Christian Charity CEO: Religious Freedom Must Be a Baseline Human Right for Our Global Trade Partners

As the number of Christians living under severe persecution around the world grows, American officials must make clear to nations that profit from American business that “human rights are a concern of the American people,” David Curry, the CEO of the Christian aid group Open Doors, told Breitbart News in an interview this week.

Open Doors’ released the 2020 edition of its annual World Watch List report, which ranks the top 50 countries in which Christians face the most intense persecution for their faith, on Wednesday. The report identified a population of 260 million Christians experiencing extreme persecution for their faith, a six-percent increase from 2019.

North Korea – arguably the most repressive regime for all its citizens on the globe and home to one of the world’s most vibrant Christian populations before falling to communism in 1950 – once again took the top spot, followed by Afghanistan, Somalia, and Libya, respectively. While nations with significant adversarial bents towards the United States made up most of the rest of the top ten, like Iran (number nine) and Sudan (number seven), number ten on the World Watch List is India, one of America’s closest trade partners.

China, America’s top foreign trade partner outside of North America, ranked at 23. Saudi Arabia, a country that generations of presidents have insisted is a top security and counter-terrorism ally, rank ten spots higher at #13.

Open Doors' World Watch List Countries 2020 (courtesy Open Doors)

Open Doors’ World Watch List Countries 2020 (courtesy Open Doors)

“The reality is, on the World Watch List, there are people we do business with – China, India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia – where we need to make sure that it’s clear in our trade discussions and otherwise that human rights are a concern of the American people,” Curry told Breitbart News on Thursday.

American officials must make clear, he urged, “if we’re going to do business together, if we’re going to have friendly relationships, we expect people to have a common set of human rights where people can worship freely and be secure, where churches are sacred places that will not be attacked. That people will have a civil force that will protect people’s religious freedom whether you’re Christian or Jewish or Muslim or have no faith at all.”
Curry did not limit this suggestion to the American government, emphasizing that “every government, including this government, needs to make that a standard that we all can agree on.”

While emphasizing that Open Doors is not a political organization, Curry expressed support for the work the State Department under President Donald Trump has done in elevating the topic of religious freedom as a diplomatic challenge.

“The State Department and others in the administration have really focused on, ‘how do we integrate this? imperfectly, I think they have done a better job than anybody certainly in my lifetime, so I want to give them high marks on that,” he said. But Curry added that the universal human rights standard in diplomacy is far from reality “because we do have people, Saudi Arabia – India is number ten on our list we do a lot of business with them – China and elsewhere” that benefit greatly from ties to the United States.

Open Doors has highlighted China in its report this year as a nation of particular concern due to the sophistication of its totalitarian surveillance state, which it uses to monitor and punish Christians who dare worship without Communist Party supervision. China rose four points from the 27th spot on the list in the 2019 edition.

“They are going to fully implement this technological surveillance as a way of monitoring religious practice, not solely against Christians,” Curry noted. “Obviously, what they are doing to the Uyghur Muslims in the northwest part of the country is abhorrent and, while we are reporting on Christian persecution, we recognize what’s happening in China against the smaller Muslim minority group there is exactly what we expect to happen with the Christian groups.”

China’s Communist Party is believed to have imprisoned between 1 and 3 million Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities in concentration camps in the past year. Survivors say they experienced torture, rape, forced sterilization, slavery, and other human rights atrocities. Uyghurs outside of the camps in western Xinjiang province live under a strict and advanced totalitarian surveillance system – Xinjiang’s capital, Urumqi, is flooded with police cameras and microphones to document every second of Uyghurs’ lives, looking for evidence to use to imprison them.

China claims the concentration camps are “vocational training centers” and the surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorist activity due to the large Muslim population in the region.

“So they’ve got the surveillance,” Curry noted, “they’ve got, you might say, the social credit system, They’re bringing those things together. That’s why we are drawing attention to it. It’s moving quickly.”

