Kiss The Church Of England GoodBye

Church of England

July 13, 2017 by Lee Duigon

 

 

Spiritual wickedness is coming down from high places, darkness disguised as light. One wonders if there’s any future for the institutional church.

Meanwhile, if you’re looking for a church and you see anywhere on its premises the words, “welcoming and affirming,” turn around and walk the other way. Three guesses as to whom they’re welcoming and what they’re affirming.

The latest evil comes from the Church of England, which has voted to welcome and affirm transgenderism. In fact, they have even proposed to create a brand-new church ceremony to celebrate some poor lost, addled soul’s “gender transition.” Sort of like baptism or marriage or a christening, I guess. Only inspired by the Devil.

On Saturday, the General Synod backed the ban on conversion therapy for Christians struggling with their sexuality. Bishop of Liverpool Paul Bayes said: “LGBTI+ orientation and identity is not a sickness. And LGBTI+ orientation and identity is not a sin.”

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby also said the Anglican church would spend three years outlining a new stance on sexuality, with current rules banning same-sex weddings and civil partnership blessings.

In May, Breitbart London reported that a leading figure in the Church of Scotland (the Kirk) told its General Assembly there is “no theological reason” to oppose same-sex marriage, which could pave the way for same-sex weddings in Scottish churches. source

Flatline Protestantism strikes again. The Bible says, “Male and female created He them.” The secular world says, “We create ourselves in whatever gender we might fancy at the moment.” Guess whose side the flatline Protestants are on.

Look, it’s quite simple. Either the Bible is God’s word, or it is not. And if it is not, then we don’t have God’s word, period. We can’t even be sure there is a God to pity us.

I have never in my life seen anything take off like this whole “transgender” movement. It’s as if the world was waiting for it.

I think this is one of those false Christs that the real Christ warned us about. It certainly has shown a remarkable power to use a self-evidently false delusion to deceive many clever men and women.

http://barbwire.com/2017/07/13/church-england-kiss-goodbye/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Five Major Problems With WaPo Hit Piece On Jeff Sessions And Russia ‘Intercepts’ – Amazon Arm

27 July 2017 by Aaron Klein

TEL AVIV — Citing alleged U.S. intelligence intercepts leaked by current and former U.S. officials, the Washington Post reported that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak told his superiors at the Kremlin that he discussed issues related to the 2016 presidential campaign with Jeff Sessions, despite the attorney general’s assertions to the contrary.

The Post article, published last Friday, was used by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to call on Sessions to once again testify before the panel, this time to answer claims made in the Post piece.

The article is titled, “Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with Russian ambassador, U.S. intelligence intercepts show.”

The piece contains misleading information, omits key details that may discredit the article’s major assertions, and relies on possibly distorted intercepts as the basis for the central charges.

Here, in no particular order, are five major problems with the highly cited Washington Post article.

1 – The charge relies on allegedly intercepted communications regarding Kislyak’s description of meetings with Sessions, even though Russian diplomats are known to mislead in such communiques.

The title of the Washington Post article leaves out that the intercepts, as the article itself relates, are purportedly Kislyak’s own accounts of two conversations that the envoy said he had with Sessions.  The intercepts are not the recordings of the two alleged meetings between Sessions and Kislyak during the campaign, one in April at a Trump foreign policy speech at the Mayflower hotel and a second on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in July.

Citing leaked information purportedly contained in the intercepts, a former official told the newspaper the data indicates that Sessions and Kislyak engaged in “substantive” discussions on policy matters pertaining to a future Trump administration, including the billionaire’s positions on Russia and possibilities for U.S.-Russia relations under a Trump presidency.

Russian officials in the U.S. routinely mislead in their reports to the Kremlin since they reportedly expect that their communications are being monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Later in the article, the Washington Post conceded that this might be the case:

Officials emphasized that the information contradicting Sessions comes from U.S. intelligence on Kislyak’s communications with the Kremlin, and they acknowledged that the Russian ambassador could have mischaracterized or exaggerated the nature of his interactions.

Russian and other foreign diplomats in Washington and elsewhere have been known, at times, to report false or misleading information to bolster their standing with their superiors or to confuse U.S. intelligence agencies.

However, the newspaper quoted anonymous U.S. officials who say they are familiar with such intelligence intercepts and that Kislyak was known to have accurately conveyed details.

