“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
The time has come for the United States to take decisive action to defend its strategic interests in Greenland as part of a broader Arctic national policy. While the United States has played an essential role in Arctic and Greenland security in the past, in recent decades, a far-sighted vision of America’s Arctic imperative was neglected through multiple administrations. As international interest in the Arctic grows, the United States must adopt a robust policy for Greenland that clarifies our national relationship to the Danish territory, empowers a forward-leaning military posture, and provides for developing commercial trade relationships.
Since the Second World War, the United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland to defend against hostile nations developing a military presence in Greenland. At the outset of the war, the United States supported Denmark in defense of Greenland against Germany’s threat establishing a forward operating base out of the territory, from which maritime attacks or amphibious landings could be conducted. Soon afterward, the Cold War amplified the strategic value of Greenland as the Soviet threat grew. While the possibility of a Soviet military buildup in Greenland was real, the island’s military value became more offensive, as Thule Air Force Base provided the shortest path for American bombers to reach Russian targets in the event of an attack. Further, Thule’s location as the closest military outpost to the North Pole provided the ideal place to establish critical radar capabilities to monitor and communicate with polar satellites, an essential mission operation still necessary today.
While the United States and Denmark have a long-standing military relationship in Greenland, the Danish vision for Greenland has often contrasted strongly with the United States’ desires. In the 1960s, the United States Army engaged in several covert military experiments in Greenland without the Danish government’s knowledge or consent. Two of the more notable experiments were the construction of Camp Century, established to determine the feasibility of installing Minuteman missiles in the remote environment, and Project Iceworm, an attempt to construct tunnels and military base facilities from within Greenland’s ice sheet. Both experiments were doomed to diplomatic failure, as Denmark was less than enthusiastic about the United States’ military actions performed without their knowledge. For Denmark, Minuteman nuclear missiles’ presence risked Denmark’s position as a non-nuclear power, which diplomatically could not be compromised. Without Camp Century, there was no means to support Project Iceworm: The Greenland ice sheet proved to be too plastic to support a network of military tunnels, as tunnels required regularly retrenching to remain sustainable. The result of these failed experiments was a chill in the Danish-American military relationship. The United States could not establish the full spectrum of defense capabilities for Arctic defense that it had envisioned. The United States needs polar forward radar capabilities to support missile defense projects. Meanwhile, Denmark distrusted its former partner and the United States military’s presence within its sovereign territory.
Following the end of the Cold War, many nations have taken an interest in Arctic development. As supposed “climate change” in the Arctic warms the polar region and decreases the Arctic ice sheets’ expanse, Arctic regions are becoming a new and contested frontier for national development. The Russian Federation is pushing sovereignty claims deep into the Arctic and the North Pole, seeking to develop underwater energy reserves, and maintaining the world’s largest fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers to sustain the northern sea route. Canada, likewise, has been quietly asserting its territorial sovereignty far to the north. Not to be left out of the Arctic race, China has asserted its commercial presence in the north, including negotiating to open mining operations in Greenland and investing in a fleet of icebreakers. As warming trends continue, a massive land grab for the Arctic threatens to create new tensions in the north.
The interest in the Arctic has not escaped Denmark’s notice. In response to growing military interest in the region, Denmark has increased its military deployment to Greenland and established an Arctic command to defend Danish holdings. Denmark’s more substantial hand is diplomatic, as it seeks to arrange cooperative relationships as a founding member of the Arctic Council. However, the Danish relationship with the United States remains in a state of tension, increasing the uncertainty in the region.
While many politicians, public policy, and military advisers have tried to warn of the growing importance of the Arctic, the United States’ military policy has not been sufficiently revised to address Arctic threats. Following the Cold War, drawdowns in the U.S. military led to a decade of the United States searching for footing in its place as the sole superpower in the world. Following 9/11, military intelligence and operations’ focus became the middle east and a war on terrorism. Finally, during the Obama administration, the military sequester hampered the military’s core war-fighting and defense functions, preventing substantive enhancements to the U.S. Arctic warfare posture. Thus, the United States is lagging in its Arctic military strategy at precisely the time that other nations are exercising their regional presence.
While the demand for bold American action in the Arctic has grown, none could have anticipated President Trump raising the possibility of formally acquiring the island of Greenland from Denmark and incorporating it as sovereign territory of the United States. Immediately mocked by the international media and political pundits, the President’s comments created a surprising space in the public discourse to explore the possibility of an American Greenland. There are many advantages and opportunities in what could become the most massive single territorial expansion of the United States in history, even as such an opportunity seemed impossibly lost in the past. The same drivers luring other nations to Arctic development could present greater possibilities to the United States.
Foremost, the United States would finally be able to cement its strategic military relationship with Greenland. Establishing Greenland naval bases would improve American defense of northern trade routes and mineral exploration. Naval defense of the Northwest Passage and a base of operations for an American fleet of icebreakers would open up the potential for safe and sustainable maritime trade between Asian nations and Europe through the north using dramatically shorted and less expensive trade routes. Additionally, an empowered United States could fully implement a ground-based missile defense capability. Expansion of the existing Thule Air Force Base would allow the facility to take on new missions for patrol and defense of Arctic airspace. New eastern bases to establish and train Arctic warfare ground forces in the face of new threats become a real possibility.
An American Greenland has much more to offer than military benefits: Greenland is ripe with development potential. Denmark has never capitalized fully on its territorial holdings, due in part to tensions between Greenlanders and Denmark about how the territory should be developed. With Greenlanders in favor of economic development, partnering with the United States could open up a new wave of economic development, starting with mineral rights. The United States has one of the most robust oil and gas development industries globally, and the opportunity to develop Greenland’s oil reserves could power economic transformation beneficial to both parties. The United States trade deficit consists in large part of oil imports. By increasing our supply of domestically produced oil, the United States would be in a position to balance the trade deficit dramatically. A strong American economic presence in Greenland would further serve as a disincentive to the predatory trade practices of nations such as China, limiting other nations’ ability to establish a strong economic and political footprint in the region.
The potential winners in an American Greenland are the Greenlanders themselves, consisting of the Inuit tribes and Danish settlers’ decedents. The harsh climate and limited economic prospects of life in Greenland make living on the island a challenging proposition. Poverty is present throughout the island, with a total population of only slightly over fifty thousand people, limiting economic growth potential and sustainment. The prospects of economic development, increasing wages, access to trade goods, and improved medical care access would be a welcome boost for the island’s inhabitants.
Regardless of whether Greenland’s territorial acquisition by the United States comes to fruition, the potential for economic, political, and military development remains compelling. Concerns about international imperialism and expansion in the Arctic region cannot be disregarded as nations position themselves to compete in the opening Arctic region: The Arctic will be developed, whether the United States is a forward player or not. Solidifying and normalizing the U.S. relationship with Denmark and Greenland is the best path for U.S. interest in the Arctic.
Works Cited
Beary, Brian. “Race for the Arctic.” CQ Global Researcher, 1 Aug. 2008, pp. 213-42. Access 15 Nov. 2020.
In his article “Race for the Arctic,” Brian Beary draws attention to Greenland’s strategic importance as the major world powers pursue land claims, mineral rights, international trade, and new shipping routes. Attempts to expand oil explorations have impacted Greenland’s position globally but have had impacts locally. Climate change offers unique economic development opportunities for a province long neglected by Europe (the European Union has no land presence in the Arctic, including Greenland, which is not part of the E.U.). Still, local fears of exploitation grow as Russia and China flex their economic and political muscle in the region. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides an opportunity for nations to file claims on Arctic resources; however, the United States Senate has not shown the political will to ratify the treaty, including its land and mineral claims mechanisms. Greenland offers an easier path to oil exploration, with many international mineral and oil corporations opening offices and operations on the island.
Brian Beary notes the Chinese trade dynamic with North America reaches many geographically diverse and strategic ports of call. Beijing’s eye is on the Arctic: A Chinese firm secured a contract with Greenland to exploit mining operations. China could book this contract in part because no other nation would match the investment offer, allowing China to buy its way into the Arctic. Additionally, Beary refers to Ed Gerwin’s observation that while the United States runs a trade surplus in manufactured and agricultural goods, oil imports are the main contributor to the U.S. trade deficit. As trade tensions continue to rise in 2020, the impact of oil production on the United States trade dynamic, particularly related to claims in Greenland and the large Arctic region, are matters that should direct United States policies in both international trade and energy.
Cooper, Mary H. “Missile Defense.” CQ Researcher, 8 Sept. 2000, pp. 689-712. Access 15 Nov. 2020.
In her article “Missile Defense,” Mary Cooper observes that a critical part of a missile defense system is the cooperation of international allies, particularly in providing sites for radar installations. Implementing an antimissile shield in the Arctic region that could protect all fifty states will require forward radar stations outside the present United States, in territory held by Great Britain or Danish Greenland. Former President Ronald Reagan articulated a pivotal motivation to missile defense: A robust defense system that is practically impervious to attack has the potential to make nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” However, such a future rests on the willingness of often fickle international partnerships to participate in military alignments complicated by international commercial entanglements with Russia, China, and international bodies.
As Arctic nations are beginning to develop underwater natural resources in the Arctic aggressively, Reed Karaim observes that Denmark is taking a more assertive posture with Greenland and its Arctic holdings. In his article “Arctic Development”, Karaim notes Denmark’s position in the Arctic territorial race is substantial. Denmark lays claim to seabed territory along Greenland’s continental shelf, one of the most desirable Arctic regions for offshore oil exploration. Further, Denmark has established an Arctic command and expanded its military presence in Greenland. As the Arctic territorial rush begins in earnest, overlapping sovereignty claims to polar resources are likely to become more contentious.
Petersen, Nikolaj. “The Politics of US Military Research in Greenland in the Early Cold War.” Centaurus, vol. 55, no. 3, Aug. 2013, pp. 294–318. EBSCOhost. Access 15 Nov. 2020.
The Danish-American political relationship during the Cold War led to unusual military research in Greenland. Nikolaj Petersen explains that since 1941 the United States has had a military presence in Greenland since Denmark cannot bear the burden of defending the island alone. Initially, the U.S. involvement in Greenland was to prevent a German stronghold from developing in Greenland at the outset of WWII. However, following the war, the Soviet threat drove the development of Thule Air Force Base as a forward deployment of bombers that could reach the Russian heartland in half the time that Soviet bombers could reach the United States. Greenland’s position at the top of the world near the geographic north pole provided unique strategic advantages, driving a robust Danish-American relationship with NATO’s rise. Despite the alignment of strategic priorities, differences emerged between Denmark and the United States, leading to the creation of unusual cover projects by the U.S. Army to experiment quietly with new strategies for deploying Minuteman missiles. The projects Camp Century and Project Iceworm demonstrate the lengths to which the United States was willing to extend itself in Danish Greenland without proper approval. Despite optimism by the State Department of Danish acceptance of Iceworm, the Danish government’s predictable response was a flat “no.” As a result, Denmark has not allowed the development of new defense areas in Greenland, leading to a current military relationship that both parties find unsatisfactory.
Weeks, Jennifer. “Future of the Arctic.” CQ Researcher, 20 Sept. 2013, pp. 789-812. Access 15 Nov. 2020.
In the article “Future of the Arctic,” Jennifer Weeks explores the future of the Arctic as climate change draws international interest to an area of the world previously locked away from human development by extreme conditions. Nation-states are jockeying for position to lay claim to untapped Arctic assets, starting with oil and natural gas reserves that may become accessible, then extending to other minerals and food sources. For example, Russia is pursuing regional claims according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea–which the United States had not become a signatory of–while Canada extends claims to land masses up to the North Pole. The Arctic Council, an international forum promoting cooperation and coordination between eight member states, also looks to extend its reach in the region. Even nations such as India and China are actively exploring opportunities in the Arctic, with China investing in a fleet of icebreakers. The Northwest passage past Greenland to Alaska presents new opportunities for international shipping to open up European and Asian trade in ways never before possible. The opening of the Arctic portends seismic geopolitical shifts as new energy, commercial, and military applications reverberate globally.
A great day to celebrate friends – another victory in the war against Fake News!
There’s so much I could say, but it’s better to let the videos speak for themselves.
First, James O’Keefe drops the mic on CNN in a HUGE way…
Then the Tapes start to Drop…
There so much here I won’t even try to unpack it all. The ridiculousness of comparing the presumed Trump-Biden transition to 9/11 is rich, given that all CNN cared about in the Obama-Trump transition was “Russia Russia Russia” and nothing of genuine NATSEC threats!
And James O’Keef on the Right-Wing Mark Levin Show (apparently his first name is “Right-Wing” and not “Mark,” who knew?)
Today we have some more Videos Drop… starting with actual proof of what we already knew, that CNN was carrying the water protecting Hunter Biden…
CNN Execs SPIKE COVERAGE Of New York Post Hunter Biden Laptop Bombshell:
Next comes this exposure of outrageous comments by Cynthia Hudson…
CNN Senior Vice President Cynthia Hudson TERRIFIED That Cubans Support Trump; “Attracted to bullies”
…and a third recording of Jeff Zucker directly:
Jeff Zucker Labels Donald Trump A Bigger Threat To National Security Than Voter Fraud
None of this is really that revelatory to Qtree readers, other than of course having smoking gun evidence of things we’ve known all along. Howard Beale fans knew this a long time ago:
JOE BIDEN RESEARCH THREAD: Please post anything related to Joe Biden and growing questions about his mental health and fitness to run as candidate for President in 2020. Reminder: The Wolf reserves the right to moderate comments as needed. Not that we expect any problems from our QTreepers!
First, here is Dr. Leonard McCoy delivering the bad news about Joe Biden to Captain James T. Kirk:
A top surrogate for the Bernie Sanders campaign told Fox News this week that former Vice President Joe Biden is “mentally deteriorating” and warned that Democrats will face a “disaster” if the presidential hopeful is nominated.
Justin Horwitz, a Democrat strategist and a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign, told Fox News host Tucker Carlson Thursday that there is a consensus among top Democrats that Biden is in a steep mental “decline.”
“He is a candidate that is mentally deteriorating,” Horwitz said Biden on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“People in the Democratic establishment say, ‘Oh don’t say that’. They really believe that they can shield Joe Biden from public scrutiny and the reality is, they can’t,” he said.
https://twitter.com/JustinAHorwitz/status/1235815423330766848
Horwitz’s comments come after a month in which Biden has made a number of gaffes on the campaign trail.
While campaigning in South Carolina in February, Biden told potential voters, “My name’s Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate.”
Joe Biden: "My name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate…if you don't like me, you can vote for the other Biden."
Days later, Biden was introducing Jamie Harrison, a candidate for the Senate in South Carolina, when he mistakenly introduced Harrison as the “next president.”
Biden also claimed that gun violence has killed 150 million Americans since 2007, mistakenly referred to Fox News host Chris Wallace as “Chuck” and stumbled while attempting to recite the Declaration of Independence.