The “social credit system” is a points-based evaluation in which China gives communists points for fealty to the regime and removes them for suspicious or potentially adversarial activity. “Illegal” religious activity such as prayer in the home results in point losses. Lose enough points, and a Chinese citizen faces bans from flights, public transportation, and basic government services.

While Curry states his organization has not documented China oppressing Christians outside of its borders, it has begun to sell its technology to other nations on the World Watch List.

“They have the willingness to spread it,” he asserted,” which could result in the technology being used “to more closely monitor the house church movement in Iran and other places.”

In Saudi Arabia, another nation with friendly ties to the United States, statistics on native Christian populations do not exist because churches are simply illegal. Curry contended that this did not have to be the case for the regime to remain secure, citing the existence of Christianity freely in neighboring Bahrain.

“[Saudi Arabia] denies people the ability to have church. Look next door to Bahrain … Bahrain has allowed people to have churches. … Bahrain is an example of a country that has over time began to have these discussions about how can we give people the choice,” he noted. “In Saudi Arabia right now it may be said that there’s no Christians there, but there are people who have freedom of conscience, they have an opinion of their own, and what we’re asking is – can these people have the ability to have a Bible, read it, decide for themselves what they think?”

“That’s all the basis of freedom of religion: the ability to read it, choose to, and decide what they think. Right now, that’s not possible in Saudi Arabia,” he noted. “It needs to be part of the discussion: what does freedom of conscience mean for the people of Saudi Arabia?”

Curry noted that the overlap in persecution of Christians with persecution of other faith or faithless identities – the Muslims of China, the atheists of Saudi Arabia – provides an opportunity for unity and clarity in the objective of Open Doors in its mission: to make the world a safer place for individuals to decide what they believe on their own. Open Doors, he noted, organizes many programs around the world to connect free Christians to oppressed ones. Individuals asserting their principles on their own, however, can have a tremendous impact, he said, as well.

“I don’t underestimate the power of people speaking out and saying ‘this is our standard.’ The right of conscience is the first freedom, it’s the ability to decide for yourself what you think and to practice your faith freely – or if you have no faith at all, to experience that,” he said in the interview. “Atheists are also constrained in Saudi Arabia and these other places because they are forced into a faith. So that’s the fundamental human rights idea. I think speaking out on that, sharing these ideas and letting people know that we’re exposing it – when people share the list, when they talk about it, when they share the stories behind it … people see these are human beings they have emotions and thoughts and intellect just like you and I.”

Read through the full Open Doors 2020 World Watch List here.

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.

 

via Breitbart News

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

People are dying in racial violence across the country so that the Democrats can win elections

People are dying in racial violence across the country so that the Democrats can win electionsAfter a black nationalist attack on a Jewish supermarket in Jersey City, a member of the Jersey City Board of Education defended the murder of two Jewish people and a Latino employee.

“Drugs and guns are planted in the Black community,” Joan Terrell Paige ranted on Facebook.

The two Black Hebrew Israelite killers, the former community organizer wrote, “went directly to the kosher supermarket. I believe they knew they would come out in body bags. What is the message they were sending? Are we brave enough to explore the answer to their message? Are we brave enough to stop the assault on the Black communities of America?”

While some Democrats called on Joan Terrell Paige to resign, others defended her hatred of Jews.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

Trump Trade War Works as US Economy Sizzles & China Sees Weakest Growth in 29 Years

“Phase One” of the resolution of the United States-China trade war was signed earlier this week, and it had some pretty big wins for the Trump administration.

Writ large in media headlines were two things the United States did well to get Beijing to sign onto — agreements from China to crack down on intellectual property theft and to increase imports from the United States by $200 billion over 2 years.

Whether or not Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government actually enforces any of this is another question entirely, but that’s why it’s called “Phase One.”

President Donald Trump insisted, according to CNBC, that the agreement had “total and full enforceability.”

