Trump Savaged Hillary And Obama In Front Of Marines — Listen To How They React

Via Daily Caller:

Donald Trump visited the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station base in California Tuesday to give a speech to hundreds of Marines stationed there.

Trump spoke on a wide variety of issues, even floating the idea of a “space force” to fight war in space.

The biggest applause lines came at the expense of Donald Trump’s predecessor and his 2016 presidential opponent.

At one point in the speech, Trump was describing how America would reach Mars under his leadership. Trump spoke about the testing of new rockets and said, “Very soon we are going to Mars.”

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

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

‘Islam Belongs to Germany’, Merkel Insists After Minister Highlights Nation’s Christian Heritage

‘Islam Belongs to Germany’, Merkel Insists After Minister Highlights Nation’s Christian Heritage



Angela Merkel has again insisted Islam is part of German culture, speaking out to contradict Interior Minister Horst Seehofer after he stressed the nation’s Christian heritage.

“Islam does not belong to Germany. Germany has been shaped by Christianity,” the Christian Social Union (CSU) Bavarian leader told Bild on Friday, pointing to the church’s influence on everyday life and culture.

“These aspects include shops being closed on Sundays, church holidays and rituals such as Easter, Pentecost and Christmas.”

“The Muslims who live with us obviously belong to Germany,” qualified Seehofer, adding that “this does not mean we give up our country-specific traditions and customs out of false consideration for others”.

After the minister’s pronouncement, Merkel moved quickly to assert that Islam “belongs to Germany”, a claim the Chancellor has made on several occasions since she opened Europe’s doors to seemingly limitless mass migration in 2015.

Appearing at a press conference after talks with Swedish prime minister Stefan Lofven on Friday, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader noted four million residents of the country follow Islam, telling reporters: “These Muslims are also part of Germany and with them their religion, Islam, is just as much a part of Germany.”

As a critic of mass migration Seehofer, who is presiding over an expanded homeland ministry, has clashed with the Chancellor on previous occasions.

He announced at the weekend a number of immigration measures the ministry intends to put in place including “a master plan for faster deportations and increased fight against the causes of flight in the countries of origin.”.

Speaking on ZDF, the new Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder (CSU) backed Seehofer up over the controversy, telling the public broadcaster that while “Muslims who live and integrate here” can be said to ‘belong’ to Germany, “Islam is not part of the [nation’s] cultural history.”

Polls have consistently shown a majority of around 60 per cent of Germans reject the notion that Islam belongs to the country, and public discomfort towards the religion has increased significantly since the migrant crisis saw a massive rise in the number of Muslim newcomers.

via Breitbart News

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

It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law

It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law



The guns and ammunition of a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point, Florida, resident were confiscated by police in what is reportedly the first such seizure under gun control laws signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R) last week.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”

The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”

The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.”

The confiscatory order also bars the man from making new firearm or ammunition purchases.

On March 9, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Scott signed a $400 million gun bill that includes orders which allows a family member or law enforcement to petition a judge to order the seizure of an individual’s firearms. The bill also put waiting periods in place for long gun purchases, raised the minimum purchase age for long gun purchases (from 18 to 21), and banned bump stocks.

When asked about the confiscatory order that resulted in the seizure of the Lighthouse Point resident’s firearms, Mayor Glenn Troast said, “This is not about the Second Amendment and it’s not about the NRA. We need commonsense gun laws and this is a commonsense gun law that gives police officers new tools they need to help us protect our community.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

via Breitbart News

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

Liberal Science: White Men Like Guns Because They Are Racist

Did you ever wonder why white men like guns? Me neither, but this is a pressing issue for the left so they did some of that liberal science and came up with white men like guns because they are racist. This was in Scientific America which has “science” right in the title so you know it’s extra sciencey. Not only do white men like guns because they are racist it’s also because they hate Obama and that makes it doubly racist.

I don’t know if there was a time when Scientific America was a credible science journal, but they definitely are not now, publishing crap like this:

Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?

Research suggests it’s largely because they’re anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears

Racial fears? That sounds racist.

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before—that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

So, who is buying all these guns—and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

Get ready for it:

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated.

So according to “science” white men like guns because they are dumb racists? Apparently so, but these dumb rednecks aren’t just regular racists, they are Obama-hating racists:

When Northland College sociologist Angela Stroud studied applications for licenses to carry concealed firearms in Texas, which exploded after President Obama was elected, she found applicants were overwhelmingly dominated by white men.

But Stroud also discovered another motivation: racial anxiety. “A lot of people talked about how important Obama was to get a concealed-carry license: ‘He’s for free health care, he’s for welfare.’ They were asking, ‘Whatever happened to hard work?’” Obama’s presidency, they feared, would empower minorities to threaten their property and families.

They aren’t kidding. They are calling this hard science:

The insight Stroud gained from her interviews is backed up by many, many studies. A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent. A 2016 study from the University of Illinois at Chicago found that racial resentment among whites fueled opposition to gun control. This drives political affiliations: A 2017 study in the Social Studies Quarterly found that gun owners had become 50 percent more likely to vote Republican since 1972—and that gun culture had become strongly associated with explicit racism.

This garbage keeps going and then turns into a call for strict gun control. After saying these racist white men with guns are actually a danger to society, we get this:

What are the solutions? That and many other studies suggest that restricting the flow of guns and ammunition would certainly save lives.

