Joe Biden condemns Trump as unfit for command for pardoning U.S. troops

Joe Biden, whose own kid somehow managed to avoid arrest and imprisonment for his cocaine habit in the Navy, is out condemning President Trump for pardoning a few military small fry whose draconian sentences didn’t match the ‘crimes’ they were convicted of.

Here’s Biden on Twitter:

 

 

The obnoxious tweet was in response to Trump’s pardon of these troops in the past week, described well by PJMedia’s Matt Margolis:

Last week, President Trump granted full pardons for Army First Lt. Clint Lorance and Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who’d been accused of war crimes. Lorance had served six years of a 19-year sentence, and Golsteyn was facing trial for killing an alleged Taliban bombmaker. Navy SEAL Edward R. Gallagher, who was found not guilty of war crimes, but still had his rank reduced, was granted clemency and restoration of rank.

Lawmakers had been pushing for pardons for Lorance and Golsteyn because they’d taken actions to defend themselves on the battlefield and were charged with war crimes for it

The troops were guilty of minor offenses, such as posing for a private picture with the body of a dead Taliban terrorist, as was the case of Gallagher. In earlier ages, that was called a victory dance. The others were imprisoned for heat-of-battle crimes uner terrifying circumstances, entirely entitled to some kind of clemency given the courage they showed and the sacrifices they made. They weren’t crooks out to gain something for themselves when they became foot soldiers. If these guys aren’t entitled to clemency, why the heck is Hunter Biden not in the brig? 

They were little guys, forced to pay a huge price, and their families were ecstatic with appreciation for President Trump’s mercy shown. While Joe was condemning Trump as “unfit” for throwing them a few crumbs of mercy, here are the families Biden insists deserve no mercy whatsoever:

 

 

There they are, screaming and squealing with joy, little kid bouncing up with a flying ponytail in between all of them:

 

 

Look like a bunch of crooks? Look like the sort of elites Joe pads around with? In light of these pictures, the whole tweet from Biden is revolting.

Suddenly this jackass is concerned about America being exceptional? What is it about presidential pardons for out-of-proportion sentences for combat vets that makes it not so very exceptional, as if he actually cared?

And speaking of wearing the uniform honorably, where’s Hunter?

Unfit for command? Only if you care more about bureaucrats and overzealous prosecutors than you do about the well-being and justice deserved for the fighting troops. 

Joe Biden declaring President Trump, who’s just decapitated the ISIS leadership, somehow “unfit” is a real doozy of irony.

Margolies noted that sanctimonious Mr. Saint, Pete Buttigieg, also was quick to condemn the pardons for the foot soldiers.

Yet, when President Trump pardoned them, it immediately sparked controversy and outrage. Pete Buttigieg joined in the outrage chorus, claiming Trump “dishonored our armed services.”

Which is weird, because it suggests that there’s some coordination of the talking points on the left. JournoList, anyone?

Margolies notes that the Obama administration has pardoned all sorts of disgusting characters in its own past, people in a lot less need of mercy than these hapless troops. Private Bradley Manning, who engaged in what’s historically known as treason is Exhibit A.

He also mentions the scads of petty drug dealers, many of whom have since resumed their lives of crime, that President Obama also doled out.

I’ll throw in one more, seeing that it involves Democrats: Marc Rich, pardoned by Bill Clinton just hours before he made his appalling exit in 2001. Rich was a sleazy fugitive who’d made a pile of money, thumbed his nose at Iran sanctions in the name of making a buck, and effectively bought himself his pardon through campaign donations to House Clinton.

Rich is fine for a pardon and these military families are not? The whole travesty just goes to outline how out of touch Joe is with the little guy, how anything goes for the elites, but tiny people must be made to pay full fare and stay in their places. They don’t have the connections Hunter Biden or Marc Rich did. They pay retail.

Hypocrisy? It’s all over Joe’s face. He needs to be called out on this and called out over and over. What a creep.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

 

Joe Biden, whose own kid somehow managed to avoid arrest and imprisonment for his cocaine habit in the Navy, is out condemning President Trump for pardoning a few military small fry whose draconian sentences didn’t match the ‘crimes’ they were convicted of.

