Datasets:

tyyihg

/

propoganda_detection_final_Dataset

like 0

Scorecard: See If Your Representative Or Senator Supports The Second Amendment Or Not With just weeks to go till the 2018 midterm elections, there are lots of seats up for grabs. With that in mind, one of the most important areas our representatives need to be strong in is on your right to keep and bear arms, protected in the Second Amendment. Gun Owners of America has put out their scorecard and for some, it will be eye-opening. GOA Executive Director Erich Pratt writes: The anti-gun Left is hopping-mad, now that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court. take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. They are motivated to get to the polls this November. So it is crucial that you and your pro-gun friends get to the polls. And that’s why GOA is putting the 2018 Congressional Voter Scorecard into your hands. There is a lot that’s riding on the line. If the Democrats take over the Congress, Nancy Pelosi has already said that passing gun control is one of her top priorities. But we have an ace up our proverbial sleeve. According to a recent study, the gun issue is an incredibly powerful, motivating issue in politics. The study reported that gun owners are more likely to show up to vote than those who support gun control. This is encouraging news. Having said that, gun owners can’t make informed choices if they don’t know who the pro-gun candidates are. So to that end, Gun Owners of America has released the recent voting records of your congressman and senators.

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

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

Archbishop Viganò Speaks, the Neo-Catholics Panic In his eleven-page account, affirmed under oath, the Archbishop, marking a turning point in Church history, declares that senior Vatican officials, including former Secretaries of State Angelo Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone as well as Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, coordinator of Pope Bergoglio’s “Council of Cardinals”, covered up McCarrick’s decades of sexual predation and that Bergoglio himself continued the coverup. This article was first written to address the neo-Catholic commentator Massimo Faggioli’s attempt , following the Pennsylvania grand jury report and the fall of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, to minimize the homosexual crisis in the Church and blunt the correlative rise of what he derides as “neo-traditionalism.” As my piece was about to go to press, however, EWTN’s National Catholic Register broke the explosive story on the written testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò , former apostolic nuncio to the United States (2011 to 2016). Faggioli’s propaganda piece now becomes merely illustrative of the points to be made here in light of this astonishing and indeed providential development. Regarding Bergoglio, Viganò testifies that in 2013 he personally informed him about McCarrick’s history, the dossier of the Congregation for Bishops on his sexual crimes against boys and young men, and the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon him by Benedict XVI (forbidding residence in a seminary, public appearances and Masses). Evidently already aware of these facts, however, Bergoglio not only rehabilitated McCarrick but made him a “trusted counselor” who advised the elevation of the pro-homosexual prelates Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin and Kevin Farrell to the College of Cardinals and the prominent episcopal sees they now discredit. All of this happened before Bergoglio, bowing to worldwide public pressure, finally—only weeks ago—took decisive action against his “trusted counselor.” McCarrick had lobbied for Bergoglio’s election, along with Maradiaga and the infamous Cardinal Danneels, who covered up homosexual rape committed by a priest against his own nephew,has supported “same-sex marriage,” and advised the King of Belgium to sign a law legalizing abortion in 1990. As Edward Pentin notes: “all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.” Viganò concludes his testimony by declaring that all of the prelates involved (many others are implicated), including Bergoglio, should resign their offices for the good of the Church. As to Bergoglio in particular, he courageously states openly the truth that so many of his brethren know but fear to speak in public: I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfigured by so many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.” [emphasis in original] If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church! [my emphasis] Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock. In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them. [emphasis in original] Before he was papal nuncio in Washington, Viganò headed the Governorate of Vatican City State after having served as Nuncio in Nigeria, a Delegate for the Pontifical Representatives of the Secretary of State of the Holy See and a Member of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia. In those capacities he had access to documents and witnesses that corroborate his own firsthand testimony. With Viganò’s testimony, the widespread homosexual infiltration of the post-Vatican II hierarchy, from the top on down, now emerges mountainously into view, never to be buried again. Even before that testimony, however, the fall of McCarrick and the Pennsylvania grand jury report had already presented a Sisyphean task to neo-Catholic apologists for the decrepit Novus Ordo status quo and the ill-starred Council that launched its installation. Yet there is little doubt they will continue the same polemic that for nearly sixty years has doggedly defended every one of the ruinous “reforms” that have resulted in a debacle without equal in Church history, even considering the Arian crisis of the 4th century. Those “reforms” included abandonment of the Vatican’s strict pre-conciliar instruction (1961) that “advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” Today, neo-Catholic commentators, cowed by the demands of political correctness, refuse to state the simple truth that homosexuality is a perversion that precludes ordination as does any other grave psychological disorder. Kill the Messenger I suspect that not even Viganò’s historic testimony will change the neo-Catholic position. Quite the contrary, I would expect the neo-Catholic commentariat either to ignore Viganò’s witness, explain away his revelations or, failing that, make every effort to smear the man. The campaign to discredit Archbishop Viganò began instantaneously on the Catholic left wing. Only hours after Viganò’s sworn testimony appeared online, the professional Catholic dissident Sean Michael Winters, writing for National Catholic Reporter, smeared the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, who holds doctorates in both civil and canon law, as “a trafficker in conspiracy theories who mixes fact, fiction and venom,” “more than a little obsessed with homosexuality”—like Oliver Stone, who “was obsessed with the grassy knoll”—“a disgruntled former employee” and “always a crackpot.” Without addressing the merits, Winters dismissed Archbishop Viganò’s “wild claims” about bishops who are “subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality” and accused the Archbishop, along with unnamed other bishops and archbishops, of “speak[ing] about gay people with such hatred…” Winters issues the dire warning that “A putsch is afoot and if the U.S. bishops do not, as a body, stand up to defend the Holy Father in the next 24 hours, we shall be slipping towards schism long before the bishops’ meeting in November. The enemies of Francis have declared war.” Notice that for Winters it is not the Church or the integrity of her doctrine and discipline that must be defended against enemies, but only Bergoglio and the regime of novelty he is leading to its final extremity. John Allen’s instant analysis attempting to impeach Viganò’s testimony is, as one would expect from him, a bit craftier. His opinion is: “Take it seriously, but with a large grain of salt.” Which is just Allen’s more nuanced way of saying: “Don’t believe it.” Allen’s view is supported by such irrelevancies as the fact that Viganò’s account implicates “no fewer than 32 senior churchmen” (so what? ), that he “has a history” of “innuendo and conspiracy theories” (a gratuitous assertion unsupported by evidence of falsity), that he allegedly quashed an investigation of Archbishop John Nienstedt and ordered evidence destroyed (an allegation Viganò has immediately and categorically denied with conclusive supporting documents, but in any event a tuo quoque fallacy) and that Allen has “the impression that all this was orchestrated with a political agenda in mind” (the same “conspiracy theory” mentality he gratuitously attributes to Viganò). Mark Shea, easily the most insufferable of the neo-Catholic polemicists, has quickly followed Winters and Allen in trying to cast doubt on Viganò ’s claims. Ignoring eleven pages of detail, written and published under oath, he suggests there has been no “Documentation. Evidence. Proof.” Yes, Francis should resign if Viganò ’s allegations are true, Shea admits—a stunning concession coming from him. Yet, making no attempt to refute Viganò’s account on the merits, he tries to wave it all aside with his usual mode of argument—puerile mockery: “But at present, the eagerness of the Greatest Catholics of All Time to believe and repeat everything their itching ears want to hear about this Pope whose living guts they have hated from the moment of his election only tells in his favor, not against it.” Shea’s ever-expanding opus of digital invective never seems to rise above this sort of crude ad hominem attack: Well, if those people believe it, it can’t be true. The neo-Catholic propaganda mill will have a very difficult time smearing this witness, however. Speaking to Catholic News Agency, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, who served as first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington, confirmed that “Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” when he stated in his sworn account that Nuncio Pietro Sambi conveyed to McCarrick at the Nunciature in Washington the sanctions that had been imposed on him by Pope Benedict—sanctions Bergoglio ignored for five years until forced to act by a worldwide storm of outrage. Furthermore, a series of prelates has vouched for Viganò’s character and credibility: - Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas has gone so far as to order all the priests in his diocese to read from the pulpit a statement that he finds Viganò’s allegations credible. - Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, issued a statement affirming that he has known Viganò for 39 years, has “always known and respected him as a man of truthfulness, faith and integrity” and that his testimony should “be taken seriously by all…” - Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, Michigan issued a statement calling Viganò’s account “another daunting challenge to our confidence in the reliability of the Church’s leadership, during a summer of devastating news regarding clergy sexual abuse and infidelity.” (The statement has since apparently been scrubbed from the diocesan website.) - Bishop Athanasius Schneider declares: “Archbishop Viganò confirmed his statement by a sacred oath invoking the name of God. There is, therefore, no reasonable and plausible cause to doubt the truth content of the document of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.” - Cardinal Raymond Burke’s statement declares: “The declarations made by a prelate of the authority of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be totally taken to heart by those responsible in the Church.” - [And just two days ago, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco wrote a letter to his faithful which "speaks to Vigano's integrity and sincere love of the Church."] In another setback for the propaganda machine gearing up to impeach Viganò’s testimony, the Catholic Herald has just reported that Cardinal Wuerl must have known full well from Viganò himself that McCarrick was under Pope Benedict’s papal sanctions on account of his sexual misconduct because, as an Archdiocesan spokesman now confirms, at Viganò’s request as then papal nuncio Wuerl had to cancel a public appearance by McCarrick not long before Bergoglio’s election. The Herald asks the obvious question: “[I]f Cardinal Wuerl was unaware of the sanctions, and unaware of the reason for them, why did he ask no questions of the nuncio regarding the reason for his demand?” The question answers itself, and Viganò’s testimony on this critical point stands confirmed by Wuerl’s own spokesman. Bergoglio Pleads the Fifth Bergoglio himself, however, has already precluded any attempt to impeach Viganò’s testimony. During the return flight from Dublin after the “World Meeting of Familes,” he was asked to comment on Viganò ’s allegations that he had informed Bergoglio of McCarrick’s crimes in 2013 as well as the sanctions imposed by Benedict. Bergoglio declined to incriminate himself: Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment. I am not going to say a word about this. I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions. It is an act of trust. When a little time goes by, and you have drawn conclusions, perhaps I will speak about it, but I would like your professional maturity to do this work. It will do you all good, really. In other words, as Bergoglio cannot deny the allegations without lying, he will say nothing at all about them in the hope they will go away—with the help of sycophants in the Vatican press corps and shifty polemicists like Shea, who expects his readers to swallow his explanation that Bergoglio’s refusal to say anything in his defense when asked point blank about the charges against him “seems to me to obviously be the reply of somebody who believes the accusations are groundless…”. Seems to be. Obviously. The American “Gay” Church Expansion While events have overtaken Faggioli’s piece, it will remain useful here as a prime example of the neo-Catholic polemic. That polemic seeks to shore up the collapsing Novus Ordo establishment lest it give way to the dreaded traditionalist revival. But before I address Faggioli’s latest defense of the indefensible, some background is in order, including a discussion of further key details of Viganò’s testimony. First of all, as I predicted 16 years ago, because the Vatican under John Paul II had no intention of enforcing the pre-conciliar ban on admission of homosexuals to the seminary “a new bumper crop of homosexual ordinands is guaranteed—and with it a new harvest of scandal for the Church.” That prediction came immediately after the “pedophile summit” of 2002 in Rome, which I attended as The Remnant’s correspondent. In answer to my question then head of the USCCB, Wilton Gregory, made an explosive admission reportedby the international press: “it is an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.” The struggle, to the extent there even was one, obviously has been lost. Sixteen years later, the homosexual predator McCarrick has finally been exposed to the world, stripped of his cardinal’s hat and deprived of any ministry, but only after international media coverage of the Vatican’s semi-secret finding that McCarrick had raped a teenage altar boy 47 years ago. If not for that one case, McCarrick’s sixty years of homosexual debauchery might well have gone unpunished in this world and he would have died still possessed of all the phony honors that had been heaped upon him throughout his career as a parasite in the Body of Christ, including the favor shown to him by Bergoglio. The telling details of Archbishop Viganò’s testimony concerning Bergoglio’s friendly relations with McCarrick before he finally had to cut him loose—details conveniently ignored by Winters, Allen and Shea—are utterly devastating to any defense of Bergoglio. This would explain why he will not a “say a word about” Viganò’s charges against him. The Archbishop reveals, as already noted, that Pope Benedict imposed sanctions on McCarrick under which he “was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.” Viganò further reveals that those sanctions were communicated to McCarrick by then Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi, but were also repeated by Viganò himself when he succeeded Sambi as Nuncio: I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my first meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance. Viganò testifies that on June 23, 2013, he obtained a private audience with Bergoglio after having encountered McCarrick at the Pope’s residence three days earlier, during which encounter McCarrick had told him with an air of triumph: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China” (evidently to assist in negotiating Bergoglio’s planned sellout of China’s underground Catholics to the Communist dictators of Beijing). Viganò wanted to know why McCarrick had apparently been relieved of the sanctions. During the audience Bergoglio queried: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” and Viganò replied with the truth Bergoglio obviously did not want to hear: I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to find out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not…. It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews…. He [Bergoglio] knew from at least June 23, 2013 [the date of the audience with Viganò] that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action to save his image in the media. [all emphasis in original] Before his long overdue fall McCarrick, as Bergoglio’s “trusted counselor,” had been instrumental in cementing into place the homosexual-friendly status quo of the American episcopate that oppresses and defrauds the faithful. It was McCarrick, noted Marco Tosatti, who was behind the elevation of Blase Cupich to the key position of Archbishop of Chicago, where Cupich has since promoted the homosexual subversion of Father James Martin. And Viganò now confirms Tosatti’s allegation: “The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the first, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.” That is, the normal process was circumvented for these appointments. Remnant readers may recall that I spotted Cupich back in 2002, when he was the obscure Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, as an example of what was coming in the Novus Ordo: accelerated degeneration. As I wrote back then, with the likes of Cupich in view: Cupich is the very model of a Novus Ordo bishop. He is the very exemplar of the crisis we must still endure…. Let the thing die of its own excesses, for as the “little synod” [the 2002 “pedophile summit”] demonstrates, the men who control this establishment will never restore it to anything resembling the vibrant Church that a long line of militant, uncompromising Popes delivered into their hands at Vatican II. For heaven’s sake, the men who govern the Church today require a Vatican summit meeting to agonize over whether serial child molesters should be defrocked. From the Vatican on down, through deliberate decisions and criminal neglect, the servitors of Vatican II have laid waste to the liturgy, the perennial clarity of Catholic teaching, the Church’s militant opposition to worldly thinking, the traditional formation in seminaries, the religious orders, the missions, the trust of the faithful in their own priests—in short, the very life of the Church—and dare to call it a renewal. We must no longer subsidize the malpractice of the architects of ruin. Nor must we join the neo-Catholics in their mindless applause when one of these incompetents attempts to repoint a brick or two in the crumbling façade they have erected to obscure the Church of old. As for William (“nighty-night baby!”) Tobin, after McCarrick had arranged for him to become Archbishop of Newark, Tobin, another episcopal booster of Martin’s pro-homosexual propaganda, promptly sponsored a “gay pilgrimage” to his cathedral in Newark. And it was McCarrick who obtained the cardinal’s hat for his roommate of six years, Kevin Farrell, whom he consecrated a bishop. Farrell, yet another promoter of Martin’s homosexual activism, arranged for Martin to “welcome ‘gay’ families” at the “World Meeting of Families” in Dublin from which Bergoglio has just returned. Finally, there is the appointment of the “pro-gay” Robert McElroy as Bishop of San Diego, concerning which Viganò reveals: “The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: ‘Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.’ McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.” Like Cupich, Tobin and Farrell, McElroy is an avid promoter of Martin’s homosexual subversion of the Church, calling opposition to Martin symptomatic of a “cancer of vilification [that] is seeping into the institutional life of the church.” Emboldened by the certainty that he will face no discipline whatsoever, Martin, now backed by “Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy,” as Viganò testifies, is urging all the “gay priests” to “come out,” including those ordained since the useless “pedophile summit” presided over by none other than McCarrick as the classic fox in charge of the hen house. But Bergoglio has also lent his own authority to Martin’s effort to mainstream homosexuality in the Church. As Viganò notes, it was Bergoglio who made Martin a “Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications,” even though he is a “well-known activist who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families…” “Father” Martin now confidently declares, sixteen years after the “pedophile summit,” that “The idea of a purge of gay priests is both ridiculous and dangerous. Any purge would empty parishes and religious orders of the thousands of priests and bishops who lead healthy lives of service and faithful lives of celibacy.” Martin thus revels in smug certitude that the future of the universal Church is in the hands of legions of intrinsically disordered homosexual bishops and priests and their homosexual successors, who will perpetuate an existing worldwide homosexual network, and that there is absolutely nothing we can or should do about it. A Worldwide Network of Corruption, Beginning at the Top None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the homosexual invasion of the Catholic hierarchy is confined to American prelates and priests. The spread of clerical sodomy has not respected national boundaries but rather extends throughout the Church under the eyes of a Vatican apparatus that is itself thoroughly infested with homosexuals. This is thanks in large measure to Bergoglio, who made a flagrantly active homosexual, Monsignor Battista Ricca, “prelate of the gay lobby,” no less than head of his papal household. Moreover, it was Bergoglio’s right hand man, Cardinal Maradiaga, who sheltered his friend, Juan José Pineda, auxiliary Bishop of Tegucigalpa, from any discipline over his notorious homosexual liaisons with seminarians in that diocese. When an apostolic visitation, compelled by mounting public pressure, confirmed the charges against Pineda, he was forced to resign, even as Maradiaga dismissed the incontestable proofs against him as “slander.” Viganò notes that “the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.” Despite the fall of his friend Pineda, Maradiaga continues todefend and protect the homosexual corruption of his own seminary, involving incontrovertible evidence of rampant sodomy among the seminarians he refuses to dismiss, rejecting all the evidence as “gossip.” Concerning Maradiaga, who is also mired in financial corruption for which he offers no credible explanation, Viganò provides this withering assessment of the man and his relation to Bergoglio: In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, [McCarrick] had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops….. By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of financial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See…. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First, he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati. On the very day Archbishop Viganò’s testimony was made public, Sandro Magister summed up the entire state of affairs in the Church universal after decades of unrestricted homosexual migration into the hierarchy, to which Bergoglio has contributed mightily: “From the seminaries, to the clergy, to the bishops, to the cardinals, homosexuals are present at all levels, by the thousand.” Archbishop Viganò now provides his own decisive summary of the situation, based on firsthand experience with a now endemic homosexual corruption of the Church: Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote: “The problem of clergy abuse cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be eradicated.” These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church. [emphasis added] Defending the Council by Defending the Homosexual Status Quo At this moment, the entire Novus Ordo regime of novelty is threatened with collapse on account of its homosexual corruption, and voices throughout the Catholic world are now echoing Archbishop Viganò’s call for Bergoglio’s resignation, including Laura Ingraham: “Too little, too late from Pope Francis in Ireland. I stand with Archbishop Carlo Vigano. Time for the laity to demand a new Shepherd.” Even Michael Voris, in a highly amusing example of leading from behind, has finally abandoned his absurd refusal to criticize this pontificate and now declares with a screaming headline: “Pope Francis Must Resign.” Nearly three years ago, seeing what was certainly coming on the disastrous course Bergoglio had already clearly established, this newspaper published a petition which states: “We your subjects respectfully petition Your Holiness to change course for the good of the Church and the welfare of souls. Failing this, would it not be better for Your Holiness to renounce the Petrine office than to preside over what threatens to be a catastrophic compromise of the Church’s integrity?” Our petition was of course dismissed as “ridiculous” by the neo-Catholic commentariat. Today, our ridiculous suggestion is the stuff of mainstream news. From the neo-Catholic perspective, the events of recent days present a terrifying prospect: the final collapse of the Novus Ordo establishment, an end to the conciliar aggiornamento and a revival of integral Tradition, which growing numbers of young people are seeking. Hence even before Archbishop Viganò had come forward, commentators like Faggioli were already sounding the neo-Catholic air raid siren. Faggioli fretted that “[t]he abuse scandal and delegitimization of the episcopate has created a great power vacuum in the Church” that could be filled by the “neo-traditionalist Catholicism of the younger generations of American Catholics” who “attack American bishops and cardinals close to Pope Francis.” Accordingly, he rushed to the defense of Bergoglio and his corrupt regime against “a radicalization of religious conservatism in the neo-traditionalism sense...” For Faggioli, not only would Bergoglio’s resignation be unthinkable, so also would a purge of the homosexual and pro-homosexual prelates Bergoglio and his Vatican henchmen have systematically enabled. The Pope, he argues, is not “the CEO of the Catholic Church world, and the bishops as its managers whom the Pope can simply fire.” No, Bergoglio cannot “simply fire” bishops. Except whenever he pleases, as we have seen again and again with the conservative bishops and even Cardinals (Burke and Müller) he has sacked because their conservatism offended him or one of his friends, prompting even Crux to ask: “Does Pope Francis have an enemies list?” Then again, Francis even obtained the removal of his own “trusted counselor” McCarrick from the College of Cardinals, albeit only when forced to act due to worldwide condemnation in the media. So, according to Faggioli, the same Pope who sacks conservative bishops and cardinals according to his pleasure and has just removed a cardinal from the College of Cardinals in an unprecedented disciplinary act under fire from the media, is somehow powerless to dismiss Modernist bishops who have created an obscene “gay culture” in the Church and replace them with orthodox, normal heterosexual males. Francis cannot “simply fire” even Cardinal Wuerl, who covered up crimes of homosexual predation by the priests he transferred elsewhere while Archbishop of Pittsburgh, and who authorized payment of $900,000 in hush money to bury sexual abuse claims against a homosexual priest involved in the production of child pornography. Wuerl, says Faggioli, “faces a complex situation: on the one hand Wuerl was not afraid of clashing with the tribunal over the Apostolic Signatura in the Vatican which wanted to readmit a priest from the Pittsburgh diocese to ministry… while in other cases he seems to have collaborated in covering up some cases… It is a very difficult position also because Wuerl became a symbol… beyond the specific accusations against him, from which he could not publicly defend himself.” In other words, because his situation is “complex” Wuerl, unlike McCarrick, should remain a cardinal and the Archbishop of Washington, DC, thus maintaining a key bulwark against the “neo-traditionalist” threat. Yet, as the Pennsylvania grand jury report documents, Wuerl assisted McCarrick in the coverup of his crimes and now brazenly lies about it. Here too Viganò’s testimony sheds light on the darkness: …. I myself brought up the subject [of McCarrick] with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained? His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at first he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well. Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it! Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk. [emphasis in original] What really concerns Faggioli and those who think like him is not Wuerl and his “complex situation,” which is not complex at all. Rather, what he views with alarm as an “essential element” of the context in which Wuerl operates is that “scandals are also the opportunity for the neo-traditionalist Catholicism of the younger generations of American Catholics to attack American bishops and cardinals close to Pope Francis….” Better a thousand septuagenarian Wuerls in their lavish sties of corruption, financed by the faithful, than a single, young neo-traditionalist prelate! But what exactly is a neo-traditionalist? Quite simply: an orthodox Catholic who has had enough of the homosexual-infested regime of novelty imposed on the Church by the old men of the Council, Bergoglio merely being the latest, the highest placed, and one of the last. As Faggioli puts it: “In the last fifteen years, the American Catholic Church has been traversed by a radicalization of religious conservatism in the neo-traditionalism sense, especially in the younger generations of priests and intellectuals. They interpret the current abuse crisis as fruit of the mistakes of the Council itself and not only of the post-Council…” Just as Faggioli fears, many in the up-and-coming generation of Catholic clergy and laity recognize the obvious: that the conciliar texts, for all their prolix repetition of traditional teaching, opened the way to ecclesial disaster. Because in those texts—above all Gaudium et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate and Sacrosanctum Concilium—the Council verbally prostrated itself before “the modern world” and the practitioners of other religions while authorizing Bugnini (Secretary of the liturgical Preparatory Commission that drafted what would become Sacrosanctum Concilium) to begin demolition of the sacred liturgy that was the very foundation Catholic of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. To quote Paul VI, then in the depths of his conciliar delirium at the Council’s close: But one must realize that this council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the council over the modern world of humanity…. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world’s values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed. [emphasis added] Thus did Paul describe the conciliar “opening to the world” through which the world promptly invaded the Church, including large numbers of homosexuals who should never have been admitted to the seminary. In sum, Faggioli is representative of the thinking that requires defense of a homosexualized clergy if only for the reason that tradition-minded Catholics cannot be allowed to take their place: “This neo-traditionalist Catholicism believes that sexual abuses are committed only by homosexual clergy… and that the crisis of abuse can be resolved by a kind of Catholic Jacobinism that should eliminate all bishops and priests minimally engaged in dialogue with modern culture, and replaced by a young clergy marked by personal sanctity but also by a fascination for a mythical Middle Ages and the rejection of a Church-world relationship based on a principle of reality.” Rather than “young clergy marked by personal sanctity,” the neo-Catholic mentality Faggioli exemplifies prefers that homosexual priests and bishops be kept in place in order to continue the “dialogue with modern culture.” It is not the integrity of the Faith that matters but only perpetuation of the post-conciliar regime of novelty. Any abandonment of the regime must be viewed as ecclesiastical treason—“Catholic Jacobinism”—if not criminal activity. Faggioli would probably be more inclined to civil or criminal prosecution of “Catholic Jacobins” for “hate speech” than Novus Ordo bishops for their complicity in covering up homosexual rapes. “Homosexuality in the clergy exists and is a matter that must be addressed,” Faggioli fleetingly acknowledges toward the end of his piece, “but the abuse crisis cannot be resolved by making homosexuals within the Church the scapegoat of a scandal that has ancient roots, well before Vatican Council II.” And how does the Church “address” a massive infestation by homosexual priests and prelates without removing them from authority and ensuring that they cannot promote homosexual successors for generation after generation? Faggioli has no answer because what he is really arguing—the final beachhead of the neo-Catholic defense of their disintegrating regime—is that homosexuals in the hierarchy must remain in authority as an indispensable seawall against a “neo-traditionalist” storm surge. Faggioli’s argument demonstrates that neo-Catholicism has never been about making the authentic Faith more appealing to a “modern world” founded precisely on a rejection of the Church’s authority. It is not about the Faith at all. Rather, it is an ideological movement dedicated to the face-saving defense of a catastrophic failure in ecclesial innovation that has corrupted the human element of the Church in practically every department. For people like Faggioli, indeed for the tradition-hating Pope they blindly defend, the one thing to be feared is that more and more faithful will recognize the neo-Catholic polemic for what it is—a fraud—and begin demanding a return of everything the regime of novelty has stolen from the life of the Church. That is exactly what a growing number of Catholics are now doing, as even the secular press recognized less than three months before Bergoglio began his tyrannical reign. In this respect, what the neo-Catholics are defending at bottom is themselves—that is, the reputations they have all staked on their defense of the indefensible against the traditionalists they have arrogantly mocked and marginalized for decades only to see, to their horror, that traditionalism is ever more vindicated as the scandals of the Novus Ordo mount under this reckless Pope to an unsustainable, indeed apocalyptic, level. A return to integral Tradition is the threat that Faggioli sees as coming particularly from the young. Irony of ironies, he is now reduced to defending what is old and tired and corrupt against a restoration, led largely by a youthful vanguard, of what is ever ancient but ever new. For some, it seems, no price is too great—not even the good of the Church—to avoid the personal ignominy of being seen on the wrong side of history. Conclusion: The Fatima Connection Long before the arrival of Bergoglio in Rome, the successive Vatican Secretaries of State, Angelo Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone, were instrumental in advancing the homosexual corruption of the Novus Ordo establishment. As to Bertone and Sodano, Viganò provides further vital testimony: Nuncio Sambi’s report [on McCarrick’s sexual abuse], with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difficulty in insistently presenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in filtering and manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict…. Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information [concerning McCarrick] was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by McCarrick. It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the cover-up. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press office in which a falsehood was affirmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocably condemned. It is no coincidence that, as I detail in my book on the Third Secret of Fatima, Sodano and Bertone have also taken the leading role in suppressing the integral Secret and reducing the Message of Fatima in general to a generic prescription for personal piety, stripped of its prophetic and admonitory content regarding the epochal malfeasance and corruption of the upper hierarchy to which they belong. Concerning my book, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Viganò’s predecessor as Nuncio in Washington, whom Viganò’ credits with diligently reporting McCarrick’s crimes to the Vatican and conveying Benedict’s sanctions to McCarrick, made some very revealing comments during an interview with Robert Moynihan, published posthumously six years ago in Inside the Vatican: We were discussing the Third Secret of Fatima, the allegations that the Vatican has not published the entire text of the Third Secret as revealed to Sister Lucia, and the response of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, in a book where Bertone states that there is nothing more to be revealed. Sambi said, “Excuse me.” He got up, went out of the room, and came back with a book. “Here,” he said. “Do you know this book? You should read it.” It was Christopher Ferrara's The Secret Still Hidden. “Wait,” I said. “You are the Pope’s representative in the US, and you are urging me to read a book that questions what the secretary of state wrote?” Sambi replied, “All I am saying is that there are interesting things worth reading in this book. And in the end, we are all after the truth, aren’t we? The truth is the important thing...” The truth is indeed the important thing. And the truth about our situation is revealed in that still-hidden part of the Secret to whose contents Pope Benedict alluded during his pilgrimage to Fatima in 2010, identifying elements that do not appear at all in the obscure vision published back in 2000, which Sodano and Bertone tried to pass of as the entirety of the Secret at the same time they were covering up homosexual corruption in high places: As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church, and that the Church thus has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn forgiveness on the one hand, but also the need for justice. [emphasis added] I believe that Archbishop Viganò’s precious testimony is a sign that Heaven itself is now responding to the “need for justice” in the Church. Whether or not justice involves the resignation of the most wayward Pope in Church history, the inevitable season of justice will culminate in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Church’s restoration. This will be a final victory over the enemies within and their apologists, such as Faggioli, who, in typical neo-Catholic style, imperiously scoffs at the notion of “a young clergy marked by personal sanctity but also by a fascination for a mythical Middle Ages” and busies himself defending an unsalvageable mass of corruption he dares to describe as “a Church-world relationship based on a principle of reality.” I can only conclude by making my own these closing words of Archbishop Viganò:

'Oumuamua: Space Cigar Is Still Spinning From Mysterious Violent Collision The solar system’s strange cigar-shaped visitor 'Oumuamua—Hawaiian for “scout” or “messenger”—is tumbling chaotically as the result of a violent collision. And the interstellar object will continue to spin for billions of years as it journeys through space, scientists have reported in a study published in Nature Astronomy. This is the latest of several revelations following the first-ever discovery of a solar system invader last October. Initially believed to be a comet, then an asteroid, scientists think the wandering “interstellar object” is a hunk of ice wrapped in organic sun-blocking material. M Kornmesser/ESO/Flickr "At some point or another it's been in a collision," Queen's University, Belfast, research fellow and lecturer Wes Fraser told the BBC. The research team watched 'Oumuamua’s brightness change over time to model exactly how it was spinning. 'Oumuamua “appears to be in an excited rotational state undergoing non-principal axis rotation” the study authors wrote. This unusual “excited” movement is better known as “tumbling.” “Tumbling is an unusual state of rotation,” Fraser said during Sunday’s episode of the BBC’s long-running Sky at Night show. “It quickly starts to wobble around chaotically.” See all of the best photos of the week in these slideshows The icy cigar was probably knocked askew by a violent collision with another object. The researchers don’t know exactly when this happened, but suspect it took place before 'Oumuamua left its home stellar system. "It's hard to know if it was during planet formation or after the planet formation process," Fraser said during the show. "Certainly, more collisions happen while planets are growing than afterwards, so that’s a very good guess. But unfortunately we can’t get a high-resolution image of this thing to see what kind of crater is on it that might be attributed to the collision that caused it to start tumbling." The team think 'Oumuamua may eventually move less chaotically. "The tumbling actually causes stresses and strains internal to the object, and that slowly but surely squeezes and pulls on the object just like tides on the Earth to remove energy from the spin," Fraser said. But, at least for the next few billion years, the space invader is destined to continue its topsy-turvy spin.

“We Now Have Urban Ebola” In Congo, WHO Warns Of “Potentially Explosive Increase” In Cases This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge Experts fear an “explosive increase” in Ebola cases after an outbreak in Congo entered a “new phase” and spread from the countryside to a city. The BBC reports that Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga confirmed a case in Mbandaka, a city of a million people about 130km (80 miles) from the area where the first cases were confirmed earlier this month. The city is a major transportation hub with routes to the capital Kinshasa. Forty-four people have been infected and 23 people are known to have died. Senior World Health Organization (WHO) official Peter Salama said the spread to Mbandaka meant there was the potential for an “explosive increase” in cases. “This is a major development in the outbreak,” he told the BBC. “We have urban Ebola, which is a very different animal from rural Ebola. The potential for an explosive increase in cases is now there.” Mr Salama, the WHO’s deputy director-general for emergency preparedness and response, said Mbandaka’s location on the Congo river, widely used for transportation, raised the prospect of Ebola spreading to surrounding countries such as Congo-Brazzaville and the Central African Republic as well as downstream to Kinshasa, a city of 10 million people. “This puts a whole different lens on this outbreak and gives us increased urgency to move very quickly into Mbandaka to stop this new first sign of transmission,” he said. The BBC adds that the WHO said it was not recommending any trade or travel restrictions either within DR Congo, for example between Mbandaka and Kinshasa, or internationally. But Mr Salama said that 13 countries in the region were boosting border screening measures and said DR Congo itself was increasing exit screening measures. “The good news is that the DR Congo population is very used to Ebola outbreaks,” he added. “They know to protect themselves by avoiding mass gatherings and mass funerals. They know as well that traditional healers can amplify the outbreak.” As The Daily Mail notes, it is the ninth time Ebola has been recorded in Congo since the disease made its first known appearance near its northern Ebola river in the 1970s. Ebola is most feared for the internal and external bleeding it can cause in victims owing to damage done to blood vessels. The Mail reports that health workers have recorded confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola in three health zones of Congo’s Equateur province, and have identified 432 people who may have had contact with the disease, the WHO said. Supplies sent to Congo included more than 300 body bags for safe burials in affected communities. The vaccine will be reserved for people suspected of coming into contact with the disease, as well as health workers. The vaccine requires storage at a temperature between -60 and -80 degrees C, tricky in a country with unreliable electricity.

ICE Arrests 22 In Chicago Area During 3-Day Operation CHICAGO — Federal officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 22 criminal aliens and immigration violators in Illinois’ Cook and Lake counties during a three-day enforcement action, which ended Monday. During this operation, ERO deportation officers made arrests in the following Illinois cities and towns: Chicago (9), Cicero (4), Hoffman Estates (1), Palatine (4), Park City (1), Rolling Meadows (2) and Round Lake Beach (1). All those arrested were men between the ages of 20 and 53. Aliens arrested during this operation are from the following five countries: Ecuador (1), Honduras (2), Mexico (17), Serbia (1) and Ukraine (1). Six of the 22 arrested during this operation were criminal aliens who were released back into their communities after local law enforcement failed to honor an immigration detainer placed on the individuals by ICE. Immigration detainers request that ICE be notified before the individual is released from local custody for any reason. Most of the aliens targeted by ERO deportation officers during this operation had prior criminal histories that included convictions for the following crimes: sexual assault, kidnapping, assault, assault with a weapon, drug possession, theft, obstruction of justice and driving under the influence (DUI); two were known fugitive immigration violators, and six were arrested for illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported, which is a felony. The following are criminal summaries of the offenders arrested in Illinois during this operation: A 38-year-old Mexican citizen and a known gang member was arrested Jan. 8 in Rolling Meadows. He was previously convicted in Cook County for felony aggravated criminal sexual assault and bodily harm. He was previously deported. Cook County Sheriff’s Office did not honor the ICE detainer that was placed. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. A 37-year-old previously deported Mexican man was arrested Jan. 7 in Chicago. He was previously convicted twice of drug possession, and he has pending criminal charges for sexually assaulting a child. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. A 20-year-old Mexican man and a known gang member was arrested Jan. 7 in Round Lake Beach. He was previously convicted of battery. He is also Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient with two extensions. He was served a notice to appear before a federal immigration judge, and will remain in ICE custody pending disposition of his immigration proceedings. A 32-year-old previously deported Ecuadoran man was arrested Jan. 7 in Chicago. He has criminal convictions for DUI, domestic assault and assault. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. A 46-year-old previously deported Mexican man was arrested Jan. 7 in Chicago. He has a criminal conviction for possessing cocaine. He remains in ICE custody pending presentation of criminal prosecution for re-entry after deportation. Depending on an alien’s criminality, an alien who re-enters the United States after having been previously deported commits a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, if convicted. “Our dedicated officers strive to make our communities safer by arresting convicted criminal aliens and removing them from the United States despite the reckless sanctuary policies that are currently in place in Cook County that put our communities at risk,” said Ricardo Wong, field office director of ERO Chicago. “This operation focused on targeting immigration fugitives and criminal aliens in two Illinois counties, but we routinely conduct operations daily. By removing criminal aliens from the streets, our ICE officers provide an invaluable community service by improving public safety.” All of the targets in this operation were amenable to arrest and removal under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE deportation officers carry out targeted enforcement operations daily nationwide as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to protect the nation, uphold public safety, and protect the integrity of our immigration laws and border controls.

