Datasets:

tyyihg

/

propoganda_detection_final_Dataset

like 0

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

Bishop Morlino Targets ‘Homosexual Subculture’ in the Church, Calls for Reparation to Sacred Heart of Jesus Editor’s Note: Over the years, Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison has confirmed several of my children according to the traditional Rite of Confirmation, as his diocese has been a port in the storm for many displaced and disillusioned Catholic families. We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but his faith and pastoral solicitude have for us been a light in the darkness and proof that God has not left us orphans. And now this, finally, a bishop with the courage to look the beast in the eye and speak its name out loud. Bishop Morlino does this in a moment when he is under heavy attack as a “hater” for defending the Church’s teaching on marriage—an attack, by the way, which prompted us here at The Remnant to join the fight to DEFEND BISHOP MORLINO last year. "If you'll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says 'My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).' It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. – Bishop Robert Morlino This is what a courageous shepherd looks like! In our opinion, during the most vile clergy sex scandal in history, every bishop in the country must do exactly what Bishop Morlino has done, i.e., issue a statement of fidelity to the Church’s moral theology, specifically her teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts. In so doing, the bishops will incur the wrath of the enemies of the Church, yes. They will be crucified in the media, yes. But they will also be doing their sacred duty before God in reassuring their thoroughly scandalized flocks that they are absolutely committed to the defense and enforcement of the Church’s moral teaching at a time when it is under scurrilous attack from within. Nothing less will do. Bishop Morlino has now done it, and we respectfully demand that the rest of the American bishops either follow suit or face the charge of being complicit with the degenerate and even criminal shepherds, accounts of whose betrayal and vice now dominate the news. May God bless and keep Bishop Robert Morlino. MJM Bishop Robert C. Morlino's letter to the faithful on the ongoing sexual abuse crisis in the Church August 18, 2018 Dear brothers and sisters in Christ of the Diocese of Madison, The past weeks have brought a great deal of scandal, justified anger, and a call for answers and action by many faithful Catholics here in the U.S. and overseas, directed at the Church hierarchy regarding sexual sins by bishops, priests, and even cardinals. Still more anger is rightly directed at those who have been complicit in keeping some of these serious sins from coming to light. For my part — and I know I am not alone — I am tired of this. I am tired of people being hurt, gravely hurt! I am tired of the obfuscation of truth. I am tired of sin. And, as one who has tried — despite my many imperfections — to lay down my life for Christ and His Church, I am tired of the regular violation of sacred duties by those entrusted with immense responsibility from the Lord for the care of His people. The stories being brought into light and displayed in gruesome detail with regard to some priests, religious, and now even those in places of highest leadership, are sickening. Hearing even one of these stories is, quite literally, enough to make someone sick. But my own sickness at the stories is quickly put into perspective when I recall the fact that many individuals have lived through them for years. For them, these are not stories, they are indeed realities. To them I turn and say, again, I am sorry for what you have suffered and what you continue to suffer in your mind and in your heart. If you have not already done so, I beg you to reach out, as hard as that may be, and seek help to begin to heal. Also, if you’ve been hurt by a priest of our diocese, I encourage you to come forward, to make a report to law enforcement and to our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator, so that we might begin, with you as an individual, to try and set things right to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing about these stories that is okay. These actions, committed by more than a few, can only be classified as evil, evil that cries out for justice and sin that must be cast out from our Church. Faced with stories of the depravity of sinners within the Church, I have been tempted to despair. And why? The reality of sin — even sin in the Church — is nothing new. We are a Church made of sinners, but we are sinners called to sanctity. So what is new? What is new is the seeming acceptance of sin by some in the Church, and the apparent efforts to cover over sin by them and others. Unless and until we take seriously our call to sanctity, we, as an institution and as individuals, will continue to suffer the “wages of sin.” For too long we have diminished the reality of sin — we have refused to call a sin a sin — and we have excused sin in the name of a mistaken notion of mercy. In our efforts to be open to the world we have become all too willing to abandon the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In order to avoid causing offense we offer to ourselves and to others niceties and human consolation. Why do we do this? Is it out of an earnest desire to display a misguided sense of being “pastoral?” Have we covered over the truth out of fear? Are we afraid of being disliked by people in this world? Or are we afraid of being called hypocrites because we are not striving tirelessly for holiness in our own lives? Perhaps these are the reasons, but perhaps it is more or less complex than this. In the end, the excuses do not matter. We must be done with sin. It must be rooted out and again considered unacceptable. Love sinners? Yes. Accept true repentance? Yes. But do not say sin is okay. And do not pretend that grave violations of office and of trust come without grave, lasting consequences. For the Church, the crisis we face is not limited to the McCarrick affair, or the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, or anything else that may come. The deeper crisis that must be addressed is the license for sin to have a home in individuals at every level of the Church. There is a certain comfort level with sin that has come to pervade our teaching, our preaching, our decision making, and our very way of living. If you’ll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says “My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).” It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. There must be no room left, no refuge for sin — either within our own lives, or within the lives of our communities. To be a refuge for sinners (which we should be), the Church must be a place where sinners can turn to be reconciled. In this I speak of all sin. But to be clear, in the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals. We are talking about acts and actions which are not only in violation of the sacred promises made by some, in short, sacrilege, but also are in violation of the natural moral law for all. To call it anything else would be deceitful and would only ignore the problem further. There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is time to be honest that the problems are both and they are more. To fall into the trap of parsing problems according to what society might find acceptable or unacceptable is ignoring the fact that the Church has never held ANY of it to be acceptable — neither the abuse of children, nor any use of one’s sexuality outside of the marital relationship, nor the sin of sodomy, nor the entering of clerics into intimate sexual relationships at all, nor the abuse and coercion by those with authority. In this last regard, special mention should be made of the most notorious and highest in ranking case, that being the allegations of former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s (oft-rumored, now very public) sexual sins, predation, and abuse of power. The well-documented details of this case are disgraceful and seriously scandalous, as is any covering up of such appalling actions by other Church leaders who knew about it based on solid evidence. While recent credible accusations of child sexual abuse by Archbishop McCarrick have brought a whole slew of issues to light, long-ignored was the issue of abuse of his power for the sake of homosexual gratification. It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord. The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest. And the decision to act upon this disordered inclination is a sin so grave that it cries out to heaven for vengeance, especially when it involves preying upon the young or the vulnerable. Such wickedness should be hated with a perfect hatred. Christian charity itself demands that we should hate wickedness just as we love goodness. But while hating the sin, we must never hate the sinner, who is called to conversion, penance, and renewed communion with Christ and His Church, through His inexhaustible mercy. At the same time, however, the love and mercy which we are called to have even for the worst of sinners does not exclude holding them accountable for their actions through a punishment proportionate to the gravity of their offense. In fact, a just punishment is an important work of love and mercy, because, while it serves primarily as retribution for the offense committed, it also offers the guilty party an opportunity to make expiation for his sin in this life (if he willingly accepts his punishment), thus sparing him worse punishment in the life to come. Motivated, therefore, by love and concern for souls, I stand with those calling for justice to be done upon the guilty. The sins and crimes of McCarrick, and of far too many others in the Church, bring suspicion and mistrust upon many good and virtuous priests, bishops, and cardinals, and suspicion and mistrust upon many great and respectable seminaries and so many holy and faithful seminarians. The result of the first instance of mistrust harms the Church and the very good work we do in Christ’s name. It causes others to sin in their thoughts, words, and deeds — which is the very definition of scandal. And the second mistrust harms the future of the Church, since our future priests are at stake. I said that I was tempted to despair in light of all of this. However, that temptation quickly passed, thanks be to God. No matter how large the problem, we know that we are called to go forward in faith, to rely upon God’s promises to us, and to work hard to make every bit of difference we can, within our spheres of influence. I have recently had the opportunity to talk directly with our seminarians about these very pressing matters, and I have begun to, and will continue to, talk with the priests of the diocese, as well as the faithful, in person and through my weekly column and homilies, making things as clear as I can, from my perspective. Here now, I offer a few thoughts to those of my diocese: In the first place, we must continue to build upon the good work which we have accomplished in protecting the youth and vulnerable of our diocese. This is a work on which we can never rest in our vigilance, nor our efforts to improve. We must continue in our work of education for all and hold to the effective policies that have been implemented, requiring psychological exams for all candidates for ministry, as well as across-the-board background checks for anyone working with children or vulnerable individuals. Here again, I state, as we have done consistently, if you have knowledge of any sort of criminal abuse of children by someone in the Church, contact law enforcement. If you need help in contacting law enforcement contact our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator and she will help connect you with the best resources. If you are an adult victim of sexual abuse from childhood, we still encourage you to reach out to law enforcement first, but even if you don’t want to, please still reach out to us. To our seminarians: If you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me and to the seminary rector. I will address it swiftly and vigorously. I will not stand for this in my diocese or anywhere I send men for formation. I trust that the seminaries I choose, very discriminately, to help form our men will not ignore this type of scandalous behavior, and I will continue to verify that expectation. To our priests: Most simply, live out the promises you made on your ordination day. You are called to serve Christ’s people, beginning with praying daily the Liturgy of the Hours. This is to keep you very close to God. In addition, you promised to obey and be loyal to your bishop. In obedience, strive to live out your priesthood as a holy priest, a hard working priest, and a pure and happy priest — as Christ Himself is calling you to do. And by extension, live a chaste and celibate life so that you can completely give your life to Christ, the Church, and the people whom he has called you to serve. God will give you the graces to do so. Ask Him for the help you need daily and throughout every day. And if you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me. I will not stand for this in my diocese any more than in our seminaries. To the faithful of the diocese: If you are the victim of abuse of any kind by a priest, bishop, cardinal, or any employee of the Church, bring it forward. It will be addressed quickly and justly. If you have directly witnessed sexual advances or any type of abuse, bring it forward as well. Such actions are sinful and scandalous and we cannot allow anyone to use their position or power to abuse another person. Again, in addition to injuring individuals, these actions injure the very Body of Christ, His Church. Furthermore, I add my name to those calling for real and sustained reform in the episcopate, priesthood, our parishes, schools, universities, and seminaries that would root out and hold accountable any would-be sexual predator or accomplice; I will hold the priests of the diocese to their promise to live a chaste and celibate life of service to you and your parish, and evidence of failure in this regard will be justly addressed; I will likewise hold every man studying for the priesthood for our diocese accountable to living a chaste and celibate life as part of his formation for the priesthood. Failure to do so will lead to dismissal from diocesan sponsorship; I will continue to require (with our men and our funds) that all seminaries to which we send men to study be vigilant that seminarians are protected from sexual predators and provide an atmosphere conducive to their holistic formation as holy priests, in the image of Christ; I ask all the faithful of the diocese to assist in keeping us accountable to civil authorities, the faithful in the pews, and to God Almighty, not only to protect children and the youth from sexual predators in the Church, but our seminarians, university students, and all the faithful as well. I promise to put any victim and their sufferings before that of the personal and professional reputation of a priest, or any Church employee, guilty of abuse; I ask everyone reading this to pray. Pray earnestly for the Church and all her ministers. Pray for our seminarians. And pray for yourselves and your families. We must all work daily on our own personal holiness and hold ourselves accountable first and, in turn, hold our brothers and sisters accountable as well, and Finally, I ask you all to join me and the entire clergy of the Diocese of Madison in making public and private acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for all the sins of sexual depravity committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy. I will be offering a public Mass of reparation on Friday, September 14, the Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross, at Holy Name Heights and I ask all pastors to do the same in their own parishes. In addition, I ask that all priests, clergy, religious, and diocesan employees join me in observing the upcoming Autumn Ember Days (Sep. 19, 21, and 22) as days of fasting and abstinence in reparation for the sins and outrages committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy and I invite all the faithful to do the same. Some sins, like some demons, can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. This letter and these statements and promises are not intended to be an exhaustive list of what we can and need to do in the Church to begin to heal from, and stave off, this deep illness in the Church, but rather the next steps I believe we can take locally. More than anything else, we as a Church must cease our acceptance of sin and evil. We must cast out sin from our own lives and run toward holiness. We must refuse to be silent in the face of sin and evil in our families and communities and we must demand from our pastors — myself included — that they themselves are striving day in and day out for holiness. We must do this always with loving respect for individuals but with a clear understanding that true love can never exist without truth. Again, right now there is a lot of justified anger and passion coming from many holy and faithful lay people and clerics across the country, calling for real reform and “house cleaning” of this type of depravity. I stand with them. I don’t know yet how this will play out nationally or internationally. But I do know this, and I make this my last point and last promise, for the Diocese of Madison: “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Faithfully yours in the Lord, Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino Bishop of Madison This text first appeared in the Madison Catholic Herald.

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

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

Pope Francis: Ross Douthat & Massimo Faggioli Debate Catholic Church’s Future Pope Francis visits Genoa, Italy, in May 2017. (Reuters photo: Giorgio Perottino) In a debate, Ross Douthat and Massimo Faggioli discussed Pope Francis’s legacy and its effect on internal Church controversies. On Wednesday night, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat and Villanova professor of theology Massimo Faggioli came together for a debate entitled “Francis @ Five: Assessing the Legacy of Pope Francis Five Years after His Election.” As I made my way up to Fordham University, I was excited. Having followed Douthat and Faggioli’s ongoing dialogue on Twitter, I knew I was in for a lively, if predictable, conversation. In his opening remarks, Douthat laid out three criteria that can be used to evaluate Francis’s papacy thus far: his impact on the public’s perception of the Church (a success); his attempts at reforming the Vatican bureaucracy (a disappointment); and his position on “moral-theological controversies,” specifically, communion for the divorced and remarried (a problem). Advertisement Advertisement Faggioli, meanwhile, outlined a genuinely surprising position. Rather than making a straightforward case for why Pope Francis has changed the Church for the better, Faggioli rejected the possibility of evaluating his papacy in terms of “continuity” with past popes, since doing so would assume that “Christianity at some point . . . was complete,” which Faggioli does not think is true. While I emphatically disagree with this argument, I have to hand it to Faggioli: From the outset, he made clear that he was not planning to debate Douthat on the implications of the Francis papacy. Instead, through a combination of rhetorical tricks and soft-peddled Hegelianism, he would completely redefine the role and nature of the Catholic Church. During the crux of the debate — the discussion of communion for the divorced and remarried — Faggioli raised his most theologically unsettling point. To defend his position that remarried persons should be able to receive communion, Faggioli invoked the case of Germany, where 50 percent of Catholic marriages end in divorce. For Faggioli, the implication is that at least 50 percent of German Catholic children never see their parents receive communion and lose their faith because of it. This, he says, is “bad for evangelization,” and in order to keep the pews full, the Church’s role should not be to deny communion to the divorced and remarried, but instead to ask, “What can the Catholic Church do to make the faithful able to receive sacraments?” Advertisement This is a lovely suggestion, and one that I’m not entirely unsympathetic to. However, the fact remains that Faggioli is suggesting the Church do much more than provide sacraments to the faithful. Just before invoking the German case, Faggioli characterized the country as one of the most secular in the world. But rather than lamenting what secularism has wrought on marital life in Germany, reasserting the Church’s position on marriage, and insisting that the faithful strive to live according to her laws, Faggioli argues that the Church ought to bend to the will of secular society. Advertisement It should be clear to anyone, not just practicing Catholics, that this is absurd. If the Church exists simply to accommodate the whims and failures of secular modernity, then what is the point of the Church? Pope Benedict XVI has warned against precisely the kind of “accommodation” Faggioli is calling for, writing that when “the people cannot cope” with God, they “bring him down into their own world,” and insist that “he must be the kind of God that [they need].” In other words, “Man is using God, and, in reality, even if it is not outwardly discernible, he is placing himself above God.” To fully drive the point home, Benedict equates this kind of worship with the Israelites desert worship of the bull calf. Unsurprisingly, this progressive interpretation of Catholic doctrine eventually reveals itself to be rank historicism. Throughout the debate, Faggioli drew out the argument that allowing the remarried to receive communion would not represent a radical change in doctrine but a return to the teachings of the Gospel. Eventually, Douthat drew his argument to its logical conclusion with this question: Were priests throughout history in fact misleading their divorced and remarried parishioners by telling them they could not receive communion? After a few seconds’ pause, Faggioli gave the only answer he could: “There are different responses to the same question in different times.” Advertisement Throughout their conversation, both Douthat and Faggioli repeatedly observed that the debate over Pope Francis and the future of the Church is carried on primarily among Catholic intellectuals, unbeknownst to most of “the flock.” Advertisement It strikes me, however, that everybody — Catholic or not — has a dog in this fight, which is about more than communion and canon law. At its core, this debate is about truth and our ability to judge right from wrong. Could we possibly say, for instance, that it’s impossible to judge the presidency of Donald Trump relative to past presidents? Of course not — that would be preposterous, as I’m sure Faggioli would agree. To pass moral judgements on papacies, presidencies, or anything else, we must have recourse to truth, and to the institutions that have upheld this truth for centuries. Whether in the Church or in the academy, we must resist this dangerous historicist impulse. If we don’t, we will find ourselves, in the words of Pope Benedict, in “a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” Advertisement READ MORE: A Defense of the Catholic Tradition The Left’s New Plan to Gut Religious-Liberty Protections What’s At Stake in the Fight For Religious Freedom

Sanctuary City Mayor Protected Illegal Alien Mexican Rapist Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf claims to fight for women. Except when she's fighting for their rapists instead. A Democratic mayor’s warning to illegal immigrants of an incoming ICE raid in northern California may have led to a number of illegal immigrants with violent and sex-related convictions evading capture and deportation. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf tweeted out an impending warning of the four-day raid last week, alerting targeted individuals to the imminent arrests, and infuriating Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who say that many more could have been caught if they hadn't been warned. A spokesperson for ICE gave Fox News examples of some of the unsavory characters who evaded officals during the raid. One Mexican citizen had convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), and had been deported in 2003. Another who evaded capture had a conviction for sodomizing a drugged victim in 2012, as well as a DUI from this year -- that Mexican citizen had also been previously deported in 2013. Another illegal immigrant from Mexico, previously deported in 2014 for a conviction for armed robbery, also evaded capture.

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

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

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

WATCH: John Bolton Promises Room Full of ‘Former Terrorists’ the US Would ‘Overthrow’ Iran by 2019 For those who may not be paying attention, the plan to overthrow Iran has long been in the works. In fact, in April 2012, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained (Mojahedin-e Khalq) MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009 for this very purpose. MEK is the Iranian political-militant organization that advocates for the violent overthrow of the current Iranian regime. They are hardly quiet about it. Coincidentally, MEK was classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and its allies—during this training period—until none other than Hillary Clinton suddenly removed them from the list in 2012. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site until President Barack Obama took office in 2009. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. It was widely reported that the MEK was behind the anti-government violence that erupted in Iran in January which snowballed into the situation today. Hersh also reported additional names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. For over a decade, Bolton has been calling for regime change in Iran. Now, he’s the National Security Advisor. It just so happens that at least one of these calls for regime change in Iran was caught on video last year as Bolton gave a speech at the Grand Gathering of Iranians for Free Iran. “There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” Pay attention to the first line in that quote above in which Bolton notes that the opposition needed to overthrow Iran’s current regime “is centered in this room today.” Who was in that room? Well, the entire event was actually put on by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK. As Politico pointed out in a 2016 article, despite the neocon attempts to rewrite history, MEK have killed Americans and committed multiple acts of terrorism. For decades, and based on U.S. intelligence, the United States government has blamed the MEK for killing three U.S. Army colonels and three U.S. contractors, bombing the facilities of numerous U.S. companies and killing innocent Iranians. To recap, the formerly terrorist-classified organization MEK, trained in the US and granted special privilege status by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012—which has since been heavily funded to refine their image by having famous US neoconservative war hawks from both sides of the isle actually chant for “regime change” on their behalf—is now the darling child of the neocon agenda and the impetus behind what could kick of World War 3. While the current Iranian regime is certainly no bastion of freedom, the idea that US intervention or a violent revolution would be beneficial for the people of Iran or American citizens is outright insane. To see what US intervention—through military support and the support of opposition groups—does to countries, one need only look at Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to see the horrific death tolls and war-ravaged dystopias left in America’s wake. To those paying attention over the years, Trump’s desire to intervene in Iran, and his subsequent support in the media and from all sides of the political spectrum should come as no surprise as it has been the plan since Bill Clinton was in office and was documented in the neoconservative PNAC report. This was even admitted by General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, that the U.S. planned on going to war with Iran, according to a 2001 memo from the U.S. Secretary of Defense. “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,” Clark said. “Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.” All presidents since Clinton have crossed countries off this list. Now it’s Trump’s turn. Article posted with permission from The Free Thought Project

Watch: Campus Commie Has Profanity-Laden Hissy Fit, Pours Beverage on FSU Republicans Extreme leftists have been resorting to hysterical profanity-laden melodramatic hissy fits when they encounter people they disagree with. These incidents tend to occur on college campuses. It doesn’t take much to trigger these people. The latest comes from an admitted supporter of communism at Florida State University. Watch this leftist loon pour her beverage on FSU Republicans as she states they are “normalizing and enabling Nazis” by supporting Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis. WATCH: Angry leftist pours her beverage on FSU Republicans and says they are “normalizing and enabling Nazis” by supporting Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis. pic.twitter.com/1UDRxSZXE1 — Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) November 1, 2018 By the way…where are her pants?