“All men and women created by — go, you know, you know — the thing,” Biden said at an event in Texas on Monday.
These and other gaffes have led many Republicans and some Democrats to question the candidate’s cognitive health.
A number of the former vice president’s supporters told Fox News at the Biden rally Monday in Texas that they are concerned by his repeated gaffes.
“It’s very concerning. I mean, when he’s getting softballs thrown at him and he can’t answer the question,” a supporter told Fox News. “It’s getting rougher. The hard times haven’t even started.”
President Donald Trump has also turned the question of Biden’s mental acuity into a campaign issue.
At a Fox News town hall event Thursday, Trump challenged Biden’s competency while explaining his dismay at the candidate’s surprising victories on Super Tuesday.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1235718856242597888
“Then we have this crazy thing that happened on Tuesday, which [Biden] thought was Thursday, but he also said 150 million people were killed with guns and that he was running for the the United States Senate,” Trump said.
“There’s something going on there,” the president added.
FG&C pointed us to this Medium article:
https://medium.com/@dawnpapple_7117/if-joe-biden-wins-the-nomination-but-suffers-cognitive-decline-the-dnc-gets-their-coronation-88829361cc7
FG&C quotes & comments below:
….all signs point towards the Democratic establishment using this man’s name recognition so that they can handpick the POTUS after the National Convention. … it is possible that the Democratic establishment, unbeknownst to former Vice President Biden, could be planning on a Biden win strictly so that they can create a vacancy on the ticket that only they can fill.
Once former Vice President Biden is on the ticket, the Democratic establishment could declare him too cognitively unfit to fulfill his role. This would leave a vacancy on the ticket.
if Biden wins the nomination, they will find a way to remove him from the ticket “due to a decline in health.
After this vacancy is established, the Democrats are free to arbitrarily replace Biden with whomever they want.
From the DNC rules:
“Filling a Vacancy on the National Ticket: In the event of death, resignation or disability of a nominee of the Party for President or Vice President after the adjournment of the National Convention, the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee shall confer with the Democratic leadership of the United States Congress and the Democratic Governors Association and shall report to the Democratic National Committee, which is authorized to fill the vacancy or vacancies.”
the vacancy would be decided by Tom Perez (a 2016 Clinton superdelegate), Steny Hoyer (a 2016 Clinton superdelegate), Jim Clyburn (a 2016 Clinton superdelegate), Chuck Schumer (a 2016 Clinton superdelegate), Dick Durbin (a 2016 Clinton superdelegate), and the DGA will decide on their own who will be our Democratic nominee.
I think FG&C has nailed the DNC’s plan.
What else can we say?
The Definitive response from the expert panel in the Joe Biden Mental Health Task Force What the Elites see when they think of Democrat voters
The “New Way Forward Act” is one of the latest George Soros machinations. Last week many people’s attention were drawn to it, and then just as quickly moved on as the events of the week shifted.
But George Soros has not given up, and clearly is back in the news cycle, thanks to – surprisingly – an Alan Dershowitz bombshell: George Soros showed up on an FBI 302 form as the originator of an investigation against an as yet unnamed individual *cough cough* . . . sorry about that folks, hope that’s not the Corona virus . . .
Briefly let’s revisit the “New Way Forward Act” from Tucker Carlson’s segment on Fox News:
In short, the “New Way Forward Act” flips all of our immigration system upside down on its head.
Instead of deporting aliens, they will be invited in.
Instead of trying aliens in court, they will have a fast path to citizenship and voting rights.
Instead of engaging in protective quarantining, illegal aliens will be given full health care coverage free of charge at the expense of taxpayers.
Instead of flying illegal aliens back to their country of origin, taxpayers will pay for any person ever deported at any time to be flown back into the United States.
This is 100% George Soros.
This is 100% Open Society Foundations – formerly the Open Society Institute.
This is 100% Karl Popper “The Open Society and its Enemies”.
What they are doing becomes clear when you understand what is behind it.
This is KARL POPPER’S DREAM.
But first is it important to know that George Soros was a follower of Karl Popper. Other than academics and philosophers, most people have no knowledge of Karl Popper or his philosophical impact.
George Soros fancies himself as the protege that has grown beyond his master. Undoubtedly he would believe himself to be able to school Popper if he were alive today.
Understanding Popper and his “Open Society”
Karl Popper is described by The WikiPedias – the fount of all that is truthy on the interwebz – as “an Austrian-born British philosopher, academic and social commentator”. “In political discourse, he is known for his vigorous defense of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible. His political philosophy embraced ideas from major democratic political ideologies, including socialism/social democracy, libertarianism/classical liberalism and conservatism, and attempted to reconcile them.”
As we will see, his idea of “liberal democracy” is one that we should take with a grain of salt. Review: Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies
Review by Roy A. Childs, Jr.
{ PDF Link }
Nota Bene: I know this review is from a libertarian source. Nevertheless it is an invaluable explanation of Karl Popper’s worldview that animates “The Open Society”. Karl Popper’s vision of social engineering writ large is precisely the vision that George Soros is working to carry out.
Popper had produced his major work on the philosophy of science, Logik der Forschung (English ed., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), in 1934, and it was only natural that the politically aware philosopher would want to use his powerful, highly trained intellect to fight the forces of totalitarianism as they confronted the world at that time. Karl Popper moved to assault totalitarianism at its root.
Popper sees totalitarianism of all stripes as essentially tribal, as a “closed society,” a rebellion against the “strain of civilization.” He assaults it by using his philosophy of science (which greatly emphasizes “falsification,” i.e., the refutation of statements and theories) to criticize the doctrines of those whom Popper takes to be behind modern totalitarianism, namely, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and Marx. In The Open Society, he seeks to “examine the application of the critical and rational methods of science to the problems of the open society. [He] analyzes the principles of democratic social reconstruction, the principles of … ‘piecemeal social engineering’ in opposition to ‘Utopian social engineering.’”
Did you catch that?
. . . Popper’s Open Society . . . begins by wrestling with such giants as Plato, Hegel, and Marx, but concludes with little more than a defense of social democracy, of piecemeal engineering with freedom of discussion and controversy. Brian Magee ably summarizes Popper’s reasons for defending the “Open Society”:
Because he regards living as first and foremost a process of problem-solving he wants societies which are conducive to problem-solving. And because problem-solving calls for the bold propounding of trial solutions which are then subjected to criticism and error elimination, he wants forms of society which permit of the untrammelled assertion of different proposals, followed by criticism, followed by the genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism. Regardless of any moral considerations… he believes that a society organized on such lines will be more effective at solving its problems, and therefore more successful in achieving the aims of its members, than if it were organized on other lines.
Such a society is what Popper takes to be social democracy, entailing the “problem-solving” of piecemeal social engineering.
Ah, “social democracy”, does this sound familiar?
In other words, Popper advocates for what we would describe as a FAKE SCIENCE approach that engages in huge social experimentation writ large.
The enlightened “social scientist” – standing above and astride society, no doubt – looks down on all human society globally, and sees for himself the social fabric of civilization a grand laboratory within which, by choosing policy prescriptions many of which he knows will be destructive, can engage in unfettered social experimentation to find the right mix of conditions in which mankind will find ideal peace, harmony, and globalism. In other words, ends for society directed by a scientific and technocratic elite, to the expense of the individual citizen or voter. The deplorable masses need someone else to determine what is best for them, don’t you know.
History, to the “social scientist”, does not serve as a guide for understanding how societies and civilizations have already experimented and learned through great and often tragic cost how to live together. No, the “social scientist” is a believer in pure scientism, which is to say that knowledge only comes through scientific analysis, not through, say, an understanding of history.
This approach, however, is nothing really new or innovative:
This social democracy may indeed have once inspired the intellectual elite of the West, seeking (as many were) alternatives to fascism and communism, but today it inspires hardly anyone. And for good reason, for what else is democratic social reconstruction but that postwar system of fine-tuning the economy, the reign of countless redistributive social programs designed by politicians and social scientists to meet those alleged “social needs” that a host of interest groups are pressing upon the political systems of the West as “non-negotiable demands”? Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess. Intervention has been piled upon intervention; regulations have been continually modified in unpredictable ways (Popper advocates such “revisions” in the light of experience); taxation has increased drastically to finance social welfare programs (as has inflation, with its resulting economic fluctuations); and the unhampered market economy, so forcefully defended by Popper’s close friend F.A. Hayek, has been “reformed” out of existence.
Writing in 1976, Roy Childs observes:
Interventionism, piecemeal or not, has worked its inevitable way, and has led to precisely those consequences that Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and others had predicted: economic stagnation and political conflict. Democratic institutions themselves are threatened by those whose vested interests are entwined with the State apparatus. Dime store tinkering, even with freedom of criticism and revision, is leading to the closed society that Popper so fears. There is indeed nothing new in this warning: it is the theme of both Ludwig von Mises’ Socialism and of F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.
In short, the Open Society is not enough. Why this is so has a direct bearing on the major themes of Popper’s book. . .
If the Open Society is equivalent to a society in which everything and anything is open to democratic revision—except the basic institutions that make democratic revision possible—then Popper is only focusing on one need of human beings (that a dubious collective need), not the broader need for liberty that is implied in the outline of his argument as stated by Magee. Popper makes a great deal of noise about “individualism,” but nevertheless only applies the structure of that argument to collective processes of hypothesis, testing (action), and revision in the light of experience; the argument would apply to individuals as well, since they are the sole constituents of “society,” By focusing on this collective democratic character of the Open Society, Popper ignores the more basic need for individual liberty in art, business, science, and all other areas as well.
The arguments for democracy that Popper presents, then, are in principle identical to arguments for individual liberty. It is the principle of nonaggression, the first principle of liberty, that properly limits the domain of democracy. If Popper’s arguments for democracy (as opposed to his advocacy of democracy itself) are valid, then it is not the rigidity of a technology of social engineering that we should seek, but an unhampered market economy, where people can constantly act on their own judgment and can continually revise their plans in accordance with the new. information brought by change. This brings us not to social democracy, but to the doctrine of libertarianism.
Far more important than the principle of democracy, then, even by Popper’s own arguments, is the principle of individual liberty. Liberty is paramount, democracy at best secondary: democracy is important only insofar as it is a servant of and means to the end of liberty. Thus, in following the logical implications of Popper’s views (which are not, after all, that original), we move from the open society to the “Free Society,” and find ourselves agreeing with Michael Polanyi’s claim, contra Popper, that the Free Society is not an Open Society, but a society committed to a very definite set of rules. In Popper’s Open Society, the principle of democracy is regarded as fixed, as not being open to revision. In the Free Society, is it the far more fundamental principle of individual liberty and nonaggression that is not open to revision (though its implications may be refined with growing knowledge). Popper’s reasoning is, by and large, correct, but it is individuals who must solve problems to survive, not “societies,” and therefore individuals who must be free to think and act to achieve values and to revise mistaken plans and impressions in the light off experience or more critical thought. . . .
No mere democratic machinery, no mere procedure, is enough to oppose fascism or communism, not in a world of those real social dynamics that are set in motion by interventionism. Only liberty can fully oppose closed societies, and only if liberty is seen as something that is not to be bargained away or abandoned through a series insignificant piecemeal reforms. Liberty must be regarded as the ultimate political end, foremost among those political values held dear by reasonable men and women, the highest and most noble political form possible to human beings. . . .
Social democracy, the Open Society, has been tried and found wanting. The question that faces us now is simply whether those lovers of “experiment” and “flexibility” are experimental and flexible enough to advocate that liberty be given a chance. If it is not given that chance, there may be no turning back, and we may yet arrive in an era when we shall look back at the totalitarianism of the 1930s as a veritable golden age.
But in one sense, at least, Popper is right: the future is ours to shape. Liberty has never been fully tried. It is the task of readers of this journal to remedy that unfortunate situation; if we do not, no one else will.
The Open Society is a grand globalist social experiment. National populations are the guinea pigs. Losses at the expenses of the people are an expected and necessary part of the process. Scientific experimentation is a necessary part of the process to achieving the ideal end state of global harmony – the more experimentation and bolder the intents the better. Nationalism and religious identity is the enemy; Globalism is the cure.
That’s to Open Society in a nutshell.
New Way Forward Act Won’t be Enacted into Law, Will it?
We have some good news – Donald Trump tweeted out for us to see: “Don’t worry, it won’t happen!”
But the question remains: Why is the left presenting it right here, right now, if the entire exercise is doomed to failure and merely symbolic?
Vigilance is important. The left is overplaying its hand, again. They always do this when they are about to put up a BIGfight over something.
That something, obviously, is a fight over Trump’s plans for immigration reform.
There could be many reasons why this is being promoted now, but the most obvious reason is to move the Overton Window of what seems to be plausible and reasonable in the political discourse all the way over to the left. BE AWARE: Soros and company are about to go ALL IN on making anyone opposing their radical immigration agenda appear to be racists and xenophobes for opposing illegal alien invasions (aka “immigration”).
Also note that CONgress does NOT “Write” Bills. They are BOUGHT to PROMOTE them. The New Way Forward Act is being seeded from the outside.
Some of our QTree folks have identified the Congressional players behind this:
Bill Sponsors: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5383/details
Note the following three cosponsors in Texas – hoping to turn Texas blue:
Sponsor: Rep. Garcia, Jesus G. “Chuy” [D-IL-4] |
Cosponsors:
Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16]*
Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29]*
Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5383/cosponsors?r=61&s=1&q=%22cosponsor-state%22:%22Texas%22&searchResultViewType=expanded&KWICView=false
Lots of CA and NY, all the usual suspects ….Al Green, Hank Johnson, Fredrica Wilson, Alcee Hastings, and of course The Squad.
Right now, there is not a likelihood that the bill will pass the Senate, and even if it did, it would face the Presidential veto. There would not be enough legislative willpower in the Senate to overcome the veto.
There is of course the left’s hope that they could recover the Senate.
But keep in mind, even without the legislature, the left will be able to enact the law, if they achieve their dream of reclaiming the Presidency:
People misunderstand the strategy.
The Green Neal Deal and the New Way Forward Act–the latter abolishes all US immigration laws–were not meant to pass in Congress.
The Democratic president will order them implemented.
People misunderstand the strategy. The Green Neal Deal and the New Way Forward Act–the latter abolishes all US immigration laws–were not meant to pass in Congress. The Democratic president will order them implemented.
There you have it.
The strategy is simple: Replace the POTUS (whatever means that requires) and once the right puppet person is in office, declare the New Way Forward law by Executive fiat.
The Road from Popper to Serfdom
Thinking back to Karl Popper’s “Open Society”, once you understand how badly distorted the lenses are, it becomes obvious why the radical left’s perception of reality is upside down.
Popper supposed that the only way to end “tribalism” is to destroy all borders and mix all people together. Crime and other problems were expected contingencies that would be a necessary, intermediate phase before the final phase would be achieved: a singular homogeneous global citizenry identity devoid of national, civic, and religious identifications. In a word, Babel.