During the signing, he said the two countries were “righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers and families.”

TRENDING: Northam Declares ‘State of Emergency’ as Militias Prepare To March on Richmond

Most of the tariffs from the trade war will remain in place, according to Reason, and the deal is still a rough sketch.

Still, the fact that China was even willing to agree to any of this in the first place was, at the very least, a major win for the United States — particularly since we were told how the trade war with China was going to end in tears.

As it turns out, if there are any tears being shed, they’re likely coming from Beijing.

On the same week that the “Phase One” agreement was signed, China revealed its economic growth in 2019 was the lowest it’s been in 29 years — 6.1 percent, according to Reuters.

Do you think China’s economic growth will continue to falter?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

While that growth was by no means slow by global standards, it was a major cooling-off from the 6.6 percent growth China experienced in 2018.

Furthermore, experts predicted the world’s second-largest economy would further cool to 5.9 percent growth in 2020.

The sluggish growth was, according to Reuters, recorded “amid a bruising trade war with the United States, and more stimulus is expected this year as Beijing tries to boost sluggish investment and demand.”

“We expect China’s growth rate will come further down to below 6% percent in 2020,” Masaaki Kanno, chief economist at Sony Financial Holdings in Japan, told Reuters.

“The Chinese economy is unlikely to fall abruptly because of … government policies, but at the same time the trend of a further slowdown of the economy will remain unchanged.”

RELATED: Fox Host Bolton Says Trump Should Plaster This Chart ‘Absolutely Everywhere’

Reuters reported that “[e]asing trade tensions have made manufacturers more optimistic about the business outlook, analysts said, though many of the tit-for-tat tariffs both sides imposed during the trade war remain in place.”

While U.S. GDP growth isn’t exactly as robust as China’s — we’re a far more mature economy, which means we don’t put up rocket-ship numbers the same way that Beijing does — our third-quarter gross domestic product growth was actually higher than expected.

“The Commerce Department said Wednesday that economic activity grew at an annualized rate of 1.9% in the third quarter, down slightly from the 2% pace in the second quarter. Economists polled by Dow Jones had expected the first look at third-quarter economic growth to come in at 1.6%,” CNBC reported in October.

As the White House pointed out, too, the third-quarter results made this the longest run of economic expansion in recorded U.S. history.

“As today’s advance Gross Domestic Product (GDP) release confirms, economic growth continued in the third quarter of 2019, beating market expectations and adding to the expansion’s record length. The release also confirms that the Trump Administration’s policies support sustained economic growth and lead to higher incomes for American families,” the White House said in a statement upon the release of the numbers.

“In its final projection before the 2016 election, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that real GDP would grow at a 2.1 percent annual rate in the first 11 quarters of a new Administration. Instead, under President Trump, real GDP as of the third quarter has grown at a strong 2.6 percent annual rate since the election. As of the third quarter, real GDP is $230 billion — or 1.2 percent — higher than CBO’s projection.

“Furthermore, under President Obama’s expansion period, real GDP grew at only a 2.2 percent annual rate compared to the Trump Administration’s 2.6 percent rate.”

Now, protectionism for protectionism’s sake and modern-day mercantilism are things any sensible conservative should be against, which is why an all-out economic war over mere trade deficits is something the United States would do well to avoid.

This being said, using tariffs as a means to an end — particularly when it comes to China, which has been a bad actor on the economic stage for decades and has made little effort to change — is a very necessary evil.

Beijing has long promised that it will open up its economy and protect intellectual property. It hasn’t.

Whether or not “Phase One” makes any difference remains to be seen, but it’s a promising first step,

What we do know is that the trade war has hurt China. And, from the looks of things, it’s hurt them more than it’s hurt us.

Furthermore, it’s changed the “calculus” of the matter, according to George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen.