Democrats Want Us To Believe All Women…Unless They’re Accusing Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton, Al Franken Or George Soros The Democrats have called upon the Senate to postpone the vote on Kavanaugh. Establishment Republicans are racing for the exits. But over what? An unprovable accusation from decades ago that the accuser said nothing about until years later, and that is uncorroborated by any other testimony or by the evidence of any similar behavior on Kavanaugh’s part. This is clearly a set-up (Christine Ford is also a far-left Democrat operative) designed to derail the nomination of a good man. There is no low to which the Democrats will not sink to attain their nefarious goals of stopping the President from strengthening America and protecting Americans. take our poll - story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. “Weighing the Allegations against Brett Kavanaugh,” by David French, National Review, September 16, 2018: They’re serious but not solid. The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh — outlined now on the record in the Washington Post by Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford — are substantial and serious. She claims that Kavanaugh knocked her down, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothes. Here’s the core of her story: While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house. Do not count me among those who would minimize this alleged assault. I went to a high school that had more than its share of drunken parties, and my classmates could do crazy and stupid things, but an act like this was beyond the pale. This isn’t “boys will be boys.” Actions have consequences, and it’s hardly unjust to tell a person that if he mistreated another human being like this — even a long time ago — he has to remain “merely” a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Since Kavanaugh has denied the story, however, the question of whether the event is so egregious that it should disqualify him is moot. At the very least, if the attack happened, he should be disqualified for lying. Yet unless all parties start telling the same story, there is no way to know for certain if this event occurred. We don’t need certainty, however, to make a decision on whether a man should sit on the Supreme Court. I have the same standard for Brett Kavanaugh as I did for Roy Moore, for Donald Trump, for Bill Clinton — or for any other politician who’s accused of misconduct. Is it more likely than not that the allegation is true? Given the totality of the evidence, I believe it is more likely than not that Bill Clinton committed rape and sexual harassment. I believe it is more likely than not that Donald Trump has committed sexual assault. I believe it is more likely than not that Roy Moore engaged in sexual misconduct with underage girls. But the evidence against Kavanaugh falls far short of the evidence arrayed against each of these men. So far at least it falls far short of the evidence against virtually any other politician or celebrity who has faced consequences during this #MeToo moment. Here’s why: First, one way to help test the veracity of old claims is to ask whether there is any contemporaneous corroboration. Did the accuser tell a friend or family member or anyone about the alleged assault when it occurred? With Clinton, Trump, Moore, and many other politicians and celebrities, there was ample contemporaneous corroboration. Here, there was not. According to the Washington Post, “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.” That’s almost three decades of silence — three decades when memories can grow cloudy and recollections can change. But even the allegedly corroborating notes of the therapist raise a separate problem. They actually contradict her story on a key detail. According to the Post, “The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy that Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.” Nor do the notes mention Kavanaugh’s name, even though her husband says Ford named Kavanaugh in the sessions. Those are important discrepancies, and if six years ago she told the therapist four men and says two men now, that suggests that her memory of the event may be suspect. As a former trial lawyer, I can tell you that while neither notes nor memories are infallible, in a contest between contemporaneous notes and later verbal testimony about those notes, the content of the written notes usually prevails. Juries are extremely skeptical of witnesses who contradict written notes — after all, the notes are taken when the words are immediate and there isn’t the overwhelming pressure of a trial to conform your testimony to the desired outcome. At least the investigation seems somewhat manageable. If there were only four boys there, who were the other two? Let’s hear from them. In fact, investigators should interview everyone else at the party. Yet given all the years that have passed, would it be possible to find anyone who remembers being at that party? Would they remember any details at all? If someone saw Kavanaugh stumbling drunk at the party, that would obviously bolster Ford’s account. If another attendee says, “He was totally sober and with me the whole time,” that helps Kavanaugh. But the odds of getting details that precise are long indeed, and there is always a chance that a motivated classmate might lie — for either person….

Hungary's Orban calls for global anti-migrant alliance with eye on 2018 elections (Fixes dateline) * PM Orban faces elections on April 8, leads all polls * Migration has been Orban's defining theme since 2015 * Says will counter globalism alongside U.S., UK, Israel By Marton Dunai BUDAPEST, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Hungarian leader Viktor Orban called on Sunday for a global alliance against migration as his right-wing populist Fidesz party began campaigning for an April 8 election in which it is expected to win a third consecutive landslide victory. Popular at home but increasingly at odds politically and economically with mainstream European Union peers, Orban has thrived on external controversy, including repeated clashes with Brussels and lately the United Nations. Those conflicts, mostly centred on migration since people fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa flooded into Europe in 2015, have intensified as the elections approach and Orban poses as a saviour of Europe's Christian nations. "Christianity is Europe's last hope," Orban told an audience of party faithful at the foot of the Royal Castle in Budapest. With mass immigration, especially from Africa, "our worst nightmares can come true. The West falls as it fails to see Europe being overrun." Orban is widely credited for reversing an economic slump in Hungary and controlling its public finances, culminating in a return to investment-grade for its debt, which was cut to 'junk' during the 2008 global economic crisis. To achieve that and hold onto power the prime minister, 54, has used methods that critics have called authoritarian, and picked fights with EU partners, especially in the West. Eastern leaders, most notably in Poland, have followed his lead. But migration dominates his agenda now. Orban said on Sunday that Europe faces a critical fissure between nation states of the East and the West, which he called an "immigrant zone, a mixed population world that heads in a direction different from ours". As the West wants eastern Europe to follow its lead, an increasingly vicious struggle was likely, he said, alluding to a plan to redraw the European alliance advocated by the leaders of France and Germany. "Absurd as it may sound the danger we face comes from the West, from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris," Orban said to loud applause. "Of course we will fight, and use ever stronger legal tools. The first is our 'Stop Soros' law." Orban has for years targeted Hungarian-born U.S. financier George Soros, whose philanthropy aims to bolster liberal and open-border values -- anathema to Orban, an advocate of a loose group of strong nation states that reject multiculturalism. The Hungarian leader has advocated "ethnic homogeneity" and compared Soros, a Jew, to a puppet master unleashing immigration onto Europe to undermine its cultural and economic integrity. A defining moment of his premiership came in 2015, as the migrant crisis peaked: he built a double razor wire fence that became the symbol of anti-migrant sentiment in Europe. Orban also said the Hungarian opposition had failed to heed the call of history when it opposed his toughness on migrants. Voters have responded favourably and Orban is a clear leader of all polls. POWERFUL ALLIES Orban has conflated the issue of immigration with the image of Soros, 87, whose name was used in a tough anti-migrant bill sent to Parliament on Wednesday. Soros, for his part, compared Orban unfavourably to both the Nazis and the Communists, saying his rule evoked dark tones from the 1930's -- when Hungary was allied with Nazi Germany -- and was more oppressive than Cold War Soviet occupation. Orban has tightened the screws on non-government organisations, particularly ones funded by Soros, and attempted to close a prominent Soros-founded university. Attributing to Soros a recent United Nations plan on creating a global blueprint to handle the migration crisis, Orban said he anticipated that powerful allies would help him prevent the U.N. from greasing the wheels of migration. "Soros has antagonised not only us but also England, President Trump and Israel too," he said. "Everywhere he wants to get migration accepted. It won't work. We are not alone and we will fight together ... and we will succeed." In Europe, he cited as allies Hungary's fellow Visegrad countries Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland, whose ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is also often at loggerheads with the EU. He said a victory for Silvio Berlusconi's party in Italy's March 4 election would strengthen the nationalist fold. "We don't think the fight is hopeless, on the contrary, we are winning," Orban said. "The V4 is firm, Croatia has come around, Austria has turned in the patriotic direction, and in Bavaria the CSU has created a resistance." (Reporting by Marton Dunai; Editing by Catherine Evans) Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Catholic bishop purges the names of his predecessors from church buildings for failing to protect children On Wednesday, Bishop Ronald Gainer of the Catholic diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ordered that the names of all previous Harrisburg bishops from the past seven decades be removed from church buildings and rooms, because they collectively failed to protect children from dozens of predators priests and other Catholic leaders. No other Catholic prelate has conducted such a blanket purge of his predecessors' legacies, The New York Times reports. © Claudio Reyes/AFP/Getty Images Catholic Church deals with sex abuse fallout At the same time, Gainer released the names of 71 clergy and seminarians who've been credibly accused of sexual misconduct involving children dating back to 1947, apologized on behalf of the diocese and himself, waived any confidentiality agreements abuse survivors may have signed in legal settlements with the diocese, and released new guidelines for protecting children in the church. Grainer said he wanted to release the list of accused predators earlier but was asked to wait until a state grand jury inquiry into abuse in six Pennsylvania Catholic diocese, including Harrisburg, was complete. A spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who ordered the two-year investigation of Catholic sex abuse, said the Harrisburg diocese had pushed to end the grand jury investigation last year. The grand jury's findings, including allegations against more than 300 priests accused of sexual abuse dating back to 1947, will likely be released this month after the state Supreme Court gave the green light. The Catholic Church is already reeling over the revelations that former Washington Archbishop Theodore McCormick, who resigned as a cardinal over the weekend after being sanctioned by Pope Francis, has been credibly accused of sexually abusing at least two boys decades ago. McCarrick, 88, faces a trial at the Vatican and has been barred from saying public Mass.

New Audio From The Night Of The Las Vegas Massacre Reveals That There Was “Another Active Shooter” In The Bar At The Top Of The Mandalay Bay Hotel During The Attack Newly released audio from the Clark County Fire Department has provided even more proof that there were multiple shooters during The Las Vegas Massacre, further debunking the official narrative of a lone gunman on the 32nd floor and once again calling into question almost every aspect of what actually happened during the worst mass shooting in American history. The audio, released on the SoundCloud account of a local news reporter, is an almost three hour recording of transmissions between dispatch and units on the ground amid the confusion of the mass shooting that at one point details a report that a wife of a firefighter was actually pinned down in the Foundation Room bar on top of the Mandalay Hotel. Intellihub’s Shepard Ambellas, who has extensively reported on the entire Vegas cover-up since the beginning, recently found that at around the 1:27:54 mark of the audio file you can clearly hear dispatch describing the situation to first responders who are headed in that direction. “We have a firefighter’s wife at this event who is pinned down behind the bar at Mandalay Bay. We are trying to get further on the name,” dispatch frantically notes. “Batallion 6, be advised that we are getting reports on Mandalay Bay, at the bar, we currently have, another active shooter up there.” After being asked to confirm the information, dispatch goes on to make clear that she is specifically speaking about the bar at the top of the hotel rather than anywhere near the 32nd floor room that Stephen Paddock supposedly operated from. “The only information I have is it’s the bar on top of the Mandalay Bay,” dispatch continues before being asked if the shooter was pinned down or “just sheltering right now?” Interestingly, the story doesn’t end there, as Ambellas wrote in his piece, author and entrepreneur Grant Cardone was actually holding an investors meeting in the very same bar shortly before the attack took place. The popular social media influencer apparently left the Foundation Room literally seven minutes before authorities claim Paddock opened fire from his 32nd floor room. Cardone wrote about his experience in a post on Medium in which he claimed that the Mandalay Bay was telling visitors that there was at least one active shooter, “moving” throughout the hotel shooting people. It was reported by the Mandalay there was a shooter moving through the hotel. I told Elena and Johnny, “stay close to me, we are not running out, stay calm, there is one person in charge — where I go, you follow, no matter what.” […] About this time, there was starting to be a lot more activity through the casino and now the reports suggested there was active multiple terrorists moving through the hotel shooting guest. Then twitter started showing up with feeds suggesting multiple hotels being attacked, bomb threats, and more. This new report documenting yet another instance of a possible second shooter comes on the heels of dozens of similar reports, with the most recent arriving in the form of air traffic control audio that directly stated that there were active shooters on the runway. “During the air traffic control recordings, which were released by political strategist and co-founder of “The New Right” Mike Tokes, one of the dispatchers is heard telling an incoming plane that landing might not be a good idea because there were multiple active shooters on the airport property itself,” SHTFplan reported. “Shutting down might not be a good idea, there’s active shooters on the runway,” he declared. “The 19s are closed, we are in the process of trying to round them up, they are on the airport property.” Air traffic control tapes on the night of the Las Vegas shooting: “There’s active shooters on the runway. They’re on the airport property” pic.twitter.com/HZf3LBeAgk — Mike Tokes (@MikeTokes) October 29, 2017 Slowly but surely we are beginning to see the truth about the horrific attack come to light despite authorities desperately trying to prevent it from reaching the American people. Sadly, the picture emerging is one that includes a shocking amount of evidence pointing towards a classic deep state false flag operation.

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

9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad [Pre-Order Jamie Glazov's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us, HERE.] Editors’ note: In light of the skyrocketing phenomenon of Muslim migrants stabbing unbelievers in random stabbing sprees in Europe, as well as the calculated denial that leaders, authorities and media are enforcing about it, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to the crucial steps America and the West must take to robustly confront the unceasing onslaught by Jihad and its leftist enablers. We are, therefore, reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s July 12, 2016 Breitbart article, "9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad". Having written the article in the closing chapter of the disastrous Obama administration, the author recognizes and celebrates the life-saving turn-around disposition that the Trump administration has brought in to counter Jihad. Frontpage is most confident that the suggested steps below will continue to be the overall focus of the new administration -- which, thankfully, is now taking many of the crucial and constructive steps vis-à-vis our enemy. We find the article more relevant and urgent than ever due to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 approaching tomorrow: * 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad. By Jamie Glazov While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor. Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism: 1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment. The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law). 2. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.” “Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country. For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security. The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage. 3. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups. The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it. 4. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy. After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them. Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing. 5. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign. The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch. Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam. Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.” The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands. 6. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious. Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious. 7. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools. Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5). Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now. 8. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government. Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam. (P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.) 9. 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 Sharia 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. We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other. Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at [email protected]

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

No Justice for Kate Steinle A San Francisco jury on Thursday found Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, also known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, not guilty of the murder of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier on July 1, 2015. The jury of six men and six women, including three immigrants, found the Mexican national not guilty of all murder and manslaughter charges and guilty only of felony possession of a firearm. For Garcia’s Zarate’s attorney, Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election, the trial was all about Donald Trump. “For those who might criticize this verdict – there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years,” Gonzalez said after the verdict, “the Attorney General of the United States and the President and Vice President of the United States. Let me just remind them, they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case.” “From day one this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment a program of mass deportation,” added defense attorney Francisco Ugarte. “It was used to catapult a presidency along that philosophy of hate of others. I believe today is a day of vindication for the rights of immigrants.” Alex Bastian of the San Francisco prosecutor’s office told reporters the verdict “was not the one we were hoping for,” but the Steinle family could be forgiven for any reasonable doubts about the prosecution. “We’re just shocked — saddened and shocked ... that’s about it,” Jim Steinle, Kate’s father, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “There’s no other way you can coin it. Justice was rendered, but it was not served.” Kate’s brother Brad was “stunned that they couldn’t even get him on using the weapon.” Attorney David Wohl told Fox News that with negligent discharge of a firearm, the defendant’s action met every standard for involuntary manslaughter. The verdict, Wohl said, was “an utter and complete and total failure by the prosecutor.” Conservative Ben Shapiro told Fox news the verdict was “horrifying. . . Politics trumps evidence in California once again.” For Jeff Sessions San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy “led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.” According to the Attorney General’s statement, the Justice Department “will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their communities above the convenience of criminal aliens.” For his part, President Trump tweeted: “A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.” Mexican national Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 54, is a seven-time felon and has been deported five times. In 2015 federal authorities sought to detain him for deportation. San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi chose to defy the feds and release the Mexican national. On July 1, 2015, the criminal illegal picked up a Sig Sauer .40 caliber pistol, stolen from a Bureau of Land Management officer, and fired the shot that killed Kate Steinle, only 32 years old. The Mexican nation and career criminal enjoyed all the rights of the American legal system, the presumption of innocence, and a high-profile defense attorney funded by American taxpayers. During the trial, former vice presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez claimed that Garcia Zarate’s background and nationality played a role in his prosecution. As Gonzalez argued, “If this was a college student or Swedish kid would he be charged with murder?” That sort of politically correct nonsense plays well in San Francisco, so any observer of the case could be forgiven for believing that prosecution and defense both got the outcome they wanted, regardless of the tragedy for the Steinle family. The felony firearms charge, the only charge on which Garcia Zarate was found guilty, carries a sentence of 16 months to 3 years. Since Garcia Zarate has been languishing in jail, the authorities could commute any sentence to time served and he could walk free within weeks. San Francisco is not likely to hand the felon over to ICE for deportation. Should that happen, Garcia Zarate has already proved five times that anybody can get away with violating U.S. immigration law. He has already proved that in the sanctuary state of California, false-documented illegals are a privileged class. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, or whatever his real name is, has also proved that a career criminal who is not even supposed to be in the country can literally get away with murder in broad daylight. When that happens, the killer’s public defender will call it a “vindication for the rights of immigrants.” In San Francisco, and across California, this verdict will surely give new meaning to the cry of “no justice, no peace.”

Tenth bishop signs ‘Profession of Immutable Truths’ in defense of marriage NewsCatholic Church, Family, Marriage ROME, February 6, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – His Excellency Elmar Fischer, bishop emeritus of Feldkirch, Austria, has signed the “Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage,” LifeSiteNews confirmed on Monday. Bishop Fischer is the tenth prelate to sign the profession. As has been widely reported, three bishops in Kazakhstan – Tomash Peta, Jan Pawel Lenga, and Athanasius Schneider – issued a Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage on Dec. 31, 2017. The profession was made public on Jan. 2, 2018. In the document, the three bishops solemnly professed the Church’s received teaching and discipline regarding sacramental marriage and the limited conditions (see Familiaris Consortio, n. 84) under which Catholics who are civilly divorced and joined in a second union may receive sacramental absolution and Holy Communion. Ordained to the priesthood in 1961, Fischer headed the Marriage and Family Centre of the Feldkirch diocese from 1979 to 1990. After serving as vicar general of the diocese from 1989, in 2005 Pope Benedict XVI appointed him bishop of Felkirch where he served until 2011, retiring at the age of 75. Bishop Fischer’s support of the profession comes one week after Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakstan, invited the world’s bishops to sign the document and join in raising a common voice in defense of the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. “God decides the time, and the time will come when the Pope and the episcopacy again will proclaim, with all clarity, unambiguity and beauty, the sanctity of marriage, and of the family, and of the Eucharist,” Schneider told LifesiteNews in an exclusive Jan. 15 interview. Schneider said greater public support of the document from the world’s 5,000 bishops would be “a stronger voice for professing the constant truths of the Church, and it would be a beautiful common voice defending the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage in the midst of a real neo-pagan society where divorce has become a plague and where sexual depravity is increasingly spreading.” Bishop Fischer’s public support of the Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage brings the number of signatories to nine bishops and one cardinal. To date, in addition to the three original signatories from Kazakstan, the following prelates have signed the profession: • Cardinal Janis Pujats, Emeritus Archbishop Metropolitan of Riga, Latvia • Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò of Italy and former apostolic nuncio to the United States • His Excellency Luigi Negri, Archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy • Bishop Andreas Laun, Emeritus Auxiliary of Salzburg, Austria • His Excellency Rene Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA • His Excellency Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop of Chur, Switzerland • His Excellency Elmar Fischer, Bishop emeritus of Feldkirch, Austria.