Soros is a TRUE BELIEVER. A cynic would say he is not a believer but a malicious actor. Let’s avoid getting into an either/or argument when both/and are possibilities and likely. He tutored at the feet of Popper and his BAMN – By Any Means Necessary – outlook is there to reinforce his goals. In his arrogant elitism he probably sees himself as the apprentice who has become greater than the master.
Why for example is Soros supporting the activities of the Acton Institute, a Catholic think tank specializing in Austrian Economics? If you understand the political reality strictly in MCM (mind control media) terms of left/right you will be blind to what they are up to.
For the last decade since the Tea Party the key piece has been undermining social conservatism. This has meant invading conservatism with libertarianism – a political ideology that Soros crew finds quite agreeable. Social libertarianism undermines all social conservatism – it operates subversively by finding “common ground” with social conservatives in terms of “economic conservatism”.
Even though “economic conservative” means “free” trade rather than “fair” trade, and economic globalism. The opposite of the Trump Doctrine on International Trade.
The libertarian tactic worked during the Obama administration, because when it was all hands on deck to deal with the onslaught of leftist economic ideas, one started fighting with whatever ideological weapons were at hand – there wasn’t time to ask questions about who made the ammo.
Meanwhile the effects have been achieved: a downplay of civic, religious and national identity.
A perfect routing of the resolve of Americans to fight back by an insurgent enemy seeking to undermine Americans will to fight. Classic PsyOps. Classic enemy COINT operations.
Big Evangelicalism Rushes to do George Soros’ Bidding
“FAITH BASED PARTNERSHIPS ARE BEYOND PROBLEMATIC- AS BAPTIST ERLC PUSHES FOR PRISON REFORM AND CHURCH OF THE HIGHLANDS SEEKS TO HOUSE SEX OFFENDERS IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, THIS ONE IS AMONG THE WORST.”
The Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (the “ERLC”, the left wing political action arm of the SBC recently caught taking money from George Soros’s “Evangelical Immigration Table” or EIT. Tom Littleton documents a shocking list of things that) is promoting through the Chambers of Commerce and the State Governors offices to release sex offenders into local residential communities, without the community’s knowledge or approval:
A little more than a year and a half ago some residence of Northeast Alabama near Muscle Shoals discovered a local motel in their residential community had begun the transition to a half way house for prisoners in a new program called Prison Re-entry , a work release program in a Faith Based Partnership with the Department of Corrections, Church of the Highlands/ Life Link and local business men. . .
Already scheduled to be moved into the half way house were around 6 to 7 inmates the majority of whom were to be newly released sex offenders. Total capacity for the facility was proposed at 35-40 residents. Not only were local members of the community never informed of the plan or given opportunity to object to it, the local website tracking such offenders whereabouts had never been updated to include the motel and its residence in what the Re-entry “industry ” refers to as “clustering sex offenders”.
This raises a slew of questions. Why is a Southern Baptist organization partnering with George Soros and programs that endanger communities?
The answers to those questions is troubling and will have to be taken up on a later post.
On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Poor thing,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
She wrapped him all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
“I saved you,” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake
UPDATE 2: U.S. House Ignores Constitution to Vote for ERA! UPDATE: Deadline 9:45 AM CST 2/13/20 Ask your Rep to vote NO on ERA! Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 More Details from Eagle Forum at the end of this Post!
At the request from singularzoe I am reposting some content from yesterday’s Daily Thread:
This is extremely important. Thank you for posting it, and may I suggest you post it again tomorrow early in the day on the daily thread in case some do not see it this evening? Many do not realize how dangerous the ERA is. Some are too young to know its history or the hidden agenda behind it.
Many washed up 1970s feminists have been dreaming of an epic “do-over” on the Equal Rights Amendment. Astute QTree observers during the 2019 State of the Union noticed that the ERA pin had been revived in the attire of the Democrat women present. This is despite the ERA being as dead as a door nail.
What is the ERA? The following is from Wikipedia, with my minor edits:
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. It seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and other matters.
It sounds so beautiful, so wonderful, who could be opposed to such a thing?
Phyllis Schlafly, of course! She saw through the ruse that in fact this would destroy many of the privileges and rights that women enjoyed, and wreck havoc on families. Through her tireless efforts, the amendment was successfully defeated in 1982 when the deadline for states to ratify passed three votes short.
Yes, the ERA is dead.
However, leftists are never ones to be bothered by little things like “rules” and have asserted that they can simple revise the deadline in the legislation and voilà, like magic, the amendment is ratified!
Given the radicals behind the “Green New Deal” and the “Blue New Deal” (radical immigration reform) are also pursuing the “ERA New Deal” it is worth reviewing the history and where things stand, not to mention what the future goals of the left are in a revived ERA. In short, the goal of the revived ERA is to prevent Roe vs. Wade from being overturned in the courts by (presumably) enshrining it in a constitutional amendment.
To quote Sylvia: Evil never sleeps it is simply relentless.
No wonder she keeps a shovel beside her bed.
AFA Sounding the Alarm on the ERA
Tell Congress to vote NO on Equal Rights Amendment resolution
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote tomorrow on a resolution, H.J.Res.79, to remove the June 30, 1982 deadline for state legislatures to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Obviously, the deadline has expired, but this isn’t preventing members of Congress, primarily Democrats, from attempting to remove the deadline and advance pro-abortion and pro-transgender rights enshrined in the ERA.
Pro-abortion activist group NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the ERA resolution stating, “With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate both the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality.” Contact and urge your member of Congress to vote no on the ERA resolution.
The ERA was a proposed constitutional amendment introduced and passed by the House (1971) and the Senate (1972). Originally, the ERA would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures prior to the original deadline of March 22, 1979. But proponents of the ERA realized it would not be ratified by the necessary 38 state legislatures by that deadline.
Therefore, pro-ERA advocates pressured Congress in 1978 to extend the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982. Now, the House is wanting to pass H.J.Res.79 to extend the deadline, again.
If the House passes the resolution, it will face a near certain death in the Senate. That’s not the only hurdle congressional Democrats are facing in their attempt to remove the current 1982 deadline. First, there’s the legal challenge. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel issued the following opinion on January 6, 2020:
The ERA Resolution has expired and is no longer pending before the States. Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the 1972 proposal, that action would not complete the ratification of the amendment, and the ERA’s adoption could not be certified under 1 U.S.C. § 106b. In addition, we conclude that when Congress uses a proposing clause to impose a deadline on the States’ ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment, that deadline is binding and Congress may not revive the proposal after the deadline’s expiration.
The other challenge would be in the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal on the court and a supporter of the ERA, recently indicated the clock has run out on ratifying the ERA. In reference to the state of Virginia’s recent vote to ratify the ERA, Ginsburg said, “I would like to see a new beginning. I’d like it to start over. There’s too much controversy about late comers.” She then referred to Virginia’s move coming “long after the deadline passed.” Justice Ginsburg’s comments follow and bolster the DOJ opinion against changing the ERA deadline.
Regardless of the hurdles the ERA will face, it’s important you contact and urge your representative to vote against removing the deadline for ratifying the ERA.
Sincerely,
Rob Chambers, Vice-President
AFA Action
Warnings by the Susan B. Anthony List
Pro-abortion members of Congress are trying yet again to massively expand abortion access and make YOU pay for it.
This time, they’re using the Equal Rights Amendment to do so. “Equal rights” sounds nice, right? Well, it’s anything but…
Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU, to name just a few, want the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) passed because they say it would guarantee a right to abortion, funded by YOU — the taxpayers.
In fact, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s ERA requires taxpayer funding of abortion! We must STOP this madness to protect the lives of unborn babies across America.
When Congress was debating the amendment when it was proposed back in the 1970s, pro-abortion members of Congress rejected efforts to make the amendment abortion-neutral.
If you think it’s strange that we’re talking about an amendment that Congress considered in the 70’s, you’re not alone.
Over four decades ago, Congress passed the ERA and sent it to the states for ratification. But not enough states ratified the ERA, the deadline passed, and the amendment died.
Even the Department of Justice issued a memo on the ERA, saying that it is in fact dead, and cannot be ratified retroactively. But today, pro-abortion politicians have decided to pretend the amendment never died.
Three more states voted to ratify the expired ERA, and pro-abortion members of Congress are pushing forward with a vote in the House on a resolution erasing the deadline that expired four decades ago!
Since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been the cause of death for an estimated 60 MILLION unborn children, of which approximately 30 MILLION were unborn little girls. An amendment to create a constitutional right to abortion on demand would lead to the deaths of untold millions more, paid for by American taxpayers. This is NOT equality.
Not only is this process completely illegitimate, but the ERA would also install a sweeping legal mandate for abortion on demand, funded with taxpayer dollars, into the Constitution of the United States.
So please, tell your representative to vote NO on H.J.Res. 79 to stop the ERA from ever becoming law.
For LIFE,
Hon. Marilyn Musgrave
Vice President of Government Affairs
Susan B. Anthony List
Deplorable Patriot is the News Now!
Deplorable Patriot posted the following piece immediately following the 2019 State of the Union. I’m only going to quote part of it, and like all other QTree posts is rich with insightful comments.
Mrs. Schlafly’s primary concern in opposing the ERA was not to stop women from being who and what they were meant to be, she did go back to school to get a law degree after all, but to protect the American family. At the beginning of her fight in the early 1970s, Mrs. Schlafly predicted that with the passage and ratification of the ERA, several social changes would occur that would be detrimental to the future of the nation.
Why “STOP ERA”? Phyllis Schlafly traveled across the U.S. throughout the 1970s calling for opposition to the ERA because it would lead to the following, most of which pro-ERA lawyers argued were not actually real threats from the ERA:
Homosexual marriages: traditional gender roles were, Schlafly argued, essential for preserving the family.
Women in combat: women, Schlafly argued, would weaken the military’s combat strength, and serving in the military would violate traditional gender norms.
Taxpayer-funded abortions: Schlafly, a … Catholic, ardently opposed abortion.
Unisex bathrooms: one of the best-known of the arguments Schlafly promoted, this was likely meant to create fear of losing a safe space. Schlafly argued that the ERA would also remove laws that depended on gender to define a sex crime, and that it would weaken laws about rape.
Elimination of Social Security benefits for widows: she believed women should not be in the paid workforce (though she herself was paid a salary) especially if they had young children, and so a Social Security benefit for women who had not earned their own benefits was essential to the mother’s ability to stay home.
Hurt families: She argued that the ERA would abolish a husband’s legal responsibility to support his wife and family, and making child support, that it would alter child support and alimony laws to make them gender neutral. In general, she argued that it would undermine the authority of men over women, which she saw as the proper power relationship for well-functioning families.
Many of these claims about what the ERA would do are disputed by legal scholars. On the other hand, some of these results evolved after the 1970s to become public policy, accepted by a majority of the electorate. The Eagle Forum and so-called states’ rights groups warn that the ERA would transfer a great deal of power from state to federal governments.
Amazing isn’t it, that many of her predictions came true whether the ERA passed or not.
All these years later, Mrs. Schlafly’s ability to think logically down stream, as it were, and sound the alarm on so many issues that the people of the United States have been fighting in recent years did inspire Bloomberg, at least, to admit she was correct.
So if she was correct, and the ERA would have been a disaster for American women frankly by putting us on the same legal footing as men (can be drafted into the military, etc.), and it was defeated by the deadline imposed by Congress in 1982, why were the women in white pushing support for the long ago departed?
Basically, because they don’t believe it is dead.
“I am prepared to do everything I can to make sure the will of Virginians is carried out and women’s equality is enshrined in the Constitution.”
— Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, upon the Virginia General Assembly’s passage of a resolution purporting to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, January 15, 2020.
Politics today is not much different than entertainment. So much of what happens at all levels of government is about pleasing special interest groups, making constituencies feel good, or making rivals look bad. Sometimes, as with a resolution commending a winning sports team, this is harmless. But other times, the “show” costs dearly in terms of time, money and civic understanding.
The ERA has cost valuable time in the state legislatures that purport to have “ratified” it in recent years.
The current hubbub about the Equal Rights Amendment is a good example of political grandstanding that exacts a high price on our Republic. It has cost valuable time in the state legislatures that purport to have “ratified” it in recent years. It will cost precious funds in pointless lawsuits. But perhaps the greatest cost of all is what it detracts from people’s understanding of a valuable constitutional process.
Article V — the Constitutional Amendment Process
Article V of the U.S. Constitution is one of our founding document’s lesser-known provisions — and one of its most important. It outlines the process for amending the Constitution.
Article V prescribes two ways in which amendments can be proposed. Congress can propose them when two-thirds of the House and the Senate agree. Amendments may also be proposed at a convention upon application of two-thirds of the states. Regardless of which body proposes an amendment, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38) before it can be added to the Constitution.
Unfortunately, much confusion surrounds the second option for proposing amendments. The “convention of the states” process was familiar to the founders, but has fallen out of use in modern times. This lack of modern experience, combined with the lack of procedural detail in the text of Article V, has led a number of otherwise smart people to conclude that we have no idea how a convention for proposing amendments would operate.
That suggestion is nonsense. We know all the important aspects of convention process from the wealth of historical precedents and founding-era writings.
When it comes to the more familiar process of Congress proposing amendments, citizens who might like to understand are now stymied by activists who refuse to concede points of law that are well-established.
Those well-established principles include the following (among many others):
Congress may set a deadline for states to ratify a proposed amendment.
Once Congress sets such a deadline, it is binding. Congress may not change the deadline in the middle of the process.
States may rescind their ratification of a proposed amendment up until ratification is actually achieved.
Each of these points has been decided by the courts. Each is relevant to the current effort to add an “Equal Rights Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.
The Life and Death of the Equal Rights Amendment
Congress proposed the ERA in 1972. It set a 7-year deadline for the necessary 38 states to ratify it. When Congress saw that the deadline would not be met, it tried to extend the deadline to 1982. A federal court ruled that this was illegal — that Congress is not permitted to change the ratification process once it has begun.
No court has ever ruled otherwise. Simply put, there is no serious grounds for suggesting that the beleaguered ERA is anything but dead as a doornail.
But wait! There’s more! Even supposing that the states or Congress could ignore the original deadline, the ERA would still not be ratified. Why? Because a handful of states that initially ratified it later rescinded their ratifications.
Thus, as Article V expert Professor Rob Natelson describes it, the ERA campaign would have us believe “That every ratification counts, no matter how late; but that no state rescission counts, no matter how timely.” Sorry, but this doesn’t pass the straight face test.
ERA advocates can hold their press conferences, dance their victory dances and tie up the courts in frivolous lawsuits, but the ERA is dead. I, for one, am not sorry. The proposal is both unnecessary and poorly-drafted.
While politicians and special interests continue to beat their long-dead horse, I can only hope that their efforts will result in a new conversation about Article V. Let’s talk about amendments that we really do need in America today, and how we might actually obtain them.