This is liberal science at its finest: white men like guns because they are racist, this armed racism is a threat to everyone, and so we must restrict white men from getting their hands on guns and ammo. These are the same crack liberal scientists who tell us that global warming causes snow and men in a dresses are really women.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

via Downtrend.com

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

Previously Deported Illegal Alien Allegedly Broke into Home, Kidnapped and Sexually Assaulted Child

Previously Deported Illegal Alien Allegedly Broke into Home, Kidnapped and Sexually Assaulted Child



A previously deported illegal alien allegedly broke into a home in Raleigh, North Carolina, kidnapped a child, and sexually assaulted her.

Oscar Paez Uribe, a 39-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, has been arrested and charged with kidnapping, breaking and entering, and child sex crimes after he allegedly broke into a home last month with intentions to “terrorize” a resident, according to WTVD.

Uribe’s sister told police that the illegal alien was having an affair with the victim’s mother and that the accusations are designed to protect the woman’s marriage.

According to police, though, Uribe broke into the Raleigh home and sexually assaulted the woman’s daughter. The girl allegedly woke up to Uribe touching her genitals.

Screenshot of Uribe via WTVD.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency confirmed to Breitbart News that Uribe is an illegal alien who was previously deported in 2008 when he was accused of child sex crimes.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) placed a detainer on Oscar Paez Uribe, aka Santiago Jaminez Maldonado, 39, a citizen and national of Mexico, Feb. 21, after his arrest by the Wake County Sheriff’s Office on multiple charges, including indecent liberties with a child and first-degree kidnapping. He was previously removed from the United States April 24, 2008. [Emphasis added]

According to WTVD, prosecutors said in court that Uribe had evaded a criminal trial for child sex crimes previously in the U.S. because he was instead deported back to Mexico. Prosecutors also asked Judge Craig Croom to set a $500,000 bond on the illegal alien.

Croom, though, set a bond of $300,000, along with restrictions on the illegal alien, including no contact with the victim’s family and no unsupervised contact with any minor under the age of 16-years-old.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

via Breitbart News

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

Report: McCabe Threatened to ‘Take People Down With Him if Fired’

Report: McCabe Threatened to ‘Take People Down With Him if Fired’

Fox News reporter Adam Housley reported on Twitter tonight about the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stating his sources were telling him that in the past few days McCabe threatened to “take people down with him” if he was fired. Housley also reported that the Inspector General-Office of Professional Responsibility report had uncovered “tons of stuff” on McCabe unrelated to the Trump investigation and that McCabe’s firing was a morale boost to FBI agents.

Adam Housley, screen image via the Cable Game.

Housley posted many tweets and replies about McCabe’s firing. A selection of those tweets is included in this report.

Friday at 9:03 a.m. PDT by the Los Angeles based Housley, “A bunch of FBI agents I know are watching how McCabe is handled very closely. For them this isn’t political, it was about how things were handled internally.”

7:13 p.m. PDT minutes after news broke of McCabe’s firing, “From day 1 I have said the McCabe issue was not about politics for agents. This began before Trump was elected and there are many who were watching how the Bureau handled him. Tonight…a message has been sent according to the agents I am speaking with. McCabe is our.”

7:23 p.m. PDT: “McCabe blaming Nunes and the dossier is beyond incorrect. The internal investigation took all that into consideration and much more. Ask the agents in the bureau, not the politicians and media outside of it. That’s what I did. They had a ton of stuff on him…a ton.”

7:31 p.m. PDT: “McCabe had some friends as part of his group. Some have left…a few are still around. FYI”

7:32 p.m. PDT: “Again…this isn’t about politics..this was an internal thing that became political. It started before Trump. Both sides are tho going to make this political. I mean…that’s what they do.”

7:56 p.m. PDT: “And there is much more. But leave it to some of my colleagues in the media to immediately make it political. RT @debz526: @calvindanielsll @Put2sleep0066 @adamhousley The totality of what McCabe has done hasn’t been disclosed to the public.”

8:25 p.m. PDT: “could care less about Trump and Sessions. According to my sources, who are beyond question, there is much more. This isn’t about Trump. This was about control and business as usual for a few”

8:30 p.m. PDT: “Wray and McCabe’s meeting did not go well and it was McCabe who challenged the Director. McCabe stepped down because of this and tried to ride it out until retirement. Truth internally came out before that happened. This has nothing to do with Trumps tweets or Nunes memo”

8:31 p.m. PDT: “I am told yesterday McCabe felt the heat and went to try and save his last two days and even told some he would take people down with him if he as fired. So…let’s see what comes of this. I know this…a ton of agents…a ton…were watching this very closely.”

8:34 p.m. PDT: “This was about power by a group within the FBI. A clique. I see Republicans already making this political and tying it in a much different way than it was. Dems tying it to Trump…both would be wrong.”

8:42 p.m. PDT: “This decision will encourage agents to trust coming forward. Others who had during the clique’s time in charge got buried and mistreated and it kept agents from coming forward. Again..this began before Trump. It was about control.”

8:47 p.m. PDT: “Happy RT @HappyGoldenRule: @adamhousley Are they mad or happy about the firing?”

8:49 p.m.PDT: “As a reporter I will repeat this once more. I could care less if this helps Trump, or helps politically in any way. I just know a ton of men and women in the FBI who do damn good work and they were watching how this clique would be handled. McCabe has many who do not support”

8:50 p.m. PDT: “I am saying agents have told me of a small group of people we’re all about control and they were even tough on their own internally. It had agents not wanting to talk and it started before Trump.”

8:51 p.m. PDT: “I am saying this started before that. What they did and what it became will be revealed in the full report.”

Housley’s tweets embedded below:

Houseley spent Friday evening engaging people on Twitter. Click this link to see his timeline with replies

BTW, Housely had an explanation for the many typos in his tweets: Cooking while tweeting.

