Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?

Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?-“The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell.”

by Tom DeWeese

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/17/will-brett-kavanaugh-stand-for-property-rights/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth“The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.”

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump this week once more rocked the globalists and internationalists with his renewed criticism of what has been considered one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump’s criticism focused upon the fact that the United States continues to pay the lion’s share of operating costs of the organization, while other member nations pay pittance by comparison.

For 2017, NATO’s military budget is $1.38 billion, the civilian budget is $252 million and its NATO Security Investment Program is $704 million. In this budget the U.S. contributes over 22 percent followed by Germany with a little over 14.65 percent, France at 10.6 percent and Britain 9.84 percent. There are 13 more members of NATO that pay less than 1 percent of their GDP to its budget.

Why Does America Pay the Lion’s Share?

Established in 1949 in the aftermath of WWII, NATO was sold to the American public as well as to the Senate as a necessity to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe. But as informed citizens are aware, NATO was specifically structured to be one of those “entangling alliances” to siphon off American wealth, as well as a stepping-stone to World Government. This is easily understood when one considers the roots of NATO.

The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.  The basic 5-point plan for communistic global conquest is summarized in the following four points.

  1. Confuse, disorganize, and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.
  2. Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy. [The United Nations’ International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank helped achieve this goal. So also have the so-called “Free Trade Agreements.” BL]
  3. Force the advanced countries [read, United States] to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.
  4. Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as NATO] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat. (Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1942, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations, 1964, p. 68)

One can readily see that the entire design or “regional” organizations was to be “transitional” to world government. More importantly, “regional governments”—or treaties—were necessary to bleed the American taxpayer to bankroll the entire scheme. This is exactly what is occurring and the frequent mantra that today’s world is a “new global community” plays directly into the orientation of Stalinist Russia.

Globalist Founders

Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s top advisors and was an ardent Soviet spy, having been convicted and sent to prison in 1950 for perjury involving statements relating to his communist activities. He was directly involved in the creation of The United Nations. His good friend, and advisor to later presidents, was John Foster Dulles. Dulles also was an avid globalist, pushing the United States towards Lenin’s world dictatorship. When Harry Truman signed America into the UN’s NATO alliance Dulles was enthusiastic. The “treaty” was part of the regional strategy towards globalism.

NATO involves first, a military “entangling alliance.” Article 5 of the NATO treaty binds the United States in an “agreement” that in the case of an “armed attack” against any NATO member other members of NATO, such as the United States, would consider it “as an attack against them all.” This contravenes the U.S. Constitution which assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

But NATO is not simply a military alliance. It is political as well (Steve Byas, article on John Foster Dulles, The New American, 3-5-2018). Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the treaty should be ratified “not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history, and before, it a great and peaceful future.” Note the language. NATO was considered by insiders to be a transitional stage toward a more solid global government.

The treaty itself states that member-states “will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them.” Clarence Streit, Dulles’ fellow globalist, wrote in 1939 that he recommended the creation of regional groupings with the eventual goal of putting them together into a functioning world government. Streit pushed for the creation of NATO as a regional government within the framework of the United Nations. This is why Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter encourage the forging of “regional groupings” and cooperation.

United States Independence has always been in the crosshairs of the globalists behind NATO. In 1960, just 11 years after NATO’s founding, Elmo Roper of the Atlantic Union Committee stated:

For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social … the Atlantic Pact [NATO] need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step in working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of the One World. (Quoted by John McManus, in Changing Commands, The Betrayal of America’s Military, p. 20).

Jumping ahead to the Bush Administration of 1991, NATO was “reorganized.” Thousands of American soldiers were for the first time placed under German, British, and other blue-helmeted foreign commanders. Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary for the Administration, termed the move “an important milestone in the transformation of the alliance.” The transformation continues. Republican or Democrat, the goal is a world organization overriding the US Constitution.

Another precedent was established in during the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a British UN troop commander ordered US fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. Neither the British general, nor Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General, bothered to contact President Clinton nor our own Congress. The UN had already been given authority to employ US forces serving in NATO, a UN subsidiary, to utilize American military and money.

Now one can clearly see why Trump’s pressure on European countries to pay equivalent payments to NATO rattles socialist cages. Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are grieved at the hindrance of their globalist designs. But the American people love President Trump, who has been the first president with backbone enough to lay it out for the American public by telling negotiators at the Brussels table that enough is enough.

Tom DeWeese: It Matters How You Stand

It Matters How You Stand“…expose the government’s war on ranchers…”

by Tom DeWeese

Justice has finally been achieved as the federal government’s war against western ranchers and property owners has taken a second major hit.

First, Cliven Bundy and his sons, Ryan, Ammon, Dave and Mel, were released in January, 2018, after three trials that never found them guilty of a crime, yet they spent close to two years behind federal bars, while being physically tortured and abused by cheating and lying Bureau of Land Management (BLM) thugs. As they were forced into solitary confinement, subjected to daily body searches, and other physical abuses, they were labeled by the government and mainstream media to be nothing more than paranoid right-wing loons.

Finally, a judge found that it was the BLM which was dangerous, guilty of perpetrating violence and spreading lies in an attempt to take control of the Bundy Nevada land that had been in the family’s possession since the 1880s. The BLM started the range war against the Bundys, claiming that Bundy cattle were a danger to the desert tortoise. And so, as the BLM openly bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground, they confiscated the cattle from land on which the Bundys had legal grazing rights dating back one hundred years.

Meanwhile, in Southwest Oregon, Dwight and Steven Hammond, also multi-generation cattle ranchers, were imprisoned for allowing a routine controlled-burn fire to leak onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. It’s a standard practice by ranchers to use the burns to keep down weeds and debris that would feed large forest fires. It also helps keep burnables away from ranch buildings. In short, its just good land management. The forest service does it too. In fact, the accidental spread of the  Hammond fire onto federal land surely helped improve government land.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

The federal government worked to throw the book at the Hammonds, charging them with intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands. The Department of Justice actually charged Steven Hammond with lighting the fire to cover an illegal deer hunt on land that was managed by the BLM. It filed a civil suit that cost the Hammonds over $400,000. Meanwhile the government vigorously worked to prosecute the Hammonds to put them behind bars.

Yet the Jury acquitted them on most of the charges and U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, considering the fact that the Hammonds were upstanding citizens,  decided that the usual minimum sentence of five years was too harsh for the supposed crime. Thus, Dwight Hammond received only three months and his son Steven was sentenced to a year and a day. They served that time and returned home to their ranch in Diamond, Oregon.

The Obama Justice Department actually accused the Hammonds of terrorism and demanded more time be served, so prosecutors filed an appeal to overturn Judge Hogan’s lighter sentence. As a result the Hammonds were forced back into jail to complete the full five years.

This injustice by the federal judicial system is what forced other ranchers, including the Bundys, to travel to Burns, Oregon in January 2016 to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The point was to expose the government’s war on ranchers, of which the Hammonds were the latest victims of this massive government overreach.

Once again, the government reacted with massive firepower. This time, as several of the protestors were on their way to a public meeting to explain their purpose and try to work out some sort of solution, federal and state agents arrested Ammon Bundy in a road block. Meanwhile, officials forced the car carrying rancher and protest leader LaVoy Finicum, off the road, into a trap. As LaVoy exited the car with his hands up in an attempt to protect the others still in the car, state police and FBI officers opened fire and killed LaVoy Finicum as they claimed he was going for a gun. Video has proven he was not. His wife, Jannette Finicum has now filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

For decades, ranchers across the American West have endured such intimidation and lawlessness by the federal government. Finally, some of their strong, independent neighbors said enough is enough. All they desire is to live in peace as good stewards of the land. And so, against all odds, they took a stand against the powerful government forces. Frankly, the outcome seemed hopeless. How does an individual gain justice in a rigged system that controls the court rooms and the media?

But a new battle cry is being heard as more and more Americans are beginning to see through the government smokescreen of intimidation and persecution. The Bundys and the Hammonds have led a renewed battle for the very issue that built this nation’s freedom and prosperity –the right to own and control private property.

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018, President Donald Trump fully pardoned Dwight and Steven Hammond and they too are headed home. They and the Bundys endured oppression from an out of control American government unlike anything we could have imagined existed in our nation. They fought an unwavering battle for freedom. And they have won. Now the American public must honor their sacrifice by demanding a full investigation into the lawless behavior of the BLM and U.S. Forest Service. American ranchers must never again be subjected to the tyranny endured by the Bundys and the Hammonds. As LaVoy Finicum once said, “It matters how you stand!”

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/11/it-matters-how-you-stand/?mc_cid=c3a3d7ee9d&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: The Religion of Evolution

The Religion of Evolution- “Either God or evolution.”

by Bill Lockwood

Evolutionists, who believe that man’s origin can be explained by the theory that he has “evolved” from lower forms of life, frequently charge Bible believers with clutching an unfounded “faith” in God and Jesus Christ. This is ironic. Considering the fact that Bible faith is grounded upon historical evidence (Heb. 11:1) and it is the evolutionist who takes giant leaps into the dark, believing what he wishes without support of evidence, it is amazing that the evolutionary theory has become the modern cultural myth in the same vein as ancient legends.  This cultural myth is the modernist religion.

First, many evolutionists classify their own theories as religious faith equaling a myth. In 1925 Louis T. More said, “The more one studies paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion” (Quoted by Bales, 1976, p. 47).

Philip Johnson, in his devastating review of Darwinism, wrote,

The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon the evolution are not an aberration, and practically all the most prominent Darwinist writers have tried their hand at it. Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. (1991, p. 133)

Second, evolution as admitted to be only a theory, not a fact. This is not parallel to the Bible’s definition of faith, but it is parallel to the modern misconception of biblical faith in the minds of unbelievers. Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, observed, “Darwin’s model of evolution is still very much a theory and till very much in doubt … it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science.”

Again, Denton wrote,

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis based cosmology it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth-makers of the past …” (1985, p. 358)

If this is not shocking enough, consider what one hardened atheist/evolutionist proposed as to the origin of life.

Perhaps the primordial atom that then exploded was but an episode in the eternal (and perhaps cyclical) career of matter/energy. Possibly the super-sensuous first cause created that atom just before it blew up. Perhaps the primordial atom cane into existence spontaneously, i.e., out of nothingness without any cause (acausally), or perhaps it was self-created, whatever that might mean when applied to a primordial atom bent on exploding. (1993, p. 135).

Each of McKown’s alternatives is very unscientific! This is the material of which myths are made when one is “bent” on refusing to consider that an all-powerful God created the universe.

Third, some evolutionists even propose a god—after their own will. Consider Philip Johnson’s observation regarding Francis Crick. Crick is a Nobel prize winning scientist, a co-discoverer of DNA. Crick toyed with the idea of panspermia—the notion that life was “seeded” upon the earth in the long ago by alien space creatures.

Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on scientific research and ascribed the origin of life to a supernatural Creator. But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same limitations that made it impossible for the extra-terrestrials to journey to earth will make it impossible for scientists ever to inspect their planet … Those who are tempted to ridicule directed panspermia should restrain themselves, because Crick’s extra-terrestrials are not more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth-bound Darwinists have to invoke. (1981, p. 110-11).

Not only have scientist seriously suggested panspermia, but Darwin himself clothes the process of “natural selection” with the qualities and attributes of an intelligent, creative being such as a “process” that “scrutinizes”, “rejects,” and “preserves.”

Fourth, evolution even proposes miracles—just as long as God is not the miracle-worker. Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheistic evolutionist, has argued that “an apparently (to ordinary human consciousness) miraculous theory is EXACLTY the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life.”

Jacques Monod, an ardent evolutionist of yesteryear, described the “origin of the genetic code” as the major problem for evolutionists. “Indeed, it is not so much a problem as a veritable enigma” he mused. Thomas H. Huxley, who vociferously defended Darwinism, said he believed that “There is no absurdity in theology so great that you cannot parallel it by a greater absurdity in Nature” (Life and Letters, I:259).

Francis Crick frankly admitted that “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

The famous late American astronomer and naturalist Carl Sagan said, …the discovery of life on one other planet—e.g. Mars—can, in the words of the American physicist Philip Morrison, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘transform the origin of life from a miracle to a statistic’ (1977, p. 358).

Michael Denton concludes his work mentioned above with a notice of such admissions as Sagan offered with this,

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. (p. 264)

Fifth, evolutionary theory requires an unfounded type of “faith” in order for one to accept it. Robert Jastrow admits as much.

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid … (1978, p, 111-12)

Sixth, one scientist described what he called a “baptism” for those who accept evolution. That scientist was W.R. Thompson who called evolution a “fairy tale for adults.” The baptism to which he referred was the “baptism of ignorance” in which theorems rise to walk in language of “fact.”

Seventh, evolutionists maintain a creed. James Bales, long-time professor at Harding University, observed,

Since it is admitted that it has not been scientifically established, and since it is admitted that drastic changes have often taken place in these fields of study which supposedly sustain evolution, one would think that the majority of evolutionists would not be so strongly wedded to the hypothesis. However, they are and many of the bow down before the sacred cow of evolution and recite the creed: ‘I believe. My faith is the substance of fossils and other evidence which are but hoped for, and the evidence of descent which is not seen in the fossil record, the record in living nature, or the record in the lab. And yet, I do believe that the forces of nature which are now working produced results in the past which we cannot prove they are producing today. I believe in attributing to nature whatever power is necessary in order for nature to do everything which is required to create through evolution. (p. 53)

Eighth, one leading evolutionist of a century ago characterized teachers of evolution as priests. Paul LeMoine, one of the editors of the French Encyclopedia, was he who made that characterization. “Evolution is a sort of dogma in which the priests no longer believe that they maintain for their people (1937, in Bales, 1976).

Ninth, evolutionists practice their own conversion. As a matter of fact, all evolutionists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other classes of unbelievers, advocate their views so ardently so as to convert the unsuspecting. Those whom they seek primarily to convert are Christians and those who believe in the biblical account of Creation. This is because the “existence of an intelligent Creator is the only alternative to belief in life being created by matter and physical laws alone” (Taylor, 1991, p. 76).

There is no third alternative. Either God or evolution. However, the concept that of these two choices we have options between a “religious faith” and “science” is a mammoth-sized mistake. Both involve religious faith, but only one has any historical footing—God’s Book, the Bible.

James D. Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method, 1976.

Francis Crick, Life Itself, 1981.

Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 1985.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978.

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991.

Delos McKown, The Myth-Maker’s Magic, 1993.

Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1977.

Paul S. Taylor, The Origins Answer Book, 1991.

Bill Lockwood: Democratic Machine Showing its Communist Orientation

Democratic Machine Showing its Communist Orientation Maxine wants the masses to “encounter Republican officials from the Trump Administration in pubic” by harassment, yelling, and protesting.”

by Bill Lockwood

The atmosphere in America is highly charged with political unrest. This is entirely of Democrat-Communist making. Maxine Waters is now openly calling for more unrest, social irritation and public anger to spill over against Trump Administration officials. It is not enough that individuals have been so manipulated by the Democratic anger machine so that one of them tried to kill Congressmen while playing baseball or that another became so enraged by the leftist socialist rhetoric that he walked into the headquarters of the Family Research Council to murder employees. Now the call is for more street thuggery.

Maxine wants the masses to “encounter Republican officials from the Trump Administration in pubic” by harassment, yelling, and protesting. Here’s Waters’ statement.

Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.

This is classic communism—which is exactly what the Democratic Party has become. That this mob attack strategy is not owned only by Maxine Waters is shown clearly by Democratic “strategist” Mary Anne Marsh, former Senior Advisor to Secretary of State John Kerry, who refuses to condemn the violence mongers in an interview on Fox News. Deflecting the question on a number of occasions, Marsh continued to harangue about separating families at the border. No condemnation for mob action designed to harass public officials in any social setting. Where is the one Democrat pubic official who has publicly condemned Waters?

Lawlessness. The only strategy remaining for those who are determined to change our culture after they lose the debate in public discussion and in the voting-booth. This is why Cynthia Nixon, an actress who is running for the governor’s office in New York against Andrew Cuomo, is openly calling for the disbanding of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No borders. No law enforcement. A recipe for communist-socialist revolution. Enflame the masses on the bottom, disarm the enforcement arm on the top.

In a recent speech Nixon labeled ICE a “terrorist organization” and has started a petition called “Abolish ICE.” Yes, Communist philosophy, which has been sanitized by leftists in America for a century by labeling it ‘progressivism’, is on the move.

Communism is nothing but socialism with force. Getting socialists out of their arm-chairs for revolution is the goal of communists and Maxine Waters and her ilk show that that is exactly what they are about.

Class struggle and revolution are integral parts of communism. This is why Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were concerned not simply with “theory” but also with action. Marx said many times he was not interested in merely “understanding” the world, but in “changing” it. This is why anything that develops class antagonisms is good in communist eyes. They must sharpen them to hasten the day of revolution. For this reason, communists insert themselves into every sore spot in society to fester and widen breaches. Where no sore spot exists, they will try to create one. This will bring about the destruction of capitalist society.

This is exactly what was played out in Russian during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Hearing Maxine Waters and the Democrats is reminiscent of what history records regarding Leon Trotsky as he stirred the masses and workers to unite against the Romonov government. The stirring of the masses by officials on the top is now being duplicated by our own elected officials and their associates. There is little difference between the incitement to mob action and illegal activity, which has already resulted in violence, by leading Democrats and what occurred during the Russian revolution.

These linkages to communist revolution is not simply that Waters’ just sounds like a communist or is utilizing communist strategy. Waters has been hard-wired into communism for decades. As documented by Bob Adelmann at The New American:

In 1982 Waters “lent her name to a pamphlet published for a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) group that was led by Angela Davis, Charlene Mitchell, Anne Braden, and Frank Chapman.

In 1983 she participated in a communist rally designed to coincide with the Los Angeles Summer Olympics. In 1984 she spoke at a UC-Berkeley event sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Review, the monthly magazine of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

In 1998 Waters voted for a House resolution that called on Castro’s communist government to extradite fugitive cop-killer Assata Shakur, and then wrote a letter to Castro apologizing for her vote. (Shakur had escaped from U.S. prison in 1979 and fled to communist Cuba where Castro gave her asylum). Instead of referring to Shakur as a convicted murderer, Waters called her a ‘political activist’ who was persecuted for her political beliefs and affiliations.”

Waters is a powerful person in the Democratic wing of Congress. She is openly calling for revolution and there is apparently no public official of the Democratic Party or affiliated members who are denouncing her open incitement to lawlessness. America is on the edge of a huge upheaval against our Constitutional order.

*Since this article was written several Democrats have disavowed the tactics of Maxine Waters, although they have negated their distance from Waters by blaming Donald Trump for “setting the tone” of political differences. This, of course, is clearly another effort to shirk responsibility for the Left’s revolutionary rhetoric since many Democrats and Hollywood elite were calling for Trump’s impeachment before he actively occupied the White House. One even suggested “blowing up the White House.” Blaming Trump for this terroristic threat is ridiculous.

Jesse Lee Peterson: DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN – ILLEGAL OR AMERICAN

DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN – ILLEGAL OR AMERICAN– Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson targets latest manufactured political crisis

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Every other week Democrats manufacture a new political crisis.

This time, they’re wailing about illegal alien children being separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexican border.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow cried on TV while reporting on this issue. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-MD, feigned outrage during a hearing on this matter. Actor Peter Fonda called for 12-year-old Barron Trump to be ripped from his mother’s arms and “thrown into a cage with pedophiles.”

As if that’s not bad enough, leftists stormed a Mexican restaurant and screamed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen while she was having dinner. Then they showed up outside her home blasting sounds of Hispanic children crying.

WikiLeaks also released the names and addresses of ICE employees to the public, endangering agents and their families.

The Trump administration isn’t the first to separate adults and children at the border – but it did step up the enforcement after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy in dealing with illegal aliens who cross into the U.S.

A 2008 anti-trafficking statute dictates that certain minors must be taken out of immigration detention within 72 hours. The administration has also said it was forced to separate families because of the conclusion of a court case known as “the Flores Settlement.” That settlement, reached in 1997, required the government to limit the time it keeps unaccompanied minors in detention and to keep them in the least restrictive setting possible.

The children in HHS/ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) care are treated far better than in Mexico or Central America. They’re fed, given medical attention and educational programs.

But President Trump signed an executive order last week designed to keep together illegal alien families who have been detained at the border, while also retaining his administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

Why did the Trump administration step up enforcement in the first place?

According to Homeland Security, the number of people attempting to cross the southern border illegally has increased to more than 50,000 people per month. In June, there has been a 325 percent increase in unaccompanied children coming to the border since the previous year, and a 435 percent increase in families entering the U.S. illegally.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

According to the White House, the influx of unaccompanied minors coming across the U.S. border is being used by gangs, such as MS-13, to recruit new members; one-third of already-arrested MS-13 members and associates came into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor.

There are hundreds of thousands of victims every year who are affected by illegal alien crime – homicides, rape, assault, vehicular manslaughter and identity theft.

According to a 2011 government report, the arrests attached to the criminal alien population included an estimated 25,000 people for homicide, 42,000 for robbery, nearly 70,000 for sex offenses, and nearly 15,000 for kidnapping.

In Texas alone, within the last seven years, more than a quarter-million criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses.

In 2016, more than 15,000 Americans died from a heroin overdose. More than 90 percent of the heroin comes from across the southern border.

Democrats cry for illegal alien children – encouraged to cross the border by their own parents – but what about the American children who’ve been killed by illegal aliens and permanently separated from their parents? CNN and MSNBC won’t air their stories. But President Trump hosted some of the families at the White House.

Among the “Angel” family members invited by the White House were:

  • Agnes Gibboney, who lost her son Ronald da Silva after he was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant gang member.
  • Juan Pina, who lost his 14-year-old daughter Christy Sue in 1990, allegedly at the hands of a Mexican national who raped and killed her. Her alleged killer was extradited from Mexico last month.
  • Michelle Wilson-Root, whose 21-year old daughter Sarah was killed in 2016 following a vehicular accident allegedly caused by drunk driver Edwin Mejia – who had entered the country illegally and, as a result of “catch-and-release” loopholes, was released into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor.
  • Ray Tranchant, who lost his 16-year-old daughter Tessa in 2007 to an illegal alien driving drunk.

Democrats don’t care about American children. If they did, they wouldn’t try to hide or dismiss the plight of these families. They would address the issue of black flight from Democrat run cities like Los Angeles and Chicago due to violent illegal alien gangs.

They also don’t really care about illegal aliens or immigrants – they only want their votes. The hysteria at the border is a crisis encouraged by Democrats. They want to emotionalize this issue to give Democrats an issue to run on in the mid-term elections.

Recently, I interviewed Border Angels activist Juan Rosas on my show “The Fallen State.” Rosas believes illegal aliens have the same rights as American citizens.

We the people must apply pressure on Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other RINOs to ensure that they stop the chaos at the border and approve the necessary funding for the border wall. Otherwise, our country will continue to be overrun by illegal aliens, and the border chaos will get worse.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/democrats-dont-care-about-illegal-alien-or-american-children/#L9ybqf5vMdisImUk.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: The Bible and Illegal Immigration

The Bible and Illegal Immigration  “…those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell… “

by Bill Lockwood

As illegal immigration assists dragging our culture downward into a more godless, violent and confused society, it is shocking that many preachers, who should be reflecting biblical values, have taken the position that somehow the liberal multicultural goal of open borders is beneficial for evangelism. People are becoming confused as to whether or not America should even have boundaries and borders and whether it is godly to protect those borders.

First, God Himself established borders of nations. In Acts 17:26 Paul, speaking to Greeks in Athens, stated that “God has made of one, every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth; having determined their appointed seasons, and bounds of their habitation.

Note the several elements of the passage. (1) God has made of every nation one—or He made from one every nation of mankind. This is in direct opposition to the then current Greek belief that their own origin was superior to other races. (2) God determined their appointed times, that is, their divinely appointed periods. Nations do not rise and fall without God. It is not a survival of the fittest. (3) Boundaries of nations are divinely fixed. However modern man wishes to understand the providence of God, Paul plainly states that God has a hand in national boundaries.

The classic Old Testament text on this subject is Deut. 32:8. “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance; When he separated the children of men …” The last comment, about “separating” the children of men refers to God’s division between peoples at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:8).

Second, God demanded that Israel respect borders of other nations. As Israel came out of Egypt, the people were to by-pass some of the nations respecting their borders because God had given them that territory. One of those nations was Edom. “I have given Mt. Seir to Esau for a possession,” said the Lord, therefore, Israel was not to enter it (Deut. 2:5). He said the same regarding the country of Moab.

Later (Num. 20), when Israel, under the leadership of Moses, applied to Edom to pass through its territory on their way toward Canaan, Edom said no. After a second application and refusal Israel turned to go another way. A nation has the right to determine who comes into its territory and even God’s selected leader Moses could not violate that right.

On the other hand, God had prior appointed that the territory of the Amorite and Canaanite (Palestine) would be given to Israel (see Deut. 1). This was a divine judgment upon those Canaanite nations (see Gen. 15:15-16) because of their extreme wickedness including child sacrifice.

Consider also the fact that at one point in Genesis history Abraham, God’s chosen, immigrated to Egypt (Gen. 12). Abraham, however, lied about the status of his wife Sarah at one of the checkpoints. When his lie was discovered by the Egyptians he was deported! God did not step in and demand that Abraham and his family be protected at the expense of the Egyptian government.

Third, once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned on multiple occasions to “drive the Canaanites out.” Even forty years previously, when Israel was still at Mt. Sinai, God had promised to drive out the inhabitants of the land (Exod. 33:2). Once Joshua took the leadership and conquered most of Canaan, he commanded the cooperation of the Israelites in “driving out” the Canaanites (e.g. Joshua 17:17-19).

The stated reason for driving out the nations that formerly inhabited Israel was to preserve the culture of Israel. The word “culture” itself refers to the religious presuppositions that lie beneath a society.

When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places [of idol worship], and ye shall take possession of the land …” (Num. 33:51,52)

Moses continued. “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell” (v. 55). That Israel did not drive out the Canaanite people from Israel is the theme of the book of Judges (see chapter 1). The rest of the book shows perfectly well what occurs when a culture is not preserved.

As one professor wisely told me, “marriage is not a reformatory school”—so also “open borders is not a missionary program.” It is a recipe for the disintegration and complete annihilation of what is left of America’s Christian culture.

After Israel’s settlement in Canaan each tribe had a sovereign boundary that was detailed in the sacred record (Joshua 15). Not only was tribal territory to be respected in Israel, but private property was considered sacred and one of the sins that was prosecuted was “moving boundary markers” of someone’s property—which is the same as stealing private land. In no text in Holy Writ does anyone find the concept that people are not to own private property or that there is no such thing as Israelite tribal territory or national boundaries.

Fourth, God forbade Israelites from making any personal and marital contracts with the pagan people that formerly inhabited the land. Deuteronomy 7:1-5 is emphatic. If individual Israelites mixed in marriage relationships with the idolaters and pagans known as the Canaanites, the pure religion of Israel would be eroded.

You shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; … for he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods …” For this reason, God instructed, “You shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.”

God strictly warned the Israelites again through Joshua, the next generation leader: “For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, The Lord will not continue to drive them out, but they will become a share and a trap for you; a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes until you perish from the land” (Joshua 23:12,13).

The point here is not to recommend an induction program for those seeking citizenship in the United States, but to point out that biblically speaking, the concept of sovereign borders is paramount in Old Testament Israel. The idea therefore that America should have no borders, and thereby no border enforcement, is certainly not biblical. There is nothing ungodly about having borders or boundaries around a nation and having boundaries implies that those whose boundaries they are have the right to manage them. Less than this is confusion on the face of the deep.

John Locke pointed out that unless society can provide a code of fixed and enforceable laws, man might as well stayed in the jungle (Skousen, 5,000 Year Leap, 244).

To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

Is America a sovereign nation? Many on the left apparently disdain that idea and are pushing for open borders. That may be their preference, but don’t come to the Bible with such an agenda.

Alex Newman: Facing Corruption Scandals, Communist Ex-UN Boss Gets Immunity

Facing Corruption Scandals, Communist Ex-UN Boss Gets Immunity –  “Bokova’s husband, Kalin Mitrev, is also a longtime communist operative with deep ties to international communism…  “

by Alex Newman

Another major scandal is brewing at the disgraced UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. With former UNESCO boss and longtime Communist Party bigwig Irina Bokova and her communist husband both accused of widespread corruption, the controversial new head of the UN “education” agency — herself a Socialist Party member — gave them both diplomatic immunity. The scheme, which appears designed to protect the communist duo from corruption allegations across multiple jurisdictions, includes a bizarre contract paying Bokova $1 that has drawn intense criticism and caused even more suspicion. But for now, archaic UN “diplomatic immunity” protections are likely to hamper any law-enforcement investigations or potential prosecutions.

The New American first became interested in Bokova amid investigations into UNESCO schemes to hijack and weaponize education worldwide. It very quickly became apparent that the longtime member of the Bulgarian Communist Party, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, was hoping to indoctrinate children into the UN-backed ideologies of globalism, humanism, and socialism. “We have the collective duty to empower every child and youth with the right foundations — knowledge, values and skills — to shape the future as responsible global citizens, [emphasis added]” she declared at a UN summit on education in South Korea, one of many public statements vowing to transform the attitudes and values of children worldwide.

It also very quickly became apparent that the frequent accusations of corruption and malfeasance being made by watchdogs and analysts deserved to be seriously examined. First, Bokova was caught lying on her CV. Then, her ownership of luxurious properties around the world — New York City, London, Paris — properties that investigators said her income could not account for — was exposed by the watchdog group Bivol. After that, scandals involving cronyism in her appointments of unqualified candidates to senior UN posts emerged. She was also widely accused of using public money to campaign for the UN secretary-general job while offering “awards” to potential supporters of her bid including Obama, Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping’s wife, and other key players.

That pattern of alleged corruption appears to have continued — and the benefits are still accruing. While Bokova was running UNESCO, a post she held until recently, the Rothschild-backed communist did more than a few major favors for Russian chemical giant PhosAgro, including forming a “partnership” between the UN agency she ran and the controversial company in 2011. On June 2, 2017, the Moscow-trained Bulgarian communist even gave a speech at the Kremlin-backed St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in which she showered praise on the conglomerate and its leadership.

We need chemistry to move forward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” said Bokova, a reference to the totalitarian UN plan for humanity sometimes referred to as Agenda 2030 or the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) which the Communist Chinese regime played a “crucial role” developing. “This is why our partnership with PhosAgro … is so important, to support the creativity and innovation of young scientists, guided by the Principles of Green Chemistry.” She also expressed “special gratitude” to PhosAgro boss and controversial Russian billionaire Andrey Guryev for the “leadership he brings to strengthening cooperation between PhosAgro and UNESCO.” And finally, she expressed confidence that the cooperation between the two “will continue to go from strength to strength.”

Unsurprisingly to those monitoring Bokova, she joined the board of directors for PhosAgro almost immediately after leaving UNESCO. While details of her compensation package are not public, sources within UNESCO said the numbers were believed to be extraordinary. The New Americanmagazine reached out to Bokova in March with a request for details about the relationship with PhosAgro, including financial arrangements. She did not respond. This magazine has offered her multiple opportunities to comment or respond to previous articles, but in each case, she has declined. In at least two cases while she was still running UNESCO, though, her deputies sent letters that they declined to post publicly in the comment section.

Bokova’s husband, Kalin Mitrev, is also a longtime communist operative with deep ties to international communism and the former Bulgarian regime’s mass-murdering “security” services. And Mitrev, who also joined the ranks of international bureaucracy by working at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, has been credibly accused of corruption, too. According to multiple news reports last September, Bulgarian authorities launched an investigation into Mitrev. Among other major concerns, Mitrev received about half a million U.S. dollars, part of it via Swiss bank accounts, as part of an alleged money-laundering and influence-buying scheme known as “Azerbaijani laundromat” tied to the brutal dictatorship ruling Azerbaijan. The prosecutor’s office has not provided any recent updates on the status of the investigation.

The case was opened after the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and other media exposed the allegedly shady dealings in major newspapers across Europe. Despite her well-known close ties to the brutal regime in Azerbaijan, Bokova denied knowledge of her husband’s schemes. “I am not privy to the details of my husband’s consulting business and equally, your questions about my opinion on Azerbaijan and its leadership are wholly misplaced,” she was quoted as saying in media reports surrounding the investigation into her husband. “I most vehemently deny any wrongdoing and will consider defamatory any publication of these totally unfounded conjectures on your part.”

It was not clear how extensive Bokova’s attempts at legal action against journalists have been, although at least one prominent reporter who reached out to The New American said that Bokova had targeted him. Several other embattled UN agency chiefs, including the chief of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), who is connected to a Latin American communist network, as well as the head of the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), have been abusing European legal systems to silence and punish journalists for exposing corruption and crimes at their UN agencies. U.S. lawmakers have also expressed concerns over Bokova’s ties to the regime in Azerbaijan. READ MORE


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.


Jesse Lee Peterson: THE TRUTH ABOUT BOURDAIN, SPADE AND SUICIDE

THE TRUTH ABOUT BOURDAIN, SPADE AND SUICIDE– Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson trounces ‘experts’ giving wrong solutions

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Two celebrity suicides in the same week have put a spotlight on a growing problem in the U.S.

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain, 61, committed suicide by hanging last week. Bourdain was host of the award-winning series “Parts Unknown” on CNN, where he traveled the world telling stories over food and drinks. He is survived by his 11-year-old daughter.

New York Fashion designer, Kate Spade, 55, also committed suicide by hanging a few days earlier. She was found dead in her Park Avenue apartment. Spade is survived by her husband, Andy (brother of actor David Spade) and her 13-year-old daughter.

Bourdain and Spade’s deaths sparked a national conversation about suicide prevention, but most experts are missing the mark with their conclusions.

While celebrity suicides grab the public’s attention, according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), Americans are taking their own lives at an alarming rate. The CDC study shows suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S.; the rate has increased nearly 30 percent between 1999-2016. At least 123 people commit suicide every day. More than half of those who’ve died had no history of “mental health” problems. Troubled relationships, substance abuse, health issues, and job or financial woes and other challenges appear to contribute to suicides.

Outwardly, Bourdain and Spade appeared to be content: they were famous, rich and adored by their fans. Despite their popularity and material success, they had serious unresolved conflict within.

According to reports, Bourdain’s close friend, Eric Ripert, told Bourdain’s mother that Anthony had been in a “dark mood” before his death. He also had a grueling film schedule and was reportedly exhausted.

Known for his bad-boy persona, Bourdain has talked openly about his life. Even though his family was Catholic on his father’s side and Jewish on his mother’s, he said he was raised without religion. A self-acknowledged reformed addict of heroin and cocaine, Bourdain said he was surprised to have lived past 30.

Soon after his first marriage ended in 2005, Bourdain shared in his book “Medium Raw,” he was “aimless and regularly suicidal” during a stretch in the Caribbean. In 2017, he became a vocal advocate against sexual harassment after his girlfriend Asia Argento’s sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein went public.

CNN and other media outlets said Bourdain was an “inspiration,” but this is not the lifestyle that should inspire human beings. The focus needs to be on the character of the person, not on the celebrity status, worldly education or money.

A statement Andy Spade released to the New York Times said Kate Spade had “suffered from depression and anxiety for many years.” The statement also indicated the couple had been living separately for 10 months. “It was a complete shock,” he said of her sudden death. “And it clearly wasn’t her. There were personal demons she was battling.”

Kate Spade’s sister, Reta Saffo, told the media her suicide was “not unexpected.” She believed Kate had suffered from bipolar disorder throughout her life, aggravated by the fame and wealth she achieved in her 30s. Saffo suspected her sister had been contemplating suicide since actor Robin Williams hanged himself in 2014.

Most celebrities are miserable. These suicides prove that fame and fortune will never fulfill the void human beings have within. Yet people spend a lifetime trying to fill the emptiness with sex, money, drugs and seeking approval, but it doesn’t work.

In my 28 years of counseling with people, I’ve discovered the root cause of emptiness and depression which drives people to suicide is resentment and hatred toward our parents – usually anger toward the mother. When a person has anger – especially toward a parent – his/her soul is disconnected from God.

No matter how much money, fame and praise people get from the world, it’s never enough to fulfill the emptiness. The void can only be filled when we forgive our parents for failing us, and repent of the judgment and resentment that we’re harboring against them. Then we can reconnect with God, who will fill the emptiness with real love and inner peace. Nothing else will do.

Yet, “experts” are giving people wrong solutions. Instead of addressing the root problem, they blame the outer environment and over-prescribe medication which addicts people and makes matters worse.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Society has allowed the left to take the shame out of being wrong. They’ve convinced most people – especially the younger generation – there’s no wrong or right, to just go with what feels good. We need to put serious focus on reinforcing morality and stop blurring the lines between good and evil. We must rebuild families, and call out and shame bad behavior.

We also need to protect men and boys from the unparalleled attack against them by radical feminists who hate men. A growing number of men – especially white men – feel isolated and under attack just because they’re white males. This is impacting men and boys of all ages and it’s contributing to escalating suicides rates.

Join us on Saturday, June 16th at BOND’s 9th Annual Men’s Conference in Los Angeles. RSVP or become a sponsor.

If you or someone you know needs counseling, call us at 1-800-411-BOND (2663). If you need immediate help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK

Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/the-truth-about-bourdain-spade-and-suicide/#hrqTfKdVzyosHRW1.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: ROSEANNE’S LYNCHING IS AN INSULT TO BLACKS

ROSEANNE’S LYNCHING IS AN INSULT TO BLACKS- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson skewers leftist double-standards

by Jesse Lee Peterson

After Memorial Day, longtime actress and comedian Roseanne Barr was fired from her number-one hit TV show reboot “Roseanne.” ABC cancelled the entire program, reportedly pulled reruns of the sitcom and began considering an off-shoot show without Roseanne’s character.

Why such strong, sudden moves by elitist media giant ABC? Roseanne put out a funny tweet discussing a Wikileaks report about the corrupt Obama administration. Valerie Jarrett’s name came up – a wicked woman who was Barack Obama’s senior advisor. Roseanne wrote on Twitter in the early morning hours Tuesday: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj” – meaning Valerie Jarrett.

Many people, including Roseanne apparently, didn’t know that Valerie Jarrett is mixed-race “black.” People do know Jarrett wears short, straight hair not unlike a “Planet of the Apes” movie character. Many also know Jarrett was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The “Fallen Messiah” Barack Obama and his allies oppressed and marginalized Christians, but supported and covered for Muslims any time Jihadists committed terror attacks.

One of the stupidest, politically correct, media-enforced “rules” against free speech is you cannot compare black people (at least not liberal blacks) to monkeys or apes, either in jest or insult. Through lies and propaganda, people are brainwashed to see blacks as poor, helpless victims of so-called “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has). It’s actually an insult to black people that whites are conditioned not to speak freely around them, and it only feeds black suspicion over white people’s true feelings. The left treat blacks like mentally handicapped children who can’t handle anything and can’t control themselves.

This mentality toward blacks enables them to continue their moral decline, having up to 77 percent of children out of wedlock, aborting a third of their pregnancies, complaining and lying about “racism,” faking hate crimes and falsely accusing whites and police, making excuses and blaming the system for their failure, begging for free stuff and “reparations,” continuing in unemployment double the national average, creating ghettoes, selling drugs and killing one another at a disproportionate rate.

The irony is that Roseanne Barr has a long history of trying to help black people, and being a pro-diversity, so-called “anti-racist” activist. She has a black godson, and pushed for a black granddaughter in her TV show’s revival. She once tweeted the purported home address of George Zimmerman, who shot the thug Trayvon Martin in self-defense – she apparently wanted a protest or citizen’s arrest of the Hispanic “white” man falsely accused of “racist” murder.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Roseanne is a bit all-over-the-place politically – somewhat like Kanye West, by the way. Like Kanye, her “unforgivable” sin against the children of the lie (the liberal media, Democratic Party, RINOs and Never Trumpers) is thinking for herself and being pro-Trump. She’s extremely socially liberal – formerly a supporter of the anti-capitalist Green Party and socialist “Peace and Freedom Party.” Her nixed TV show “Roseanne” featured a transgender grandson who dresses like a girl, promoting mental and spiritual illness as normal and right. But the left’s only problem was that Roseanne is a Trump supporter!

This is an unjust and un-American public lynching of Roseanne Barr, meant to shut white people up and put fear in them. The media made sure everybody called her funny tweet “racist,” overreacting and emotionalizing the situation to make it seem so important and “abhorrent.” Even normally down-to-earth conservatives called her tweet “racist.” Logically, her tweet was either fair or inappropriate – but it was not “racist,” and she had a right to say it. Shamefully, Roseanne apologized repeatedly and profusely. Stop apologizing to the children of the lie!

They don’t care when President Trump is called an “orangutan,” or when black conservatives are called monkeys. It is acceptable to hate whites and Trump supporters. It’s a double standard. They falsely labeled Republicans “Nazis” and the Tea Party “racists” and “terrorists.” The word “racist” is more dehumanizing and destructive to whites than the so-called “N-word” is to blacks. The only solution is for whites to drop their fear.

The left seeks to regain power through intimidation of white people, the people who most support truth and freedom in America.

Some years back they made a similar example of a “white person” in the lynching of L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling. He was recorded in private not wanting his “girlfriend” to take pictures in public with blacks. He had a right to express this. But the wicked lynch mob called him “racist” and took his team away from him!

This is pure evil – oppressing white people for expressing “incorrect” opinions.

The only man they have not been able to destroy is President Trump, whom I call the Great White Hope for all Americans. Donald Trump has God on his side. He tells the truth, speaks his mind and has no fear. And he shows love for all people. He does not apologize for doing and saying nothing wrong. If we want to save our country and make America great again, we must stand up for truth and freedom of speech without apology.

Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/are-you-an-alpha-or-beta-male/#qukcj4XqHQRhzq7D.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Mass Shootings Spark Growing Interest in Homeschooling

Mass Shootings Spark Growing Interest in Homeschooling  “homeschooling in response to the evil that now permeates government “education”…  “

by Alex Newman

The perversion, lies, dumbing down, fake history, anti-God pseudo-science, and flagrant immorality promoted in government schools was apparently not enough to get parents to pay attention — but the consequences of that evil are waking people up in huge numbers. Amid an apparent wave of school shootings exploited by the press to attack gun rights, a growing number of parents are now exploring a much more sensible option: withdrawing their children entirely.

In fact, according to multiple news reports, it is clear that interest in homeschooling across America is surging in response to the perceived increase in shootings. On February 15, for example, the Miami Herald wrote an article under the headline: “In the wake of the Douglas High massacre, some parents ponder home schooling.” The article documents surging interest in home education among parents and explains how to legally remove children from school.

Similar headlines are appearing after each shooting. After a recent school shooting in Texas, more media outlets also began reporting on the trend. An ABC affiliate in Alabama, for instance, reported on the phenomenon under the headline: “Parents consider homeschooling kids after deadly school shootings.”

The Foundation for Economic Education picked up on the growing interest, too. And the writer, Kerry McDonald, ridiculed comments by a government-school teacher that leaving public schools is “running from reality.” “But that raises the question: Is compulsory mass schooling ‘reality’?” she asked. Of course not.

A deluge of social media posts make the growing interest in home education clear, as well. “Well, guess I am homeschooling my children,” wrote Juliet, a young mother, on Twitter after the Parkland shooting. “Wasn’t my plan, but I don’t need to wonder every day if my kids will come home from school.”

The next day, another mom posted a similar tweet. “I know I say in my tweets I’m considering homeschooling,” she wrote. “Researched it and I’ve decided it’s not something I’m gonna consider anymore. I’m 100 % DOING this.” Countless similar posts could be found on Twitter and other social media outlets.

Ironically, the Obama administration’s totalitarian-minded Education Secretary Arne Duncan has actually encouraged parents to keep their children home until Congress passes anti-gun legislation. Since that appears unlikely — especially considering the protections for gun-rights enshrined in the Second Amendment — they may be home for quite a while. At least we can hope.

School shootings were actually more common in the 1990s, and have been declining since then, according to research from picked up on the growing interestNortheastern University. But the fact is that, before God, prayer, morality, and common sense were expelled from school fifty years ago, school shootings and teen suicide were almost non-existent. Decreased parental involvement has also been cited as a factor.

But the increased interest in homeschooling in response to the evil that now permeates government “education” — the fruits of which include suicide, mass murder, promiscuity, abortion, and more — should be considered a welcome development. Hopefully the growing interest in homeschooling will turn into a mass exodus from government indoctrination centers in the years ahead.

While the school shootings are a horrific tragedy, they must be understood as the inevitable consequence of the lies and wickedness being pushed on children in government school. The solution is not gun control — after all, guns were far easier to access in the 1950s, and dozens of school children are massacred in knife attacks in Communist China to this day. The kids need protection not from guns or knives, but from the lies and indoctrination pushed at school that motivate people to kill.


Alex Newman is an American journalist and consultant who writes about economics, finance, banking, business, and politics for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. He studied journalism, economics and political science at the University of Florida. 

In addition to his own consulting firm, Alex has worked in market research, marketing, strategy, research, information gathering and consulting for international companies, non-profit organizations and various political campaigns. He is also the co-author of a book exposing some of the problems with today’s public education system.  Alex is also a regular contributor to The New American


Travel Bans, Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America

Travel Bans, Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America  “Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad. “

by Bill Lockwood

Mark Miller, a senior attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, writes in today’s The Hill regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional an immigrant-deportation law defended by the Trump Administration. Now the High Court turns attention to an immigration-related case, Trump v. Hawaii, which has “bigger stakes,” according to Miller.

According to Miller, the “highest profile” question before the court is “does the travel ban violate the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause?” The challengers submit that the president’s “travel ban” amounts to “religious discrimination.” Oral arguments are underway this week.

The Establishment Clause refers to the first line of the First Amendment, of course, which forbade the federal government from establishing an official state religion in America.

Islam and Religion?

The fundamental error here, repeated daily in the press and in education, is that Islam is a religion. In truth, it is a political movement that has very little “religion” to it. Islam is nothing but communism that sails under a religious flag. Its goal is world domination by the edge of the sword. Global Islamic Rule.

Muslim leaders world-wide have been bold and blatant that their efforts are toward an Islamic-dominated world. Iranian leader Ahmadenejad declared it (2006); Leading Muslim cleric in the UK Anjem Choudary insisted that the Muslim flag will one day “fly over the White House;” the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) chair Omar Ahmad confessed in 1998 that the Islamic goal is “to become dominant worldwide;” and the Muslim Brotherhood has given us “The Project”—a 100 year-plan to establish “Islamic government on earth.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, claims to have more than 70 affiliated terrorist organizations throughout the world. It states that “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Note that they define “jihad” for us. It involves “dying in the way of Allah.”

“Jihad” is the sacred obligation to impose Islam upon the entire world. This is not the creation of a few extremists or the hijacking of a peaceful religion by a handful of radicals. Jihad is mandated in the writings of the Quran, was practiced in bloody earnest by the false prophet Muhammad, and is overwhelmingly defined by classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists as a military concept of “waging war.”

According to the eminent scholar of Islamic history and culture at Princeton University, Bernard Lewis, and Cleveland Dodge, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, the “term ‘jihad’ has usually been understood as meaning ‘to wage war.’ The great collection of hadith all contain a section devoted to jihad in which the military meaning predominates. …According to Muslim teaching, jihad is one of the basic commandments of the faith, an obligation imposed upon all Muslims by God, through revelation … It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

Muslim Brotherhood

This brings us back to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Their outlined strategies for western world takeover include the “appearance of moderation,” the “use of deception to mask good,” the “extensive usage of social networks,” and to “cultivate Islamist intellectual community;” “using Western institutions until they convert them into the service of Islam.” Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad.  As Muslim Brotherhood leader Qaradowi stated, “jihad can be fought with the pen, then the sword.”

Muslim practitioners have no intention of following the Constitution of the United States. It is a devious political movement.

The great world –class scholar and former president John Quincy Adams warned America that Muhammad had poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. … Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], a war of twelve hundred years has already waged. The war is yet flagrant … while the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motive to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

Although Adams called Islam a “religion” himself, the essence of it, even by his own definition, is a political movement that presses physical war. If the High Court of the United States would recognize these simple facts Islam would be seen for what it is and travel bans would be not be challenged on the basis of “religious discrimination.”

« Older Entries