ERA Ratification Status
As a quick aside, I want to highlight the status of the ERA ratification.
Note the color scheme: Red: Ratified Orange: RESCINDED Green: Ratified in one house of legislature (Only PARTIAL ratification) Blue: Not Ratified
This causes the map to be, well, confusing – and maybe that was the POINT…
Nevertheless, the BLUEon GREENstates have never ratified the ERA.
And importantly, the ORANGE STATES BAD have RESCINDED their ratification. It’s hard to have a movement to ratify a constitutional amendment when losing ground… so naturally, the ad hoc lawfare solution is to deny that states have the right to rescind their vote. Does that mean that the constitutional amendment ending Prohibition is likewise invalid? Hmm.
There is precedent for repealing an amendment, and the notion that a state could not rescind a ratification is on incredibly thin legal ice.
Not that legal protocol matters to leftists. If they get full control of the courts they’ll do whatever they want regardless – lawlessness.
States that have not ratified the amendment:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia
Despite a vigorous effort by women’s rights advocates, a push to pass the ERA in Virginia died in the state legislature in February [2018]. Similar efforts also failed [in 2018] in Arizona and Florida.
The following is a September 9, 2016 article on Phyllis Schlafly – my comments in RED. Phyllis was the public face of the movement to stop the passage of the ERA. Frankly, without her effort it likely would have been fully ratified. It is impossible to overstate her contributions. The article below outlines the history and how Phyllis Schlafly took on one of the most powerful political juggernauts in American history almost single-handedly, created a giant political movement, and won.
Does this sound like someone we know?
To put this in chronological perspective, Phyllis Schlafly passed away during the 2016 election season, at the time when Operation Crossfire Hurricane was moving at top speed again Candidate Donald Trump. A time when literally all the heaviest forces of government were being abused to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States. And he still won. How Phyllis Schlafly profoundly changed America
She created the modern pro-family movement and was its greatest activist
Her book changed the Republican party
What most pro-family conservatives today probably don’t know
September 9 2016
Phyllis Schlafly, who passed away at age 92 this week [Sep 2016], actually created the pro-family movement. She was the greatest and most successful pro-family activist in its history. That is not hyperbole; it is fact. Everyone else is miles behind. …
Unfortunately, most pro-family conservatives under a certain age really don’t know that much about her, or appreciate the enormity of her contributions, which continued up until her death. In our opinion, the numerous obituaries in the conservative and mainstream media about her haven’t done her justice. A revolution within the GOP
She broke into national prominence in 1964 by publishing a book. Titled “A Choice, Not an Echo” It brilliantly described how for decades the GOP establishment and donor class had been selling out the principles held by average Republican voters and controlling the political process. It’s chilling to realize how similar it was to the situation that has fueled the rise of Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. She saw the problem clearly back in the 60s.
At first she felt no publisher would take the book, so she sold it out of her garage. It really caught on, eventually selling over 3 million copies. It changed the history of the Republican Party.
“A Choice Not an Echo” is credited by many with igniting much of the Republican voter base and propelling Barry Goldwater’s nomination for president in 1964 over the will of the party establishment, and opening the door for Ronald Reagan’s run. Her book was that powerful.
Barry Goldwater for president campaign button.
Stopping the radical ERA from transforming America
But Phyllis (everyone we know called her by her first name) is best known for her work stopping the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Today, many pro-family activists take on big causes. But no one else ever took on anything like the ERA single-handedly and won.
Constitutional amendments must pass two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then three-quarters of the state legislatures (38 states) within seven years after that.
The Equal Rights Amendment was considered by everyone to be impossible to stop. In 1971 it blew through the US House of Representatives by 354-24. It then passed the Senate by 84-8. In 1972 was sent to the states for ratification. Within the first year, 30 state legislatures had ratified it. It was on a very fast track to become a Constitutional amendment.
Phyllis could see that the ERA was being sold to Americans as a noble “equal rights” cause, but it was really a Trojan horse being pushed by the most radical elements of society, particularly lesbian activists.
In her correct analysis, the ERA would be used to draft women for the military, force taxpayer-funded abortions and homosexual “marriage”, promote a constitutionally mandated breakdown of Judeo-Christian morality, push a new sexual revolution, re-write divorce laws, and much more. Far from helping women, it would make women’s lives much, much worse.
Women are different from men, she said, and “feminism” is a false ideology that tries to make man and women the same. Straight talk. A key part of her attack was that unlike the wimpy mainstream pro-family movement of today, Phyllis was willing to tell the sordid, uncomfortable truth about the ERA and forces behind it – calmly, unemotionally, and fearlessly – refusing to water it down into mushy platitudes. This infuriated the Left and annoyed the establishment Republicans. She was definitely not “politically correct.”
The forces that lined up aggressively promoting the ERA were overwhelming. This included the full Democratic and Republican establishments, including enthusiastic support from Presidents Gerald Ford and later Jimmy Carter, and their wives. It included virtually all of Hollywood, with major TV and movie stars doing endorsements, support from major corporations, and of course aggressive support by the entire mainstream media.
Like many conservatives, Phyllis was hated by the Left with a visceral passion. During her anti-ERA battle she was screamed at, sworn at, spat on, had things thrown at her, and even had pig’s blood poured on her. The infantile emotions of liberals haven’t changed at all. The fact that she routinely out-debated them made it even worse!
It had eerie similarities to today’s huge “culture war” battle. This is the part that struck me most:
In 1972 Phyllis began her fight to stop the ERA. She was not only an incredibly articulate writer, speaker, and political thinker, but she was also an unbelievable organizer. She brought together and mobilized a very formidable army of thousands of women, mostly housewives, from across the country. This was before the Internet or even fax machines existed! And she taught them how to go to their state legislatures and lobby strategically and effectively despite the opposing them. Legislators had never seen anything like it. You see that? Unbelievable organizer. Not some fly by night community organizer either.
Barnstorming state legislatures across America.
She also created hard-hitting pamphlets, wrote countless newspaper columns, gave speeches across the country, and appeared on numerous television interview shows — usually against a stacked deck, but still coming out on top.
Over the next eight years, five more states ratified ERA. But also during that time five other states – under pressure from Phyllis and her forces – rescinded their ratifications. DO YOU SEE IT? BOOM!!! They RESCINDED their ratifications! Can that strategy work today? YES IT CAN!!!
A year before the 1979 deadline Congress voted to extend the ratification deadline three more years, until June 30, 1982! But it didn’t work. The Schlafly army kept enormous pressure on any other states from ratifying it.
In the end, the ERA fell short by three states.
The larger story of this impossible victory is really fascinating for activists today. In 2009 Phyllis made this exciting video discussing it in detail. (It’s 43 minutes long, but worth watching.)
Creating the modern pro-family movement in America
The ERA battle and was the beginning of the modern pro-family movement in America.
Then as now, the Left had enormous, seemingly limitless funding. Phyllis and her group, called the Eagle Forum, had only what the members could pull together. They paid for their own travel and supplies.
Phyllis had an almost supernatural ability to focus on success. This is a quality that is almost completely lacking in today’s pro-family movement, which seems to fold its tent at the first sign of trouble.
In the 1980s, the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and other groups organized nationally and took on political battles – and more large national pro-family groups blossomed in the 1990s. But Phyllis had paved the way. And none of those other groups has changed America the way she did.
Phyllis’s list of other accomplishments over the years is monumental. You can read about most of them in this Human Events article.
The Eagle Forum
After the stunning victory over ERA, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum organization blossomed. It has chapters across America and at one point, according to reports, had nearly 100,000 members. Over the years, Phyllis would tirelessly visit chapters around the country and speak at their banquets and work with their leaders.
Interestingly, the chapters had and still have a reputation for being much more “moderate” and non-confrontational in their approach to political action than Phyllis herself, although they are completely loyal to her ideas and philosophy and do not compromise on core pro-family principles.
This is probably because the women who take on the chapter leadership positions tend to be more “organizers” rather than firebrands, and are often married to wealthy husbands who can help with the chapter’s expenses. This is completely understandable, but has sometimes caused confusion to other conservatives expecting a more aggressive approach. And as a result, the chapters have rarely been as successful as Phyllis herself in stopping destructive liberal forces.
We believe that her independent approach also allowed Phyllis to build an independent fundraising network outside of the unreliable and mushy “mainstream” pro-family donor community.
Making the Republican Party pro-life
A lot of people today just assume that the Republican Party has always been pro-life. But after the Supreme Court abortion decision in 1973, the GOP establishment had little interest taking a stand. The pro-life platform was predominately due to the force of will of Phyllis Schlafly, who attended every GOP national convention since 1952, and got her people on the platform committee.
Phyllis and today’s national pro-family movement
As the “culture wars” began to heat up in the 1990s, Phyllis never seemed to fit in with the emerging national pro-family establishment in America. And she was rarely invited to their national conferences or asked to participate in major events or planning sessions. We consider that a mark of high distinction for Phyllis. It appears to us that she recognized that the national pro-family movement had become like the GOP establishment – a double-dealer to its supporters. Over time the pro-family “establishment” has consistently compromised the core principles of the larger base. It’s happened on homosexuality, civil unions, gay marriage, comprehensive sex-ed, and most recently transgenderism. They do it to appease the more moderate conservative donor class and avoid confrontations with the LGBT movement and the liberal media. Phyllis has consistently refused to play that dishonest game.
That “mild” approach would never have won the ERA battle. Phyllis never wavered on her core principles on any of the increasingly incendiary “culture war” issues. Instead, she held her own annual pro-family conference where she took on the issues she felt important, honored the politicians who deserved honor, and did it her way. Skipping to the end of the article:
An intellectual dynamo until the end
Most people slow down when they become elderly. But Phyllis was an exception. She never missed a beat. Through her eighties she continued to be a forceful and dynamic speaker on the college circuit – often taking considerable abuse from “liberal” audiences while continuing to dish it out.
Right up until her death she continued to write books, columns, and articles that were simply outstanding. And it’s utterly amazing to watch the videos her interviews of her sharp analysis of current events from even weeks before her passing.
And the liberals hated her even in death. The Boston Globe called her “polarizing.” The wave of hateful and odious tweets and posts from the mindless liberal pundits and celebrities is a testament to her power over them.
There will never be another Phyllis Schlafly. She was the best. RIP.
The End?
To quote Sylvia: Evil never sleeps it is simply relentless.
The moral battle against the wickedness of leftism will not end. The leftists do not let little things like “laws” and “rules” get in the way of achieving their objectives.
Despite their preening that “the arc of history bends towards [NeoMarxist] ‘justice'” reality is an unforgiving teacher. History is there for anyone to learn from, and see the mistakes of others, and gives us a path on how we can move forward, if we allow ourselves to lose the self-righteous chronological snobbery that somehow, by magic, the youngest least educated and least experienced among us are the enlightened ones who will lead us into a new golden era. Idealists always believe their own rhetoric, even when faced with towering mountains of undeniable contrary evidence.
UPDATE!
Deadline 9:45 AM CST 2/13/20 Ask your Rep to vote NO on ERA
Since last April, Eagle Forum has been tracking the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democrats and ERA activists have falsely claimed only one state is left to pass the ERA.
Upon passage in 1972, the ERA was sent to the states for ratification. 38 states needed to pass the amendment within seven years. In that time frame, only 35 states passed the ERA and 5 states rescinded their ratifications (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota). The ERA failed ratification and in 1982 the Supreme Court in NOW v. Idaho ruled that the ERA was dead.
To validate their belief that the ERA is still eligible for ratification, the House is attempting to pass H.J. Res. 79, which retroactively removes the ratification deadline. Removing the ERA’s ratification deadline in this manner would be like Congress voting today to overturn a veto by President Carter. In addition, this maneuver sets the dangerous precedent that Congress can legislate away pieces of law that prevent them from furthering their political agenda. To add to this, Congress is undermining the will of the people in Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota, who all rescinded ratification, by counting these five states as part of the original 35.
Consistent with the decision in NOW v. Idaho, the Department of Justice released an opinion on January 8, 2020. The DOJ stated: “Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired. Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.” Upon the release of this opinion, Representatives Maloney (D-CA), Speier (D-CA), Reed (D-NY), and Fitzpatrick (R-PA) released a joint press release. They said: “Virginia’s vote and the outpouring of support from Americans –men and women – across the country have shown that it is finally time to affirm women’s equality in our Constitution and that there is no timeline or expiration date when it comes to achieving it.”
It should concern everyone that these ERA supporters call the deadline “arbitrary” and believe that the Constitution doesn’t already protect all people, including women, when indeed it does.
To add to this, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Dillon v. Gloss (1921) that Congress has the power to choose a reasonable time frame for the states to consider amendments. Amendments should have a “contemporaneous consensus” or a time frame that protects the Constitution and Americans from amendments that are no longer relevant to the current day. Most would agree that we’ve come a long way since the 1970s.
Even if the deadline hadn’t passed, the ERA is still a bad policy that harms women. There are many unintended consequences of not distinguishing between biological males and females. The clause “on account of sex” will surely be interpreted to provide for men identifying as women. Indeed, at the Federal level, the Equality Act and the Violence Against Women Act include provisions allowing men to take advantage of women’s only institutions, like women’s prisons, shelters, sports teams, restrooms, and locker rooms.
In addition, the amendment removes all protections for women merely because men don’t need those same protections. These include workplace practices that accommodate pregnant women, state labor laws for women who do heavy and manual work, government programs that support mothers, like WIC, and laws and presumptions that support women in the areas of alimony, child support, and the requirement of husbands to pay the medical bills of dependent wives. The ERA is sex neutral.
More importantly, the ERA will expand abortion. In both New Mexico and Connecticut, the state’s ERAs were used to overturn abortion restrictions and mandate taxpayer funding of abortion (N.M Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, Doe v. Maher).
The ERA is dangerous and threatens the well-being of women and unborn children. Please ask your Representative to vote NO on H. Res. 79.
Click here for more information on the ERA. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Today the House voted to remove the ERA’s 7-year ratification deadline (H.J.Res. 79). For Members of the House supporting H.J.Res. 79, this was a purely symbolic vote. The ERA doesn’t give women anymore protections than they already have. The 14th Amendment, as well as many other laws like Title IX, the Equal Opportunity Act of 1963, the Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Equal Pay Act provide women equal rights.
Removing the 7-year ratification deadline doesn’t bring the Amendment any closer to ratification. For 24 of the states that passed the ERA, their votes to ratify the ERA explicitly expired on March 22, 1979. To add to this, in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in NOW v. Idaho that ERA failed ratification and was effectively dead. Earlier this year, the DOJ released an opinion supporting this decision.
On Tuesday, a Vox headline said, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has “…dealt a fatal blow to the Equal Rights Amendment.” According to Justice Ginsberg, the ratification process must start over for the ERA to become enshrined into the Constitution. Phyllis Schlafly and RBG agree: ERA is dead on arrival.