Featured Image via Fox Business video.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning

via The Gateway Pundit

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

State-Enforced Paganism in America


But the most powerfully dangerous ideation of the sexual revolution has arisen in the form of transgenderism, which advocates freedom to choose gender, thus distorting, blurring, or even eradicating the distinction between male and female.


How did matters regarding sexuality come to such a pass in a country that once was, and in many ways still is, a deeply Christian nation?


The fact is that Christianity in America has been under relentless attack for decades by the left, which has routinely embraced and promoted the power of the State when it involves encouraging unrestrained human will, particularly in sexual matters. Radical leftists see in practicing Christians, whose mores are antithetical to the new barbarism, as an unwelcome restraint on an ideology that promotes the doctrines that choices of sexual expression and choices of gender are absolute rights.


The antagonism of the left toward Christians has reached such red-hot heat that because of the influence of the transgender movement, the State recently intervened to take a child away from her parents. According to the Washington Times, a Hamilton County, Ohio, judge took the teen “away from her parents because they refused to allow the 17-year-old to undergo hormone treatments as part of a female-to-male transition. The parents objected to the transition procedures because of their religious beliefs and refused to call their daughter by her chosen, male name, court records show.”


How are Christians reacting? Unfortunately, not with enough outrage.


Christians generally see attacks on their brethren in terms of one-off skirmishes — a parent or two here; a calligrapher there; a baker over there. By and large, Christians merely watch as individuals whose consciences won’t permit cooperation with radical paganism are sued and forced out of business; their jobs lost, their children taken away from them, their adoption and counseling services crushed because they are deemed as not “inclusive” enough or as promoting “hate;” their kids forced out of school because they won’t kiss the pagan’s ring by saying gender is a choice. Many Christians feel safe as long as they can attend church services that are not interrupted by SWAT teams breaking in to arrest congregants.


In sum, the broader outlines of the battle against Christians and Christian mores are often not clearly seen.


But as Hilaire Belloc presciently discerned decades ago, what he called the “New Paganism” is not confined to isolated attacks against individuals who happen to be Christian.


The attacks are directed toward Christianity itself. The left’s hope is to exterminate The Way altogether in order their pagan religion prevail throughout American society.


Belloc wrote: “The New Paganism is in process of building up a society of its own, wherein will be apparent two features novel in what used to be Christendom. Those two features have already appeared and will spread each in its own sphere, the one in the sphere of law — that is, of coercive enactment — the other in the sphere of status, that is, in the organization of society…In the first sphere, that of positive law, the New Paganism has already begun to produce and cannot but produce more and more a mass of restrictive legislation.”



The New Paganism utilizes the powers of the State, particularly the law and the courts, in order to change the foundations of a Christianized West and to promote paganism, even barbarism, as the basis of Western society. Barbarism then seeks to use the State to achieve an iron and tyrannous order, beginning with crushing dissenters like Christians, who believe they are to obey God rather than the State.


The first stages of the facilitation of the New Pagan society are achieved by a welter of restrictions against Christians. To promote unrestricted human will, particularly as regards sexual behavior and the self-definition promulgated by the transgender movement, inevitably means Christians who protest must be completely restrained by multifarious regulations and restrictions. Such restrictions include a push to exclude Christians from holding public office and increasingly deprive them of freedom of speech. Joy Behar’s attack against Vice President Mike Pence, in which she dismissed him as “mentally ill” because he prayed to Jesus and so was unfit for office is but one of many attacks. The broader implication is that all devout Christians are inherently unbalanced, irrational people and therefore should be denied office.


For the New Pagans, the inner voice that tells an “otherkin” he is actually a fox is absolutely rational. His choice to be another species is to be ratified by all of society. But Christians who believe the Ten Commandments are an expression of God’s higher laws are irrational and must be expunged from any meaningful role in society.


Persecution of Christians is nothing new, of course; though it has been relatively restrained in America until recent decades.


Instances of persecution abound, both past and present. During the reign of Louis XIV of France, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which had offered some protection of the Huguenot minority, meant Protestants were deprived of any rights whatever. The Sun King’s enforcer, Cardinal de Richelieu, succeeded in breaking any political power held by Huguenots by banning them from holding public office and by decreeing their children be taken from their homes to be instructed in the tenets of the Catholic faith, which was to be absolute.


In similar manner, America’s Christian parents, protestant and Catholic alike — most of whom do not have affordable and easily accessible alternatives — find their children forcibly instructed in the tenets of New Paganism in public schools. The doctrines of the New Paganism, including polytheistic multiculturalism, moral relativism, and political correctness exclude teaching of Christian principles.


Many of the victories against Christians have been achieved because Christians themselves have absorbed the left’s false interpretation of the First Amendment, which though guaranteeing religious freedom in its fullest sense, has been distorted by the left to mean that Christians have no place in the public square and that their rituals of faith must be confined within Church walls.


The result is that many Christians have accepted and even promoted the idea that Christians should not be involved in politics and indeed the broader culture. By and large, they have wound up accepting the persecutory policies directed against them, accepting being Christian only behind the closed doors of their churches, their homes, and their narrow church subcultures.


The lack of resistance has meant the New Paganism has succeeded in creating a network of stifling regulations affecting every area of Christian life. As Belloc put it, the regulatory onslaught means each department of life will be affected. Like Gulliver rendered unable to rise, Christians are increasingly hobbled by a legal “network that spread[s] and bind[s] those subject to it under a compulsion which cannot be escaped.”


Belloc pinpoints the problem as lying with “those moderns who will make of religion an individual thing [and no Catholic can evade the corporate quality of religion], telling us that its object being personal holiness and the salvation of the individual soul, it can have no concern with politics. On the contrary, the concern of religion with politics is inevitable.”