The Remnant Newspaper The unmasking of McCarrick exposed the pervasive prelate coverup of homosexual sexual predation in the American Catholic Church. These swarmy power brokers have colluded far too long at the tragic expense of innocent boys and seminarians. For 60 years, Ted McCarrick roamed the halls of seminaries, harassing, raping, and assaulting young males around the world. His brother bishops all knew and they all stayed silent. How fortuitous and revelatory that McCarrick, the Molester would divulge his personal role in the pre-Conclave lobbying effort to elect Jorge Bergoglio as Pope. The notorious lavender mafia anxiously sought a simpatico Pope to advance its reformist homosexual agenda. Bergoglio was their man. The now well known McCarrick Villanova Speech on October 13, 2013 where he relayed the story about a prominent Italian man who met with McCarrick to ask him to lobby for the election of Bergoglio to the papacy. In light of the McCarrick scandal, the conversation takes on new meaning... McCarrick described the conversation with the Influential Roman: “Before we went into the General Congregation, a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman came to see me at the Seminary (where else?) where I was staying. We sat down and he’s a very brilliant man, very influential in Rome and said he had a favor to ask of me back home in the U.S., but then he said:” Influential Roman: What about Bergoglio? Molester McCarrick: I was surprised and said, What about Bergoglio? Influential Roman: Does he have a chance? Molester McCarrick: I don’t think so. No one has mentioned his name. He isn’t on anyone’s mind. Influential Roman: He could do it you know. Molester McCarrick: What could he do? Influential Roman: He could reform the Church. If you gave him 5 years, he could get us back on target. He’s 76. If he had 5 years—the Lord working through him, he could make the Church over again. Molester McCarrick: That’s interesting. Influential Roman: I know you are his friend. Molester McCarrick: I hope I am. Influential Roman: Talk him up. Molester McCarrick'll vouch for ya, Francis! #bromance And talk him up, McCarrick the Molester did! Oh, the irony! That the most prolific serial predator Cardinal would divulge the pre-Conclave Bergoglio plot to “reform the Church.” Now we know what “reform the Church” looks like in the Bergoglian papacy. Yes, the clever and tyrannical Bergoglio, through his manipulation of synods, footnotes, exhortations, personal phone calls, airplane pressers, and correspondence has nearly completed his task of modernizing the Roman Catholic Church in the past 5 years. The rallying cry for his homosexual modern agenda was sounded in his July 29, 2013 airplane presser. Who am I to judge set the tone for merciful embrace of homosexual priests. After 5 long years, his unrelenting mercy mantra seemingly extends only to homosexual clerics, not to the laity or clergy victims who protest the cover ups by prelates. Francis’ wink and nod to the homosexual lifestyle landed him on the cover of the Advocate, the gay magazine, as its Man of the Year. He lapped up the accolades from the secular culture and main stream media. Yet, fame is and predation is unrelenting, even for Popes. In the words of Queen Elizabeth, this year has been annus horribilis for Francis. Excuse the gay slang pun but, the chickens have come home to roost. The cascading revelations of papal sex scandals are toppling the barque of Peter. Will Catholic laity pay attention and take action? The McCarrick scandal created an earthquake in the Catholic Church with aftershocks that will last for years. The timing is eerily propitious and providential based on the 5 year deadline. Will the laity step up and reclaim our hijacked Catholic Church? This critical time in the history of the Catholic Church demands that the laity step forward to protect the Church, its children and seminarians from predators. We must close ranks before another precious child is exploited, a holy seminarian is violated, or another homosexual orgy is covered up at the Vatican. The first order of business is to scuttle the upcoming October Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. Remember that influential Roman gentleman friend of McCarrick who said that Bergoglio could reform the Church in 5 years? Bergoglio’s upcoming Synod on Young People will serve as the culminating vehicle for the 5 year modernist reform of the St. Gallen Mafia. This Synod is designed to exploit the youth, like they’ve been doing for the last 60 years. If it weren’t so infuriating, it would be laughable that following the McCarrick scandal of sexual predation of young males and seminarians, by a Cardinal, and covered up by Bishops, the Catholic Church would host a Synod of Bishops on the topic of young people and vocations! Furthermore, this nightmare of a “sinod" is inviting youth from ages 16-29 to mingle with the Bishops to discuss the Church, faith and vocations. Are you thoroughly disgusted by this farce? The Bishops have proven that they cannot be trusted to protect young people and seminarians from predators. The ever growing global list of Bishops and Cardinals that have preyed on /and or covered up the sexual abuse of minors and seminarians over the last 60 years continues to enrage the laity. We are no longer Shocked, just fed up. Let’s start with the Cardinal who will lead the upcoming Synod, none other than Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life. As the DC roommate and protege of Ted McCarrick, Farrell so respected McCarrick, the Molester, that he fashioned his Coat of Arms as a tribute to Uncle Ted. Farrell’s pathetic and laughable defense “I never knew anything about McCarrick” video highlights the continuing conspiracy of denial by the U.S. Catholic hierarchy. Undoubtedly, Farrell as the head of this Synod chose his dear friend gay friendly, Fr. James Martin, S.J. to keynote the Synod. Farrell’s graciously offers notorious praise for Martin’s new book, Building a Bridge (to hell, ed.) exposes his obvious underlying homosexual agenda and aura of the upcoming Synod: “A welcome and much-needed book that will help bishops, priests, pastoral associates, and all church leaders more compassionately minister to the LGBT community. It will also help LGBT Catholics feel more at home in what is, after all, their church.” What merciful praise for Martin’s book, Cardinal Farrell! Contrary to the theme of mercy and compassion to LGBTs, it appears that your mentor, McCarrick set out to groom and grow an LGBT community. Clearly, you and Fr. Martin have much in common since you both claimed you were “shocked” by the McCarrick allegations. Explain to Catholics why would you headline a homosexual affirming speaker at a Synod for youth and seminarians? In case you haven’t been reading the McCarrick headlines or noticing the plunging mass attendance and collections, Catholics don’t trust their boys around priests and are furious that their seminarians are subjected to unrelenting homosexual sexual harassment. McCarrick is the last straw. All credibility is lost. The October Synod is yet another example of Church leaders exploiting Catholic youth for their own personal power agenda and selfish motives. Bergoglio’s five year plan is nearly complete. Catholics must shed their trust and naivety in the papacy and bishops’ conference. Dare, if you will, to read the thrill, the excitement and anticipated results of the Synod in the radical New Ways Gay Catholic Ministry article, entitled, Youth Synod Document shows Vatican evolution on LGBT Topics. The article highlights the New Ways excitement over the shift in the Vatican approach to the LGBT issues at the Synod: “Another significant development is the acknowledgement that LGBT people have a desire to be part of the church. In one section, the document states: “some LGBT youth … wish to benefit from greater closeness and experience greater care from the Church.” “This acknowledgement is a welcome change from the hierarchy’s traditional rhetoric that suggests LGBT people are opposed to religion. As New Ways Ministry knows from over 40 years of pastoral work with the LGBT community, LGBT Catholics have a deep spirituality, often forged by remarkable journeys overcoming rejection, alienation, and marginalization. LGBT Catholics have stayed a part of the church, despite statements and actions which have offended and hurt them.” The New Ways article highlights the efforts of Cardinal Kevin Farrell and his Vatican cronies to promote the LGBT agenda for the upcoming Synod: “A third development is that the document shows that Vatican officials paid attention to concerns about LGBT issues which were raised by youth at a pre-synod meeting in Rome during March of this year, and also from youth around the world who made their views known to the Vatican online.” And what of the infamous Instrumentum Laboris, drafted by the crafty Cardinal Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, noteworthy of the infamous First Synod on the Family? Known for his manipulative polls and magical modernistic results, Baldisseri infamously stated that “dogma has its own evolution.” Baldisseri stayed true to his modernist form and agenda and to the delight of the New Ways Ministry, he announced at the Vatican press conference that his office is using for the first time ever the LGBT acronym to refer to gay people in a spirit of inclusion. Lest there be any doubt about the secret agenda and outcome of this Synod, Cardinal Baldisseri raises the exclusion rainbow flag. Baldisseri notes that the upcoming Synod is to “make the entire Church aware of its important mission to accompany every young person, none excluded.” This papacy is awash in the prissy, pop psycho speak, jargon of accompaniment, listening, and dialogue dazzling the media with empty tropes and luring the uncatechized into its globalist mantra of one world new age religion. Not surprisingly, Baldisseri never once mentions that dreaded word, dogma in the Instrumentum Laboris, but effuses about accompaniment 136 times! This doltish and dimwitted document wreaks of psycho babble, insults the intelligence of young people, and will destroy the future of the Church. Welcome to the dumbing down of the Catholic Faith by the St. Gallen Mafia and their don, Jorge Bergoglio. This Synod will exploit the youth and seminarians, just like Ted McCarrick. The handwriting is all over the 37 foot Vatican wall. The time to take a stand against this radical hijacking of Holy Mother Church is now. Expose and rout every last predator. Purge every homosexual from its clerical ranks. #StopTheSynod. It has all the markings of a Gay Pride Rally. __________________________________________ Elizabeth Yore is an attorney and international child rights advocate who has investigated clergy sex abuse cases.

Rep. Danny Davis was For/Against/For/Against Farrakhan Rep. Danny Davis helped get the ball rolling by praising Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. “I don’t regard Louis Farrakhan as an aberration or anything, I regard him as an outstanding human being who commands a following of individuals who are learned and articulate and he plays a big role in the lives of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people,” he emphasized later. Then Rep. Davis' office issued a statement disavowing Farrakhan. And then Davis got right back to talking to the Daily Caller and disavowed the disavowal. “The congressman was insistent that The Daily Caller misquoted him during the interview and that he didn’t subscribe to Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements and actions in the past,” the ADL official told JTA in a statement. “He expressed an interest in seeing some of the latest statements made by Farrakhan vis-a-vis Jews, which we promptly shared with him.” The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The term "Jewish Question" is largely used by anti-Semites. So Davis then sorta disavowed his own statements. J Street endorsed him. And then he talked to the Daily Caller again. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis thinks Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious racist and anti-Semite, does “outstanding work” but doesn’t agree with Farrakhan’s positions that white people are “devils” and Jewish people are satanic. Progress! "I don’t spend a lot of time, I buy Final Call when I see them. I’ve been to Saviour’s Day, I’ve read, I’ve been a fan of Elijah Muhammad, so those are my positions, but I do disagree with the notion that white people are devils.” I wonder how far a white congressman would get saying, "I attended the Klavern, but I don't agree with the KKK's views about black people." But that's Rep. Davis' current views. He likes a racist hate group. But doesn't believe white people are devils or Jews are satanic. Whoever the JTA has on the "explain away Farrakhan's Dem fandom" beat is going to be busy again. But this is typical of the Dems and their useful idiots. And J Street is on record as endorsing a politician who praised a racist hate group leader and discussed the "Jewish question."

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.

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.

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.

Trump Pardons Hammonds! Now, this is good news! On Tuesday, President Trump Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been serving sentences for arson. A Statement from the White House read as follows: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences. The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison. This was unjust. Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison. Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison. They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit. The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency. Well, it took long enough, but thank you President Trump. You did the right thing in this matter. And for all those who took the time to keep this story alive and urge people to petition the White House on behalf of the Hammonds, thank you! It should be noted that the protests that took place in Oregon a couple of years ago were a response to the injustice the Hammonds faced. As a result, Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was killed by Oregon State Police. Those who led the protest were all acquitted of all charges and reporter Pete Santilli had all of his charges dismissed. No doubt, Finicum would have been found not guilty as well, but that's not how tyrants work, is it? Today is a day to celebrate a wrong that has not been fully made right, but has definitely turned in the right direction! Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

“It’s gotta be a set-up”: Neighbor of Las Vegas Shooter Claims He Didn’t Do It This report was originally published by Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars.com A caller to the Michael Savage radio show who says he was neighbors with Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock asserts that Paddock could not have carried out the massacre and that it was actually a “set-up”. The man, a former Marine who called himself Rick, says he was Paddock’s neighbor between December 2015 and June 2016 in Mesquite, Nevada. “I can tell you 100% this is not that kind of guy,” said Rick, adding that he would see Paddock every other day and that the two would go to a local bar and play slot machines. “He never even told me that he owned a gun,” continued the shooter’s neighbor, adding that Paddock did not express any religious or political opinions during their conversations. “I’m not a big conspiracy theory guy, but it don’t sit right,” said Rick, before making the extraordinary claim that the whole shooting was a “set up” and that Paddock’s body may have been left in the hotel room while other assailants carried out the shooting. The caller mentioned how some people in the crowd were warned 45 minutes before the shooting that they were going to die, suggesting that this was evidence of a wider plot and not a “lone wolf” attack. As a firearms expert, he also questioned the lack of flashes coming from the hotel windows where the shooter was supposedly firing from. Rick said he had already contacted the Clark County Sheriff’s Office to relay all the information he knew. Although the claims are intriguing, it is important to remember that after virtually every terror attack and mass shooting, friends and neighbors express shock that the culprit would be capable of carrying out such horrors, with some outright denying it to be possible. If Paddock was planning such a sophisticated operation and hoping to evade detection, he would not be blabbing details about it to his neighbors. However, the neighbor’s claims are certain to attract more attention given that no specific motive has yet to be uncovered for the shooting. What do you think? Let us know in the comments below. SUBSCRIBE on YouTube: Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWatson/ ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Did Oakland Mayor Tip Off La Raza to ICE Raid? The story of the Oakland mayor who tipped off illegal alien criminals to ICE raids resulting in rapists and child sex offenders escaping arrest just keeps getting worse. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf shocked the nation when she issued a tweet and press release on February 24 warning about impending ICE raids. Schaaf refuses to say how she learned about the ICE raids, only saying it was not from official sources. “I felt that it was my duty to share the information,” Schaaf said. Whatever the leak pipeline looked like, it's good odds that it began with Obama holdovers ensconced in the government. In emails we obtained through a public records request, we didn’t find out who her sources were, but we do know who she was talking to before she made her big announcement. Emails reveal that hours before the announcement, a group called Centro Legal de la Raza sent the mayor information on what employers should do in case of an ICE raid. Hours before the public was warned about ICE raids, some Oakland businesses got a head start, thanks to the mayor. According to emails, the Oakland Indie Alliance, a group of independent businesses, got a message saying “Important Alert! Credible information ICE Raids in Oakland Sunday 2/25 and Monday 2/26” and “This information comes directly from the Mayor.” Now that last part is significant. Because there is no doubt that businesses employing illegal aliens are committing a crime. It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States.. An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien’s illegal employment. Any business that tips off illegal aliens admits that it is aware of their status. By passing along the warning, Mayor Schaaf was tipping off criminals committing a felony.

Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of the Guardian. Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian, this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified “Russians” to the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that Manafort’s plea deal was over. The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs. This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log. Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited. There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the “Russians” would have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed Ecuadorean “intelligence report” of the visits. 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”. Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller’s pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the Presidency. My friend William Binney, probably the world’s greatest expert on electronic surveillance, former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC “security consultants” Crowdstrike. I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive “Big Lie” will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack of the DNC servers. Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a personal assurance of them. I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime. Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage. Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.

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

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

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.”

Google Was ‘Working To Get Hillary Clinton Elected’ Tucker Carlson just blew the cover off the 2016 election influence charade, after he read an internal email on Monday night’s show from a senior Google employee who admitted to using company resources to make a “silent donation” to a liberal group that was creating ads and donating funds to bus Latinos to voting stations during the 2016 election in key swing states, in an effort to help Hillary Clinton win. The email was sent by the former head of Google’s multicultural marketing department, Eliana Mario, on November 9, 2016. “That email was subsequently forwarded by two Google VP’s to more staff members throughout the company,” says Carlson, adding “In her email, Mario touts Google’s multi-faceted efforts to boost Hispanic turnout in the election. She noticed that Latino voters did record-breaking numbers, especially in states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona – the last of which she describes as “a key state for us.” She brags that the company used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions, with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election.” Elsewhere in the email Mario says “Google supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states .” Hillary the Other Woman Dolly Kyle Best Price: $3.06 Buy New $8.93 (as of 01:15 EDT - Details) She describes this assistance as a “silent donation” Mario then says that Google helped Voto Latino create ad campaigns to promote those rides. Now officially Voto Latino is a non-partisan entity, but that is a sham. Voto Latino is vocally partisan. Recently the group declared that Hispanics – ALL Hispanics are in President Trump’s “crosshairs.” They said they plan to respond to this by registering another million additional Hispanic voters in the next Presidential cycle. … It was, in effect, an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. … In the end, Google was disappointed. As Mario herself conceded “ultimately after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. –Tucker Carlson Watch:  So it looks like @Google executives have been caught red-handed trying to throw the election to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Maybe that’s why they refused to appear before Congress last week?https://t.co/1YELagt8hH — Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) September 11, 2018 This, of course, isn’t the first evidence of Google doing all they could to help Hillary win the election. In an April 15, 2014 email from Google’s then-Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt found in the WikiLeaked Podesta emails, titled “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign,” Schmidt tells Cheryl Mills that “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better. This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all.” While there are numerous curious nuances in the plan, presented below in its entirety, the one section that caught our – and Wikileaks’ attention – is the following which implicitly suggests Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones: Guilty as Sin: Uncover... Edward Klein Best Price: $2.30 Buy New $3.99 (as of 12:05 EDT - Details) Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.) As a reminder, in late October of 2016 it was revealed that just days prior to the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt had sent another email in which he expressed his eagerness to “fund” the campaign efforts and wants to be a “head outside advisor.” In the email from John Podesta to Robby Mook we learned that: I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on t Another email from February 2015 suggested that the Google Chairman remained active in its collaboration with the Clinton campaign: John Podesta wrote that Eric Schmidt met with HR “about the business he proposes to do with the campaign. He says he’s met with HRC” and adds that “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip” Meanwhile, according to a Breitbart report by Allum Bokhari, “By inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate, search engines like Google can shift the opinions of undecided voters by up to 43.4 percent, according to new research by a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and reported exclusively by Breitbart News.” The lead author of the study, Dr. Robert Epstein, has previously conducted research into what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). This research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic. His latest research looks at how search engines can affect voters by suggesting negative or positive search terms when a political candidate’s name is entered into the search bar. Dr. Epstein’s research found that when negative search terms are suggested for a candidate, it can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion. –Breitbart So, despite Google’s best efforts to help Clinton win the election, it simply wasn’t enough. Meanwhile, Google has yet to answer why their search results for the word “Idiot” are vastly different from DuckDuckGo: VS: Reprinted with permission from Zero Hedge. The Best of Tyler Durden

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

Soldiers of the Cross - Who the Real & Counterfeits Are! “If you want to change the future you are going to have to trouble the present.”-William Booth Before I begin, I need to make clear that the best leaders are the best followers, and that of the Christ (John 14:6). With that said, Isn't it funny how things work in this world, it seems like when you do the wrong thing before God and man, somehow people seem to give it a pass. Yet, when you begin to do the right things and obey God and love man according to the Word of God, all of a sudden, the world acts like you're doing something wrong. After I got saved, as they say (John 3:3), I remember my mother calling me up and saying, “The family wants to know what is wrong with you.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. "What’s wrong with me?" I laughingly replied. I said, "Mom, when I was in the rock n roll world doing the things that I was doing, nobody said anything, and no one had a problem with what I was doing, that is until I started to emulate (obey) Jesus Christ" (1 John 2:6). This reminds me of when I gave a prayer at the state capital in Minnesota. After the prayer was over, I had a minister come up to me and tell me that I could not be dropping the “J” (Jesus) word in the capital. I said that the reason I dropped the “J” word was because you haven’t in 40 years (Romans 1:16). What of public high schools across the country that we have been going into in order to educate the youth as to who we are, and not what the revisionists and propagandists would have them believe that we are. We have shown the young people that abortion is murder and that 58 million babies have been murdered since 1973 under the guise of woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17). We got kicked out of a public school for re-enforcing America’s value’s by teaching the US Constitution. We have taught that homosexuality is an abomination, and how it is a felony in every state in our union (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Jude 1:7). How true Scripture is when it declares: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" No wonder why the reprobates and hypocrites thought that the Christians who were following the living Christ were turning the world upside down in the book of Acts. They were, in fact, turning the world right side up (Acts 17:6). Identifying the genuine from the counterfeit Last week, I had a woman come up to me at my last meeting in Amery, Wisconsin. She said that she did her research on me and said that the media really attacked me. I responded with, "Of course they did, and of course they still do." They are being exposed for who they are and they do not like it. (John 15:22). I told her that there are too many counterfeits, self-proclaimed leaders, out there who care more about saving face, than they do the souls of men (Luke 19:10), as well as saving their country. Apparently they have a reputation to keep up. Philippians 2:7-9 These are those that sit behind the status of some sort of church or political leader of the pack. Yet, you do not see any warfare or opposition around them and why? because they have simply forsaken the cross. There is no absolutes with these people. They are people pleasers and nothing more. After all you can always tell what a man stands for by the enemies that he has. They hide behind a microphone day after day. Yet, they fail to confront the issues that needed to be confronted. The reason they don't is because they are guilty of what they fail to confront! They are paper tigers. They can write all big and bad but when it comes to what someone else should do. However, when it is time for them to put boots on the ground, they are simply missing in action (MIA). These are willing to live in the freest country in the world as long as it is not them that have to sacrifice to maintain it. There is also a group of people out there that have to be friends with everyone (and have to apologize to any that they may have told the truth lest they should convict them unto godly repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10) as they congregate week after week deceiving themselves into believing that they are demanding a lawful change just as long as it does not offend anyone (Matthew 5:10). As a matter of fact, these counterfeits will be the first ones to get angry with and denounce and attack the ones that are sent by the Spirit of God (Galatians 4:29). Maybe this group of people should ask their enemies for instructions as to how change is brought about, and in a righteous sense reverse the lawlessness-taking place in this country (Matthew 24:12). These groups of people are simply enemies of the cross of Christ and know not the power of God unto salvation (Philippians 3:18). Furthermore, I said to this woman that this is how you can tell who the genuine Christians are that are in the fight and those who are counterfeits. When the church and the world can jog comfortably along together, you can be sure something is wrong. The world has not compromised—its spirit is exactly the same as it ever was. If Christians were equally as faithful to the Lord, separated from the world (2 Corinthians 6:17), and living so that their lives were a reproof to all ungodliness, the world would hate them as much as it ever did. (John 7:7) It is the church that has compromised, not the world. – Catherine Booth The way to gauge those who are actually taking ground for the kingdom is to see who is in the midst of a continuous warfare (always in trouble, slandered, lied about, defamed etc) fighting the good fight of faith because they trust in the living God (Matthew 11:12; 1 Timothy 6:12). John Calvin said, “Whomsoever the Lord has adopted and deemed worthy of His fellowship ought to prepare themselves for a hard, toilsome and unquiet life, crammed with very many and various kinds of evil.” And of course to the counterfeit's this is foreign. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

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.”