The article went on further to say that, “Ginsburg’s comments are likely to be the death knell for the ERA. Without Ginsburg’s vote, it’s tough to imagine that five members of the Supreme Court would agree the ERA was properly ratified.”
“Congress should heed RBG’s advice instead of passing a Resolution removing a deadline that can’t be removed. In doing so, these Members have failed to protect the many women who’ve elected them.” said Eagle Forum President Eunie Smith. “Under the guise of “women’s equality,” the ERA will remove every distinction between the sexes and enshrine abortion into the Constitution. The ERA is not about protecting women. The Senate will be wise to not consider the measure.”
Eagle Forum’s Washington, D.C. staff, Tabitha Walter and Kirsten Hasler, were able to witness the vote in the House Gallery.
For more information on the ERA, please visit Eagle Forum’s website and listen to episode 6 of our podcast, Engage with Eagle Forum. Kirsten Hasler, Tabitha Walter, and Anne Schlafly Cori have also written on the harms of the ERA.
No one would help him clean up the town, so the Sheriff did it alone.
Razorbak respectfully disagrees: The Sheriff Has his posse of which, we are all a part
Very true. We are fighting for Trump because he is fighting for us.
But in the beginning, no one was on Trump’s side, except for the forgotten men and women in the shattered remnants of patriotic America.
The reason why was simple, and Trump told us himself:
“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election.”
Trillions of dollars at stake.
He knew that’s why no one would help him, at least not at first. He had to break down the Washington power structures before he could begin to reform and effect change.
And he was going to have to do it essentially single-handedly.
Yes. Single-handedly. Even with a Republican congress, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were political enemies at the outset, not allies. Ryan would show himself to be part of the resistance and only able to work with Trump when the situation forced his hand.
McConnell would be another story. Needless to say it would take much work to resolve the fundamental relational differences between Trump the MAGA outsider and McConnell leader of the CoC party.
The loss of the House in 2018 did little to improve the situation: The House was still not cooperating with the President. The biggest difference now was that the House was focused on cashing out their Insurance Policy. Only the movie changed, from “RINO Theater” to “Impeachment Theater”.
With their insurance benefits expended and expired, this is a good time to take a look back at what was one of Trump’s most important, most critical policy speeches, re-evaluate it against what we’ve learned, and overlay the new constructs that have become apparent. Predictable patterns to QTree readers will emerge in hindsight; regardless the remarkable foresight of Candidate Trump is astonishing. He predicted an ugly fight he would have to face, and what was at stake, but more importantly he laid down the gauntlet in plain and no uncertain terms for all to see. Even his enemies.
He has taken on the worst of the Washington establishment, and he has won.
Decisively.
There is still more winning to do and many more battles yet to fight, but Donald Trump is clearly the victor today, the champion of the American people.
So without further ado, Trump’s Most Important Speech from October 13, 2016:
Wow. What a group. What a group. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, folks. Thank you, folks. It’s great to be right here in Florida, which we love.
In 26 days, we are going to win this great, great state and we are going to win the White House.
Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt — now, when I say “corrupt,” I’m talking about totally corrupt — political establishment, with a new government controlled by you, the American people.
There is nothing the political establishment will not do — no lie that they won’t tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense. And that’s what’s been happening.
The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it exist for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.
The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass involves trillions of dollars, controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.
For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true existential threat like they haven’t seen before.
This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over our government.
The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry.
The political establishment has brought about the destruction of our factories, and our jobs, as they flee to Mexico, China and other countries all around the world. Our just-announced job numbers are anemic. Our gross domestic product, or GDP, is barely above 1 percent. And going down. Workers in the United States are making less than they were almost 20 years ago, and yet they are working harder.
But so am I working harder, that I can tell you.
It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.
Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit; Flint, Michigan; and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and all across our country. Take a look at what’s going on. They stripped away these town bare. And raided the wealth for themselves and taken our jobs away out of our country never to return unless I’m elected president.
The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure. We’ve seen this first hand in the WikiLeaks documents, in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends and her donors.
So true.
Honestly, she should be locked up. Should be locked up.
And likewise the e-mails show that the Clinton machine is so closely and irrevocably tied to the media organizations that she, that she — listen to this — is given the questions and answers in advance of her debate performance with Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton is also given approval and veto power over quotes written about her in the New York Times.
They definitely do not do that to me, that I can tell you.
And the e-mails show the reporters collaborate and conspire directly with the Clinton campaign on helping her win the election all over.
With their control over our government at stake, with trillions of dollars on the line, the Clinton machine is determined to achieve the destruction of our campaign, not gonna to happen.
Which has now become a great, great movement, the likes of which our country has never seen before, never ever.
They’ve never seen a movement like this in our country before. Yesterday in Florida, massive crowds, people lined up outside of big arenas, not able to get in. Never happened before. It’s one of the phenomenas — it’s one of the great political phenomenas. The most powerful weapon deployed by the Clintons is the corporate media, the press.
Let’s be clear on one thing, the corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They’re a political special interest no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with a total political agenda, and the agenda is not for you, it’s for themselves.
For them it’s a war, and for them nothing at all is out of bounds. This is a struggle for the survival of our nation, believe me. And this will be our last chance to save it on Nov. 8, remember that.
This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged. This is reality, you know it, they know it, I know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it. The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.
They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and your family, they will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that, they will do whatever is necessary. The Clintons are criminals, remember that. They’re criminals.
This is well documented, and the establishment that protects them has engaged in a massive cover-up of widespread criminal activity at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation in order to keep the Clintons in power.
Never in history have we seen such a cover-up as this, one that includes the total destruction of 33,000 e-mails, 13 iPhones – some by hammer – laptops, missing boxes of evidence, and many, many other things.
People who are capable of such crimes against our nation are capable of anything. And so now we address the slander and libels that was just last night thrown at me by the Clinton machine and the New York Times and other media outlets, as part of a concerted, coordinated and vicious attack.
It’s not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time as WikiLeaks releases documents exposing the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine, including 2,000 more e-mails just this morning.
These vicious claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and absolutely false.
And the Clintons know it, and they know it very well. These claims are all fabricated. They’re pure fiction and they’re outright lies. These events never, ever happened and the people said them meekly fully understand. You take a look at these people, you study these people, and you’ll understand also.
The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, and defy truth, common sense and logic. We already have substantial evidence to dispute these lies, and it will be made public in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time very soon.
These lies come from outlets whose past stories and past claims have already been discredited. The media outlets did not even attempt to confirm the most basic facts because even a simple investigation would have shown that these were nothing more than false smears.
Six months ago, the failing New York Times wrote a massive story attacking me, and the central witness they used said the story was false; that she was quoted inaccurately. She said that I was a great guy. She had great courage, I’ll be honest with you. She was an amazing person. And never made those remarks — that I was a great guy, and never made the remarks.
And when I read the story, I was sort of surprised — how could she say that? And she didn’t say it.
We demanded a retraction but, they refused to print it, just like they refused to pin the comments from another source who praised me in her book, or the words of another wonderful woman who said really nice things about me. They put other statements that she didn’t say, they misrepresented. The story was a fraud and a big embarrassment to The New York Times and it was a big front page story. Front page, center, color picture, a disgrace. They were very embarrassed; it will be part of the lawsuit we are preparing against them.
Now, today the same two discredited writers, who should’ve been fired from The New York Times for what they did, tell another totally fabricated and false story, that supposedly took place on an airplane more than 30 years ago. Another ridiculous tale, no witnesses, no nothing.
Then, there was a writer from People Magazine, who wrote a story on Melania and myself on our first anniversary. The story was beautiful. It was beautiful. It was lovely. But last night we hear that after 12 years — this took place 12 years ago, this story — a new claim that I made inappropriate advances during the interview to this writer.
And I asked very simple question, why wasn’t it part of the story that appeared 20 or 12 years ago? Why wasn’t it a part of the story? Why didn’t they make it part of the story? I was one of the biggest stars on television with The Apprentice and I would’ve been one of the biggest stories of the year. Think of it, she’s doing this story on Melania, who was pregnant at the time. And Donald Trump, our one year anniversary, and she said I made inappropriate advances, and by the way, the area was a public area, people all over the place.
Take a look, you take a look. Look at her, look at her words. You tell me, what you think. I don’t think so. I don’t think so.
But, it is amazing, doing a story — a love story — on how great we are together — and by the way, we’re stronger today than we ever were before, which is good, but it’s a love story. It’s a love story on our one year. And if I did that, she would’ve added that it would’ve been the headline. And who would’ve done that if you’re doing this and you’re one of the top shows on television.
These people are horrible people. They’re horrible, horrible liars. And interestingly, it happens to appear 26 days before our very important election, isn’t that amazing?
This invented account has already been debunked by eyewitnesses who were there. They were there. The very witness identified by the author has said the story is totally false.
By the way, this is a room that everybody can see in. It’s got glass walls. It’s at Mar-A-Lago. It’s got glass walls. Can you believe this? Why wasn’t it in the story, biggest story of the year?
This weekend, The New York Times published a full-page hit piece with another claim from an individual who has been totally discredited based on the many, many, many e-mails and letters she has sent to our office over the years, looking for work, Donald is great, wanting go to my rallies. But The New York Times — and this was full op-ed piece — refused to use the evidence that we presented, refused to use it. If they used it, if they would have looked, they would have said, there’s no story here.
Others in the media, which almost surprises me because they’re dishonest also, were presented with the story by this woman numerous times, and they got very excited. But, after seeing the evidence that we immediately give them, all of them refused to write the story. There was no story.
The Times, though, didn’t want to see it. They just wrote the story. And this was a full page opposite the editorials. This is part of a concerted effort, led by The New York Times and others. Now The New York Times is fighting desperately for its relevance and its financial survival. And it probably won’t even be around in a few years, based on its financial outlook, which wouldn’t be a bad thing, if you want to know the truth.
But, as it winds down its years and is becoming more and more problematic, it’s gotten more and more vicious, more and more vile. And even the other mainstream media is talking about the single greatest pile-on in history, and all between now and Nov. 8. And you have to see the stories they’ve written, it’s one after another, after another, and facts mean nothing, third-rate journalism. The great editors of the past from The New York Times and others, ladies and gentlemen, are spinning in their grave.
I will not allow the Clinton machine to turn our campaign into a discussion of their slanders and lies, but, will remain focused on the issues facing the American people.
Thank you, thank you. But, let me state this as clearly as I can, these attacks are orchestrated by the Clintons and their media allies. The only thing Hillary Clinton has going for herself is the press, without the press, she is absolutely zero.
And you saw that the other night in the debate, where some people said she made virtually a fool of herself. This is not presidential material, believe me. What they say is false and slanderous in virtually every respect. We are now less than a month from the most election of our lifetime. Indeed one of the most important elections in the history of our country. And the polls are showing us in a dead heat. Don’t believe what you say.
The new, highly respected Rasmussen poll just came out this morning. Just released. Shows up nationally 2 points ahead, Trump. Beautiful.
Just came out. So now the Clinton machine has put forward a small handful of people out of tens of thousands of people over the years that I’ve met, that I’ve worked with, that I’ve employed, in order to make wild and false allegations that fail to meet even the most basic test of common sense. Not even common sense.
Again, this is nothing more than an attempt to destroy our movement and for the Clintons to keep their corrupt control over our government. When I declared my candidacy, I knew what bad shape our country was in. And believe me, all you have to do is look at world events. All you have to do is look at the $1.7 billion that we sent to Iran in cash – in cash.
All you have to do is see the way ISIS was created in the vacuum left by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama out of Iraq. All you have to do, all you have to do, is look at the 800 people that were very, very not good for our nation. They were going to be deported. Lo and behold, instead of being deported, they were made citizens of the United States just recently.
And lo and behold, sadly, the 800 people is wrong. It turned out to be close to 1,800 people. Our president is incompetent. All he wants to do is campaign, and the last thing he wants to happen is to have Donald Trump terminate Obamacare and do all of the other things that are destroying …
He’s led a very divided nation and it’s only gotten worse. And the last thing our country needs is four more years of Barack Obama, believe me. I’ve seen firsthand the corruption and the sickness that has taken over our politics. You’ve seen it and I’ve seen it and we’re all watching together.
They knew they would throw every lie they could at me and my family and my loved ones. They knew they would stop at nothing to try to stop me. But I never knew as bad as it would be. I never knew it would be this vile, that it would be this bad, that it would be this vicious.
Nevertheless, I take all of these slings and arrows gladly for you.
I take them for our movement so that we can have our country back.
Our great civilization, here in America and across the civilized world has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom, where they voted to liberate themselves from global government and global trade deal, and global immigration deals that have destroyed their sovereignty and have destroyed many of those nations. But, the central base of world political power is right here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people. Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.
They will allow radical Islamic terrorists to enter our country by the thousands.
They will allow the great Trojan horse — and I don’t want people looking back in a hundred years and 200 years and have that story be told about us because we were led by inept, incompetent and corrupt people like Barack Obama and like Hillary Clinton. We don’t want to be part of that history.
And by the way, President Obama should stop campaigning and start working on creating jobs, start working on getting our GDP up, start working on strengthening our borders.
The corrupt political establishment is a machine, it has no soul. I knew these false attacks would come. I knew this day would arrive; it’s only a question of when. And I knew the American people would rise above it and vote for the future they deserve.
The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The only force strong enough to save our country is us. The only people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment is you, the American people.
We are going to have a policy: America first.
They control incredibly, the Department of Justice.
And they even secretly meet with the Attorney General of the United States. In the back of her airplane, while on the runway — remember he was there — he was going to play golf. Oh, oh gee, there’s the Attorney General. Let me go say hello — plane’s on the runway. Let me go say hello to the Attorney General. He never got to play golf, I understand. And it was Arizona, a place I love, but the weather was about a hundred and some odd degrees — he’s not gonna play. He was never there to play golf, folks, don’t be foolish.
They met for 39 minutes and most likely it was to discuss her reappointment, in a Clinton administration, as the Attorney General, just prior to making a decision over whether or not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, okay? That’s what happened. That’s called real life and that’s pretty sad.
They met for 39 minutes. Remember he said, we talked golf and we talked about our grandchildren. Three minutes for the grandchildren, two minutes for the golf, then they sat there and they twiddled their thumbs. Now I believe they talked about her remaining in her position under a crooked Hillary Clinton administration. That’s what I believe. That’s what I believe folks. That’s what I believe and I think that’s what most people in this room believe.
Likewise, they’ve essentially corrupted the Director of the FBI to the point at which stories are already saying that the great — and they are truly great — men and women who work for the FBI are embarrassed and ashamed of what he’s done to one of our truly great institutions, the FBI itself.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of all the things that Director Comey stated at his press conference and Congressional hearings and far more. He stated many things, but it’s far more and he knows that. And yet, after reading all of these items, where she’s so guilty, he let her off the hook. While other lives, including General Petraeus and many others, have been destroyed for doing far, far less. This is a conspiracy against you, the American people, and we cannot let this happen or continue.