He adds that Christian doctrine always has broader implications for all of society. Difference in doctrine is at the root of all political and social differences; therefore, is the struggle for or against true doctrine the most vital of struggles.”


The New Paganism, which in its most current form of transgenderism is both anti-Christian and anti-science — and thus anti-Western — is deeply committed to the use of state power to quell opposition, Christian or otherwise, as has recently been shown in the case of a feminist British woman who was interrogated by police because her tweets questioning the castration of a sixteen-year-old boy were deemed prejudicial to transgenderism. All dissenters, not just Christians, should be appalled by such raw use of state power to suppress opposing views.


The New Paganism is bound to think America would be better if it were rid of Christians. Riddled with pre-science superstitions better belonging to pagan barbarism, the New Paganism is dead set against any restraints whatsoever. Christians, however, know human will is capable of great evil, particularly when it brooks no restraint. They know human will must be restrained by allegiance to a higher law than the state. They know the New Paganism is horribly regressive and inevitably oppressive, as are all ideologies that permit the absolute ascendency of human will, be it the will of an elite class or individuals. The ineluctable descent of the sexual revolution into bestiality, pedophilia and the mutilation of the human body in order to create a facsimile of the opposite sex are revelatory of a truly barbarous religion.


The Christian Church must respond vigorously or sink into paganism itself, as is already happening in some Main Line churches that are creating liturgies to bless bodily mutilation as spiritually transformative and as a way of attaining self-salvation. The Church must reject the new barbarism and its tyrannous assault on Christianity or find itself overwhelmed by the avid worshippers of the new gods. For when the God of Christianity is rejected, new and far, far worse gods arise to demand worship.


As Belloc himself concluded: “Men do not live long without gods; but when the gods of the New Paganism come they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil. One might put it in a sentence, and say that the New Paganism, foolishly expecting satisfaction, will fall, before it knows where it is, into Satanism.”


Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including American Thinker, National Review, CNN, Fox News and RealClearReligion. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com  










Recently the Huffington Post published an interview with Malcom Brenner, who had sex with a dolphin. He defended his bestiality, saying: “And I’m hoping that in a more enlightened future, zoophilia will be no more regarded as controversial or harmful than interracial sex is today.”


For those who have watched the steady descent of the sexual revolution into an abyss of deviancy, there is not much that surprises. Many predicted the results of following the “If it feels good, do it” mantra of the 60s would mean open season on all Christian sexual mores. They have watched as the so-called freedom of sexual choice has become so absolute that even pedophilia is viewed with increasing acceptance.


But the most powerfully dangerous ideation of the sexual revolution has arisen in the form of transgenderism, which advocates freedom to choose gender, thus distorting, blurring, or even eradicating the distinction between male and female.


How did matters regarding sexuality come to such a pass in a country that once was, and in many ways still is, a deeply Christian nation?


The fact is that Christianity in America has been under relentless attack for decades by the left, which has routinely embraced and promoted the power of the State when it involves encouraging unrestrained human will, particularly in sexual matters. Radical leftists see in practicing Christians, whose mores are antithetical to the new barbarism, as an unwelcome restraint on an ideology that promotes the doctrines that choices of sexual expression and choices of gender are absolute rights.


The antagonism of the left toward Christians has reached such red-hot heat that because of the influence of the transgender movement, the State recently intervened to take a child away from her parents. According to the Washington Times, a Hamilton County, Ohio, judge took the teen “away from her parents because they refused to allow the 17-year-old to undergo hormone treatments as part of a female-to-male transition. The parents objected to the transition procedures because of their religious beliefs and refused to call their daughter by her chosen, male name, court records show.”


How are Christians reacting? Unfortunately, not with enough outrage.


Christians generally see attacks on their brethren in terms of one-off skirmishes — a parent or two here; a calligrapher there; a baker over there. By and large, Christians merely watch as individuals whose consciences won’t permit cooperation with radical paganism are sued and forced out of business; their jobs lost, their children taken away from them, their adoption and counseling services crushed because they are deemed as not “inclusive” enough or as promoting “hate;” their kids forced out of school because they won’t kiss the pagan’s ring by saying gender is a choice. Many Christians feel safe as long as they can attend church services that are not interrupted by SWAT teams breaking in to arrest congregants.


In sum, the broader outlines of the battle against Christians and Christian mores are often not clearly seen.


But as Hilaire Belloc presciently discerned decades ago, what he called the “New Paganism” is not confined to isolated attacks against individuals who happen to be Christian.


The attacks are directed toward Christianity itself. The left’s hope is to exterminate The Way altogether in order their pagan religion prevail throughout American society.


Belloc wrote: “The New Paganism is in process of building up a society of its own, wherein will be apparent two features novel in what used to be Christendom. Those two features have already appeared and will spread each in its own sphere, the one in the sphere of law — that is, of coercive enactment — the other in the sphere of status, that is, in the organization of society…In the first sphere, that of positive law, the New Paganism has already begun to produce and cannot but produce more and more a mass of restrictive legislation.”



The New Paganism utilizes the powers of the State, particularly the law and the courts, in order to change the foundations of a Christianized West and to promote paganism, even barbarism, as the basis of Western society. Barbarism then seeks to use the State to achieve an iron and tyrannous order, beginning with crushing dissenters like Christians, who believe they are to obey God rather than the State.


