the Capitol Police with “consequences” for not returning the laptop. When he refused, she mulled attempting to restructuring the Capitol Police’s entire board so that her committee would have more leverage over it. House sources told TheDCNF these exchanges were only a public glimpse into numerous such interactions, which were frequently profane, with every official she could buttonhole. One source said she also went to the Department of Justice and “made a stink.” Wasserman Schultz hired the House’s former top lawyer, Bill Pittard — who had recently quit the House — to try to block prosecutors from seeing evidence, TheDCNF previously reported.Awan obtained legal representation from two lawyers who began their careers in Miami — one with experience in espionage cases and the other a former aide to Hillary Clinton. Wasserman Schultz’ district includes much of Miami. One of Awan’s lawyers told a judge he felt “very strongly” that prosecutors should not be able to look at the RepDWS laptop, mounting an attorney-client privilege argument. Prosecutors did not challenge the argument before the judge. In August 2017, Imran and Hina were charged with four felony counts for gathering up money under allegedly false circumstances before wiring $300,000 to Pakistan in January. Prosecutors said the timing suggests that the Awans had learned of their investigation, which a spokeswoman for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, AshLee Strong, told TheDCNF was supposed to be secret. Capitol Police “requested that the shared employees be allowed to continue to use their IT credentials until February [2017] because they didn’t want to tip off the employees,” she said. Wasserman Schultz’s brother is a prosecutor in the same office handling the case and has tweeted about it. Gowen said the wire transfer instead had to do with the land deal, which he told the Washington Examiner was “quickly souring.” Wasserman Schultz did not respond to a request for comment.

Pope Francis' sexual abuse commission, hit by resignations and criticism, gets a reboot Last week Pope Francis announced he was reviving a panel he created to advise the Vatican on how to handle sexual abuse by clergy. The issue has dogged the Roman Catholic Church in recent years, and critics have accused Francis and his two predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, of failing to aggressively weed out and punish predator priests. Here’s a look what drove the panel’s creation and what to expect in the future. What is Pope Francis’ commission on sexual abuse? Following criticism he was not focusing on halting child abuse within the church, Francis created the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors in March 2014, naming Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, to run it. O’Malley was not only a member of the pope’s “G9” group of close advisors; he was also the man who sought to clean up the abuse scandal in Boston after the departure of his predecessor, Cardinal Bernard Law, whose shifting of predator priests to new posts was exposed by the Boston Globe and chronicled in the movie “Spotlight.” The revelations about Law, who died in December, emboldened abuse victims across the country and world, who began speaking up about the priests who had molested them. When he created the commission, Francis said: “The commission’s specific task is to propose to me the most opportune initiatives for protecting minors and vulnerable adults, in order that we may do everything possible to ensure that crimes such as those which have occurred are no longer repeated in the Church.” Why is it being renewed now? After the commission’s three-year mandate expired in December, Francis relaunched it on Feb. 17 with some members reappointed and nine new members added, some of whom are victims of abuse, although the Vatican declined to say which, opting to respect their privacy. O’Malley returns as chief. New members come from Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, the Netherlands and Tonga, "reflecting the global reach of the church and the challenge of creating safeguarding structures in diverse cultural context,” the Vatican said. What did the first commission achieve? The Vatican has said it “worked with almost 200 dioceses and religious communities worldwide to raise awareness and to educate people on the need for safeguarding in our homes, parishes, schools, hospitals, and other institutions.” What didn’t it do? Commission members quickly realized they needed to go beyond raising awareness and deal with the bishops who quietly shift offenders to new dioceses when they are exposed as molesters and rapists. Even if church laws already existed to hold bishops accountable for their priests’ behavior, those strictures were not enough, O’Malley said in 2014. “There are, theoretically I guess, canons that could apply here, but obviously they have not been sufficient,” he said. The commission was behind Francis’ decision in 2015 to create a new tribunal to judge bishops caught covering up for abusive priests, and to fund it for five years. But amid myriad legal questions over what exact powers the court would have, it never got off the ground. In 2016, Francis officially killed the plan to create it, issuing a document that essentially called on using existing procedures to tackle the problem. Francis was also criticized when Australian Cardinal George Pell, whom he had brought to Rome to clean up Vatican finances, was forced to return to Australia last year to face charges of sexual assault. Any other problems? Commission members said bishops should call the police when they discovered predator priests, rather than phone the nearest religious retreat to “park” the priest out of harm’s way. But this simple message was hard to get across. It emerged that during a Vatican training course for new bishops in September 2015 a French priest informed bishops they had no obligation to report abuse to the police, forcing the commission to issue a strong statement saying bishops had every obligation to do so. Did commission members persevere? Not all of them. British member Peter Saunders, a former victim of priestly abuse, was ousted in 2016. He said the group was a toothless, paper-shuffling exercise. Irish member Marie Collins, another victim, resigned in March last year and said Vatican bureaucrats had refused to comply with the commission’s request — approved by the pope — to respond to all letters sent to the Vatican by abuse victims. Marie Collins, then a member of the pope's sex abuse commission, in 2015 hands a letter to Cardinal Sean O'Malley detailing the abuse suffered by Juan Carlos Cruz of Chile. Catherine Bonnet / Associated Press Was the pope listening to the commission? Possibly not. In 2015, Collins handed O’Malley a letter addressed to the pope from Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean abused as a boy by Chilean prelate Fernando Karadima, who was sentenced by the Vatican to a lifetime of penance in 2010. Cruz described how the abuse was witnessed and covered up by Juan Barros, a priest whose appointment as a bishop in 2015 prompted huge protests in Chile. The pope has stuck by Barros, dismissing the protesters as “lefties” and hugging Barros publicly during his visit to Chile last month. "I can't condemn [Barros] because I don't have evidence," he said on the plane back to Rome, suggesting he had ignored or never read the letter from Cruz. That was too much for O’Malley, who said Francis had caused "great pain” to victims. If Francis was not listening to the commission about Barros, whom was he listening to? Vatican watchers believe the pope was influenced by Chilean Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz, a member of the G9 group who has backed Barros and reportedly helped block moves to make Cruz a member of the abuse commission. So is the pope intransigent on Barros? No. Something changed his mind after his Chilean trip, possibly the scale of the protest against Barros in the country. On Feb. 17, he sent a senior Vatican sex abuse investigator, Archbishop Charles Scicluna, to New York to interview Cruz, who now lives in Philadelphia. "For the first time I felt that someone is listening," Cruz said after the meeting. What happens next? “This should lead to Barros stepping down,” said Saunders, who is forming his own campaign group with Cruz and others to fight clerical abuse. The new papal commission will meanwhile hold its first meeting in April. Support our journalism Please consider subscribing today to support stories like this one. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks. Already a subscriber? Your support makes our work possible. Thank you. Kington is a special correspondent.