This is our moment of reckoning as a society and as a civilization itself. I didn’t need to do this, folks, believe me — believe me. I built a great company and I had a wonderful life. I could have enjoyed the fruits and benefits of years of successful business deals and businesses for myself and my family. Instead of going through this absolute horror show of lies, deceptions, malicious attacks — who would have thought? I’m doing it because this country has given me so much, and I feel so strongly that it’s my turn to give back to the country that I love.
Many of my friends and many political experts warned me that this campaign would be a journey to hell – said that. But they’re wrong. It will be a journey to heaven, because we will help so many people that are so desperately in need of help.
In my former life, I was an insider as much as anybody else. And I knew what it’s like, and I still know what it’s like to be an insider. It’s not bad. It’s not bad. Now I’m being punished for leaving the special club and revealing to you the terrible things that are going on having to do with our country. Because I used to be part of the club, I’m the only one that can fix it.
I’m doing this for the people and for the movement, and we will take back this country for you and we will make America great again.
The corrupt establishment knows that we are a great threat to their criminal enterprise. They know that if we win, their power is gone, and it’s returned to you, the people, will be. The dark clouds hanging over our government can be lifted and replaced with a bright future. But it all depends on whether we let the corrupt media decide our future or whether we let the American people decide our future.
If this Clinton campaign of destruction is allowed to work, then no other highly success — and this is so true, I mean I’ve seen this so many times, and I’ve heard this all of my life, I’ve heard it all of my life. If we let this happen, then no other highly-successful person, which is what our country needs — it needs a certain thinking. When you look at our trade deals that are so bad, when you look, as an example, on trade, we’re going to lose almost $800 billion this year, trade deficit, almost $800 billion. Our debt has doubled in seven and a half years to almost $20 trillion, under Obama.
No other successful person, after watching this, and no other very successful person will ever again, ever — and who can blame them? Even me, I’d say, you’re right — will ever again run for office. I’ve heard it for years, if you’re very successful, you can’t run for high office, especially for President. I said, I don’t care, I don’t care. I’ve done so many deals, I’ve done so well. It’s a certain mindset that we need in our country, at least for a period of time. We have to straighten our country out.
I will not lie to you. These false attacks are absolutely hurtful. To be lied about, to be slandered, to be smeared so publicly, and before your family that you love, is very painful. What is going on is egregious beyond any words. People that know the story, people that see the story, people that know the facts, they can’t even believe it. It’s reprehensible beyond description, it’s totally corrupt.
But, I also know that it’s not about me. It’s about all of you and it’s about our country. I know that. I fully understand that. That’s why I got involved. It’s about all of us together as a country. It’s a movement the likes of which we have never in history in this country seen before, never in history. Even the pundits, even the media — that truly dislikes Donald Trump for their own reasons — will admit this is a movement the likes of which people have never seen before.
And it’s a movement about the veterans who need medical care, the mothers who’ve lost their beloved children to terrorism and to crime. It’s about the inner cities and the border towns who desperately need our help. It’s about the millions of jobless people in America. It’s about the American workers who can’t get jobs because our jobs have left for Mexico and so many other countries.
This election is about the people being crushed by Obamacare. And it’s about defeating ISIS and appointing a Supreme Court and a Supreme Court Justice — it could be four or five — who will defend and protect our Constitution.
This election is also about, so importantly to me, African-American and Hispanic-American people whose communities have been plunged into crime, poverty and failing schools by the policies of crooked Hillary Clinton. Believe me, she’s crooked.
They’ve robbed these citizens of their future and, if we win, I will give them their hope, their jobs, their education. I will give them their security back. The inner cities, education is almost worthless, it’s horrible. We’re going to have Common Core ended. We’re going to bring education local.
But, you look at the inner cities and you see bad education, no jobs, no safety. You walk to the grocery store with your child and you get shot. You walk outside to look and see what’s happening and you get shot. In Chicago, 3,000 people have been shot since Jan. 1. We’re not going to let that happen. Our inner cities are almost at an all-time low, run by the Democrats for sometimes more than a hundred years, chain unbroken.
So they have no jobs. They have horrible education. They have no safety or security and I say to the African-American community, what the hell do you have to lose? I will fix it. I will fix it. I will make it good. I’ll bring back our jobs. We’ll have good education. We’ll have great safety in the inner city.
And we will help the Hispanic-American people, who have been treated so badly and so unfairly in our nation, we will help them.
I will deliver like you’ve never seen before. I deliver. Whether people like Donald Trump or not, they all say he delivers.
Vote for Donald Trump. You’re going to see something and you’ll be so happy. You’ll be so thrilled. This election is about every man, woman and child in our country who deserves to live in safety, prosperity and peace, so true. We will rise above the lies, the smears, the ludicrous slanders from ludicrous and very, very dishonest reporters.
We will vote for the country we want. We will vote for the future we want. We will vote for the politics we want and we will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business and out of business immediately.
We will vote for the special interests and say lots of luck, but you’re being voted out of power. They’ve betrayed our workers, they’ve betrayed our borders and, most of all, they’ve betrayed our freedoms. We will save our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit. We will end the rule of special interests. We will end the raiding of our jobs by other countries. We will end the total disenfranchisement of the American voter and the American worker. Our Independence Day is at hand, and it arrives finally on Nov. 8.
Join me in taking back our country and creating a bright, glorious, and prosperous new future for our people. We will make America great again, and it will happen quickly.
God bless you. God bless you. Thank you. Thank you.
Update 1: Rally Video Added! Keep an eye out for further updates . . . Lots of opportunities for contributions on this one . . .
To a crowded Trump Rally in Des Moines, Iowa, President Donald Trump literally told the people of a proud American agricultural state: “They wanna kill our cows! That means you’re next!”
“The socialist Democrats want to shut down American energy, They support Representative Occasion Cortez – that’s a real beauty . . . that’s a beauty I can’t even believe it but I don’t want to knock it. Because the Green New Deal which would crush our farms, destroy our wonderful cows. I love cows! They want to kill our cows! You know why right? . . . You know why – don’t say . . . They want to kill our cows! That means you’re next!“
Don’t Panic! The VSG totally has this. He’s already defeated these people at their game.
So Much Winning . . .
Warning: This article is rated EXTRA SPICY. Consume responsibly.
“They wanna kill our cows! That means you’re next!”
Yes, he really went there.
In Iowa.
Talking to a crowded rally of farmers.
In one of America’s greatest agriculture states.
And during one of America’s most important political primaries.
Today’s story starts with the Coronavirus. Wait, actually it goes back much further. Well let’s start with Coronavirus.
Daughn posted a Coronavirus thread because, well, I’m a slacker:
I want/don’t want to put up a “PANIC! Coronavirus Pandemic!” post to collect all the articles and theories everyone’s posted…
Main reason I don’t want to: “It will all work out well.”
If it were a REAL threat, POTUS would have said more now. Nothing catches him by surprise.
And it’s true, our President has this under control:
China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!
Before this year’s very real coronavirus pandemic that started in China and is now sweeping the globe, a “fictional” simulation of such an event was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation last year.
Event 201, which was hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, took place in October 2018 and featured a simulation in which a novel zoonotic coronavirus spread throughout the world and caused 65 million deaths worldwide. In the preparedness scenario, the coronavirus started in Brazil rather than China.
“Once you’re in the midst of a severe pandemic, your options are very limited,” said Eric Toner, a senior scholar at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University. “The greatest good can happen with pre-planning.”
The event was hosted in New York City and attended by some of the most influential business leaders, government officials, and health officials. Attendees claimed that it really helped them rethink how they would handle disaster preparedness if such a situation were to arise.
“It really does shake up assumptions and change thinking about how we can prepare for a global pandemic,” says Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security.
Some of the highlights from the conference can be seen here:
https://youtu.be/AoLw-Q8X174
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and globalist World Economic Forum helped to put on the event. The coronavirus was described in the training as being similar to SARS “but slightly more transmissible, like the flu, and slightly more lethal.”
“We don’t have a vaccine for SARS, or MERS, or various avian flu viruses that have come up in the past decade,” Toner said, noting how the situation described in Event 201 could easily take place. “That’s because vaccine development is slow and difficult if there isn’t an immediate market for it.”
Widespread allegations have also emerged that patents were issued for the coronavirus, perhaps in anticipation for its release upon the masses:
“In the case of biological threats, that sense of urgency is lacking,” he said. “The world needs to prepare for pandemics in the same serious way it prepares for war.”
Perhaps Gates just showed incredible foresight in choosing the coronavirus mass death simulation just months before the real thing would show itself, or maybe this is just another case of predictive programming from a globalist cabal capable of unfathomable evil.
According to a storypublished on CBC news on July 14, 2019, a researcher connected to China was escorted out of the National Microbiology Lab (NML) in Winnipeg during an RCMP investigation into what was described as a possible “policy breach.”
Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, her husband Keding Cheng, and an undisclosed number of her students from China were removed from Canada’s only level-4 lab on July 5, according to a CBC News report.
A Level 4 virology facility is a lab with the equipment to work with the most threatening human and animal diseases. This made the Arlington Street lab one of the very few labs in North America that is able to handle pathogens demanding the highest level of containment, such as Ebola.
According to sources who worked at the lab and did not want to be identified, the couple and the Chinese students had their security access revoked
Sources claim that this came several months after NML IT specialists entered Qiu’s office after-hours and replaced her computer. Qiu’s frequent trips to China were also being denied.
During meetings on July 8, NML staff were informed that the researchers were on leave for an indefinite period of time. They were instructed not to communicate with them.
Qiu is a medical doctor hailing from Tianjin, China. She migrated Canada for graduate studies in 1996. She was still connected to the university there and has brought in many students over the years to help with her work.
She was leading the Vaccine Development and Antiviral Therapies section in the Special Pathogens Program at the lab. Qiu’s main research field is immunology and she mostly focused on vaccine development, post-exposure therapeutics, and quick diagnostics of viruses like Ebola.
“Based on information received to date, the RCMP has assessed that there is no threat to public safety at this time,” Robert Cyrenne informed CBC News in an email.
PHAC described it as a policy breach and “administrative matter” and said the department took steps to “resolve it expeditiously,” Eric Morrissette, the health agency’s chief of media relations, said.
“We can assure Canadians that there is absolutely no risk to the Canadian public and that the work of the NML continues in support of the health and safety of all Canadians,” communications director Mathieu Filion communication in an email.
No one from the Chinese Embassy commented on the situation
Many experts speculated that this could have been a case of intellectual property theft or technology leakage to China.
“The National Microbiology Laboratory would have some pretty sensitive biological research material that … could be shared either with or without authorization with foreign countries,” claimed Gordon Houlden, director of the University of Alberta’s China Institute.
“All of this is unproven, but even microbiology, sometimes especially microbiology, can have issues that involve national security.”
No matter the country, China uses its geopolitical leverage to advance its own interests.
Not just America, but the rest of the West should reconsider how it handles diplomatic and economic relations with China.
After this ‘Trial Run of the UN-OIE Stamping-Out/De-population protocol’, it was adopted here in the USA. PLEASE NOTE THERE IS A VACCINE so the killing of uneffected cattle WAS NOT NECESSARY! Also the meat can be eaten by humans with no ill effect.
CRITICAL!!!
…In the case of FMD, they did not even know how the disease was carried. It could be on the wind, on the wheels of vehicles or the soles of boots, in the throats of human beings or any combination of these and others.
Computer modelling has a number of attractions for academics. It does not need the resources that experimental science demands; nor does it need the long hours of careful attention required for research by measurement. In just a few hours you can create a model, just a computer program, which is so complex that no outsider can hope to unravel it. You can build in many assumptions that might well be unjustifiable under independent examination. Furthermore, the human unconscious is a mischievous influence that can produce the desired results, even for those who are not deliberately cheating. In the same few hours you can produce beautiful graphs and tables, the like of which would take months in experimental science, but which are so convincing to laymen and particularly politicians and bureaucrats. This is a point so important that it is worth an interlude of its own….
The article does not mention the suicides or the EU and UN role. Use Depopulation and you can begin exporting MUCH SOONER than if you use vaccination.
…In Europe the acknowledged expert was a Dutch vet, Dr Simon Barteling, who had been responsible for handling over 20 outbreaks of the disease in different parts of the world. Both these experts had worked with the most modern vaccines and had expressed their conviction that vaccination provided the key to rapid control of the disease without the need to resort to mass slaughter. Indeed, when an outbreak occurred in Albania and Macedonia in 1996, the EU, fearing a spread across its own borders, had quickly set up a vaccination programme. The outbreak was totally suppressed within a few weeks. Thus, it was not just theoretical knowledge, but practical experience with convincing results, that pointed to vaccination as being the only reasonable and effective way to tackle the disease: but the British establishment had its mind set on slaughter….
Nearly eight million animals, one eighth of all those in Britain and most of them healthy, had been slain. Mass bankruptcies occurred throughout the rural economy. Industries ranging from hotel chains to hot air balloon manufacturers were devastated. The total cost to the British economy was in the range 10 to 20 billion pounds. Promises of Government aid faded away in the miasma of bureaucratic manoeuvring and EU regulation…..
Why do these people hate cows so much??
Moving on with our story . . .
FAKE MEAT is IMPOSSIBLE!
As a bit of background, I’m sure you’ve seen the advertising online and at restaurants promoting the new vegetarian option, the “Impossible Burger” or “Impossible Meat”.
Impossible Foods, the manufacturers of the new meat-ish concoction that is meant to take our breath away, is of course one of Bill Gates’ projects as part of his Utopian vision for the future of the world. Folks, more digging is needed on this, but for now let’s just say that our spidey senses are tingling.
So what is this “Impossible Burger” anyway?
So these "impossible" burgers are actually SOY BOMBS with enough estrogen to….. WELL THAT FIGURES.https://t.co/VyZnzHilna
From the article: “The impossible whopper has 44 mg of estrogen and the whopper has 2.5 ng of estrogen,” wrote Stangle. “That means an impossible whopper has 18 million times as much estrogen as a regular whopper.” So it will give you boobs. Don’t ask what happens if a pregnant woman has that burger every day and exposes her unborn child to all that estrogen. Nor do I think we really want to know what it will do to fertility and viability of fetuses.
The impossible whopper is being advertised by Burger King as a plant based alternative to the whopper. When food manufacturers started talking about making artificial meat, I, too, thought it would be impossible to make a hamburger cheaply enough to make it competitive. You see, I assumed that they would have to buy the individual amino acids (the building blocks for protein) and chemically string them together in the proper order, then remove the reagents (chemicals needed to cause the chain reactions) and then add something to give it the right textures.
The impossible whopper (made by Impossible Foods) bypassed all of those steps. Let’s compare the two. The impossible whopper patty is made from 24 ingredients. The most important ingredient is soy protein. The whopper patty has just one ingredient. That would be beef.