The first stages of the facilitation of the New Pagan society are achieved by a welter of restrictions against Christians. To promote unrestricted human will, particularly as regards sexual behavior and the self-definition promulgated by the transgender movement, inevitably means Christians who protest must be completely restrained by multifarious regulations and restrictions. Such restrictions include a push to exclude Christians from holding public office and increasingly deprive them of freedom of speech. Joy Behar’s attack against Vice President Mike Pence, in which she dismissed him as “mentally ill” because he prayed to Jesus and so was unfit for office is but one of many attacks. The broader implication is that all devout Christians are inherently unbalanced, irrational people and therefore should be denied office.


For the New Pagans, the inner voice that tells an “otherkin” he is actually a fox is absolutely rational. His choice to be another species is to be ratified by all of society. But Christians who believe the Ten Commandments are an expression of God’s higher laws are irrational and must be expunged from any meaningful role in society.


Persecution of Christians is nothing new, of course; though it has been relatively restrained in America until recent decades.


Instances of persecution abound, both past and present. During the reign of Louis XIV of France, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which had offered some protection of the Huguenot minority, meant Protestants were deprived of any rights whatever. The Sun King’s enforcer, Cardinal de Richelieu, succeeded in breaking any political power held by Huguenots by banning them from holding public office and by decreeing their children be taken from their homes to be instructed in the tenets of the Catholic faith, which was to be absolute.


In similar manner, America’s Christian parents, protestant and Catholic alike — most of whom do not have affordable and easily accessible alternatives — find their children forcibly instructed in the tenets of New Paganism in public schools. The doctrines of the New Paganism, including polytheistic multiculturalism, moral relativism, and political correctness exclude teaching of Christian principles.


Many of the victories against Christians have been achieved because Christians themselves have absorbed the left’s false interpretation of the First Amendment, which though guaranteeing religious freedom in its fullest sense, has been distorted by the left to mean that Christians have no place in the public square and that their rituals of faith must be confined within Church walls.


The result is that many Christians have accepted and even promoted the idea that Christians should not be involved in politics and indeed the broader culture. By and large, they have wound up accepting the persecutory policies directed against them, accepting being Christian only behind the closed doors of their churches, their homes, and their narrow church subcultures.


The lack of resistance has meant the New Paganism has succeeded in creating a network of stifling regulations affecting every area of Christian life. As Belloc put it, the regulatory onslaught means each department of life will be affected. Like Gulliver rendered unable to rise, Christians are increasingly hobbled by a legal “network that spread[s] and bind[s] those subject to it under a compulsion which cannot be escaped.”


Belloc pinpoints the problem as lying with “those moderns who will make of religion an individual thing [and no Catholic can evade the corporate quality of religion], telling us that its object being personal holiness and the salvation of the individual soul, it can have no concern with politics. On the contrary, the concern of religion with politics is inevitable.”


He adds that Christian doctrine always has broader implications for all of society. Difference in doctrine is at the root of all political and social differences; therefore, is the struggle for or against true doctrine the most vital of struggles.”


The New Paganism, which in its most current form of transgenderism is both anti-Christian and anti-science — and thus anti-Western — is deeply committed to the use of state power to quell opposition, Christian or otherwise, as has recently been shown in the case of a feminist British woman who was interrogated by police because her tweets questioning the castration of a sixteen-year-old boy were deemed prejudicial to transgenderism. All dissenters, not just Christians, should be appalled by such raw use of state power to suppress opposing views.


The New Paganism is bound to think America would be better if it were rid of Christians. Riddled with pre-science superstitions better belonging to pagan barbarism, the New Paganism is dead set against any restraints whatsoever. Christians, however, know human will is capable of great evil, particularly when it brooks no restraint. They know human will must be restrained by allegiance to a higher law than the state. They know the New Paganism is horribly regressive and inevitably oppressive, as are all ideologies that permit the absolute ascendency of human will, be it the will of an elite class or individuals. The ineluctable descent of the sexual revolution into bestiality, pedophilia and the mutilation of the human body in order to create a facsimile of the opposite sex are revelatory of a truly barbarous religion.


The Christian Church must respond vigorously or sink into paganism itself, as is already happening in some Main Line churches that are creating liturgies to bless bodily mutilation as spiritually transformative and as a way of attaining self-salvation. The Church must reject the new barbarism and its tyrannous assault on Christianity or find itself overwhelmed by the avid worshippers of the new gods. For when the God of Christianity is rejected, new and far, far worse gods arise to demand worship.


As Belloc himself concluded: “Men do not live long without gods; but when the gods of the New Paganism come they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil. One might put it in a sentence, and say that the New Paganism, foolishly expecting satisfaction, will fall, before it knows where it is, into Satanism.”


Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including American Thinker, National Review, CNN, Fox News and RealClearReligion. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com  





via American Thinker

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

Did Free Speech Destroy American Democracy?

Would giving up our constitutional rights make our country more democratic?  Would regulating speech make government more accountable to the people?  Shockingly, some answer these questions with “yes.”


Figures ranging from Harvard academic Lawrence Lessig to former president Jimmy Carter have said America is no longer a democratic republic.  The latest entrant to this ritual is another Harvard professor, Yascha Mounk, who repeats these claims in the Atlantic.  These men push a similar formula for their grievances about our system: restrict political spending, then watch democracy flourish.  In reality, political spending is an essential expression of free speech that brings new voices into politics and makes our republic more vibrant. 



Mounk strangely attributes this “democratic deficit” to one main cause: corporations.  He recounts an alternative history whereby businesses lacked influence in politics for much of the 20th century – an assertion that may surprise those who know about the political battles over labor laws and health policy.  This all supposedly changed in the 1970s, when business increased its political footprint, leading to an influx of campaign spending.  (In fact, the 1970s is when federal regulation of campaign finance began to significantly increase.)