The Post did not tell readers that in June 13 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sessions said that in one of the meetings with Kislyak, he raised concerns about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimea.

“I did, Senator McCain, and I would like to follow up a little bit on that,” Sessions stated when asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if those subjects were discussed with Kislyak. “That’s one of the meetings — that’s one of the issues that I recall explicitly. The day before my meeting with the Russian ambassador, I’d met with the Ukrainian ambassador, and I heard his concerns about Russia, and so I raised those with Mr. Kislyak, and he gave, as you can imagine, not one inch. Everything they did, the Russians had done, according to him was correct, and I remember pushing back on it, and it was a bit testy on that subject.”

2 – The Post omits key information making any substantive talks at the Mayflower hotel unlikely.

One of the meetings between Kislyak and Sessions purportedly detailed by the Russian ambassador in the intercepted intelligence took place in April at the Mayflower hotel in Washington, where Trump gave his first major foreign policy speech. Kislyak was one of four foreign ambassadors invited by the non-partisan think-tank that hosted the event, which included a brief pre-speech reception.

The Post plays up the possibility that Kislyak and Sessions held a substantive conversation at the hotel on the sidelines of the event, while failing to report on key details that make such communication unlikely even if Kislyak claimed otherwise in any alleged intercepts.

The Post reports:

Kislyak also reported having a conversation with Sessions in April 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, where then-candidate Trump delivered his first major foreign policy address, according to the officials familiar with intelligence on Kislyak. …

Comey would not provide details of what information the FBI had, except to say that he could discuss it only privately with the senators. Current and former officials said he appeared to be alluding to intelligence on Kislyak’s account of an encounter with Sessions at the Mayflower.

Senate Democrats later called on the FBI to investigate the event in April at the Mayflower hotel.

The Post omits several key details about Trump’s speech at the Mayflower hotel, most notably a statement from the organizers of the event detailing how any extensive conversation between Sessions and Kislyak would have been, in the words of the organizer, “unlikely.”

The Center for the National Interest, the non-partisan organization that hosted the Trump speech, released the following statement (emphasis added):

The Center for the National Interest extended equal treatment to the four ambassadors attending the event and invited each to a short reception prior to Mr. Trump’s speech. The reception included approximately two dozen guests in a receiving line. The line moved quickly and any conversations with Mr. Trump in that setting were inherently brief and could not be private. Our recollection is that the interaction between Mr. Trump and Ambassador Kislyak was limited to the polite exchange of pleasantries appropriate on such occasions.

We are not aware of any conversation between Ambassador Kislyak and Senator Jeff Sessions at the reception. However, in a small group setting like this one, we consider it unlikely that anyone could have engaged in a meaningful private conversation without drawing attention from others present.

The statement further affirmed that, as the hosts, they “decided whom to invite and then issued the invitations. The Trump campaign did not determine or approve the invitation list.” Nor did the Trump campaign determine where the guests were placed at the event.

The Post also did not reference Session’s June 13 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in which he detailed what he says happened at the Mayflower. He stated that he did not attend “any meetings separately” prior to Trump’s foreign policy speech at the Mayflower.

Asked specifically by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) whether there was “ever a private room setting that you were involved in,” Sessions replied in the negative.

“No, other than the reception area that was shut off from I guess the main crowd,” Sessions responded.

Regarding the possibility that he may have had a brief encounter with Kislyak, Sessions stated, “I didn’t have any formal meeting with him. I’m confident of that, but I may have had an encounter during the reception. That’s the only thing I cannot say with certainty I did not. That’s all I can say.”

Sessions said that he had a conversation with another foreign diplomat there: “I remember one in particular that we had a conversation with, whose country had an investment in Alabama, and we talked a little length about that, I remember that, but otherwise I have no recollection of a discussion with the Russian ambassador.”

Sessions related that a Senate legislative director “who was a retired U.S. Army colonel, had served on the armed services staff with Senator John Warner before she joined my staff, was with me in the reception area and throughout the rest of the events.”

Sessions further recalled the reception just before the speech:

I attended a reception with my staff, that included at least two dozen people and President Trump, though I do recall several conversations I had during that pre-speech reception, and I do not have a recollection of meeting or talking to the Russian ambassador or any other Russian officials. If any brief interaction occurred in passing with the Russian ambassador in that reception, I do not remember it. After the speech, I was interviewed by the news media. There was an area for that in a different room and then I left the hotel. Whether I attended a reception where the Russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

The prospects for a substantive meeting between Sessions and Kislyak at the Mayflower event were so low that the suggestion was mocked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) at the same June 13 hearing, where Cotton jested:

Have you ever ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?