. . . The impossible whopper has 25 grams of protein. The whopper has 28 grams. Seems pretty equal, only 11% less protein in the impossible whopper. However, not all proteins are created equal. There are 20 amino acids. Nine of which are essential, meaning your body cannot make them so they are required in the diet. Each of those essential amino acids must meet a certain level to make a complete protein profile. If any essential amino acid does not hit the required amount, it is said to be rate limiting. As an analogy, picture nine chains connected in a line. All of the chains need to lift 100 pounds to carry the load. If one chain can only support 50 pounds, it doesn’t matter how much the others can support. The 50 pound chain is the rate limiting chain.
. . . Now, let’s compare the estrogen hormone in an impossible whopper to the whopper made from hormone implanted beef. The impossible whopper has 44 mg of estrogen and the whopper has 2.5 ng of estrogen. Now let me refresh your metric system. There are 1 million nanograms (ng) in one milligram (mg). That means an impossible whopper has 18 million times as much estrogen as a regular whopper. Just six glasses of soy milk per day has enough estrogen to grow boobs on a male. That’s the equivalent of eating four impossible whoppers per day. You would have to eat 880 pounds of beef from an implanted steer to equal the amount of estrogen in one birth control pill.
I enjoy me some Amazing Polly from up North. She has a youtube channel and covers some interesting topics and has a pleasant delivery…she really seems like a good egg.
Yesterday she did a piece on the Impossible Meat Company and their genetically lab-grown burgers…pretty disturbing stuff…all I could think of was Mrs. Lovett’s Meat Pies (for those of you who have seen Sweeney Todd). Of course these fake meat companies are a direct result of the environmenalist/global warming agenda and have all sorts of connections to the usual suspects. Meat is bad, dontcha’ know? Well, Impossible Meats denies that they use stem cells in their fake meat product like other fake meat companies do and I guess that’s fair enough…
…until Amazing Polly Google-Mapped the Impossible Meat facility in Silicon Valley (of course) and there, smack dab in the middle of an industrial park was the fake meat facility…and guess what was directly across the street…in the middle of an industrial park of all places? That’s right…that would be Planned Parenthood. yeah, that Planned Parenthood…the one that peddles in baby parts. Of course this doesn’t prove anything, as Polly points out, but what on Earth is a Planned Parenthood doing in a industrial park…next to a fake meat factory? This is too disturbing to consider…but then again…
Looks like it’s best for men to AVOID SOY WHEN YOUNG, but then go for it hard after their child-bearing years, because it’s so good at preventing and surviving prostate cancer.
Meanwhile, we learned yesterday (coming from a Canadian globalist rag, no less):
Starbuck’s to ban dairy. Impossible burgers to replace beef. Clearly, they’re preparing for our cattle to be gone. If Pirbright tries anything, VSGPOTUSDJT and Sonny Perdue will make sure they RUE THE DAY….
Note that The Chronicle Herald issued a “correction”:
Correction: An earlier headline and story said Starbucks will go dairy free. The company says that it intends to encourage more plant-based options, but did not announce it will eliminate dairy entirely.
Dairy, for all intents and purposes, is now on its way out at Starbucks. Dairy alternatives will be the standard in Starbucks stores. Whipped cream, cream, milk, all will be gone soon. While dairy is typically cheaper, Starbucks believes this will change. Starbucks is banking on its buying power and the volume it represents to gain access to lower-priced alternative dairy products. To entice dairy alternative providers to scale up, demand will need to be ramped up by other major players.
The reason for the move? Environmental “science,” of course . . .
The dairy industry will probably have some issues with Starbucks’ move away from dairy, but the science is compelling. Based on a study published by Science Magazine in 2018, milk production requires more land, more water, and will emit more carbon than any other alternatives to milk.
Plant-based alternatives to dairy have been around at Starbucks for a while now, but this announcement makes it official. Dairy is as healthy as any other option, but that doesn’t seem to matter to Starbucks. It’s about the planet.
And in case Starbuck’s didn’t get the message, this chilling warning was tacked on by the Globalist rag:
Starbucks did promise it would be serving a quarter of its beverages in reusable containers by 2015. That promise was made in 2008. By 2016, only two per cent of all beverages were served in reusable containers. The public won’t be as forgiving this time, and will not hesitate to consider any half-hearted gas emission-reducing initiatives as greenwashing.
Wow, way to make sure they get the memo: Get with the environmental times or go out of business.
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, don’t miss this:
Starbucks probably would not be what it is today without William H. Gates Sr., a lawyer and father of the Bill Gates who co-founded Microsoft. The attorney was instrumental in helping former CEO Howard Schultz buy the coffee company in 1987.
Schultz first joined Starbucks in 1982, a year after he stepped foot in the original store in Seattle. “I met the founders and over the course of a year, I persuaded them to hire me,” he tells Guy Raz on an episode of NPR’s podcast, “How I Built This.”
Starbuck’s to ban dairy. Impossible burgers to replace beef. Clearly, they’re preparing for our cattle to be gone. If Pirbright tries anything, VSGPOTUSDJT and Sonny Perdue will make sure they RUE THE DAY….
Before that nikkichico7”found this on the Qanon.pub for today, January 28, 2020”
Before that nikkichico7”found this on the Qanon.pub for today, January 28, 2020”
BACKGROUND
PIRBRIGHT Labs (UK) ALSO leaked the Foot & Mouth Disease.
SEE: Lest we forget! ”This is chapter 15 of the Epidemiologists: Have they got scares for you. It leans heavily on Not the foot and mouth report: everything Tony Blair did not want you to know about the biggest blunder in his premiership (Private Eye special report November 2001).” PLEASE NOTE THERE IS A VACCINE so the killing of uneffected cattle WAS NOT NECESSARY! Also the meat can be eaten by humans with no ill effect. CRITICAL!!!
…In the case of FMD, they did not even know how the disease was carried. It could be on the wind, on the wheels of vehicles or the soles of boots, in the throats of human beings or any combination of these and others.
Computer modelling has a number of attractions for academics. It does not need the resources that experimental science demands; nor does it need the long hours of careful attention required for research by measurement. In just a few hours you can create a model, just a computer program, which is so complex that no outsider can hope to unravel it. You can build in many assumptions that might well be unjustifiable under independent examination. Furthermore, the human unconscious is a mischievous influence that can produce the desired results, even for those who are not deliberately cheating. In the same few hours you can produce beautiful graphs and tables, the like of which would take months in experimental science, but which are so convincing to laymen and particularly politicians and bureaucrats. This is a point so important that it is worth an interlude of its own….
The article does not mention the suicides or the EU and UN role. Use Depopulation and you can begin exporting MUCH SOONER than if you use vaccination.
blockquote>…In Europe the acknowledged expert was a Dutch vet, Dr Simon Barteling, who had been responsible for handling over 20 outbreaks of the disease in different parts of the world. Both these experts had worked with the most modern vaccines and had expressed their conviction that vaccination provided the key to rapid control of the disease without the need to resort to mass slaughter. Indeed, when an outbreak occurred in Albania and Macedonia in 1996, the EU, fearing a spread across its own borders, had quickly set up a vaccination programme. The outbreak was totally suppressed within a few weeks. Thus, it was not just theoretical knowledge, but practical experience with convincing results, that pointed to vaccination as being the only reasonable and effective way to tackle the disease: but the British establishment had its mind set on slaughter…. Nearly eight million animals, one eighth of all those in Britain and most of them healthy, had been slain. Mass bankruptcies occurred throughout the rural economy. Industries ranging from hotel chains to hot air balloon manufacturers were devastated. The total cost to the British economy was in the range 10 to 20 billion pounds. Promises of Government aid faded away in the miasma of bureaucratic manoeuvring and EU regulation…..
After this ‘Trial Run of the UN-OIE Stamping-Out/De-population protocol’, it was adopted here in the USA.
I can no longer find my notes or anything on the internet. So from memory….
*ALL Suseptible animals in a 10 kilometer radius (AND your dogs and cats) are killed. * ANY unsealed/washable buildings (think wood) are burned to the ground. * Area is quarantined to travel by humans. …..
So AFTER the analysis of the UK Foot & Mouth disease fiasco what does the Democrat Congress and Obama do?
Some federal lawmakers want to stop the sale of New York’s Plum Island, home to the only national government laboratory studying diseases harmful to livestock and other animals. Congress voted in 2009 to close the aging lab and move operations to Kansas State University. President Barack Obama’s latest budget includes $714 million for the project, and Kansas officials are selling bonds to pay for the new lab. But lawmakers from New York and Connecticut plan to introduce legislation Tuesday to stop the sale, saying it is unnecessary and uneconomical, and the island lab is worth preserving…. https://news.yahoo.com/seek-halt-sale-nys-plum-island-lab-064555342.html
Yeah, you read that correctly, CLOSE the lab on an isolated island and MOVE operations to Kansas State University IN THE MIDDLE OF COW COUNTRY
A computer model (Har Har) showed if Foot and mouth escaped it would wipe out ALL of the USA cattle, sheep, goats & pigs…
…………
Kansas State University Student Body:
Asian………….181 men …216 women *https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/155399/kansas-state-university/enrollment/#gender-block
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEE, Do you think Starbuck KNOWS something we don’t? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, I forgot the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). That committee came up with the recommendation that America Should Adopt a ‘Plant-Based’ Diet, recommends taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at schools and worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television or computer. The new Food Safety Modernization Act and Obummercare will be used as the weapons to ‘transform’ American dietary habits. to a more sustainable pattern of eating. SEE: *http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-america-should-adopt-plant-based-diet/
What you buy at the grocery store, where you live, and even your membership status at the local gym are all subject to a new data collection scheme by the American medical system. Reports indicate that hospitals and doctors’ offices all across the country are now collecting this and other personal information in order to target individuals deemed to have “unhealthy” lifestyle habits that put them at high risk of disease.
Bloomberg reports that hospital systems in both North and South Carolina as well as Pennsylvania have already begun tracking people’s food-purchasing habits by spying on them through public records and credit card transactions. Carolinas HealthCare System (CHS), which operates some 900 care centers throughout the Carolinas, has teamed up with a data-mining company to compile and track this information for the later purpose of calling “high-risk” folks and urging them to make a change.
“What we are looking to find are people before they end up in trouble,” stated Michael Dulin, chief clinical officer for analytics and outcomes at CHS, to Bloomberg. “The idea is to use big data and predictive models to think about population health and drill down to the individual levels to find someone running into trouble that we can reach out to and try to help out.”….
Extrapolate this out to chicken and Avian flu and pigs and Swine flu and….
Without sources of nutrition from animal flesh and milk, humans will devolve. There’s no getting around it. Without B12, children in the womb are born at a disadvantage. It is now believed one of my nephews is effected by this. (Personally, if his parents were more organized, it might not be such an issue, if that’s really what the deal is. I mean, that child is WAY too smart and manipulative to fit the diagnosis.) Due to the number of women giving birth after gastric bypass surgery, there are now studies on the topic. And one of the results is reduced intelligence.
And that’s just lack of B12.
IIRC, in anthropological research, prior to moving to plant based diets, humans were 5’9″ on average, and had larger jaws, etc. After the change, humans were on average something like 5’3″ or 5’4″ with smaller jaws and disease began to pop up.
The NWO sees the future for the peasants as the past.
In the paleo community, there are a lot of people who are former vegans and vegetarians. They just couldn’t stay healthy.
I should mention that B12 sources are all animal based. Chicken breast, eggs, organ meats, etc.
Riffing on the “Green New Deal”
“The socialist Democrats want to shut down American energy, They support Representative Occasion Cortez – that’s a real beauty . . . that’s a beauty I can’t even believe it but I don’t want to knock it. Because the Green New Deal which would crush our farms, destroy our wonderful cows. I love cows! They want to kill our cows! You know why right? . . . You know why – don’t say . . . They want to kill our cows! That means you’re next!”
We’ve talked about the “Green New Deal” extensively before.
You know, the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez policy creation that blamed Global Warming on bovine flatulence – “cow farts” as they were actually quoted saying.
We were told that we need to stop eating beef because the cattle are causing global warming!
Man, to think that all those giant herds of American Bison on the Great Plains in the 1800s didn’t release methane and cause global warming – obviously it’s the cows’ fault. Because “science”. Or something.
There were so many problems with the Green New Deal that the original documents were highly embarrassing. They were taken offline and a fake cover story made that some Republicans actually hacked their server(!) and uploaded faked documents to their website. Folks, we can’t make this up – leftists aren’t the sharpest crayons in the box.
Fortunately, the original documents from the February 8, 2019 “Green New Deal” announcement have been nicely archived online for posterity and our future review (as discussed at this link):
Daughn is the News Now! Thanks to her remarkable Deep Dive on the Justice Democrats – easily one of the best pieces of investigate research on the QTree, we know the rest of the story. The Justice Democrats, the organization behind Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and led by Saikat Chakrabarti, drafted the Green New Deal.
BTW, what is it with these Justice Democrats anyway? Man these people are like CRABGRASS. We’ll come back to Zack Exley and what the heck he has to do with the SBC again in some other post.
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.
Radical Veganism
“. . . Make it Fifty Billion . . .”
VSGPOTUSDJT already has this gamed out. He knows exactly how to solve this problem:
Incentivize Beef Production to expand the cattle stock so large that it is totally resilient and can fully withstand anything that is thrown at it.
Trump was comically flippant: “Oh they’ll find a way.”
The United States cannot in the near term produce enough corn and soybeans to support $50B USD in exports. For China to meet its Phase 1 import requirements, there will have to be a lot more exports than merely corn and soybeans. There will have to be other agriculture products added to the mix, including wheat, lots of pork bellies, chicken, and of course, American beef. No one single agriculture product can meet the requirements – China will be required to import a range of products to step up to the $50B USD commitment.
We are going to sell so much beef to Japan and so much dairy to Canada that Bill Gates is lose his freakin’ mind!
Texas BEEF and Texas OIL are going to conquer the WORLD!!!
Yeah don’t you wonder if Bill talked to Howard and convinced him this was a good idea?
If Bill pushes Pirbright to try anything, VSGPOTUSDJT and Sonny Perdue will make sure they RUE THE DAY
And BTW . . . Don’t mess with Texas!
Public Service Announcement: This ad campaign was the brainchild of the Democrat Governor Ann Richards mis-administration of the State of Texas. Please mock this slogan at every possible opportunity.
Food Security is National Security
A lot of emphasis on Agriculture – the cynic will think that this is just about winning the Iowa vote.
OK You remember all those elitist leftists bleating on about “food security” for all those years? Like Wendell Berry?
This is very Trumpian.
FOOD SECURITY = NATIONAL SECURITY!
AGRICULTURAL SECURITY = NATIONAL SECURITY!
If the U.S. is a NET EXPORTER of agricultural products, it means that in a real threat to our security, we have overcapacity of agricultural product!
Which means: We can weather whatever threat without widespread food shortages.
Total Genius!
And to top it off, he also declared war on the Cult of Moloch by being the first President to attend the March for Life, which made some of the SBC elites angry – go figure.
Buh bye elitists! We will have more corn, soybeans, cattle, chicken and pork than America knows what to do with!!!
“Curse you Villain!”
“Umm, excuse me, but the pandemic was supposed to be timed to draw attention away from the President’s impeachment defense . . .”
POTUS is in Command
(. . . snickers like Muttley . . .)
This post has received the BRAND of the Wolf BARR Moon Ranch. Enjoy as you would a nice medium rare steak. Accompanied with the beverage of your choice.
I’m trying my hand at posting an article on Wolf’s great site. Hopefully all goes well! I’m sure Wolf will help edit as needed. (Hint, hint.)
As we constantly see the political battles and the palace intrigues of our day, it is easy to miss the other news. The MCM doesn’t want us to see the full picture of what’s happening, but only the bits and pieces that they approve of. Narrative engineering is the order of the day.
Felice does an amazing job of covering the stories of amazing Economic news, international trade and diplomacy, Energy news, Polling, ground level election data, and so much more!
There is however a ton of religious news that most people easily miss. Unfortunately, the Left is on the march against anyone who opposes them, and that includes the Christian churches…
Before we begin I want to reiterate: As much as possible I’m trying to relay useful and relevant information here. Just because I cite a link or a site does not imply that I am giving it a full endorsement.
With that said, let’s dive in…
Apple decides that pro-life opinions are “intolerant” and gives LifeSitenews the boot!
LifeSiteNews Says Apple News Gave Them The Boot. The Reason Why Is Absurd.
And the censorship continues…
Published 3 days ago on August 2, 2019 By Michael Stanley https://flagandcross.com/lifesitenews-says-apple-news-gave-them-the-boot-the-reason-why-is-absurd/
Pro-life Catholic news website, LifeSiteNews, might be the next victim of Big Tech censorship if their allegations against Apple News are true.
According to the site, they’ve been banned from Apple News because according to the tech giant, their platform promotes “intolerance.”
So it’s apparently intolerant to want to save babies from being slaughtered in the womb now. Better mark that down in your political correctness pocket dictionaries.
“A little over one week ago, Apple approved LifeSiteNews’ application to publish our news on their Apple News platform,” the site claimed on Thursday. “Today, without warning, Apple News abruptly reversed course, telling LifeSite that they had deleted our channel and all of our content from their platform. “Apple claimed that LifeSite’s channel ‘didn’t comply with our Apple News guidelines.’ Specifically, they stated that LifeSite’s ‘[c]hannel content shows intolerance towards a specific group.’”
The Apple News app allows people to follow their favorite news sites and receive updates on their Apple devices. LifeSiteNews also alleged that the email from Apple cited no specific article or the “specific group” they allegedly targeted. The site claims it will soon be appealing the decision. Supporters of LifeSiteNews can sign a petition demanding that Apple reverse course.
“We don’t yet know the reason for Apple’s decision to delete our channel,” said LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen. “However, at a time when there is growing evidence that tech juggernauts are engaging in concerted censorship against even mainstream conservative viewpoints, Apple’s decision – made unilaterally, and without opportunity to appeal – is frightening.”
NOTE: LifeSiteNews for many years has been one of the most trusted names in news for the Pro-Life movement, earning a reputation for reporting on pro-life issues that has been unmatched anywhere else. When such a highly respected news source is arbitrarily given the boot by one of the Big Tech giants, we know that Big Tech is running scared! Shame on you Apple for your cowardly actions!
LifeSiteNews.com has posted an online petition. More details can be found at the following link:
PETITION: Apple News bans popular pro-life site without warning: says it ‘shows intolerance’ https://lifepetitions.com/petition/petition-apple-news-bans-1-pro-life-news-site-without-warning-accuses-it-of-intolerance
JD Hall and Pulpit and Pen released a BOMBSHELL report about the “Justice Democrats!”
Remember in July that Daughn posted a huge deep dive on Zack Exley and all the major players in the Justice Democrats. {DEEP DIVE : Justice Democrats}
Surprise, surprise, surprise! Pulpit and Pen finds the site where the radical left shows their intent to undermine and infiltrate churches using – guess what? – “Social Justice” propaganda, of course!
Guess who shows up? None other than Zack Exley himself…
The man behind Bernie Sander’s 2016 primary campaign, the one behind the election of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and the one who is behind the Green New Deal, is the one who is behind the ‘woke’ Social Justice movement in Evangelicalism.
We have uncovered archives of his now-deleted website from 2006-2010, in which he lined out how through big donors he could get evangelicals to adopt “Social Justice” and turn them into Democrats.
His name is Zack Exley, and he now works for George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and is funneling cash to groups like the ERLC and other ‘woke’ institutions. The evidence is all right here in this post.
Exley had a blog—now removed from the Internet altogether—called Revolution in Jesus Land. It has been scrubbed from the Internet, but we’ve managed to find a fix to the problem and pull up some old screenshots.
The Democratic operative and major political thinker spent time opining on the best way to get a powerful Republican voting block—ostensibly one that is impervious to Democrat infiltration—to change the way they vote. Exley wanted Republicans to either vote Democrat or stay home. And in doing so, Exley laid out the gameplan that was taken up by evangelical institutions (whose hands were greased by Riady, Soros, and Kern Family Foundation cash) to turn us leftward. The plan was focused on infiltrating conservative seminaries and parachurch organizations with Social Justice ideologies, in order to change their voting patterns, as you yourself can see in archives of Exley’s blog on the WayBack Machine.
You can see a screenshot below.
https://i2.wp.com/pulpitandpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-28-at-9.59.56-PM.png Revolution in Jesus Land stated its goals on its website. The following is a lengthy excerpt, but please read the whole thing.
This blog is a plea to the progressive movement, to take another look and get to know the diverse and complex world of evangelical Christianity in its own terms. Here you’ll find interviews, commentary, analysis and other dispatches from all over “Jesusland.” This tour will explore everything from the workings of the local church, to the evangelicals’ vibrant, decentralized national leadership training infrastructure to theological questions such as, “How in the world DO they read the Bible literally?” and “Do they really think I’m going to hell?” There are two really big reasons to come along on this tour: First, progressives will never achieve their goals as long as they are hostile toward and ignorant about the faith of 100 million of their own people who are born again Christians. Second (and we know how difficult this is to believe) there is an incredibly large and beautiful social movement exploding among evangelicals right now that stands for nearly all of the same causes and goals that secular progressives do. Those goals include: eliminating poverty, saving the environment, promoting justice and equality along racial, gender and class lines and for immigrants—and even separation of church and state. By learning to work together with “progressive” evangelicals, secular progressives will stand a better chance of achieving their goals and also learn an enormous amount from these remarkable people and their organizations that will help secular progressives strengthen their own movement. This evangelical “revolution,” as one Christian pollster has labeled it, is unquestionably the fastest growing and most surprising of American social movements today. Whichever way you measure, it probably dwarfs the secular left. From mega churches to tiny country churches, evangelical Christians are rediscovering the “gospel of the God of the oppressed.” Perhaps the most surprising among these are the suburban, white evangelicals who are stepping outside of their comfort zones to “get into relationship” with the poor, the oppressed, the homeless, prisoners—the people of whom Jesus said,
Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me….Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. —Matthew 25 They are building houses for and teaching job skills to homeless people, they are creating tutoring programs for kids in failing schools, they’re paying health care bills and sending off rent checks for people living on poverty wages—and there’s even a movement afoot among these people to move their young families out of wealthy suburbs and into forsaken inner city neighborhoods, putting their kids into broken and often violent public schools. And in their Sunday services and Bible studies they are questioning the very foundations of modern American capitalist ideology. On this blog we will attempt over time to provide evidence, and to explain the inner logic of this culture’s narratives, theologies and passions, and to flesh out the larger context of this movement that is shaking up nearly every American community and producing so many exceptional leaders. So—welcome to Jesusland. We hope you enjoy the tour.
…Exley, a major Democratic thinker and progressive organizer, saw the handwriting on the wall and discerned the times… Exley wanted to capitalize on this movement and give evangelical institutions the cash it needed to move forward with their progressive slant.
Even though he spent several years trying to figure out how get evangelicals to focus on Social Justice, Exley only did so for the purpose of getting them to vote Democrat (or, at least, not vote at all). See the video below.
There’s more on this topic. Daughn was right to keep attention focused on the Justice Democrats – this group is a deep rabbit hole of corrupt Soros money!
I’m still working on tracking fallout from the announcements by Josh Harris in the last couple of weeks. Last week I posted a couple of articles about Josh Harris, with different but complementary takes on the matter.
My Thoughts on Josh Harris as a “Fallen Christian” https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2019/07/26/my-thoughts-on-josh-harris-as-a-fallen-christian/
Another Megachurch Pastor Renounces His Faith As He Caves to LGBTQ Mafia https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/07/26/another-megachurch-pastor-renounces-his-faith-as-he-caves-to-lgbtq-mafia/
For those of you who aren’t in the loop, let me rewind a bit.
As a young man in 1997, Joshua Harris released a book that became an instant best-seller in Christian circles: “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”. It promoted the notion that the dating culture was worldly and fundamentally broken, and promoted a set of ideas that became very influential with late Gen-X and early Millennials.
The popularity of the book launched Harris into a highly visible position in Evangelical culture. He married, became a pastor, wrote many more books. But the controversy around “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” never quite abated, and later he rescinded many of his earlier positions.
Like the song that never ends, the controversy simply would not die.
This July, Josh Harris announced publicly that he and his wife were going through a separation, calling into question much of Harris’ teaching and published books.
Now he has posted on Instagram confirming that he is actually going through a divorce and not just a separation.
He also has announced that he has abandoned his faith.
But he wasn’t done yet. Further, he has specifically gone out of his way to make a public apology to the “LGBTQ+ community”: “I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry.”
Why would someone who is having a marriage and faith struggle go out of his way to apologize to the LGBT? Just from the surface it doesn’t make any sense!
Unless, of course, there’s more going on under the surface, courtesy of the Fabian left.
This week we learn that apologizing was not good enough:
https://i2.wp.com/reformationcharlotte.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/harris.jpg
Purity Culture Pastor Who Renounced His Faith is Marching in Gay Pride Parade
Posted by JeffMaples
August 4, 2019 https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/08/04/purity-culture-pastor-who-renounced-his-faith-is-marching-in-gay-pride-parade/
[I]mages are floating around on social media that have captured Josh Harris marching alongside other homosexuals and sexual deviants in a gay pride parade in Canada and munching on a rainbow doughnut.
…Josh Harris poses with his wife to announce a divorce. Several days later, he announces on Instagram that he has renounced his faith with a “heartfelt” apology to the LGBTQ community. Now, he’s seen marching in a gay pride parade wearing rainbow gear and eating rainbow food. Is there another announcement he will be making soon?
Meanwhile, in United Methodism, Mark Tooley asks whether the denomination has reached its Yalta moment.
Is division in United Methodism inevitable?
Methodism’s Yalta?
July 30, 2019 https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/07/30/methodisms-yalta/
https://2b2gdzjtaey3o01p41qinbri-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/img_7284-1-700×475.jpg
Recently I participated in a gathering hosted by three United Methodist bishops for dialogue among conservatives, liberals and self-identified centrists. Our topic was the impending division of the United Methodist Church. The day-long conversation was off record, but you can read the United Methodist News Service report, which includes my quote:
Tooley said he has opposed division and for 30 years has worked for a “vision of denominational revival.”
“I now admit division is inevitable,” he said. “It will happen of itself, chaotically. Or it will happen through negotiation and some leadership. The latter seems preferable.”
After the meeting, which was in Chicago July 19, a clergyman tweeted: “United Methodism held it’s own Yalta Conference in Chicago this week. I just hope we don’t get too bogged down in attempting to label the various attendants Chamberlain, Roosevelt, or Stalin. #umc”
Initially I laughed out loud in response to this wonderful absurdity. (Of course Churchill, not Chamberlain, attended Yalta.) But this tweet maybe was more insightful than I initially realized. United Methodism will tragically divide, as Europe was divided by the Iron Curtain after WWII. This division results from tragic necessity and shouldn’t be celebrated. But God is sovereign and His Gospel will prevail even in adversity.
Thank you Dora for bringing this to our attention:
Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit After Parents are Banned From School After Objecting to Child's Islamic Indoctrination, https://t.co/JBL4vmcT71
The Woods’ daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes. The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam. Moreover, the second part of the statement, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader. The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. …
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “Defendants forced Wood’s daughter to disparage her Christian faith by reciting the Shahada, and acknowledging Mohammed as her spiritual leader. Her World History class spent one day on Christianity and two weeks immersed in Islam. Such discriminatory treatment of Christianity is an unconstitutional promotion of one religion over another.”
Thompson added, “The course also taught false statements such as “Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians, and Islam as a “religion of peace. Parents must be ever vigilant to the Islamic indoctrination of their children under the guise of teaching history and multiculturalism. This is happening in public schools across the country. And they must take action to stop it.”
The Woods’ lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Defendants violated their constitutional and statutory rights, a temporary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from endorsing Islam or favoring Islam over Christianity and other religions, and from enforcing the no trespassing order issued against John Kevin Wood.
An attempt by pro-abortion lawmakers last week in New South Wales, Australia, to ram through a radical abortion bill has been delayed by strong pro-life and Catholic opposition led by the Archbishop of Sydney, Archbishop Anthony Fisher.
The bill, which was introduced into the lower house of the New South Wales (NSW) parliament on Thursday, would legalize abortion up to the point of birth with virtually no restrictions. The bill closely mirrors similar bills passed on the state level in the United States earlier this year legalizing abortion up until birth in states like New York, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island.
Despite having only three-days notice that the bill was set to be introduced, hundreds of pro-life supporters gathered in front of the parliament building on Thursday morning to protest the bill.
Members of Parliament have attempted to fast track the bill in the lower house. Supporters of the bill had originally planned to introduce the bill on Thursday and open debate on the bill the same week. The bill had only been announced on July 28. Prior to Friday, the text of the bill had not even been made available to the public, giving NSW citizens little to no opportunity to contact their Members of Parliament to express their concerns about the bill.
However, following an outcry from conservatives and religious leaders, lawmakers have postponed opening debate on the bill until Tuesday.
Two of my colleagues at CSNTM, Leigh Ann Thompson and Andy Patton, have co-authored a brief essay on decorated letters in New Testament manuscripts. This is in the series “From the Library” that Andy Patton and Andrew Bobo started some time ago for CSNTM’s newsletter. I’ve included a link to this latest offering here.
https://danielbwallace.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/colorfulekthesis.png
I hope this provides some helpful insights. There was a lot that I could have included and left out. Your contributions or added discussion in the comments are appreciated!
(@heckyessica) 
Yes – definitely BAD during the fertility years.
Looks like it’s best for men to AVOID SOY WHEN YOUNG, but then go for it hard after their child-bearing years, because it’s so good at preventing and surviving prostate cancer.