Besides being ahistorical, this line of thinking has dangerous implications that we’ve seen before.  Demonizing political spending justifies policies aimed at deterring the rich in theory but that actually burden ordinary citizens.  For every wealthy donor attacked on the floor of the U.S. Senate, there are many other average Americans harassed because the law requires that their political giving be put online.  For every program sending tax dollars to politicians to supposedly reduce the sway of big donors, there is an increased chance that corrupt candidates will find new ways to cheat the system.  Worse yet, efforts to deter political participation leave more power for abuse by government agencies – witness IRS abuses against Tea Party groups or pre-dawn police raids over alleged “coordination” between candidates and advocacy groups in Wisconsin.


Mounk calls for more campaign finance restrictions at several points without noting specifics.  (Indeed, apart from one widely criticized study, he does not cite empirical evidence for his claims about money in politics at all.)  But the policies he does mention suggest a draconian approach to cracking down on First Amendment rights.


He recalls favorably how states like Georgia and California literally criminalized the practice of lobbying – better known in the Constitution as “the freedom … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  He also advocates for overturning Citizens United – a case where the government tried to ban a movie that criticized then-senator Hillary Clinton when she was running for president, simply because it was made by a corporation.  Imagine paying a fine or facing jail time for daring to interact with other voters or elected officials in the “wrong” way or at the “wrong” time.


The call for more speech laws also contradicts Mounk’s own critiques.  He warns how federal agencies like the FCC and SEC have “supplanted” the job of lawmaking.  Yet the policies he mentions would only give more power to those agencies and others, like the FEC and the IRS.  That does not make America more democratic, but more bureaucratic.


What would make America more democratic would be enabling more political speech and participation.  The recent decline in campaign finance restrictions has coincided with the breakdown of traditional party elites.  The result is a rise in independent speech and more people running for office.  It is hard to argue in the era of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders that elites have tightened their grasp on our elections.


It’s true that Americans have an enduring skepticism of large, monopolistic institutions – both private and public.  If the goal is to decentralize power, the answer is surely not to allow opaque federal agencies to ban certain types of speech or enable politically motivated harassment of private citizens.  Engaging in public debate is how free speech should work in a democracy.  In a republic, that right cannot be taken away.


Joe Albanese is a research fellow at the Institute for Free Speech in Alexandria, Virginia.  The Institute is the nation’s largest organization dedicated to defending First Amendment political speech rights.










Would giving up our constitutional rights make our country more democratic?  Would regulating speech make government more accountable to the people?  Shockingly, some answer these questions with “yes.”


Figures ranging from Harvard academic Lawrence Lessig to former president Jimmy Carter have said America is no longer a democratic republic.  The latest entrant to this ritual is another Harvard professor, Yascha Mounk, who repeats these claims in the Atlantic.  These men push a similar formula for their grievances about our system: restrict political spending, then watch democracy flourish.  In reality, political spending is an essential expression of free speech that brings new voices into politics and makes our republic more vibrant. 


Mounk strangely attributes this “democratic deficit” to one main cause: corporations.  He recounts an alternative history whereby businesses lacked influence in politics for much of the 20th century – an assertion that may surprise those who know about the political battles over labor laws and health policy.  This all supposedly changed in the 1970s, when business increased its political footprint, leading to an influx of campaign spending.  (In fact, the 1970s is when federal regulation of campaign finance began to significantly increase.)


Besides being ahistorical, this line of thinking has dangerous implications that we’ve seen before.  Demonizing political spending justifies policies aimed at deterring the rich in theory but that actually burden ordinary citizens.  For every wealthy donor attacked on the floor of the U.S. Senate, there are many other average Americans harassed because the law requires that their political giving be put online.  For every program sending tax dollars to politicians to supposedly reduce the sway of big donors, there is an increased chance that corrupt candidates will find new ways to cheat the system.  Worse yet, efforts to deter political participation leave more power for abuse by government agencies – witness IRS abuses against Tea Party groups or pre-dawn police raids over alleged “coordination” between candidates and advocacy groups in Wisconsin.


Mounk calls for more campaign finance restrictions at several points without noting specifics.  (Indeed, apart from one widely criticized study, he does not cite empirical evidence for his claims about money in politics at all.)  But the policies he does mention suggest a draconian approach to cracking down on First Amendment rights.


He recalls favorably how states like Georgia and California literally criminalized the practice of lobbying – better known in the Constitution as “the freedom … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  He also advocates for overturning Citizens United – a case where the government tried to ban a movie that criticized then-senator Hillary Clinton when she was running for president, simply because it was made by a corporation.  Imagine paying a fine or facing jail time for daring to interact with other voters or elected officials in the “wrong” way or at the “wrong” time.


The call for more speech laws also contradicts Mounk’s own critiques.  He warns how federal agencies like the FCC and SEC have “supplanted” the job of lawmaking.  Yet the policies he mentions would only give more power to those agencies and others, like the FEC and the IRS.  That does not make America more democratic, but more bureaucratic.


What would make America more democratic would be enabling more political speech and participation.  The recent decline in campaign finance restrictions has coincided with the breakdown of traditional party elites.  The result is a rise in independent speech and more people running for office.  It is hard to argue in the era of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders that elites have tightened their grasp on our elections.


It’s true that Americans have an enduring skepticism of large, monopolistic institutions – both private and public.  If the goal is to decentralize power, the answer is surely not to allow opaque federal agencies to ban certain types of speech or enable politically motivated harassment of private citizens.  Engaging in public debate is how free speech should work in a democracy.  In a republic, that right cannot be taken away.