“The U.S. has established its seriousness as a counterweight to China, something lacking since it largely overlooked China’s various territorial encroachments in the 2010s,” he wrote in an Op-Ed for Bloomberg on Wednesday.

“Whether in economics or foreign policy, China now can expect the U.S. to push back — a very different calculus. At a time when there is tension in North Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the South China Sea, that is potentially a significant gain.

“President Donald Trump’s tariffs did hurt U.S. consumers, and while that is indeed an economic cost of the deal, it is also a credibility benefit,” he continued.

“It shows that the U.S. is in fact willing to incur some pain to oppose China, contrary to the common Chinese view that Americans are ‘soft.’ U.S. credibility has also been improved among its allies and some neutral nations.”

Trump’s tariffs, in the end, haven’t been deadly for us and they’ve forced Beijing to the table.

That’s a major change from where we were a few short years ago — and it’s one for the better

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

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

Judge Smacks Down Transgender Pronouns, Says They’re a Courtesy, Not a Right for People Before the Court

You can get yourself into an awful lot of trouble these days for the mere act of living in reality. Such is the case of Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Duncan is a Trump appointee, one who was savaged by the left during his confirmation hearings because they said he couldn’t rule fairly in cases involving LGBT individuals, in large part due to the fact he once represented a school board fighting against a transgender student who wanted to use the bathroom of their choice.

He finds himself again at the center of a controversy regarding whether transgender identity and pronouns are a right in the legal system as opposed to a courtesy.

In an advisory opinion Wednesday, as The Hill reported, Duncan said that it was “convention,” not “binding precedent,” for the courts to refer to a transgender-identifying litigant by their chosen gender pronouns.

The case involves Kathrine Nicole Jett, a transgender biological male.

TRENDING: Northam Declares ‘State of Emergency’ as Militias Prepare To March on Richmond

Jett, back in 2012, pleaded guilty to child pornography charges when he was legally known as Norman Varner.

Jett wanted the court records updated to reflect the fact he had a different name. He also wanted all gender pronouns in the paperwork to be changed to “she/her.”

A lower court ruled that Jett had no claim given that there was no “defect” in the original paperwork, considering that he was legally referred to as Norman Varner at the time of the crimes.

In his majority opinion, Duncan called Jett’s efforts to have his gender pronouns changed in court records a “quixotic undertaking.”

Do you agree with this judge’s ruling?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“No authority supports the proposition that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender identity,” Duncan’s opinion read.

“But the courts that have followed this ‘convention,’” he added, “have done so purely as a courtesy to parties.”

“None has adopted the practice as a matter of binding precedent, and none has purported to obligate litigants or others to follow the practice.”

Congressional legislation regarding “gender identity discrimination,” he said, didn’t apply inasmuch as Congress “has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex, rather than according to their subjective gender identity.”

The outrage circus immediately came to town, as evidenced by this purportedly straight news piece from NBC News.

RELATED: Transgender Activist Caught on Camera Allegedly Assaulting Reporter Over a Simple Question

“In his majority opinion, Duncan vacated the lower court ruling that denied Jett’s appeal, saying the court lacked jurisdiction, but then he proceeded to mock Jett’s court motion that she be referred to using female pronouns and her new name,” the Friday article by Tim Fitzsimons read.

Fitzsimons argued that the 5th Circuit had mostly gone with using an individual’s preferred pronouns, although Duncan’s ruling cited three cases in which they didn’t. There’s also no explanation about how this constitutes mocking other than the fact that Duncan said something which went against liberal transgender dogma.

The remainder of the piece seemed to be handed over to Duncan’s adversaries from his confirmation to the court.

“The idea that Mr. Duncan will cast aside his bigoted beliefs overnight, and miraculously transform into an impartial judge, is ludicrous and reckless,” Lambda Legal Executive Director Rachel Tiven is quoted as saying back in 2018.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney and transgender rights advocate Chase Strangio said Duncan’s ruling was “far outside the standard practice within the entire legal profession” and that he went “on this long advisory opinion about the legal implications of pronouns and the nature of sex discrimination and things that have nothing to do with the case or the question before it.”