Here’s Biden on Twitter:

 

 

The obnoxious tweet was in response to Trump’s pardon of these troops in the past week, described well by PJMedia’s Matt Margolis:

Last week, President Trump granted full pardons for Army First Lt. Clint Lorance and Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who’d been accused of war crimes. Lorance had served six years of a 19-year sentence, and Golsteyn was facing trial for killing an alleged Taliban bombmaker. Navy SEAL Edward R. Gallagher, who was found not guilty of war crimes, but still had his rank reduced, was granted clemency and restoration of rank.

Lawmakers had been pushing for pardons for Lorance and Golsteyn because they’d taken actions to defend themselves on the battlefield and were charged with war crimes for it

The troops were guilty of minor offenses, such as posing for a private picture with the body of a dead Taliban terrorist, as was the case of Gallagher. In earlier ages, that was called a victory dance. The others were imprisoned for heat-of-battle crimes uner terrifying circumstances, entirely entitled to some kind of clemency given the courage they showed and the sacrifices they made. They weren’t crooks out to gain something for themselves when they became foot soldiers. If these guys aren’t entitled to clemency, why the heck is Hunter Biden not in the brig? 

They were little guys, forced to pay a huge price, and their families were ecstatic with appreciation for President Trump’s mercy shown. While Joe was condemning Trump as “unfit” for throwing them a few crumbs of mercy, here are the families Biden insists deserve no mercy whatsoever:

 

 

There they are, screaming and squealing with joy, little kid bouncing up with a flying ponytail in between all of them:

 

 

Look like a bunch of crooks? Look like the sort of elites Joe pads around with? In light of these pictures, the whole tweet from Biden is revolting.

Suddenly this jackass is concerned about America being exceptional? What is it about presidential pardons for out-of-proportion sentences for combat vets that makes it not so very exceptional, as if he actually cared?

And speaking of wearing the uniform honorably, where’s Hunter?

Unfit for command? Only if you care more about bureaucrats and overzealous prosecutors than you do about the well-being and justice deserved for the fighting troops. 

Joe Biden declaring President Trump, who’s just decapitated the ISIS leadership, somehow “unfit” is a real doozy of irony.

Margolies noted that sanctimonious Mr. Saint, Pete Buttigieg, also was quick to condemn the pardons for the foot soldiers.

Yet, when President Trump pardoned them, it immediately sparked controversy and outrage. Pete Buttigieg joined in the outrage chorus, claiming Trump “dishonored our armed services.”

Which is weird, because it suggests that there’s some coordination of the talking points on the left. JournoList, anyone?

Margolies notes that the Obama administration has pardoned all sorts of disgusting characters in its own past, people in a lot less need of mercy than these hapless troops. Private Bradley Manning, who engaged in what’s historically known as treason is Exhibit A.

He also mentions the scads of petty drug dealers, many of whom have since resumed their lives of crime, that President Obama also doled out.

I’ll throw in one more, seeing that it involves Democrats: Marc Rich, pardoned by Bill Clinton just hours before he made his appalling exit in 2001. Rich was a sleazy fugitive who’d made a pile of money, thumbed his nose at Iran sanctions in the name of making a buck, and effectively bought himself his pardon through campaign donations to House Clinton.

Rich is fine for a pardon and these military families are not? The whole travesty just goes to outline how out of touch Joe is with the little guy, how anything goes for the elites, but tiny people must be made to pay full fare and stay in their places. They don’t have the connections Hunter Biden or Marc Rich did. They pay retail.

Hypocrisy? It’s all over Joe’s face. He needs to be called out on this and called out over and over. What a creep.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Democrats Push California-Style Gun Control in Aftermath of California Shooting

A number of prominent Democrats on Thursday pushed for the national adoption of California-style gun-control laws in the immediate aftermath of a horrific shooting at a California high school.

Within hours of the news that two students had been murdered, and another three injured, during an attack at Saugus High School just outside Los Angeles, current and former Democratic lawmakers began advocating for a federal universal background check system and a national ban on "assault weapons." The calls for these policies came even as California’s own implementation of both laws failed to prevent the shooting.