Kate Steinle's death at the hands of a Mexican national became a flashpoint in the immigration debate — here's the story behind her killing The surprise acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the shooting death of San Francisco woman Kate Steinle set off a firestorm of outrage Thursday night, as top conservatives and critics of so-called "sanctuary cities" pinned blame for Steinle's death on illegal immigration and insufficiently aggressive deportation policies. Garcia Zarate, a 45-year-old Mexican national who was homeless and living in the US illegally when he fired the shot that killed Steinle, was acquitted by a jury on murder and manslaughter charges. The jury convicted him of the lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a gun, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. Steinle, 32, was fatally shot while she walked along Pier 14 of the San Francisco Bay with her father in July 2015. The bullet that pierced her back had ricocheted off the concrete ground after it was fired by Garcia Zarate from a handgun belonging to a federal ranger that had been stolen four days earlier. Garcia Zarate's defense attorneys argued that the shooting was an accident — they said he found the gun wrapped in a T-shirt or cloth under a pier bench and unintentionally discharged it. Lead attorney Matt Gonzalez has argued that the weapon was a SIG Sauer with a "hair trigger in single-action mode" — a model well-known for accidental discharges even among experienced shooters. Gonzalez told the jury, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that Garcia Zarate had never handled a firearm before, was frightened by the noise of the gunshot, then flung the weapon into the bay where it was later found by a diver. Prosecutors, however, alleged that Garcia Zarate brought the weapon to the pier deliberately to do harm, and intentionally aimed and shot Steinle after firmly pulling the trigger. They said Garcia Zarate then threw the weapon into the bay and fled the scene. Beyond the shooting itself, perhaps the most controversial aspect of Garcia Zarate's case involves his previous criminal activity and history of deportations, and how San Francisco and federal authorities handled his custody before he ever picked up the gun and shot Steinle. At the time of Steinle's death, Garcia Zarate had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes and deported five times since the early 1990s. He faced a sixth deportation in 2015, and was in Justice Department (DOJ) custody that March after serving 46 months in prison for a felony re-entry into the US, but instead of transferring him into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation, the department transferred him to the San Francisco County Jail for prosecution of a 1995 marijuana charge. San Francisco prosecutors, who had long ago deprioritized marijuana charges, dismissed the decades-old charge and released Garcia Zarate on April 15, 2015. Due to San Francisco's policy of limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — which some refer to as a "sanctuary" policy — the city did not inform ICE when they released Garcia Zarate. As a result of the case, both the DOJ and the city of San Francisco have changed several policies. The DOJ announced in 2016 it would no longer release potentially deportable detainees to local jails without first allowing ICE to take custody. San Francisco, meanwhile, has adjusted its policy to notify ICE if they are releasing suspected undocumented immigrants who face charges of serious or violent felonies. "This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had simply turned the alien over to ICE as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets," ICE Director Thomas Homan said in a statement on Thursday. "It is unconscionable that politicians across this country continue to endanger the lives of Americans with sanctuary policies while ignoring the harm inflicted on their constituents." But ICE has faced criticism of its own over not seeking a judicial warrant to legally obtain custody of Garcia Zarate when it discovered he had been transferred into San Francisco's custody. The agency has argued that obtaining judicial warrants are unnecessary and would place too much burden on ICE officials and federal courts. Though the agency did issue a request to the city to detain Garcia Zarate until ICE officials could pick him up, their detainer requests are not signed by a judge and are therefore not legally binding. San Francisco's policy is to ignore such requests if they are not accompanied by judge-signed warrants, and the city has cited federal court cases concluding that such detentions violate inmates' Fourth Amendment rights. Garcia Zarate's deportation and criminal history made him an effective target for immigration hardliners, who argued that Steinle would still be alive were it not for an insecure border and lenient treatment toward suspected undocumented immigrants in local jails. President Donald Trump immediately seized on the verdict on Thursday as evidence of the perils of "Illegal Immigration." Trump frequently villainized Garcia Zarate and cited Steinle's death during his presidential campaign, using the case to bolster his argument for a border wall and aid his crusade against "sanctuary cities." Early on Friday, Trump also falsely claimed on Twitter that Garcia Zarate had previously committed violent crimes and had illegally entered the US six times due to lax border security under the Obama administration. "The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!" Trump tweeted. In fact, Garcia Zarate had never been convicted of a violent crime before Steinle's shooting — his previous convictions were for nonviolent drug crimes and illegal entry. Lax border security, too, does not appear to be a factor since Garcia Zarate was caught by border patrol agents each time he entered the country under the Obama administration. In contrast, Steinle's family has expressed nuanced views on immigration and "sanctuary" policies. They have both condemned Trump for "sensationalizing" Steinle's death to advance anti-immigration policies, and expressed frustration with San Francisco officials, who they believe went too far in refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The Never-Trumpers Are Never Coming Back Shop all books by Pat Buchanan With never-Trump conservatives bailing on the GOP and crying out for the Party of Pelosi to save us, some painful truths need to be restated. The Republican Party of Bush I and II, of Bob Dole and John McCain, is history. It’s not coming back. Unlike the Bourbons after the Revolution and the Terror, after Napoleon and the Empire, no restoration is in the cards. It is over. The GOP’s policies of recent decades — the New World Order of George H.W. Bush, the crusades for democracy of Bush II — failed, and are seen as having failed. With Trump’s capture of the party they were repudiated. There will be no turning back. What were the historic blunders? Nixonu2019s White Hous... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $6.38 Buy New $10.01 (as of 10:15 EDT - Details) It was not supporting tax cuts, deregulation, conservative judges and justices, or funding a defense second to none. Donald Trump has delivered on these as well as any president since Reagan. The failures that killed the Bush party, and that represented departures from Reaganite traditionalism and conservatism, are: First, the hubristic drive, despite the warnings of statesmen like George Kennan, to exploit our Cold War victory and pursue a policy of permanent containment of a Russia that had lost a third of its territory and half its people. We moved NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, onto her doorstep. We abrogated the ABM treaty Nixon had negotiated and moved defensive missiles into Poland. John McCain pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and even to send U.S. forces to face off against Russian troops. Thus we got a second Cold War that need never have begun and that our allies seem content to let us fight alone. Europe today is not afraid of Vladimir Putin reaching the Rhine. Europe is afraid of Africa and the Middle East reaching the Danube. Let the Americans, who relish playing empire, pay for NATO. Second, in a reflexive response to 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, dumped over the regime in Libya, armed rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria, and backed Saudi intervention in a Yemeni civil war, creating a humanitarian crisis in that poorest of Arab countries that is exceeded in horrors only by the Syrian civil war. The Greatest Comeback:... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $3.13 Buy New $6.00 (as of 08:50 EDT - Details) Since Y2K, hundreds of thousands in the Middle East have perished, the ancient Christian community has all but ceased to exist, and the refugees now number in the millions. What are the gains for democracy from these wars, all backed enthusiastically by the Republican establishment? Why are the people responsible for these wars still being listened to, rather than confessing their sins at second-thoughts conferences? The GOP elite also played a crucial role in throwing open U.S. markets to China and ceding transnational corporations full freedom to move factories and jobs there and ship their Chinese-made goods back here, free of charge. Result: In three decades, the U.S. has run up $12 trillion in merchandise trade deficits — $4 trillion with China — and Beijing’s revenue from the USA has more than covered China’s defense budget for most of those years. Beijing swept past Italy, France, Britain, Germany and Japan to become the premier manufacturing power on earth and a geo-strategic rival. Now, from East Africa to Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, and from the South and East China Sea to Taiwan, Beijing’s expansionist ambitions have become clear. And where are the Republicans responsible for building up this potentially malevolent power that thieves our technology? Talking of building a Reagan-like Navy to contain the mammoth they nourished. Since the Cold War, America’s elites have been exhibiting symptoms of that congenital blindness associated since Rome with declining and falling empires. Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $6.20 Buy New $6.00 (as of 12:40 EDT - Details) While GOP grass roots have begged for measures to control our bleeding southern border, they were regularly denounced as nativists by party elites, many of whom are now backing Trump’s wall. For decades, America’s elites failed to see that the transnational moment of the post-Cold War era was passing and an era of rising nationalism and tribalism was at hand. “We live in a time,” said U2’s Bono this week, “when institutions as vital to human progress as the United Nations are under attack.” The institutions Bono referenced — the U.N., EU, NATO — all trace their roots to the 1940s and 1950s, a time that bears little resemblance to the era we have entered, an era marked by a spreading and desperate desire of peoples everywhere to preserve who and what they are. No, Trump didn’t start the fire. The world was ablaze with tribalism and was raising up authoritarians to realize nationalist ends — Xi Jinping, Putin, Narendra Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkey, Gen. el-Sissi in Egypt — before he came down that escalator. And so the elites who were in charge when the fire broke out, and who failed to respond and refused even to recognize it, and who now denounce Trump for how he is coping with it, are unlikely to be called upon again to lead this republic. The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Top Florida County Election Official Illegally Let People Vote Over Fax & Email This happened in “heavily Republican Bay County,” and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum is outraged. Meanwhile, Democrat election officials are marking ballots themselves and “finding” boxes of them everywhere to try to get him to victory, and when confronted about that, Gillum says, “Every vote must be counted.” This is a disgrace. Have you ever heard of a close election in which a recount and “found” ballots gave the Republican victory? take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Of course not. This massive Democrat voter fraud could be the end of our free republic. “Top FL County Election Official Illegally Let People Vote Over Fax, Email,” by Randy DeSoto, Western Journal, November 13, 2018 (thanks to Mark): The top election official in heavily Republican Bay County allowed residents displaced by Hurricane Michael to vote by email and fax, contrary to Florida law. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum and others are expressing outrage at the special provision made for these voters. The Miami Herald reported that Bay County Supervisor of Elections Mark Andersen said on Monday that 11 ballots were accepted by email and 147 were faxed in, though Florida law only permits those serving in the military overseas to use these methods…. According to the Herald, Gov. Rick Scott issued an executive order on Oct. 18 allowing election supervisors in Bay County and other counties impacted by the storm to extend early voting days and designate more early voting locations, but did not make provision for voting by fax or email. Speaking at an African American church in Boynton Beach in Palm Beach County, north of Miami, on Monday night, Gillum expressed outrage that Anderson broke election laws and allowed these approximately 150 Floridians to vote by fax or email, The Associated Press reported. “These are the stories that we know,” Gillum said. “Imagine the ones that we don’t.” Meanwhile, Gillum along with Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson continue to call for all the votes to be counted in heavily Democratic Broward and Palm Beach counties, despite election officials in both missing state mandated deadlines in providing vote tallies. President Donald Trump tweeted late last week, “Mayor Gillum conceded on Election Day and now Broward County has put him ‘back in play.’ Bill Nelson conceded Election — now he’s back in play!? This is an embarrassment to our County and to Democracy!” Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Obama’s Treason: Even Worse Than We Thought The Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday that “the Obama administration skirted key U.S. sanctions to grant Iran access to billions in hard currency despite public assurances the administration was engaged in no such action, according to a new congressional investigation.” And it gets even worse: “The investigation, published Wednesday by the House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, further discloses secret efforts by top Obama administration officials to assure European countries they would receive a pass from U.S. sanctions if they engaged in business with Iran.” This revelation comes after the news that came to light in February, that, according to Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, “the U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.” There is a law that applies to this situation. U.S. Code 2381 says: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” In a sane political environment, Barack Obama would be tried for treason. Barack Hussein Obama has planted seeds that will be bearing bitter fruit for years, and probably decades, to come. He is, without any doubt, the worst President in American history. Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan? Yes, the doughface Presidents made the Civil War inevitable, but worse came later. Grant? Blind to corruption and out of his depth, but there have been worse than he as well. Wilson? That black-hearted Presbyterian bigot arguably gave the world Hitler and World War II, so he is definitely in the Final Four. Harding? Nah: his tax cuts and return to “normalcy” got the American economy, and the Twenties, roaring. FDR and LBJ gave us the modern welfare state and dependent classes automatically voting Democrat; the full bill on the damage they did hasn’t yet been presented. Nixon? A crook and an economic Leftist, who betrayed Taiwan for the People’s Republic; his record certainly isn’t good. Carter? Nothing good can be said about his four years of sanctimony and incompetence. But there is one thing Barack Obama has on all competitors: treason. He showered hundreds of billions of dollars on the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are those who say, “It was their money. It belonged to the Iranian government but was frozen and not paid since 1979.” Indeed, and there was a reason for that: not even Jimmy Carter, who made the Islamic Republic of Iran possible, thought that money, which had been paid by the Shah’s government in a canceled arms deal, belonged to the mullahs who overthrew the Shah. Likewise Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush all thought that the Islamic Republic was not due money that was owed to the Shah. Only Barack Obama did. The definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran order their people to chant “Death to America” in mosques every Friday, and repeatedly vow that they will ultimately destroy the United States of America and the state of Israel. How was giving them billions and helping them skirt sanctions applied by the U.S. government not treason? Other Presidents have been incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, but which has committed treason on a scale to rival the treason of Barack Obama? The Iranians also operate a global network of jihad terror organizations, one of which, Hizballah, is quite active in Mexico now, with the obvious ultimate intention of crossing the border and committing jihad massacres of Americans. Obama has given a tremendous boost to these initiatives, as well as to Iran’s nuclear program, with his nuclear deal that has given the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars and essentially a green light to manufacture nuclear weapons, in exchange for absolutely nothing. There is no telling when the worst consequences of Obama’s aid and comfort to the Islamic Republic of Iran will be felt. But they likely will be felt in one way or another. Even as President Trump moves swiftly to restore sanctions and put Iran on notice that its nuclear activity and global adventurism will not be tolerated, those billions cannot be recovered, and the Iranians have already spent a great deal for their jihad cause. However this catastrophe plays out, there is one man who will suffer no consequences whatsoever: Barack Obama. That’s Leftist Privilege. It’s good to be a powerful Leftist in Washington nowadays. Laws? Pah! Laws are for conservatives.

Student organizers boot SNL writer from stage during standup routine for jokes deemed offensive Saturday Night Live writer and comedian Nimesh Patel was pulled from the stage by event organizers after telling jokes that were criticized as racist and homophobic during his performance at cultureSHOCK: Reclaim, an event held by Columbia Asian American Alliance on Friday night. Patel, 32, was the first Indian-American writer for SNL, and has since been nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing. Patel has previously performed on Late Night with Seth Meyers and opened for comedians such as Chris Rock. During the event, Patel’s performance featured commentary on his experience living in a diverse area of New York City—including a joke about a gay, black man in his neighborhood—which AAA officials deemed inappropriate. Patel joked that being gay cannot be a choice because “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, ‘this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.’” About 30 minutes into Patel’s set, members of AAA interrupted the performance, denounced his jokes about racial identities and sexual orientation, and provided him with a few moments for closing remarks. Compared to his other jokes, ones specifically targeting sexual orientation audibly receive less laughter from the crowd. Patel pushed back on the officials’ remarks, and said that while he stood in solidarity with Asian American identities, none of his remarks were offensive, and he was exposing the audience to ideas that would be found “in the real world.” Before he could finish, Patel’s microphone was cut from off-stage, and he proceeded to leave. cultureSHOCK, an annual charity showcase featuring a fashion show, productions by various student groups and a famous performer, aims to provide a platform for Asian American artistic expression and breakthrough harmful stereotypes. Neither Patel and nor AAA could immediately be reached for comment. Adam Warren, CC ‘22, was in the audience Friday night. Warren said that AAA made the right decision to remove Patel from the stage due to the nature of his jokes, which contradicted the sensitive nature of the event itself. “The message they were trying to send with the event was opposite to the jokes he was making, and using people’s ethnicity as the crux of his jokes could be funny but still offensive...He definitely wasn’t the most crass comedian I’ve ever heard but for the event it was inappropriate,” Warren said. However, audience member Elle Ferguson, BC ‘22, said that while comedians can push the boundaries of social culture, she had heard similar jokes before and did not find them offensive. “While what some of the things that he said might have been a bit provoking to some of the audience, as someone who watches comedy a lot, none of them were jokes that I hadn’t heard before and none of them were jokes that elicited such a response in my experience,” Ferguson said. “[AAA] should have talked to him beforehand especially because comedy is known for being ground-breaking and for pushing boundaries.” For Sofia Jao, BC ‘22, problems with the performance resided not in the set, but with Patel’s closing remarks. “I really dislike when people who are older say that our generation needs to be exposed to the real world. Obviously the world is not a safe space but just accepting that it’s not and continuing to perpetuate the un-safeness of it… is saying that it can’t be changed,” said Jao. “When older generations say you need to stop being so sensitive, it’s like undermining what our generation is trying to do in accepting others and making it safer.”