Almost as much column space, meanwhile, was given over to the dissenting opinion from Clinton appointee Judge James L. Dennis.

A short excerpt: “As the majority notes, though no law compels granting or denying such a request, many courts and judges adhere to such requests out of respect for the litigant’s dignity,” he wrote.

“[O]ut of respect,” however, isn’t a binding thing.

It’s a matter of courtesy, and it’s nothing that the court has an obligation to rule on, particularly in a case such as this.

While much of what Duncan had to say may be a novelty for a media outlet like NBC, his ruling is both legally sound and should be a welcome guide on an emerging set of rules involving how courts and law enforcement should deal with transgender-adjacent issues.

No one, especially not our court system, ought to be forced to change their language based on one person’s demands.

Going into 2020, it’s well worth reminding voters that control over judicial appointments is going to be one of the key factors in the battle for the White House.

It’s difficult to imagine what the landscape would look like were Hillary Clinton president.

Of course, say what you will about Clinton, but 2016 Hillary sounds an awful lot more reasonable than 2020 Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

Consider what this decision would be like without a Trump appointee — and then think about what might happen if the Democrats are allowed to nominate federal judges for the next 4 years.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

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

GOP Senator Doubles Down After CNN Anchor Demands Apology for Calling Reporter a ‘Liberal Hack’

A Republican senator who understands what real combat is all about derided the ruffled feathers over at CNN caused by a pair of words for which she refuses to apologize.

The Beltway brouhaha began when CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju lobbed a question at fast-walking Republican Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona, who as an Air Force fighter pilot was the first woman to lead a squadron into combat.

“You’re a liberal hack, I’m not talking to you,” McSally fired back “You’re a liberal hack.”

The retort led to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer demanding an apology

“It was disgusting, it was awful, she should know better,” Blitzer told Raju on Thursday. “If they did the right thing, she would personally call you and say ‘I’m sorry.’”

But during an appearance later that same day on the Fox News program “The Ingraham Angle,” McSally stood by her words.

TRENDING: Northam Declares ‘State of Emergency’ as Militias Prepare To March on Richmond

“Senator, do you regret what you said?” host Laura Ingraham asked.

“No Laura, I do not,” McSally replied after laughing at a clip Ingraham played of the outrage CNN shared over the bit of byplay. “And I said it again actually as I went in, I said, ‘You’re a liberal hack, buddy.’”

McSally said the bias she cited is real.

“These CNN reporters, but many of them around the Capitol, they are so biased,” she said.

“They are so in cahoots with the Democrats. They so can’t stand the president, and they run around, trying to chase … Republicans and ask trapping questions,” she said.

According to McSally, she only speaks the truth.

“I’m a fighter pilot. I called it like it is, and that’s what we see out of the mainstream media, and especially CNN, every single day. So obviously I’m gonna tell the truth, and I did it today, and it’s laughable how they’ve responded,” she said.

RELATED: Former Fighter Pilot Sen. McSally Blasts Narrative on Crashed Ukraine Plane

Do you agree with Sen. Martha McSally’s comments?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

Ingraham noted that critics claimed McSally has gone “full Trump.”

“Well, they’ve also said that it was ‘unbecoming a senator’ and I ‘lashed out,’” McSally said. “The Democratic senators walk by and they say, ‘Hi how are you today?’ and then they chase after the Republicans. It’s honestly ridiculous as you know.”

The media is anti-Republican, McSally said.

“They’re cheerleading Democrats. They hate the president,” she said.

The Arizona Republican said she has nothing for which to apologize.

“I speak the truth, I’m gonna continue to do it. I’ve done it my whole life,” she said.

“They have a lot of apologizing to do and they should probably be filing FEC reports with the DNC — in-kind contributions,” she said.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

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

The Comey Coverup Unravels

Update to this story. Whole lot of questions.