3 and 4 – The Post omits Sessions’ explanation for why he recused himself from the Russia probe, which challenges the newspaper’s claim that its own reporting was behind the recusal.  Also, the newspaper leaves out that Sessions’ stated timeline of his decision to recuse himself, backed up by emails, shows the decision goes back almost a month before the publication of a Post story that the newspaper claims motivated his recusal.

The Washington Post claims that its own reporting about Sessions’ contacts with Russian officials was the reason the Attorney General recused himself in March from the Russia probe.

The newspaper states:

Sessions removed himself from direct involvement in the Russia investigation after it was revealed in the Washington Post that he had met with Kislyak at least twice in 2016, contacts he failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing in January.

The Post was referring to a March 1 article, titled, “Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose,” in which the newspaper cited anonymous Justice Department officials.

The Post entirely ignored Sessions’ own stated reason for recusing himself. The attorney general said that Justice Department rules specifically bar an employee from participating in investigations if the employee had a personal or political relationship with the subject or subjects of the investigation. This means the very nature of Sessions’ involvement in the Trump campaign bars him from participating in any investigation related to that campaign, according to the stipulation cited by Sessions.

At the June 13 testimony, Sessions read from the particular Justice Department bylaw when asked why he recused himself:

The specific reason, chairman, is a cfr code of federal regulations put out by the Department of Justice. Part of the Department of Justice rules and it says this. I will read from it: “28 cfr 45.2. Unless authorized, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he had a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the conduct of an investigation” that goes on to say for a political campaign and it says if you have a close identification with an elected official or candidate arising from service as a principal adviser, you should not participate in an investigation of that campaign. Many have suggested that my recusal is because I felt I was a subject of the investigation myself, I may have done something wrong. This is the reason I recused myself: I felt I was required to under the rules of the Department of Justice and as a leader of the Department of Justice, I should comply with the rules obviously.

The Post further omitted that Sessions’ own timeline of events, which include emails, demonstrate that he decided to recuse himself immediately after he was sworn in on February 9, almost four weeks before the publication of the Post’s story about Sessions’ two contacts with Russian officials.

Sessions stated:

I have a timeline of what occurred. I was sworn in on the 9th, I believe, of February. I then on the 10th had my first meeting to generally discuss this issue where the cfr was not discussed. We had several other meetings and it became clear to me over time that I qualified as a significant, principal adviser-type person to the campaign and it was the appropriate and right thing for me.

The Post further omits that Sessions stated in the hearing that he essentially recused himself the day he started his attorney general job, still almost a month before the Post’s story that the newspaper claimed prompted Sessions’ recusal. Sessions said upon taking office, “I never accessed files. I never learned the names of investigators. I never met with them. I never asked for any documentation.”

5 – The Post omits key information related to former FBI Director James Comey’s assertion that he believed Sessions’ involvement in the Russia probe may have been “problematic.”

At a June 8 hearing, Comey claimed this about Sessions’ involvement with the Russia probe: “We were also aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.”

The Post relates that Comey’s charge was linked to Sessions’ possible encounter with Kislyak at the Mayflower hotel:

Former FBI director James B. Comey fueled speculation about the possibility of a Sessions-Kislyak meeting at the Mayflower when he told the same Senate committee on June 8 that the FBI had information about Sessions that would have made it “problematic” for him to be involved in overseeing the Russia probe.

However, the newspaper failed to inform readers that Comey may have been aware of the Justice Department’s bylaw that Sessions listed as his reason for recusing himself.  And the newspaper did not report that Sessions stated at the June 13 hearing that the Justice Department “probably” communicated with Comey’s FBI on the issue.

The following is the relevant part of the hearing transcript:

BURR: This could explain Director Comey’s comments that he knew there was a likelihood you would recuse yourself because he was familiar with the same statute?

SESSIONS: Probably so. I’m sure that the attorneys in the Department of Justice probably communicated with him. Mr. Chairman, let me say this to you clearly. In effect as a matter of fact, I recused myself that day. I never received any information about the campaign. I thought there was a problem with me being able to serve as attorney general over this issue and I felt I would have to recuse myself and I took the position correctly, I believe, not to involve myself in the campaign in any way and I did not.