"We can’t go 24 hours without news of another mass shooting somewhere in America," Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) said on the Senate floor as news of the shooting was still coming in. "My kids and millions of others hide in corners of their classroom or in their bathrooms preparing for a mass shooting at their school, and this body does nothing about it. The good news is we have a piece of legislation that enjoys 95 percent support in the American public and will undoubtedly make an enormous impact on gun violence rates in this country."

Murphy then called for the Senate to "immediately take up H.R. 8," a universal background check bill passed by the House of Representatives.

Even as the tragedy unfolded, former president Bill Clinton called for both the passage of a federal universal background check system and an assault-weapons ban during an interview on CNN.

"I think if they got any support in the House some of the senators might vote to modernize the background check law, too," Clinton said. "I think they should do the same thing with the assault-weapons ban and the ammunition limit."

California has a universal background check law, assault-weapons ban, and magazine ban, as well as a number of other strict gun-control measures. Gun-control group Giffords Law Center gives the state an "A" rating, and ranked it the state with the strictest gun laws in the country. The inability of such policies to prevent Thursday’s attack casts doubt on Democrats’ insistence that such laws are the most effective path forward to prevent future attacks.

Police announced on Thursday that the 16-year-old attacker had used a semiautomatic handgun, but did not release any information on how he obtained the gun. Federal law prohibits anyone under 21 years of age from purchasing a handgun anywhere in the United States. Additionally, California has a law prohibiting adults from leaving guns where minors can gain unauthorized access to them. In other words, the suspected shooter could not have obtained his firearm legally.

Neither universal background checks nor an assault-weapons ban would have had any impact on the shooting, as the attacker was too young to purchase a handgun anywhere in the country and the handgun he used would not be prohibited under any proposed definition of "assault weapon"—including California’s own strict standard.

Responding to the shooting, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) also pushed for federal universal background checks during a CNN interview. When CNN host Jake Tapper asked why California’s strict gun-control laws did not prevent the school shooting, Swalwell blamed the gun laws of the state’s neighbors.

"You’re only as safe as the laws of the states around you, particularly for California it’s very loose laws in Arizona," Swalwell said. "Our neighbor Nevada for a long time was a big part of the problem, but legislators there have gone Democratic, have put in place background checks and other restrictions. So we expect to see fewer firearms coming in, but that’s why I think you need across-the-board federal laws here."

Police have released no information to indicate the gun used in Thursday’s shooting came from out-of-state. Since the handgun in question is available to purchase in California, and the suspect is too young to legally purchase anywhere in the country, it is unclear why Swalwell sought to blame neighboring states’ gun laws for the attack. The congressman offered no further explanation for why California’s gun-control laws failed to prevent the shooting.

The post Democrats Push California-Style Gun Control in Aftermath of California Shooting appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

WATCH: Disturbing Sex-Ed Videos Show Young Kids Instructed On Masturbation, Transgenderism

Shaftesbury Kids, a division of the Canadian production company Shaftesbury Films, has produced a series of sex education videos for children titled “Sex-Ed School” that have outraged parents. The videos show classrooms of young children discussing such issues as transgenderism and masturbation with instructors.

The website for the series states:

Sex-Ed School is an entertaining and educational YouTube series about sexuality and healthy relationships for youth, ages 9-12. Each episode features two expert hosts, Nadine and Eva, leading a respectful and authentic dialogue on sexual health, and guiding participants through fun and thought-provoking activities about specific topics.

CBN notes,  “They feature Nadine Thornhill, who is described as ‘one of Canada’s foremost experts on child and adolescent sexuality’ and Eva Bloom, a ‘sex research and online sexuality educator.’”

Examples that precipitated outrage:

Episode Four, titled “Gender,” is described this way:

Gender expression is how a person chooses to express themselves, while gender is how they feel on the inside. Eva and Nadine discuss pronouns and the kids learn more about what gender is all about. We meet Kaleb, a trans man who shares his gender journey during a fun and informative Q and A. As well, the kids play a game of musical-chairs-with-a-twist to learn more about how everyone can feel comfortable expressing who they are.