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.

Trump’s Plan for Iran: Put Terrorists in Charge? Back in the 2008 presidential race, I explained to then-candidate Rudy Giuliani the concept of “blowback.” Years of US meddling and military occupation of parts of the Middle East motivated a group of terrorists to carry out attacks against the United States on 9/11. They didn’t do it because we are so rich and so free, as the neocons would have us believe. They came over here because we had been killing Muslims “over there” for decades. How do we know this? Well, they told us. Osama bin Laden made it clear why al-Qaeda sought to attack the US. They didn’t like the US taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and they didn’t like US troops on their holy land. Why believe a terrorist, some responded. As I explained to Giuliani ten years ago, the concept of “blowback” is well-known in the US intelligence community and particularly by the CIA. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Unfortunately, it is clear that Giuliani never really understood what I was trying to tell him. Like the rest of the neocons, he either doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it. In a recent speech to the MeK – a violent Islamist-Marxist cult that spent two decades on the US terror watch list – Giuliani promised that the Trump Administration had made “regime change” a priority for Iran. He even told the members of that organization – an organization that has killed dozens of Americans – that Trump would put them in charge of Iran! Giuliani shares with numerous other neocons like John Bolton a strong relationship with this group. In fact, both Giuliani and Bolton have been on the payroll of the MeK and have received tens of thousands of dollars to speak to their followers. This is another example of how foreign lobbies and special interest groups maintain an iron grip on our foreign policy. Does anyone really think Iran will be better off if Trump puts a bunch of “former” terrorists in charge of the country? How did that work in Libya? It’s easy to dismiss the bombastic Giuliani as he speaks to his financial benefactors in the MeK. Unfortunately, however, Giuliani’s claims were confirmed late last week, when the Washington Free Beacon published a three-page policy paper being circulated among National Security Council officials containing plans to spark regime change in Iran. The paper suggests that the US focus on Iran’s many ethnic minority groups to spark unrest and an eventual overthrow of the government. This is virtually the same road map that the US has followed in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on. The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster. Unleashing terrorists on Iran to overthrow its government is not only illegal and immoral: it’s also incredibly stupid. We know from 9/11 that blowback is real, even if Giuliani and the neocons refuse to understand it. Iran does not threaten the United States. Unlike Washington’s Arab allies in the region, Iran actually holds reasonably democratic elections and has a Western-oriented, educated, and very young population. Why not open up to Iran with massive amounts of trade and other contacts? Does anyone (except for the neocons) really believe it is better to unleash terrorists on a population than to engage them in trade and travel? We need to worry about blowback from President Trump’s fully-neoconized Middle East policy! That’s the real threat! Article posted with permission from Ron Paul

Who ‘Won’ the Trump-Kim Summit? Last week’s Economist Magazine won the day with the best-ever headline about the Trump-Kim Jong-un summit: `Kim Jong Won!’ That said it all. Just out of hospital, I was in no shape to compete with the great Economist or its very witty headline writers. But after watching a week of post Singapore summit between Great White Father Trump and delinquent Kim Jong-un I must totally agree with the Economist. What was billed as a second-coming extravaganza between the two leaders – who have been trading insults of ‘little rocket man’ and ‘dotard’ (someone who is senile) turned out to be a very expensive photo op for both publicity seekers that made much noise but produced very little – at least so far. It seemed as if two schoolyard bullies had been forced by the principal to shake hands. Beyond gestures, North Korea’s leader certainly came out ahead. His objective – and those of his family predecessors for the past 60 years – was to normalize relations with the US, start trade, and end US efforts to overthrow the Marxist government in Pyongyang. American Raj: Liberati... Eric Margolis Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $45.86 (as of 09:30 EDT - Details) Trump’s objectives, at least initially, were to crush North Korea and the threats it could pose to the United States and its regional allies Japan and South Korea. Trump sought to set up Kim as a bogeyman, and himself as America’s savior. Trump knew perfectly well that he could not destroy all of North Korea’s deeply buried nuclear-armed missiles, and, in spite of his huffing and puffing, had no stomach for an invasion of North Korea that could cost the US an estimated 250,000 casualties. So Trump’s solution was more show-biz. A much ballyhooed flight to Singapore, backslapping a delighted Kim, and a love-fest between the two chunky leaders was sold to Americans as the dawn of peace. America’s media was quick to retail the story and burnish Trump’s credentials among the seriously credulous. No more hiding under your school desks or in dank basements. As Trump grandly proclaimed, Americans no longer have to fear North Korea and can sleep peacefully at night! Why? Korea still has all of its medium and long-ranged missiles and an estimated 40 or more nuclear warheads. The North is developing submarines that can launch nuclear-armed missiles from underwater off America’s coasts. For Kim, these weapons are purely defensive, designed to prevent a US attack on his nation. But he is now a full-fledged member of the nuclear club. Equally important, North Korea still has an estimated 14,000 170mm guns and hundreds of 300mm long-ranged rocket launchers emplaced in caves just north of the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas. They threaten almost all of South Korea’s capital Seoul north of the Han River and some US military bases and key airfields, notably Osan. This is a very real threat – one that is largely immune to attack from the air. I have seen these emplacements from the northern edge of the DMZ. Kim’s big guns hold Seoul’s millions of inhabitants hostage. War at the Top of the ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $2.60 Buy New $24.57 (as of 09:00 EDT - Details) There is no mention of this artillery threat in the final communiqué issued by Trump and Kim in Singapore. But it was agreed to temporarily stop the highly provocative US/South Korean war games simulating an invasion of the North, a key demand by Kim. This column has been calling for their end for a decade. North Korea will seemingly halt its missile tests. This is not the ‘denuclearization’ of North Korea that has been bandied about. There may be a few gestures of disarmament but Kim must know that his nukes are his means of survival. In case Kim didn’t remember the dire fate of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Trump’s new national security advisor John Bolton, a fanatic’s fanatic, cheerfully recalled the doom of Libya’s murdered Col. Khadaffi. The Singapore summit was also a huge humiliation for America’s allies Japan and South Korea. In Asia, preserving ‘face’ is essential. Trump completely ignored America’s two old allies after his meeting with Kim – who routinely blasts Japan and South Korea as ‘America’s stooges.’ Instead, Trump sent his beginner Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to explain what happened in Singapore, inflicting a deep loss of face on Tokyo and Seoul. This was a terrible insult and could spark decisions by at least Japan to proceed ahead with its covert nuclear program. Japan can deploy nuclear weapons in 3-6 months; South Korea is not far behind. The United States and North Korea are now on a more civilized level of behavior. But nothing basic has been resolved. Maybe Trump has some more concessions up his sleeve, like cutting the number of US troops in the South. But Korea is now on the back burner as Trump wages trade wars around the globe. The Best of Eric Margolis

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

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

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.

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.

After Calling for Guns & Ammo Confiscation & Universal Gun Registration, the American Medical Association Should Think About Taking "American" Out of Their Name The American Medical Association (AMA) should seriously consider changing their names since they are about as anti-American as it comes in their new demands for gun confiscation measures, which include guns and ammunition confiscation, as well as universal gun registration. The AMA, which should take no political position when it comes to guns, except to uphold the law which protects the God-given rights of law-abiding citizens, came out with a lengthy blog post not only calling for guns and ammunition confiscation, as well as universal gun registration but also proposals to ban the sale and possession of “all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.” Now, the majority of people at the AMA probably couldn't tell you any of these devices or items if they saw them, but they are advancing an agenda. Just keep that in mind. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This has nothing to do with medicine or health, and far from stupid people running for Congress who spray themselves with pepper spray to tell you how it will be effective to protect your children against a criminal armed with a gun, these people don't used the word "epidemic" in their diatribe, though they are on record saying gun violence is a public health crisis. Sara Berg, a senior writer at AMA, was the author of the lengthy post which calls for all sorts of government overreach and unconstitutional legislation. And though she has a huge laundry list of things the AMA supports, she fails, like every other Socialist and Communist, to tell us exactly how these measures keep people safe and weapons out of the hands of criminals. Berg and the AMA want to pull a Dick's Sporting Goods and demand that people be 21 before they can purchase a firearm. Does Berg and the AMA support our military? Do they not know that 18-year-olds carry firearms, both handguns and rifles? I ask, as I do with the issue concerning alcohol, what is magic about the age of 21? I ask, where does government get to determine who gets to do whatever at whatever age based on an ambiguous age number? Yet, if we do that, we won't have to worry about mass shooters, right? Wrong. Yeah, that's gonna keep people safe. It's going to infringe on the rights of those who don't commit crimes and need a gun to protect themselves or be part of the constitutional militia. The AMA also wants to bypass the Fifth Amendment protections concerning someone actually being indicted and found guilty of a crime being deprived of their liberty and property as they promote a new legal procedure by which “family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel” can petition courts to confiscate firearms from people “when there is a high or imminent risk for violence.” They want to do what President Donald Trump suggested and "take the guns first" and forget due process. See? This is why they should be honest about who they are and name themselves the Non-American Medical Association. I'm all for situations like Nikolas Cruz who assaulted teachers and students being arrested and tried and dealt with lawfully, but to go seizing people's property and denying them their liberty base on the hearsay of another person is anti-constitutional and anti-American. Who knows exactly what they mean by high-capacity magazines. I mean, for the most part, you can obtain 20 or 30 round magazines for both handguns and rifles. In some cases, you can purchase drums which hold 50-100 rounds, but if you are in New York, the NY SAFE Act defines your high capacity magazine to hold anything more than 7 rounds. As for the nonsensical call to ban armor-piercing bullets, virtually every caliber of bullet, except maybe a .22 can pierce kevlar-based vests, and if you are using .22 magnums, they will even pierce those! At the 2018 AMA Annual Meeting, delegates adopted policy for the AMA to support: Establishing laws allowing family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel to petition a court for the removal of a firearm when there is a high or imminent risk for violence. Prohibiting persons who are under domestic violence restraining orders, convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes or stalking from possessing or purchasing firearms. Expanding domestic violence restraining orders to include dating partners. Requiring states to have protocols or processes in place for requiring the removal of firearms by prohibited persons. Requiring domestic violence restraining orders and gun violence restraining orders to be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Efforts to ensure the public is aware of the existence of laws that allow for the removal of firearms from high-risk individuals. The delegates also modified existing policy to: Recognize the role of firearms in suicides. Encourage the development of curricula and training for physicians with a focus on suicide risk assessment and prevention as well as lethal means safety counseling. Encourage physicians, as a part of their suicide prevention strategy, to discuss lethal means safety and work with families to reduce access to lethal means of suicide. Newly adopted policy also means the AMA will: Advocate for schools to remain gun-free zones except for school-sanctioned activities and professional law enforcement officials. Oppose requirements or incentives of teachers to carry weapons. They also oppose concealed carry reciprocity, which I do as well, but based on the principle that the Second Amendment's protections extend to the various states as well, since it recognizes a right, not a permission, to keep and bear arms. I also oppose it because it's just another step for the federal government to say they need a database so states can check, thus identifying gun owners and possibly their weapons. “People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,” said AMA Immediate Past President David O. Barbe, MD, MHA. “In emergency rooms across the country, the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience. “Every day,” Dr. Barbe added, “physicians are treating suicide victims, victims of domestic partner violence, and men and women simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn’t have to be this way, and we urge lawmakers to act.” Yeah, and people are dying by the hundreds of thousands at the hands of drugs approved by the FDA, but I don't hear you guys calling to shut down the unconstitutional FDA or put Big Pharma out of business, does anyone else? Where is Berg's blog post on that? Where is the AMA statement against the pharmaceutical companies and big government? I'll tell you why they aren't speaking out on that... they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, plain and simple.

Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes Resigns Amid Florida Voter Fraud Why she wasn't fired a long time ago is beyond anyone's ability to answer, but Broward County election supervisor Brenda Snipes has resigned amid what is clearly voter fraud that she oversaw. However, that should not be good enough for the people of Broward County nor the state of Florida. Charges must be made and her arrest should be imminent. The Sun-Sentinel reports: Just hours after finishing a tumultuous election recount, Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes submitted her resignation, ending a 15-year tenure full of botched elections, legal disputes and blistering criticism. take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. “It is true. She did send it,” said Burnadette Norris-Weeks, an attorney who works as counsel to the Supervisor of Elections Office. Evelyn Perez-Verdia, a former office spokeswoman who left several years ago, said Sunday evening she was told by people in the office that the letter was sent “to Tallahassee” earlier in the day. Norris-Weeks said she saw an early draft of the letter. In the version she saw, she said Snipes, 75, expressed a desire to spend more time with her family. In the final version of the resignation letter, sent to Gov. Rick Scott, Snipes said it was her “passion and honor” to have served in the office. “I am ready to pass the torch,” she wrote in the letter, which made no mention of controversies surrounding the 2018 election. By the way, she missed her deadline. “Although I have enjoyed this work tremendously over these many election cycles, both large and small, I am ready to pass the torch,” she wrote. She should be ready for prison bars after the fiasco she has created. Snipes allowed illegal aliens, non-citizens and felons to vote. According to Breitbart, she illegally destroyed ballots. Three statewide races in Florida are headed to a recount and all depend on results from a county whose supervisor of elections has a history of losing ballots and breaking laws by allowing illegal immigrants and felons to vote, as well as illegally destroying ballots. Broward County supervisor of elections Brenda Snipes’ office has admitted “they don’t know” how many ballots there are still to count. Snipes’ latest failure to finalize Tuesday’s election returns days after the polls closed is also in violation of Florida law, which requires elections officials to “report all early voting and all tabulated vote-by-mail results to the Department of State within 30 minutes after the polls close. Thereafter, the canvassing board shall report, with the exception of provisional ballot results, updated precinct election results to the department at least every 45 minutes until all results are completely reported.” The irony that a constitutionally ineligible candidate for the presidency and RINO extraordinaire, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), pointed out that voter fraud going on in Florida just a day after the elections probably didn't help the pressure that Snipes was facing. No evidence of fraud in #FloridaElection? Dems got voters to use altered forms to fix & submit as many mail ballots as possible after FL deadline in hopes that a judge would later order state to count them. Today that’s exactly what a federal judge did. https://t.co/MC4Tlvy9gi — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 15, 2018 Naples Daily News: A day after Florida’s election left top state races too close to call, a Democratic party leader directed staffers and volunteers to share altered election forms with voters to fix signature problems on absentee ballots after the state’s deadline. The altered forms surfaced in Broward, Santa Rosa, Citrus and Okaloosa counties and were reported to federal prosecutors to review for possible election fraud as Florida counties completed a required recount in three top races. But an email obtained by the USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida shows that Florida Democrats were organizing a broader statewide effort beyond those counties to give voters the altered forms to fix improper absentee ballots after the Nov. 5 deadline. Democratic party leaders provided staffers with copies of a form, known as a “cure affidavit,” that had been modified to include an inaccurate Nov. 8 deadline. We also know that a Broward County employee, Chelsey Smith, signed an affidavit affirming that she had seen members of Snipes' staff engaging in voter fraud. She ignored a court order, mixed invalid provisional ballots in with valid ones, and destroyed ballots, but don't worry, a Democrat attorney says that doing so has nothing to do with fraud or corruption. Now that federal prosecutors have gotten involved, perhaps it's time to quit talking about it and actually arrest this woman and charge her with crimes against the people of Broward County before more people end up dead in Broward County over their corrupt voting practices. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

British Labor Party: We Banned Pamela Geller, Now Let’s Ban Trump, Too The Guardian reported Thursday that “Chris Bryant, a senior Labour backbencher,” has written to British prime minister Theresa May, urging her to “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.'” When Western historians look back at the 21st century, the Geller-Spencer ban in the U.K. will be viewed as one of that once great nation’s darkest moments and a low point for freedom. It was the victory of Islamic law over Western law, sharia over freedom. This because Trump retweeted three videos showing Muslims being violent. Bryant, a former Foreign Office minister, supported this madness by pointing to…me. He cited the cases of two U.S. far-right bloggers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the U.K. I was going to be among a group of freedom-fighters – a true rainbow coalition of human rights activists from all over the world (a Hindu princess had been set to join us) – to honor the memory of Lee Rigby, the British soldier who had been murdered on a London street in broad daylight by an Islamic jihadist on May 22, 2013. We planned to pay our respects to Lee Rigby by placing a wreath at his memorial, in his memory and in memory of his service. We planned to bring the Stars and Stripes, as well as British and Danish flags, and participate in Armed Forces Day memorial commemorations at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, where Rigby served. For this, we were banned. When Prime Minister Theresa May, who was the head of the Home Office when she banned us and was thus directly responsible for the ban, threw us under the bus in order to satiate savages who threatened violence, did she really think she or anyone would be safe? Safe by surrender? When did they ever work in the history of humankind? The über-left pol citing the Geller-Spencer ban in the U.K. to ban Trump was inevitable. It’s like the Geller ban on ads on buses and subways in every major American city: the Catholic Church just tried to run ads on buses in Washington, D.C., and discovered that it couldn’t because of the ban on all political ads that was enacted in order to prevent my ads from running. Once you sanction the silencing and persecution of one, inevitably, you’ve sanctioned it for all. It’s open season on the opposition. Who decides what’s good and what’s forbidden in a totalitarian society? The totalitarians. The worldwide howl at Trump’s retweets of videos tweeted out by a British politician is further proof of the Islamization of the West. It speaks to how deeply and far and widely sharia has been normed and accepted by Western elites. The videos in the retweets are authentic and have circulated for years. They’re neither “far-right” nor “Islamophobic”; they’re just factual. Once again the media are blaming the messenger instead of dealing with Islamic violence. Trump didn’t add any rhetoric to his tweets. He retweeted authentic videos. (The Dutch media now claim that one of them doesn’t depict Muslim migrants being violent, as was claimed. Even if this is true, Muslim migrant violence is a grim and increasingly common reality in Europe.) If Muslims sincerely condemn jihad terror and sharia oppression, they shouldn’t oppose him. In a letter to May, Bryant wrote: “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.” “Fascism.” By that Bryant means “defending British values.” While admitting numerous jihad preachers, Britain is keeping out the voices of sanity that would call that nation back to a path that would secure freedom for her children and her children’s children instead of a path to national suicide. And now a call to ban the president of the nation that saved their nation from extinction not 70 years ago. The full story of my being banned from the UK for standing against jihad, and much more, is in my new book, FATWA: Hunted in America . Get the book. Buy it for friends. Educate those around you. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Student says anti-Semitism still an issue in McGill student government The McGill student at the centre of anti-Semitic allegations says he’s certain the climate within student government will improve, after a report into the incident was made public this week. Noah Lew and two other students were voted off the Students’ Society of McGill University last October after they were identified as having pro-Israel viewpoints. They were since reinstated. A report made public this week by Spencer Boudreau concluded he could not determine if students who organized against the three board members had anti-Semitic intentions. Boudreau, a retired professor of education and former ombudsperson for students, however, said he understood why the students felt they were targeted because they are Jewish. After criticism from several Jewish groups both on and off campus, Boudreau issued a clarification to the report, saying he could not determine if the vote was motivated by anti-Semitism, but he acknowledged there were “in fact anti-Semitic effects felt by members of the Jewish community.” Speaking to the Montreal Gazette on Friday, Lew, the SSMU’s vice-president of finance for the Arts, said he was initially upset with the report, but felt vindicated by Boudreau’s clarification. “I thought this acknowledgement was very important and I really did appreciate that he clarified the matter,” he said. Jewish groups had criticized Boudreau’s report, saying it ignored anti-Semitic language used on Facebook by a group called Democratize SSMU. The group was urging students to vote against Lew, and two other board members who were deemed to be pro-Israel, alleging “layers of corruption” within the student government and favouritism in appointing board members, then singled out three members of the board “who are all either fellows at the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, an organization whose explicit mandate is to promote pro-Israel discourse in Canadian politics, or primary organizers for the anti-BDS initiative at McGill.” Boudreau made his clarification after it was pointed out the anti-Semitic language was published prior to the vote. While Democratize SSMU later apologized for the language and deleted it from its site, the damage had already been done, Boudreau concluded. Lew said he feels vindicated to some extent, but is concerned anti-Semitism is still a problem within student government. “There have been some steps taken by the administration and the student body in the right direction, but it’s certainly not over,” he said. In the months leading up to the vote, there had been other anti-Semitic incidents, including a tweet by Igor Sadikov, an elected representative of students in McGill’s faculty of arts, saying: “punch a zionist.” Among the measures taken by SSMU after the October vote was the creation of a committee looking into the issue of anti-Semitism within the student government, which Lew sits on. On Wednesday, McGill Principal Suzanne Fortier said the University wants to ensure a safe space for all students. “I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that there is absolutely no place for anti-Semitism at McGill University and that, as principal and vice-chancellor, I will remain vigilant to ensure that all members of our community feel safe, welcomed and respected on our campuses.” In addition to ordering the report, Fortier set up a hotline to report incidents of of intolerance and a task force to investigate incidents of academic freedom and equity. Rabbi Reuben Poupko, the co-chair for Quebec of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said it should be noted McGill in general is a safe space for Jewish students. However, he said any Jewish students thinking of being involved in student politics or activism “will have encounters that are profoundly disturbing and unpleasant.” He said McGill is not alone in this respect, as this is a continent-wide phenomenon within student politics. Democratize SSMU did not respond to a request for an interview. Related jmagder@postmedia.com Twitter.com/JasonMagder Facebook.com/JasonMagderJournalist