BURR: You made a reference to the chief of staff sending out an email immediately notifying internationally of your decision to recuse. Would you ask the staff to make that email available?

SESSIONS: We would be pleased to do so and I have it with me now.

BURR: Thank you. Have you had intersections with the special counsel Robert Muller?

SESSIONS: I have not. With regard to the email we sent out, director Comey indicated that he did not know when I recused myself or received notice, one of them went to him by name. A lot happens in our offices. I’m not accusing him of wrongdoing and it was sent to him and to his name.

Later in the hearing, Sessions indicated he thought Comey was engaging in “innuendo” when he made the comments about the attorney general’s involvement in the Russia probe:

WYDEN: The question is, Mr. Comey said there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?

SESSIONS: Why don’t you tell me. There are none, Senator Wyden. There are none. I can tell you that for absolute certainty. This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and I don’t appreciate it. I try to give my best and truthful answers to any committee I’ve appeared before, and it’s really — people are suggesting through innuendo that I have been not honest about matters, and I’ve tried to be honest.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

This article was written with research by Joshua Klein.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/07/27/five-major-problems-washington-post-hit-piece-jeff-sessions-russia-intercepts/


The Washington Post an Amazon ‘lobbyist weapon’?

July 25, 2017

 

President Trump took to Twitter late Monday to call out The Washington Post and ask if the paper is being used as a ‘lobbyist weapon’ for internet giant Amazon.

“Is Fake News Washington Post being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly?” Trump tweeted.

Billionaire Jeff Bezos owns the paper and is the founder of Amazon.

Amazon.com collects state sales taxes in all 45 states with a sales tax and the District of Columbia, according to their website. State governments have sought to capture sales taxes lost to internet retailers, though they have struggled with a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that retailers must have a physical presence in a state before officials can make them collect sales tax.

Trump was apparently upset with the paper’s report on Syria from last week on the phasing out of an Obama Administration program in which the CIA covertly armed and trained moderate rebels battling Assad forces in the country’s civil war. Trump scrapped the program nearly a month ago after he met with advisers ahead of a July 7 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This is not the first time that Trump has taken aim at the website’s use of the tax system. In June, Trump took to Twitter and blasted the “#AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet takes (which they should).”

Both Amazon and The Post, in June, did not respond to Trump’s tweet.

Kim Ruebin, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told CBS’ MoneyWatch at the time, “They’re (Amazon) being good citizens, and they’re collecting the taxes and remitting it. … If you want more and more of your deliveries to be done in a day or two, you actually need warehouses and physical presence in places to get your goods to other places.”

Bezos was one of a number of technology executives who visited the White House recently for a strategy session on modernizing government.

In 2015, he wrote that Bezos bought the Post “for purposes of keeping taxes down at his no profit company, @amazon.” He added that “If @amazon ever had to pay fair taxes, its stock would crash and it would crumble like a paper bag. The @washingtonpost scam is saving it!”

The Associated Press contributed to this report 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/25/trump-asks-if-washington-post-is-amazon-lobbyist-weapon.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO RINO Ryan Supports His Leaker Buddy Reince – WH Staff ‘Using the Press to Shiv Each Other in the Ribs’

Paul Ryan All in For Buddy Reince Priebus: ‘I Think He’s Doing a Great Job As Chief of Staff’

27 July 2017 by Matthew Boyle

House Speaker Paul Ryan went to the mattresses for his longtime friend, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, at a press conference on Thursday morning.

Ryan was asked by a reporter about new White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci “suggesting he might have been behind some of the leaks coming out of the White House,” and specifically whether Ryan believes those were “appropriate comments” for Scaramucci.

“Well, I only heard about this—I’m not sure what the inner play is,” Ryan replied. “All I have to say is as you know Reince is a very close friend of mine. Reince is doing a fantastic job at the White House. And I believe he has the president’s confidence. So if those two gentlemen have differences, my advice would be to sit down and settle their differences.”

In a follow-up, Ryan was asked whether Priebus should remain chief of staff at the White House.