I'll Say What Kavanaugh Wouldn't: Christine Ford Was Part Of The Political Hit On Him & Here's The Audio Evidence On Thursday, following the hearings where Dr. Christine Ford provided testimony under oath without any evidence at all of a 36-year-old alleged sexual attack by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, Kavanaugh denied the allegations and blasted Senate Democrats for their involvement in ruining his good name. However, when asked by Senator Cory Booker whether or not Kavanaugh thought Ford was part of what Kavanaugh referred to as a "political hit" against him, Kavanaugh rightly steered clear of a public relations disaster. However, I am willing to say would he would not: Of course, she was part of it! I don't say this lightly. There are many things that we heard from Ford on Thursday that indicate there is more going on than she was willing to say. Clearly, Ford has been outed as a radical political activist who promotes baby murder and other unlawful actions. However, her story didn't exactly lend credibility except with Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of which has openly professed to sexual assault. take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. However, Ford claims she never authorized her July letter to Senator Feinstein to be made public and yet, it was. She didn't seem distraught over that. She wasn't angry it was made public. Why? She knew it would be made public. Ricki Seidman, a Democratic operative and former Clinton White House official who is now an advisor to Mrs. Ford, said in July (at roughly the same time as the letter was submitted) that she predicted a "strategy" forming to destroy Brett Kavanaugh. She suggested a “strategy will emerge” to destroy Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court in a conference call with the American Constitution Society in July. “I do think that over the coming days and weeks there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee,” Seidman said in audio that was recorded by the Republican National Committee’s War Room. “And whether or not it ultimately defeats the nominee it will, I think, help people understand why it’s so important that they vote.” If you think Mrs. Ford is ignorant of this considering her father works for the Central Intelligence Agency and her prior criminal political activism, then you aren't thinking clearly. Ford obviously has mental issues and that was on display on Thursday during her testimony. She clearly tried to present herself as a victim while she accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault with absolutely no evidence. Kavanaugh even responded by pointing out that even her friends said they don't recall such an incident and had literally hundreds of people commend his character as the direct opposite of what Ford claims. As I've said before, I don't support Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court on the grounds of lack of constitutional rulings, but that attack on him was orchestrated, it was political and Ford was a part of it. It's wrong. Ford didn't even think to act, according to her testimony, until Kavanaugh was on the short list, but did she go to local law enforcement? Nope. She went to her US Democrat representative, Senator Dianne Feinstein and The Washington Post. If that is not political, I don't know what is. Ford is not seeking justice nor is she seeking to do her "civic duty." She is seeking to slander a man's character for something she cannot prove that she claims happened over 36 years ago. Kavanaugh's nomination was passed out of committee on Friday and will go to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote. For a quick run down of the political hit on Kavanaugh, take a look at this short synopsis by Paul Joseph Watson. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex-Navy sailor pardoned by Trump says he's suing Comey and Obama A former Navy sailor who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials, alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law. Specifically, Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, argues that the same officials who meted out punishment to him for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and handling of classified information. His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must lapse before the lawsuit actually is filed. “We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.” While campaigning, and after taking office, Trump frequently voiced support for Saucier, who in March became the second person he pardoned. Trump often compared the Obama administration’s handling of Saucier’s case with that of Clinton. Saucier, who lives in Vermont, pleaded guilty in 2016 to taking photos inside the USS Alexandria while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut, in 2009. He said he only wanted service mementos, but federal prosecutors argued he was a disgruntled sailor who had put national security at risk by taking photos showing the submarine's propulsion system and reactor compartment and then obstructed justice by destroying a laptop and camera. Saucier said that he recognized he had erred in taking the photos, which he said he wanted to show only to his family to show them where he worked. But he lashed out at Obama officials, saying that his prosecution was politically motivated, prompted by sensitivity about classified information amid the scandal involving Clinton's emails. “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” he said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton.” Saucier, 31, said that the pardon has enabled him to pick up the pieces and rebuild his life with his wife and young daughter. A felony conviction left him scrambling to find work; he finally landed a job collecting garbage. Now, he works on design and engineering projects for an industrial boiler company. “Things are starting to go in the right direction,” Saucier said. “I work with a group of really great people, I get to use my skills set.” Because of the loss of income during his imprisonment, as well as earning below his potential when he collected garbage, he and his wife Sadie lost their home to foreclosure. Debt collectors called and his cars were repossessed. “With a pardon there’s no magic wand that that gets waved and makes everything right,” he said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” He praises the pardons that Trump has granted, and takes exception at the criticism. “The Obama administration singled out Dinesh for things most people don’t even get charged for,” Saucier said. “President Trump noticed that my career was exemplary and that I didn’t deserve what happened to me. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, who was pardoned by Trump last week, had pleaded guilty to campaign finance fraud. Trump tweeted Thursday: "Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D'Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!" D'Souza was sentenced in 2014 to five years of probation after he pleaded guilty to violating federal election law by making illegal contributions to a U.S. Senate campaign in the names of others. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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

People Call On White House To Pardon Oregon Ranchers Steve & Dwight Hammond A couple of years ago, I introduced you to the Hammon family, a rancher family out of Oregon that was targeted after the patriarch in the family and his son went to jail for doing what ranchers do, setting fires to protect property and livestock. However, in the day and age of unmitigated "terrorism" charges, once they served their sentence the federal government went after both men for more time inside their prison for profit system. Their story ultimately led to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge protest, which led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum. Now, many who have seen what took place both in the Oregon trials and the Bundy Ranch trials are calling on President Donald Trump to issue a pardon for Steve and Dwight Hammond. According to the White House petition on behalf of Dwight and Steven Hammond by Protect The Harvest: The Hammond case is viewed by many in the West, and indeed across the nation, as a manifest miscarriage of justice akin to double jeopardy. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. As long as Dwight and Steven Hammond remain in jail for what is obviously a gross miscarriage of justice, this matter remains a blight on the federal regulatory agencies and the criminal justice system. Rural communities of the West are greatly appreciative of the efforts of the Trump administration to restore the economies of these communities. We respectfully ask President Trump to pardon Dwight and Steven Hammond. I completely agree with that assessment and fully support President Trump pardoning these men. They are the furthest thing from terrorists. They are hard-working, family ranchers who simply were doing their job. I've written on the Hammond's case in several articles, which you can view below. Many of you followed these stories when the mainstream wouldn't cover them. Many of you followed Bundy Ranch until after the trials, but when we asked for people to step up and sign a petition to bring Bundy Ranch prosecutor Steven Myhre to justice for his crimes, we couldn't get 1,000 signatures. Please, put yourself in the position of these humble ranchers and consider if you would appreciate someone simply taking the time to put their name on a petition to which the President of the united States might have to respond to by setting these men free. Consider that and then, please, support the petition by clicking here.

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

NASA captures farthest ever image from Earth © Press Release The historic photograph taken by the New Horizons spacecraft. Pic: NASA NASA has released a record-breaking photograph taken by the New Horizons spacecraft when it was 3.79 billion miles away from the Earth. New Horizons flew past Pluto in July 2015, taking pictures which revealed an even more diverse landscape than scientists had previously imagined. After the fly-by, the spacecraft continued into the Kuiper Belt - similar to the asteroid belt but further out from the Sun and composed of dwarf planets and frozen ice, rather than rocky bodies. Now, using its Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI), the spacecraft has photographed several Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs) and dwarf planets at unique angles. © Other A zoomed-in version of the 'Pale Blue Dot' image The false-colour images released by NASA are the farthest from Earth ever captured by a spacecraft, and are also the closest-ever images of Kuiper Belt objects. New Horizons was even further away from Earth than the Voyager 1 space probe when it turned towards the Earth on 14 February 1990 and took a picture of a tiny dot. In 1994, US astronomer Carl Sagan reflected on the significance of the photograph to an audience at Cornell University, famously coining its name as the "Pale Blue Dot", and giving one of the most widely published speeches of all time. © Getty Carl Sagan and the 'Pale Blue Dot' photograph New Horizons is only the fifth man-made spacecraft to ever travel beyond the outer planets, and many of its activities are setting distance records, according to NASA. In December it successfully carried out the most-distant course-correction manoeuvre ever, with the mission team guiding it towards a close-encounter with a KBO scheduled for 1 January 2019. "That New Year's flight past MU69 will be the farthest planetary encounter in history, happening one billion miles beyond the Pluto system - which New Horizons famously explored in July 2015," said NASA. Fortunately, the spacecraft is healthy and functioning properly, although it is currently in hibernation. The mission controllers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, will bring the spacecraft out of its electronic slumber in June to begin a series of system checkouts and other activities to prepare it for the next record-breaking encounter.

Homeschooling Protects Children from Violence and Marxism The February mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida prompted many parents to consider homeschooling. This is hardly surprising, as the misnamed federal “Gun-Free Schools” law leaves schoolchildren defenseless against mass shooters. Removing one’s children from government schools seems a rational response to school shootings. School shootings are not the only form of violence causing more parents to consider homeschooling. Many potential homeschooling parents are concerned about the failure of school administrators to effectively protect children from bullying by other students. Of course, many parents choose homeschooling as a means of protecting their children from federal education “reforms” such as Common Core. Other parents are motivated by a desire to protect their children from the cultural Marxism that has infiltrated many schools. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The spread of cultural Marxism has contributed to the dumbing down of public education. Too many government schools are more concerned with promoting political correctness than ensuring that students receive a good education. Even if cultural Marxism did not dumb down education, concerns that government schools are indoctrinating children with beliefs that conflict with parents’ political, social, and even religious beliefs would motivate many families to homeschool. Even when government schools are not intentionally promoting cultural Marxism or other left-wing ideologies, they are still implicitly biased toward big government. For example, how many government schools teach the Austrian economics explanation for the Great Depression — much less question the wisdom of central banking — or critically examine the justifications for America’s hyper-interventionist foreign policy? Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education emphasizing the ideas of liberty should consider looking into my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior oral and verbal communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own internet businesses. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education. While government schools — and even many private schools — pretend religion played no significant role in history, my curriculum addresses the crucial role religion played in the development of Western civilization. However, the materials are drafted in such a way that any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist parent can feel comfortable using the curriculum. Interactive forums allow students to engage with and learn from each other. The forums ensure students are actively engaged in their education as well as give them an opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting. Concern about the safety of students in government-run schools is one reason many parents are considering homeschooling, but it is not the only reason. Many parents are motivated by a desire to give their children something better than a curriculum that has been dumbed down by federal initiatives like Common Core. Other parents do not wish to have their children indoctrinated with views that contradict the parents’ political, social, or even religious beliefs. I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools —alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program. Article posted with permission from Ron Paul

The Goal Of Eliminating Guns Is Ultimately A Fool’s Errand It is said that the DOJ's recent settlement with start-up company Defense Distributed (DD) essentially deals a death blow to gun control advocates. DD, based in Austin, TX, was founded by 25-year-old Cody Wilson in 2013. The company's main product is a "gun fabricator" called the Ghost Gunner. With nothing but the Ghost Gunner, an internet connection, and some raw materials, anyone, anywhere can make an unmarked, untraceable gun in their home or garage. The settlement states that 3D printing tutorials are approved “for public release (i.e. unlimited distribution) in any form.” Wilson created a ruckus in May 2013 when he announced his successful design of a plastic gun. In just two days, 100,000 copies of the handgun blueprint were downloaded from Wilson’s website. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The most downloads came from Spain, followed by the U.S., Brazil and Germany. The heavy downloading in Spain, Brazil and Germany likely reflected attempts to evade extremely restrictive handgun regulations in those countries. Within days of the gun file being uploaded, the Obama State Department served Wilson with a letter threatening criminal prosecution for violating federal export controls. Wilson immediately complied with the order, but there was no way to stop further downloading. Within a week of the initial uploading, the file could be downloaded on the Internet from over 4,000 different computers around the world. In 2015, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and DD sued the State Department, arguing that "sharing instructions on how to make guns with 3D printers counts as constitutionally protected speech. This is an important victory for First Amendment rights." The Justice Department’s recent settlement with Wilson is very favorable to him, allowing Wilson to provide the printing instructions “for public release (meaning unlimited distribution) in any form.” The government also compensated $40,000 of Wilson’s legal costs. While this settlement is a victory for First Amendment rights, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the government to regulate either the printers or the guns that are made with them. How the government will stop people from obtaining these printers isn’t exactly obvious. Proposals to require background checks, mandatory serial numbers and even a registration process for printers are easily defeated. Even if printers are registered with the government, what is going to stop gangs from stealing them? And the designs for making your own printer have been available on the Internet for years. 3D printers make the already extremely difficult job of controlling access to guns practically impossible. The government is not going to be able to ban guns, and limits on the size of bullet magazines will be even more laughable than before. Many parts of a gun can be made on very inexpensive, plastic 3D printers or even from simple machine tools. It will be even more difficult to impose background checks, which have proven quite useless anyway. The government has been no more effective at stopping criminals from getting guns than at stopping them from obtaining drugs. That isn’t too surprising, as drug gangs are the source of both illegal drugs and guns. This was a tough battle for the plaintiff's, SAF and DD. They lost many lower court rulings. Gun-control advocates believe that the government "capitulated" too soon. J. Adam Skaggs, the chief counsel for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the administration “capitulated in a case it had won at every step of the way. This isn’t a case where the underlying facts of the law changed. The only thing that changed was the administration.” The concept of making guns with 3D printers in an age where just one year can render much technology obsolete shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should the fact that instructions for gun assembly are easily available for download over the internet. At the click of a mouse, we can summon almost any information we could possibly need including instructions for making a bomb. The ability to build an untraceable, unregistered gun is definitely a game changer. It's difficult to see how "ghost guns" could ever be regulated by the government.

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

London Borough With Highest Percentage Of Muslims In UK Votes To Ban Trump From Entering I’m sure President Trump is deeply disappointed in not being able to enter Tower Hamlets. But this ridiculous exercise in virtue-signaling, even though it has not (yet) been taken up by the Home Office, only highlights Britain’s hypocrisy and double standards regarding who can enter the country and who cannot. Pamela Geller and I are banned from entering the country for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. 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. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. “London: Muslim Enclave Votes to ‘Ban Trump,’” by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, January 20, 2018: A London borough – which has the highest percentage of Muslims in the UK – has voted to ban U.S. President Donald J. Trump for the area, declaring him a “bigot”. The council has been at the centre of serious corruption scandals, including the removal of an Islamist mayor who was found guilty of bribing Muslim groups and wielding “undue spiritual influence” on Muslim voters. The anti-Trump motion, proposed by Councillor Ohid Ahmed and Councillor Oliur Rahman, passed by a majority vote this week. It calls for President Trump’s planned state visit to the United Kingdom to be cancelled, adding: “Should the Government still choose to go ahead with State Visit, this Council makes clear that President Trump would not be welcome in our Borough.” The area in East London includes the famous Tower Bridge and Canary Wharf, but the ban does not appear to be enforceable. The current Labour mayor, John Biggs, complained that President Trump “doesn’t applaud diversity [and] doesn’t respect the culture of others and doesn’t respect women”. The mayor added: “He is failing in his leadership and we should not welcome him here. We must be vigorous in our intolerance of his intolerance.” In response to the news, Peter Golds, the leader of the Conservatives group in the council, tweeted: “In 2015 one of the Tower Hamlets First election candidates tweeted ‘let us support Hitler the Great.’ These people, corruptly elected, have no shame. For the record, our group refused to vote in this farce.” “Tower Hamlets is home to one of the country’s most diverse communities,” the motion begins, adding that it “has the highest percentage of Muslim residents in England – 35 per cent compared with the national average of 5 per cent”. After several paragraphs of platitudes about “community cohesion” and “diversity”, it says “this Council notes with shock and alarm the decision by Donald Trump, President of the United States, to ‘retweet’ Islamophobic propaganda from the Britain First Twitter account”. It also bemoans that he has allegedly “bigoted attitude towards women, ethnic minorities and Muslims which has resulted in examples of division and hatred within the USA and beyond” and attacks his “illogical” decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The motion also notes that the neighbouring Royal Borough of Greenwich formally adopted a similar motion in December last year…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

America's Immigration Voice. The Kurds have no friends but the mountains, is an old lament . Last week, it must have been very much on Kurdish minds. As their U.S. allies watched, the Kurdish peshmerga fighters were run out of Kirkuk and all the territory they had captured fighting ISIS alongside the Americans. The Iraqi army that ran them out was trained and armed by the United States. The U.S. had warned the Kurds against holding the referendum on independence on Sept. 25, which carried with 92 percent. Iran and Turkey had warned against an independent Kurdistan that could be a magnet for Kurdish minorities in their own countries. But the Iraqi Kurds went ahead. Now they have lost Kirkuk and its oil, and their dream of independence is all but dead. More troubling for America is the new reality revealed by the rout of the peshmerga. Iraq, which George W. Bush and the neocons were going to fashion into a pro-Western democracy and American ally, appears to be as close to Iran as it is to the United States. After 4,500 U.S. dead, scores of thousands wounded and a trillion dollars sunk, our 15-year war in Iraq could end with a Shiite-dominated Baghdad aligned with Tehran. With that grim prospect in mind, Secretary Rex Tillerson said Sunday , "Iranian militias that are in Iraq, now that the fight against ... ISIS is coming to a close ... need to go home. Any foreign fighters in Iraq need to go home." Tillerson meant Iran's Quds Force in Iraq should go home, and the Shiite militia in Iraq should be conscripted into the army. But what if the Baghdad regime of Haider al-Abadi does not agree? What if the Quds Force does not go home to Iran and the Shiite militias that helped retake Kirkuk refuse to enlist in the Iraqi army? Who then enforces Tillerson's demands? Consider what is happening in Syria. The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, largely Kurdish, just annihilated ISIS in Raqqa and drove 60 miles to seize Syria's largest oil field, al-Omar, from ISIS. The race is now on between the SDF and Bashar Assad's army to secure the border with Iraq. Bottom line: The U.S. goal of crushing the ISIS caliphate is almost attained. But if our victory in the war against ISIS leaves Iran in the catbird seat in Baghdad and Damascus, and its corridor from Tehran to Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut secure, is that really a victory? Do we accept that outcome, pack up and go home? Or do we leave our forces in Syria and Iraq and defy any demand from Assad to vacate his country? Sunday's editorial in The Washington Post, "The Next Mideast Wars," raises the crucial questions now before us. Would President Trump be willing to fight a new war to keep Iran from consolidating its position in Iraq and Syria? Would the American people support such a war with U.S. troops? Would Congress, apparently clueless to the presence of 800 U.S. troops in Niger, authorize a new U.S. war in Syria or Iraq? If Trump and his generals felt our vital interests could not allow Syria and Iraq to drift into the orbit of Iran, where would we find allies for such a fight? If we rely on the Kurds in Syria, we lose NATO ally Turkey, which regards Syria's Kurds as collaborators of the PKK in Turkey, which even the U.S. designates a terrorist organization. The decision as to whether this country should engage in new post-ISIS wars in the Mideast, however, may be taken out of our hands. Saturday, Israel launched new air strikes against gun positions in Syria in retaliation for shells fired into the Golan Heights. Damascus claims that Israel's "terrorist" allies inside Syria fired the shells, to give the IDF an excuse to attack. Why would Israel wish to provoke a war with Syria? Because the Israelis see the outcome of the six-year Syrian civil war as a strategic disaster. Hezbollah, stronger than ever, was part of Assad's victorious coalition. Iran may have secured its land corridor from Tehran to Beirut. Its presence in Syria could now be permanent. And only one force in the region has the power to reverse the present outcome of Syria's civil war--the United States. Bibi Netanyahu knows that if war with Syria breaks out, a clamor will arise in Congress to have the U.S. rush to Israel's aid. "A failure by the United States to defend its allies or promote new political arrangements for (Syria and Iraq) will lead only to more war, the rise of new terrorist threats, and, ultimately, the necessity of more U.S. intervention." Closing its Sunday editorial the Post instructed the president:The interventionist Post is saying: The situation is intolerable. Confront Assad and Iran now, or fight them later. Trump is being led to the Rubicon. If he crosses, he joins Bush II in the history books. 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