Joe Albanese is a research fellow at the Institute for Free Speech in Alexandria, Virginia.  The Institute is the nation’s largest organization dedicated to defending First Amendment political speech rights.





via American Thinker

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

Foreign Collusion? It’s Rampant in Big Tech

You want foreign collusion?  I’ve got foreign collusion for you.  On your phones, computers, tablets, and laptops.  In your bedroom, living room, and kitchen.


The Big Tech Industrial Complex has thousands of H-1B visa and green card employees.  Some of these workers’ roles are as engineers, analysts, and programmers, in the departments responsible for the regulation, suppression and censorship of political speech their parent companies have deemed hateful, inflammatory, and inappropriate for young audiences.



What this means is that foreigners who cannot vote in American elections have been given carte blanche by their bosses and executives to tyrannically muzzle political thought and opinions, which undoubtedly can, and likely does, influence the outcomes of American elections at all levels of government.


Here’s the tale of the tape of the top two Big Tech firms with federally approved H-1B and green card workers since 2014 (figures are from http://www.myvisajobs.com):


Twitter: 1,226


Google (including YouTube): 15,368


Though it is unclear exactly how many of the nearly 17,000 workers are directly responsible for the collusion, even a small percentage equals a lot of collusion.


Putin wishes he could collude like Big Tech


Vladimir Putin?  He ain’t got nothin’ on Big Tech.  And speaking of collusion, where are all the Democrats and Tessio Republicans obsessed with the “President Trump is Alger Hiss” conspiracy theory?


Big Tech fancies itself as God, as an omnipotent and omniscient Supreme Being.  The surreptitiousness by which, for example, Twitter operates is highly sophisticated.  Furthermore, the San Francisco-based social media company has always been cozy with Democrats and is notorious for denying right-leaning ads.


Ironically, news of the recent forced unfollowings of millions of users’ accounts was reported on Twitter.


Google is currently facing a lawsuit from conservative icon Dennis Prager, who alleges that YouTube restricted 30 videos from his PragerU channel due to their political themes and topics.  Some of the videos’ titles were “The most important question about abortion,” “Where are the moderate Muslims?,” and “Is Islam a religion of peace?”  Many of PragerU’s 4- to 5-minute vignette-presenters are well known conservative pundits, professors, and Pulitzer Prize-winners.


Twitter, likewise, is facing lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging that they were banned due to their views on race.


To make matters worse, the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) is no longer masking its fetish for speech control.  (You thought guns were the only right the DMIC wants to control in its “all for me, none for thee” zeal?)  DMIC colluder and conspirator CNN recently embarked on a propaganda activist campaign against Infowars’ Alex Jones.  Whatever one’s opinion of Jones, it’s flat-out creepy how fervent the DMIC is on its anti-First Amendment warpath.


Have any of you ever, for a single second, heard DMIC networks, newspapers, and other organizations question the ethical appropriateness of foreign workers at American companies manipulating what political content their users see and don’t see, based on political ideology?


Me neither.


Online discrimination is worse than segregation


The internet is the greatest invention in mankind’s history.  I am a frequent Twitter and Google user; I have a YouTube video channel.  The Democrats told us the repeal of net neutrality was Armageddon (until tax reform came along – Democrats meant to say tax reform was Armageddon!).  Why, then, haven’t those same Democrats so in favor of net neutrality spoken a word about shadowbanning?


Our country, and our world, is fueled by technology.  Technology and the internet connect us in ways our elders never could have envisioned; one out of every three human beings on Earth communicates via the internet.  This is why I forewarn: continued, furtive, and unchecked discrimination against political viewpoints will make segregation and McCarthyism look like Camelot.  Segregationists and Joseph McCarthy operated openly; Big Tech, however, seems to relish the invisible influence it wields over its end users.


Democrats made a big deal about, and levied six figures in fines against, a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple, based on his religious beliefs.  But Democrats support Big Tech’s silencing of Republicans, conservatives, President Trump, and his supporters.  There are certainly legal arguments to be made that Big Tech is well within its rights to handpick what content appears on its platforms, but its obsession with trampling speech it arbitrarily labels as “hate speech” reeks of actual discrimination – the tech version of refusing service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.


Big Government, with all of its onerous regulations, always stifles economic growth, especially among small business.  But perhaps the time has come for the Federal Communications Commission to begin a serious examination of whether Big Tech has become too much like Orwell’s Animal Farm: “all views are equal, but some are more equal than others.”  Free speech is often beautiful and often ugly.  Freedom isn’t really about agreeing or disagreeing with speech; it’s about equally supporting the right to speech we deem agreeable or disagreeable.


The free market of ideas must be left as untouched as possible.  It’s true that no right is absolute, but mega-conglomerates weaponizing their services is frighteningly totalitarian.  If Fidel Castro, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or…fill in the dictator blank…had this kind of technology, he would have leveraged it exactly as Big Tech does today.


If foreign workers despotically meddling in our online political speech doesn’t keep us up at night, what will?  


Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.


Image: Patrick Nouhailler via Flickr.










You want foreign collusion?  I’ve got foreign collusion for you.  On your phones, computers, tablets, and laptops.  In your bedroom, living room, and kitchen.


The Big Tech Industrial Complex has thousands of H-1B visa and green card employees.  Some of these workers’ roles are as engineers, analysts, and programmers, in the departments responsible for the regulation, suppression and censorship of political speech their parent companies have deemed hateful, inflammatory, and inappropriate for young audiences.


What this means is that foreigners who cannot vote in American elections have been given carte blanche by their bosses and executives to tyrannically muzzle political thought and opinions, which undoubtedly can, and likely does, influence the outcomes of American elections at all levels of government.


