Complaints Halt Trainloads of New York Human Sewage Being Sent to Alabama

The are few states that the coastal elite liberals who run the biggest cities have more contempt for than Alabama and here is a story that should result in outrage from any who live there.

It seems like the Big Apple is literally sending trainloads of human waste (translation: shit) down south to dispose of it and when you realize that NYC has over 8 million residents, you can get an idea of just how much fecal matter that they are offloading.

The reason why this is news is that residents of the Yellowhammer State have managed to raise enough hell that the trains carrying the smelly cargo have been stopped – at least for now.

Via AL.com “New York stops sewage trains to Alabama landfill”:

New York City has decided to halt an operation that sent train loads of partially treated sewage material to a landfill in Alabama.

Six wastewater treatment plants from New York City and one from New Jersey had been sending their biosolids — the solid material left over from wastewater treatment processes — to the Big Sky Environmental, LLC landfill in Adamsville for more than a year.

The operation sparked complaints over smells, flies and health issues at multiple locations in Jefferson and Walker Counties.

“As a precaution and to better understand local concern, we have discontinued utilizing the [Big Sky] facility,” Edward Timbers, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, said in an email to AL.com.

A representative of the Big Sky landfill said the company would not make any statement or answer questions about the sewage sludge operation on advice of the company’s attorneys.

So there you have it folks, New York is literally shitting all over Alabama and in a different way than California shits all over the rest of the country.

via Downtrend.com

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

BOZELL & GRAHAM: Sean Penn Loses His Marbles

For many years now, the celebrated thespian Sean Penn has been one of the wackiest activists in the pantheon of the Hollywood left. When we last observed him in his unnatural habitat, he was warmly interviewing the murderous drug lord “El Chapo” for Rolling Stone and insisting the drug lord is demonized in the war on drugs.

Now Penn thinks he is not just a journalist but a novelist. Right before the 2016 election, he narrated an audiobook titled “Bob Honey Who Just Do Stuff” under the pseudonym “Pappy Pariah.” Simon & Schuster has now published it in book form with his name attached, and the publisher’s corporate synergists at CBS aired interviews with him on “Sunday Morning” and the “Late Show With Stephen Colbert.”

Among his many talents, Bob Honey is an assassin, and he kills elderly welfare recipients for a secret government agency. But guns aren’t cool, so he murders people with a wooden mallet. Sound like a wacky leftist under the influence?

In one scene, Honey writes a letter to the not-so-fictional president, named Mr. Landlord. He wants him killed.

“Many wonderful American people in pain and rage elected you,” he writes. “Many Russians did, too. Your position is an asterisk accepted as literally as your alternative facts. Though the office will remain real, you never were nor will be. A million women so dwarfed your penis-edency on the streets of Washington and around the world on the day of your piddly inauguration … You are not simply a president of impeachment, you are a man in need of an intervention. We are not simply a people in need of an intervention, we are a nation in need of an assassin … Tweet me b—-, I dare you.”

This is why Colbert nudged Penn on TV and said, “Have the Secret Service contacted you? … Because that’s the sort of thing you can’t even make jokes about.” (Earth to Colbert: Your company published this garbage.) Penn said he wrote the novel as “a kind of venting.” It’s “venting,” like his fellow actor Jim Carrey getting jollies on March 27 by tweeting a drawing of President Trump’s two oldest sons being impaled on an elephant’s tusks.

Some “venting” is encouraged. Some “venting” gets you fired. It depends on who is president. These are the same liberals who wanted heads to roll when an unknown Republican congressional aide made a few rude remarks on her personal Facebook page that said then-President Obama’s daughters were dressed like girls at a bar for a Thanksgiving turkey pardoning. She had to resign.

Meanwhile, Penn is getting paid by Simon & Schuster for writing “literature” that sounds like a bad high school project. The novel’s hero is “evading the viscount vogue of Viagratic assaults on virtual vaginas, or worse, falling passively into prosaic pastimes.” Even The Huffington Post warned that “Sean Penn the Novelist Must Be Stopped.” It called the plot a “nausea-inducing mess.”

Penn loves alliterating every few pages, as in: “There is pride to be had where the prejudicial is practiced with precision in the trenchant triage of tactile terminations.”

This man doesn’t need to write novels. He doesn’t need publishers and television networks encouraging his self-expression. He needs a psychiatrist. And a muzzle.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

via Daily Wire

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

An army of illegal aliens is marching on America

Sounds like the first line of a movie script based on some dystopian future, doesn’t it? But it’s actually an underreported story from the real world.