Via Fox News:

In a curious report on Thursday evening, the New York Times carefully averts its eyes from everything that’s interesting. Even Adam Schiff has acknowledged that James Comey’s actions in 2016 may represent the most important and significant Russian influence on the election. (Hoist your shot glass. This will be the umpteenth time I’ve quoted Mr. Schiff on this matter in this column.)

Surely one of the most consequential pieces of intelligence ever received by U.S. agencies was, as we now learn, received in early 2016 from a Dutch counterpart. This is the dubious Russian intelligence that set off Mr. Comey’s multiple interventions in the last presidential race, culminating in an improper act that may have inadvertently elected Donald Trump. Even at the time Mr. Comey’s FBI colleagues considered the intelligence, which indicated questionable actions by the Justice Department to fix the Hillary email investigation, to be false, possibly a Russian plant.

The Times adds the unsurprising revelation that Mr. Comey himself is suspected in the illegal leak that, in early 2017, alerted the media to this untold aspect of his 2016 actions, before the matter disappeared again behind a veil of official secrecy. Yet bizarrely, the paper plays down its scoop, suggesting that any inquiry into a “years-old” leak now can only be a political hit job by an “ambitious” Justice Department attorney seeking to please President Trump.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

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

Virginia Governor’s Office Releases Map of 2A Restricted Protest Area — Numerous Arrests Made Before Monday Protest

This is what tyranny looks like.

Democrat Governor Blackface Northam is putting the squeeze on Virginia gun owners before Monday’s protest.

The map of the protest grounds was released and shows only one entrance for tens of thousands of Virginia protesters expected at the event.
Via Erick Hayden.

The group will be fenced in.
And the governor is ordering the 2A protesters to leave their guns at home — in an Open Carry State!

The FBI arrested at least three alleged white supremacists in Georgia before the rally next week.

The power hungry Virginia governor is applying a huge amount of pressure on gun owners.
Pray for a peaceful event on Monday.

The post Virginia Governor’s Office Releases Map of 2A Restricted Protest Area — Numerous Arrests Made Before Monday Protest 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

Virginia Councilman Defends Second Amendment By Bringing Rifle To Council Meeting, Other City Officials Triggered

A Virginia city councilman showed up to a council meeting Tuesday evening wearing an AR-15-style rifle. The move has angered some of his peers, one of whom wants and apology.

Nathan Clark, a Portsmouth, Virginia city councilman, chose to wear the “accessory” on Tuesday because the council would be considering a resolution to turn the city into a Second Amendment Sanctuary, The Virginia-Pilot reported.

“Clark — who is seeking re-election this year — brought his gun and issued a press release to emphasize his support for hundreds of Second Amendment advocates who packed chambers to capacity,” the outlet reported, adding that the resolution narrowly passed.

Naturally, gun-control supporters were outraged by Clark’s support of his Second Amendment Rights.

The Pilot reported Friday that two fellow politicians raised concerns about Clark’s stunt within days of the meeting. Emails obtained by the outlet “show Councilman Shannon Glover first raised the issue in an email to the entire council late Wednesday.” Vice Mayor Lisa Lucas-Burke wrote to the council Thursday morning that Clark’s move “was a disgrace, disheartening and an embarrassment.” She added, “Most of us were blindsided by the display.” Lucas-Burke and Glover reportedly agreed about their concerns, and the vice mayor suggested Clark apologize.

The emails included Councilman Bill Moody, who defended Clark and said he didn’t “believe that Council(man) Clark needs to apologize for exercising his right as a law enforcement officer to carry his weapon to a public meeting.”

Moody then took a jab at the liberals on the council. “I can appreciate liberals’ knee jerk reactions but if they have a problem with the law they should use the system they now control to change it,” he wrote.