As CBN notes, in that episode, the educators play “true or false” with the children. One asks the children, “Everyone born with a vulva is a girl, true for false?” Most, but not all, of the children reply, “True,” leaving the teacher the opportunity to instruct, “Not everybody is sure, and that makes sense. Our genitals actually don’t determine our gender. Some people born with vulvas can be boys.”

Kaleb tells his life story, including this passage: “For me, in my daily life, I was a girl. But then when I went on stage and I wanted to perform, I was male and I used he/him pronouns.” Kaleb segues to hormone injections, saying, “It changed my voice a bit and changes your body a little bit. …  I basically went through a second puberty when I was in my 20’s. …  I have to take [the hormone injection] … every week … I did have my breasts removed. I have scars on my chest. I really only talk about kind of what’s in my pants if people are getting in there.”

More: in the video called “Love is Love”, the instructors discuss masturbation with the children, describing it as “self-love,” and asking about “things that can happen when you masturbate since some people consider masturbation a form of self-love.” One girl asks,“What does masturbate mean?” Instructor: “It’s basically when you touch yourself for sexual pleasure …  touching your genitals in a way that feels good.” Further, “you can make yourself feel good on your own so you don’t need to have sex with someone else.”

A third example: an episode titled “Orientation,” which the website describes thus: “Local Drag Queens, Fay Slift and Fluffy Soufflé drop by for a delightfully candid discussion about all things orientation from their POV. The kids learn more about LGBTQ2+ and pose some very interesting questions for Fay and Fluffy.”

In that episode, a bearded man wearing an orange wig, a dress, and elbow-high pink gloves addresses the children seated on the floor in front of him and states, “Hi, I’m ‘Fay Slift’ and I use the pronouns she/her, and I’m queer-identified.” The other drag queen, Fluffy,” wearing a purple wig and a dress, adds, “I’m Fluffy Souffle; I use they/them, cause I’m a non-binary performer, and I also identify as queer.”

Fluffy asks Fay, “What does queer mean to you?” Fay answers, “For me it means limitless potential; it could be whatever it is that I feel or want to be.”

One young boy asks, “How do you teach somebody to be gay?” Fluffy answers, “Well, if it’s somebody who is gay that is like ‘I want to learn what gayness is,’ there’s the internet for that.”

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

The Department of Defense Joins the Coup Cabal

We like to think of military officers as political eunuchs, but that fairy tale is a smug myth. No American government institutions, including the military services, thrive or survive in Washington without vigorous internal and external political engagement.

Outspoken flag officers have several things in common. Soldiers with integrity, vision, and conscience honor the wall between political and partisan, the ethic that allows for a distinction between policy differences, honorable service, and sedition. That ethic has been eroded by the post-Vietnam era class of flag officer. Consider a sampling of contemporary military officers whose behavior today is a toxic echo of George McClellan’s ugly Civil War sedition, something other than “duty, honor, and country.”

We begin with General James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, because he is just the latest erstwhile flag officer to step on his crank. Known to his disciples as the patriarch of Paris Island or Krishna Quantico, the monkish Mattis had legitimate policy differences with President Trump. Unfortunately, the general’s behavior since resignation is nothing short of puerile.

After Mattis beat a petulant retreat from the Pentagon, Trump suggested that Mattis was “not a great general,” an admittedly insensitive recitation of the obvious.

Vietnam era flag officers will never be known as the “greatest generation.”

Since the Vietnam fail, the Gulf War had to be fought twice. Iraq is still a hot mess. Syria has become another divided, surrogate killing field. After thirty years of American campaigning, Afghanistan is arguably worse off today than it was under Soviet occupation. Libya is still a smoldering Obama/Clinton era ruin. Now, North Africa has another Specified Command bureaucracy and another spasm of pyric small wars. And the global, so-called, “war on terror” might be the longest and most expensive bad joke in the history of military inertia.

Adding insult to insanity, we now have a new Cold War with Russia. Much of this came to pass with Mattis and company at the helm in the Pentagon.

Rather than disputing Trump’s jibe with facts, Mattis chose the low road and attacked the President’s character, Trump’s lack of military service in Vietnam. “Mad Dog” is fond of referring to those who did not serve in Vietnam as “pussies.” General Mattis fails to mention that the vast majority of American cats do not choose to serve in the military now or then.