I first became aware of this developing tale thanks to a tweet from Nicolas Medina Mora lionizing the work of Adolfo Flores of Buzzfeed. What is Adolfo up to? Take a look.

Flores is apparently on a lengthy trek through all of Mexico with a literal army of migrants from a number of countries including Honduras. Normally one might imagine that a potential national security crisis for the United States such as this would be cause for raising the alarm. Instead, the Buzzfeed reporter is cheering them on and talking about their “struggle.”

You won’t see much in the way of coverage of this on the major networks or CNN, but Buzzfeed is covering it.

For five days now hundreds of Central Americans — children, women, and men, most of them from Honduras — have boldly crossed immigration checkpoints, military bases, and police in a desperate, sometimes chaotic march toward the United States. Despite their being in Mexico without authorization, no one has made any effort to stop them.

Organized by a group of volunteers called Pueblos Sin Fronteras, or People Without Borders, the caravan is intended to help migrants safely reach the United States, bypassing not only authorities who would seek to deport them, but gangs and cartels who are known to assault vulnerable migrants.

Organizers like Rodrigo Abeja hope that the sheer size of the crowd will give immigration authorities and criminals pause before trying to stop them.

“If we all protect each other we’ll get through this together,” Abeja yelled through a loudspeaker on the morning they left Tapachula, on Mexico’s border with Guatemala, for the nearly monthlong trek.

This isn’t a group of family members or some isolated, organized clan. This is an army. Flores numbers them in the hundreds but looking at the pictures coming from the “march” it clearly appears that their numbers are swelling. The real figure, as cited by Mora, is likely already more than a thousand. Their purpose? They make no bones about it when asked. They, “hope American authorities will grant them asylum or, for some, be absent when they attempt to cross the border illegally.”

Perhaps they’ve been convinced that they can simply apply for refugee status or asylum when they arrive. And they actually can apply, but that doesn’t mean that they will be accepted on that basis. Further, Mexico bears some responsibility for helping to prevent this sort of organized invasion. Just this week our new Homeland Security Secretary met with Mexico’s Foreign Minister and signed agreements related to customs and border security. All of this is happening in the shadow of those NAFTA restructuring talks. It’s worth asking why, as Flores reports, nobody from Mexico is doing a thing to slow down this march. In fact, in some cases, the Buzzfeed reporter suggests that Mexican towns and cities are actually hurrying them along.

This army of interlopers moving across Mexico “without authorization” as Flores puts it (translated to “illegally”) is seeking to overwhelm the resources of immigration officials and are ready to cross the border illegally if an opening presents itself. If Mexico allows this to simply happen with no intercession they shouldn’t expect such a friendly reception with the State Department and the White House.

The post An army of illegal aliens is marching on America appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

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

The Countdown Begins: Out-Of-Control Chinese Space Station’s Fiery Crash To Earth Is Due On Easter, Destination Unknown

They can predict global warming but not where a space station will fall. Place your bets.

Via Daily Mail:

Out-of-control Chinese space station, Tiangong-1, is predicted to reenter Earth’s atmosphere at 11:30am BST (6:33am ET) on Easter Sunday.

The space craft is carrying highly toxic chemicals and could crash into a number of highly populated areas, researchers claim.

Areas that could be hit include New York, Barcelona, Beijing, Chicago, Istanbul, Rome and Toronto.

When the station does eventually enter the atmosphere it could unleash a ‘series of fireballs’ that will be seen by observers.

Scientists still do not yet know where the satellite fragments are likely to land.

Keep reading…

HT: Louisiana Mom

via Weasel Zippers

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

WATCH: Prince Charles Delivers Easter Message on Christian Persecution

WATCH: Prince Charles Delivers Easter Message on Christian Persecution



LONDON (AP) — Prince Charles released a videotaped Easter message early Friday offering support for persecuted Christians around the world.

He expresses sympathy for people who have “had to flee for their faith and for their life” and says he has been deeply moved by their courage and ability to forgive.

He says all three Abrahamic faiths have endured persecution when religion “has fallen into the barbaric grip of those who distort and misrepresent faith.”

Charles, who is heir to the British throne, has spoken out in the past on the need for religious tolerance.