“I think Reince is doing a great job as chief of staff,” Ryan said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/27/paul-ryan-all-in-for-buddy-reince-priebus-i-think-hes-doing-a-great-job-as-chief-of-staff/


Kellyanne Conway Blasts Staff ‘Using the Press to Shiv Each Other in the Ribs’

27 July 2017 by Charlie Spiering

White House counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway criticized presidential staff for trying to damage each other in the press, warning that they would be caught.

“There are leaks and there are people using the press to shiv each other in the ribs,” she said in an interview on Fox and Friends, when asked about the controversy surrounding White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

She wouldn’t say who was leaking information to the press, but said that it appeared that someone was trying to damage Scaramucci’s reputation.

“Somebody is trying to get in his way and scare him off from working here which is a huge mistake,” Conway said.

She said that the infighting spread in the press was a “complete disservice” to the president and his agenda.

“We just have to cut down on people thinking it’s cute, and it makes them popular and it somehow enhances their resume and their portfolio for later on to curry favor with folks who are more interested in covering the style and not the substance here,” she said.

She warned White House leakers that they would be exposed.

“Leakers are easier to figure out than they think,” she said. “The West Wing is a small place.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/27/kellyanne-conway-blasts-staff-using-press-shiv-ribs/


Scaramucci: DC needs to suppress instinct to hurt Trump


Scaramucci says he’s alerting FBI about financial ‘leaks’

President Trump’s new communications director said Wednesday night that he was alerting the FBI after details from his financial disclosure forms were published online.

Anthony Scaramucci condemned the financial “leak” after a report by Politico said he stands to make millions from his ownership stake in an investment firm.

“In light of the leak of my financial disclosure info which is a felony. I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45,” Scaramucci tweeted.

Scaramucci later deleted the tweet from his account.

The report said Scaramucci earned nearly $10 million for his stake in SkyBridge Capital, which could potentially lead to conflicts of interest.

It was unclear Wednesday night why Scaramucci decided to include White House chief of staff Reince Priebus in the damning tweet.

Preibus reportedly has been critical of Trump’s decision to hire Scaramucci.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/27/scaramucci-tweets-hes-alerting-fbi-about-financial-leaks/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Third Attempt by D.C. to Restrict Gun Ownership

July 26, 2017 by  

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Third Attempt by D.C. to Restrict Gun Ownership

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday 2-1 that the district’s third attempt to keep guns out of the hands of its citizens is unconstitutional. The matter has been festering since the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have a right to possess a firearm. But that ruling left open the issue of whether that right extends beyond the individual’s home.

The District of Columbia has for 40 years fought to keep guns out of the hands of private citizens, claiming that the city was a special place with a great many important people and that the presence of guns threatened the peace and security of the nation’s capitol.

In fact, that was the argument used in the dissent to the ruling by Judge Karen Henderson. She claimed that D.C.’s requirement that only people with “a good reason to fear injury” or a “proper reason” to carry a firearm such as transporting large sums of cash or valuables “passes muster.” A claim that someone lives in a high-crime area isn’t enough to warrant the issue of a concealed carry permit under the present law. Besides, she said, D.C.’s rule doesn’t infringe on an individual’s right to carry or possess or bear arms while at home.

Judge Thomas Griffith, writing in the majority opinion, said that “the good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs. Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right [in the Bill of Rights] would have to flunk any judicial test.” Griffith found that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to “carry firearms beyond the home for self-defense — even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking self-defense needs.”

John Lott, head of the Crime Prevention Research Center, called the decision “huge,” adding that if the District of Columbia had laws similar to those in the 42 right-to-carry states, it would have about 48,000 concealed carry permits. At present it has 124.  Said Lott: “Right now, D.C. prevents the most vulnerable people, particularly poor blacks who live in high crime areas of D.C., from having any hope of getting a permit for protection.”

Because the ruling came from judges who were appointed by Republican presidents, and seven of the 11 members of the court were appointed by Democrat presidents, the chances of an appeal of Tuesday’s decision is nearly certain. Said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) that provided legal assistance in the case, “It’s a great decision for us. It’s very strong.” But, he added:

So far every time we have gone up against Washington, D.C. we have won. But every time D.C. has appealed so we expect D.C. to appeal again.