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

Obama Was Never As Tough On Russia As Trump This is just silly. The constant hand-wringing, from the left-wing media, over President Trump’s loyalties and his connection with Russia is just silly. The media has been hanging on every word the President says and arguing that his rhetoric is proof positive that he is some kind of Russian mole. The only problem with this thesis? Everything that the President is DOING belies their argument. If President Trump were a mole, wouldn’t he have made life easier for Putin? Wouldn’t he have eased sanctions? Wouldn’t he have been less confrontational than Obama in Syria? Wouldn’t the President be making Putin’s attempts at expanding his influence easier? take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Instead, President Trump’s POLICIES have actually made life more difficult for Putin at every turn. Here’s The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway explaining: Our relationship with Russia is at a significant low point where just having some conversations can lead us to a better outcome. And there are so many important things that they are involved with that we care about, whether it’s Syria, Ukraine, North Korea or nuclear arms. I’m kind of surprised there’s been this much angst over this press conference. Not that he said things the way he should have. President Trump really did mess up with that press conference but I don’t quite know what people want. He actually is pretty tough on Russia. And in the last couple of years, we’ve seen an increase in the military budget, we’ve seen an increase in the intelligence budget. We are doing NATO exercises in the Baltics. We provided legal aid to Ukraine and Georgia. We’re developing low-yield nuclear weapons. He implemented sanctions that were even stronger than required by Congressional mandate. So if you care about actual actions, I think there’s a lot to be happy about in terms of a tough posture towards Russia. People are obsessed about words and they should maybe focus on the actions as well. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, concurred with Hemingway arguing that by any standard Trump has been far tougher on Russia than Obama was. First, the very people who have been loudest in attacking President Trump about his performance at the Helsinki summit are the people who failed to protect America from Russian meddling in 2016. The very intensity and nastiness of former CIA Director Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence Clapper is an attempt to distract attention from their failure to protect America. It was their duty in 2016 – not candidate Trump’s. Second, the Trump administration has been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever dreamed of being. The Trump administration is taking real actions designed to weaken Russia and force Putin to change his aggressive behavior. The Trump administration has levied tough sanctions on Russia. Also, President Trump’s public lecture about Germany not buying natural gas from Russia was aimed at cutting Putin off from hard currency worth tens of billions of dollars and further weakening the Russian economy. Furthermore, President Trump’s efforts to get our European allies to increase their defense spending has a direct impact on Putin. The stronger NATO is, the less maneuvering room Russia has. Beyond pressuring our allies, consider these specific steps President Trump has taken against Russia: Where President Obama refused to provide serious weapons to the Ukrainians to help them defend themselves (his response was weakness on a pathetic scale), President Trump has approved the sale of offensive weapons to enable the Ukrainians to increase the cost of Russian aggression. When the Russians used chemical weapons in Great Britain, President Trump joined our allies and expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers from the United States. When the Russians retaliated, the Trump administration closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. President Trump had previously shuttered the Russian consulate in San Francisco and smaller annexes in Washington and New York. More than 100 Russian individuals and companies have been sanctioned for a variety of reasons. Despite the hysteria of the left, it is impossible to see the Trump administration as anything but firm in its dealing with Russia. Nothing done in Helsinki made life easier for the Putin regime in its continued economic decay and diplomatic isolation due to the sanctions regime. Any intellectually honest review of the last decade of foreign policy would lead one to admit that President Trump has most assuredly been tougher on Putin and Russia than Obama ever was. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com

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

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

Being Skeptical Of Documented Liars Attacking a Supreme Court Nominee Is A Good Thing - Here's Why If you don’t like President Trump and can’t understand how anyone could, look no further than the past week for an excellent example of what on Earth could’ve made a man promising to Drain the Swamp so popular. The Washington establishment politicians act like children when they can’t have their way. They kick and scream and lie and pout. President Trump is the anti-politician and when Congress continues to behave like this, he only gets more popular. President Trump nominated Bret Kavanaugh to the supreme court. He’s a pro-life judge and his vote will certainly tip the scales of justice to the right. The power that the Supreme Court has, some would argue, is greater in certain aspects than that of the president himself. Perhaps that’s why the 2016 election loss was so devastating to the Democrats. Trump potentially has the ability to nominate 3 Supreme Court justices during his presidency, thus shaping the laws and morals of this country for about the next 30 years. Personally, I trust very, very few politicians no matter the party that they claim. So, when a bunch of well-documented liars come out with yet another sexual assault allegation against a Trump appointee, let’s just say I’m skeptical and here’s why: take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Timing The most suspicious part of this whole situation is the timing. Christine Ford recalled the incident in 2006 She's known about this for over ten years, why come forward now? She's affiliated with the democratic party and the “resist” movement She hired a Clinton attorney, Lisa Banks She can produce exactly zero witnesses Any one of these (and dozens of other) circumstances by themselves are not enough to dismiss this allegation outright. However, taken together as a whole, it’s far too suspicious to lend it any credibility. Ladies, you demand to be believed, no matter what. Well, when every time there's a man that you don't like running for public office or being nominated for a position, some woman crawls out from a line of protesters and makes an ambiguous-at-best claim about unwanted sexual advances, it becomes increasingly difficult to take you seriously. No, an accusation against a man who has been investigated by the FBI six times prior and has 75 women publicly vouching for his character is not going to stop this process. And guess what, next time a man is nominated to a position who really has committed a crime, people will be that much less likely to believe his accuser. Way to go! By attempting to derail this process with such a pathetic attempt at a smear campaign, you have successfully made it much easier for a real sex offender to point back at this and say, “look, this is what they do"! Women everywhere should be furious. As an outsider, a regular Joe American, this is what I see: Trump nominates a very well known, well-established judge to the supreme court. Immediately every Democrat publicly stated that they would vote No for his confirmation. On the other hand, every Republican publicly stated that they would vote Yes. Currently, there's more Republicans in Congress than Democrats, which means the guy will be confirmed. There's an election 2 months away. The Democrats think that they'll take back the majority of Congress and will thus be able to block Trump's nomination. All they have to do is delay the confirmation until after the election. So, they dig up some Trump-hating woman from Kavanaugh’s past and convince her to say that he assaulted her thinking that such an allegation will surely delay the vote long enough for them to regain control of Congress. It’s not difficult to see through this plan. These are the facts. This is not my opinion. Everything else is just noise.

New Las Vegas Shooter Theory: “Rushed And Unprepared… Could Have Led To Accident Like Shooting Himself In The Head” It should be clear by now that the entire official narrative surrounding the Las Vegas shooting that left 59 people dead and hundreds injured is falling apart. From shooter Paddock’s check-in date and the existence of a second person in his room, to possible connections to a terrorist organization, as well as the the actual timeline of events, everything being disseminated by law enforcement and the mainstream media should now come under public scrutiny. In the last 24 hours the Sheriff’s Department has significantly revised the event timeline and a key incident involving the shooting of a Mandalay Bay security guard. Originally, as highlighted by The Daily Sheeple, the security guard was hailed as being responsible for preventing the shooter from continuing his massacre because he interrupted him in the middle of the attack. As it turns out, security guard Jesus Campos was actually shot BEFORE Paddock opened fire on the concert crowd below his 32nd floor hotel suite. As part of the constantly changing story, officials are now saying that police officers who rushed to the hotel room when the shooting began didn’t know a hotel security guard had been shot “until they met him in the hallway after exiting the elevator,” Lombardo said. The security guard, Jesus Campos, was struck in the leg as the gunman, from behind his door, shot into the hallway on the 32nd floor. Paddock apparently detected Campos via surveillance cameras he set up outside his hotel suite, police have said. Paddock shot the guard at 9:59 p.m. local time, Lombardo said, shortly before raining down bullets on the Route 91 Harvest festival in an attack that began at 10:05 p.m. and lasted 10 minutes. Police officers found Campos when they arrived on the floor. And Campos did not summon police to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, according to the timeline recently updated by the authorities. What’s also incredibly interesting, is that eyewitnesses claim to have seen security guards chasing another security guard in the minutes leading up to the massacre. The hotel guest in the room next to Paddock also saw “multiple gunmen.” The Full Report: The Ever-Changing Vegas Narrative: Gunman Shot Security Guard Before Massacre As of today, here is the revised timeline, as outlined by the Los Angeles Times: The new timeline has left investigators and researchers with new questions, two of which are extremely important: What happened during the 6 minutes between Campos being shot and Paddock opening fire, and why weren’t the police rushing to the scene immediately? Why did shooter Stephen Paddock stop shooting? Paddock had already shot the security guard, waited six minutes before opening fire on the concert crowd, and then shot for a full ten minutes. Police didn’t arrive for two additional minutes after the shooting stopped – which is a full 18 minutes from the moment Campos was initially hit. Moreover, did he stop shooting because he was planning his escape from the 32nd floor? Or is it possible that Paddock was rushed and in a state of panic? According to links and information shared by Thomas Wictor and a timeline assessment by Twitter user Mr. Alex, the plausibility of Paddock accidentally killing himself amid the confusion, adrenaline and panic is quite high: Latest LV Sheriff: Saying they still don’t know why he stopped shooting. @drawandstrike theory looking plausiblehttps://t.co/CQF3MZLHaN — Mr Alex ??? (@New_England_) October 10, 2017 While we may never know the exact circumstances surrounding what transpired in the shooter’s hotel room, the information being released not just by law enforcement, but witnesses to the event who recorded hundreds of cumulative hours of video and audio, now calls the entirety official story into question.

Senate Judiciary Committee Vote To Send Kavanaugh Nomination To The Floor The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 along party lines to advance the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh out of committee to the Senate floor for a vote. Of course, RINO Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) wanted to side with Senate Democrats in pushing for a FBI investigation into unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh. Outgoing Flake, and good riddance, said that he sided with his colleagues in having a "limited time and scope" investigation by the FBI into the allegations against Kavanaugh. Flake said that he believed it would be proper to delay the floor vote to allow the FBI to conduct an investigation "limited in time" to no more than one week. take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. "This country is being ripped apart here, and we've got to make sure we do due diligence," Flake said. He added that he would be more "comfortable" with an FBI investigation. Comfort? What about Judge Kavanaugh's comfort in being put through the ringer without a shred of evidence, Senator Flake? It's a good thing he'll be leaving the Senate. Perhaps Arizona will put someone in that actually has a spine rather than living up to Senator Flake's name. Why that investigation is needed is unclear since all the people Dr. Christine Ford named to be at the alleged house where the alleged attack took place all categorically denied the attack took place, including Ford's girl friend. The committee also voted against Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and his motion to subpoena Mark Judge before the committee. While Democrats appeared stunned, specifically self-professed sexual assaulter Cory Booker and Kamila Harris, that they were in the minority and couldn't control things despite eight years under the Obama regime where Republicans were subjected to far worse, the vote carried and Kavanaugh will be voted on in the US Senate. Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

Texas Mom: My Son Was Attacked For Wearing A MAGA Hat At Whataburger A Texas mother’s teenage son was allegedly attacked at a Whataburger for wearing a MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat. The mother posted the video of the incident on Facebook as evidence of her claims. The woman claimed a man became extremely angry at her teenage son and his group of friends because one of them wore a “Make American Great Again” hat, KENS5 reported. The hats have become noticeable and are often an outward expression of support of President Donald Trump. The video shows the man throwing his fountain drink at the table and shouting a racial slur. According to Breitbart, in the mother’s post on Facebook, which has since been taken down, Patricia Spittler asks for help in identifying the man she called “scum bag of the year.” The San Antonio CBS affiliate reported that Spittler wrote: “His friend was wearing a patriotic hat, and this happened! It would be nice to know who he is for someone to let him know his actions are not okay!” Spittler added: “Real tough guy… approaches a group of teenagers minding their own business just having a burger! He kept his hat, too.” The video found it’s way to Twitter, and it is slightly violent, so err on the side of caution if watching near children. Also be aware that there a few racial slurs in the video. Disturbing video of young Trump Supporter having his MAGA hat stolen and a drink thrown in his face. The civility of the Left on full display… pic.twitter.com/gUzBVRpP7X — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 5, 2018 As the video begins, the man says, “… supporting the president. You ain’t supporting shit nigga,” and then throws the drink in the face of a 16-year-old boy. With MAGA hat in hand, the man walks away saying “Bitch ass motherf**ker.” The boy, Hunter Richard, said the man also pulled his hair while taking the hat, according to reports by News4SA. “I support my President and if you don’t, let’s have a conversation about it instead of ripping my hat off. I just think a conversation about politics is more productive for the entire whole rather than taking my hat and yelling subjective words to me,” he told the local NBC affiliate. A police report was filed and a man was fired for stealing the hat and the assault (throwing a drink in a Trump supporter’s face.) The post below, claiming a person was fired for the actions against Richard, had been removed or made private, meaning some may not see it.

Western Michigan ICE operation nets 16 arrests over 4-day period KALAMAZOO, Mich. – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers arrested 16 individuals for violating federal immigration laws in western Michigan during a four-day targeted enforcement operation that ended Thursday. Nine of the immigration violators arrested during the operation were convicted criminals. Two individuals illegally re-entered the country after deportation. Depending on the alien’s criminal history, an alien who illegally reenters the United States, after having been previously removed, has committed a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Fourteen men and two women were arrested during the enforcement actions. With the exception of a Congolese man, all of those arrested were nationals of Mexico. Enforcement activities took place primarily in Berrien, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Van Buren counties. “This operation reflects ICE’s commitment to public safety through targeted enforcement efforts,” said Rebecca Adducci, field office director for ERO Detroit. “I applaud the brave men and women of ICE who put themselves in harm’s way daily to keep our community safe.” Criminal convictions of those arrested include but are not limited to domestic violence, DUI, operating while intoxicated, illegal entry, aggravated assault, assault and battery and carrying a concealed weapon. The arrests include: · A 19-year-old male Mexican national with a prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. · A 46-year-old male national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with convictions for aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and other charges. · A 36-year-old male Mexican national with convictions for assault and battery, aggravated assault, and other offenses. · A 56-year-old female Mexican national with a federal conviction for illegal entry. She is facing federal re-entry after deportation charges. All four remain in agency custody. The arrestees who are not being federally prosecuted will be processed administratively for removal from the United States. Those who have outstanding orders of removal, or who returned to the United States illegally after being deported, are subject to immediate removal from the country. The remaining individuals are in ICE custody awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge, or pending travel arrangements for removal in the near future.

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

Islamizing the Schools: The Case of West Virginia This is an outrage, but it is common nationwide: the Daily Caller News Foundation reports that Mountain Ridge Middle School in West Virginia is “instructing junior high students to write the Islamic profession of faith ostensibly to practice calligraphy.” Students are made to write out the Shahada, which states: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”This is exactly what I warned about in my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance , in the chapter “The Mosqueing of the Public Schools.”In order to convert to Islam, one says the shahada. Saying the shahada makes you a Muslim. The shahada is what is on the black flag of jihad. No non-Muslim student should be forced to write or say the shahada without the qualifier “Muslims believe that…” This is because it is a statement of faith. If the school exercise is requiring students to write it, it should be clear from the wording of the exercise that this is Islamic faith, not the student’s faith. That distinction has been glossed over in many, many school textbook presentations. This is in West Virginia, not Baghdad. And it’s a problem not just in West Virginia – it’s a national problem. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Rich Penkoski, the father of a Mountain Ridge student, contacted me and explained the situation further. He sent me the packets the school gave out for the Jewish and the Christian lessons and commented: Notice no bible verses, no reciting the 10 commandments or the Lord’s prayer. No practicing writing in Hebrew (not even the 10 commandments) as compared to the Islamic packet. There are no statements of faith, nothing asking the students to write it or practice in any of the Jewish or Christian rituals. Furthermore the principal of Mountain Ridge Middle School Dr. Branch has used my words against me by saying the teacher did tell the students about the Lord’s prayer (my daughter as well as 1 other said this is false)[.] He is using my arguments I made to him yesterday to protect the teacher. The teacher today told the students the assignment was optional. My daughter as well as other students were under the impression all the packet assignments were mandatory (the Jewish one and the Christian ones were mandatory). I wrote to Dr. Branch to share with him the resource that Miss Hinson used and point out that the material she gave the students did not include all the faith aspects for Christianity. The students received 2 pages for Christianity from this resource while all the Islamic sections were left intact. Here’s the link for you to review. You will notice all the faith elements were left out for Judaism and Christianity while the Islamic section was left the way it’s presented. https://www.gvsd.org/cms/lib/PA01001045/Centricity/Domain/610/World%20Religions.pdf So she decided to use the extra resources for Islam and the school is saying that’s not indoctrination or proselytizing? The faith aspects and the same considerations were not given to the others as they were for Islam. This actually further proves my point that Islam was afforded special privilege over the others. The school is backtracking and being deceptive to try and weasel out of this. The teacher today clarified things for the students but that still does not excuse the fact that they are teaching the Islamic faith and asking the kids to participate in Sharia. Look at the Islamic packet again. They are asking the kids to write the beginning of Surahs. The teacher still has not corrected the error that calligraphy was started by the arabs. They are doubling down and only after being called on it are they trying to backtrack. Rich Penkoski is hardly the first to protest this egregious submission to the most vicious and brutal ideology on the face of the Earth. In Volusia County, Florida, hundreds protested Islamic lessons in their “World History” text, a Common Core-approved high school history textbook. With an entire chapter dedicated to the virtues of Islam and not a single chapter for Christianity, the textbook had Floridians in a frenzy. And who is the biggest pusher of Common Core besides leftist progressives? The Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, along with the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In Florida, CAIR is on the offensive (more here). We have seen the increasing Islamization of the public-school curriculum. History lessons in Islam are dawah – proselytizing for Islam. Large public-school publishers have been bought by the Saudis. In West Virginia, it gets even worse. Rich Penkoski has alerted me to the latest development in the forced Islamization of his children’s school curriculum: after the Daily Caller and Geller Report exposed what was happening, Mountain Ridge administrators and teachers began messaging parents who were sharing the story, asking them to remove their posts. What do they have to hide? Apparently, a great deal. Worse still, Penkoski is now being threatened by students who attend the school with his daughter. (And who is behind them? Unidentified “adult friends.”) He sent this message to me: A student in the school threatened to get her adult friends to come to my home and kill me by stabbing me in the chest and ripping my organs out. They told my daughter “we are gonna get some people and kill your dad.” This student, who is known to me but whom I cannot name because she is a minor, has given students our address and is encouraging them to come to my home over this whole thing. Another student told my daughter that she and the first student and her adult friends are going to kill me and carve a satanic star in my chest and rip out my organs. They then threatened to hang my 3-year-old and 1-year-old and kidnap my 14-year-old. All this in school today because of the articles. This is not a joke and needs to be investigated. I have contacted the school’s principal, Dr. Branch, and I trust that he will take this matter seriously and deal with it appropriately. Is the principal acting on this? And do the police have any interest in this? Or would that be “islamofauxbic”? Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

Democrat’s Friend Louis Farrakhan In Iran: “Death to America!” – America Is The “Great Satan” Ah yes, Nation of Islam leader, racist, and totalitarian Louis Farrakhan was recently captured on video in Tehran, Iran chanting “Death to America” in Arabic and stating that America is the “Great Satan.” Louis Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam, met with Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of Iran‘s Expediency Discernment Council, on Sunday in Tehran. Heres’ what he had to say. Iran state TV news presenter: Listen to leader of Nation of Islam chanting "Death to America" Farrakhan [in Farsi]: "Death to…" Audience: "…America" pic.twitter.com/p0qGfHHfg0 — Sobhan Hassanvand (@Hassanvand) November 4, 2018 He then went on in a university speech to encourage the revolution and to persevere against the sanctions of the US, whom he referred to as the “Great Satan.” Louis Farrakhan Refers to the U.S. as "Great Satan" during a Tehran University Speech; Says to Iranians: If You Persevere in Your Revolution Despite the Sanctions, "Victory Will Be Yours." pic.twitter.com/7ZVloq2cXL — MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) November 5, 2018 Algemeiner reported: Nation of Islam leader and prominent antisemite Louis Farrakhan chanted “Death to America” and claimed that “America has never been a democracy” on Sunday during a solidarity trip to Iran, ahead of the re-implementation of US sanctions on the country this week. According to Iran’s semi-official state news agency Mehr, Farrakhan said at a meeting with the Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei that America is conspiring against Iran. “I understand how the enemies have plotted against the Iranian people and I would like to stay alongside you to stop their plots,” he said. He also blasted American support for Saudi Arabia, Iran’s arch-rival in the region, and added, “Satan seeks to divide Muslims and wants them to kill each other, while God tells us in the Quran to be united.” This man is a domestic terrorist and he assimilates with avowed enemies of the US, many of them US Democrats. What I want to know is why would Louis Farrakhan ever be allowed back inside our borders after such statements? Is this not treason of the first order? Furthermore, why are Democrats such as Keith Ellison, who has a long history of friendship with Farrakhan, despite the lies he tells to try and distance himself from Farrakhan for votes, not being arrested for his ties to this criminal traitor? And Ellison isn’t the only Democrat who approves of Farrakhan! H/T Gateway Pundit

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

Did Saint Francis Predict Pope Francis? Traditionalists are often derided by neo-Catholic commentators for relying on supposedly apocryphal quotations from Popes or saints bearing on the current ecclesial crisis. But these critics never demonstrate that the oft-cited quotations are apocryphal; they merely assert that they must be, as they seem too probative to be true. This is often done in comment boxes or responses to online queries at neo-Catholic websites, wherein the neo-Catholic commentator professes he can find no source for a given quotation—meaning he hasn’t bothered to do any serious investigation beyond a few Google searches. Take this quotation of Pius XII, for example, speaking in 1931 when he was still Monsignor Pacelli, serving as Pius XI’s Secretary of State: I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul…. I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?” When I first cited this quotation some 17 years ago, I was contacted by a very prominent neo-Catholic luminary who demanded a source for it, because he and his friends believed it was “apocryphal.” I did not receive the courtesy of a thank-you when I pointed him to pp. 52-53 of Msgr. Roche’s biography of Pius XII, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire (Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 1972), an out-of-print French-language work I managed to obtain after an extensive search of used book seller inventory. The French original text confirms the accuracy of the English translation I had seen before I cited the statement. A Modernist apostate priest, one Emile Poulet, who left the priesthood and married, attempted to cast doubt on the credibility of Msgr. Roche’s account of the words of the future Pius XII. Small wonder: Poulet, who died in 2014 at the age of 94, belonged to the “worker-priest” movement that none other than Pius XII had condemned, as I note here. His attempt to debunk the quotation involved nit-picking about what he claimed were factual errors elsewhere in the Roche biography. But he had no evidence that the quotation as such was a fabrication. He simply wished that it was so. Let’s give our neo-Catholic friends another “apocryphal” quotation to dismiss out of hand. This one pertains to an astonishing prophecy by Saint Francis of Assisi about a future occupant of the Chair of Peter: A short time before the holy Father’s [St. Francis’] death, he called together his children and warned them of the coming troubles: “Act bravely, my brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power; the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who obey the true Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal ears and perfect charity. “At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. “There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God…. “Those who persevere in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth… “Some preachers will keep silent about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” [paragraph breaks added] This quotation appears in Works of the Seraphic Father, St. Francis of Assisi, published in 1882 by the London-based Catholic publishing house R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250). It is readily available as a Google book. The same book, it must be noted, contains an appendix setting forth “Doubtful Works of Saint Francis,” of which the quotation is not part. Thus, the publisher itself carefully distinguished the authentic prophecies of Saint Francis from what might be apocryphal. Moreover, in 1882 there could hardly have been any “radical traditionalist” motive to circulate phony quotations of the saint. "St. Francis in Ecstacy", Caravaggio, 1595 Saint Francis’ prophecy is clearly not a prediction of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), which did not involve a “destroyer” on the Chair of Peter who leads the faithful into error, widespread apostasy, and the persecution of faithful Catholics as “schismatics.” But it does contain elements very familiar to us today. And what inference might one draw from the coincidence that Saint Francis’ prophecy of a future “destroyer” in the papal office seems to correspond rather well with the pontificate of the only Pope who has taken Francis’ name as his own? Something else to consider: Saint Francis, one of the greatest saints in Church history, one of the few who is known and revered by the whole world, freely revealed his vision of an ecclesial destroyer who usurps the papal office. That is, Saint Francis did not suffer from the currently reigning papolatry, which holds that the indefectibility of the Church depends upon defending every word and deed of a given Pope as somehow consistent with Tradition and declares absolutely inadmissible the idea that the holder of the Petrine office could be a threat to the integrity of the Faith. Rather, Saint Francis, illuminated by heaven itself, recognized the coming reality of what Saint Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, hypothesized as possible in principle, to cite another “apocryphal” quotation: Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by preventing his will from being executed… De Controversiis on the Roman Pontiff, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), Book II, Chapter 29, p. 303. Did Saint Francis predict the coming of Pope Francis? That is not for us to judge, although the Church may­ well issue a judgment of Francis like that of the posthumous anathema of Honorius­­ I. Would Saint Francis have been horrified by the words and deeds of the Pope who has presumed to take his name? That question answers itself.

President Trump Orders FBI Investigation Into Kavanaugh Following Democrat Temper Tantrum Thought Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been through at least 6 FBI background checks, because of Senate Democrat temper tantrums and RINO Republican Senator Jeff Flake's desire to have another FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh with zero evidence, President Trump succumbed to the pressure and issued an executive order on Friday that authorizes another FBI background check into Kavanaugh. “I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week,” the president said in a statement. The scope and one-week limitations were what Senator Jeff Flake proposed just prior to the vote that passed the Kavanaugh nomination out of committee and to the Senate for a vote on his confirmation. take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The statement came just a day after Senate Democrats continued their smear of Kavanaugh by declaring they believed Dr. Christine Ford's allegations against him while at the same time obviously not believing his denial of the allegations. On top of that, there has been zero evidence submitted to the committee that Ford's allegations are true. In fact, everything submitted has refuted her claims, from sworn statements by those she claims were there to Kavanaugh's calendar to character statements by dozens of women who have known him since high school to those he has worked with in DC. All of the people named by Ford have already submitted statements that they have no memory of the event ever occurring, including a female friend of hers at the time. Two of those named have stated that they will cooperate with the FBI. “I will cooperate with any law enforcement agency that is assigned to confidentially investigate these allegations,” Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge said. “My client, Patrick J. Smyth, is happy to cooperate fully with this FBI investigation,” said attorney Eric B. Bruce. Kavanaugh also said he would be cooperating as he has in the past. “Throughout this process, I’ve been interviewed by the FBI, I’ve done a number of ‘background’ calls directly with the Senate, and yesterday, I answered questions under oath about every topic the Senators and their counsel asked me," Kavanaugh said in a statement that was released by the White House. "I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate." Well, Senator Flake has given the Democrats what they wanted and you can bet that they are still going to vote pretty much on party lines concerning Kavanaugh. Now, President Trump has gone along with it. My guess is that one of two things will occur with the FBI investigation: (1) Absolutely nothing will be found, and this will have been a huge waste of time or (2) look for this thing to expand and the need will arise to make this more of a circus than it already is, which will dwarf anything Clarence Thomas had to face from the slanderous accusations of Anita Hill. Remember, whether you like Judge Kavanaugh or not, this has been nothing but a political hit.

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

Trump To Jeff Sessions: Put An End to Russia Probe - Prosecutors Doing Mueller’s ‘Dirty Work Are A Disgrace’ To America Finally. President Donald Trump took to Twitter Wednesday to call on his Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut down special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Sessions is a weak sister. He has to go. This leftwing witch hunt has been ongoing since day one of Trump’s presidency in order to impair and impede his ability to get the job done. It’s a stealth coup. Sessions is a weak sister. He has to go. BREAKING NEWS: TRUMP TELLS JEFF SESSIONS TO PUT AN END TO RUSSIA PROBE AS HE CLAIMS PROSECUTORS DOING MUELLER’S ‘DIRTY WORK ARE A DISGRACE’ TO AMERICA White House WON’T say if Trump will order Jeff Sessions to fire Robert Mueller But the president tweeted Wednesday that Sessions should end Mueller’s probe Sessions recused himself from Russia-election-meddling matters in March 2017 That led to Mueller’s appointment as an outside investigator, not loyal to Trump New tension comes as former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort goes on trial, facing unrelated financial-crime charges, with Mueller’s team prosecuting him Donald Trump has ratcheted up his pressure on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying in a tweet that the Attorney General of the United States should step in and put an end to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s long-running Russia probe ‘Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now,’ the president tweeted. ‘Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!’ The White House ignored a Wednesday Wednesday about whether Trump will push the envelope further and order Sessions to fire Mueller. Trump’s mention of 17 prosecution lawyers is a reference to what he claims is an abundance of Democrats on Mueller’s staff. The special counsel himself is a Republican. take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Sessions, who was a Trump campaign adviser and the first sitting senator to endorse his candidacy, recused himself from the Russia probe in March 2016 because he expected the campaign to be one focus of the investigation. That gave the reins to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, who later appointed Mueller. Trump has publicly criticized Sessions before, tweeting in June that the Mueller ‘witch hunt’ was only proceeding ‘because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself.’ ‘I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined … and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion’ with the Kremlin,’ he added. The new tensions between the president and the nation’s top law enforcer come as Mueller’s team is prosecuting former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on money laundering, tax evasion and bank fraud charges. The allegations in that trial, which began Tuesday, are related to Manafort’s financial dealings long before he was involved in the 2016 election cycle. But firing Mueller would likely send a signal to Democrats that the White House is worried about potential blowback from a Manafort conviction just three months before the congressional midterm elections. Still, Trump went all-in with a new intensity on Wednesday, opening up on Mueller and his team with both barrels of his massive Twitter following. ‘Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign, one of the most successful in history, is a TOTAL HOAX,’ he wrote. ‘The Democrats paid for the phony and discredited Dossier which was, along with Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, used to begin the Witch Hunt. Disgraceful!’

Will Trump Continue the CIA’s JFK Cover-Up? Last Friday, President Trump made the following announcement: I have decided not to block release of the CIA’s remaining JFK-assassination related records except for those records that directly implicate the CIA in the assassination, which will continue to remain secret.” Okay, he didn’t really put it like that. But that’s the potential and likely import of his announcement, which actually read as follows: Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.” (Italics added.) The operative words, of course, are: “Subject to the receipt of further information….” What is going on here? Negotiations. The art of the deal. The CIA desperately does not want to show the American people its long-secret JFK-related records. It has asked Trump to continue keeping at least some of them secret notwithstanding the passage of more than 50 years since the Kennedy assassination. Under long-established custom and tradition in Washington, D.C., when someone asks someone else for a favor, the person who is in a position to grant the favor demands something in return. That’s where the negotiations between Trump and the CIA come into play. Trump wants something in return. We don’t know what — maybe laying off on the Russia investigation — but his announcement last Friday is obviously part of the concluding steps of such negotiations. Time to buy old US gold coins What Trump has done with his announcement is send a clear message to the CIA: “Give me what I want and I’ll give you want you want. Otherwise, I will let all your cherished long-secret records relating to the JFK assassination be shown to the American people.” Make no mistake about it: A deal is about to be made. The CIA will cave. It will end up giving Trump whatever it is he wants. Trump is in the driver’s seat because the CIA cannot afford to permit the American people to see the records it wants to continue to be kept secret. And once the CIA gives Trump what he wants, he will cave and give the CIA the continued secrecy it so desperately needs. All this will happen by this Thursday, the date set by law for release of all the JFK records that Trump has not blocked. Think about it: The CIA has asked the president to continue secrecy of records that are more than 50 years old or, apparently, some relating to secret correspondence between the CIA and the Assassination Records Review Board back in the 1990s. The CIA’s ground? “National security” of course, the two most important and meaningless words in the American political lexicon. National security? Really? Whatever definition that one might put on that nebulous term, no reasonable person can honestly believe that the release of 50-year-old records are going to result in the United States falling into the ocean or even that the communists are going to take over the federal government. The CIA says that releasing its decades-old JFK records will reveal secret “methods” of intelligence gathering. Really? What, like the CIA was using typewriters instead of computers and pay telephones instead of cell phones? What is amazing (or not) is the extreme nonchalance of the mainstream media to the CIA’s request for continued secrecy. That should be big news. It’s essentially an admission of guilt, given that it is absolutely ludicrous to think that “national security” would be threatened by the release of the CIA’s long-secret JFK-assassination-related records. You see, the mainstream media starts with the assumption that the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination. In their minds, the assassination was committed by a lone nut former U.S. Marine communist, one who had no motive to kill the president. Such being the case, the mainstream media, deferring to the CIA, automatically concludes that its wish to continue keeping secret has to be based on “national security” grounds rather than an attempt by the CIA to continue its cover-up of its assassination of the president. Let’s proceed from the opposite assumption: That the CIA, in partnership with the military and the Mafia, orchestrated the assassination by framing a former U.S. Marine who was then working for U.S. intelligence, either Navy intelligence, the CIA, or the FBI, or a combination of all three. Don’t forget, after all, that that’s what Oswald said. He said he was being framed. Yet, from the very beginning, the mainstream media has never given any serious consideration to the possibility that Oswald was framed for the crime. Instead, they have steadfastly stuck with the official story, one that has all the characteristics of a pat frame-up: That Oswald acted alone or possibly acted in concert with others, both of which lead to nothing but dead ends, contradictions, and anomalies. Now, let’s assume instead that Oswald was telling the truth when he said he was being framed. In that case, it would be imperative that the CIA and the military keep as tight a lid on their records as possible to ensure that investigators or investigative reporters would have a difficult time piercing through to the circumstantial evidence that establishes the frame-up. As part of the frame-up, the CIA would have to fortify the persona of Oswald, its intelligence agent, as a purported communist. That would enable the CIA to blame the assassination on a communist, which, not coincidentally, was the advice that the Pentagon and the CIA were doling out to Latin American military dictatorships at the School of the Americas. In cases of covert state-sponsored assassinations, Latin American regimes were taught, a good strategy was to blame the assassination on a communist because then they could smear anyone who challenged the official story as a communist sympathizer. It would also explain why the CIA was closely monitoring Oswald’s movements prior to the assassination, something else that the CIA kept secret for decades. They had to make certain that Oswald was not on to them and had not discovered that he was being set up for a frame-up. The first organization that came out with a press release advertising Oswald’s bona fides was the DRE, an anti-communist group in New Orleans with which Oswald had had contact. What no one knew at the time, and what the CIA intentionally kept secret for decades, was that the DRE was a CIA front organization. It was being generously funded by the CIA and controlled by a secret CIA agent named George Joannides, which the CIA would intentionally keep secret from the Warren Commission in the 1960s, the House Select Committee in the 1970s, and the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. But there was another big operation to establish Oswald’s communist bona fides before the assassination. It had to do with Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, where he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies. Something dreadful obviously went wrong with that part of the operation because the official investigation into it was quickly shut down during the early post-assassination period. Today, Oswald’s Mexico City trip, which is part of those CIA records ready to be released, is still shrouded in mystery. The CIA’s continued secrecy in the JFK assassination is no big surprise. As I wrote in my October 11 article, “Will Trump Make a Deal with the CIA on JFK Records?,” the CIA is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it knows that those records will further implicate the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. On the other hand, it knows that by seeking continued secrecy, it’s essentially an implicit acknowledgment of guilt. Not surprisingly, it is choosing the latter course, especially because it knows that its assets and allies in the mainstream press will continue to come to its defense with respect to its ridiculous claim of “national security.” Do the CIA’s long-secret records contain a video-taped confession? Of course not. And they don’t contain any reference to assassinating Kennedy. The CIA’s practice from the very beginning has been to not put any reference to a state-sponsored assassination into writing. But there has to be a reason why the CIA chose to keep this particular batch of records secret for more than 50 years. Those long-secret records undoubtedly include small bits of important circumstantial evidence that fill out even further the mosaic of a regime-change operation that took place in Dallas in November 1963, the same types of regime-change operation that took place in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1960-1963, Congo in 1961, and Chile in 1973, all of which the CIA steadfastly kept secret from the American people. In 1953, the CIA was in the process of developing a top-secret manual on assassinations, one that showed that the CIA was specializing not only in the art of assassination but also in the art of covering up its role in state-sponsored assassinations. Every American owes it to himself to read that manual. Too bad the mainstream press has never given that manual the consideration it deserves. If it did, it might not be so deferential to the deal that Trump and the CIA are about to make to continue the JFK assassination cover-up by continuing to keep some of the CIA’s decades-old JFK’s related assassination records secret from the American people. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation. The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger

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

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

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

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

FBI Can’t Find Motive of Muslim Who Drove Burning Minivan Onto Travis Air Force Base “Motive a mystery in car explosion at Travis Air Force Base” was the Los Angeles Times headline, and this one is indeed a real mystery. A Muslim named Hafiz Kazi, according to the Times, “drove a burning minivan filled with propane and gas tanks into the front gate of Travis Air Force Base in Northern California.” After scrutinizing all the evidence closely, the FBI just can’t figure out what could possibly have been Kazi’s motive. And that in a nutshell shows what’s wrong with today’s FBI. Sean Ragan, FBI special agent in charge of the Sacramento field office, stated: “We don’t have any nexus of terrorism at this point. Now the question is, why. Why was he there? What led him there? And we don’t know answers to that, quite frankly.” The Times noted that when emergency responders approached the burning van after it crashed, “they found five propane tanks, three plastic one-gallon gas cans, several lighters, three phones and a gym bag with personal items, Ragan said.” Yes, what Kazi could possibly have been up to is a complete mystery. The Times added that “the dead man’s religious beliefs and affiliation are not known at this point, said Ragan, who debunked a rumor that some sort of ‘jihad’ video was found on Kazi’s phone.” All right. No jihad video. And no “nexus of terrorism,” according to Sean Ragan. What is a nexus of terrorism? Ragan most likely means that investigators didn’t find an ISIS membership card in Kazi’s wallet, or lots of phone calls to Iraq or Syria, or a note from Kazi reading, “I did this for Allah and Islam. Allahu akbar.” Of course, even if they had found those things, given the FBI’s recent track record of denial and deception, they may still be searching for Kazi’s motive. In any case, a larger point is being lost here. And that is that there is a war going on. We know that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other groups have called upon Muslims in the U.S. to try to kill military personnel and police, as well as civilians. We know that Kazi, with all the propane and gas tanks in his car, was clearly trying to set off a major fire that would kill more people than just himself. Even if he wasn’t on the phone to Baghdadi, the likelihood is that when a Muslim drives into a U.S. Air Force Base with a car full of incendiaries, probably this has something to do with the global jihad. The FBI’s bafflement here is part of its deep, deep corruption. The FBI doesn’t acknowledge that there is a global jihad, or that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. It doesn’t admit that there is a war going on, and treats each act of Islamic terror as if it were a separate and discrete criminal event, unrelated to all the others. So each time something like this happens, they’re back at Square One, trying to figure out motive. It’s as if the U.S. Army stopped to interrogate every German soldier who crashed through the Ardennes Forest at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, to see if each one’s actions had anything to do with the German Army and Adolf Hitler’s war aims. Authorities are also investigating whether or not Kazi was suffering from any mental health issues. Here again, this is just more of the general refusal to acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the living room and screaming “Allahu akbar.” Sean Ragan might explain to us that authorities are also trying to determine whether the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 was motivated by Nazism, or by mental health issues among the German High Command. This willful ignorance leads to a diversion and waste of resources that is astronomical and catastrophic. How long is this comic opera going to continue? If the jihadis advance even into the FBI’s Sacramento offices, will agents there be struggling to determine the jihadis’ motive even as the machete begins to slice through their necks? Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Confessions of an Islamophobe. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

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

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

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

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

Bishop Morlino Targets ‘Homosexual Subculture’ in the Church, Calls for Reparation to Sacred Heart of Jesus Editor’s Note: Over the years, Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison has confirmed several of my children according to the traditional Rite of Confirmation, as his diocese has been a port in the storm for many displaced and disillusioned Catholic families. We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but his faith and pastoral solicitude have for us been a light in the darkness and proof that God has not left us orphans. And now this, finally, a bishop with the courage to look the beast in the eye and speak its name out loud. Bishop Morlino does this in a moment when he is under heavy attack as a “hater” for defending the Church’s teaching on marriage—an attack, by the way, which prompted us here at The Remnant to join the fight to DEFEND BISHOP MORLINO last year. "If you'll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says 'My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).' It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. – Bishop Robert Morlino This is what a courageous shepherd looks like! In our opinion, during the most vile clergy sex scandal in history, every bishop in the country must do exactly what Bishop Morlino has done, i.e., issue a statement of fidelity to the Church’s moral theology, specifically her teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts. In so doing, the bishops will incur the wrath of the enemies of the Church, yes. They will be crucified in the media, yes. But they will also be doing their sacred duty before God in reassuring their thoroughly scandalized flocks that they are absolutely committed to the defense and enforcement of the Church’s moral teaching at a time when it is under scurrilous attack from within. Nothing less will do. Bishop Morlino has now done it, and we respectfully demand that the rest of the American bishops either follow suit or face the charge of being complicit with the degenerate and even criminal shepherds, accounts of whose betrayal and vice now dominate the news. May God bless and keep Bishop Robert Morlino. MJM Bishop Robert C. Morlino's letter to the faithful on the ongoing sexual abuse crisis in the Church August 18, 2018 Dear brothers and sisters in Christ of the Diocese of Madison, The past weeks have brought a great deal of scandal, justified anger, and a call for answers and action by many faithful Catholics here in the U.S. and overseas, directed at the Church hierarchy regarding sexual sins by bishops, priests, and even cardinals. Still more anger is rightly directed at those who have been complicit in keeping some of these serious sins from coming to light. For my part — and I know I am not alone — I am tired of this. I am tired of people being hurt, gravely hurt! I am tired of the obfuscation of truth. I am tired of sin. And, as one who has tried — despite my many imperfections — to lay down my life for Christ and His Church, I am tired of the regular violation of sacred duties by those entrusted with immense responsibility from the Lord for the care of His people. The stories being brought into light and displayed in gruesome detail with regard to some priests, religious, and now even those in places of highest leadership, are sickening. Hearing even one of these stories is, quite literally, enough to make someone sick. But my own sickness at the stories is quickly put into perspective when I recall the fact that many individuals have lived through them for years. For them, these are not stories, they are indeed realities. To them I turn and say, again, I am sorry for what you have suffered and what you continue to suffer in your mind and in your heart. If you have not already done so, I beg you to reach out, as hard as that may be, and seek help to begin to heal. Also, if you’ve been hurt by a priest of our diocese, I encourage you to come forward, to make a report to law enforcement and to our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator, so that we might begin, with you as an individual, to try and set things right to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing about these stories that is okay. These actions, committed by more than a few, can only be classified as evil, evil that cries out for justice and sin that must be cast out from our Church. Faced with stories of the depravity of sinners within the Church, I have been tempted to despair. And why? The reality of sin — even sin in the Church — is nothing new. We are a Church made of sinners, but we are sinners called to sanctity. So what is new? What is new is the seeming acceptance of sin by some in the Church, and the apparent efforts to cover over sin by them and others. Unless and until we take seriously our call to sanctity, we, as an institution and as individuals, will continue to suffer the “wages of sin.” For too long we have diminished the reality of sin — we have refused to call a sin a sin — and we have excused sin in the name of a mistaken notion of mercy. In our efforts to be open to the world we have become all too willing to abandon the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In order to avoid causing offense we offer to ourselves and to others niceties and human consolation. Why do we do this? Is it out of an earnest desire to display a misguided sense of being “pastoral?” Have we covered over the truth out of fear? Are we afraid of being disliked by people in this world? Or are we afraid of being called hypocrites because we are not striving tirelessly for holiness in our own lives? Perhaps these are the reasons, but perhaps it is more or less complex than this. In the end, the excuses do not matter. We must be done with sin. It must be rooted out and again considered unacceptable. Love sinners? Yes. Accept true repentance? Yes. But do not say sin is okay. And do not pretend that grave violations of office and of trust come without grave, lasting consequences. For the Church, the crisis we face is not limited to the McCarrick affair, or the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, or anything else that may come. The deeper crisis that must be addressed is the license for sin to have a home in individuals at every level of the Church. There is a certain comfort level with sin that has come to pervade our teaching, our preaching, our decision making, and our very way of living. If you’ll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says “My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).” It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. There must be no room left, no refuge for sin — either within our own lives, or within the lives of our communities. To be a refuge for sinners (which we should be), the Church must be a place where sinners can turn to be reconciled. In this I speak of all sin. But to be clear, in the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals. We are talking about acts and actions which are not only in violation of the sacred promises made by some, in short, sacrilege, but also are in violation of the natural moral law for all. To call it anything else would be deceitful and would only ignore the problem further. There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is time to be honest that the problems are both and they are more. To fall into the trap of parsing problems according to what society might find acceptable or unacceptable is ignoring the fact that the Church has never held ANY of it to be acceptable — neither the abuse of children, nor any use of one’s sexuality outside of the marital relationship, nor the sin of sodomy, nor the entering of clerics into intimate sexual relationships at all, nor the abuse and coercion by those with authority. In this last regard, special mention should be made of the most notorious and highest in ranking case, that being the allegations of former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s (oft-rumored, now very public) sexual sins, predation, and abuse of power. The well-documented details of this case are disgraceful and seriously scandalous, as is any covering up of such appalling actions by other Church leaders who knew about it based on solid evidence. While recent credible accusations of child sexual abuse by Archbishop McCarrick have brought a whole slew of issues to light, long-ignored was the issue of abuse of his power for the sake of homosexual gratification. It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord. The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest. And the decision to act upon this disordered inclination is a sin so grave that it cries out to heaven for vengeance, especially when it involves preying upon the young or the vulnerable. Such wickedness should be hated with a perfect hatred. Christian charity itself demands that we should hate wickedness just as we love goodness. But while hating the sin, we must never hate the sinner, who is called to conversion, penance, and renewed communion with Christ and His Church, through His inexhaustible mercy. At the same time, however, the love and mercy which we are called to have even for the worst of sinners does not exclude holding them accountable for their actions through a punishment proportionate to the gravity of their offense. In fact, a just punishment is an important work of love and mercy, because, while it serves primarily as retribution for the offense committed, it also offers the guilty party an opportunity to make expiation for his sin in this life (if he willingly accepts his punishment), thus sparing him worse punishment in the life to come. Motivated, therefore, by love and concern for souls, I stand with those calling for justice to be done upon the guilty. The sins and crimes of McCarrick, and of far too many others in the Church, bring suspicion and mistrust upon many good and virtuous priests, bishops, and cardinals, and suspicion and mistrust upon many great and respectable seminaries and so many holy and faithful seminarians. The result of the first instance of mistrust harms the Church and the very good work we do in Christ’s name. It causes others to sin in their thoughts, words, and deeds — which is the very definition of scandal. And the second mistrust harms the future of the Church, since our future priests are at stake. I said that I was tempted to despair in light of all of this. However, that temptation quickly passed, thanks be to God. No matter how large the problem, we know that we are called to go forward in faith, to rely upon God’s promises to us, and to work hard to make every bit of difference we can, within our spheres of influence. I have recently had the opportunity to talk directly with our seminarians about these very pressing matters, and I have begun to, and will continue to, talk with the priests of the diocese, as well as the faithful, in person and through my weekly column and homilies, making things as clear as I can, from my perspective. Here now, I offer a few thoughts to those of my diocese: In the first place, we must continue to build upon the good work which we have accomplished in protecting the youth and vulnerable of our diocese. This is a work on which we can never rest in our vigilance, nor our efforts to improve. We must continue in our work of education for all and hold to the effective policies that have been implemented, requiring psychological exams for all candidates for ministry, as well as across-the-board background checks for anyone working with children or vulnerable individuals. Here again, I state, as we have done consistently, if you have knowledge of any sort of criminal abuse of children by someone in the Church, contact law enforcement. If you need help in contacting law enforcement contact our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator and she will help connect you with the best resources. If you are an adult victim of sexual abuse from childhood, we still encourage you to reach out to law enforcement first, but even if you don’t want to, please still reach out to us. To our seminarians: If you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me and to the seminary rector. I will address it swiftly and vigorously. I will not stand for this in my diocese or anywhere I send men for formation. I trust that the seminaries I choose, very discriminately, to help form our men will not ignore this type of scandalous behavior, and I will continue to verify that expectation. To our priests: Most simply, live out the promises you made on your ordination day. You are called to serve Christ’s people, beginning with praying daily the Liturgy of the Hours. This is to keep you very close to God. In addition, you promised to obey and be loyal to your bishop. In obedience, strive to live out your priesthood as a holy priest, a hard working priest, and a pure and happy priest — as Christ Himself is calling you to do. And by extension, live a chaste and celibate life so that you can completely give your life to Christ, the Church, and the people whom he has called you to serve. God will give you the graces to do so. Ask Him for the help you need daily and throughout every day. And if you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me. I will not stand for this in my diocese any more than in our seminaries. To the faithful of the diocese: If you are the victim of abuse of any kind by a priest, bishop, cardinal, or any employee of the Church, bring it forward. It will be addressed quickly and justly. If you have directly witnessed sexual advances or any type of abuse, bring it forward as well. Such actions are sinful and scandalous and we cannot allow anyone to use their position or power to abuse another person. Again, in addition to injuring individuals, these actions injure the very Body of Christ, His Church. Furthermore, I add my name to those calling for real and sustained reform in the episcopate, priesthood, our parishes, schools, universities, and seminaries that would root out and hold accountable any would-be sexual predator or accomplice; I will hold the priests of the diocese to their promise to live a chaste and celibate life of service to you and your parish, and evidence of failure in this regard will be justly addressed; I will likewise hold every man studying for the priesthood for our diocese accountable to living a chaste and celibate life as part of his formation for the priesthood. Failure to do so will lead to dismissal from diocesan sponsorship; I will continue to require (with our men and our funds) that all seminaries to which we send men to study be vigilant that seminarians are protected from sexual predators and provide an atmosphere conducive to their holistic formation as holy priests, in the image of Christ; I ask all the faithful of the diocese to assist in keeping us accountable to civil authorities, the faithful in the pews, and to God Almighty, not only to protect children and the youth from sexual predators in the Church, but our seminarians, university students, and all the faithful as well. I promise to put any victim and their sufferings before that of the personal and professional reputation of a priest, or any Church employee, guilty of abuse; I ask everyone reading this to pray. Pray earnestly for the Church and all her ministers. Pray for our seminarians. And pray for yourselves and your families. We must all work daily on our own personal holiness and hold ourselves accountable first and, in turn, hold our brothers and sisters accountable as well, and Finally, I ask you all to join me and the entire clergy of the Diocese of Madison in making public and private acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for all the sins of sexual depravity committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy. I will be offering a public Mass of reparation on Friday, September 14, the Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross, at Holy Name Heights and I ask all pastors to do the same in their own parishes. In addition, I ask that all priests, clergy, religious, and diocesan employees join me in observing the upcoming Autumn Ember Days (Sep. 19, 21, and 22) as days of fasting and abstinence in reparation for the sins and outrages committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy and I invite all the faithful to do the same. Some sins, like some demons, can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. This letter and these statements and promises are not intended to be an exhaustive list of what we can and need to do in the Church to begin to heal from, and stave off, this deep illness in the Church, but rather the next steps I believe we can take locally. More than anything else, we as a Church must cease our acceptance of sin and evil. We must cast out sin from our own lives and run toward holiness. We must refuse to be silent in the face of sin and evil in our families and communities and we must demand from our pastors — myself included — that they themselves are striving day in and day out for holiness. We must do this always with loving respect for individuals but with a clear understanding that true love can never exist without truth. Again, right now there is a lot of justified anger and passion coming from many holy and faithful lay people and clerics across the country, calling for real reform and “house cleaning” of this type of depravity. I stand with them. I don’t know yet how this will play out nationally or internationally. But I do know this, and I make this my last point and last promise, for the Diocese of Madison: “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Faithfully yours in the Lord, Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino Bishop of Madison This text first appeared in the Madison Catholic Herald.

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked 2016 armed standoff Dwight Hammond, 76, and Steven Hammond, 49, were originally convicted in 2012 after an Oregon jury found they had committed arson on federal lands a decade earlier. | Rick Bowmer/AP Photo Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose imprisonment sparked 2016 armed standoff President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued presidential pardons to two Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, convicted in 2012 of committing arson on federal lands near their ranch. The father and son's 2016 imprisonment — and the armed protest at a national wildlife refuge that followed — formed a flashpoint in the ongoing dispute between cattle ranchers and the federal government over land-use rights. Story Continued Below “The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land,” the White House said in a statement. “[They] are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. “Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.” Dwight Hammond, 76, and Steven Hammond, 49, were originally convicted in 2012 after an Oregon jury found they had committed arson on federal lands a decade earlier. The Hammonds asserted they were taking preventative measures to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plants; the federal government maintained they were attempting to mask illegal deer hunting, among other things. Morning Agriculture A daily briefing on agriculture and food policy — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. After a sympathetic federal judge ruled the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional, the father and son walked away with sentences of three months and one year respectively. Prosecutors appealed, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the decision, resentencing the men to 5 years apiece (a move the White House statement called "unjust"). The duo’s subsequent arrival at a California prison to complete the remainder of their sentences triggered a 300-person march and later, a protest at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There, armed occupiers — including Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven Bundy participated in a similar 2014 standoff — faced off with federal agents for 41 days in dispute of the jail time, which they saw as punishment for the Hammond family’s refusal to sell the government its land. “We felt we had exhausted all prudent measures,” Bundy said in a news conference at the time. “Do we allow this to go on, or do we make a stand?” The Hammonds’ attorneys had sought clemency from former President Barack Obama, The Oregonian reported. But the appeal did not gain much traction until Trump took office. "I have a sense that things are moving forward and I have faith in our president,” Susie Hammond, the wife and mother of the imprisoned ranchers, told The Oregonian last month. “If anyone is going to help them, he'd be the one." This article tagged under: Pardons Donald Trump Oregon

The Last-Minute Character Assassination of Judge Kavanaugh Using any despicable tactic at hand to derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation less than a week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on whether to approve his nomination, Senate Democrats have sunk to their lowest level of character assassination yet. They have resorted to peddling an allegation of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh that supposedly occurred while the judge was in high school. The accuser had refused to identify herself before and during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. She conveniently waited until this Sunday to come forward via an on-the-record interview with the Washington Post. The accuser’s name is Christine Blasey Ford, a registered Democrat who is currently a California professor teaching clinical psychology. Judge Kavanaugh issued a statement on Friday in which he said, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee that heard Judge Kavanaugh’s public testimony earlier this month during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, had received last July a copy of a letter written by the woman making the charge, who we now know was Ms. Ford. Even though Senator Feinstein had the letter in hand, she never brought up the charge during the public hearing, nor during her own meeting with the judge. Instead, Senator Feinstein sat on the letter until late last week, when she issued a cryptic release stating that she had received the letter but did not want to give more details in deference to the woman’s wish to keep the matter confidential. Senator Feinstein turned the letter over to the FBI. The FBI placed the letter in its background file on Judge Kavanaugh but decided not to pursue any further investigation. Senator Feinstein had initially resisted sharing the contents of the letter with her fellow Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee or to go public with its existence because “the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion” and she had already “taken care of it,” according to a source quoted by The New Yorker. Nevertheless, Senator Feinstein evidently bowed to pressure from her leftist colleagues to find a way to insert the allegation into the cesspool of public gossip at the eleventh hour. The New Yorker article, written before Ms. Ford publicly identified herself, provided some details regarding her allegation. However, now Ms. Ford has decided to do what she called her “civic responsibility” and tell her own story publicly. How convenient, coming just 4 days before the scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee vote! The whole sequence of events surrounding how this allegation has suddenly come to light reeks of a set-up, reminiscent of how Anita Hill surfaced in a last-minute attempt to derail Justice Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation. Christine Blasey Ford claims, according to the Washington Post article, that “one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both ‘stumbling drunk,’ Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County. While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. ‘I thought he might inadvertently kill me,’ said Ford. ‘He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.’” Ms. Ford said she was able to escape the room and go home without any apparent further incident after “Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling.” Here is where Ms. Ford’s story becomes quite murky and begins to fall apart. Although Ms. Ford believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, she “said she does not remember some key details of the incident,” according to the Washington Post article. For example, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident.” She also does not remember how she got home. Yet she claims to be absolutely certain that Kavanaugh, whom she presumably knew only as an acquaintance and said she had not spoken to since the night the incident allegedly occurred, was involved in the alleged incident. Ms. Ford admitted that she “told no one at the time what had happened to her.” In fact, she said she recalled thinking: “I’m not ever telling anyone this. This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.” Even if one explains this behavior as the natural reaction of a frightened teenager to a highly traumatic incident, that does not explain why, by her own admission, she “told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband,” according to the Washington Post article. Most revealingly, the article reported on a gaping hole in the therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ms. Ford for the Washington Post’s review. The therapist’s notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’” In other words, the only written documentation Ms. Ford has offered in support of her allegation about the incident she said took place while she was in high school – a therapist’s notes of a couples therapy session occurring 30 years after the alleged incident – did not mention Judge Kavanaugh’s name. Judge Kavanaugh has had extensive background checks performed on him in the past for his various federal government positions, including for his current position as a federal appellate court judge, without the accusation ever having surfaced. Ms. Ford may believe her story to be true, but the lack of any credible corroborating evidence, her partial memory of details surrounding the alleged incident, and the absence of any pattern of such sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh undercut the reliability of her version of the incident. In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Feinstein, 65 women who said they knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school vouched for his character: We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect… Brett attended Georgetown Prep, an all-boys high school in Rockville, Maryland. He was an outstanding student and athlete with a wide circle of friends. Almost all of us attended all-girls high schools in the area. We knew Brett well through social events, sports, church, and various other activities. Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day. The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person. Nevertheless, using their standard contemptible, obstructionist tactics, the Democrats opposed to Judge Kavanaugh happily seized on the unsubstantiated allegation of teen sexual misbehavior in high school to assassinate Judge Kavanaugh’s character. They have done so in the face of Judge Kavanaugh’s lifetime record of stellar public service, multiple background checks producing no evidence of sexual misconduct, and the letter written by the 65 women, who knew him when he was in high school and thereafter and who signed their names to a ringing endorsement of his good character. Feminists gave the serial sexual predator Bill Clinton a free pass because his policies were in line with their ideology. Senator Feinstein called Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy an "inspiration and a friend," presumably also based on their compatible ideologies. Hypocritically exploiting an unsubstantiated allegation of decades-old purported teenage sexual mischief, Democrats seeking to torpedo Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation for ideological reasons have debased themselves with a shameless smear campaign against an eminently qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Predictably, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats, including Senator Feinstein, have called for the Senate to postpone a vote on Judge Kavanaugh. "Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” Senator Schumer said. If a thorough investigation was considered to be so important, why didn't Senator Feinstein set the ball rolling back in July when she first received word of the allegation? The answer is that this is all a ruse to block Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation by all means necessary. Senator Schumer is fulfilling his promise to oppose Judge Kavanaugh with "everything I've got." As of now, the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican majority plans to move forward with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination as scheduled. It is time for the Democrat obstructionists to slink back into their shadowy corner.

The ammunition dealer who sold armor-piercing rounds to the Las Vegas gunman has been charged A member of the FBI leaves the Mandalay Bay hotel following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, October 4, 2017. REUTERS/Chris Wattie An Arizona man who sold ammunition to the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has been charged with manufacturing armor-piercing bullets. A complaint says unfired armor-piercing bullets found inside the Las Vegas hotel room where the attack was launched on Oct. 1 contained the fingerprints of ammunition dealer Douglas Haig of Arizona. The complaint filed Friday in federal court in Phoenix says Haig didn't have a license to manufacture armor-piercing ammunition. He was charged shortly before holding a news conference Friday. He said he noticed nothing suspicious when he sold 720 rounds of ammunition to Stephen Paddock in the weeks before the attack that killed 58 people. Haig is a 55-year-old aerospace engineer who sold ammunition as a hobby for about 25 years.

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

Trump: "If You Don't Want To Be Saying The Words 'Speaker Pelosi'... Go Out & Vote" Obviously, President Donald Trump is encouraging people to go out and vote against Democrats, which everyone should do. At a rally of 8,500 in Indiana on Friday, Trump encouraged them to go out and vote Republican if they didn't want to be uttering the words "Speaker Pelosi" over the next two years. “If you don’t want to be saying the words ‘Speaker Pelosi’ for the next two years, you gotta go out and vote,” Trump said as he stumped for congressional candidates Greg Pence and Jim Bair. Trump also encouraged the crowd to vote for Mike Braun for US Senate. take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Trump praised Braun as a man who didn't need the position and is not a career politician. Just like his promotion of voting for Republicans in the House would lead to defeating Democrats and keep the words "Speaker Pelosi" off our lips, Trump also said that a vote for Braun's opponent, incumbent Democrat Sen. Joe Donnelly, would lead to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becoming the Senate Majority leader should the Democrats regain control of the Senate. The president also pointed out that Donnelly had opposed tax cuts and joined with his fellow Democrats in attacking and voting against Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. "The people of Indiana do not have a one-week memory,” said Trump. “That was a disgrace what we watched up there." Additionally, Trump said that Donnelly voted to provide free health care to illegal aliens and sponsored Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) "Open Borders Bill." While some don't believe that Trump's base is all that energized, it seems pretty energetic to me and attacks on conservatives on social media and in search engine results have only furthered their outrage at the establishment, both Democrat and Republican. We're just days away from seeing how things turn out. There's a part of me that thinks this may actually turn out to be one of the biggest turnouts for a mid-term election that we've ever seen, but that's just my gut feeling. On Tuesday, we'll know for sure. I don't know about you, but I didn't actually like hearing the words "Speaker Paul Ryan." I certainly don't want to hear "Speaker Pelosi," again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia man who wanted to join ISIS pleads guilty to lying about overseas trip NORFOLK, Va. — While texting with an FBI informant in September 2016, a Williamsburg man expressed admiration for a U.S. Army officer who shot and killed 13 soldiers on Fort Hood, Texas, according to court documents. Later that year, Shivam Patel, 28, tried to join the U.S. Army and Air Force. And in the application process, he lied to military recruiters about a recent trip he'd taken to Jordan in a failed attempt to make contact with the Islamic State and join a "real Muslim Army," the documents said. Patel pleaded guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court to two counts of making false statements. He faces up to 15 years in prison when sentenced June 4. According to court documents and prosecutors, Patel – who was raised Hindu before converting to Islam several years ago – traveled to China in July 2016 to teach English. While there, however, he grew displeased with how that country treated Muslims. His employer arranged for Patel to fly back to Virginia on Aug. 23, 2016, but instead Patel chose to travel to Jordan, a statement of facts filed with his plea agreement said. Jordanian officials arrested Patel a few days later. It's unclear why, but court documents say Patel told taxi drivers and others in Jordan that he supported the Islamic State. A search of Patel's computer also showed he researched how to join the Islamic State before he left for China. Jordanian officials moved for Patel's deportation. On Sept. 2, 2016, he boarded a flight to Chicago, and the next day, he flew to Detroit. There, he met an FBI source and started talking about the Islamic State. He explained he went to Jordan in part to find like-minded Muslims, and because he wanted to do something “bigger, better, and more purposeful” – like dying in the cause of Allah. But, he said, he was afraid of making his parents sad. In the course of their conversations, Patel discussed his desire to see a holy war between Muslims and non-Muslims. He also sang an Islamic State fight song and recalled making a replica of the group’s flag. He said he wanted to replace his neighbor’s American flag with it. Patel returned to Williamsburg on Sept. 6, 2016. Shortly thereafter, he moved into a motel his parents owned and started applying for jobs with the military, as well as some paramilitary organizations – like police and fire departments, correctional facilities and probation offices. While back in Virginia, Patel stayed in touch with the FBI source. He texted the source on Sept. 23, 2016, and expressed support for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 soldiers in 2009 while serving at Fort Hood. In the process, however, he misidentified Hasan as Nidal Hussein and said the shooting happened at Fort Knox in Kentucky. He also said Hasan had died a martyr, though in fact he remains alive on military death row. Court documents show Patel began saying in late 2016 that he did not actually support the Islamic State. Simply expressing support for a terrorist organization or attack is not against the law. Patel's crime was failing to disclose his trips to Jordan when he was trying to join the Army and Air Force in December 2016 and January 2017. Court documents say Patel lied about his travel history, saying his only time out of the country in the past seven years was a family trip to India in 2011 and 2012. Before Patel signed the Army application, a recruiter asked him specifically about the travel question and reminded him providing false information could result in criminal charges. During the interview, the recruiter asked to see Patel's passport to confirm his travel claims. Patel agreed to bring it by, but two days later he told the State Department he had accidentally thrown it away in October and needed a new one. After Patel's arrest in July, investigators found his passport "near" the motel room where he was living, the documents said. ©2018 The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.) Visit The Virginian-Pilot at pilotonline.com Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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

South Florida Muslim Leader Sofian Zakkout’s David Duke Day David Duke, the white supremacist icon and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, has been denounced by many as a hatemonger, and rightfully so. However, one individual who represents the Muslim community of South Florida, Sofian Zakkout, is enamored with Duke and has been promoting Duke’s bigoted work for many years. Last month, once again, Zakkout chose to showcase this work by posting four consecutive Duke videos on his (Zakkout’s) personal Facebook page. The postings can be rivaled only by Zakkout’s own documented bigotry. Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout is the President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA). He has ties to two dozen mosques stretching from Palm Beach County down to Miami-Dade. On September 21, 2017, Zakkout took to Facebook and posted four David Duke videos. Three of the videos were put out by Duke’s official website, DavidDuke.com, one referring to CNN news anchor Wolf Blitzer as a “Jewish Zionist Agent.” The fourth video was a news report featuring a clip of Duke being interviewed at a white nationalist rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia this past August. At this same rally, a white nationalist plowed his car into a group of people who were protesting the rally, killing one. This was not the first time Zakkout has promoted David Duke. Indeed, he has done so for years. In February 2016, Zakkout publicized on his Facebook page a bizarre Duke report, titled in part ‘Dr. David Duke Exposes the Real Racist Jewish Supremacists Who Orchestrate the Destruction of European Mankind…’ Above the posting, Zakkout wrote of Duke, “I respect him for his honesty!” In October 2015, Zakkout posted to Facebook a Duke video, within which Duke makes the wild claim that there has been a “complete takeover of American foreign policy and… American politics by Jewish extremists.” Above the video on Facebook, Zakkout praised Duke, exclaiming “David Duke, a man to believe in!” In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Zakkout and his group AMANA for featuring another anti-Semitic Duke video on the AMANA website. The ADL described the video as “venomous.” Currently, AMANA’s official website contains one more Duke video. David Duke’s bigoted and inciting material is not the only hate Zakkout promotes. He also pedals much bigotry coming from others, including himself. In July 2017, Zakkout posted on his Facebook page a four-minute portion of a speech given by Louis Farrakhan at the Nation of Islam’s February 2017 Saviors’ Day. On the video, Farrakhan repeatedly refers to Jews as “Satan.” He states to his audience: “Really, they’re not Jews. No, that’s Satan. You should learn to call them by their real name, ‘Satan.’ You’re coming face to face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God, and the enemy of the righteous.” In June 2016, Zakkout clicked ‘like’ under someone else’s Facebook posting (on Zakkout’s personal Facebook page) of a grotesque cartoon containing a worried-looking religious Jew hiding behind an animated tree with a bearded man brandishing a rifle coming towards them. The tree is speaking to the man in Arabic, saying “Oh Muslim! Oh Muslim! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.” In April 2016, Zakkout promoted a report discussing the absurd notion of Jewish involvement in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A photo from the report shows the burning towers with a Jewish Star affixed to one. The report begins, “It ain’t debatable! Soup to nuts, top to bottom, the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. were an ‘Israeli’-Jewish job.” The website which published the report and which Zakkout linked to is Mouqawamah Music, a site that openly calls for “Death to Israel” and labels the Jewish religion “wicked and filth-ridden.” In February 2016, Zakkout circulated on social media a report claiming that “the Holocaust was faked.” It begins: “The alleged ‘Holocaust’ of ‘6 million Jews’ at the hands of Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany during WWII is the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity.” It was produced by The Realist Report, an anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-gay independent media outlet, which describes Hitler as “the greatest leader in modern Western history.” In December 2015, Zakkout posted a photo of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, who is a decorated veteran of many different wars and battles fought by Israel over the last three-plus decades. Above the picture of Eizenkot, Zakkout wrote in Arabic, “You’re a Jew, the grandson of a monkey and a pig.” He signed it “Sofian.” This is one of many times Zakkout has referred to Jews as “monkeys and pigs.” In July 2014, Zakkout organized a pro-Hamas rally held outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Miami. On video, Zakkout is shown smiling, as event goers repeatedly shout, “We are Hamas.” After the rally, Zakkout wrote the following in Arabic, above photos from the event: “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!” He signed it “Br. Sofian Zakkout.” South Florida Muslim leader Sofian Zakkout’s promotion of bigotry, whether borrowed from others or his own, has been evident for years. Yet, there is no outcry from the community, not from Muslims, not from non-Muslims. It has been virtually ignored by everyone, save this author and his colleague, Director of Militant Islam Monitor Beila Rabinowitz. Despite their having been notified by this author about Zakkout’s perfidious activities, Zakkout remains an active member of the boards of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County and Crime Stoppers of Miami-Dade County. These organizations have provided and continue to provide Zakkout with a facade of respectability. In reality, he has done nothing to serve the community and only attempts to divide it with his hatemongering. It is time for Zakkout to be exposed and stripped of his public functions. If people like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan can be condemned and repudiated for spreading their toxic hate, their fan and propagator Zakkout can and must be as well. Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Dan Fishback: It's Okay to Boycott Israeli Plays, But Not Okay to Boycott BDS Plays Every time a BDS activist faces a boycott, the #BDStears come out. The latest outbreak of #BDStears comes from Dan Fishback and his supporters. The American Jewish Historical Society was caught collaborating with JVP; a radical anti-Israel hate group with links to anti-Semitism. Here's my article on the subject. The American Jewish Historical Society was founded to study and preserve Jewish history. These days it’s instead partnering with Jewish Voice for Peace: an anti-Israel BDS hate group that defends anti-Semitism and which sponsored talks by an anti-Semite who accused Jews of drinking blood. Coming up in late October is “The Balfour Declaration: Support for a Jewish Homeland or Jewish State?” The two speakers are Robert Herbst, the coordinator of the Westchester chapter of JVP, and Jonathan Kuttab, who advocates a one-state solution for eliminating Israel. He had tweeted, "EU no longer considers #Hamas a terrorist group. Time for US to do same." In December, the AJHS will feature “Rubble Rubble”, a play by Dan Fishback based on his trip to Israel. Fishback is a BDS supporter and a member of the JVP Artists Council. His goal is to “normalize Jewish anti-Zionism”. AJHS and JVP members get discounted admission. The JVP events have been canceled That includes Fishback's Rubble and Rubble. And Dan Fishback is flooding the media with #BDStears. There's an outbreak of them at anti-Israel hate sites like the New York Times and the Forward. "I have grown accustomed to feeling unwelcome in Jewish spaces," Dan Fishback whines. Him, the PLO and the KKK. "Any Jew who opposes the Occupation — or opposes Zionism itself — knows that feeling of being shunned from the places that are supposed to shelter and nurture you: families, synagogues, community centers, arts organizations," Fishback continues. "I am terrified for the Jewish people. I was raised to believe we were a people of dissent and argument. I was taught that it was important to ask difficult questions, and that it was noble to stand up for what you believed in. If our Jewish institutions — particularly the American Jewish Historical Society — cannot accommodate dissent, and effectively exclude all Jewish anti-Zionists, then they have not only lost a rapidly growing Jewish population, but they have lost a key aspect of their Jewishness." Let's unpack this knapsack of entitled nonsense. Anti-Israel activists like Dan Fishback are entitled to exploit Jewish spaces for their propoaganda... even while they advocate a boycott of the Jews of Israel. Previously Dan Fishback had authored an article arguing for boycotting some Israeli plays. Now he's whining that boycotting his play is a violation of Jewishness because Jews are a "people of dissent and argument." But the only dissent and argument that Jews are supposed to welcome is that of people who hate the existence of Jewish nationhood. Not of Jewish nationhood itself. "it’s not that BDS is “censoring” work — it’s that BDS is resisting a propaganda campaign that was intentionally crafted to influence international politics," Dan Fishback claimed when advocating a boycott of some Israeli plays. It's not that boycotting Dan Fishback censors work. It's resistance to a propaganda campaign intended to attack the human rights of the Jewish people. It's time for the #BDStears crowd to examine their entitlement and recognize that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either that or they can go whine to the New York Times some more because the Jewish community won't let them burn crosses on their lawn.

Jeff Sessions lashes back at Trump Personal Liberty Poll Exercise your right to vote. WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a message for Donald Trump: You’re wrong, Mr. President. Sessions long has been one of Trump’s favorite pinatas, often taking the brunt of the president’s public scorn. Trump offered this assessment of his hand-picked attorney general recusing himself from the Justice Department’s special counsel probe of Russian election meddling: “What kind of man is this?” Trump, in an interview that aired Thursday morning, also blasted Sessions because, he said, the former Alabama senator “never took control of the Justice Department.” About seven hours later, the country’s top law enforcement officer fired back. And, by doing so, took on Trump publicly in a way few Republicans in Washington have during his turbulent 19-month-old presidency. “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success at effectuating the President’s agenda — one that protects the safety and security and rights of the American people, reduces violent crime, enforces our immigration laws, promotes economic growth, and advances religious liberty,” the AG said in a statement. “While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action,” Sessions added. “However, no nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States.” That last statement comes amid nearly constant complaints from Trump that Justice Department and FBI investigators are being unfair to the president and his allies. That line of criticism has been picked up by, among others, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who was indicted on federal officials this week on charges of misusing campaign finance funds for personal use. Trump did not directly answer a Fox News interviewer’s question about whether he intends to fire Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the special counsel investigation, after November’s congressional elections. He also said he only gave the former senator the job because Sessions was a supporter during the 2016 presidential race. — John T. Bennett CQ-Roll Call ——— ©2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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

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

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

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick: Yet Another Fruit of Vatican II Still, we’re also averse to speaking in terms of good and evil. Right and wrong? Maybe. But good and evil have a supernatural ring we usually reserve for dramatic and abominable crimes, like genocide. Yet everything right is good, and everything wrong is evil. The evils we encounter in our day-to-day lives might not be a spectacle, like jihadists beheading a journalist on live television. All the same, evil is part of ordinary life. It dwells deep in our hearts – each and every one of us. The Prince of this World has made a grand display of his authority in the last few centuries. Our saving grace is that, while Westerners no longer believe in God, they still believe in the Devil. We’re at least clear-eyed enough to recognize true evil at work in the world, even if we can no longer see the great Good hidden behind the veil. This is the point about the McCarrick scandal that even religious commentators tend to overlook. How was he allowed to go on molesting young priests and seminarians when virtually the entire Church hierarchy knew what he was up to? And how was such a depraved individual ordained in the first place, let alone promoted to Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington? The answer is, ultimately, demonic. As Catholics, we ask St. Michael to “cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.” McCarrick and his fellow perverts in the clergy are responsible, not only for their sexual abuses, but also for chasing good men away from the priesthood. Spend enough time in Catholic World and you inevitably meet good men who quit the seminary because of some rampant (and often violent) depravity. What could suit the Devil more than to watch the Church burn her wheat as she gathers the chaff? The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, as Our Lord promised. But they won’t stop trying, either. They’ve attacked from the front, sending the Roman pagans, French Revolutionaries, and British American secularists. They flank us by sending heretics like Arius, Luther, and Hans Kung. Today, there’s also a fifth column working to tear down the walls from within – not only pedophiles like John Geoghan, but also predators like Theodore McCarrick. Where did those fifth columnists enter? Why, there’s only one possible explanation: the Second Vatican Council. Aggiornamento sounds like a Lefebvrist slur. The idea that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church would openly seek to “bring itself up to date” is ridiculous. Yet that was precisely the aim. As St Pope John XXIII explained, “Its principal task will be concerned with the conditions and modernization of the Church after 20 centuries of life.” It was not supposed (as some have claimed) to simply update the liturgy from its last redesign in 1570. The goal was to align the Church more with modern world: a world defined, to a considerable extent, by its rejection of the Catholic world that flourished before the Protestant Reformation and French Revolution. Now, I don’t believe Pope John saw himself as endangering either orthodoxy or sacred, immutable tradition. I share Pope Paul IV’s view. When he heard that the Council was being convened, then-Cardinal Montini is supposed to have sighed, “This holy old boy doesn’t realise what a hornet’s nest he’s stirring up.” Nonetheless, he stirred it. The spirit of aggiornamento quickly spread through the Church in the 1960s – and the seminaries especially. Seminarians called for a more “participatory” administration. They became involved in socialist politics. They formed trade unions to demand the right to marry. They practiced sauvage intercommunion. Of course, they had their enablers in the hierarchy as well. Perhaps the worst was Archbishop Marty of Paris, a leader of the “priest-worker movement” who defended Marxist and existentialist atheisms on the floor of the Council. During a homily at the Cathedral, he also praised the soixantehuitards: “the great outburst of the younger generation that suddenly wanted to take its place in life” that occurred in his city in May of 1968. “One also felt that, in these events of May,” Marty continued, “the seriousness of the working class, which wants not only to earn a living wage, but also to find its freedom, its independence.” Theaggiornamentistas was never purged from the Church, and certainly not from the seminaries. As the modern world continued to reject traditional Christian mores, so too does the Church seem increasingly “out of step” and in need of “modernizing”. Inevitably, this came to mean the acceptance of homosexuality. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, infamously spoke of “an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.” But that predominance has very little to do with homosexuality per se. Rather, the 1960s rejection of celibacy in the seminaries naturally provided more (shall we say) opportunities for gay men – given that there are, of course, no women in Catholic seminaries. This began driving away heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals who upheld the Church’s teachings on chastity and celibacy. Needless to say, not all gay priests are violent predators like McCarrick. But the toleration of sexually active priests gave McCarrick cover to “seduce” his victims. Many have also speculated that, because McCarrick’s victims were overwhelmingly above the age of consent, the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. If he’d fondled a 12-year old altar boy, that would have been one thing. Pedophile priests sell papers. But taking an 18-year-old seminarian to bed? Running that story would simply be outing a closeted gay man: an act the liberal press would no doubt consider “homophobic”, as Ross Douthat pointed out. Meanwhile, those bishops who didn’t approve of his actions knew the culture – both within the Church and without her – were against them. The post-Vatican Church doesn’t like to come off as a nag. She’s not going to cause a fuss by purging sexually active gay men from the clergy just because… what? It’s immoral? That’s not very aggiornamentistic! The world and our worldly bishops were, unsurprisingly, of one mind. And even if they were disgusted by McCarrick, these prelates weren’t willing to jeopardize their careers by standing for justice against vice. We seem to be slouching back to the old traditionalist trope: All the Church’s problems would be solved if we’d just go back to the Latin Mass. Something went critically wrong during Vatican II that extends well beyond the Mass. And we can’t drag the Church out of her present crisis until we have the courage to brave accusations of “Lefebvrism” and say so. Those who love our Holy Mother – those who want to protect her boys and men from all the McCarricks and their perverse appetites – mustn’t be deceived into thinking this is a small or an isolated issue. It isn’t. This is the crisis of an ancient and immortal institution trying desperately to seem young and fashionable; like all old men, it only manages to come across as lecherous and pathetic. Its obsession with “modernization” leads it to only adopt the vices of modernity. Instead of serving as ambassadors from the City of God, far too many of our priests and prelates have become agents of the City of Man. I don’t know what it will take to set things right. I don’t know what it will take to exorcise the “spirit of Vatican II” – the spirit of aggiornamento – from the Church. But we will. Christ promised.

Our New Muslim Representatives As expected, two Muslim women, Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, have been overwhelmingly elected to Congress. The establishment media will celebrate these victories as triumphs of America’s “diversity”; unfortunately, in reality neither one is worth celebrating. Tlaib is a vociferous foe of Israel. With the Democrats now regaining control of the House, Tlaib is likely to be an energetic proponent of the new majority’s vendetta against the Middle East’s only democracy. The House is likely to do all it can to roll back President Trump’s pro-Israel polices, with Tlaib as well as Omar as becoming the public faces of the effort. According to the JTA, when Tlaib was asked if she would vote against military aid to Israel, Tlaib responded: “Absolutely, if it has something to do with inequality and not access to people having justice. For me, U.S. aid should be leverage. I will be using my position in Congress so that no country, not one, should be able to get aid from the U.S. when they still promote that kind of injustice.” What kind of injustice? Tlaib, of course, had nothing to say about the genocidal incitement against Jews and Israel that regularly features on Palestinian television. She did say, however, that she favors a one-state, not two-state, “solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.” Indeed it doesn’t. A Palestinian state would be a new base for renewed jihad attacks against Israel. But a “one-state solution” would be even worse, unless that state is the current State of Israel, but that is not the one state Tlaib has in mind. She is calling for an Israeli/Palestinian state that would not be a Jewish State or a homeland for the Jewish people, but a federation in which Palestinians would soon overwhelm Jews demographically. Progressive denial of their rights would soon follow: as I show in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, there has never been a majority Muslim nation in which Jews enjoyed equality of rights with Muslims. Tlaib’s unitary state would be no different. The hijabed (and therefore pro-Sharia) Ilhan Omar, meanwhile, is even more hateful than Tlaib. According to the Daily Wire, in 2012 Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel.” Challenged about this tweet much more recently, she doubled down and attacked the man who called attention to the tweet: “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.” There is much, much worse about Omar. David Steinberg of PJ Media has done extraordinary work in shedding light on aspects of Omar’s record that the establishment media has steadfastly ignored. Steinberg reports that Omar has “faced allegations -- soon backed by a remarkable amount of evidence -- that she had married her own brother in 2009, and was still legally his wife. They officially divorced in December 2017. The motivation for the marriage remains unclear. However, the totality of the evidence points to possible immigration fraud and student loan fraud.” What’s more, she swore to apparent falsehoods in court. But Leftists rarely have to answer for their corruption, and in a Democrat House, Omar will much more likely be celebrated than investigated. She and Tlaib will enjoy establishment media accolades as they pursue their hard-Left, anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. Their presence in the House of Representatives may be evidence of “diversity,” but it is also a disquieting sign of the continued dominance of identity politics, and the increasing balkanization of the American body politic. Forthrightly pro-America, pro-Israel candidates would stand little to no chance in either of their districts. And that is indicative of a much larger problem.

Beware sonic weapon attacks, US tells citizens in China An employee of the American embassy in Guangzhou was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury The US has warned its citizens in China to be vigilant for “abnormal sensations of sound and pressure” as it opened an investigation into whether officials were targeted with a sonic weapon that caused a brain injury. An American government employee stationed in the southern city of Guangzhou recently reported “subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure”, the embassy in China said yesterday. The employee was diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury in an incident with echoes of suspected “sonic attacks” on American diplomats in Cuba last year. Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, said that medical teams were travelling to Guangzhou to investigate. The government employee’s symptoms were “very similar and entirely consistent” with those suffered in Cuba, he…

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

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

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

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

An Anti-Semitic Purge At McGill University ​Despite suffering several public and humiliating reversals in various forums and venues, those pushing for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel have not dispensed with their pernicious campaign of hate. The latest outrage perpetrated by BDS activists occurred at McGill University, where a Jewish student and two non-Jewish students identified as pro-Israel were removed from their positions as directors of the Students Society of McGill University (SSMU). At the end of his second year, Noah Lew, who is currently third year undergraduate student at McGill University, applied to serve as Director of the School’s student society. He was warned by others who had prior dealings with the SSMU, to keep his Jewish identity secret lest he sabotage his chances. This is the atmosphere that Jewish students and supporters of Israel must endure on a daily basis at McGill. The toxic environment is due almost exclusively to an active and vocal presence of BDS agitators on campus. Lew followed the advice and was elected as a board member. His “secret” was intact. BDS provocateurs at McGill had relentlessly tried and failed to pass boycott resolutions against Israel. In fact, three attempts within an 18-month period were quashed. Finally, in June 2016, SSMU’s Judicial Board ruled that the BDS campaign and efforts to institute it at McGill ran counter to the McGill’s undergraduate student union constitution. The Board’s ruling, which is called a “reference,” was then referred to SSMU’s directors for ratification. SSMU’s Board of Directors addressed the issue more than a year after the “reference.” Lew and other board members passionately advocated in favor of ratification and their arguments ultimately prevailed over the naysayers. The malevolent BDS campaign at McGill had belatedly come to an ignominious end; or so we thought. Lew and two other directors identified as either Jewish or pro-Israel became instant targets of a campaign of hate laced with blatant anti-Semitic overtones. Campus BDS groups held several meetings to formulate a response and founded the so-called “Democratize SSMU” movement. But Democratize SSMU was anything but democratic. Its raison d'être was to seek the removal of Jewish and anti-BDS students from SSMU’s Board of Directors and place BDS back on the agenda. As an aside, one of the more vocal proponents of BDS at McGill is a rancid character named Igor Sadikov, who in February posted a comment on twitter advocating violence against “Zionists.” As a result, he was forced to resign his position as an SSMU director but dodged an impeachment effort to have him stripped of his position at McGill’s Arts Undergraduate Society. Sadikov made light of his “punch a Zionist” tweet calling it a “misguided joke.” It does not appear that Sadikov was subjected to any form of school disciplinary action despite the fact that his call for violence violated McGill’s Code of Conduct. McGill’s BDS Action Network actively campaigned against Lew and two other board members because of their links to Jewish groups and anti-BDS stances. Democratize SSMU shamefully highlighted Lew’s ethnicity as a reason for his removal. An enlightened, progressive school was suddenly transformed into something harking back to the days of Nazi Germany and the Nuremberg Laws. In October, SSMU’s General Assembly moved to ratify the 12-member Board of Directors. According to Lew, “historically, the Board of Directors had been ratified as a bloc, all 12 at a time.” But BDS activists who showed up for the General Assembly ratification forced the voting to occur on an individual basis rather than a block as was the accepted protocol. In this manner, BDS/ Democratize SSMU activists managed to pick off their opponents one at a time. It was repulsive display leftist-fascist bigotry at its worst. The bigoted BDS provocateurs applauded as Lew and the other two board members were removed from their posts. But this time, they may have gone too far. Even by BDS standards, their manifestly anti-Semitic campaign antics were beyond the pale. BDS activists generally avoid reference to “Jews” by name because it is impolitic and commonly substitute “Zionists” for Jews even though most of us are cognizant of their true intentions. But in the instant case, McGill’s BDS campaigners dispensed with their traditional charade and overtly launched their attack against Jews. The vitriolic BDS campaign immediately sparked outrage among watchdog groups and politicians prompting McGill principal, Suzanne Fortier, to announce that the school would be conducting an investigation into the matter. Even SSMU president, Muna Tojiboeva, voiced support for Lew and expressed the belief that antisemitism played a key role in the ousting the three board members. One can only hope that Fortier takes the issue seriously and conducts a proper investigation, which leads to disciplinary action. Judging by past “investigations” conducted by other schools – SFSU, CUNY and UCI, to name a few – I am not optimistic.

Kavanaugh Battle Brews The Left’s continuing success in delaying a confirmation vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court reveals its malicious agenda to block the nominee from sitting on the high court when its new term begins Monday, October 1. Democrats had Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s never-credible accusations of sexual abuse -- including possible attempted rape -- in hand way back in the summer. They deliberately refused to bring up the allegations, as weak and ridiculous as they are, at Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearings because they didn’t want to have a rational discussion. They wanted to hurl the wild claims like a grenade at the last minute to blow up the process. And so far it appears they’re succeeding. If Kavanaugh isn’t in place a week from Monday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing cases in its new term shorthanded. The high court normally has a complement of nine justices but with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have only been eight justices in place. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats would prefer to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they hope to take control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers are trying to game the system. They know that Senate Judiciary Committee rules require Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to provide a full week’s notice for a hearing. So, if, for example, the committee followed the rules and agreed Friday (today) to a hearing, the soonest it could be held would be next Friday, the final business day before the Supreme Court’s new term begins. Of course, lawyers are masters of delay, and social justice warrior-lawyers hoping to torpedo President Trump’s agenda have an added incentive to drag the confirmation process out as long as possible. New demands and fake emergencies are bound to arise from Ford’s legal team. It was unclear at press time if the public hearing scheduled for Monday into the allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh would go forward. Kavanaugh informed the committee he was willing to testify Monday. “I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name," he wrote in a letter. Ford's lawyer Debra Katz told the Judiciary Committee her client "wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety." Another Ford attorney reportedly said Wednesday that there are “multiple witnesses” who need to testify. "A hearing on Monday is not possible and the Committee's insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event,” Katz wrote in a letter. “Dr. Ford has asked me to let you know that she appreciates the various options you have suggested. Her strong preference continues to be for the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow for a full investigation prior to her testimony.” GOP lawmakers are figuring out how to respond to Ford’s request, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports: Late Thursday, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee chairman, said that his staff had discussed the issue with Ford’s attorney earlier in the day and that he would consult with his fellow committee members about the next move. Ford’s offer also increased the pressure on several key moderates — particularly GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — whose votes will probably be needed to put Kavanaugh on the high court. Both were already facing heavy pressure from abortion rights groups concerned that Kavanaugh, a staunch conservative and longtime GOP attorney, might vote to restrict access to abortion. The sexual assault allegation, which the nominee has denied, has upended his seemingly sure-bet confirmation and only increased the stakes for the key lawmakers. Chairman Grassley had imposed a Thursday deadline for Ford to submit testimony after her team said Tuesday she wasn’t willing to testify until the FBI investigates her sexual abuse allegations against Kavanaugh. Left-wingers such as Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) echoed Ford’s demand. The demand for an FBI probe is “utter nonsense,” former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova said earlier this week. Ford “really doesn’t want to testify,” he said. “Because when she does, she is going to look like the loon she is. She may very well believe everything she’s saying, and that is one of the signs of lunacy, believing something that isn’t real.” And her lawyer is “even loonier.” Besides, diGenova explained, the eleventh-hour sexual abuse claim leveled against Kavanaugh is a non-federal matter and in this case the alleged assault hasn’t even been clearly outlined by the alleged victim. Ford didn’t report it to anyone for decades and isn’t even certain when or where it happened, so the FBI can’t investigate the matter “because there is nothing to investigate.” Kavanaugh has already undergone six FBI background checks and the agency has ruled out investigating Ford’s allegation of drunken groping at a teenagers’ party 36 years ago. Ford’s request for an FBI probe is “clearly a desire to delay proceedings,” diGenova said. President Trump is taking the high road and is avoiding attacking Ford, which isn’t a risky move given how obviously unbalanced the accuser is. Ford is already doing an excellent job destroying herself without Republican assistance. At the White House on Wednesday, President Trump said it would be "wonderful" if Ford testifies and "unfortunate" if she does not. He indicated he was keeping an open mind about the allegations but that it was "very hard for me to imagine anything happened" between her and the nominee. "I think he's an extraordinary man – I think he's a man of great intellect, as I've been telling you, and he has an unblemished record," Trump said. "This is a very tough thing for him and his family and we want to get over it but at the same time we want to give tremendous amounts of time. If she shows up that would be wonderful – if she doesn't show up that would be unfortunate." CBS News reports that Judge Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley Kavanaugh, has received multiple threats. “The text of three emailed threats, obtained by CBS News, were obscene and violent in nature. CBS News has confirmed that the U.S. Marshal's Service has assigned a protective detail to Kavanaugh's family,” the news website reports. The high-stakes behind-the-scenes jockeying over the confirmation process continues.

The Hammond Pardons Bring Justice to Obama's Victims The media very deliberately misreported the Bundy standoff, ridiculing the men involved and shrugging at the murder of LaVoy Finicum. When the court case completely collapsed, the media buried the story. Just as it failed to provide any meaningful information about the background of the case. That was in part because it would have been damaging to Obama. And because they didn't care. But President Trump listened to the voices asking him for justice. Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges. At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences. The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison. This was unjust. Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison The same administration that was against mandatory minimums for its drug dealers and gang members went to court to defend mandatory minimums under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. While Obama pardoned drug dealers and locked up ranchers, Trump pardons ranchers and locks up drug dealers. Both men are currently in prison on five-year sentences, thanks in part to a 1996 antiterrorism law that imposed a mandatory minimum sentence on certain crimes on federal land. The length of their prison terms, in part, fueled outrage at their convictions. Federal Judge Michael Robert Hogan originally gave the Hammonds reduced sentences in 2012, arguing that the mandatory minimums were unjust. But the Obama administration appealed, and federal Judge Ann Aiken in 2015 imposed the full five-year sentences. Hogan was a Bush appointee who respected the law. Aiken was a Dem fundraiser, her husband was the chair of the Oregon Dem party, appointed by Bill Clinton. Aiken was unqualified for her role, except in the ways that mattered to the Clintons and their Dem allies. These pardons cleanse another stain from our nation's history in the dark years of Obama.

Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States Accuses Pope of McCarrick Cover-up, Calls on Francis to Resign In this tragic moment for the Church in various parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia, etc. — bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them, to follow the example of these first martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Also, as this is an unprecedented moment in papal history, perhaps the unprecedented step of recalling Benedict XVI to the Chair of St. Peter should also be considered sooner rather than later, before this crisis gets any more out-of-control than it already is. May God save His Church MJM So serious is the cover-up that for the good of the Church and protection of the faithful, Archbishop Vigano has called on Pope Francis to resign. But before Francis resigns, we the Catholic faithful demand that he also remove from the College of Cardinals those who conspired even before the 2013 conclave to make Jorge Mario Bergoglio pope come hell or high water. He and the St. Gallen Group know exactly who they are. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's 11-page statement, released to the National Catholic Register, accuses Pope Francis of covering for McCarrick, ignoring the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on McCarrick, and also of making McCarrick a trusted counselor who became Francis's "kingmaker" when it came to American appointments and was highly instrumental in the Pope's decision to elevate far-Left bishops such as Blase Cupich of Chicago and Joseph Tobin of Newark to the College of Cardinals. Remnant Editor's Note: This could well mark the beginning of the end of the disastrous pontificate of Pope Francis. The former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused Francis of repealing sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict XVI on then-Cardinal McCarrick for sexual abuse. This is a charge most serious, perhaps without precedent in modern times. Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated. To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia. “Whatever you have said in the dark ... shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk. 12:3). I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case of the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19, 2011 until end of May 2016. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limited to the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staff of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions, informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases, including those regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State. To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests. Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop. The office that I held at the time was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State. Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who was reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and seminarians. The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum to about twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore called for a prompt intervention by the Holy See. In writing up a memo[1] on these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people, derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts. In my memo, which I delivered on that same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors: - Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals for the Church in the United States, - and that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2˚, “ipsius Romani Pontificis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”; - I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the faithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church. I added that it would be salutary if, for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing his authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims. My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me with any actual decision by the superiors on this matter. Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual abuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month later, on May 24, 2008. The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with this respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI: “I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that about which I have spoken.” I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for reduction to the lay state. This second memo of mine was also never returned to the Personnel Office, and I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my first memo in December 2006. But finally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired result. Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal 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. I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present in the Church, and in the first months of his pontificate had already taken a firm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deep homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s first collaborator at the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility, and was accustomed to managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope. In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then first Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Affaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it— about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that “the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.” Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the new Nuncio. In turn, 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. The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It is therefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia. Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information 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. Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano had protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the financial means to influence decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington. Nuncio Sambi’s report, 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 Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions to various continents. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never received any reply! The same can be said for Cardinal William Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their office of the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick. Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick. Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the Secretary of State. As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a different ideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Now to the United States. Obviously, the first to have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was McCarrick’s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation is now completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh. It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, I myself brought up the subject 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. Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter. Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he knew about Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ? Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and credibility. * * * My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic significance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reaffirm them under oath by calling on God as my witness. In the last months of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for the audience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made by his predecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington. It was my first meeting with the new Pope elected only three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict. On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were staying there. As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the red-trimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant: “The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.” At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately following. The next day the audience with Pope Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read and partly delivered off the cuff, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single file, I remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!”Of course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days earlier, telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from that extremely disconcerting and embarrassing situation. At the end of the audience the Pope announced: “Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.” I naturally thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to tell me. On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive me sometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without having clarified what the Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said: “The Pope told me to ask if you are free now!” Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope’s disposal and that I thanked him for receiving me immediately. The Pope took me to the first floor in his apartment and said: “We have 40 minutes before the Angelus.” I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very different, friendly, almost affectionate tone, said to me: “Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.” Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else. Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” 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. Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the first Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds….” I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco. Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me: “What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?” I replied, “Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.” They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction. 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. In a team effort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he 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. In addition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari — the great friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio — as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple official of that department to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position! 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. Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims. During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine. Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he “candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.” 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. These characters are closely associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontiffs. We need only consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth, closely associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits. Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, 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, is nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus. Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary manner. He must honestly state when he first learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests. In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga. The latter [Maradiaga] is so confident of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary. 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. In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian] weekly L’Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire: “It was my auxiliary bishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name after being subjected to much slander.” Now, regarding Pineda 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. In the name of the transparency so hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made public. Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected with Honduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifical Representations I received worrisome information about him. In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile is about to be repeated. 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. Even in the tragic affair of McCarrick, Pope Francis’s behavior was no different. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 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 [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media. Now in the United States a chorus of voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence, covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should resign. But this will not be enough to heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must be recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the misuse of the Church’s resources and of the offerings of the faithful must be fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced. The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “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. I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities. Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance:Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid! In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, but it needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fidelity on God’s part and unfortunately also of infidelity on the part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant, signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote: the Church is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy and spotless even though, in her earthly journey, she is made up of men stained with sin. 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.” 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! 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. Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well know that the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fidelity and dedication. It is in moments of great trial that the Lord’s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her sins, to convert, and to do penance. Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him! Let us all renew faith in the Church our Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!” Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit! Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us! Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us! Rome, August 22, 2018 Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary Official translation by Diane Montagna.

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