Clark had issued a press release ahead of his publicity stunt before the council, which crew criticism from outside Virginia, the Pilot reported. The father of a teenager who was killed during the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting posted a tweet critical of Clark.

“My daughter did not know someone carrying an AR 15 would kill her,” wrote Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the shooting. “Citizens you represent should not be forced to accept (your) engaging in open intimidation with (your) AR 15.”

Clark told WTKR that the gun was loaded but that he had training with this type of weapon and he noted that during the meeting.

“I had a lot of people come and talk to me after it,” Clark told the outlet. “No one appeared intimidated. There the police officers that were there; they were aware that I had it.”

Nearly 90% of the counties in Virginia have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries following Virginia Democrats’ passing of gun-control laws in the state.

President Donald Trump has weighed in on the Democrats’ gun-grabbing measures, tweeting that “Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia.”

He added: “That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!”

The Daily Wire reported Saturday that the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun ban on Capitol Grounds in preparation for a pro-gun rally on Monday.

via The Daily Wire

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

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: General Flynn’s First Law Firm Hired Deep State FBI Attorney At Same Time They Were Repping Flynn – Did They Share with Flynn this Conflict of Interest?

General Flynn’s first set of attorneys were from the firm Covington.  The DOJ’s Trisha Anderson went to work for Flynn’s attorney law firm while they were repping for General Flynn. Did Covington tell General Flynn about hiring one of the individuals at the DOJ involved in the Russia collusion sham?

Trisha Anderson is a member of Covington as a partner and joined the firm in September of 2018:

Anderson was deep in the Deep State at the FBI that worked on the coup attempt of President Trump.  Epoch Times reported this on Anderson’s testimony in front of Congress only a month before she left for Covington:

A key player in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign was Trisha Anderson, who, at the time, was the No. 2 lawyer at the agency’s Office of General Counsel.

Despite having no specific experience in counterintelligence before coming to the FBI, Anderson was, in some manner, involved in virtually all of the significant events of the investigation.

Anderson told members of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in August last year during closed-door testimony that she was one of only about 10 people who had known about the Trump–Russia investigation prior to its official opening.

A transcript of Anderson’s testimony, which was reviewed for this article, reveals that she had read all of the FBI’s FD302 forms detailing information that the author of the Steele dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele, had provided to high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr.

Anderson also told lawmakers that she personally signed off on the original application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without having read it. The FBI relied heavily on the unverified information in the Steele dossier—which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee—to obtain the FISA warrant.

Anderson also was part of a small group of FBI personnel who got to read then-FBI Director James Comey’s memos about conversations he had with President Donald Trump.

Covington also represented General Michael Flynn at the time that Anderson was hired.  This indicates a conflict of interest for the firm and the question is whether General Flynn was ever notified of Anderson’s hiring.

In the legal field, one of the legal duties every lawyer must observe is to avoid conflicts of interest when it comes to their clients.  In fact, if a lawyer represents a client knowing that there’s a conflict of interest, they can be disciplined by the state bar and sued by the client for legal malpractice.

Types of Attorney Conflicts of Interest

There are a variety of conflicts of interest that can prevent a lawyer from taking on a particular case. The conflict may occur between the prospective client and one of the attorney’s current or former clients. There can also be concerns if a client’s interests are in conflict with the lawyer’s professional or personal relationships. For example, if the client is looking to sue a particular business that happens to be owned by the lawyer’s brother-in-law, there’s a clear conflict of interest for the attorney. It’s also possible for there to be an issue if the potential client’s interests are at odds with the attorney’s own interests.

A conflict of interest can also occur at the law firm level. For example, even if an attorney working at a law firm didn’t personally work on a particular matter (because someone else at the firm handled it), if the attorney leaves the firm, he or she could still have a conflict of interest related to that matter based on the firm’s work.