Witness: Muslim Democrat IT Aide Awan Wiretapped Her, Then Bank Account She Controlled Was Drained Longtime Geller Report readers have been hearing about this cybersecurity breach by Muslim IT staffers for well over a year. The Democrat leadership collusion with Muslim spies is the biggest story of treason and espionage in the recent memory, and yet for month after month the media has refused to cover it. Instead, they’re so hellbent on destroying President Trump that they have directed all their energy to retailing Soviet fictions and titillating porn stories. House investigators found the House server was being used for nefarious purposes: the alleged Muslim spies were removing information and sending it for foreign actors. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The aides named are Imran Awan, his wife Hina Alvi, his brothers Abid and Jamal, and his friend Rao Abbas, Pakistani-born aides. And the father of Muslim spy ring Imran Awan transferred a USB drive to a Pakistani senator and former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency. Capitol Police are looking into the massive amounts of data the Awans reportedly downloaded off the congressional system, thousands of illegal logins made on the official system, possible theft of tens of thousands of dollars in congressional equipment and fraud and sent to foreign governments and groups. No wonder the Democrats tried to squirrel these jihad spies out of the country. Congress must investigate and act. “Witness Said Awan Wiretapped Her, Then Bank Account She Controlled Was Drained,” by Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller News Foundation, May 21, 2018 (thanks to Todd): After former Democratic IT aide Imran Awan allegedly threatened his stepmother not to talk to police, her email account was accessed in suspicious ways and a lawyer for one of Awan’s brothers found out she emailed the FBI on specific dates and lashed out at her: “You’re a liar, aren’t you?” Days after that, a bank account the stepmother controlled was almost completely drained through a payment to Imran’s brother, Abid Awan, bank records show — but she said she is too afraid to press criminal charges because she claims he has threatened her. The stepmother, Samina Gilani, also previously said Imran stole two laptops from her. Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan — along with Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and a friend — worked as IT administrators for 1 out of every 5 House Democrats and could read all their emails and files until police banned them from the network in February 2017for “numerous violations of House security policies.” Months later, none of the family is in jail, and the stepmother and other witnesses have said Imran and Abid have used their freedom to try to steer the outcome of the case since, including by threatening them not to cooperate with authorities, TheDCNF previously reported. In April 2016, the House’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) detected allegedly falsified purchase orders, and the Inspector General quickly expanded the scope to investigate cyber violations, finding that members of the Awan family improperly accessed congressmen’s servers and the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times. Though House officials suspected that equipment was being stolen, the Capitol Police did not search their homes, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned, and did not ban them from the network until nearly a year later. In the meantime, evidence appears to have been compromised: In December 2016, the CAO notified congressmen that the caucus server had physically disappeared. Though Abid played a prominent role in the late-2016 IG report, he has not been arrested, with congressmen saying a criminal investigation is ongoing. In January 2017, in the days around his father’s death, Abid removed Gilani as the beneficiary of his father’s life insurance and replaced her with himself, which led to a lawsuit, TheDCNF previously reported. Abid’s attorney, Jim Bacon, used the life insurance lawsuit to force Gilani to sit for a sworn deposition Oct. 4, 2017 in which he told her to reveal what she told the FBI about the congressional criminal probe and tried to get her to find out details from investigators. In one exchange, Bacon knew that she had emailed with the FBI. BACON Q: [redacted] is your email address, isn’t it? And you send emails from that address including two emails to the FBI, didn’t you? GILANI A: Yes, a long time ago. Q: No, not a long time ago. March 5th, 2017. March 6th, 2017. Ma’am, you lied to me, didn’t you? You lied to me, didn’t you? You’re a liar, aren’t you? A: I forgot about that. It was not in my mind. BACON: Ah. I think we need to take a break before I explode. Bacon did not respond to questions from the TheDCNF about how he knew Gilani had emailed the FBI on those dates…. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

New outbreak of Ebola kills 17 in northwest DR Congo Seventeen people in northwest Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have died from Ebola, the health ministry said on Tuesday, describing the fresh outbreak as a "public health emergency with international impact." "Twenty-one cases of fever with haemorrhagic indications and 17 deaths" have been recorded in Equateur province, it said, citing a notification to the ministry as of May 3. It is the DRC's ninth known outbreak of Ebola since 1976, when the deady viral disease was first identified in then-Zaire by a Belgian-led team. In Geneva, the World Health Organization (WHO) said lab tests in the DRC confirmed the presence of Ebola virus in two out of five samples collected from patients. "WHO is working closely with the government of the DRC to rapidly scale up its operations and mobilize health partners, using the model of a successful response to a similar... outbreak in 2017," it said in a statement. It said it had released $1 million (840,000 euros) from an emergency contingency fund, set up a coordination group and deployed more than 50 experts to work with the DRC government and health agencies. "The action plan prepared by the health ministry has been approved," an official statement released after a cabinet meeting said. - No new deaths - "Since the notification of the cases on May 3, no deaths have been reported," it said, without specifying when the first case came to light. The outbreak occurred in Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumba. All the cases were reported from a clinic at Ilkoko Iponge, located about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from Bikoro, where treatment capacities are limited, the WHO said. A team of experts from the WHO, Doctors without Borders (DRC) and Equateur province travelled to Bikoro on Tuesday to beef up coordination and carry out investigations, it said. Ebola is one of the world's most notorious diseases, being both highly infectious and extremely lethal. It is caused by a virus that has a natural reservoir in the bat, which does not itself fall ill, but can pass the microbe on to humans who hunt it for "bushmeat". The virus is handed on by contact with bodily fluids -- touching a sick or dead person is a well-known source of infection. Following an incubation period of between two and 21 days, Ebola develops into a high fever, weakness, intense muscle and joint pain, headaches and a sore throat. That is often followed by vomiting and diarrhoea, skin eruptions, kidney and liver failure, and internal and external bleeding. The worst-ever Ebola outbreak started in December 2013 in southern Guinea before spreading to two neighbouring west African countries, Liberia and Sierra Leone. That outbreak killed more than 11,300 people out of nearly 29,000 registered cases, according to WHO estimates, although the real figure is thought to be significantly higher. More than 99 percent of victims were in the three West African countries, although cases occurred in other parts of the world, often stirring panic. There is no current vaccine to prevent Ebola or licensed treatment for it, although a range of experimental drugs are in development. Early care with rehydration may boost the chance of survival. Given the lack of a pharmaceutical weapon against Ebola, health experts have responded with time-honoured measures of control, prevention and containment. They use rigorous protocols to protect medical personnel with disposable full-body suits, masks, goggles and gloves and disinfecting sprays.

3rd Highest Ranked Dem Civil Rights Hero Appeared w/Farrakhan, Won't Condemn The media's Farrakhan embargo is collapsing. And that's due to the hard work of committed conservative journalists who stayed on this story, especially at the Daily Caller, which got the Rep. Davis quotes, twice. Some credit also goes to Jake Tapper at CNN and Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post for a willingness to discuss the subject even when their media outlets didn't want to. The debate over the ties between Women's March leaders and Farrakhan made into a debate on the View. And that debate involved none other than Valerie Jarrett. The New York Times has now run its own explainer piece on Farrakhan and the Dems which mentions the infamous Obama-Farrakhan photo. There's also a quote from an Obama spokeswoman claiming that, “President Obama has denounced racism and anti-Semitism his entire life. That includes his public and repeated repudiations of Louis Farrakhan’s views over the years. Today is no different – he still rejects the harmful and divisive views Farrakhan continues to espouse.” That fails to explain why he met with him. And maybe one of these days someone will ask him that question. And then Obama can give a new remix of his Wright speech. "I can no more disavow Calypso Louie than I can my dead white grandmother." Rep. Danny Davis, after defending Farrakhan, now has a statement condemning him. But we've seen that before. So it likely doesn't represent his views. After a previous statement, Rep. Davis made an infamous comment about the "Jewish question". So it probably still isn't over. The statement though is full of conspiracy theories and blames everyone else for Davis' behavior except him. And now on to "civil rights hero" (TM) Rep. Clyburn. South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn attended a 2011 event with Farrakhan and shared the stage with him, even after Jewish groups voiced their opposition to Clyburn attending the event. Clyburn told the Final Call, a Nation of Islam publication, that he was “not bothered in the least bit” by criticisms of his attendance at the event. As the assistant Democratic leader, Clyburn is the third-highest ranked Democrat in the House. He declined to condemn Farrakhan in a statement released to The Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday. “I have fought all my life to advance the cause of social justice and equality, and I have always opposed bigotry in all its forms,” Clyburn said in the statement. His office declined repeated inquiries regarding whether the congressman is willing to condemn Farrakhan, and whether he stood by his decision in 2011 to shrug off criticisms of Farrakhan. Clyburn is now the eighth House Democrat to have direct ties to Farrakhan. The Republican Jewish Coalition has already called on the seven other Democrats to resign over their ties to Farrakhan. Obviously not going to happen. But the story is breaking through the embargo. We're starting to have that "national dialogue" about racism that the left keeps wanting us to have.