The message was recorded earlier this month at Charles’ Clarence House residence in central London.

via Breitbart News

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

Report: China’s Underground Christians Feel Betrayed by Vatican Deal with Beijing

Members of China’s Christian community feel betrayed by the Vatican’s negotiations with Beijing over Chinese bishop appointments. In fact, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) writes of Catholics feeling as “betrayed and abandoned” as Jesus on Good Friday.

Christian faith occupies a curious position in Chinese society—frowned upon and distrusted by the Communist elite, but not currently oppressed as savagely as in neighboring North Korea. Some Chinese Catholics belong to churches authorized by the state, but others say those churches are controlled by the state and prefer to worship at “underground” churches free of political influence.

Some of those churches are not very far underground; the SCMP describes one that is festooned with government surveillance cameras, but forty or so Catholics congregate there anyway. Another passage in the article describes an entire village of 3,000 underground Catholics kept under creepy surveillance by cameras and undercover police. Some estimates suggested there are about 12 million Catholics in China, and 60 percent of them belong to state-sanctioned churches.

Amid much controversy, the Vatican has been negotiating the resumption of formal diplomatic relations with Beijing. One of the key issues concerns how bishops would be appointed. China’s authoritarian government wants politically reliable bishops to manage a Catholicism that harmonizes with the Communist Party’s political agenda.

To the dismay of many Catholics, the Vatican seems to have worked out a deal where it will retain an advisory role, but the government will have a major role in appointing bishops. There is tremendous controversy over whether the arrangement would give the Pope or the Politburo the final say in appointments. Even the most optimistic descriptions of the deal suggest that candidates will have to be acceptable to both parties, which angers many Catholics by putting the Chinese Communist Party on an equal footing with the papacy in a role no other government in the world enjoys.

Supporters of the arrangement hope that it will allow the Catholic Church to flourish in China because the regime will no longer view the faith as a threatening subversive force. They portray giving the Vatican a voice in China’s state-controlled church network as a tremendous accomplishment.

“It is not a great agreement but we don’t know what the situation will be like in 10 or 20 years. It could even be worse,” a source familiar with the negotiations told Reuters in February. “Afterwards we will still be like a bird in a cage but the cage will be bigger. It is not easy. Suffering will continue. We will have to fight for every centimeter to increase the size of the cage.”

One of the strongest critics of the deal, former Hong Kong bishop Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun, frankly denounced the Vatican for selling out to China, described the deal as a suicide pact, and even suggested the diplomats working on the agreement were misleading Pope Francis about what it entailed.

The South China Morning Post on Friday quoted underground church members who felt the same, including priests who spoke of retiring in protest. One of the most infuriating aspects of the deal is that two underground bishops who were appointed by the Vatican have been ordered to step aside for Communist-appointed bishops.

One of those underground bishops, 59-year-old Vincent Guo Xijin of Fujian province, was arrested on Monday for unclear reasons and held for a day. Amnesty International researcher Patrick Poon was outraged at the semi-official explanation that Guo was brought in for “talks,” which he said, “In the Communist Chinese context is always about detention and threats.”

“Quite a number of underground parishioners who would never walk into an official church approached us recently asking if the Vatican is really giving up on legitimate underground bishops for illicit ones. No one can wrap their head around the Vatican’s rationale,” a priest who asked to be identified as “Father Pedro” who leads one of the state-approved Chinese churches, told the South China Morning Post.

Father Pedro was quoted in another South China Morning Post article on Friday where he unhappily predicted that the Vatican’s diplomatic outreach to China is unlikely to bear fruit for Catholics in his lifetime. “Is Beijing really ready to let go its grip and talk sincerely with the Vatican?” he asked.

“This is no different to a father giving up his own children to strangers who set out to harm them. Why is the Pope adding new pain to unhealed injuries?” asked a nun from a rural church who spoke to the SCMP.

The nun accused Vatican officials of “abandoning the interests of underground churches just to make friends with a totalitarian regime,” and said that she knows of several underground priests who are considering retirement because of the deal.

One veteran priest whose family has spent a combined 150 years in jail for defiantly practicing their faith in China said he plans to “retreat quietly” because of the Vatican deal with Beijing, and rendered perhaps the harshest judgment of all: “Not a moment was regrettable since I’ve pledged my life to the Virgin Mary … but if Pope Benedict XVI had not retired, none of this would have happened.”

Some observers worried that the Chinese government has too strong of a hand in negotiations, feeling no urgent need to strike a deal because its state-sanctioned churches already have the Catholic situation fairly well in hand. Others warned that the Communist government is liable to revise any deal it makes in the future, especially if it sees the population of the underground church movement dwindling after a deal with the Vatican, either because they move to more comfortable state-sanctioned churches or abandon Catholicism in despair.