Here’s the tale of the tape of the top two Big Tech firms with federally approved H-1B and green card workers since 2014 (figures are from http://www.myvisajobs.com):


Twitter: 1,226


Google (including YouTube): 15,368


Though it is unclear exactly how many of the nearly 17,000 workers are directly responsible for the collusion, even a small percentage equals a lot of collusion.


Putin wishes he could collude like Big Tech


Vladimir Putin?  He ain’t got nothin’ on Big Tech.  And speaking of collusion, where are all the Democrats and Tessio Republicans obsessed with the “President Trump is Alger Hiss” conspiracy theory?


Big Tech fancies itself as God, as an omnipotent and omniscient Supreme Being.  The surreptitiousness by which, for example, Twitter operates is highly sophisticated.  Furthermore, the San Francisco-based social media company has always been cozy with Democrats and is notorious for denying right-leaning ads.


Ironically, news of the recent forced unfollowings of millions of users’ accounts was reported on Twitter.


Google is currently facing a lawsuit from conservative icon Dennis Prager, who alleges that YouTube restricted 30 videos from his PragerU channel due to their political themes and topics.  Some of the videos’ titles were “The most important question about abortion,” “Where are the moderate Muslims?,” and “Is Islam a religion of peace?”  Many of PragerU’s 4- to 5-minute vignette-presenters are well known conservative pundits, professors, and Pulitzer Prize-winners.


Twitter, likewise, is facing lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging that they were banned due to their views on race.


To make matters worse, the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) is no longer masking its fetish for speech control.  (You thought guns were the only right the DMIC wants to control in its “all for me, none for thee” zeal?)  DMIC colluder and conspirator CNN recently embarked on a propaganda activist campaign against Infowars’ Alex Jones.  Whatever one’s opinion of Jones, it’s flat-out creepy how fervent the DMIC is on its anti-First Amendment warpath.


Have any of you ever, for a single second, heard DMIC networks, newspapers, and other organizations question the ethical appropriateness of foreign workers at American companies manipulating what political content their users see and don’t see, based on political ideology?


Me neither.


Online discrimination is worse than segregation


The internet is the greatest invention in mankind’s history.  I am a frequent Twitter and Google user; I have a YouTube video channel.  The Democrats told us the repeal of net neutrality was Armageddon (until tax reform came along – Democrats meant to say tax reform was Armageddon!).  Why, then, haven’t those same Democrats so in favor of net neutrality spoken a word about shadowbanning?


Our country, and our world, is fueled by technology.  Technology and the internet connect us in ways our elders never could have envisioned; one out of every three human beings on Earth communicates via the internet.  This is why I forewarn: continued, furtive, and unchecked discrimination against political viewpoints will make segregation and McCarthyism look like Camelot.  Segregationists and Joseph McCarthy operated openly; Big Tech, however, seems to relish the invisible influence it wields over its end users.


Democrats made a big deal about, and levied six figures in fines against, a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple, based on his religious beliefs.  But Democrats support Big Tech’s silencing of Republicans, conservatives, President Trump, and his supporters.  There are certainly legal arguments to be made that Big Tech is well within its rights to handpick what content appears on its platforms, but its obsession with trampling speech it arbitrarily labels as “hate speech” reeks of actual discrimination – the tech version of refusing service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.


Big Government, with all of its onerous regulations, always stifles economic growth, especially among small business.  But perhaps the time has come for the Federal Communications Commission to begin a serious examination of whether Big Tech has become too much like Orwell’s Animal Farm: “all views are equal, but some are more equal than others.”  Free speech is often beautiful and often ugly.  Freedom isn’t really about agreeing or disagreeing with speech; it’s about equally supporting the right to speech we deem agreeable or disagreeable.


The free market of ideas must be left as untouched as possible.  It’s true that no right is absolute, but mega-conglomerates weaponizing their services is frighteningly totalitarian.  If Fidel Castro, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or…fill in the dictator blank…had this kind of technology, he would have leveraged it exactly as Big Tech does today.


If foreign workers despotically meddling in our online political speech doesn’t keep us up at night, what will?  


Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.


Image: Patrick Nouhailler via Flickr.





via American Thinker

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

Facebook Bans Trump Campaign’s Data Analytics Firm, Cambridge Analytica

Facebook Bans Trump Campaign’s Data Analytics Firm, Cambridge Analytica



Facebook has banned Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm that played a key role in multiple populist political campaigns, including Brexit and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

Facebook announced that it would ban the account of Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, Strategic Communication Laboratories, in addition to the accounts of Aleksandr Kogan, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge, and Christopher Wylie, an employee of Eunoia Technologies.

In their post explaining the ban, Facebook said that Kogan passed user data obtained via Facebook to Cambridge Analytica and to Wylie, and that both Wylie and Cambridge Analytica failed to delete this data.

Facebook conceded that Kogan “gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels that governed all developers on Facebook at that time,” but said by passing the data to third parties “he did not subsequently abide by our rules.”

In 2015, when Facebook learned that Kogan had shared the results of his research on Facebook users with Cambridge Analytica and Wylie, they asked them to delete the data, and received assurances from both that this had been done.

Facebook said that their decision to ban Cambridge Analytica’s parent company was made on the basis of reports that they are currently investigating.

Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted. We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these claims. If true, this is another unacceptable violation of trust and the commitments they made.

Cambridge Analytica has been at the heart of several high-profile campaigns on the political right. The company initially attracted Ted Cruz as a client during the Republican primaries in 2015-16, and went on to work for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Another client of Cambridge Analytica was Leave.Eu, the successful campaign for British withdrawal from the European Union.

Developing…

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

via Breitbart News

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