Ironically, Mattis’ pique validated Trump’s judgement. Seems the general can’t take a punch.  No one will ever be able to say that about Trump.

Indeed, “service” in the Oval Office today, midst a rolling coup, requires more moxie than killing tribal Toyotas with drones, cruise missiles, tanks, gunships, and fighter planes in a world replete with inconclusive small wars and Third World sierra hotels.

Those who serve in the military, General Mattis, are not necessarily honorable, any more than those who do not serve are dishonorable. And not to put too fine a point on it, strategic competence is not all brass hats, fruit salad, and parade swords.

Another USMC pyrrhic warrior runs a close second to Mattis.  Nikki Haley now reveals that General John Kelly, Jr. was attempting to recruit insiders to “undermine” or resist the President while serving as White House chief-of-staff. Arrogant, unelected DOD mandarins, like their State Department, Intelligence Community, and Justice counterparts, have come to believe that the permanent Deep State is the only real state.

Mattis and Kelly are just two of a host of partisan general officers to join the seditious never-Trump legion. The worst may be erstwhile Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, USAF.

Clapper’s great fail, beyond the “dossier plot,” with an assist from Barack Obama and CIA’s John Brennan, was to shade Intelligence to accommodate a new national security narrative. The threat pyramid was inverted on Clapper’s watch. Islam was elevated as a “great” culture whilst Russians and Putin were resuscitated as Cold War demons.

According to Clapper, and acolytes like Brennan, the jihad is just “ritual cleansing.” By that logic, all that slaughter on 9/11 and every other global Muslim atrocity since are just “ritual” sacrifices to whom or what — Mohamed or Mecca?

Alas, the US Army might occupy a high ground for dysfunctional flag officers. Clinkers like David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal immediately come to mind. Petraeus literally stepped on his crank by bedding subordinates. McChrystal got caught on a party plane talking trash about the timidity of Barack Obama.

The peccadillos of today’s Army generals are, nevertheless, low hanging fruit. More ominous, Army political partisanship is bleeding into the ranks. The poster child for this kind of venality is Lieutenant Colonel, Alexander Vindman, on loan to the NSC. Yes, that’s the National Security Council at the White House. Seems Vindman is an egoist/linguist who is both indiscrete and treacherous.

Vindman didn’t like, or misconstrued, something President Trump said to the Ukrainian president. Subsequently, Alex went off the DOD reservation to assist the press and Congress with the impeachment follies.

Apparently, a commissioned US Army officer cannot be trusted to assist the Commander-in-Chief and respect the confidentiality of the Oval Office. If Vindman had violated command confidentiality in a combat zone, he might have been court martialed – or fragged.

Silence from Pentagon and Army brass about the Vindman treachery says all that needs to be said about contemporary military standards on the E-Ring. 

And so it goes with Beltway bias. Now, DOD joins the Intelligence Community, the Justice Department, and State Department as a source of foot soldiers in the slow-motion coup.

Call it the sedition coalition.

Say what you will about Donald Trump: this President has exposed the reality of the Washington swamp, the partisan deep state, and a bigoted Beltway establishment that may now be too corrupt for words.

Of all the Washington perfidy revealed since 2016, Military partisanship might be the most troubling pathology to emerge since Lincoln had to fire McClellan.

Photo credit: Master Sergeant Ken Hammond

The author is a former USAF Intelligence officer, serving under General James Clapper at USAF Intelligence. Colonel Donovan has served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Central intelligence Agency.                                                 

We like to think of military officers as political eunuchs, but that fairy tale is a smug myth. No American government institutions, including the military services, thrive or survive in Washington without vigorous internal and external political engagement.

Outspoken flag officers have several things in common. Soldiers with integrity, vision, and conscience honor the wall between political and partisan, the ethic that allows for a distinction between policy differences, honorable service, and sedition. That ethic has been eroded by the post-Vietnam era class of flag officer. Consider a sampling of contemporary military officers whose behavior today is a toxic echo of George McClellan’s ugly Civil War sedition, something other than “duty, honor, and country.”

We begin with General James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, because he is just the latest erstwhile flag officer to step on his crank. Known to his disciples as the patriarch of Paris Island or Krishna Quantico, the monkish Mattis had legitimate policy differences with President Trump. Unfortunately, the general’s behavior since resignation is nothing short of puerile.

After Mattis beat a petulant retreat from the Pentagon, Trump suggested that Mattis was “not a great general,” an admittedly insensitive recitation of the obvious.

Vietnam era flag officers will never be known as the “greatest generation.”

Since the Vietnam fail, the Gulf War had to be fought twice. Iraq is still a hot mess. Syria has become another divided, surrogate killing field. After thirty years of American campaigning, Afghanistan is arguably worse off today than it was under Soviet occupation. Libya is still a smoldering Obama/Clinton era ruin. Now, North Africa has another Specified Command bureaucracy and another spasm of pyric small wars. And the global, so-called, “war on terror” might be the longest and most expensive bad joke in the history of military inertia.

Adding insult to insanity, we now have a new Cold War with Russia. Much of this came to pass with Mattis and company at the helm in the Pentagon.

Rather than disputing Trump’s jibe with facts, Mattis chose the low road and attacked the President’s character, Trump’s lack of military service in Vietnam. “Mad Dog” is fond of referring to those who did not serve in Vietnam as “pussies.” General Mattis fails to mention that the vast majority of American cats do not choose to serve in the military now or then.

Ironically, Mattis’ pique validated Trump’s judgement. Seems the general can’t take a punch.  No one will ever be able to say that about Trump.

Indeed, “service” in the Oval Office today, midst a rolling coup, requires more moxie than killing tribal Toyotas with drones, cruise missiles, tanks, gunships, and fighter planes in a world replete with inconclusive small wars and Third World sierra hotels.

Those who serve in the military, General Mattis, are not necessarily honorable, any more than those who do not serve are dishonorable. And not to put too fine a point on it, strategic competence is not all brass hats, fruit salad, and parade swords.

Another USMC pyrrhic warrior runs a close second to Mattis.  Nikki Haley now reveals that General John Kelly, Jr. was attempting to recruit insiders to “undermine” or resist the President while serving as White House chief-of-staff. Arrogant, unelected DOD mandarins, like their State Department, Intelligence Community, and Justice counterparts, have come to believe that the permanent Deep State is the only real state.

Mattis and Kelly are just two of a host of partisan general officers to join the seditious never-Trump legion. The worst may be erstwhile Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, USAF.

Clapper’s great fail, beyond the “dossier plot,” with an assist from Barack Obama and CIA’s John Brennan, was to shade Intelligence to accommodate a new national security narrative. The threat pyramid was inverted on Clapper’s watch. Islam was elevated as a “great” culture whilst Russians and Putin were resuscitated as Cold War demons.

According to Clapper, and acolytes like Brennan, the jihad is just “ritual cleansing.” By that logic, all that slaughter on 9/11 and every other global Muslim atrocity since are just “ritual” sacrifices to whom or what — Mohamed or Mecca?

Alas, the US Army might occupy a high ground for dysfunctional flag officers. Clinkers like David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal immediately come to mind. Petraeus literally stepped on his crank by bedding subordinates. McChrystal got caught on a party plane talking trash about the timidity of Barack Obama.

The peccadillos of today’s Army generals are, nevertheless, low hanging fruit. More ominous, Army political partisanship is bleeding into the ranks. The poster child for this kind of venality is Lieutenant Colonel, Alexander Vindman, on loan to the NSC. Yes, that’s the National Security Council at the White House. Seems Vindman is an egoist/linguist who is both indiscrete and treacherous.

Vindman didn’t like, or misconstrued, something President Trump said to the Ukrainian president. Subsequently, Alex went off the DOD reservation to assist the press and Congress with the impeachment follies.

Apparently, a commissioned US Army officer cannot be trusted to assist the Commander-in-Chief and respect the confidentiality of the Oval Office. If Vindman had violated command confidentiality in a combat zone, he might have been court martialed – or fragged.

Silence from Pentagon and Army brass about the Vindman treachery says all that needs to be said about contemporary military standards on the E-Ring. 

And so it goes with Beltway bias. Now, DOD joins the Intelligence Community, the Justice Department, and State Department as a source of foot soldiers in the slow-motion coup.

Call it the sedition coalition.

Say what you will about Donald Trump: this President has exposed the reality of the Washington swamp, the partisan deep state, and a bigoted Beltway establishment that may now be too corrupt for words.

Of all the Washington perfidy revealed since 2016, Military partisanship might be the most troubling pathology to emerge since Lincoln had to fire McClellan.

Photo credit: Master Sergeant Ken Hammond

The author is a former USAF Intelligence officer, serving under General James Clapper at USAF Intelligence. Colonel Donovan has served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Central intelligence Agency.                                                 

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Pope Francis Proposes Adding ‘Ecological Sin’ To Catechism

Could “ecological sin” one day be added to the list of sins in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Pope Francis has proposed such an idea.

Speaking at the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome, the Holy Father said Christians have a duty to preserve the environment.

“We have to introduce – we are thinking about it – to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ‘ecological sin’ against our common home, because a duty is at stake,” Pope Francis said, as reported by LifeSiteNews.

So how exactly would a “sin against ecology” work on theological scale? According to Catholic author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, the language would have to be framed in a way that illustrates that the sin would be against God rather than an inanimate object.

“There is no possible sin against planet Earth,” Kwasniewski told the outlet. “All sins are ultimately against God or those who are in God’s image. As all theologians have explained prior to the post-conciliar decline of theology, when we abuse the natural world or animals or plants, we are sinning against God their creator, who gave them to us to use for the right purposes and in accordance with their nature and ours.”

“The only ‘targets’ of sin are persons, since they are either divine persons who deserve our total obedience, or angelic or human persons who deserve our reverence as images of God,” he continued.

If a person were to abuse a tree or an animal, Kwasniewski said that the person would be in grave violation against God due to the natural order, not because an animal or a tree has any basic rights.

“Someone who tortures an animal or burns down a forest for fun is a sinner not because the animal or the forest has rights, but because he offends God, the great king over all the earth, from whom all things come for our benefit and to whom they are ordered,” he said. “Man is obliged in justice to respect God’s gift and the order He has established; man must also respect the common destination of material goods, i.e., that God has made the earth for the benefit of all, not for the selfish benefit of a few,” he continued.

If Pope Francis were to frame “ecological sin” in this light if the Cathechism were to ever be amended, it would stand in line with Catholic tradition, which has always stated human beings have a moral obligation to preserve the environment as a gift sent from God. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI made that very argument in his “God and the World.”

“Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens living so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible,” Benedict wrote. “Animals, too, are God’s creatures and even if they do not have the same direct relationship to God that human beings have, they are still creatures of God’s will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation.”

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Iowa Hires Hackers To Test Courthouse Security, Sheriff Arrests Them After They Get In

A security company says that local officials in Iowa have gone too far by charging two of its employees who demonstrated how vulnerable one county courthouse truly was. According to the Des Moines Register, employees of the state-hired cybersecurity firm Coalfire were performing testing the security of computer servers and physical buildings operated by the…

The post Iowa Hires Hackers To Test Courthouse Security, Sheriff Arrests Them After They Get In appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

REPORT: Al Sharpton Paid $1 Million by His Own Charity in 2018

Rev. Al Sharpton received more than $1 million from the National Action Network (NAN) in 2018, tax filings reportedly show.

Sharpton was paid $1,046,948 by the non-profit, and he also got “a $324,000 salary — 32% higher than his 2017 pay — in addition to a $159,596 bonus and $563,352 in ‘other compensation,’” according to the New York Post.

The report continued:

The Harlem-based nonprofit — which Sharpton controls as president and CEO — said the extra cash was to make up for the years from 2004 to 2017 when he didn’t get his full pay. NAN said it hired an executive compensation firm that determined the good reverend was owed $1.252 million — but he was generously willing to take $500,000 less.

“Fifteen years, you are talking about since 2004 when I came back after running for president,” Sharpton commented. “For anybody else it would be laughable.”

The reverend also claimed that, like anyone else, he deserved the raise.

“It’s a six-day-a-week job and several hours a day and when [the compensation firm] compared it to other companies, other nonprofits, that’s the salary that they would get.”

Saturday, NAN said in a press release that the organization experienced strong financial support during 2018, and it anticipated the same for 2019.

Sharpton posted the announcement to his Twitter account.

“National Acton Network (NAN) is reporting that donations in 2018 increased by approximately a million dollars from 2017, helping the organization to expand programmatic initiatives in technology and voter engagement, while also boosting NAN staffing across the country,” the statement read.

The release continued:

Finally, the revenue from Rev. Sharpton’s birthday has already generated hundreds of thousands of dollars for NAN, and when a final tally is made, the Board is confident it will exceed in one-year what they put up for his life rights in ten-years. This doesn’t include the revenue they will get for use of his historic photo archives and other items for a documentary, as well as commitments for a one-person play and more.

Despite his recent pay raise, Sharpton reportedly still owes $698,470.99 in back taxes to the state of New York for three of his companies, according to the Post.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Prince Andrew’s Publicist Quits Over Disastrous BBC Interview About Jeffrey Epstein

Prince Andrew’s publicist has officially resigned over the disastrous interview he did with BBC about his ties to deceased billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Prince Andrew claimed that he was eating pizza on the night in 2001 when he is accused of raping then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts Giuffre. He also made bizarre claims that he doesn’t sweat because of an “adrenaline overdose.”

Jason Stein, 28, was brought on as Prince Andrew’s communications secretary to address the Epstein connections. However, he resigned two weeks before the interview because the royal would not take his advice not to do it. He only held the position for four weeks.

“This will go down as one of the single worst PR moves in recent history,” a source close to Buckingham Palace told the Times.

The BBC did not hold back in the interview, questioning him directly about raping Giuffre, the fact that he visited Epstein’s Manhattan home 18 months after the financier completed a prison sentence for soliciting a minor for prostitution, and the infamous photo of him and the victim.

The post Prince Andrew’s Publicist Quits Over Disastrous BBC Interview About Jeffrey Epstein appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

WATCH: House Democrat Slams Impeachment Proceedings For ‘Fracturing The Nation Apart’

Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) criticized the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry on Sunday, stating that it has been costing American’s time and money, and merely resulting in the fracturing of the United States.

“I just think we keep going down this road – keep spending more time, you know, many of us came to Congress because we really wanted to accomplish goals, really work on issues such as health care, work on issues dealing with prescription drugs, election security, the debt, the deficit, you know, the list goes on, and I can speak on an on about all the things that we need to do,” Van Drew told Fox News Host Maria Bartiromo during an appearance on “Sunday Morning Futures. “I just don’t think that we’re hearing anything new.”

“And real quickly, we must understand the importance and level of what impeachment is,” he continued. “Hundreds of years of history and no one has ever been convicted of impeachment and that is the point.”

House Democrats announced in September that they would be moving forward with an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower reportedly accused President Donald Trump of asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for using his position as vice president to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into his son’s business dealings.

The reports were not confirmed at the time of the announcement, and it was not until a day later that the White House released a transcript of Trump’s exchange with Zelensky. After the transcript was made public, many have argued that it fails to show the direct quid pro quo agreement initially alleged.

Democrats, however, have vowed to move forward with impeachment proceedings, and have subsequently followed through on that pledge. In October, the House voted on a resolution establishing the process for the investigation into the president. The measure passed largely along party lines, 232-196, with only two Democrats defecting on the vote.

Van Drew, a Blue Dog Democrat, was notably one of only members of his caucus who broke with the ranks and voted against advancing the impeachment inquiry. The freshman congressman represents a distract that he was able to flip blue during the 2018 election cycle, but that Trump carried in 2016.

The New Jersey lawmaker has not been shy about voicing his opposition to the impeachment proceedings, even earning praise for his stance from the president.

“We’re going to have an election next year, let us have the election, let us fight through the election,” Van Drew said. “Let’s do what Republicans and Democrats and whomever else does, but this is going to get us nowhere.”

“We’ve spent millions of dollars, in my opinion, tons of money, tons of time, tons of hurt, fracturing the nation apart and I haven’t seen this to be a good thing,” he continued. “And now we are dealing with all sorts of technical issues, most of Americans don’t understand some of these technical issues, and they just don’t know really what to think.”

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com