A Vatican spokesman on Thursday said that, contrary to media buzz, “There is no imminent signature of an agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China.”

“I would like to stress that the Holy Father Francis remains in constant contact with his collaborators on Chinese issues and is accompanying the steps of the ongoing dialogue,” the spokesman added.

via Breitbart News

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

Sixty-Nine Percent of U.S. TB Cases in 2017 Were Diagnosed in Foreign-Born Residents

Sixty-Nine Percent of U.S. TB Cases in 2017 Were Diagnosed in Foreign-Born Residents



Sixty-nine percent of all tuberculosis (TB) cases reported in the United States in 2017 were diagnosed in foreign-born residents, according to a report released earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control.

This was the highest percentage ever, marking a steady three decade rise from 1986, when only 22 percent of all TB cases reported in the United States were diagnosed in foreign born residents. Last year, in 2016, 68 percent of TB cases were foreign-born.

For the country as a whole, the absolute number of TB cases and the rate per 100,000 declined for the second consecutive year.

9,093 cases were reported in 2017, down from 9,272 in 2016.

“Since 1993, tuberculosis (TB) case counts and rates have declined in the United States. As the number of cases decreases overall, an increasing percentage of cases occurs among non–U.S.-born persons. Disparities also exist within racial, ethnic, and social groups among U.S.-born persons with TB,” the CDC report stated, adding:

In 2017, a total of 9,093 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were provisionally* reported in the United States, representing an incidence rate of 2.8 cases per 100,000 population. The case count decreased by 1.8% from 2016 to 2017, and the rate declined by 2.5% over the same period. These decreases are consistent with the slight decline in TB seen over the past several years. This report summarizes provisional TB surveillance data reported to CDC’s National Tuberculosis Surveillance System for 2017 and in the last decade. The rate of TB among non–U.S.-born persons in 2017 was 15 times the rate among U.S.-born persons. Among non–U.S.-born persons, the highest TB rate among all racial/ethnic groups was among Asians (27.0 per 100,000 persons), followed by non-Hispanic blacks (blacks; 22.0). Among U.S.-born persons, most TB cases were reported among blacks (37.1%), followed by non-Hispanic whites (whites; 29.5%). Previous studies have shown that the majority of TB cases in the United States are attributed to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI).

 

In terms of absolute number of cases, the number of cases diagnosed in foreign born residents remained essentially the same, going from 6,351 in 2016 (68.7 percent) to 6,346 in 2017 (69.8 percent). The number of cases diagnosed in native born residents declined from 2,901 in 2016 to 2,698 in 2017.

“State-specific TB rates (cases per 100,000 persons) ranged from 0.3 in Montana to 8.1 in Hawaii with a median state TB rate of 1.8. As has been the case for the past decade, four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) reported half of the total TB cases in the United States in 2017,” the CDC  reported:

The annual percent change in rate in recent years has slowed from an average decline of 5.3% during 2010–2013 to an average decline of 2.0% during 2014–2017. In 2017, a total of 6,346 (69.8%) of U.S. TB cases occurred among non–U.S.-born persons, 2,698 (29.7%) cases occurred among U.S.-born persons, and 49 (0.5%) occurred among persons with no reported national origin. The TB rate among non–U.S.-born persons (14.6) was 15 times the rate among U.S.-born persons (1.0). Although these rates represent decreases among both groups in 2017 compared with 2016, the rate among U.S.-born persons declined 7.0%, whereas that among non–U.S.-born persons declined 0.9%.

Among non–U.S.-born persons, the highest TB rate among all racial/ethnic groups occurred among Asians (27.0 per 100,000 persons), followed by blacks (22.0) (Table 2). As in previous years, in 2017, the top five countries of birth of non–U.S.-born persons with TB were Mexico (1,204; 19.0% of all non–U.S.-born persons with TB), Philippines (783; 12.3%), India (595; 9.4%), Vietnam (526; 8.3%), and China (400; 6.3%). Persons who received a diagnosis of TB ≥10 years after arriving in the United States accounted for 2,854 (45.0%) of all TB cases among non–U.S.-born persons.