GOP report: Obama admin worked to allow Iran to exchange billions to bypass sanctions Washington (CNN) Senate Republicans on Wednesday accused the Obama Administration of secretly trying to give Tehran access to the US financial system to convert billions of dollars in assets into Euros as part of the Iran nuclear deal. A report released by Republican senators on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation said the Obama administration didn't tell Congress that it sought access for Iran and, in its eagerness to clinch the nuclear deal, was trying to dodge sanctions that remained in place following the 2016 agreement. "The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran," said Sen. Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee and opposed the Iran deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The accusations were rejected by Obama administration officials who said Republicans are trying to make a one-time effort to meet obligations under the nuclear deal sound like an attempt to give Iran broad access to the US financial system. They said the Republican senators never interviewed former Obama administration officials involved, and noted that no Democrats were involved. The story "is widely overblown," said Jarrett Blanc, the former State Department coordinator for Iran deal implementation at the State Department. Iran deal reverberations The report and the former officials' response highlight how controversial the Iran deal continues to be, even after President Donald Trump's May 8 decision to leave the international pact. That move continues to roil relations with European allies who are sticking with the Iran deal. They appealed to the US on Wednesday to exempt them from sanctions as they continue to do business with Tehran. But one goal behind report's release, according to an official familiar with its contents, is to make clear that the US is not likely to be open to exemptions of any kind. "As the United States begins to re-impose sanctions on Iran and Iranian entities, our European allies must understand and appreciate that doing business with Iran is no longer permissible," the source said. The report focuses on $5.7 billion from Iranian oil sales that were frozen in Oman's Bank Muscat in that country's currency, the rial. Rials are pegged to the US dollar and are difficult to convert. But as part of the nuclear deal, Iran was promised access to overseas reserves of its own funds that had been frozen by sanctions. To access the rials, Iran wanted to convert them briefly into dollars and then Euros. JUST WATCHED Bolton: US will impose all pre-deal Iran sanctions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Bolton: US will impose all pre-deal Iran sanctions 03:05 The majority report by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation says that the US Treasury, at the instruction of the US State Department, granted a license to convert the $5.7 billion briefly into American dollars so it could be converted into euros. The exchange was legal, the report notes. Officials at Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control asked two US banks to work as intermediaries and execute the transaction, but they declined, citing concern over potential regulatory backlash and a ding to their reputations. Emails reviewed in the investigation show that OFAC officials worked to encourage banks to take part in the deal by proposing to bring in senior officials. "I agree it would be a good idea to have (Treasury Secretary Jack) Lew engage (the US bank). If they refuse we can suggest (Secretary of State John) Kerry will call, which will drive them nuts," an email from a US government official said. After Treasury officials were examining whether the Iran deal's relevant sanctions permit currency exchange of rials to dollars, the report says a Treasury official wrote in an email, "Yikes. It looks like we committed to a whole lot beyond just allowing the immobilized funds to settle out." A legal transaction But in the end, Treasury officials concluded that the transaction was legal. The report said they decided that the terms of the JCPOA were "consistent with Iran's position, allowing the Government of Iran to engage in 'transfers,' 'foreign exchange (including Rial related transactions),' and the 'purchase or acquisition by the Government of Iran of US bank notes.'" The source familiar with the report said that Congress asked the Obama administration directly about such a license, but that the administration was under no legal obligation to provide the licenses to Congress. The Republican report argues that in pushing for the license to go forward, Obama officials were violating financial and oil-related sanctions imposed on Iran stemming from the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and trying to give Iran access to the US financial system. They pointed to a number of Obama officials, including Lew, who said in congressional testimony that Iran was not granted access to the US financial system. Lew said in 2015 that Iran "will continue to be denied access to the [US's] financial and commercial market." Treasury's acting under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence during the Obama administration, Adam Szubin, claimed that "Iranian banks will not be able to clear US dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with US financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with US banks." JUST WATCHED Pompeo lays out US list of demands for Iran Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pompeo lays out US list of demands for Iran 02:40 Blanc argued that the administration was transparent with Congress, referencing Lew's own testimony. "As Secretary Lew said in the testimony quoted in the report: 'Part of the agreement was to give Iran access to money that it has a right to. We will work on making that happen.' There were regular staff level briefings in much more detail," Blanc said. "(T)his is the kind of work the US Government needs to do every day to make our sanctions regimes effective without creating such burdens on allies and partners that they are pushed to work around our financial dominance," Blanc said. A former administration official told CNN that reports suggesting they were planning to restore Iran's access to the US financial system "were absolutely false," that the license was "totally in line with our well-known obligations under the deal." That source pointed out that the license "did not authorize Iran to conduct commercial transactions denominated in US dollars. It did not allow Iran to conduct commercial transactions in foreign currencies via the US banking system. It did not allow Iranian parties to open accounts or correspondent accounts at US banks. It did not allow Iran to send funds to the US or receive funds from the US. And it did not allow Iran access to US investments or markets." The GOP report offers recommendations on how best to proceed with its relationship with Iran. Recommendations include further informing Congress about future negotiations with Iran, requiring the Treasury Department to give notice of specific licenses, reviewing all Iran deal-related licenses, and increasing policing of US sanctions policies.

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.

Trump Orders Declassification Of ‘Russian Probe’ Documents, Including Texts President Donald Trump ordered the feds to declassify documents relating the Russian election meddling investigation yesterday. Among the documents to be declassified are all of the text messages between disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The documents to be declassified include all FBI reports on interviews with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all other applications to surveil Carter Page. Trump also asked that other important documents be declassified as well, including 21 pages worth of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page, according to Fox News. The 21 pages Trump wants to be declassified only make up a small part of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year. According to the redacted version as reported by Fox News, three of the declassified pages contain information included in a section titled “The Russian Government’s Coordinated Efforts to Influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” That section includes reference to the potential coordination between people associated with Trump’s campaign and the alleged Russian election interference effort. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said President Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency.” The text messages are to be released “without redaction,” and those include messages from Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey, and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Carter Page told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Monday night that the FBI’s investigation was “so incredibly stupid to begin with.” He added, “My biggest concern is all the damage that this did to the U.S. government [and] the mockery it made out of the Constitution and all of the wrongdoing that was done by various officials within the Department of Justice, the FBI and the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” It is so far unknown when these documents will be declassified in an unredacted version, but it is safe to say that Democrats are probably panicking right about now. Fox News further reported that a source familiar with the timing of the declassification told the media outlet that they expected the Carter Page warrant application to be declassified first, followed by the FBI reports on agent interviews with Ohr. A Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News that the DOJ and FBI “are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.”

‘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.

National Data | May Jobs: We Unveil The New VDAWDI | Articles A rough patch—or a double-dip recession? Economists are increasingly befuddled at what awaits the once-great U.S. economy. And Wall Street is plainly beginning to panic. Unemployment is a case in point. It now seems obvious that one of those mysterious memos has gone out to the Main Stream Media saying that no-one can mention the immigration moratorium solution. But unemployment is befuddling anyway. Just a few weeks ago professional prognosticators were expecting job growth of 175,000 in May. However, nonfarm payroll growth came in at 54,000 in May, the smallest gain since September, and a fraction of the just lowered consensus forecast (125,000 jobs.) The "other" employment survey, of households rather than businesses, also broadcast mixed signals—at least so far as the prospects for native-born workers are concerned. VDARE.com has long argued that the household survey captures the employment of illegal aliens; additionally, it actually mentions ethnicity. In May, according to the Household Survey, total employment rose by 105,000. Non-Hispanics actually gained ground: Total employment: up 105,000 (+0.08 percent) Non-Hispanic employment: up 190,000 (+0.16 percent) Hispanic employment: down 85,000 (-0.42 percent) Thus VDAWDI—VDARE.com's American Worker Displacement Index, unveiled in 2004 and still unique—fell to 126.2 in May from April's 127.0 level. This, of course, is atypical statistical noise. Non-Hispanics have lost jobs at twice the rate of Hispanics since the recession hit in December 2007. And since the official start of the "recovery" in June 2009, Hispanics have gained 416,000 jobs while non-Hispanics have lost 675,000 positions. Step back further and the picture is still bleaker. Since January 2001 the number of non-Hispanics holding jobs has declined by 1.9 million, or by -1.6%. Over that same period Hispanic employment rose by 3.9 million, up a whopping 24.2%. Simply put, the 21st century has not been good for non-Hispanic job seekers. This Hispanic/non-Hispanic divide was, of course, a convenient proxy for VDARE.com's primary interest: foreign-born workers and their role in displacing their native-born counterparts. We tracked this by looking at Hispanics because such a high proportion of them are foreign-born—and because the federal government declined to provide data on immigrant vs. non-immigrant unemployment. However, since January 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] has begun to publish figures for foreign-born and native-born employment. These data are not seasonally adjusted, making month to month trends difficult to interpret. BLS resolves the dilemma by comparing the current month with the same month of the prior year: By this measure also, May 2011 is notable for some catching up on the part of native-born workers—at least when compared to the same month of 2010: Employment Status by Nativity, May 2010-May 2011 (numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted) May-10 May-11 Change % Change Foreign born, 16 years and older Civilian population 35,647 36,348 701 2.0% Civilian labor force 24,210 24,253 43 0.2% Participation rate (%) 67.9% 66.7% -1.2%pt. -1.8% Employed 22,125 22,216 91 0.4% Employment/population % 62.1% 61.1% -1.0%pt. -1.6% Unemployed 2,085 2,037 -48 -2.3% Unemployment rate (%) 8.6% 8.4% -0.2%pt. -2.3% Not in labor force 11,437 12,095 658 5.8% Native born, 16 years and older Civilian population 201,852 202,965 1,113 0.6% Civilian labor force 129,656 129,196 -460 -0.4% Participation rate (%) 64.2% 63.7% -0.5%pt. -0.8% Employed 117,372 117,812 440 0.4% Employment/population % 58.1% 58.0% -0.1%pt. -0.2% Unemployed 12,284 11,384 -900 -7.3% Unemployment rate (%) 9.5% 8.8% -0.7%pt. -7.4% Not in labor force 72,196 73,769 1,573 2.2% Source: BLS, "The Employment Situation - May 2011," June 3, 2011. Table A-7. PDF Thus over the past 12 months: Immigrants and native-born Americans both experienced the same 0.4% job growth, with 440,000 more natives and 91,000 more immigrants at work. A TIE . The immigrant unemployment rate fell by 0.2 points; the native-born rate fell by 0.7 points. ADVANTAGE NATIVE-BORN. The share of immigrants holding jobs fell by 1.6%; the share of natives holding jobs fell by 0.2%. ADVANTAGE NATIVE-BORN . Labor force participation rates fell by 1.2% points for immigrants and 0.8% points for natives. ADVANTAGE NATIVE-BORN . The immigrant population of working age increased by 2.0%; the comparable native population grew by 0.6%. ADVANTAGE IMMIGRANTS By an amazing coincidence, January 2009—the month President Obama took office—is also the earliest month of data published in BLS's new foreign and native-born employment table. Coincidence or not, this means we can piece together the monthly points to see the President's priorities, or at least his practical effect. Setting the job count at 100.0 for both native-born and immigrants in January 2009, immigrant employment ticked up to 102.9 in May—am increase of 2.9%. Native employment ticked down to 97.5—a 2.5% decline. We label this "The New VDAWDI". From January 2009 through May 2011 the New VDAWDI, calculated using foreign-born and native-born employment figures, grew by 5.5%. By comparison VDAWDI, calculated using Hispanic and non-Hispanic employment figures, rose by 3.3% over the same period. As we've found before, our older measure of American Worker Displacement understated the problem. In all but a few months of the Obama Administration, native-born workers have lost ground to immigrants Time is running out for native-born workers—a.k.a. Americans. Can the same be said for the Obama Administration?

ICE arrests 20 in Kansas City during 4-day operation targeting criminal aliens KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Federal officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 20 criminal aliens and immigration violators in the Kansas City metro area during a four-day enforcement operation, which ended Thursday. During this operation, ERO deportation officers made arrests in the following Missouri cities: St. Joseph (6), Belton (1), Blue Springs (1), Independence (2) and Kansas City (6). ICE officers also made arrests in the Kansas cities of Olathe (3) and Lawrence (1). Fifteen men and five women, ages ranging 18-61, were arrested. Aliens arrested during this operation are from the following countries: Brazil (1), El Salvador (3), Guatemala (6), Honduras (1), Mexico (7), Romania (1) and Sierra Leone (1). Several of the aliens targeted by ERO deportation officers during this operation had prior criminal histories that included driving under the influence, child neglect, child abuse, drug offenses, fraud and larceny. Four of these were arrested for illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported, which is a felony. Two overstayed lawful visits to the U.S. All were amenable to arrest and removal under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. The following are criminal summaries of some of the offenders arrested in the Kansas City area during this operation: A 55-year-old, Mexican citizen who overstayed a lawful visit to the U.S. by more than 12 years. She was arrested Feb. 26, 2018 in Johnson County Kansas. She was previously convicted of child neglect and was sentenced to a year in jail. She is currently in ICE custody pending removal proceedings. On Feb. 28, 2018, a 38-year-old Mexican citizen was arrested in Olathe, Kansas. He has a 2012 conviction for fraud. He was issued a warrant of removal and was placed in ICE custody pending removal from the United States. Depending on an alien’s criminality, an alien who re-enters the United States after having been previously deported commits a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, if convicted. “The continued results of our deportation officers underscore ICE’s ongoing and steady commitment to public safety,” said Ricardo Wong, field office director for ERO Chicago. “As part of this operation, we continue focus on the arrest of individuals who are criminal aliens and public safety threats. Because of the tireless efforts of these professional officers, there are fewer criminals in our communities.”

Federal Prosecutors Called In After Florida Democrats Caught Altering Election Documents Florida should be called and called now unless the GOP wants to Florida and Georgia stolen the way they are stealing House seats. Photo: Elections staff load ballots into machine as recounting begins at the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office on Nov. 11, 2018, in Lauderhill, Florida Fed. Prosecutors Called in After FL Democrats Caught Altering Election Documents. By Karista Baldwin, Conservative Tribune November 15, 2018: take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Last week, the Florida Department of State asked federal prosecutors to look into alterations made on official election documents from the 2018 midterms. Politico reported that the department points to the Florida Democratic Party for changing dates on forms used to amend absentee and mail-in ballots. These ballots would have been flagged for missing information or for being filled out with incorrect information. The amending forms, called “cure affidavits,” were due at 5 p.m on Nov. 5, the evening before Election Day, at the latest. During pre-Election Day absentee and mail-in voting, political parties have access to lists of people whose mail-in ballots were rejected for errors. Meanwhile, cure affidavits are publicly available and anyone can send them to voters to prompt them to “fix” their ballots. According to Politico, the DOS released affidavits on Tuesday, which demonstrate that four different counties said the ballots could be returned by 5 p.m on Thursday, Nov. 8, past the official due date. Among the counties involved with the altered affidavits is Broward, which has been a hotspot for controversy as many Florida races have led to a recount. Some people point to Brenda Snipes, Broward’s Elections chief, for her troubling history of election transgressions. Do you agree with the call for a federal investigation? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Politico reported that they received audio of a Florida Democratic party volunteer leaving a voicemail to a voter in Palm Beach County to revise their mailed ballot after Election Day. Palm Beach County failed to make Florida’s recount deadline on Thursday. Matt Dixon, bureau chief of Politico, tweeted on Wednesday that the Democratic party volunteer call came during Florida’s ballot recount after ballots were allowed to be amended. “We are now doing a recount, so we want to make sure you let your vote be counted,” Dixon quoted from the voicemail. It seems that Democrats may have called absentee voters about supplying them with cure affidavits after the permitted date. It also looks like whoever sent out the cure affidavits physically changed the due date to say Nov. 8, instead of Nov. 6. Bradley McVay, DOS interim general counsel, asked attorneys in Florida to investigate the conflicting dates. “Altering a form in a manner that provides the incorrect date for a voter to cure a defect … imposes a burden on the voter significant enough to frustrate the voter’s ability to vote,” McVay wrote in a letter, sent on Nov. 9 and publicly released on Tuesday. According to DOS officials, they are less concerned with the inaccurate dates, and more concerned with the fact that the cure affidavits appear to have been deliberately altered. State officials turned over the altered forms to federal investigators. Of the many allegations of ballot mishandling in Florida, this is the first that has been referred to the federal government. While Democrats seem to have told voters they could fix ballot errors up to the Thursday after Election Day — these votes could not count. It looks like Democrats may have hurt their own interests by misleading their voters. They may have believed that they were supplying the correct information, but they still should not have altered official documents without verifying that they were right, which they weren’t. It is yet to be determined whether the federal investigation will find Democratic ineptitude or deception in this case.

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

Another Sound Weapon Used To ATTACK US Diplomats: This Time In China A United States government employee assigned to the American consulate in Guangzhou, China suffered a mild traumatic brain injury similar to those reported by diplomats in Cuba. The unnamed worker reported, “subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure.” The government employee experienced the symptoms from late 2017 until April of 2018, according to the U.S. State Department. “The employee was sent to the United States for further evaluation. On May 18, 2018, the Embassy learned that the clinical findings of this evaluation matched mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI),” Jinnie Lee, U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Beijing, told Gizmodo by email. “The Chinese government has assured us they are also investigating and taking appropriate measures,” Lee continued. But this isn’t the first time a sound weapon has been used on American diplomats. Cuba has been accused of using a similar device to cause brain trauma in Americans at the embassy in Havana. It all started in the fall of 2016. Several of the affected diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Daily Mail reported that one diplomat described being jolted awake in a Havana hotel room by a grinding, blaring cacophony. When he moved a few feet across the room, the noise stopped. When he got back into bed, the agonizing sound hit him again; as if, he told doctors, he had walked through some invisible wall cutting straight down the middle of his room. Whether they heard anything or not, the consequences have been unmistakable — symptoms ranging from nosebleeds, nausea, dizziness and severe headaches to mild brain damage and permanent hearing or memory loss. Oddly, as soon as some of the victims left Cuba, they stopped hearing noises. –SHTFPlan The mysterious illnesses reported by U.S. government employees in Cuba are allegedly thought to be either a “sonic attack” or perhaps malfunctioning surveillance gear. It’s not known yet whether the injured government worker in China was targeted with any such device, despite reporting similar symptoms as the diplomats in Cuba. The U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou says that it hasn’t had any other reported cases of strange sounds being heard by American officials, but is taking the issue seriously. “If you have concerns about any symptoms or medical problems that developed during or after a stay in China, consult a medical professional,” the State Department said in a public release. “While in China, if you experience any unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises, do not attempt to locate their source. Instead, move to a location where the sounds are not present,” the release said. The Cuban government continues to deny they attacked U.S. diplomats with a sonic weapon, and very little additional information is known about those who suffered through the strange ordeal. After months of investigations, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been exposed to an advanced device that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. It was not immediately clear if the device was a weapon used in a deliberate attack, or had some other purpose.

