Tag Archives: Government Tyranny

Jack C. Askins, M.D.: SO HOW IS YOUR CONFIRMATION BIAS? 4 (1)

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Confirmation bias. We all have it, you know. It is part of the human condition. You can deny it but then that would be confirming your bias. And bias isn’t always a bad thing. Absence of bias, if it were to mean absence of opinion, would reveal a colorless and uninteresting human being. Opinions, and our dedication to them, contribute to our diversity, intellect, wit, and appeal. It is when bias in the form of opinion is used by those in positions of leadership and authority to silence alternative opinion (and bias), that it becomes tyranny and fascism when administered. The Founding Fathers of this country had that figured out and it is why we have freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


This is the definition of confirmation bias that applies to the world of medicine and science:

 In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret   information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.


In the course of doing literature research on the Covid virus and the pandemic, it became apparent that over the past 18 months, and particularly during 2021, confirmation bias was alive and well, stronger than ever, and being exploited by political leadership and the media to drive their agenda and change our culture. We were no longer having objective discussions on the medical science involving diagnosis and treatments of this virus. Diversity of opinion was no longer being tolerated.

When language is controlled by those with a bias to be confirmed, it can be used to silence and bully those with an opposing opinion. Words and concepts and their historical meanings can be gradually changed to represent hate, ignorance, or “misinformation”.

Dr. Mark McDonald is a prominent California psychiatrist who recently had the following quote that deals with the use of language to confirm the bias of those favoring mandated vaccines and to denigrate those who favor medical and body autonomy: “Pandemic of the unvaccinated” has emerged as an expression of propaganda meant to provoke anger toward those who exercise medical choice in deferring or refusing the experimental vaccine. It is meant to isolate, shame, and humiliate anyone who will not agree to surrender medical autonomy to the state. It intentionally divides Americans against one another while simultaneously distracting attention from the medical reality of poor vaccine efficacy and vaccine harm. The expression is devoid of scientific meaning but full of coercive psychological power. It must be challenged.

People have concerns about the mRNA shots and cite as the basis for their concerns it’s new technology never before used to create a vaccine, or the abbreviated approval process and lack of long term complications and outcome data, or the frantic coercion being used to promote and mandate its acceptance. There has been no acknowledgement of the people with natural immunity which is known to be better than vaccine immunity. Instead of a respectful dialogue that provides answers to their concerns, the mRNA hesitant are denigrated and turned into dangerous pariahs out to infect and harm the vaccinated. The word “antivaxxers” is now being used to refer to people who have these concerns.

So what is driving all of this mandate madness as it comes from hospital administrators and their physician advisors? It probably is not concern for public health as it has been shown that injecting hospital workers with these experimental drugs will not reduce Covid in the community. Nor has there been data to suggest hospital staff infecting patients. Follow the money is always a high percentage bet. Apparently the Feds pay more for a Covid diagnosis. We have all heard about the patient who was said to have died from Covid 19 when it was actually the gunshot wound to the head that caused his demise. Set those cycle thresholds high enough on the PCR machines and most anyone can be Covid positive. Follow the money.

Now, the Feds have gone full unconstitutional and tied hospital Medicare reimbursement to compliance with the “vaccine” mandates. If this stands, what will be mandated next? Abortions required to be done in all hospital facilities? How about gender re-assignment surgery on kids? Perhaps without parental consent. Medicare is due to run out of money soon. Maybe they will mandate no pacemakers or hip replacements, or dialysis after age 70. There is now a report of a woman in Colorado who has been denied consideration for a renal transplant because she is not “vaccinated” Use your imagination; there are no limits anymore. If they can require all citizens to be enrolled in an experimental drug trial without informed consent, they can do anything they want. This isn’t about public health.

But what of the physicians? Physicians do not appear to be profiting from this pandemic and the mRNA shots unless they bought stock in Pfizer or Moderna.

No, uninformed and misinformed probably explains most of the physician collaborators. There may be a few CDC zealots who believe everything that Dr. Fauci says as gospel, perhaps not realizing the CDC, the NIH, and perhaps the FDA have been compromised and politicized. Name one thing the CDC has been right about the past 21 months. As for the FDA, they abandoned all historical benchmarks and norms to “approve” this drug. Now that “leadership” physicians (local and national) have made their decisions, they seem not to be bothered by facts and new data discrediting this “vaccine” fiasco. That’s called confirmation bias.

For the hospital administrators and physicians who may read this piece, here is a short psychological test to determine how your confirmation bias is doing. If you become angry upon reading this, and ignore or discount its messages, you can be assured that deep part of your brain from which arise anger, hubris, arrogance, and confirmation bias is intact and functioning full strength. If however, you are motivated to do more reading and not just that which supports your current positions on vaccines and mandates, then you have taken a big step towards controlling and overcoming these base emotions. In either case, show some spine and do something positive for your fellow hospital workers, your colleagues, your community, the hospital, freedom and liberty and stop this evil and misguided mandate.


“Dr. Jack Askins is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.” 