As Breitbart News has reported extensively, high rates of latent TB infection in the estimated two million foreign-born refugees who have been resettled in the United States since 1986 is one reason why the percentage of TB cases among foreign-born residents has increased dramatically over the past three decades.

via Breitbart News

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

The Christian Origins of America’s Constitutional Republic

As one billion Christians around the world gather on Easter Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the foundational event of the Christian faith, it is worth reminding every American about the Christian origins of our constitutional republic.

Three key theological concepts from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries–congregational self governance, the covenantal nature of the relationship between man and God, and the free will of individuals to choose–eventually found expression in political philosophy and formed the basis for notions of popular sovereignty and self governance that our founders used in writing and approving the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution between 1787 and 1789.

When Catholic Queen Mary ascended to the throne of England in 1553, a group of Protestant theologians and scholars, fearing for their lives, fled to Geneva, Switzerland.

There, under the protection of Protestant Reformation leader John Calvin, they labored several years to produce the first widely available English version of the Bible.

Published in 1660, the Geneva Bible gained widespread popularity in England, especially because Protestant Elizabeth I succeeded Mary in 1558.

The translation was a giant leap ahead of earlier versions, but of particular interest were the annotations offered by the English translators, which tended to promote a more republican view of governance, as opposed to the sort of absolute monarchy that was emerging across Europe.

“Englishmen who had previously thought little about the relationship between the individual and the state now had reason to contemplate what God had to say on the matter,” as I wrote in my 2012 book, Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement.

Following Calvin’s thinking, the Geneva Bible made the concept of a covenant–a solemn agreement between God, who promised eternal salvation, and man, who promised obedience–now seem relevant and applicable to other relationships, such as the individual and the state, and the individual and his local church. . .

In his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin described his system of Protestant theology, including the covenantal relationship between the church and civil governance. The Institutes provided a biblical justification for Christian resistance to the rule of tyrannical monarchs. It also laid the framework for the establishment of a biblically based civil government, as practiced in Geneva, then a city of 20,000. Its republican form of government tolerated but a single theological perspective: Calvinism. Under the five theological points of Calvinism–the total depravity of man, unconditional election of the saints, limited atonement given only to the predestined saints, God’s irresistible grace and total sovereignty, and the perseverance of the saints–only the predestined “elect” who were members of the established Presbyterian church enjoyed full civil rights.

Calvin’s predestination theology was at odds with later Christian theologies that emphasized “free will” and made no distinction between the “saved” and the “doomed,” such as those of Arminius, Grotius, and Roger Williams. All men had the potential to be saved, they argued, and it was that potential that formed their original natural rights.

When Elizabeth I died in 1603, she was succeeded by James I, a proponent of an aggressive absolute monarchy expressed in the doctrine of “the divine right of kings.” It was precisely the kind of doctrine the voluminous side annotations found in the Geneva Bible warned against.

Tired of the challenges to his absolute authority implicit in the annotations found in the Geneva Bible, James I convened a group of clerics and instructed them to produce a new English translation, which was finally published in 1611 as the King James version of the Bible, which eventually supplanted the Geneva Bible, both in England and the colonies in British North America.

Puritans–English Protestants who adhered to a Calvinist interpretation of Christianity–were in constant conflict with James I and his successor Charles I over their absolutist–some called it tyrannical–approach to governance. These Puritans also experienced internal conflicts, with some adhering strictly to Calvinist principles, while others began to reject notions of predestination with the more hopeful notion of individual free will.

When Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he began an eleven year period of personal rule in which Parliament did not meet at all. English Puritans reacted strongly to what they perceived as another unsupportable action by an increasingly tyrannical monarch:

One group, led by John Winthrop, determined to leave England and establish a Christian Bible-state that could be a “city upon an hill” and an example to all Christians of the proper godly way to organize and manage a country. From 1629 to 1640, an estimated forty thousand Puritans made the trek to Massachusetts, where Winthrop and other elders established the first Christian theocracy in the new world–the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The English Puritans, who fully embraced concepts of congregational self governance–limited as it was to those “elect” Christians who were pre-destined for salvation in the Calvinist theology–and the covenantal relationship between man and God soon established Christian theocratic Bible-states in Massachusetts (from 1630 to the early 1690s) and England (the Cromwellian republic from about 1647 to 1660).

These early attempts to establish a Christian theocracy based on narrow Calvinist principles, however, soon ran into opposition from developing Christian notions of free will.