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

Virginia: Muslim gets 20 years for joining ISIS, says they studied Islam for 8 hours every day “I didn’t agree with their ideology. Our daily life was basically prayer, eating, and learning about the religion for about eight hours.” Imagine spending all that time studying Islam and yet still misunderstanding its true, peaceful message. We can only hope that learned imams such as Pope Francis and H.R. McMaster will go to Virginia forthwith and explain to Mohamad Jamal Khweis the proper understanding of the Religion of Peace. “Virginia man Mohamad Jamal Khweis sentenced to 20 years in prison for joining ISIS,” by Justin Carissimo, CBS News, October 27, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann): A 28-year-old man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after he was convicted of providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Justice Department said Friday. Mohamad Jamal Khweis from Alexandria, Virginia, was convicted by a federal jury in June. The Justice Department said Khweis left the U.S. in 2015 and eventually crossed into Syria through Turkey late that year. Khweis spent 2.5 months as a member of ISIS in northern Syria. In 2016, he surrendered to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq and was eventually turned over to U.S. authorities, the department said. … The department said Khweis used encrypted devices and mobile applications to hide his activity. After joining the militant group, he agreed to be a suicide bomber, prosecutors said…. “I didn’t agree with their ideology,” Khweis said in an interview with Kurdistan24 in 2016. “Our daily life was basically prayer, eating, and learning about the religion for about eight hours.” Kweis graduated from Alexandria’s Thomas Edison High School in 2007, where friends described him as “one of the guys.” “He wasn’t someone who was an outcast or something like that — he was one of the guys,” Harrison Weinhold told CBS News in March 2016. “There wasn’t anything that would lead me to believe that this was, like, on the radar, that he was just going to go join ISIS.” Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Austrian bishop forcefully rejects German Bishops’ idea of blessing homosexual unions NewsCatholic Church SALZBURG, Austria, February 13, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The indignation about Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode – the President and the Vice President of the German Bishops' Conference – and their direct or more indirect encouragement of blessing homosexual unions is growing by the day. Now Bishop emeritus Andreas Laun – one of the signatories of the Kazakh “Profession of Truth about Sacramental Marriage” – has written a strong commentary for the Austrian Catholic news website Kath.net on the recent episcopal initiatives coming out of Germany. In the following, we shall present to our readers the essential parts of Bishop Laun's statement, in our English translation from the German. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Cardinal Marx and dear Bishop Bode, there is only one Catholic answer: No! And your addition “in individual cases” is absolutely worthless, it has no argumentative force. A clear statement by Bishop Andreas Laun for Kath.net. Cardinal Marx and also Bishop Bode have now opened up to the idea to offer homosexual couples a blessing. Why not, one could say, since the Church is ready to bless nearly everything on the earth? Now, the Church especially blesses people, but also deeds and objects. The Jesuit Father Eckhard Bieger writes in the Internet about Catholic blessings: For Catholics, really everything can be blessed, not only places of worship, chalices, and the faithful after each prayer service – whether after a Mass, or after the prayers for the hours of the day. The blessing is also not limited to rosaries or religious medal, but one may also bless cars, factory halls, animals, herbs, and much more. Some blessings are only to be made by priests and deacons, especially when it is about objects of worship such as chalices or vestments. But parents can bless their children. The faithful may also take home holy water and sprinkle it on members of the family, but also the stable and the animals, thus blessing them. [...] What kind of hope is connected with a blessing? With regard to the car, certainly the wish for heavenly protection – sometimes also expressed with the help of a medal of St. Christopher, the patron saint of car drivers. With the weather blessing, one prays explicitly for protection against hail, lightning and drought. […] To bless always means that something shall flourish, because only then when there is a blessing upon a cause or a project, will something good come out of it. The blessing comes from God, He is being addressed in the form of a request; and it is given to people, objects, and buildings, with the help of the sign of the cross, holy water, and incense. […] But now concerning the question of Cardinal Marx, and not a few of the priests, the answer is simple: one may ask for God's blessing for sinners, but not for the sin. That is to say, one could not consecrate a brothel, one could not bless a concentration camp or weapons which are not explicitly ordained for hunting or for legitimate self-defense. Therefore it is clear that one may not bless a relationship which is sinful; [one may not bless] the mafia; no blessing for organizations or institutions which promote or procure abortions or which propagate ideologies which are against the Faith, antisemitic contents, or other forms of racist thought. If one considers and weighs this matter, one knows: one may not bless a union of two homosexual men or of lesbian women. Of course [one could bless] two men or women who are de facto homosexual, and that it what happens in each Holy Mass which is being attended by them. This blessing – which is not related to their acts – is being received also by all the other sinners, and the Church thereby hopes that they will convert under the influence of God's Grace! This position which is really simple and easily to be understood has been clearly and convincingly presented – since the statement of the two bishops [Marx and Bode] – by several Christians: by Archbishops Ludwig Schick (Germany) and Charles Chaput (USA); by the German-speaking theologians Hubert Windisch and Markus Büning. I am sure there are many many others, too, who think alike, but whom I do not know. Dear Cardinal Marx and dear Bishop Bode, there is only one Catholic answer: No! And your addition “in individual cases” is absolutely worthless, it has no argumentative force. What would St. John the Baptist have said if Herod, taking for himself his brother's wife, would have excusingly called himself an “individual case”! The idea to bless sinful conduct is really what Isaiah described quite vividly, as follows: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” [Isaiah 5:20] Is this not exactly what Cardinal Marx – and others who are thinking like him – are doing? If one were to place on a bottle of sour cucumbers a tag “honey,” the cucumbers still remain sour! Even blessing bishops cannot change that. Nor can the pope, in calling for a cultural revolution, especially since he does not explain what he exactly means by it. He says that he “allows himself” to talk like that – but if one dares something, one might win, but one also can perish. That seems to catch on these days. For example, the Italian moral theologian, Maurizio Chiodi, recently claimed in his talk at the Gregorian Pontifical University that contraception is sometimes not only not forbidden, but even demanded! To contradict two popes – whom the Church has already “beatified” the one and “canonized” the other – so shortly after their deaths, and in such a radical and open manner, probably has never happened before in the Church's history. Isaiah says that such people draw unto them God's punishment, with thick cords! Nevertheless, one should wish for Cardinal Marx, Bishop Bode, and Professor Chiodi that they sleep well. Whether their conscience will allow it, is not so certain; but if it does not [allow it], it would certainly be a hope for their conversion.

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.

EXPERIMENTAL Ebola Vaccine Will Be Administered In Congo As Ebola Death Toll Climbs An experimental Ebola vaccine is being rolled out in Congo as the death toll from the infectious disease continues to climb. The vaccination campaign will begin today. “The vaccination campaign begins tomorrow, Monday, in Mbandaka, capital of the province,” Minister of Health Oly Ilunga told The Associated Press as reported by 9 News Australia. “It will target, first, the health staff, the contacts of the sick and the contacts of the contacts.” The World Health Organization has been warning about the “Ebola situation” in Congo, and it appears their only solution is an experimental vaccine. An experimental vaccine is one that has never been tried on humans before. Ebola hemorrhagic fever, seen mostly only in Africa, is one of the world’s most feared diseases. It begins with flu-like symptoms, followed by bloody diarrhea and vomiting. Days later, some victims begin bleeding through the nose, mouth, and eyes. Depending on the strain of the Ebola virus, it can kill up to 90% of victims. There is no cure for Ebola. The virus is spread through direct contact with the blood or secretions of an infected person. So, is the Ebola virus reaching a terrifying enough level that an experimental vaccine is warranted? The death toll has reached 26 and the vaccine will be rolled out at Mbandaka, the north-western city of 1.2 million recently struck by the outbreak. Since the virus is spread through direct contact, an isn’t airborne, it isn’t nearly as deadly as it could be. Read more here about Ebola and how it is transmitted: Initially, the campaign will target 600 people, mainly medical staff, contacts of suspected cases, and those who have been in contact with the contacts, Ilunga said. Officials are working urgently to prevent the disease from spreading beyond Mbandaka, which lies on the Congo River, a busy traffic corridor, and is an hour’s flight from the capital. The spread of Ebola from a rural area to Mbandaka has raised alarm as Ebola can spread more quickly in urban centers. The fever can cause severe internal bleeding that is often fatal. Meaning, the virus itself doesn’t actually kill. The immune system’s response to the virus is what’s deadly. ZMapp is also an experimental drug that could aid in the recovery from the Ebola virus. But, like the vaccine being administered, it has not been tested for safety or efficacy yet. It is not a vaccine – it is a therapeutic drug. Of the seven people given the drug so far, two have died. ZMapp show “promise,” although scientific results are not definitive. The risk of Ebola spreading within Congo is “very high,” according to authorities, and the disease could also move into nine neighboring countries, the World Health Organization has warned. The WHO, however, stopped short of declaring the outbreak a global health emergency. WHO said there should not be restrictions on international travel or trade. In the meantime, it’s important to prevent oneself from contracting the virus. Unfortunately, health care workers are at the greatest risk as they try to cull the suffering: which is why they will be the first to get the experimental vaccine. For their sake, let’s hope it works better than this year’s flu vaccine.

Muslim Crime Stopper Sofian Zakkout's New Crush: Anti-Semite Pastor Steve Anderson For nearly two millennia, Jews have suffered persecution after persecution at the hands of those who used religion as a vehicle for hate and even mass murder. Recently, a video clip of anti-Semitic pastor Steve Anderson – making the claim that Jews have experienced such abuse because they have somehow been cursed – wound up on the personal Facebook page of South Florida Muslim leader Sofian Zakkout. According to Zakkout, who sits on the boards of two anti-crime groups, Anderson’s declaration “makes a lot of sense.” With statements like this from Zakkout and worse, why would groups committed to fighting crime continue to compromise themselves and sabotage their mission by affiliating with him? Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout is the President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), a prominent Islamic organization headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida. On January 25th, Zakkout posted onto his personal Facebook page a video clip of a speech made by Steve Anderson, the pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Anderson is notorious for calling for the killing of gays to end AIDS. In the clip, Anderson states the following: “And the Jews were scattered into all nations for literally 2000 years, right? For 1800 sum odd years. And by the way, everywhere they were scattered, they were persecuted, hated, treated badly. Why? ‘Cause God’s blessing them? No. ‘Cause they’re under the curse of God for having rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.” Blaming Jews for the extreme torment they endured for so long, which includes a Nazi Holocaust that took the lives of six million innocent Jews and so many others, is incredibly offensive. Indeed, statements and beliefs such as Anderson’s have provoked hatred and persecution of Jews. Towards the end of the clip, which is less than four minutes in length, Anderson throws the anti-Semitism in people’s faces. He zealously states, while drawing laughter from his small audience, “You say, ‘Why are you preaching against the Jews?’ Well, don’t come back next Wednesday night. Because, next Wednesday night, God’s wrath is on the Jews even more!” About the clip, on Facebook, Zakkout wrote above it, “Makes a lot of sense!” Of course, this is coming from someone [Zakkout] who regularly refers to Jews as “monkeys and pigs,” and in February 2016, circulated on social media a report claiming that “the Holocaust was faked.” The report calls the Holocaust “the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity” and was produced by a media outlet which describes Hitler as “the greatest leader in modern Western history.” Both Anderson and Zakkout have been denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for their propagation of anti-Semitism. In July 2010, the ADL condemned Zakkout and his group AMANA for featuring an anti-Jewish video produced by former KKK leader and white supremacist David Duke on the AMANA website. The ADL described the video as “venomous.” In October 2015, Zakkout praised Duke, as “David Duke, a man to believe in!” Besides posting videos from Steve Anderson and David Duke on his Facebook page, Zakkout also, in July 2017, posted a four minute clip from a speech made by Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan. During the clip, Farrakhan repeatedly labels the Jewish people “Satan.” He states, “Really, they’re not Jews. No, that’s Satan. You should learn to call them by their real name, ‘Satan.’ You’re coming face to face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God, and the enemy of the righteous.” Zakkout is also an ardent supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas, if not a member himself. In July 2014, he organized a pro-Hamas rally held outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Miami. Rally goers repeatedly shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” After the rally, Zakkout wrote the following in Arabic, above photos from the event: “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” He signed it “Br. Sofian Zakkout.” The next month, Zakkout declared in Arabic, "Hamas is in my heart and on my head." All of the above testifies to hatred and intolerance, but it is even more disturbing given the fact that Zakkout sits on the boards of two anti-crime organizations: Crime Stoppers of Miami-Dade County and Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County. Serving alongside Zakkout on these boards are local politicians and law enforcement officials. One would think that they would find Zakkout’s actions and bigotry unacceptable, as well, yet Zakkout continues to serve unchallenged. If the board members of Crime Stoppers and Citizens’ Crime Watch do not wish to be associated with anti-Semitism or white supremacism or Hamas or Holocaust denial or Steve Anderson or David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, then they must cut ties with Sofian Zakkout. The time is long overdue that these groups maintain their credibility and remain true to their stated missions of protecting and safeguarding the American public. Sofian Zakkout’s bigoted and radical agenda is antithetical to this and is a documented threat to national security. His presence on the boards of both organizations constitutes an obscene travesty. Once and for all, these groups need to divorce themselves from Zakkout and repudiate what he stands for. Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

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

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.

Desperate Feinstein Pushes 30-Year-Old Claim About Sexual Misconduct Of Kavanaugh It's incredible the amount of hypocrisy Senator Dianne Feinstein puts on display for the American people to see, and yet, the people in her state continue to put her in office. Her latest antics are to point to a more than 30 year old claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct while he was in high school and somehow claim that he may have committed a crime while at the same time remaining silent on two women who have accused Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running for Attorney General in Minnesota, of abusing them, one of them making the claim this year. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Senator Feinstein said in a surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.” Of course, the reality is that bringing something like this up more than 30 years later is ridiculous, but this is the Democrats for you. take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Fox News reports: A spokesperson for Feinstein declined Fox News’ request to elaborate on the lawmaker’s statement, but there has been much speculation that she is referring to a secret letter that has been the subject of intrigue on Capitol Hill over the last few days. A source familiar with the confirmation proceedings told Fox News that Feinstein received the letter back in July, but did not make its existence known publicly until Thursday. According to a report by The Intercept, the letter was relayed to lawmakers by an individual affiliated with Stanford University and concerns an incident involving the 53-year-old Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. According to two officials who spoke anonymously with the New York Times, the incident involved possible sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh and the woman. The letter reportedly was given to Feinstein by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., but has not been publicly disclosed by senators who have seen the document. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the letter in question has been referred to the FBI for investigation. The FBI conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” the FBI said in a statement. The White House has called this nothing more than a last minute gambit, and that would be correct. In fact, the FBI has no plans to pursue any investigation regarding the allegation. According to The Washington Post: According to a person familiar with the matter, the FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the matter, which would normally be handled by local authorities, if it was within the statute of limitations. The FBI instead passed the material to the White House, as an update to Kavanaugh's background check, which already had been completed, the person said. The move is similar to what the bureau did when allegations were leveled against former White House aide Rob Porter. ... Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) dismissed the controversy on Twitter. “Let me get this straight: this is [a] statement about [a] secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified person. Right,” he tweeted sarcastically. “I will add: the FBI already performed and has reported on a background investigation on the nominee and thhttp://ericposner.com/is-brett-kavanaugh-an-originalist/is has been made available to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee,” Cornyn wrote. Exactly! This is political theater over a man who is not an originalist and not a strict Constitutionalist. He's a precedence man! He's said it over and over! If they wanted something on the guy, why don't they bring up his involvement in the Vince Foster cover-up? Now, that would be something to really look into, but not with the corrupt DOJ and FBI we currently have. Of course, if they did, then someone might actually have to act on something that actually was a crime.

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

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.

In first public rebuke by the White House, Mnuchin pulls out of Saudi investment conference to protest Khashoggi case WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said Thursday he was pulling out of a major Saudi investment conference, known as Davos in the Desert, in the first public rebuke by the White House of the Saudi regime over the disappearance and suspected murder of a dissident Saudi journalist who lived in Virginia. Trade and finance ministers from Britain, France, Holland and other countries, the head of the International Monetary Fund, as well as CEOs of multiple major companies already had withdrawn in protest, and Mnuchin was under growing pressure to add his name to the list. Mnuchin tweeted the decision after meeting with President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo at the White House. Pompeo later told reporters that he had urged the president to give the Saudi government “a few more days” to explain what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, who vanished after he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Oct. 2. Turkish authorities and media have said audio recordings show that Khashoggi was tortured and beheaded inside the consulate, although the recordings have not been released. Khashoggi wrote opinion columns for the Washington Post critical of the Saudi royal family. Saudi King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler, have denied to both Trump and Pompeo any knowledge of the alleged murder or having ordered it. Pompeo returned Wednesday night from meetings with Saudi and Turkish leaders in Riyadh and Ankara and went to the White House Thursday morning to brief Trump, who has come under mounting pressure from Congress and rights groups to punish Saudi Arabia. Pompeo said the Saudis “understand the serious nature” of Khashoggi’s disappearance, and would conduct a thorough and “timely” investigation. Their findings, Pompeo said, “will be transparent for everyone to see, to ask questions about, to inquire with respect to its thoroughness.” He said he told the president “that we ought to give them a few more days to complete that so that we too have a complete understanding of the facts” before making decisions on how the U.S. should respond. Turkey is conducting its own probe, and Pompeo said those results will also be taken into consideration. He again stressed the importance of Saudi Arabia as a strategic ally, in a relationship, he noted, that dates back more than 80 years. The administration’s reluctance to condemn the Saudi government has fueled criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, from diplomats and from even some corporations that long have profited from close relations with the Saudi royal family. “We just are going to allow the process to move forward, allow the facts to unfold,” Pompeo said. “And as they unfold, as we make a determination for ourselves about what happened there, based on the facts that are presented to us, the United States will determine what the appropriate response might be.” — Tracy Wilkinson Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

India Joins U.S. and China With Plans to Visit the Moon So far, no one has ever managed to land on the far side of the moon, or near its shadowy poles. India wants to tackle both those firsts in one fell swoop this year, with its Chandrayaan-2 mission, a trio of orbiter, lander and rover that would represent the country's second visit to the moon. The mission is scheduled to launch sometime in the first half of this year, no earlier than March. Its target is a patch of lunar surface about 370 miles away from the south pole, where scientists think the rock may be 4 billion years old, formed just after the moon's giant ocean of liquid rock began to solidify. The region is an area NASA would also like to visit, preferably with a robot that would bring souvenir rock home to Earth for scientists to analyze directly in the laboratory. But despite NASA's renewed focus on lunar exploration, as dictated in December by an order from President Trump, the agency won't beat India back to the moon. Dibyangshu Sarkar/AFP/Getty Images That's even after India's Chandrayaan-2 mission was delayed by three years after Russia backed out of designing and producing the mission's lander. Rather than lose out on that part of the mission, the Indian Space Research Organization decided to just do it themselves. But they aren't sure how long they can expect the mission to last once the lander and rover arrive—it could be over in as little as two weeks, ending as soon as the sun sets, since the mission runs on solar power and the polar area is quite shadowy even during the day. During that time, the team hopes to gather data about charged particles around the moon and the small "moonquakes" that ripple through its surface. Read more: China Prepares for Moon Colony By Keeping Students in 'Lunar Palace' for 200 Days See all of the best photos of the week in these slideshows The new mission's predecessor, Chandrayaan-1, was an orbiter that found the first evidence that there was water ice on the moon. Now, scientists know that ice is likely concentrated at the poles, where it could become an important resource for human and robotic explorers alike. The orbiter piece of the upcoming mission will look to build on its predecessor by mapping how water actually moves around the moon. In the long term, India has its sights set well beyond the moon, with dreams of visiting Mars, Venus or an asteroid.

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.