Jack C. Askins, M.D. : IMMUNITY, VACCINES, AND MANDATE CONSIDERATIONS-Part 1 4 (1)

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

The purpose of a vaccine is to prevent an infection, or lessen the severity of an infection if a person were to become infected. From a public health standpoint, the purpose of a vaccine is to reduce and hopefully prevent the spread of a virus within a given population. It was concern for public health that resulted in a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a mandate for inoculation with the vaccine for smallpox in 1905 (Jacobson v Massachusetts). Subsequently, 100 years of Supreme Court and state case law have solidified vaccine mandates in the American public health arena.
It is worth noting smallpox was highly contagious, had a 30% mortality rate, and was disfiguring in survivors due to the skin lesions. Prior to the landmark 1905 decision, the smallpox vaccine had been found to be highly effective in preventing infection. Scientific discovery of a smallpox vaccine began in 1796 when Edward Jenner used material from a skin lesion on a cow (cowpox) to inoculate people and prevent smallpox. Cowpox was used until a more modern vaccine was created in the mid 1900’s.

The historical precedence and success of vaccines for smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and hepatitis has been highly referenced to support mandates for the inoculation of the mRNA drugs for Covid-19. However, there are important differences in the development and effectiveness of the drugs. The MMR, hepatitis, smallpox, and polio vaccines had much longer development times and phase 3 clinical trials typically lasted years. The overall effectiveness of these vaccines approach 100%. Durability of immunity is measured in years, and often last a lifetime. By comparison to the mRNA drugs, there was minimal reporting of complications in the CDC VAERS data for the vaccines over the past 30 years Vaccine hesitancy and opposition to the mandates most often focuses on the following: liberty and freedom to choose (“my body, my choice”), the abbreviated clinical trials and FDA approval schedule which is unprecedented, the lack of long-term complications data for the injections, the average 98-99% survival rate of the virus (nearly 100% survival in children), the emerging poor efficacy and durability of the mRNA drug, and the CDC VAERS data of complications and deaths following administration of the mRNA drugs. The frantic coercion now being applied in the enforcement of the mandates is also leading to resistance.

But here is the important point in regards to the current mandates: the mRNA vaccines we currently have, unfortunately, do not meet the standards set by previous vaccines,upon which rests 100 years of Supreme Court and state case law now being referenced to support “vaccine” mandates. The effectiveness of the Pfizer shots are down to 39-41% to prevent infection and the CDC admits the mRNA shots do not prevent viral spread by infected, vaccinated people. The CDC found it necessary to redefine “vaccine” as providing “protection” but not necessarily “immunity”.
The nasal viral loads of the vaccinated with a breakthrough infection is the same, if not higher, than the unvaccinated with a Covid infection. The poor effectiveness and inability of the mRNA drugs to prevent viral spread, negates the public health reasons for the mandates. The supporters of the mandates cite less severe infection and a lower death rate in the mRNA “vaccinated” but the Israeli and UK data argue against that as their current surge and hospitalizations have become a pandemic of the vaccinated.

Throughout all of this discourse, there has been a glaring omission of a very important question and fact. To not discuss this fact must be by design as it is a core fundamental in all of virology, immunology, and is the gold standard to which successful vaccine development has been compared. The question is, “what is more important, vaccine status or immune status?” The answer, of course, is immune status. Vaccines strive to attain immunity. Vaccine status does not guarantee immunity. As stated above, historical and traditional vaccines attain immunity with a very high degree of effectiveness in order to achieve FDA approval for mass vaccination. These mRNA drugs would not have achieved FDA approval using those historical standards.

There are interesting recommendations within the CDC vaccine recommendations at CDC.gov. I have enclosed “Table 3” that deals with “acceptable presumptive evidence of immunity” regarding the viruses responsible for measles, mumps, and rubella. Referring to “medical personnel”, the recommendations state “laboratory evidence of immunity” and “laboratory evidence of disease” are both identified as alternatives to “documentation of vaccination”. I have enclosed a copy of Table 3 (see link below) at the end of this document.

Laboratory evidence of immunity to the Covid-19 virus has advanced from these older MMR recommendations and include qualitative IgG and IgM antibodies against the spike protein, a semi-quantitative antibody test against the spike protein, and antibodies against the nucleocapsid of the virus (mRNA inoculation recipients do not form antibodies against the nucleocapsid). Additionally, there is a T cell test (T-Detect) which determines the presence of T cell immunity against the Covid virus and is reported as positive or negative.

I had a Covid infection in November, 2020, and did the T cell test 2 months ago and it was positive for T cell immunity. I did the other antibody tests this week and I have IgG and IgM antibodies against Covid-19, antibodies to the nucleocapsid, and my semiquantitative antibody result is 148.0 U/ml (negative is <0.8). In context with
available data and studies referenced in my fact sheet with references enclosed with this document, immunity against

Covid-19 that is robust, broad, and durable is demonstrated. There is mounting evidence the mRNA shots are not safe for the Covid-recovered person with natural immunity. Systemic inflammatory reactions (cytokine storm) and venous and arterial thrombosis have been shown to occur following the immunization. Thus, for the natural immunity person, there is no compelling reason to take the shot for immunity and there is a small risk of a significant vaccine injury.

Hooman Noorchasm, M.D., PhD is an internationally known and respected immunologist and immunology consultant. He recently stated “any move to mandate Americans who had recovered from the virus to get vaccinated was unscientific, unethical and illegal”. He has advocated for diagnostic testing for antibodies to Covid-19 prior to vaccination to see if there is established immunity present and determine need for the shots. He also states up to 30% of those who receive the mRNA inoculations do not establish adequate immunity. He goes on to say patients who receive the shots should be tested later for antibodies to ensure adequate immunization.

The unvaccinated are being presented as a monolithic group with no mention that it is a binary group comprised of Covid-naive and Covid-recovered people. This fact is not being acknowledged by the CDC in their zeal to promote the mRNA inoculations. Consequently, the media and senior leadership at United Regional Hospital are ignoring the established science related to natural immunity that has been shown to be superior to vaccine “protection”. A high percentage of our health care workers are Covid-recovered and would have measurable immunity to the virus. These are the same health care workers that worked all last year and so far this year at URH to provide care for sick, Covid-infected people in our community. To now take a one-size-fits-all approach and mandate these poorly effective drugs of limited durability with the coercion of loss of employment (or staff privileges) is nothing less than unethical, immoral, and possibly unconstitutional.

Note! Click the link and scroll down near the bottom of the page to Table #3.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm


“Dr. Jack Askins is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.” 

Bill Lockwood: Tyranny is Here 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

The day our forebears in the Americana have warned about is here. Tyranny. There is no other way to describe President Joe Biden’s pompously mandating the COVID shots for all citizens in American businesses that employ 100 persons or more. Lacking only the enforcement mechanism, the Biden presidency is operating as a dictatorship.

As of Wednesday of this week, twenty-seven governors or attorneys general have vowed to fight President Biden’s mandate that over 80 million private employees receive COVID vaccinations and undergo weekly testing. Putting teeth into the mandate, Biden promises that employers who fail to comply will be fined.

The Biden back door method to implementing such draconian measures is through OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health Administration. So announces his Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who promised that Biden has a slew of new and greater measures to be unveiled later this week. Vivek went so far as to say: we have to “use every level of government” to tackle this virus.

There you have it. OSHA is a part of the unconstitutional FOURTH branch of government. Truth be told, We the People have allowed unconstitutional actions to accelerate over the past 75—perhaps 100 years– to a degree that now the president feels emboldened to pull off the mask and reveal the dictatorship.

What unconstitutional actions do we have in mind? One illustration out of myriads is the following.

In 2011 Congress passed 81 bills into law. During the very same period, however, federal agencies pushed 3,807 new regulations on Americans. These rules are treated as law. In 2016, federal departments, agencies, and commission issued 3,853 rules while Congress passed only 214 bills into law—a ratio of 18 “rules” for every law.

According to Forbes magazine, the average has been 27 rules for every law over the past decade. From 1995 through December 2016, there have been a whopping 88,899 rules and regulations passed by federal agencies operating beneath the executive branch, but only 4,312 laws for the same period.

This is why federal bureaucrats act dictatorial in that they send out armies of regulatory compliance officers to monitor and enforce regulations, levy fines, make arrests and in general, demand compliance. These officers are unelected and unaccountable to the American people they supposedly serve.

The very first sentence of Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads, “ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Pretty simple. The Constitution does not allow Congress to sublet its lawmaking authority to the president, bureaucrats, or judges. But even more than that. Congress has only those legislative powers “herein granted.” This means that it has no authority to pass any and every law that Congressional members desire, but only those dealing with specific matters delegated by the Constitution.

Patience, tolerance, and constitutional ignorance in the American people do not begin to describe what has been occurring for nearly a century. Anesthetized is more like it. In the Biden Administration we are staring at the very definition of tyranny.

Bill Lockwood: America Managed by a Deep State 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

America is in real trouble. It is doubtful if elections will fix it. That is because our beloved country is now ruled by a Deep State—a behemoth apparatus of unelected Marxists and/or bureaucrats that are sitting in the driver’s seat, taking us over the cliff of totalitarianism. It is “we the people” who have let this monstrosity occur by allowing all powers to gravitate to a centralized government that now knows no bounds.

The Deep State, which openly threatens to completely destroy our constitutional system, is comprised of the main-stream media, which is the tainted mouthpiece for the Democratic Party; the military-industrial complex, the highest levels of the intelligence community, including the FBI and CIA, the national security apparatus, the communistic-leaning university brainwashing centers, plus the Socialist Party (aka Democrat Party).

These conclusions have become exceedingly clear in the wake of special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the “Russia” probe that plagued the presidency of Donald Trump.

According to the reporting by The Epoch Times, Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann, a cyber-security expert, has been charged with one count of lying to the FBI. However, in the indictment by Durham are allegations that a coterie of insiders working with the Hillary Clinton campaign actually “devised” the “Russia collusion” hoax against Donald Trump, beginning in 2016. The key findings, as well as the implications, include:

There is a Marxist-oriented Deep State that has been at work against all things Donald Trump.
This Deep State was able to manipulate and manufacture public opinion against conservative candidate and later president Trump by “shaping the narrative” of a “collusion” between Donald Trump and Russia, all of which has been found to be groundless. Yet, this narrative absorbed practically every bit of oxygen left in our country.

There is a Deep-Seated Conspiracy to Overturn the Freedoms of the United States. Most of Durham’s 27-page report “details the coordinated actions” of multiple players in the higher echelons of government. Sussmann himself headed a group of key players in the government to

• “devise allegations regarding a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.” These allegations were designed to
• trigger an FBI investigation into the Trump organization and “a particular Russian bank.” These insiders, led by the likes of Sussmann, worked with operatives of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
• Their goal was to damage the Trump campaign for presidency. “Durham established at the outset that the object of the conspiracy was achieved.”
• Jake Sullivan, the current national security adviser to President Biden, was himself involved in this conspiracy. Sullivan and Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, actually teamed up to brief the media on the Trump-Russia collusion story.
• The Main-Stream-Media gladly ran with it.
• The Democratic National Committee actually participated in the overall scheme through operative Alexandra Chalupa who, in turn, began working with willing Ukrainian officials to give the appearance of legitimacy.
• Chalupa had also worked closely with Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff, who would then report on one of Trump’s foreign policy team members, Carter Page. These manufactured reports were designed to obtain FISA warrants against Trump’s team. This also was successful.
• After Trump won the May 3, 2016 primary in Indiana, the colluders grappled with how to “roll-out” the entire story against Trump. All conspirators, including Hillary Clinton herself, understood that these machinations would never amount to a real indictment against Trump, but would at least hinder his candidacy, and later roadblock his presidency. This is exactly what occurred.
• British spy Christopher Steele was later brought into the conspiracy. In April 2016, Fusion GPS was hired by Perkins Coie specifically to “continue research” on Trump. Fusion would then turn around and hire Steele.

It is also more than interesting that the left becomes basically “unhinged” when the word “conspiracy” is used to refer to their plots, schemes, and machinations against Donald Trump or conservatism in general. However, after Steele was hired, with approval from Hillary Clinton, he hastily produced and undated infamous “Steele dossier” which alleged “a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

At the same time, the Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook was publicly suggesting on CNN with Jake Tapper that “experts are now saying the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

The incriminating emails in question were those of the DNC that had been released that showed that the DNC had undermined the campaign of Bernie Sanders. Mook went on to say, “This isn’t my assertion. There are a number of experts that are asserting this….This is what experts are telling us.” The experts he had in mind were apparently those of his Marxist club.

Two days later the then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released documents that alleged that Hillary Clinton allegedly approved a proposal from “one of her foreign policy advisors” to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security forces.”

Thus, the Russia-Trump collusion was a hoax—hatched in the brains of conspirators against our Republic. More ominous still is the fact that this Deep State continues to control the Unite States. So, whether the topic is vaccinations or unmanageable spending and debt, unconstitutional global “treaties” that strip America of its wealth, more onerous IRS armies grasping for the earned tax dollars of workers, or flagrantly abusing the law by leaving our borders wide open—little will be able to be done by constitutionalists unless strongest measures are quickly undertaken.

We need immediately to begin Nullifying lawless federal actions; establishing “sanctuary cities” and “counties” against the onslaught of this communism; empowering provisional governments at the state level to push back against the feds, or simply secede.

 

Bill Lockwood: Where Did America Go Wrong? 4 (2)

by Bill Lockwood

Our borders are completely out of control; our welfare state has become overburdened with every form of “benevolence” that any politician might image; and the bureaucratic Biden Administration now looks more like a communistic regime ordering draconian COVID shots for private businesses than a guardianship of liberty.

Make no mistake. This is the hour of trial for America. It is the Constitution – the fundamental law of our nation — that is being trashed.

The official National Archives Website has added a trigger “WARNING” to all readers of THE US CONSTITUTION, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The cautionary label warns about the “harmful language” in these documents.

The “trigger warning” by our own government reads: As part of the National Archives’ “institutional commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” we are now flagging “potentially harmful content,” which we define as reflecting “racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes” as well as being “discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more.”

I don’t even know what some of these terms mean, but our own government portrays our founding as hateful and the laws that flow from it as harmful. Little wonder therefore, that schools and universities portray our Founding Fathers as purveyors of hate who installed “protectionist policies” to guard their wealth. The National Archives’ Task Force insisted earlier this summer that the historic portrayal of the founding fathers has previously been “too positive.”

With sad reflection we ask,

Where Did America Go Wrong?

One of the chief taproots of our derangement is the so-called “Welfare System.” This is where the strong arm of government steals from one segment of society to redistribute to others—whether in monies or social benefits.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, in 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in Dan Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia. Madison stated, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Pretty telling isn’t it? Especially as we now have tens of thousands of Haitians massing at our border in Del Rio, TX specifically for the welfare benefits of housing, medical care, food, education and whatever other form the “government” checks may take. And not only Haitians—but millions upon millions of non-citizens that the “powers that be” have continued to shower with tax-payer funded benefits.

Other presidents who followed Madison had similar respect for the Constitution. In 1854 President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, observing, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” He added that to approve the proposed measure “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Numerous other illustrations could be given demonstrating the unconstitutionality of utilizing taxpayer money to give to those deemed to be in need.

We now live in a socialistic state that completely disdains the Constitution. It is true that not all of the details of socialism have been ironed out as of yet; for example, we do not have Universal Health Care run by the government—but we are close. But the most dangerous element that the Welfare State introduces is that it corrodes our ability to reason.

The problem is in our thinking. Or, lack thereof. The 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat exposed the mistake in our thought processes, which the founding generation was able to see.

Socialism … confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all….It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

The corruptions in our system seem overwhelming, whether in business, government, military, education, or whatever. Much of the poison that causes this can be primarily traced to the unconstitutional welfare system. It blinds us to the simple reality that “people assisting people” is not the same as “government” forcibly taking from some to redistribute to others.