In England, the champion of that movement was John Lilburne, whose imprisonment by Charles I in 1638 for distributing Christian literature and subsequent “Star Chamber” show trial, made him a national figure. Released from prison in 1641, Lilburne went on to become a founder of the Leveller movement, a group that applied their Christian faith to the civil realm and advocated for popular sovereignty and covenantal acceptance by the people of the constitutionally limited rules of governance.

In 1647, with Cromwell’s military challenge to Charles I succeeding, the Levellers proposed those rules for governance in a 900 word document called An Agreement of the People. Though never adopted, the document was seen as the first model for our American Constitution, as Justice Hugo Black wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case Goldberg v. Kelly in the 1970:

The goal of a written constitution with fixed limits on governmental power had long been desired. Prior to our colonial constitutions, the closest man had come to realizing this goal was the political movement of the Levellers in England in the 1640s.. In 1647, the Levellers proposed the adoption of An Agreement of the People which set forth written limitations on the English Government. This proposal contained many of the ideas which were later incorporated in the constitutions of this Nation.

In British North America, Lilburne’s friend, Roger Williams, pursued notions of free will, popular sovereignty, and a covenantal agreement fully entered into when he migrated from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630s.

An ardent Christian who took the idea of the great commission seriously–he learned several Native American languages and spent much of his time promoting the Gospel and converting Native Americans in New England to Christianity–Williams also believed that every person must live by the dictates of his or her conscience. He studied the Bible in great detail, and held views that many in the Massachusetts Bay Colony considered heretical.

In 1636 he was expelled, and fled south to what is now Rhode Island, where he was soon followed by a small number of similar outcasts from Massachusetts. He ultimately received a royal charter to establish a new colony there, one which guaranteed freedom of religion. In 1680, another Christian who believed in freedom of religion, the Quaker William Penn, secured a royal charter for the colony of Pennsylvania.

A decade later, the disastrous Salem Witch trials marked the end of the liberty-limiting theocracy of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony.

By the 1770s, the generation of Colonial leaders who fought the American Revolution and passed and ratified the Constitution embraced the concepts of popular sovereignty, individual free choice, and need for covenantal agreements–expressed in writing and clearly understood by all to either accept or reject–that Roger Williams and John Lilburne had first advanced more than a century before as natural continuations of their Christian faith to the civil realm.

via Breitbart News

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

CNN Gives Crooked Comey His Own Town Hall to Promote Book

The latest in CNN’s series of “Town Hall” farces will be a free infomercial featuring former FBI director James Comey where he will promote his new book as well as respond to the usual series of scripted questions from an audience that will be carefully chosen to only represent one view and that view will be hating on President Trump.

Comey’s book “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies & Leadership” was already near the top of best seller lists weeks before its release, likely due to bulk purchases and advance orders by activists and Obama loyalists who are still dug in deeper than Alabama ticks at the politicized FBI.

The tall man is as slick as greased owl shit and the primary purpose of his promotional tour which will receive saturation coverage will be to put a spin on what has been described as an explosive report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz that is said to contain details on systemic abuse of the department for political means as well as providing fraudulent information to FISA courts to procure surveillance warrants against the Trump campaign.

Comey ran the FBI at the time and the CNN event is a signal that the media will construct an impenetrable force field around him to defend him from any inconvenient details within that report.

Via The Daily Wire “Comey Gets The Red Carpet From CNN: A Full Town Hall Event To Mark Book Launch”:

On Wednesday, CNN announced that it would host a townhall event with former FBI Director James Comey on April 25 to launch his new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies & Leadership. According to the press release, the townhall event will take place at William & Mary College in Virginia, and Anderson Cooper will moderate.

Now, Comey’s book will certainly be newsworthy — although Cooper should certainly ask Comey why he hasn’t just come out with information vital to America’s future without launching a book to earn some quick cash. But there’s something more disturbing here: leaving aside townhall events with politicians, during which the questions are biased enough, CNN’s history of issue-oriented townhall events skews toward one particular side of the aisle.

Most recently, of course, CNN hosted an Orwellian Two Minutes Hate townhall event in Parkland, Florida, where student survivors of a mass shooting proceeded to label Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and the NRA’s Dana Loesch murderers with blood on their hands, while the crowd screamed its approval. In November, CNN hosted a townhall discussion on sexual harassment in America featuring Anita Hill, who testified against Clarence Thomas in highly questionable fashion. In January 2016, CNN held a townhall event on guns, featuring President Obama.

When it comes to issue-oriented townhall events, CNN has never done an event specifically on the risks of illegal immigration or the problem of abortion. But they’ll always make room for the most “important” issues of the day, so long as those issues tend toward benefitting Democrats.