This might give the Supreme Court another chance to clarify its Heller decision. Since 2008 the high court has resisted taking under review lower court decisions on the matter, the latest being its decision not to review Peruta v. California. In so doing it let stand a California state law that requires its citizens to provide “good cause” as a reason to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The appeals court has given the District of Columbia 30 days to appeal to the full panel of judges. If it appeals, and the full panel reverses Tuesday’s decision, then the case would head to the Supreme Court. If it doesn’t appeal (highly unlikely), then seven days later frustrated citizens may avail themselves of the opportunity to apply for a permit without having to show a “good reason.”

That would be an unblemished victory for citizens living in the nation’s capitol. However, that victory is likely still to be celebrated at some period in the future.

 

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.

 

Related article:

Supreme Court Again Refuses to Settle Second Amendment Issue

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/26564-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-third-attempt-by-d-c-to-restrict-gun-ownership


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO NYT Readers Upset Black Woman Gets Gun – Black Chicago Activists Support Trump Blame Racist Dem Machine

NYT Readers Get Upset When a Black Woman Gets a Gun

25 July 2017 by Awr Hawkins

Antonia Okafor is a black graduate student who carries a gun for self-defense and some of the New York Times readership is extremely bothered by it.

On July 24 Okafor wrote a NYT opinion piece, in which she explained why she owns a gun, why she carries it, and why she thinks campus carry is the most logical way to empower women to protect themselves from predators in the university setting.

She wrote of life before she carried a gun, of leaving the university classroom late at night, walking “through the sprawling parking lots” to get to her car. She had a rape whistle and a cell phone–neither of which are weapons, much less defensive weapons. She said, “I would pray no one was lurking in dimly lit areas or behind cars.” And she explained her fear was real, rather than imagined, as she had been assaulted as a child.

Moreover, Okafor cited a Bureau of Justice Statistics study showing that that one in five female undergraduates claims they were assaulted in college.

Then rumblings of campus carry began to arise in the GOP-controlled Texas legislation. The year was 2015 and Okafor began to campaign for the ability to carry a gun on campus for self-defense.

She wrote:

From the minute I put my hands around a Ruger LC9 pistol, the gun I regularly carry with me now, I felt more in control. I felt empowered to be holding a tool that could protect me physically, and I was determined to learn how to use it responsibly. It was a relief to know that I could shoot if I had to, even though I would never use my gun unless it was a last means of self-defense. I got my concealed carry license a year ago.

After Okafor’s opinion piece ran, The Blaze reported that a number of NYT readers were upset. For example, one reader commented, “Yet another argument for guns that relies on emotions, not facts. You are not, statistically, safer with a gun … Guns pose an embarrassing public safety risk, exacerbated by concealed carry. Your argument lacks rigor. The Texas law in question is a travesty, and should be overturned as soon as possible.” This particular NYT reader missed the Crime Prevention Research Center study showing concealed carry expanded 190% between 2007 and 2015, only to see violent crime fall by 18%.

Another NYT reader responded: “As a black person the author should be careful what she wishes for. Just as with drugs, if things go wrong with a gun (and every day you can read articles that show very clearly that they do and will), blacks will be the first to be severely punished. Blacks continue to be stereotyped as violent, and she’s not helping.”

A third reader opined, “Why carry a gun instead of pepper spray, which will incapacitate an attacker but is not lethal and not a danger to innocent bystanders?”

Quick question–how often do stories of concealed permit holders shooting in self-defense contain news of innocents who were shot and killed (or even shot and wounded) in the process?

The answer–rarely, if ever.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/25/black-woman-gets-gun-new-york-times-readers-get-upset/


VIDEO: BLACK CHICAGO ACTIVISTS PRAISE TRUMP, BLAME ‘RACIST DEMOCRAT MACHINE’ FOR CARNAGE

Community organizers ask Trump to drain corrupt Illinois swamp

VIDEO: Black Chicago Activists Praise Trump, Blame 'Racist Democrat Machine' For Carnage

July 25, 2017 by Dan Lyman

Black community organizers in Chicago are blasting the ‘racist Democrat machine’ and rampant corruption as the primary reasons their once-great city is deteriorating rapidly amidst shocking violence, crippling economic depression, and eroding infrastructure in a powerful new short film.

Rebel Pundit has released a new production entitled “Chicago Carnage: Black Activists Slam #REALFAKE Trump Tower Deception” centered around a new anti-Trump sculpture erected by the city – on the taxpayer dime – directly across from the iconic Trump Tower.