Covington is currently already in hot water for representing General Flynn and not recusing itself earlier according to the Federalist:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn faces the real possibility of jail time when he is sentenced at the end of this month in connection with the guilty plea he entered in 2017. But that plea appears to be tainted because his original lawyers had a conflict of interest that arose from their involvement in one of the offenses folded into the plea. The fallout from that conflict of interest appears to have created Flynn’s current predicament.

Robert Mueller’s Office of Special Counsel investigated Flynn for potential criminal charges that included 1) lying to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador while he was part of President Donald Trump’s national security transition team, and 2) making a false statement in his filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for work he had allegedly done for the government of Turkey prior to the Nov. 8, 2016, election.

Covington and Burling, LLP, a prominent law firm, represented Flynn in the investigation and in plea negotiations. The firm also assisted him in preparing the allegedly false FARA filings.

Because Flynn was targeted for his FARA filing, Covington had a conflict in representing him since they assisted him in creating the FARA application in question.

Was General Flynn advised of this situation and/or did he give his permission to proceed regardless?  Is this another perceived, if not actual, conflict of interest Covington made?

The post BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: General Flynn’s First Law Firm Hired Deep State FBI Attorney At Same Time They Were Repping Flynn – Did They Share with Flynn this Conflict of Interest? 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

Harvard Releases Proposal To Divide Washington, D.C., Into 127 New States To Eliminate Electoral College

Before French architect and engineer Pierre Charles L’Enfant was selected to design America’s capital city, he described his vision to Congress in 1784, saying he hoped “to give an idea of the greatness of the empire as well as to engrave in every mind that sense of respect that is due to a place which is the seat of supreme sovereignty.”

Millions of tourists from around the world come to Washington, D.C., each year to see that “seat of supreme sovereignty.”

But Harvard researchers have a new plan for America’s capital: Break the city into 127 new states. By doing so, the Electoral College established by the Founding Fathers would be rendered moot.

In a piece titled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation,” the writers aren’t exactly fair and balanced.

“For most of the twenty-first century, the world’s oldest surviving democracy has been led by a chief executive who received fewer votes than his opponent in an election for the position. The first of these executives started a war based on false pretenses that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The second — a serial abuser of women who hired as his campaign manager a lobbyist for violent dictatorships — authorized an immigration policy that forcibly separated migrant children from their families and indefinitely detained them in facilities described as ‘concentration camps,’ ” they write.

Then they lay out their proposal.

To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.

Radical as this proposal may sound, it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely disproportionate voting power depending on where they live. The people should not tolerate a system that is manifestly unfair; they should instead fight fire with fire, and use the unfair provisions of the Constitution to create a better system.

The researchers claim Washington, D.C., is the only area in the United States that can legally be broken up into states and note that every proposed subdivision “voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election.”

The anonymous writers, also say “the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress.”

They target the Electoral College, which they think is unfair. “More than ten percent of Presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote, in large part because the system presently operates in a manner inconceivable to its creators.”

To revamp the system, constitutional amendments would be needed. “An ‘easier’ way to amend the Constitution would be for Congress to admit a large number of new states whose congressional representatives would reliably ally with the existing majority in sufficient numbers to propose and ratify new amendments fixing the problem of unequal representation,” the researchers write.

In conclusion, the document states:

The current system of representation allows for a minority population to impose its will on a majority in a way that is deeply undemocratic. It permits the disenfranchisement of some citizens and the overrepresentation of others, and it allows a party receiving fewer votes than its opposition to control each branch of the government. It does not have to be this way.

If it was acceptable to remedy some of the Constitution’s original injustices by excluding states from the amendment process, perhaps it is worthwhile to address those remaining by creating new ones. Perhaps it is also worthwhile to dream big about what kind of change is possible. It should not be a radical proposition for the Constitution to treat citizens’ votes equally — the United States was founded on the proposition that all are created equal.

Those who still believe that should do what generations of great Americans have always done and take up the hard work of realizing that promise.

via The Daily Wire

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