Comey will likely be given the red carpet treatment by Cooper; Cooper’s only tough questions will probably be about Comey’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the last election cycle. And Comey knows that: Michael Wolff has already proved that confirmation bias will guarantee a bestseller. So prepare for hysterical headlines and breathless reportage of news we likely already know.

If CNN is the standard for American media then you would expect to receive less biased coverage in Kim Jong-un’s dictatorial North Korea.

What a farce.

via Downtrend.com

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

The Most Amazing Special Forces Fighters You’ve Never Heard Of

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists horrifically attacked the United States, killing 2,996 people, injuring over 6,000, and causing $10 billion in infrastructure damage.  President George W. Bush in addressing the nation stated how “these acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”  This was no more evident than when U.S. Special Forces teams were deployed as a first response to what happened on 9/11.  A recent movie, 12 Strong, based on the book by Doug Stanton, Horse Soldiers, documents those soldiers’ stories.


A former Green Beret, Scott Neil was part of a specialized direct action unit assigned to infiltrate Afghanistan.  He was one of the select few, from the U.S. Army’s 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), to put America’s first “boots on THE ground” in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.



Neil told American Thinker, “We have always been the silent warriors, deploying around the world.  In this case, we felt vengefulness, pride, and wanted justice.  Our mission was to kill or capture al-Qaeda and Taliban senior leadership.  There was a military-centric focus, which unfortunately has now morphed to provide stability to the Afghan government and infrastructure.  Back then we tried not to appear as American soldiers and used transportation similar to what the tribes used.  Today, the infiltration is a twelve-vehicle convoy that wear uniforms alien to the environment.  When we first went in, we used a low-visibility footprint, integrating with the population, with the Afghans as the primary force.  We were there to train, advise, and assist.”


This small band of Green Berets was the strategy chosen by Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, instead of a large conventional force.  Stanton wanted to show through the movie and book how “the Special Forces are skilled in language and will use the cultural and religious aspects of that community to their advantage.  They are able to react quickly to a changing environment that has a lot of variables.”  Neil concurs: “We brought together these warring tribal factions to support our objective, and used surprise, speed, and energy.”


Using the model of blending in with the insurgency, they fought alongside those fighting the Taliban.  There, tribes, whom Stanton calls “the resistance fighters, were known as the Northern Alliance.  I think Afghanistan is really a state and not a nation, with many autonomous regions that are divided up along ethnic lines.  Within months, the Green Berets, along with the tribes and air support, were able to destroy the Taliban and chase bin Laden into Pakistan.  Part of the reason for their success was using unconventional warfare and direct action.  They were covert, grew beards to blend in with the force they are fighting alongside.”


These special warriors were not subjected to the disastrous rules of engagement of the Obama days.  Instead, they were given the authority to make unconventional decisions.  Stanton wrote how “the captain was able to make pretty big decisions on the part of the U.S. along with his counterpart, the Afghan general, who actually participated in the battle instead of sitting on the sidelines.  One decision made was to ride alongside their Afghan counterparts on horses.   These horse soldiers combined cavalry warfare with twenty-first-century aerial bombardment technology to defeat the enemy.”


Neil explained, “Those that did ride had no cavalry training.  The only one who knew how to ride a horse was the captain, who had a rodeo scholarship at the University of Kansas.  The others learned on the spot, as they ate what the Afghans ate, fought as they fought, and used the horses as a form of transportation as they did.  All of us who went into Afghanistan during the early days, the ‘horsemen’ and those of us who did not ride horses, were a very small, highly trained, and highly skilled group that was given a very broad mission with limited technologies.”


Both the movie and book chronicle how dangerous it was for the American forces, considering they did not always know who the bad guys were and who the good guys were.  A quote from Horse Soldiers hammers the point home: “[t]he teams were now surrounded by the very soldiers whom minutes earlier, they had been planning to kill.”


Both book and movie account for how the Taliban is pure evil.  Taliban fighters forced youngsters to fight for them by threatening to kill their families.  General Abdul Rashid Dostum, from the Afghan Northern Alliance, refused “to live in a country where a man can’t drink vodka and where women can’t wear skirts or go to school.  The Taliban had marched into the city of Mazar, laid waste, killing an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people.”