“The sculpture sits as perfect photo-op to take selfies and group photos flipping off the Trump sign, while standing underneath it right next to the golden sculpture that screams ‘REAL FAKE,’” they report, saying the incendiary monument “could only be intended to give a giant middle finger to President Trump.”

In their scathing commentary, local activists Paul McKinley and Mark Carter lay blame squarely at the feet of nefarious city and state political leadership – which is overwhelmingly Democrat – and even Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, also expressing hope that President Trump has the opportunity to make Chicago great again and inviting his administration to help drain the Illinois swamp.

“It is ironic that this sign showed up right here, and not in front of City Hall, not in front of the Capitol,” McKinley says, addressing the ‘REAL FAKE’ sculpture. “What you see here is the great deception. It sits here to deceive you and get your mind off real issues.”

“This is an attempt by the same liberal agenda to talk about politics way up… in Washington D.C., but never about the politics right here in Chicago.”

“It has nothing to do with jobs, contracts and opportunities. It has nothing to do with a better education. It has nothing to do with healthcare. It has nothing to do with any of those things,” he points out, going on to address the Chicago crises of school closures, black unemployment, and violence – all some of the worst in the nation. “Every day of the week, there’s a body count – 30 people shot up, 40 people shot up – that’s not ‘real fake.’”

“The fake news is that this city is a city for everyone,” Mark Carter says.“This is a city for the elite.”

“The rest of the city looks like a bomb has been dropped, like a third world country.”

Both men denounce the notion that Donald Trump could possibly be to blame for decades-old local issues when he has only been president for six months, and accuse progressives of simply using him and the specter of ‘white racist conservatives’ as scapegoats to deflect attention from their own self-serving and/or criminal behavior.

“They want you to be focused on Donald Trump being the problem,”asserts Carter. “There’s nothing fake about this guy – he tells you what he’s about. The fake is Barack Obama, the fake is Bill Clinton.”

“The Democratic machine in this city is intentionally dummying down the people, socially engineering the people into poverty.”

“These are white and black racist Democrats doing this to us,” he continues. “They don’t want the killing to stop – they need the people to continue to be poor, they need these bloodsucking programs that have never done anything to bring down violence, unemployment, poverty.”

The men conclude by asking President Trump to send in federal investigators to break up the corrupt Chicago juggernaut – something he has already threatened to do.

“The feds need to come in and investigate the city council in this city, the state representatives, the state senators, the congressmen,” Carter says. “If Donald Trump wants to come here and get the real answers – come here and talk to the real people, we’ll show you you how things are working in this city.”“If he does that, he can make Chicago great again,” says McKinley in closing.This is not the first appearance McKinley and Carter have made in films denouncing Democratic politicians and attempting to pry black Americans away from their overwhelming loyalty to socialist demagogues.

In “Voices of the Ex-Offender – Chicago Activists Message to Black America” – another presentation by Rebel Pundit from 2014, they delivered a similar wake-up call, which Infowars covered at the time.

Dan Lyman: Facebook | Twitter

https://www.infowars.com/video-black-chicago-activists-praise-trump-blame-racist-democrat-machine-for-carnage/


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Cop Hating Baltimore State Attorney Reviewing 100 Cases in Wake of Drug-planting Video

July 25, 2017  by  

Baltimore State Attorney Reviewing 100 Cases in Wake of Drug-planting Video

In the wake of a Baltimore police officer being caught planting evidence in a drug case while two other officers watched, Baltimore’s State Attorney’s Office has launched an investigation and is reviewing 100 other cases involving those three officers. Thanks to three bad cops, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby — no friend to police — now has a legitimate excuse to rake the department over the coals.

When prosecutors noticed that body camera video from January 24 showed Baltimore Police Officer Richard Pinheiro planting drugs seconds before “finding” them, the prosecutor in the case brought the video to the attention of the public defender working on the case. That was days before the case was to be heard in court and nearly six months after the defendant was arrested. That defendant spent those months in jail because he was unable to raise the $50,000 bail.

 

In the video, Pinheiro can be seen planting the drugs in a trash pile near a house in Baltimore as his fellow officers (read: accomplices) watch. The three are then shown walking back to the street where Pinheiro activates his body camera — apparently unaware that it runs in a continual loop, capturing video (but no audio) of the 30 seconds before the camera is activated — and returns to the trash pile to “find” the drugs which he then displays for the camera.