 

Alex Newman: DHS Paints Critics of COVID Mandates & Vote Fraud as Terrorists 5 (1)

by Alex Newman

Americans opposed to COVID lockdowns and other government edicts supposedly related to the virus, as well as the “extremists” who believe the 2020 election was rigged, are at the top of the list of potential terror threats to the United States, according to a new advisory issued by the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security. “Conspiracy theorists” and purveyors of what the feds consider “disinformation” are now firmly in the crosshairs.

Through a bulletin issued by the National Terrorism Advisory System late last week, the increasingly discredited department, which also oversees the out-of-control Southern border, painted everyday Americans as the most significant terrorist threat to America. Establishment media outlets happily regurgitated the talking points.




A blue banner displaying the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seal with the text National Terrorism Advisory System - Bulletin - www.dhs.gov/advisories

Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland

The Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin regarding the current heightened threat environment across the United States.  The Homeland continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment leading up to and following the 20th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks as well religious holidays we assess could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence. These threats include those posed by domestic terrorists, individuals and groups engaged in grievance-based violence, and those inspired or motivated by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences. These actors are increasingly exploiting online forums to influence and spread violent extremist narratives and promote violent activity. Such threats are also exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.

Duration

Issued:  August 13, 2021 02:00 pm
Expires:  November 11, 2021 02:00 pm

Additional Details

  • Through the remainder of 2021, racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists will remain a national threat priority for the United States. These extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks.  Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal strains and tensions, driving several plots by domestic violent extremists, and they may contribute to more violence this year.
  • Additionally, leading up to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula recently released its first English-language copy of Inspire magazine in over four years, which demonstrates that foreign terrorist organizations continue efforts to inspire U.S.-based individuals susceptible to violent extremist influences.
  • Historically, mass-casualty domestic violent extremist attacks linked to RMVEs have targeted houses of worship and crowded commercial facilities or gatherings. Some RMVEs advocate via online platforms for a race war and have stated that civil disorder provides opportunities to engage in violence in furtherance of ideological objectives. The reopening of institutions, including schools, as well as several dates of religious significance over the next few months, could also provide increased targets of opportunity for violence though there are currently no credible or imminent threats identified to these locations.
  • Foreign and domestic threat actors, to include foreign intelligence services, international terrorist groups and domestic violent extremists, continue to introduce, amplify, and disseminate narratives online that promote violence, and have called for violence against elected officials, political representatives, government facilities, law enforcement, religious communities or commercial facilities, and perceived ideologically-opposed individuals. There are also continued, non-specific calls for violence on multiple online platforms associated with DVE ideologies or conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud and alleged reinstatement, and responses to anticipated restrictions relating to the increasing COVID cases.
  • Ideologically motivated violent extremists fueled by personal grievances and extremist ideological beliefs continue to derive inspiration and obtain operational guidance through the consumption of information shared in certain online communities. This includes information regarding the use of improvised explosive devices and small arms.
  • Violent extremists may use particular messaging platforms or techniques to obscure operational indicators that provide specific warning of a pending act of violence.
  • Law enforcement have expressed concerns that the broader sharing of false narratives and conspiracy theories will gain traction in mainstream environments, resulting in individuals or small groups embracing violent tactics to achieve their desired objectives. With a diverse array of threats, DHS is concerned that increased outbreaks of violence in some locations, as well as targeted attacks against law enforcement, may strain local resources.
  • Nation-state adversaries have increased efforts to sow discord. For example, Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked media outlets have repeatedly amplified conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 and effectiveness of vaccines; in some cases, amplifying calls for violence targeting persons of Asian descent.

How We Are Responding

  • DHS will continue to identify and evaluate calls for violence, including online activity associated with the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives, by known or suspected threat actors and provide updated information, as necessary.
  • DHS continues to encourage the public to maintain awareness of the evolving threat environment and report suspicious activity.
  • DHS is coordinating with state and local law enforcement and public safety partners to maintain situational awareness of potential violence in their jurisdictions and maintain open lines of communication with federal partners.
  • DHS is also advancing authoritative sources of information to debunk and, when possible, preempt false narratives and intentional disinformation, and providing educational materials to promote resilience to the risks associated with interacting with and spreading disinformation, conspiracy theories and false narratives.
  • More broadly, DHS remains committed to identifying and preventing terrorism and targeted violence while protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all persons.

How You Can Help

Be Prepared and Stay Informed

  • Be prepared for emergency situations and remain aware of circumstances that may place you at risk.
  • Maintain digital media literacy to recognize and build resilience to false and harmful narratives.
  • Make note of your surroundings and the nearest security personnel.
  • Government agencies will provide details about emerging threats as information is identified. The public is encouraged to listen to local authorities and public safety officials.

If You See Something, Say Something®. Report suspicious activity to local law enforcement or call 911.

The National Terrorism Advisory System provides Americans with alert information on homeland security threats. It is distributed by the Department of Homeland Security. More information is available at: www.dhs.gov/advisories. To receive mobile updates: twitter.com/dhsgov

If You See Something Say Something® used with permission of the NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority.




“Extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the US as a rationale to conduct attacks,” Homeland Security bureaucrats claimed in the bulletin, acknowledging that there is no specific threat or credible information that it knows about suggesting that anyone is actually planning anything.

Also under scrutiny are those Americans suspicious about the 2020 election — a number that polls suggest includes a majority of Americans and an overwhelming supermajority of Republicans. The mostly peaceful protest on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol, which Democrats and their media allies continue falsely referring to as an “insurrection” despite nobody having been charged with anything resembling insurrection, is key to the narrative. There was no mention about growing suspicions of FBI involvement in the January 6 incident.

“These actors are increasingly exploiting online forums to influence and spread violent extremist narratives and promote violent activity,” Biden’s “Homeland Security” bureaucrats claimed without giving any examples of anyone promoting violent activity. “Such threats are also exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.”

Speaking to NBC News, which helped amplify the government’s propaganda against Americans, federal spokesmen echoed those claims. “DHS has seen an increasing but modest level of individuals calling for violence in response to the unsubstantiated claims of fraud related to the 2020 election fraud and the alleged ‘reinstatement’ of former President Trump,” the DHS spokesman was was quoted as saying by NBC News, adding that the concerns are becoming more mainstream.

Tackling so-called “thought crimes” is becoming a central element of the administration’s supposed effort to prevent terror. “DHS is focused on the nexus between violence and extremist ideologies,” a spokesman for the agency was quoted as saying, with “extremist ideologies” being essentially any ideologies the Biden administration disagrees with including ideas such as the U.S. Constitution and resistance to COVID tyranny.

The warnings about the alleged threat of conspiracy theorists, civil libertarians and election-integrity advocates came shortly after the FBI came under fire for urging Americans to spy on and report their own family members for “extremist” views. Critics blasted the cryptic call as a throwback to the barbarous Stasi in Communist-ruled East Germany, which encouraged citizens to constantly surveil and report each other to the murderous regime.

While again acknowledging that they have no specific information about any specific alleged threat, Homeland Security claimed that the U.S. government was not “prepared” for the January 6 incident because it did not spy on Americans closely enough. And so, DHS “leaders” cited by NBC vowed to more closely monitor social media and especially “extremist rhetoric.” DHS is also reportedly working with local law-enforcement agencies on the issue.

“We are currently in a heightened terrorism-related threat environment, and DHS is aware of previous instances of violence associated with the dissemination of disinformation, false narratives and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election,” the DHS spokesman said, dismissing widespread and well-founded public concerns over election integrity as “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories.”  

In general, though, the government claims to believe that threats from everyday Americans are lurking everywhere, except among the left-wing extremists burning down U.S. cities and attacking police. “Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal strains and tensions, driving several plots by domestic violent extremists, and they may contribute to more violence this year,” the DHS claimed.

Unspecified “religious holidays” may also trigger terror attacks, the Biden administration said. The United States “continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment leading up to and following the 20th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks as well religious holidays we assess could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence,” the DHS bulletin argued.

After repeatedly emphasizing that conservative and liberty-minded Americans are the main supposed terror threat to America, the administration reluctantly acknowledged supposed foreign threats, too. “These threats include those posed by domestic terrorists, individuals and groups engaged in grievance-based violence, and those inspired or motivated by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences,” the bulletin claimed.

There were no warnings issued about domestic terror groups such as Antifa or Black Lives Matter. The two communist organizations, which have numerous links to hostile foreign regimes and organizations, destroyed billions in property and were responsible for numerous deaths last year in violent riots that swept across major cities nationwide. Even RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) in Congress such as Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said it was a “grave mistake” for the administration to ignore those threats.

Meanwhile, despite the supposed concerns about terror and national security, the Southern border with Mexico overseen by the same federal agency remains wide open. Because of that, actual terrorists with dangerous intent have been waltzing across the border into the “Homeland” practically uninterrupted on a regular basis.

Consider the recent arrest of two Yemeni men on the government’s no-fly and FBI terrorist watch lists who were arrested while illegally crossing the border from Mexico in January and March. According to U.S. Border Patrol officials, over a thousand illegal aliens each day walk across the border and are not even pursued because agents are so busy taking care of the growing tsunami of children showing up at the border.

Ironically, even as the administration works to stoke public fears about alleged domestic terror plots, it is vowing to re-settle tens of thousands of Afghans in the United States after the disastrous Biden withdrawal. Security and terror experts say that leaves the door wide open for would-be terrorist infiltrators to be plopped into local communities nationwide at taxpayer expense.

Of course, legitimate counter-terrorism experts focused on actual terror threats to the United States were purged from federal service during the Obama administration — especially those who knew that jihadists and violent communists such as Antifa posed the most significant domestic terror threat to America’s national security.

The expertise and training programs developed by actual experts were replaced with discredited “countering violent extremism” (CVE) nonsense focusing on the largely imaginary threat of “white supremacists.” Critics say that is how the FBI and other agencies missed obvious warning signs and clues about the Boston Marathon attack, the Orlando nightclub massacre, the San Bernadino slaughter, and other jihadist terror attacks.

Now, as The New American has been warning for decades, the end goal is coming into view more clearly: Turning the massive federal intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus against mainstream Americans concerned about the lawlessness coming out of the federal government. If the scheming is not checked by Congress and state governments, the administration fully intends to further weaponize the power of the federal government against its own citizens.

In a widely criticized document entitled National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, the administration made clear that it is not just violence that is at issue — but ideas and thoughts that supposedly might possibly lead a person to commit a violent act. And it will not just be the federal government involved.

“Preventing domestic terrorism and reducing the factors that fuel it demand a multifaceted response across the Federal Government and beyond,” Biden says in an introduction to the National Strategy document. “That includes working with our critical partners in state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and in civil society, the private sector, academia, and local communities, as well as with our allies and foreign partners.”

But of course, only some ideas that might lead to violence are actually in the crosshairs. For example, consider that the admitted terrorist Floyd Corkins told the FBI that he was inspired to commit terrorism and mass-murder against conservatives and Christians by the far-left hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center. And yet, instead of targeting the radical ideology of the SPLC, the feds work with the discredited organization to target mainstream Americans.

Ironically, perhaps, the mass-murdering dictatorship ruling mainland China sounded a lot like the Biden administration in its demonization of those who reject total government power under the guise of keeping people safe from COVID.

For instance, through its mouthpiece Global Times, the Chinese Communist Party used an article about the terror alert to blast “loopholes” in the Constitution’s “federal system” that have “restricted” the power of the federal government when “encountering a crisis.” Some states, the regime said, are “reluctant to do the right thing to combat the epidemic.” Part of the problem is that “Americans advocate individualism,” the CCP said, slamming opposition to mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and travel restrictions.

With each day that passes, it is becoming more and more clear that the U.S. government — using rhetoric and talking points almost identical to those of the murderous Chinese Communist Party — is being weaponized against Americans and freedom. The outlandish new “terror” warning painting tens of millions of mainstream Americans with legitimate concerns about individual liberty and election fraud as terrorists should be a wake-up call to all.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Kathleen Marquardt: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, REDISTRIBUTING OUR WEALTH BY THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS. 0 (0)

by Kathleen Marquardt

We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

But again, Tom nails it: Public/Private Partnerships = Government-
Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.

In a must-read article from Thinking HighwaysRandy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.

Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.

Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.

But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.

Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.

A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)

So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.

A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”

My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.

Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/09/public-private-partnerships-redistributing-our-wealth-by-the-millions-and-billions/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: IMMORAL DEMOCRAT WOMEN MISLEADING THE YOUNG 0 (0)

Jesse Lee Peterson blasts new crop of leftist radicals in government

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Immoral Democrat women have corrupted young people to believe that morality is not important, and now more than ever these women are being elected to run our government. Women, more than men, promote and make excuses for immorality. Real men do not go along with wrongdoing, but beta males abandon morality and follow these women. Such people hate God, hate men, hate the unborn child, and love to promote their immoral false morality.

Nancy Pelosi said that President Trump’s proposed border wall is “immoral.” But she’s immoral – she supports abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal aliens coming in unchecked, putting our country at risk. She makes wrong people feel right. Maxine Waters is also immoral. She wants to impeach the president, pretending to care about children and families separated at the border. But she says nothing about abortion or the broken black family. She makes immoral people out to be “victims” and then blames the moral people!

A new crop of immoral women have taken office, voted in by immoral young Democrat voters. Liberal magazine Vanity Fair put out a photo featuring freshman Democrat “women of color” now in our government. The photo features Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Deb Haaland, Veronica Escobar and Sharice Davids. They set a poor example in their personal lives and would never have been elected when the country cared about morality.

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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y., is a socialist who falsely calls President Trump a “racist.” She has been living with a boyfriend whom she calls her “partner.” I have had many conversations in my Church and on my radio show with Millennials who have been misled to believe it’s okay to live with a boyfriend or girlfriend and have sex before marriage. (Radical homosexuals and feminists push the term “partner” instead of “boyfriend” or “husband” to dull awareness that men and women are different and not “equal.” They also try to kill people’s consciousness that homosexual relations are abnormal and immoral.)

Ayanna Pressley is celebrated by morally bankrupt people as the first “African American” representative from Massachusetts. But she married a man who already has a young daughter by another woman. This is immoral and selfish – children’s souls yearn for their real parents, and don’t want to compete with a stepparent for attention. Ayanna and her new “husband” have sacrificed his daughter’s soul to satisfy their own desires. This beta male supported his new “wife’s” campaign and has been misleading other young black males a “leader” in Barack Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” program.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is a divorced and remarried mother, and a hijab-wearing Somalian Muslim refugee. She should not be allowed to wear an Islamic headscarf in Congress! She supports socialism and the radical “LGBTQIA+” agenda. She also lied about opposing “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) against Israel. Moral people would never elect such a Muslim to run our government!

Deb Haaland, D.-New Mexico, is celebrated by shallow people as one of the first “Native American” women in Congress. She was a single mother and raised a daughter who came out as a lesbian. After Haaland was elected, she falsely accused President Trump of “rhetoric of erasing trans people in this country” and “ripping children from their parents.” This failure of a parent turned her daughter away from the father, and pretends to care about people confused about their gender and sexuality.

Veronica Escobar, D.-Texas, is a “Mexican-American” mother and politician who officiated the so-called “wedding” of a young “gay couple” who supported her. She claimed Trump “really frightened” her, saying, “I worry about the planet. I worry about immigrants. I worry about women. I worry about the LGBT community.” President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the sheriff falsely accused of “racial profiling” and “contempt” of court by a liberal judge. In reaction, she cursed and lied, “Un-f***ing-believable! … do you know what message that sends to Hispanics? ‘You don’t belong here.’” She doesn’t belong in office!

Sharice Davids, D.-Kansas, is another first “Native American” female representative – and a lesbian, the “first openly LGBT member of Congress from Kansas.”

Last week I wrote about “the first Palestinian American” Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D.-Michigan. The divorced single mother told one of her young sons of President Trump, “We’re gonna impeach the motherf—er.” She repeated this at a bar at a MoveOn.org event after being sworn into office. I said then that she is a national security threat to the country. She should be focused on setting a better example for her children, not running the country!

President Trump is a moral man. He loves the country. He moved past his errors in life, no longer bragging about wrongdoing. Sinners attack Trump because he says he does not ask God for forgiveness. But he does right today – not wrong. Once you repent and are born again of God, you no longer sin. The hypocrites, like Satan, endlessly bring up Trump’s past to accuse him, when they’re no better.

They don’t care about what’s right, but hate good men. Just look at the immoral women they promote.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/immoral-democrat-women-misleading-the-young/ 

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Raging War in America is about Morality 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

The war in Washington over the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a microcosm of the war occurring in America. It is a religious and moral battle for the soul of our nation. Our Republic was founded upon the one basic principle of the sacredness of life. This is why governments are instituted among men, wrote the Founders in the Declaration. But Democrats and many Republicans hate this honored cornerstone and are willing to bring the entire house of America down to defend the murder of the unborn.

That this is not overdrawn is seen in Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s tweet after her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh last week. “Brett Kavanaugh had no problem saying Roe v. Wade is ‘settled law’ but he refused to tell me if he thought it was correctly decided. His own email shows what he believes about the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn Roe.” Then she finished with this hashtag: “This is #WhatsAtStake, plain and simple.”

Jonathan Zimmerman, writing in USA Today (9-16-18), put it bluntly: “I don’t want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Based on what he has said and written, I fear that Kavanaugh will roll back reproductive rights, environmental regulations, and many causes that I hold dear.” Reproductive rights is lib-speak for killing the unborn. They demand the right to kill, but cannot say it very clearly lest the masses wise up.

The News Analysis of the National Catholic Register (9-27-18) headline that “Abortion politics are central to the dramatic and bitter political theater currently playing out in Washington.”

Killing the unborn is paramount to the Democrat Party. In the “Borking” of Robert Bork, then-Sen. Ted Kennedy infamously drew the battle-line. He stated that the America of Robert Bork would be a country in which “abortions would be occurring in back-alleys.” Translation: we are going to kill our unborn, lawful or unlawful; neither we will not give up our sexual immorality that leads to it.

Our Constitution—The Civil Bible of America

A collective statement signed almost a half-century ago by dignitaries such as Herbert C. Hoover, Alfred E. Smith; Mrs. William H. Taft, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Benjamin Harrison, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt and others, found in the fronts-piece of Judge Thomas James Norton’s handbook on the Constitution, reads,

Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, ‘The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans.’” (emp. added)

J. Evetts Haley, the late Texas historian, in his A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power, prefaces the text with this observation among many which adequately describe the current populace: a “…healthy, moral people, even when denied the facts of national life—the truth essential to their survival—intuitively sense that something is wrong.”

Indeed, something is wrong. Wrong in America. And it is not Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is the moral fabric that holds any people together and legitimizes the existence of government. The disunity at the national and local level is “a natural and inevitable result of illegitimate government.” And legitimacy in government can only be restored by principle: “principle based on moral character.” In other words, unless we can restore moral character to our governing principles, America operates with an illegitimate government.

By defalcation of Congress on the one hand and Judicial usurpation on the other [Roe v. Wade, bl]—with the connivance and ready support of the Executive Branch—the Federal Government has been corrupted into a vehicle of vast and unrestrained power over the lives, the effects and the affairs of the American people.

The legitimacy of our government can only be restored by returning to an ethical base. It cannot be restored by “false fronts” such as eradicating “hate” as the cause of national tragedy and stresses between people; or the preaching of peace “while appeasing evil” (see Jeremiah 6:14). These types of propaganda only exacerbate “instead of healing the malady.” America’s derangement can only be healed by returning to God and His moral standard. This fight in Washington and across America is about the sacredness of life.

G. Campbell Morgan was a leading British evangelist who preached from the pulpit of Westminster Chapel in London during the early part of the 20th century. In his summary of the First Book of Kings in the Old Testament he laid out the obvious; every human government that leaves God out is doomed to end in disaster. This is the message of 1 Kings. Even “religious forms and ceremonies are grave-clothes if the spirit be not right with God.”

A nation cannot be governed by insisting that it shall adopt religious forms or ceremonies. Neither can a nation be governed by internal development, or commercial treaties, or ships which ply to Tarshish to bring back apes and peacocks [reference to Solomon’s reign, 970-931 B.C.; see 1 Kings 10:22]….shut God out of the question and democracy will be the most awful tyranny the world has ever seen.

Raging war in America is about moral character. Not Brett Kavanaugh’s—but the people. If Brett Kavanaugh is not confirmed, it will be because we could not find enough substance in our own standards to withstand diabolical onslaughts spearheaded by Democrats.

Guglielmo Ferrero, the Italian historian, in The Principles of Power, captures the essence of the battle.

Authority comes from above … legitimacy comes from below. [This] … explains why democracy cannot be legitimized without an internal spiritual unity if all the people are not in agreement both on the principle of legitimacy and on the great moral and religious principles of life. If that unity does not exist, the right of opposition becomes the battleground for a struggle to the death. [as quoted by Haley].

Times may change, but the motivations of human nature; the moral and spiritual principles upon which the life of our Republic hang, do not.

« Older Entries