Hundreds of Priests Accused in Pennsylvania, Church of Accompaniment in Crisis The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday released a sweeping grand jury report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church, listing hundreds of accused clergy and detailing 70 years of misconduct and church response across the state. The release is the culmination of an 18-month probe, led by state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, on six of the state’s eight dioceses — Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Scranton, Erie and Greensburg — and follows other state grand jury reports that revealed abuse and coverups in two other dioceses. Some details and names that might reveal the 300 clergy listed have been redacted from the report. Legal challenges by clergy delayed the report’s release, after some said it is a violation of their constitutional rights. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled last month that the report must be released but with some redaction. The report’s release begins an information war, with prosecutors and many victims saying it’s the start of holding church leaders at the top accountable for the first time, while church lawyers and other advocates for the institution say the report depicts an era of another century, unfairly smearing today’s Catholicism in Pennsylvania. The report has helped renew a crisis many in the church thought and hoped had ended nearly 20 years ago after the scandal erupted in Boston. But recent abuse-related scandals, from Chile to Australia, have reopened wounding questions about accountability and whether church officials are still covering up crimes at the highest levels. The new wave of allegations has called Pope Francis’s handling of abuse into question as many Catholics look to him to help the church regain its credibility. The pope’s track record has been mixed, something some outsiders attribute to his learning curve or shortcomings and others chalk up to resistance from a notoriously change-averse institution. The Pennsylvania grand jury report follows the resignation last month of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, a towering figure in the U.S. church and former D.C. archbishop who was accused of sexually abusing minors and adults for decades. Both have further polarized the church on homosexuality, celibacy and whether laypeople should have more power. It has also triggered debate about whether statutes of limitations should be expanded. “We’re dealing with a long-term struggle not only about the meaning of justice, but about the meaning of memory,” said Jason Berry, a reporter and author who has covered the sexual abuse crisis for decades. “And how honest the church has been about this crisis. Most bishops, besides apologies, have not been on the cutting edge of change.” Church officials began bracing for the aftermath of the report. On Monday, D.C.’s archbishop, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, former longtime leader of the Pittsburgh diocese, warned his priests in a letter that the probe will be “profoundly disturbing.” REMNANT COMMENT: The report also shows that “more than 90 ‘offenders’ will be listed” in Donald Cardinal Wuerl’s former diocese, which is ironic since Wuerl is one of Pope Francis’s closest U.S. advisers and sits on the Vatican’s bishop oversight committee. Well played, Cardinal Wuerl! So, let me get this straight (I know, lots of luck with that one): These are the people that are going to "accompany us" and our children in the "synodal Church" with its new orientation, overseen by a "God of Surprises" who is uber-merciful and doesn't judge, and headed up by a pope who, according to Father Thomas Rosica, "breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is 'free from disordered attachments'?'' You don't say! All this and rampant homosexuality in the priesthood, too... along with a "trivialized liturgy" (according to Pope Benedict XVI) and widespread apostasy among the faithful? Remind me again: What exactly has Vatican II and the last fifty years of aggiornamento given us? Because I can't seem to think of a darn thing, apart from heretical homilies, sodomitical clergy and an increasingly lavender liturgy. You know what, guys? Thanks, but no thanks. You can take your 'Church of Accompaniment" to prison with you. I'd sooner let my kids be accompanied by fans of the Oakland Raiders than turn them over to you... meaning no disrespect to fans of the Oakland Raiders, of course. #stopthesynod

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?

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

Kavanaugh Nomination Is Exploding in Trump’s Face The president is doubling down on an increasingly risky candidate. Justice Anthony Kennedy gave President Donald Trump the biggest political gift possible when he announced his resignation in the spring. Even though not everything that’s gone wrong is Trump’s fault, he has managed to make a complete hash of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to fill the empty seat on the court. It’s a good example of how badly Trump does his job more than a year and a half into his administration. To begin with, Trump has outsourced his judicial nominations to outside, party-aligned groups, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. That included an unusually central role for the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo. That wasn’t entirely a Trump mistake. His decision during the campaign to release a list of potential justices drafted by Leo reflected the reality-TV star’s weakness as a presidential candidate. The party was worried that Trump might turn out not to be a conservative; to reassure them, he publicly committed to their top goal. In some ways, that’s successful coalition-building, and what he’s done in office is just keeping his promises on judges. Still, it’s one thing to form an alliance with conservatives; it’s another to turn the whole process over to them. We don’t know to what extent Kavanaugh was Trump’s choice and to what extent he was manipulated into choosing him. We have plenty of evidence that Trump is easily manipulated by those around him, and that Kavanaugh is a good fit for Trump’s biases: The judge has Ivy League credentials and he passes Trump’s cut-of-his-jib test by looking the part. 1 Either way, Kavanaugh was a poor choice from the point of view of good presidenting. The judge was certain to be a highly controversial selection from the start. After all, he had been a highly controversial selection for his current circuit court seat, eventually getting confirmed with only four Democratic votes after a long delay. Kavanaugh is a longtime Republican operative, a hard-liner during both the Vince Foster and Monica Lewinsky investigations. Nominating him, rather than a conservative with similar views but a different background, was bound to stir up trouble. It was also true, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly warned, that normal disclosure of Kavanaugh’s record, especially his service during the George W. Bush administration, was going to delay confirmation even more. Senate Republicans dealt with that problem by deciding to not bother with any Kavanaugh documents that couldn’t be produced rapidly, which further riled up the Democrats and gave that party some good talking points. 2 Sometimes it’s worth taking risks. Presidents who shy away from anything that’s not a sure thing can fail to exploit opportunities. It’s just very hard to see any upside for Trump in choosing Kavanaugh instead of a safer, but still very conservative, other option. 3 When serious charges of sexual misconduct were raised against Kavanaugh, Trump decided to stick with him instead of moving on to another candidate. It’s still not clear that Kavanaugh’s nomination is doomed, but it’s certainly in severe trouble. Losing a high-profile fight is always going to hurt a president, which is why they should take care to avoid high-risk, low-reward conflicts. But there’s an art to minimizing damage. And Trump hasn’t learned it yet. For one thing, the president has made this an extremely high-profile episode by stringing out the process as the accusations against Kavanaugh gained credibility and even multiplied. Whether that matters in terms of public opinion for Trump is unclear, but it certainly isn’t good for any Republican senators caught up in the middle, along with any other candidates who have had to weigh in only to find the facts as they knew them constantly changing. It’s also the case that the more negative information comes out, the more it appears that the Trump and his White House staff failed to do their jobs in vetting and managing Kavanaugh. If the nomination had been pulled right after Christine Blasey Ford made her initial assertions about Kavanaugh, the public might have concluded that it wasn’t Trump’s fault that a previously unaired accusation came to light. Meanwhile, Trump’s behavior has been as erratic as ever. First he said that Brasey had to be heard; then he attacked her in terms that were a slur on all women who have been assaulted without immediately reporting it to the police, and he also blamed the Senate for not voting before she came forward. He sometimes praises Kavanaugh, but also let it be known that he thought the nominee had performed badly in his Fox News interview. The White House demanded a final up and down vote on Tuesday; by Wednesday, he was saying that the nomination would die if Kavanaugh didn’t do well before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The sum of all this has been, as in many other episodes, that Trump and his White House are a gang that can’t shoot straight and that he’s eager to blame his allies and lash out at his enemies in ugly ways when things go wrong. A botched nomination matters because allies will be less likely to trust Trump, not just on Supreme Court choices, but on any initiative. And, for that matter, they’ll be less likely to trust him when he asserts that there’s nothing remaining for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to reveal. Trump’s professional reputation is already terrible, but everything counts. As the political scientist Richard Neustadt said, political elites are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating the president. Trump is hurting himself right now, and will have hurt himself more if Kavanaugh is not confirmed. And yes, I call it the cut-of-his-jib test quite deliberately. It's no surprise that someone who hires based on what he thinks someone doing that job should look like, which seems to be based on hazy old-time Hollywood casting, would wind up with fewer women in his administration than any of his recent predecessors. I've argued that too much disclosure is required, and that Democrats (and any wavering Republicans) had more than enough information to make up their mind. I still think that's true. But it did leave Republicans vulnerable to claims about transparency which were likely to be popular -- most people, and the entire press corps, love transparency -- and vulnerable to bombshells in the documentary record which hadn't been initially disclosed. In the event, that's not what's causing the trouble, but still it's an example of Trump taking needless risks. Some have speculated that Kavanaugh would be especially likely to rule in Trump's favor if any cases stemming from the Robert Mueller investigation wind up at the high court. Perhaps. There are plenty of other partisan, conservative judges, and plenty of conservative judges who lean towards an expansive view of presidential powers. And if Kavanaugh is really an outlier on that issue, then he won't be in the majority on any future decision anyway. So, no, I don't think there's any good reason to think Kavanaugh would be especially helpful to Trump compared to others he could have selected.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

The Sun Is Going DARK: No Sunspots For 96 Days; Ice Age Approaches NASA’s own data is showing that the star our globe revolves around is dimming. With no sunspots reported in 96 days, the sun is going dark and the evidence could point to an approaching ice age. As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming, says the website Watts Up With That? According to data from NASA’s Spaceweather, so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots. Today at Cape Canaveral, SpaceXlaunched a new sensor to the International Space Station named TSIS-1. Its mission: to measure the dimming of the sun’s irradiance. It will replace the aging SORCE spacecraft. NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum, NASA satellites are tracking a decline in total solar irradiance (TSI). –Watts Up With That? The Daily Sheeple’s Joe Joseph breaks it down for those who don’t closely follow the sun’s changes. He says there is a correlation between major changes on the sun and the behavior of the Earth, especially now as it reaches its 11-year-cycle’s solar minimum. “I guess you could say, in a very generalistic sense…and I mean, this is as vanilla as you can possibly make it…that as the sun gets quieter so does our magnetic field get weaker or so it appears to be,” says Joseph. “Is there a mini ice age coming? I don’t know,” he said. But other sources say it’s more than possible that we will see a mini ice age in the next three years due to the dimming of our sun. A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just four years as the sun prepares for “hibernation” – triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events, says The Express UK in 2016. Solar activity, measured by the appearance of sun spots, has been declining at a greater rate than at any other time in history. And that could have widespread implications. A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilization of the Earth’s crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded. Research by the The Space and Science Research Center in Florida revealed a strong link between low solar activity and seismic events. Scientists say that it could take up to 15 years for solar activity to return to normal with extreme weather and freezing temperatures continuing until 2035. This warning will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 the world faces increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles and a warming of the globe.

Man who sold ammo to Las Vegas gunman speaks out © Provided by CBS Interactive Inc. Douglas Haig New documents reveal the name of the second person of interest in the Las Vegas shooting. Police believe Douglas Haig may have conspired with gunman Stephen Paddock, but it's unclear if he's still under investigation. Haig sold Paddock ammunition the month before the October attack that killed 58 people dead and wounded hundreds of others. Mandalay Bay hotel staff had numerous run-ins with Vegas gunman: companyLas Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock had lost money, been depressed, sheriff says Haig was contacted one day after the attack, after investigators found an Amazon box with his address on it inside Paddock's hotel room, reports CBS News correspondent Mireya Villarreal. But Haig says he had no idea what Paddock was planning to do when he met him just a few weeks before the massacre. Haig says he sold Paddock 720 rounds of ammunition from Haig's home gun business. "I couldn't detect anything wrong with this guy," he said. "He told me exactly what he wanted. I handed him a box with the ammunition in it, and he paid me and he left." The rounds he sold are called "tracer ammunition" – bullets that leave a visible trail when fired. "He said he was going to go put on a light show. And I can't remember whether he said for or with his friends, but that's what he did say," Haig said. But newly released search warrant records filed last fall by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department say Haig "may have conspired with Stephen Paddock to commit murder with a deadly weapon." Haig strongly denies that. "I felt that they were hoping that they could find a connection between myself and Paddock, that would go back showing that I supplied him with most of his ammunition, possibly even some firearms," Haig said. "They're not gonna find it. I talked to the guy three times." It's unclear whether Haig is still a person of interest, but he was the only one mentioned by name in the search warrant, other than Marilou Danley - Paddock's girlfriend. Authorities have since said they don't plan to bring charges against Danley. Las Vegas gunman's motive still unknown Haig does not blame himself, but within weeks of the massacre, he still decided to shut down his business. "I'm still racking my brain for what did I miss. Why didn't I pick this up?" he said. Haig, represented by his Phoenix attorneys Marc Victor and Andrew Marcantel, has not been charged. His attorneys say he continues to cooperate with investigators. CBS News reached out to the FBI and other authorities involved, but none will comment on an active investigation.

Gillum Makes Promises He Can’t Keep, “that’s not for [voters] to know” Says Campaign Staff in Undercover Video – PVA Facebook Twitter Google+ Email Link Embed Copy and paste this HTML code into your webpage to embed. Empty Promises Exposed: “Fairy tales in the modern day begin with ‘once I am elected. '” Deceiving Voters: “None of the programs that people are hoping for would happen” but “That’s not for [voters] to know.” Candidate’s True Politics: “Gillum is a Progressive” and “He is a part of the crazy, crazy, crazies.” Election Strategy: “You whip ’em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote.” Secret Gun Control Agenda Revealed: “three day waiting period for everybody,” “small steps” to ban assault rifles; “I don’t think he can say it [be]cause he’s trying to get the moderates” Florida is a “F***ed up,” “cracker state,” “you have to appeal to white guilt” This is a breaking news story. Refresh the page for updates. (Tallahassee) Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum’s campaign, revealing his election strategy includes making empty promises to voters. This is the seventh undercover video report Project Veritas has released in a series revealing secrets and lies from political campaigns in 2018. Said James O’Keefe, founder and president of Project Veritas Action: “What we found in the Gillum campaign was just what we found in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona, a candidate lying to the voters he needs to win the election.” Gillum campaign makes promises it knows it can’t keep Featured in this report is a campaign staffer who works on Andrew Gillum’s gubernatorial campaign. Omar Smith, who says he went to college with Gillum, reveals Gillum cannot fulfill his campaign promises even if he wanted to. When asked how Gillum would fund all the programs he says he wants to fund, Smith says Gillum “can’t,” and when asked if voters are aware that Gillum cannot deliver on his proposed programs, Smith says: SMITH: “That’s not for them to know… That’s not for them to know. Remember our saying, modern day fairy tales start with ‘once I am elected. '” Smith explains that most of Gillum’s campaign promises could never be implemented, and that the Gillum campaign knows this: SMITH: “So, let’s go back to Mr. Gillum’s platform, right? Raise the corporate tax in Florida from 7 to 11 percent. That will never happen. Raise teacher’s pay to $50,000, that will never happen. Give me another position. Medicare for all, that will never happen. The reason being, the legislature that write the bills is all Republican controlled. Democratic governor, Republican legislature. So, unless the legislature writes a bill, and it got voted on the floor, it cannot pass.” Smith says that “the rules in Florida are f***ed up” and that Florida is a “cracker state,” explaining that the Florida legislature has to become racially black for Gillum’s agenda to advance. “Whip up” the poor into a “frenzy in order for them to vote.” Smith says that in order to get voters on board with Gillum’s fairy tale platform, the campaign must “whip” lower income individuals “into a frenzy.” SMITH: “You whip ’em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote. Once Gillum is in, in another 2 years, other Republican Senators and Legislators will be on the ballot. So, you have to whip up the Andrew Gillum voters again in those counties to vote out the Republican to get a Democratic Legislature in order for his (Gillum) will to be executed.” Smith adds that because not all Democratic voters are the same, that the Gillum campaign needs to appeal to “white guilt” to turn out the vote: SMITH: “You have to appeal to white guilt… [be]cause that’s what it is.” Smith also explains that the Gillum campaign can’t let voters know what Gillum’s true agenda is before election day: SMITH: “… We don’t, do we have to let [the voters] know what the agenda is ahead of time? We can’t… We cannot… You alienate everybody. Then you get painted like, oh, Gillum is being painted, no. You are a socialist, you are way out of left field…” Gillum is a “crazy, crazy,” Democrat Smith also explains Gillum’s political worldview, saying that “Gillum is a progressive… He is a part of the crazy crazy crazies.” Cliff Eserman, who works for the Broward County Democratic Party adds that during the Democratic primary, Gillum had to campaign on values he does not really believe: ESERMAN: “In order to win he had to be… He’s really left of center. So he was being left, not left of center… For the primary. Now [in the general] he’s going back to left of center.” Dale Holeness, who is the Broward County Commissioner and also works on Gillum’s campaign, explains Gillum’s gun control views: HOLENESS: “There ought to be at least a three-day waiting period for everybody and a full background check for everybody… And we need to- And these automatic guns with sixteen rounds a minute, they ought to not be on the streets either, so that’s his plan.” Adrian Young, who works for the Florida Democratic Party also elaborates on Gillum’s gun control views in the report: YOUNG: “… I do think he’s not saying specifically like I’m going to ban bump stocks or I’m against ATs, only because he’s running a race right now. I do think he would support anybody doing that stuff, Bill Nelson… But I don’t think he can say it just [be]cause he’s trying to get the moderates and the gun-toting people in North Florida…” More Elections… This is the seventh release in a series Project Veritas Action Fund began publishing in October 2018 exposing dishonesty and unethical conduct in elections across the country. Project Veritas Action Fund will continue to publish undercover reports in this series. View the other investigative reports in this series:

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

Kavanaugh's Nomination Saved? Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s outstanding performance at yesterday’s evidentiary hearing featuring attempted rape accuser Christine Blasey Ford may have revived his embattled nomination for the highest court in America. The meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee showed the underhanded tactics employed by the Left against Judge Kavanaugh. The nominee and Republican senators used the opportunity to attack desperate Democrats for their efforts at character assassination. President Trump was delighted. “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him[,]” President Trump tweeted at 6:46 p.m. after the hearing wrapped up. “His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!” Ford, who claims Kavanaugh tried to rape her decades ago when he was a high school student, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for several hours Thursday. Kavanaugh testified separately after Ford’s testimony concluded. Kavanaugh stole the show. The judge forcefully stood up for himself as his voice trembled with righteous indignation, calling out Democratic senators for plotting against him. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn't work. When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee, and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then, and then as no doubt was expected, if not planned, came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Afraid of their own shadows, committee Republicans didn’t relish the prospect of their all-male team of 11 senators questioning a woman so they hired sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell of Maricopa County, Arizona, to examine Ford. Opinions differ widely on how Mitchell performed. She tiptoed around the alleged sexual assault itself, instead focusing on process-related questions, presumably in an effort to show undecided senators how Ford and her handlers have been unfairly manipulating the process. In much of her testimony, Ford came across as presentable and seemingly credible, though vague and sometimes evasive, her ridiculous overall story notwithstanding. Ford did well enough that during the break between her testimony and Kavanaugh’s, commentators on Fox News such as Brit Hume and Andrew Napolitano were openly musing about the nominee withdrawing, opinions that were sharply reversed after the nominee completed his testimony hours later. It’s not that Mitchell did a bad job creating an inventory of the irregularities in the process and of the odd behavior of Ford and her lawyers. She could do little else. She had many restrictions placed upon her and was only allowed to question Ford for minutes at a time before surrendering the floor to the next committee Democrat. As commentator Sean Davis tweeted: “Hard to do much else when the witness conveniently has no corroborating evidence, no memory of any verifiable facts of what happened, and everyone she says was present at the alleged incident--even her best friend--has denied it.” Nonetheless, Mitchell’s questioning came across at times as perfunctory, leading many observers to conclude that Republicans threw away a valuable opportunity by using her as a stand-in. She failed to lay a glove on a witness whose implausible, internally contradictory story cried out for vigorous cross-examination. In the end the too-deferential, easygoing Mitchell failed to provide much, if anything, in the way of evidence against Ford or in favor of Kavanaugh. Whether her work will bring over fence-sitting senators to Kavanaugh’s side remains to be seen. Like other Democrats, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii tried to help Ford, lobbing her softballs. After saying she thought she knew what Mitchell was trying to get at in her questions, the senator said, “so I'll just ask you very plainly, Dr. Ford, is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by Brett Kavanaugh?” “No, and I'd like to reiterate that again, I was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other what looked like equally-qualified candidates,” Ford replied. When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Ford “with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?” Ford replied, “one hundred percent.” Strangely, Ford has a bad long-term memory and a bad short-term memory. She doesn’t know when or where the alleged incident took place, yet she is “one hundred percent” certain it was Kavanaugh who attacked her. At the outset of the hearing, Grassley provided an overview of what Kavanaugh had gone through –including the Democrats’ sordid behavior— since President Trump announced the judge’s nomination on July 9. As part of the confirmation process, Kavanaugh endured his sixth background investigation since 1993. “Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which committee investigators have reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there a whiff of any issue – any issue at all related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior,” Grassley said. Ford shared her allegations in a letter to the committee’s ranking member, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), in the summer. The letter remained secret from July 30 through until September 13 when he first learned about it, the chairman said. Instead of sharing the letter with the committee, Feinstein did nothing. Before the hearing, Kavanaugh met privately with 65 senators, including Feinstein, who didn’t ask him about the allegations when she met with him in August. The committee held a four-day public hearing from September 4 to September 7 during which Kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours in public. Feinstein didn’t attend it, Grassley said. Kavanaugh answered almost 1,300 written questions senators submitted after the hearing. That is “more than all prior Supreme Court nominees,” he said. “Throughout this period, we did not know about the ranking member's secret evidence. Then, only at an 11th hour, on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, did the ranking member refer the allegations to the FBI. And then, sadly, the allegations were leaked to the press.” “Every step of the way the Democratic side refused to participate in what should have been a bipartisan investigation,” Grassley said. After Ford’s identity became public, Grassley’s staff “contacted all the individuals she said attended the 1982 party described in the Washington Post article,” he said. Kavanaugh “immediately submitted to an interview under penalty of felony for any knowingly false statements. He denied the allegations categorically.” “Democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to, but they declined. Which leads me then to wonder: If they're really concerned with going to the truth, why wouldn't you want to talk to the accused?” Grassley said his staff contacted the other individuals who allegedly attended the party at which the conduct Ford complained of allegedly took place: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, and Leland Keyser. “All three submitted statements to the Senate under – under penalty of felony, denying any knowledge of the events described by Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford's lifelong friend, Dr. – Miss Keyser, stated she doesn't know Judge Kavanaugh and doesn't recall ever attending a party with him.” Grassley said his staff repeatedly sought to interview Ford over the past 11 days, “even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony, but her attorneys refused to prevent – present her allegations to Congress.” “Consistent with their stated desires to obstruct Kavanaugh's nomination” by any means possible, “pushed for FBI investigations into the allegations.” “We've been trying to investigate other allegations,” Grassley said. “At this time, we have not had cooperation from attorneys representing other clients, and they have made no attempt to substantiate their claims.” Attorneys for new Kavanaugh accusers Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick have been approached by committee staff on eight and six occasions, respectively, Grassley said. “Neither attorney has made their clients available for interview. The committee can't do an investigation if attorneys are stonewalling.” With his performance at the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is frequently a target of conservatives for going rogue on important issues, partly redeemed himself in the eyes of many conservatives. While questioning Kavanaugh, Graham lambasted the confirmation process the judge has been put through, calling it “the most unethical sham since I've been in politics.” Lashing out at Democrats, Graham said, “If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020.” “Boy, you all want power,” he shouted. “God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.” Graham warned fellow GOPers about voting against the nomination. “To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) attacked Democrats, blaming them for the “circus atmosphere that has been created” since they first Ford's allegations to the media “two weeks ago, after sitting on them for six weeks.” This “has brought us the worst in our politics.” “It certainly has brought us no closer to the truth,” Hatch added. “Anonymous letters with no name and no return address are now being treated as national news.” Taking a shot at Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti, Hatch said “porn star lawyers with facially implausible claims are driving the news cycle.” “I hate to say this, but this is worse than Robert Bork, and I didn't think it could get any worse than that. This is worse than Clarence Thomas. I didn't think it could get any worse than that. This is a national disgrace, the way you're being treated.” The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination today at 9:30 a.m. Asked last night about the nomination moving to the floor of the Senate for a final vote, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reportedly answered, "Depends on what happens tomorrow." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is planning a procedural vote on Saturday to formally move to the nomination, followed by a potential confirmation vote by the full Senate as soon as Tuesday, Politico reports. A handful of Democrat senators, including the perpetually vulnerable red-state senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are reportedly considering voting to confirm Kavanaugh when the nomination goes before the full Senate. If Kavanaugh isn’t on the bench Monday, the Supreme Court will be shorthanded as it begins hearing cases in its new term. It normally has a complement of nine justices but with Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have been only eight justices. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats are trying to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they hope to seize control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. The confirmation drama continues.

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

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

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

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

Puerto Rico’s Power Grid Failure Is Causing A Public Health Crisis Of Epic Proportions One month after the devastating Hurricane Maria wreaked havoc on the island of Puerto Rico, the territory is still facing a public health crisis. And it’s a crisis of epic proportions. On Friday, former Puerto Rican Governor Alejandro García Padilla tweeted a photo from inside a hospital, in which scrubbed-up doctors leaned over an operating table performing surgery lit only by a flashlight. According to Slate, the image quickly made the rounds on the internet; it currently has almost 9,000 retweets and many speculate that that’s probably because the blurry picture feels like it’s worth a good deal more than 1,000 words. It illuminates just a small sliver of the public health crisis Puerto Rico is currently facing. This is what POTUS calls a 10! Surgery performed with cellphones as flashlights in Puerto Rico today. pic.twitter.com/5pnK5dkkE6 — Alejandro (@agarciapadilla) October 21, 2017 Millions of residents still don’t have access to electricity or proper health care, and bacteria in the water have exposed many people to disease. And calls for help have gone unanswered besides the few willing to travel to the devastated island privately. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) along with a handful of other lawmakers are calling on the federal government to continue to provide aid to the post-apocalyptic ravaged territory. “Even before Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit the U.S. territories, the islands’ health care system was suffering from the ongoing economic crisis. The islands are grappling with physician shortages, Medicaid programs facing an impending funding cliff, and widespread disparities in Federal health programs—and that was before hurricane season,” the lawmakers stated in a letter. “We are grateful for the public health emergency declaration in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but more can and should be done to help Americans impacted by these disasters.” The senators stressed that much of the islands’ power and communication networks are out and, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), it will take months before power is fully restored. Hospitals have been forced to prioritize patients, ration services, and forgo elective surgeries. The power grid’s failure has caused more problems than many anticipated, like the stall of relief efforts. Without electricity, communications are non-existent too. Some 33 days after Hurricane Maria made landfall on Puerto Rico, only 23 percent of residents have electricity, according to Status.pr, which provides daily updates on basic services on the island. While there are still other problems as well, such as gas stations being slow to reopen, and roads getting badly damaged, the power grid’s utter annihilation in the category 4 winds is not just a temporary inconvenience. The different ways that the lack of electricity can set off a cascade of other crises is becoming increasingly clear. A giant government-owned hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, arrived in Puerto Rico weeks ago to help out, but many people don’t know about the ship. Without electricity, most cell phone towers are down. But even if communications were working, residents can’t get to the port, as many of the island’s roads are impassable and most are without gasoline to power a car. The ship has extensive space and equipment for trauma care and a large staff, but CNN reported that as of last Tuesday, only 33 of 250 beds were full. The looming crisis seems to be getting worse, not better, and Puerto Rico is experiencing a medical crisis of epic proportions.

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

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

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.

Dear Illegal Alien ‘Caravan’: Say, ‘Hola’ To Trump’s RAZOR Wire Remember those photos of migrants taunting security forces while sitting on top of the border fence? They won’t be doing any of that now. In fact, It’s got a whole new look now. We won’t be seeing anything near the same bravado with people scaling up and over this one. Not with the changes they’ve made in response to the border-crashers that pushed their way into Mexico. Trending: WATCH: Lingerie Clad Hottie Attempts ‘The Cannonball’ On Lake In The Dead Of Winter – Pain Ensues Here’s the new look: Here’s what the President said with the photo: “The Fake News is showing old footage of people climbing over our Ocean Area Fence. This is what it really looks like – no climbers anymore under our Administration!” Here’s some footage of that razor wire going up. Here’s what the military was REALLY up to, when CNN and the rest had their little fever dreams about cross-border gun battles. If Congress insists on dragging its feet with the building and funding of a permanent solution, Trump will find other ways to secure our Southern border as he had promised to do. Like Razorwire. The Trumpinator: every time his rivals think they’ve got him down and out, he stands back up and keeps on coming. They laughed when he announced his candidacy. They thought he was just some kind of a circus sideshow act. They couldn’t have been more wrong. He survived the primaries and got the nomination. He knocked out Crooked Hillary. He beat CNN at their own game, and their ratings are now circling the toilet. Mueller and the Dossier aren’t just coming up empty, they’re exposing the misdeeds of Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok and all the rest. And Trump is still keeping promises, and getting things done. The economy is doing exactly what he promised it would. #PromisesKept And in 2020, The Trumpinator is gonna do it again. He’ll be back. By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here: Become a Clash Insider! Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop. We’re also moving onto a new platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship. Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group. Do you love what we’re doing at Clash? Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that. Stay Rowdy!

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

Julian Assange The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy. The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be. They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home. Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian’s case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected. We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a U.S. extradition warrant is successful — a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture. I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him. In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the U.S. Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. Against the State: An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price: $9.95 Buy New $9.95 (as of 06:00 EDT - Details) This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution” and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech. Vichy Media Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth. The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France. Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as “the icon for your generation”. This was the same Clinton who threatened to “obliterate totally” Iran and, who, as U.S. secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies. When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists. Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean, and many drowned. WikiLeaks Exposed Clinton Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton’s foundation – which she shares with her husband – received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East. As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever — worth $80 billion — to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation’s principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen. Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her. Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the “damage” Julian Assange did “personally to you”. In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as “very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence” and “a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator”. She offered no evidence — nor was asked for any — to back her grave allegations. At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia’s publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him. As if that wasn’t enough, Ferguson’s executive producer, Sally Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: “Assange is Putin’s bitch. We all know it!” There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from. The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:50 EDT - Details) The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist. Maligning and Profiting off Assange WikiLeaks’ revelations became part of the Guardian’s marketing plan to raise the paper’s cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive. With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. The question is why. Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated. Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.” This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States. According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. One leaked official memo says: “Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever.” In Alexandra, Virginia – the suburban home of America’s war-making elite — a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages — has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy; the U.S. Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange’s crime is to have broken a silence. They Never Happened No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of “unworthy” lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza. When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to “a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed”. He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought” of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America’s imperial crimes “never happened … even while [they] were happening, they never happened.” No Place to Hide: Edwa... Glenn Greenwald Best Price: $1.49 Buy New $3.70 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger. Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange’s lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory — in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government’s attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher — in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power. The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks “illegal” and wanted to cancel Assange’s passport — until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories. In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Prime Minister Gillard’s outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London. Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists. If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian’s passport. Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange’s father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy. I have watched Assange’s health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray. Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his government’s diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.

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

Communist Door Boy Attacks Teen Trump Supporter Down in San Antonio, Texas the dangerous and violent predilections of the left reared its ugly head once again. A “man” attacked a teenager who was wearing a #MAGA hat. The criminal attacker, one Kino Jimenez, took the boy’s hat, yelled at him, and then threw a drink in the boy’s face before walking off (and stealing the hat ). The entire event was caught on camera (by the teen’s friend who was with him), and the police are investigating. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Here’s what happened: Is this the America Maxine Waters wanted? Where Trump supporters can't even have a meal in peace? https://t.co/9g1BSiw8LS — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 5, 2018 The attack took place in a Whataburger restaurant, and the corporation was quick to condemn the man’s actions: “We were shocked to see this video and certainly don’t condone this type of customer behavior in our restaurants. To be clear, no Whataburger employees were involved or witnessed the incident, and we ask that questions be directed to San Antonio PD as we continue supporting their efforts.” Jimenez, who is 30, seems to have only had a part-time job. His employer was a San Antonio nightspot called Rumble. Immediately upon learning of the altercation, the bar announced that it had fired Jimenez because they believed such behavior was immoral, uncalled for, and not in keeping with Rumble’s welcoming personality. On their Facebook page, they wrote, “…We have since terminated this employee, as his actions go against everything that this establishment stands for. Rumble has, and always will be, a bar that is as inclusive as any establishment could possibly be. THIS BAR IS A SAFE SPACE FOR EVERYONE! No matter your race, creed, ethnicity, sexual identity, and political stance, you are welcomed here!” Rumble said on Facebook that Jimenez worked as a “part-time door guy.” They added, “We do not condone these types of actions or behavior. If you have any questions or concerns please message us privately. We support and appreciate your business.” Contrary to what you might believe about Jimenez… he is/was NOT a Democrat! No, he is further to the Left and was an active member of the Green Party. However, upon learning of his behavior the local Green Party told the media that Jimenez had been cut off from the party for his uncalled for attack on a child. “We all have different opinions of our president, but we don’t take it out on innocent kids who just happen to have a hat on,” Gavino Zarate, secretary of the Harris County Green Party told Heavy. “You may not like the hat or you may not like the president, but you don’t show that kind of aggression toward teenagers. It goes against everything the Green Party stands for. We are not violent. We do not take our aggression out on innocent young people.” Some on the right have connected the attack to Maxine Waters’ call for Democrats to confront members of the Trump administration whenever, and wherever they happened to find them. Leftists have said the connection is unfair, because Waters’ was only calling for accosting Trump administration officials. My question is; how big of a leap would it be for a normal, rational adult to go from confronting administration officials to attacking the people who elected them to power? Not much in my mind. The reality is that the Democrats are as much to blame for the corrosive and ugly rhetoric in America today as Donald Trump is. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com

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?

Gun Control Is Now Truly Impossible Gun control is the dream of every wannabe statist dictator and naive do-gooder alike. The latter think that removing guns will suddenly force humanity to stop all animosity toward one another, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya. The former recognizes that an armed populace is a threat to any tyrant and pushes for gun control out of self-preservation. However, a new ruling in a court case over 3-D printer files of guns has now made gun control virtually impossible. FIVE YEARS AGO, 25-year-old radical libertarian Cody Wilson stood on a remote central Texas gun range and pulled the trigger on the world’s first fully 3-D-printed gun. When, to his relief, his plastic invention fired a .380-caliber bullet into a berm of dirt without jamming or exploding in his hands, he drove back to Austin and uploaded the blueprints for the pistol to his website, Defcad.com. Defend Yourself: A Com... Rob Pincus Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $17.99 (as of 03:35 EDT - Details) He’d launched the site months earlier along with an anarchist video manifesto, declaring that gun control would never be the same in an era when anyone can download and print their own firearm with a few clicks. In the days after that first test-firing, his gun was downloaded more than 100,000 times. Wilson made the decision to go all in on the project, dropping out of law school at the University of Texas, as if to confirm his belief that technology supersedes law. The law caught up. Less than a week later, Wilson received a letter from the US State Department demanding that he take down his printable-gun blueprints or face prosecution for violating federal export controls. Under an obscure set of US regulations known as the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Wilson was accused of exporting weapons without a license, just as if he’d shipped his plastic gun to Mexico rather than put a digital version of it on the internet. He took Defcad.com offline, but his lawyer warned him that he still potentially faced millions of dollars in fines and years in prison simply for having made the file available to overseas downloaders for a few days. “I thought my life was over,” Wilson says. … Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First. Straight Talk on Armed... Best Price: $13.95 Buy New $13.95 (as of 03:40 EDT - Details) “If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident,” Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. “So what if this code is a gun?” The Department of Justice’s surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won’t try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses. “I consider it a truly grand thing,” Wilson says. “It will be an irrevocable part of political life that guns are downloadable, and we helped to do that.”

Juanita Broaddrick: Senator Feinstein Had No Interest In My Rape Allegation Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of rape — and who’s never ever recanted her story, in all the years she’s made the accusation — had a blunt message for Sen. Dianna Feinstein about the supposed “due process” that needs to be given to Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, and it’s one that goes like this: Where was mine? The Clinton machine did nothing but shut down Broaddrick and paint her as a liar. And now? Now things like this, from Sen. Chuck Schumer. Should I call?? https://t.co/FMUKzBU87c take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. — Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) September 21, 2018 Yet now the Democrats, including Feinstein, want to demand Christine Blasey Ford have her day in court, figuratively speaking, for her flimsy and meritless accusations against Kavanaugh? More from the Washington Times: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, has championed Brett Kavanaugh’s #MeToo accuser, but Juanita Broaddrick says the senator never showed any interest in her 1999 rape allegation against President Bill Clinton. Ms. Feinstein was elected in 1992, making her one of the few remaining senators who served during independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation into Mr. Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. “It’s absurd,” Ms. Broaddrick said Wednesday on Fox News. “Not one Democrat would look at my deposition with the independent counsel. Oh my gosh, they did not want to know about it.” She pointed to the discrepancy between Democratic lack of interest in her case and the party’s outrage over allegations of sexual assault leveled last week against Mr. Kavanaugh. “Oh, it makes me go back to 1999, when Dianne Feinstein, along with every other Democrat, refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel,” said Ms. Broaddrick told Fox’s Laura Ingraham on Monday. “They would have nothing to do with it. That shows you the difference in the double standard that existed back then and still does today.” Ms. Broaddrick has also lashed out at Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, who voted not guilty on the Clinton impeachment, as did Ms. Feinstein and Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat. “You voted NOT GUILTY on both counts at Bill Clinton’s impeachment,” she tweeted. “You didn’t give a damn back then. You, Dicky Durban [sic], are a complete FRAUD.” Ms. Broaddrick also said that if Senate Democrats want the FBI to investigate the 36-year-old accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh, they should reopen her 40-year-old case, too. If you want the FBI to go back that far @[email protected] to investigate Ford’s allegations…. let’s investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair. She has long accused Mr. Clinton of raping her a motel room in 1978 in Little Rock, when he was Arkansas attorney general. “Go back that far, let’s investigate my situation,” she said on Wednesday. “Why not? Everybody says well it was litigated and adjudicated—my case was never litigated, it was never adjudicated. It never went to court. I was never discredited at all.” Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University, has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school in Maryland. The allegation went public last week after Ms. Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she received a letter about the incident in late July and referred the matter to federal authorities a week ago. “During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable,” tweeted Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday. “She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward.” Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Florida shooting: Gun control law moves step closer New gun control measures for Florida have passed another legal hurdle, weeks after one of the worst school shootings in US history. The state's House of Representatives passed a bill raising the age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 and imposing a three-day waiting period on all gun sales. The bill, already passed by the Senate, now goes to the state governor. Seventeen people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February. Expelled former student Nikolas Cruz, 19, has been charged in the attack. He was formally indicted by a grand jury on Wednesday on 34 counts, including 17 counts of premeditated first-degree murder and 17 counts of attempted first-degree murder. He is suspected of using a legally bought AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to carry out the 10-minute attack, gunning down teachers and students. What is in the new law? In addition to raising the age and bringing in the three-day waiting period, the legislation: Introduces a voluntary armed "guardian programme" for schools, named after Aaron Feis, a coach who died in the Parkland shooting. It allows school personnel to be armed, subject to school district approval and specialist training Classroom teachers are excluded from carrying arms unless they have a security forces background Bans devices, such as bump stocks, that modify a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic Raises mental health funding and increases the power to seize or ban guns under mental health concerns The legislation does not include a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons like the AR-15, despite it being a key demand of Parkland students and their parents. Florida law already mandates a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun but a person as young as 18 can buy a rifle with no waiting period. The Republican-controlled House debated the bill for about eight hours on Wednesday before voting 67-50 in favour. Has the move been welcomed? Ryan Petty, whose daughter was among those killed, hailed the House's vote in a tweet. He said: "We know that when it comes to preventing future acts of school violence, today's vote is just the beginning of our journey." State Democratic Party legislators who backed the bill said it was necessary despite the "poison pill" of allowing more guns in schools under the guardian programme. Florida now joins at least six other states in allowing school employees to carry firearms. Following the Parkland shooting, many surviving students had lobbied politicians for greater gun control. Gun control activists will hope the Florida measures will be a turning point in their battle with the powerful National Rifle Association and others who defend firearms ownership under the Second Amendment of the US constitution. On the day the vote passed, a 17-year-old woman student was killed in a suspected accidental shooting at a high school in Alabama. What happens now? Governor Rick Scott will need to sign the bill, known as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, into law. It will automatically become law within 15 days unless he vetoes it. Mr Scott has not yet said he will back it, telling reporters he would "review the bill line by line" and consult victims' families. He has previously said he opposes US President Donald Trump's call to arm teachers. He had also previously opposed increasing the purchase age from 18 to 21.