Unfortunately, these silent warriors never get the recognition they so rightly deserve.  Stanton captured this problem with a scene in the book, where one of the Special Forces soldiers, Ben Milo, is dropped off late at night in the middle of a U.S. park and has to call his wife to pick him up.  He wants Americans to understand that these silent Special Forces “never received a bona fide public homecoming celebration like the kind the guys in the regular Army got.  There are no parades for these quiet professionals.”


The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.










On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists horrifically attacked the United States, killing 2,996 people, injuring over 6,000, and causing $10 billion in infrastructure damage.  President George W. Bush in addressing the nation stated how “these acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”  This was no more evident than when U.S. Special Forces teams were deployed as a first response to what happened on 9/11.  A recent movie, 12 Strong, based on the book by Doug Stanton, Horse Soldiers, documents those soldiers’ stories.


A former Green Beret, Scott Neil was part of a specialized direct action unit assigned to infiltrate Afghanistan.  He was one of the select few, from the U.S. Army’s 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), to put America’s first “boots on THE ground” in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.


Neil told American Thinker, “We have always been the silent warriors, deploying around the world.  In this case, we felt vengefulness, pride, and wanted justice.  Our mission was to kill or capture al-Qaeda and Taliban senior leadership.  There was a military-centric focus, which unfortunately has now morphed to provide stability to the Afghan government and infrastructure.  Back then we tried not to appear as American soldiers and used transportation similar to what the tribes used.  Today, the infiltration is a twelve-vehicle convoy that wear uniforms alien to the environment.  When we first went in, we used a low-visibility footprint, integrating with the population, with the Afghans as the primary force.  We were there to train, advise, and assist.”


This small band of Green Berets was the strategy chosen by Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, instead of a large conventional force.  Stanton wanted to show through the movie and book how “the Special Forces are skilled in language and will use the cultural and religious aspects of that community to their advantage.  They are able to react quickly to a changing environment that has a lot of variables.”  Neil concurs: “We brought together these warring tribal factions to support our objective, and used surprise, speed, and energy.”


Using the model of blending in with the insurgency, they fought alongside those fighting the Taliban.  There, tribes, whom Stanton calls “the resistance fighters, were known as the Northern Alliance.  I think Afghanistan is really a state and not a nation, with many autonomous regions that are divided up along ethnic lines.  Within months, the Green Berets, along with the tribes and air support, were able to destroy the Taliban and chase bin Laden into Pakistan.  Part of the reason for their success was using unconventional warfare and direct action.  They were covert, grew beards to blend in with the force they are fighting alongside.”


These special warriors were not subjected to the disastrous rules of engagement of the Obama days.  Instead, they were given the authority to make unconventional decisions.  Stanton wrote how “the captain was able to make pretty big decisions on the part of the U.S. along with his counterpart, the Afghan general, who actually participated in the battle instead of sitting on the sidelines.  One decision made was to ride alongside their Afghan counterparts on horses.   These horse soldiers combined cavalry warfare with twenty-first-century aerial bombardment technology to defeat the enemy.”


Neil explained, “Those that did ride had no cavalry training.  The only one who knew how to ride a horse was the captain, who had a rodeo scholarship at the University of Kansas.  The others learned on the spot, as they ate what the Afghans ate, fought as they fought, and used the horses as a form of transportation as they did.  All of us who went into Afghanistan during the early days, the ‘horsemen’ and those of us who did not ride horses, were a very small, highly trained, and highly skilled group that was given a very broad mission with limited technologies.”


Both the movie and book chronicle how dangerous it was for the American forces, considering they did not always know who the bad guys were and who the good guys were.  A quote from Horse Soldiers hammers the point home: “[t]he teams were now surrounded by the very soldiers whom minutes earlier, they had been planning to kill.”


Both book and movie account for how the Taliban is pure evil.  Taliban fighters forced youngsters to fight for them by threatening to kill their families.  General Abdul Rashid Dostum, from the Afghan Northern Alliance, refused “to live in a country where a man can’t drink vodka and where women can’t wear skirts or go to school.  The Taliban had marched into the city of Mazar, laid waste, killing an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people.”


Unfortunately, these silent warriors never get the recognition they so rightly deserve.  Stanton captured this problem with a scene in the book, where one of the Special Forces soldiers, Ben Milo, is dropped off late at night in the middle of a U.S. park and has to call his wife to pick him up.  He wants Americans to understand that these silent Special Forces “never received a bona fide public homecoming celebration like the kind the guys in the regular Army got.  There are no parades for these quiet professionals.”


The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.





via American Thinker

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