From Bad To Worse? Tillerson Out – CIA Director Pompeo In At State Dept – Gina Haspel As Head Of CIA From Bad To Worse? Tillerson Out – CIA Director Pompeo In At State Dept – Gina Haspel As Head Of CIA Please help support us with cryptocurrency donations. Thank you! Keeping things moving, and I think a lot of us can just shout out, “What are you thinking?” as President Donald Trump brings CIA Director Mike Pompeo, a man that blasted the likes of Edward Snowden for revealing the crimes of our government, to the State Department and installs Gina Haspel in the position of head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Trump tweeted out the news on Tuesday. “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!” he tweeted. 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! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2018 The Washington Post first reported on the story prior to Trump’s tweet. Trump and Tillerson have had a fraught relationship for many months. Trump told reporters Tuesday that he ultimately decided to fire the secretary because they disagreed over strategy in key areas of foreign policy, such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the approach to North Korea and the overall tone of U.S. diplomacy. Tillerson said he received a call from Trump around noon Tuesday, more than three hours after his firing was first reported by The Washington Post and announced minutes later in a tweet from the president. His voice quivering, Tillerson thanked career diplomats for their “honesty and integrity” and the American people for “acts of kindness,” and he singled out Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for their partnership and mutual support of diplomacy. But he notably did not thank Trump or praise his policies. Tillerson said he will remain in his post until March 31 but is delegating all authorities for running the State Department to Deputy Secretary John Sullivan and is committed to ensuring “an orderly and smooth transition.” The deposed diplomat also made a clear statement about Russian aggression: “Much work remains to respond to the troubling behavior and actions on the part of the Russian government.”  CNBC reports that Tillerson was not the only firing that took place on Tuesday: On Tuesday morning, State Department spokesman Steve Goldstein said Tillerson had no plans to leave. He “did not speak to the president this morning and is unaware of the reason” for his firing, the spokesman added. Two White House officials told the Associated Press that Tillerson found out he was fired Friday. The secretary got a call from White House chief of staff John Kelly but only got told an unspecified presidential tweet concerning him may be coming, officials at the State Department told the wire service. Later, the White House fired Goldstein, who contradicted the administration’s account of Tillerson’s ouster, according to NBC News and the AP. Goldstein was the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. Trump later told reporters he disagreed with Tillerson on some issues and feels the diplomat “will be much happier now.” While many are happy that Tillerson is gone, many of us are concerned with Mike Pompeo being installed at Secretary of State, especially regarding his un-American comments against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who exposed the criminal activity of the Deep State in DC. Speaking of Snowden, he decided to chime in on the newly appointed CIA director, but did not say anything about Pompeo becoming Secretary of State. “The new CIA director was a key part of the torture program and its illegal cover-up. Her name was on the Top Secret order demanding the destruction of tapes to prevent them being seen by Congress. Incredible.” Snowden tweeted. The new CIA director was a key part of the torture program and its illegal cover-up. Her name was on the Top Secret order demanding the destruction of tapes to prevent them being seen by Congress. Incredible. https://t.co/HjVHCPCbpo https://t.co/VamIGa1A8w — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 13, 2018 “Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who ‘tortured some folks,’ probably can’t travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin complaint to Germany’s federal prosecutor,” tweeted Snowden. Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7 — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 13, 2018 Snowden then asked, “Are these really the values the US should be promoting? The CIA might as well start issuing uniforms decorated with skulls and lightning bolts.” Are these really the values the US should be promoting? The CIA might as well start issuing uniforms decorated with skulls and lightning bolts. https://t.co/ZIeHWP57l3 — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 13, 2018 Snowden then offered a piece from The Intercept and The New Yorker for those who want to know a bit more about Gina Haspel. Want to know more about Gina Haspel? 1) https://t.co/7nTSnPYDbZ 2) https://t.co/Rg6nMJBxch — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 13, 2018 Glenn Greenwald, author of the above piece at The Intercept wrote, “Haspel, who will be the first woman to lead CIA, didn’t just oversee the Bush CIA’s black site but directly participated in the horrific torture of detainees. She also participated in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.” “This isn’t a radical departure for CIA,” Greenwald added. “After all, Haspel did this under George Tenet. At the time, John Brennan – who became Obama’s CIA director – was an advocate of rendition & other torture methods. And Pompeo was fine with black sites. Still notable: she’s an actual torturer.” From Greenwald’s article: This is more of the same old, same old going on, and it looks like it’s about to get a lot worse. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

MS-503 Gang Member Apprehended by Border Patrol Agents In Arizona YUMA, Ariz. – Yuma Sector Border Patrol agents arrested a gang member belonging to the Mara Salvatrucha-503 Gang early Monday morning. At 6:30 a.m. Monday, Yuma Station agents responded to a call for assistance at Carver Park from the Yuma Police Department. After agents interviewed the subject, it was determined that the 20-year-old El Salvadoran national was illegally in the United States. He was arrested and transported to Yuma Station. Agents positively identified the subject as Jose Rodriguez-Lopez and noted a MS-503 Gang tattoo across his chest. Rodriguez-Lopez claimed to have previously been a member of, MS-503, a branch of MS-13, a gang that originated in El Salvador and is notorious for extreme violence and bloodshed. Rodriguez-Lopez had no record of any criminal or immigration arrests in the United States. He was processed for immigration violations.

UK Bans Free Speech Activists While Admitting Numerous Preachers Of Jihad Violence, Hatred & Sharia The banning of free speech activists Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone from the UK is just the latest of many, many examples of how the British government bans foes of jihad terror while admitting its proponents. Pamela Geller and I are banned from entering the country for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. According to Breitbart, “Sellner, who described the detention centre as looking akin to a typical American prison, said he was told by authorities that his speaking at Hyde Park could cause violence and disrupt community cohesion.” That’s just what they claimed about Pamela Geller and me: that our visit could cause violence and disrupt community cohesion. But we, of course, have never advocated or approved of any violence. The UK Home Office meant that our visit could cause violence from Muslims. They were bowing to jihadist intimidation. Meanwhile, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.” Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nor does the UK admit only preachers of jihad terror. It admits jihad terrorists as well, even when it knows they are jihad terrorists. The Muslim migrant teen who bombed the London Tube told border officials that he was trained by ISIS, but was admitted anyway. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Two cases of Ebola confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Two cases of Ebola have been confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), according to a government health official. Jean Jack Muyembe, head of the national institute for biological research, said that at least ten more cases were also suspected in the northwestern town of Bikoro. Local health officials in Democratic Republic of Congo reported 21 patients showing signs of hemorrhagic fever and 17 deaths in the affected area before an Ebola outbreak was confirmed on Tuesday, the health ministry said. Medical teams have taken five samples from suspected active cases and two tested positive for the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus, the ministry said in a statement. It is the ninth time Ebola has been recorded in the DRC. Last year, eight people were infected and four people died after an outbreak of the disease. Ebola virus disease, formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. It is believed to be spread over long distances by bats, which can host the virus without dying. These animals then infect other tree-dwelling creatures such as monkeys. Ebola can often spread to humans from infected bushmeat. Image: Ebola is a difficult illness to contain and efforts to stop it spreading are vital The World Health Organisation reports that the first Ebola outbreaks occurred in remote villages in Central Africa, near tropical rainforests. The two-year outbreak in West Africa that began in 2014 involved major urban areas as well as rural ones. More than 11,300 people died and some 28,600 were infected, most of them in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Sporadic cases of Ebola have occurred since the epidemic was brought under control, with a small number of patients being confirmed in 2017. The disease was first detected in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreaks, one in what is now Nzara, South Sudan, and the other in Yambuku in the DRC. The latter occurred near the River Ebola, after which the disease is named.

‘Silent Donation’: Corporate Emails Reveal Google Executives Tried to Turn Out Latino Voters Who They Thought Would Vote For Clinton Google, once again, has been implicated in a story about how social media executives and employees are using their platforms to control and shutter conservative ideas. This time? This time, an email chain has emerged showing senior company executives pressing for the company to sway Latino voters to back Hillary Clinton. take our poll - story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Specifically, one executive suggests paying for the rides of Latinos to get them to the polls — if they vote for Clinton, that is. First censorship, now this. When will something be done about these tech and social media companies? From Breitbart: An email chain among senior Google executives from the day after the 2016 presidential election reveals the company tried to influence the 2016 United States presidential election on behalf of one candidate, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the emails, a Google executive describes efforts to pay for free rides for a certain sect of the population to the polls–a get-out-the-vote for Hispanic voters operation–and how these efforts were because she thought it would help Hillary Clinton win the general election in 2016. She also used the term “silent donation” to describe Google’s contribution to the effort to elect Clinton president. The main email, headlined, “Election results and the Latino vote,” was sent on Nov. 9, 2016—the day after Clinton’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election—by Eliana Murillo, Google’s Multicultural Marketing department head. The four page email begins with Murillo claiming she and others at Google were engaged in non-partisan activities not designed to help any one candidate or another—only to undercut her own commentary in later passages in the emails by openly admitting the entire effort to boost Latino turnout using Google products with official company resources was to elect Clinton over Trump. The critical miscalculation, Murillo wrote in a stunning admission in the email, was that Latino voters backed Trump by higher margins than any experts had forecast in the lead-up to the election. Trump’s 29 percent among Hispanics nationally blew prognosticators away, and he hit even higher numbers—about 31 percent—in the key battleground state of Florida, Murillo admitted. Murillo wrote at the outset of the lengthy message: We worked very hard. Many people did. We pushed tp get out the Latino vote with our features, our partners, and our voices. We kept our Google efforts non-partisan and followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy. We emphasized our mission to give Latinos access to information so that they can make an informed decision at the polls, and we feel very grateful for all the support to do this important work. Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers, particularly with early votes. A large percentage of Latino voters in Florida were new voters who had become citizens just in time to vote. We saw high traffic for the search queries ‘votar,’ ‘como votar,’ and ‘donde voter,’ in key states like Florida and Nevada. We will be pulling in more info in the coming hours/days but so far we definitely know there was high traffic on search in Spanish. Without translating our tools the users wouldn’t have found the information they needed. Objectively speaking, our goal was met — we pushed and successfully launched the search features in Spanish, and we thank Lisa for her support in advocating for this work. I sent Philipp a note yesterday to thank him because he and others voiced their support for this too, and we greatly appreciate it. Even Sundar gave the effort a shout out and a comment in Spanish, which was really special. “Sundar” presumably refers to Google’s chief executive officer Sundar Pichai, who took the reins of the massive search giant in October 2015. “Lisa” presumably refers to Lisa Gevelber, the vice president of Global Marketing for Google—who forwarded Murillo’s entire four-page email to several other Google executives in another chain also obtained by Breitbart News in which Gevelber praises Murillo’s activities with official company resources as having made a “great difference.” “Philipp” presumably refers to Philipp Schindler, a senior vice president and Google’s chief business officer per his LinkedIn page. The emails were first revealed on Fox News on Monday evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight by anchor Tucker Carlson in a special report. Breitbart News also obtained them, and has reached out to Google with a number of questions about the emails. Carlson, in his exclusive report on Fox News Monday night, compared the revelations in the Google emails to the probe of Russian interference in the U.S. election to Special Counsel Robert Mueller—raising the question about how much influence tech giants like Google and Facebook have on election outcomes in the United States. Carlson cited Dr. Robert Epstein, a social scientist and an expert on Google, who has said, in Carlson’s words, “Google alone could determine the outcome of almost any election just by altering its search selections and we would never know it.” Epstein has published research detailing how Google could influence the results of U.S. elections. Breitbart News has exclusively published several of Epstein’s reports, including a recent one showing that Google search manipulation can swing huge swaths of voters. In his report on Monday night, Carlson then described the emails he obtained, which Breitbart News also obtained. Carlson said: This wasn’t a get-out-the-vote effort or whatever they say. It wasn’t aimed at all potential voters. It wasn’t even aimed at a balanced cross-section of subgroups. Google didn’t try to get out the vote among say Christian Arabs in Michigan or say Persian Jews in Los Angeles—they sometimes vote Republican. It was aimed only at one group, a group that Google cynically assumed would vote exclusively for the Democratic Party. Furthermore, this mobilization effort targeted not only the entire country but swing states vital to the Hillary campaign. This was not an exercise in civics, this was political consulting. It was in effect an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton campaign.” Carlson noted that in communication with Google, the company “did not deny that the email was real or that it showed a clear political preference.” “Their only defense was that the activities they described were either non-partisan or were not officially taken by the company,” Carlson said Monday night, describing Google’s official response to his requests for comment, before challenging the company’s response: “But of course they were both. Plenty of people in Google knew what was going on and we haven’t seen any evidence anyone at Google disapproved of it and tried to rein it in.” The email from Murillo continues by explaining just how expansive the efforts the company undertook to achieve its objective were: We had our partners help spread the word about our features on social media, including YouTubers and influencers like Dulce Candy, Jorge Narvaez, Jessie y Joy, Barbara Bermudo, and Pamela Silva of Univision, Jackie Cruz aka La Flaca from Orange is the New Black, and more. We promoted our partner the Latino Community Foundation’s non-partisan #YoVoyaVotaryTu (I’m going to vote, are you?) campaign and leveraged our social media influencer friends’ reach to hit over 11M impressions with that hashtag. We hosted an event with over 200 people and a hangout with social media influencers about the power of the Latino vote and the new research Nielsen published about the Latino electorate. This reached 4.4M social media impressions and signaled to many that Google and our partners value the Latino community and our role in this election. We brought the same research to the LATISM conference, where people were beyond thrilled to see Google’s support and acknowledgment of the Latino community. If Murillo had ended her email there, this probably would not amount to the level of a national news story. But she did not: She went on for another several paragraphs on the first page and an extra three pages to admit the openly partisan intent of Google’s actions, including a remarkable in-writing confirmation that at least one of Google’s actions amounted to a “silent donation”—something that could raise Federal Election Commission (FEC) red flags if authorities decide to launch an official investigation into this matter, now that these emails have been publicly revealed. It is in the next paragraph that Murillo openly admits that Google made a “silent donation,” in her words, paying for rides to polls via leftist organization Voto Latino. Murillo wrote in the next paragraph: We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help). We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort. The next paragraph is where Murillo begins to make her next major admission: that the effort was not just to increase voter turnout generally but to elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. “Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the ‘sleeping giant’ had awoken.” On the next page, the email continues with a headline from an article in The Atlantic by James Fallows: “2016: The Year Latinos Saved America?” Under that was a tweet from Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports in Nevada saying, among other things, that “Trump is dead” because of Latino turnout in early voting in the state. Trump did not end up winning Nevada in the end, but he did beat Clinton in 30 and a half other states. … At that point, after the Ralston tweet, Murillo openly admits the partisan motives of Google’s electioneering efforts. “On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers,” Murillo wrote. “We read the headline and thought WOW, we did it!” Murillo’s email continues by including another headline, this time from the New Yorker’s Benjamin Wallace-Wells: “Latino Voters Show Trump What It Means to Be American.” That piece was written on Nov. 7, 2016, the day before the election. Then she begins writing again: “But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn’t enough.” The third page of the email begins with another headline and image of a Latina woman in a red Make America Great Again hat and “Latinos for Trump” sign. The story, from Ruben Navarette, Jr., published in the Daily Beast, is headlined: “Why the Latino Vote Didn’t Save America.” The sub-headline, “Hispanic voters were supposed to be one of Clinton’s blue firewalls—but one in three ended up splitting for Trump,” is also included in Murillo’s Google email. From there, Murillo continues writing for another page and a half: The voters we wanted to reach did end up having an influence in the end, most notably in Florida. Latino voters voted for Trump more in Florida than in other states (31%), and FL was critical by popular vote and the electoral college. We’ll keep an eye on any other results that can show us the influence that our efforts had on the election. We know we gave this our best and are now figuring out what comes next. Thanks again for all your help and support in this effort. In the next paragraph, Murillo again openly admits she was not “objective” when it came to the election. “I have tried to stay objective, but I ask that you please give us some time to pause and reflect,” Murillo wrote. “This is devastating for our Democratic Latino community. After all these efforts and what we thought was positive momentum toward change, the results are not what we expected at all. We are afraid for our families, and especially for the millions of immigrants who now don’t know what the future holds for them.” After that, Murillo says she cannot communicate with key organizers of the effort by Google and its partners—a project known as HOLA—because she is afraid of secret pro-Trump spies on the listservs created. She also admits ongoing discussions among these people about meeting to give grieving Hillary Clinton supporters hugs after Trump crushed her on election day. She also says those involved in Google’s get-out-the-vote efforts were openly seeking consolation after Clinton lost, and that she and another person cried after Trump won – for the first time they have cried due to an election result. Murillo wrote: What’s most difficult for us is we can’t even email the HOLA list to reach our community and discuss what this means for us because we know that apparently some may actually be Trump supporters. There is a thread right now among the core HOLA group where people are sharing how much they hurt, how much they need support right now, and that they are coordinating in different offices to meet up to just hold each other. One in a remote office said ‘If you guys do any sort of meetings, I’d love to join virtually. I think I’m currently the only Latinx in my office. It’s kinda hard.’ #understatement. Another said, ‘I’ve never cried after an election until last night.’ Same here. She was not done there. In the next paragraph, Murillo wrote that this election result hurt her badly. She also admits the election result was a “loss,” another indication that Google’s efforts were clearly attempting to use company resources to elect Democrat Clinton over Republican Trump and influence the results of the election. She also says that the company—and herself in particular—will redouble efforts in the future to get a different and more desired result in future elections. “I’m in shock and it hurts more than I could have ever imagined, but trying to stay optimistic and keep my head high,” Murillo wrote. “Loss is a part of life, and I do think frustrations challenge us to work smarter and get creative. My partners have sent notes and are saying the same thing — time to keep working harder.” At the top of the fourth page of the email, Murillo asks her colleagues at Google to give out a “smile” to grieving leftist Latinos who work at the company. “If you see a Latino Googler in the office (California/New York), please give them a smile,” Murillo wrote. “They are probably hurting right now. It’s tough to handle now that we know not all of us were against this, so we may be even more divided than ever. At least in CA/NY though, you can rest assured that the Latinos of these blue states need your thoughts and prayers, at least for them and their families.” Then, she continues by stating she is going on a planned vacation she thought she was taking to “celebrate” a Clinton win, but after Trump won, she says, her vacation “will be time to reflect on how to continue to support my community through these difficult times.” Murillo, in the next line, reveals that she thought she was sharing her viewpoints on these matters in a tight circle that would not leak. “I’m not sharing my personal opinions very broadly, but wanted to share openly here in the circle of trust,” she wrote. This email leaked to Fox News and Breitbart News and is now likely to become a centerpiece in the case that Google is throwing its weight around to interfere in elections in the United States in a partisan manner against the duly elected President of the United States. This email from Murillo was not just from some rogue staffer inside Google. Her original email was forwarded on to other Google executives by the aforementioned Gevelber, according to another email obtained by Breitbart News. “Thought you all would want to read this,” Gevelber wrote in her own message endorsing Murillo’s email in a message to other Google bigwigs. “It’s from Eliana Murillo who runs US Hispanic Marketing on my team and who helped found HOLA our Hispanic ERC.” Gevelber continued by commending everyone she said, “worked so hard to ensure all the Get out the Vote were done in Spanish” that their efforts “made a giant difference” in the election “to Googlers and beyond.” President Trump and Republicans have just begun scratching the surface of bias against them among Silicon Valley’s elite, including, perhaps foremost alongside Facebook, from Google. A source close to the White House who has reviewed these emails ahead of their public release told Breitbart News that in a just world this would amount to, at a minimum, a clear violation of campaign finance law governing in-kind contributions to campaigns and causes. …

Thousands of Troops and Razor Wire: US Border Reinforced Against Migrant ‘Invasion’ (Videos) President Trump has initiated the military to protect our border from the invading migrants. 2.3k SHARES Facebook Twitter Sharp barbed wire fences are being erected along the US-Mexico border as thousands of US troops, supported by drones and choppers, prepare to repel what the country’s commander-in-chief called a looming migrant “invasion” approaches the United States border. Anyone who doubts this is an invasion only need look at the size of the caravan and those that make up the majority of those marching towards our border. They are predominantly young men, there are few woman and children that make up the mass of the thousands that will overtake the border. Where are the women and children? There are thousands of predominantly young men marching towards the border. The first coils of the razor-sharp fence were unwound in the vicinity of McAllen–Hidalgo–Reynosa International Bridge crossing in Texas on Friday, after the first units of soldiers were deployed at the border started reinforcing the frontier against any potential breaches. take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The same fortification effort will soon start across other parts of the state as well as in Arizona, and California. “We have enough concertina wire to cover up to 22 miles already deployed, already to the border. We have additional concertina wire that we can string with over 150 miles available,” the head of the Northern Command, Terrence O’Shaughnessy told reporters earlier this week, RT reports. Troops setting up barb wire under the Hidalgo Reynosa bridge #RGV -Miltares colocan cerca alámbrica en la frontera #Texas #Telemundo40 vid @AntonioNewsT40 pic.twitter.com/8cr3XfH2T6 — Iris Rodriguez (@IrisNews) November 2, 2018 Active duty U.S. ARMY Troops at the McAllen Hidalgo Intl Bridge putting up concertina wire. @kgbt pic.twitter.com/AnZFtAl3l3 — Jolanie Martinez (@JolanieKGBT) November 2, 2018 C-wire stretches along the Rio Grande at the Texas-Mexico border, the morning after being installed by US troops – and just days ahead of US midterm elections. #Immigration #CaravanaMigrantes #Border #undocumented #ARMY pic.twitter.com/eNsrqJz9Lu — John Moore (@jbmoorephoto) November 3, 2018 President Trump ordered over 5,200 soldiers to be deployed at the southern border by the end of the week to aid some 2,000 National Guardsmen already in place. By Saturday, more than 3,500 troops had been deployed, including about 1,000 Marines in California, the Pentagon said. Trump, however, said that the number might be increased to 15,000 active US personnel if the initial contingent is not enough. Someone sent my dad this video at the Hidalgo border crossing. Looks like they’re already starting to deploy troops at the border. pic.twitter.com/GSP9JiHpqf — bananas in pajamas (@EverydayDaniel) November 2, 2018 Happening Now: US troops performing maintenance work on security infrastructure at the Hidalgo – Reynosa International Bridge. pic.twitter.com/R88Y9X7lPF — Jose F Sanchez (@JoseBorderTeam) November 2, 2018 Currently, two groups of migrants, according to various estimates numbering up to 6,500 people, mainly families, are heading towards the US through Mexico. Meanwhile, a third caravan of migrants, this time from El Salvador, has reportedly already crossed into Mexico. At the same time, according to military planning documents, the majority of the crowd might dissolve along their long journey to the US. While the US still has very little intel about the composition of the migrant caravans, one way or the other the White House plans to outmatch the number of potential illegals and, if not, suppress them with brutal force. Currently, Washington has allocated roughly the same number of troops it has committed to fighting Islamic State in Syria (2,000) and Iraq (5,000). And if 15,000 troops are deployed to the border, they will outmatch the number of US forces currently fighting in Afghanistan (14,000 troops). U.S. Army troops, part of “Operation Faithful Patriot” arrived to the U.S. border with Mexico, deployed by President Trump ahead of midterms. Soldiers spread out barbed wire along the Rio Grande in south Texas. #immigration #border #caravanamigrante #undocumented #army pic.twitter.com/PVD6YIbCvk — John Moore (@jbmoorephoto) November 2, 2018 In addition to sheer numbers, the US forces will have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal to ensure the success of the military operation. President Trump seems to be pleased with the deployment so far, noting the “beautiful”sight of barbed wire decorating the tranquil scenery of the Rio Grande’s crossing along the US-Mexico border. “We have our military on the border,” Trump said in Montana, while campaigning for the Republicans in the state ahead of next week’s midterm election. “And I noticed all that beautiful barbed wire going up today, the barbed wire used properly can be a beautiful sight.”

54 Years Ago Today: Government & Media Created & Spread ‘Fake News’ to Start Vietnam War If you are to believe the official story, one of America’s deadliest wars in history, Vietnam, was started after the United States had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in the South China Sea. However, over the past 54 years, a deluge of information and government officials have come forward showing that most everything the government and the media told Americans about the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war. According to the widely discredited official story, on August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, was pursued by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. The North Vietnamese torpedo boats then attacked with torpedoes and machine gun fire. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Two days later, according to the official story, on August 4, 1962, the NSA reported that a second Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred and US ships were attacked once again. The next day, without question, on August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.” Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim. The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted then-President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression.” The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. As a result, 58,177 Americans would lose their lives. Additionally, over one million North and South Vietnamese, including 627,000 civilians would be slaughtered. But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world. The truth of the matter was that the Maddox was engaged in an aggressive intelligence gathering operation working hand in hand in coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force. When the government announced that it had been the victim of an unprovoked attack—this was a lie. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War , the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened. In 1995, McNamara met with former Vietnam People’s Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on August 4, 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. “Absolutely nothing”, Giáp replied. Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary. In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed. Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam ,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’” If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did and over a million lives would’ve been saved. Now, retired military officials—who pay attention to history—are even warning about more staged events to pull us into war. “I think the president needs to watch carefully for the potential for something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident,” Col. Macgregor said. “Many of your viewers may not remember that it never happened and we could very well be treated to something like that in the Gulf. We should watch for that, and this is an example of President Trump’s comments on fake news, he should not be sabotaged by fake news.” Indeed, as TFTP has reported at length, nearly all wars in US history have been started over false information. To see a full list of our data, you can click this link. Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project

Tea With the Curate: The Attack on Marriage is an Attack on Christ in the Eucharist Pope Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical on the Eucharist, “Mysterium Fidei,” was the first place I saw anyone say that the body and blood, soul and complete divinity of Christ was actually present in the consecrated species. Having been raised in Remi de Roo’s Victoria in the 1970s, I had naturally never heard anything at all about the Eucharist. The understanding that Catholics believed what they believe about it came as a bit of a shock. (Read the full document here. ) With the hindsight of 52 years and a great deal of very dirty and unappealing water under the Catholic bridge, we can see it as a kind of warning prophecy. Published just three months before the close of Vatican II and just as Annibale Bugnini was cranking open the floodgates of his never-ending stream of liturgical alterations, Mysterium Fidei is now an important marker of a critical turning point in Catholic history, perhaps the most important of modern times. Who can read this without cringing at what we now know was about to happen: Therefore, we earnestly hope that the restored sacred liturgy will bring forth abundant fruits of eucharistic devotion, so that the Holy Church, under this saving sign of piety, may make daily progress toward perfect unity and may invite all Christians to a unity of faith and of love, drawing them gently, thanks to the action of divine grace. But in 1983 at the start of my personal investigations into the Catholic religion, I knew nothing of any of that. The encyclical, the very first I ever read, was also a marker for me of a personal turning point. It was the first time I had ever seen Catholic eucharistic doctrine clearly and – most importantly – unapologetically stated. It came right out and said something so astounding, something so completely unlikely, that I had to admit that it left very few logical possibilities. Like C.S. Lewis’s assessment of the claims by Christ of His own divinity, this pope was either mad, bad or telling the plain truth. Something that may be much more noteworthy now in our current circumstances than it was the year I read it, is that the pope’s very first quote was not of scripture, but the Council of Trent: “At the Last Supper, on the night He was handed over, Our Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until He should come, and thus entrust to the Church, His beloved spouse, the memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of devotion, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is received, the soul is filled with grace and there is given to us the pledge of future glory.” In these words are highlighted both the sacrifice, which pertains to the essence of the Mass which is celebrated daily, and the sacrament in which the faithful participate in Holy Communion by eating the Flesh of Christ and drinking His Blood, receiving both grace, the beginning of eternal life, and the medicine of immortality. I remember my thoughts upon reading this shocking statement… “By doing what? !” My acceptance from the reading of this document of the Church’s orthodox eucharistic doctrine was based in part on Pope Paul’s gracious and beautiful exposition, and in part on the sheer radical, mad unlikeliness of it. What could conceivably be the reason to say anything as wild as this if it weren’t true? The idea of transubstantiation struck me as I read that document as possibly the strangest and most earth shattering thing I’d ever heard. It shocked me out of a kind of swamp of intellectual worldliness; presenting the idea to my thirsty mind that there could indeed be fantastic realities far more wonderful than the banal and painfully uninteresting secularist worldview I had been taught to accept. It was as though someone had plausibly told me that, yes, there were fairies and magical kingdoms in real life, “just around the corner”. By the time I read it, I had been through a long, slow transition from a childhood devoted to Our Lady and confirmed in my belief in wonders, to a kind of disappointed practical atheism after three years in a diocesan Catholic parochial school. I had been taught, by both word and implication, that everything the Catholic Church had taught before Vatican II was pernicious nonsense. Where it was simply wrong it was ridiculous and where it was wrong and political it was outright wicked. What led me to read that particular encyclical is the most clearly identifiable moment of actual grace in my young life to that point. It was the first time it occurred to me to investigate, like an anthropologist, what the Church herself said about her teachings. While mulling grimly one day over all the wickedness of the Catholic Church, I was pulled up short by a single thought: “I could be wrong.” At 17 it seemed such an unlikely thing to think I was rather shocked. But stopping a moment to consider, I realised that I had only ever heard about Catholic things from people who clearly hated the Church; her enemies, in short. It hardly seemed just to convict on the testimony of these obviously biased witnesses. In order to properly and thoroughly condemn the Church, with convincing due diligence, I had to read something about it that didn’t come from her enemies. The same day, I presented myself at the reference desk of the public library and asked, “Do you have any books about Catholicism? Something official?” The librarian took me to the reference section and showed me the shelves of encyclicals, documents and histories. Saints and popes from one end of the stacks to the other. Having no clear idea what my own question meant, I just picked one at random. The description of the Holy Eucharist as the supreme Centre from which all our life as Catholics flow, and from which all other doctrines radiated, was something that was not going to come into my head for another eight years of reading. But even so, Mysterium Fidei forced me to face up to a reality I’d never dreamed of before; that this, the little unassuming wafer, was the most important thing in the world. Reading through the encyclical again, holding it up next to the current situation in Rome, makes it easier to clarify certain critical issues. Given what we are now seeing, consider the poignancy of the following passages: When dealing with the restoration of the sacred liturgy, the Fathers of the council, by reason of their pastoral concern for the whole Church, considered it of the highest importance to exhort the faithful to participate actively with sound faith and with the utmost devotion in the celebration of this Most Holy Mystery, to offer it with the priest to God as a sacrifice for their own salvation and for that of the whole world, and to find in it spiritual nourishment. This was, remember, 1965, four years before the New Mass was issued and before Cardinal Ottaviani warned the pope that it was precisely this sacramental reality that was about to be catastrophically obscured. Who, reading this passage, does not feel the urge to shout down the years, to do something to stave off the disaster that was coming: [W]e are aware of the fact that, among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery in written or spoken word, there are some who with reference either to Masses which are celebrated in private, or to the dogma of transubstantiation, or to devotion to the Eucharist, spread abroad opinions which disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith. It is as if everyone were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or else to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved. Keeping Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention directly before our thoughts, we read with a strange kind of helpless dread… …it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the “communal” Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ’s presence in this sacrament. Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called “transignification” and “transfiguration,” or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present. […] And therefore, so that the hope aroused by the council, that a flourishing of eucharistic piety which is now pervading the whole Church, be not frustrated by this spread of false opinions, we have with apostolic authority decided to address you, venerable brothers, and to express our mind on this subject. [1] Those of us writing similar jeremiads now have been working to clarify that the attack from Rome on the moral doctrine of the Church isn’t about marriage. It’s about the Eucharist and to a lesser extent the priesthood. The demonic forces we know are the driving force behind this supreme moment of heresy and destruction aren’t really looking at the undermining of marriage as their primary goal; they want to get at the Eucharist. We know it is demonically inspired because their hatred is for Christ Himself in the first place and for anyone who loves and wants to serve Him second. They are men who refuse to bend the knee before the God whom they will not serve. This knowledge – that the attack is on the Body and Blood of Christ – can also help readers spot their friends in the crowd. The places where Eucharistic adoration is still offered are places where at least some flicker of the true Faith survives. The bishops and priests now talking about the supreme glory of the Eucharist, and the need to defend it from sacrilege, are lighthouses. A case in point is Bishop Mark Davies, of my own former diocese of Shrewsbury in England. In March, 2016, in the midst of the shouting from Rome, Bishop Davies spoke at his Chrism Mass said that only through the “reality of the Eucharist” could new vocations to the priesthood be found. “In treasuring this gift of priestly celibacy we need to recognize more clearly the intimate link between the Ministerial Priesthood and the reality of the Eucharist. If the Mass were ever reduced in our minds to being merely a commemorative meal and the priest as only a community leader or functionary, then the celibacy of the Catholic Priesthood might seem extravagant.” It’s almost as if someone had slipped a copy of the Ottaviani Intervention inside his morning paper. The targeting of marriage, through the instruments of creatures like the myopic and theologically tunnel-visioned Cardinal Kasper, is demonically brilliant. It’s a “stitch-up” as the English call it; a fix. You make it a matter of “mercy” (backed up by the iron fist) that no one in a state of objective mortal sin can be refused Holy Communion; you give the national bishops conferences the power to start enforcing this, and you have created a previously unimaginable situation in the Church. You have created a regime in which a refusal to desecrate the sacred species will be grounds for persecution of faithful priests, seminarians and laity. And of course, we are seeing it starting already. It’s a brilliant strategy, the magic bullet that will revert the Church to the 1976 model on every front, and very likely keep it there forever. As if the goal was to go back in time and erase the entire John Paul II/Benedict XVI period out of history. It will halt the revival of eucharistic piety among seminarians; in fact, it will reverse the general reforming trend of “conservative” seminaries that was such a feature under John Paul II and has for 30 years been the hook upon which all hopes of restoration have hung. It is easy to see what is coming next. Once certain announcements are published in parish bulletins, laity will have to consider whether they can, in conscience, continue to assist at Masses where systematic sacrilege has been formally adopted as the rule. The few bishops with sufficient spine to stand up to the pressure of both Rome and their own national conferences – newly empowered with directives to make doctrinal declarations – will be ruling embattled islands of Catholicism in a poisoned sea of systematic heresy and desecration. A dark, impenetrable and “irreversible” winter of persecution of the faithful by their own shepherds will fall. Not being a theologian I have no idea if this encyclical is, as so many of these seemingly orthodox documents of that period seem to be, rife with the usual “time bombs,” ambiguities, mushy language or even outright errors. I haven’t looked it up. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there qualified to examine it to see if it’s safe for Trad-Catholic consumption. And I have no doubt at all that there are better, more venerable, even more sublime and poignant works on the Eucharist in the canon of “official” things. From saints and Doctors of the Church and whatnot, many of which the pope cited. But whatever its flaws, Mysterium Fidei is the one I found, and I’m convinced it wasn’t an accident. O God, in Your infinite mercy, forgive and have mercy on Pope Paul VI Montini for whatever neglect or damage of which he may have been guilty. In this one case at least, a work of his was the exact right thing at the exact right time. For me at least it was the key that opened the Door to Narnia. ____________________ [1] The fact that four years before the New Mass was issued, Paul VI was pinpointing in such detail exactly what Bugnini and co. were preparing makes it all but impossible to escape the conclusion that he knew perfectly well what was coming but approved the disastrous New Rite anyway. And then did nothing but weep as the inevitable disaster unfolded.

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