Why it took prosecutors months to notice (and why the public defender never noticed, but had to be shown) that the video shows Pinheiro planting drugs is a mystery. What is known is that the public defender — after being shown what was in the video — told the prosecutor’s office “a s**tstorm is coming.”

Now that storm — which has been brewing for some time — has begun.

As The New American reported last week, BPD Commissioner Kevin Davis announced that, as a result of the video, one officer — presumably Pinheiro — has been suspended and two others — presumably the other two officers shown in the video — have been placed on administrative duty pending an investigation.

And Debbie Katz Levi, head of the Baltimore Public Defender’s Special Litigation Section, released a statement saying, “Officer misconduct has been a pervasive issue at the Baltimore Police Department, which is exacerbated by the lack of accountability.” Her statement continued, “We have long supported the use of police body cameras to help identify police misconduct, but such footage is meaningless if prosecutors continue to rely on these officers, especially if they do so without disclosing their bad acts.”

Her office is now demanding that the prosecutor’s office drop all cases in which Pinheiro and his two colleagues were the arresting officers. Pinheiro alone “is a witness in approximately 53 active cases,” according to the statement. Presumably, not every arrest these three bad cops made were wrongful. Even still, all these cases will now be tainted by any association with these three officers. That is part of the real price of bad cops doing dirty deeds: Real criminals who are actually guilty can now play this video as a possible “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

As part of the investigation that has sprung up — at least in part — from Levi’s demand, investigators have reviewed at least 10 videos from body cams related to that case and have announced that they plan to review videos from 100 more cases involving at least one of the three officers who participated in this case.

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby (shown) — who famously played a rousing game of persecution by prosecution against the police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray in 2015 — is likely having a field day with this. And this time when Mosby comes after the BPD, the good and honorable officers in that department have three of their own to thank for it. Mosby held a press conference late last week in which she declared, “My team has been working around the clock to ensure a thorough evaluation of each and every case.”

As a result of this case involving three bad cops, the entire department is now under a microscope. Mosby said, “This is a matter of public safety and we are laser-focused on this particular incident.”

With that investigation taking place and the public sentiment — created in large part by the Black Lives Matter movement — Mosby will be able to grind her ax with impunity. There is little doubt that echoes of a federal investigation are in the wind.

If the corruption at BPD is half as pervasive as Levi claims it is, there certainly is a problem; however, allowing the federal government to interfere in matters of local law enforcement is not the answer. At most, the State of Maryland should step in and investigate this case to determine whose heads should roll. Allowing federal expansion into state and local matters never ends well, and concerned citizens should work to support their local police and keep them independent while at the same time holding them accountable to both the law and the local communities they serve.

It takes only one bad cop (or, in this case, three) to open Pandora’s Box and bring America one step closer to a national police force.

Photo of Marilyn Mosby: Screenshot from Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26561-baltimore-state-attorney-reviewing-100-cases-in-wake-of-drug-planting-video

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Palin to subpoena two dozen reporters in defamation suit

July 27, 2017  By Kaja Whitehouse

Palin to subpoena two dozen reporters in defamation suit

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin plans to subpoena close to two dozen New York Times reporters, editors and other workers as part of her defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, it was revealed in court documents Wednesday.

In a motion arguing that the case be dismissed, lawyers for the New York Times complained that Palin’s legal team has served notice that she plans to subpoena “twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees — most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial at issue.”

The subpoenas are part of Palin’s effort to obtain “documents that might reveal, among other things, their ‘negative feelings’ toward her,” the Times told the judge.

Palin’s legal team also intends to ask the paper to produce “every internal communication it has had about her since 2011,” they said.

The Times complained about Palin’s discovery requests in a Manhattan federal court filing reiterating its request to have Palin’s defamation lawsuit tossed.

Palin is suing the Gray Lady over a June editorial linking one of her political action committee ads to a 2011 mass shooting that severely wounded Arizona Democrat Gabby Giffords and killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl.

The Times has claimed that Palin has no case because she cannot prove malice, the legal standard for claiming defamation.

Palin’s lawyers claim the Times knew the statements in the editorial were false, but “fabricated the link anyway” in order to drive web traffic.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/26/palin-to-subpoena-two-dozen-reporters-in-defamation-suit/


 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment