Those horrible White slave owners of American history should be purged, right? NO!
Ending slavery was an awesome end result of the Northern States defeating the Southern States by the end of 1865. Regardless of the immoral slave culture these Southern Confederates tried to perpetuate, many were great Christians and supporter of the heritage of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
The break-away Confederate States had their capital city in Richmond Virginia. The Confederate’s primary general was Robert E. Lee from Virginia. Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was raised in what is now West Virginia, but was a part of Virginia at the beginning of the Civil War.
Why the emphasis on Civil War Virginia? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all came from Virginia – former British Colony turned into one of the original Thirteen States. Those three Virginians were extremely instrumental in the formation and founding of the sovereign United States of America.
Washington: Commander-in-Chief the Revolutionary War army that ultimately prevailed and forced the recognition of an independent United States; President of the Constitutional Convention AND the first President of the United States.
Jefferson: Writer of the Declaration of Independence; Revolutionary War Foreign Diplomat; much of Jefferson’s Virginia legislation influenced the U.S. Constitution but not a fan of the Constitution central government yet an ardent supporter once ratified AND third President of the United States.
Madison: Madison was involved in Virginia politics during the Revolutionary War widely influential in writing Virginia’s new State Constitution; wrote the drafts of the U.S. Constitution and designed the Bill of Rights – hence known as the Father of the Constitution; one of the principle writers of The Federal Papers used to encourage the ratification of the Constitution AND the fourth President of the United States.
Now I realize my little synopsis of Founding Father heroes of our American is hardly complete. Also I realize that many other influential Founding Fathers both in and out of Virginia are not mentioned. MY POINT is leading to the fact these remarkably influential Virginia Founding Fathers ALL were slave-owning Plantation businessmen of their day.
Should we allow the hysterical American Left to purge their names from U.S. history?
Justin Smith wonders why We The People of America allow Confederate history to be scrubbed because of slavery? Here are some introductory words from Justin Smith:
This piece is by no means intended to defend the evils of slavery or the sins committed by slave owners. It is simply an attempt to illustrate the fallacies relied upon by the Left as they attempt to portray the Civil War only in the context of the slave issue; it truly was much more complex than most people understand, and this one article barely scratches the surface. Now however, the past is being improperly used as a tool of commie progressives to undermine America, as much as they are allowed by the normal population of America.
I hope this peaks the curiosity of many and moves them to halt these sort of movements whenever they arise near them or in their home towns.
Monuments honoring heroes of the Confederate States of America, American heroes in fact, are being removed from the public square, due to a successful presentation of oversimplified arguments and lies by the same progressive Leftist Democratic apparatus that seeks to fundamentally transform America. These assaults on the Southern heritage by politically correct propagandists and arrogant activist ideologues are assaults on our American culture and heritage, or "AmeriKKKa" as the Left calls America; and, it is nothing short of a cultural cleansing campaign, a purging of the truth and history and a national disgrace.
General Beauregard's statue was taken down in the dark of night and Lee's was coming down, when New Orlean's Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) revealed an astounding level of ignorance of history, stating: "They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These monuments celebrate a fictional sanitized Confederacy." Landrieu could not be any more egregiously wrong.
On December 27th 1856, Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife: "Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country ... a greater evil to the white than to the black race ... nearly two thousand years [of Christianity] ... and even among the Christian nations what gross errors still exist!"
Many Confederate generals did not want to secede and neither did Jefferson Davis. More than the issue of slavery that had profited both New England slave traders and Southern plantation owners, the South saw secession as a necessity in the face of the unfair tariffs the North had applied against the South from 1828 to 1832 and beyond. And so, they too pledged their lives, fortune and sacred honor as they seceded from an oppressive federal government to retain their sovereignty, their Constitutional rights and a free government.
President Abraham Lincoln was not any "Great Emancipator" himself. On August 22nd 1862, he wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, founder and editor of the New York Tribune, who supported a general amnesty for Confederate officials and angered Northeners by signing a bail bond for Jefferson Davis. In part the letter read: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
So why do the Leftist mobs of Antifa and Black Lives Matter castigate, impugn and demonize the character and honor of a noble man such as Robert E. Lee, while giving Ulysses S. Grant a pass?
So, Beauregard is impugned, while a statue of Senator Edward Carmack (D-TN) still stands in Nashville on the south side of Tennessee's State Capitol Building. Carmack advocated for the repeal of the 15th Amendment, which granted black men the right to vote; he was also the editor of the 'Nashville Tennessean' and a coward, who was shot and killed, on Union St. in Nashville, as he hid behind Mrs. Charles Eastman after firing on Duncan Cooper, his nemesis.
It is nearly impossible to find any truth behind the Left's assertions, that they are campaigning against the "white supremacy" symbolized by Confederate monuments, when most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves by the time the Civil War was burning hot. To claim that the majority of non-slaveholder soldiers, who fought for the South, could have fought and sacrificed their lives and those of their families, so a minority of wealthy aristocrats could retain the "right" to own slaves is preposterous on any analysis.
The logic behind these character assassinations make it inescapably clear that the Left will not be satisfied until every white figure who doesn't pass their "progressive" scrutiny is cleansed from the Southern culture and American culture too. How much truth must be sacrificed to mold history to fit a single strain of a prevailing political ideology?
Mitch Landrieu and Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh and many other Democrats, along with some misguided and ill-informed "conservatives" say that these men don't deserve to be honored. Who does then?
President McKinley had fought against "Stonewall" Jackson, as a teenager, in the Shenandoah. McKinley was at Antietam, the bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War; and at the start of the Spanish-American War, when Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for a united America, McKinley removed his hat and stood for the singing of 'Dixie'.
Nearly half of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves or facilitated the slave trade. Is anything associated with Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founders now considered to be immoral too?
Are Americans really going to allow more monuments to be torn down? Are Americans going to sandblast Stone Mountain Confederate Monument and even Mount Rushmore, sandblasting away our American Heritage? I say "NO".
Left unrestrained, the radicals of this nation will attempt to purge and destroy every vestige of anything remotely associated with any slaveholder. Our Constitution and even our Declaration of Independence have long been under their assaults, because both were written by white men and slave-owners, and these amended documents halt their own authoritarian agenda. They would scrap these documents altogether if they could, placing them in the dustbin of history and divesting them of honor.
A history hidden away and purged is a half-truth and a lie, no history at all. America's sins in slavery are despicable, abominable and dark, however, Her inalienable rights that served as the mechanism to end slavery are virtues to be praised, brilliant as a rising sun.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
Earlier I posted Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh’s exposé of the UN diligently yet nefariously making a Marxist effort to steal national sovereignty with a World Constitution. As I was sharing this on social media, I ran into a Dee Fatouros post about an article that claims “Confederacy of Climate Change States" could be emerging to divide the USA to thwart Donald Trump’s make America great again national agenda.
The Fatouros post brings the realization that a very real war between the States is leaning toward probability. If such a conflict arises, a Federal government win can be called the 2nd Civil War. If the Eco-Marxist secessionist States win, it could be called the 2nd Revolutionary War.
The talk of a "Confederacy of Climate Change States" smacks of another overt attempt to break America apart, not only psychologically but physically as well. Coupled with the law defying Sanctuary Cities movement, which has now become a call for Sanctuary States, what other conclusion could possibly be reached.
What other federal laws will the governing bodies of these states choose to defy? This movement is not about federal over reach, it is about fomenting internal dissension to the point of defying the Constitution and tearing the U.S. apart.
Clearly a strong and united America is a threat to the globalist agenda. The de facto secession of several states on various issues is clearly a leftist/elitist undertaking designed to weaken the globalist threatening Trump administration. By sowing discord and urging sedition, such acts will lead to the destruction of a strong united America.
The plan to covertly bring America to its knees has been in the making over several decades. It is insidious. A Utopian ideology of a united world government that would insure everlasting peace has been sown into the American psyche over the generations. The scheme was progressing nicely, until the people awakened and decided enough is enough. They were angry over the fact that they were politically and economically being sold out by their own leaders in favor of non-Americans.
Despite the MSM blackout of the truth, many saw the betrayal of EU citizens by their own leaders and the resulting social/political devastation. They became wary and put Trump into the White House whom they felt was firmly on their side.
The rebellion of a huge segment of the awakened populace has led to an internal division unseen since the Civil War. The enemies within, ideological and/or totalitarian, continue their war against the values of their own nation in order to realize their intended goal, the Marxist dream of a World Government. The outcome remains to be seen.
Excerpt from the following article by Daniel Greenfield:
"The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island looks a lot like the Confederacy’s Montgomery Convention. Both serve as meeting points for a secessionist alliance of states to air their grievances against the Federal government over an issue in which they are out of step with the nation."
Full article well worth the read!
The Treasonous Secession of Climate Confederacy States
After President Trump rejected the Paris Climate treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, the European Union announced that it would work with a climate confederacy of secessionist states.
Scotland and Norway’s environmental ministers have mentioned a focus on individual American states. And the secessionist governments of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.
The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.” Governor Cuomo of New York has been equally clear. “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington's irresponsible actions.”
Cuomo’s statement conveniently comes in French, Chinese and Russian translations.
“It is a little bold to talk about the China-California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Governor Brown of California announced.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, the radical leftist described California as “a real nation-state”.
Brown was taking a swing through China to reassure the Communist dictatorship of California’s loyalty to an illegal treaty at the same time as EU boss Juncker was bashing America and kissing up to Premier Li Keqiang at the EU-China summit. It’s one thing when the EU and China form a united front against America. It’s quite another when California and China form a united front against America. The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island looks a lot like the Confederacy’s Montgomery Convention. Both serve as meeting points for a secessionist alliance of states to air their grievances against the Federal government over an issue in which they are out of step with the nation.
"We’re a powerful state government. We have nine other states that agree with us," Brown boasted.
Two more and Jim Jones' old pal could have his own confederacy.
All the bragging and boasting about how much wealth and power the secessionist states of the climate confederacy represent sounds very familiar. But that wealth and power is based around small enclaves, the Bay Area and a few dozen blocks in Manhattan, which wield disproportionate influence.
Like the slaveowner class, leftist elites are letting the arrogance of their wealth lead them into treason. And as they look out from their mansions and skyscrapers, they should remember that the majority of working class people in California and New York will be far less enthusiastic about fighting a war to protect their dirty investments in solar energy plants and carbon credits funded by taxes seized from many of those same people in these left-wing slave states.
The declared intention of the Climate Alliance, in words appearing on the New York State government website, is to treasonously “convene U.S. states committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement”.
States cannot and are not allowed to unilaterally choose to “uphold” a treaty rejected by the President. Their leaders are certainly not allowed to travel to enemy nations to inform foreign powers of their treasonous designs and to solicit their aid against the policies of the United States government.
This is all the more treasonous at a time when the United States is on a collision course with the People’s Republic of China over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and trade agreements.
“It’s important for the world to know that America is not Washington," Brown declared. "Yes, we’re part of the union, but we’re also a sovereign state that can promote the necessary policies that are required for survival.”
Governors don’t normally feel the need to declare that their state is still part of the union. But they also don’t announce that they’re a separate nation and then set off to cut separate deals with enemy powers. No state should be issuing, “Yes, we’re part of the union, but” disclaimers before going to China.
The disclaimer is the first step to leaving the union.
Governor Brown's trip to China isn't funded by California taxpayers. That might be a relief to that overburdened tribe except that it's partially being paid for by the Energy Foundation. Behind that generic name for a pass through organization are a number of left-wing foundations who have been paying for American politicians to travel to the People’s Republic of China.
Steyer has accused President Trump of treason for rejecting the unconstitutional Paris Climate Treaty. But who are the real traitors here?
Other major EF donors include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Bloomberg and George Soros.
There is something deeply troubling about a governor’s treasonous trip being funded by private interests with business ties to a foreign power. If Democrats were really serious about rooting out influence by foreign powers, they would be taking a very close look at Brown’s backers.
But the greater outrage is that the governors of secessionist states are using a manufactured crisis to conduct “diplomacy” with foreign governments in defiance of the policies of the United States.
Washington’s Jay Inslee was recently talking Global Warming in a meeting with Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. “We’re both very strongly engaged on issues of climate change, on issues of openness to trade, on leadership on refugees as well,” Trudeau declared.
“We share an incredible commitment to defeating climate change,” Inslee flattered him. “And it is a great pleasure we have a national leader on the North American continent who is committed to that.”
And he didn’t mean the President of the United States.
Inslee’s fondness for the illegal Paris Climate treaty is unsurprising as his own efforts on Global Warming similarly depended on unilateral moves that lacked legislative support. But that is a problem for Washington’s Constitution. His participation in a secessionist pact is a problem for our Constitution.
And the problem isn’t limited to the Climate Alliance.
California and many of the other entities declaring that they will enforce an illegal treaty are also sanctuary states and cities. They are choosing not to follow Federal law while implementing foreign treaties that they have no right to unilaterally participate in.
This is a treasonous situation that is more troubling in some ways than the original Civil War because it involves states making open alliance with enemy powers such as China and welcoming them in. State governments are undermining the united front of the national government in the face of the enemy.
"California will resist this misguided and insane course of action," Governor Brown ranted. The logic of “resistance” has inevitably turned into treason.
A civil war is underway. In the last election the territorial majority of Americans rejected the rule of a minority of wealthy and powerful urban enclaves. Outside of their bicoastal bases, the political power of the Democrat faction has been shattered. And so it has retreated into subversion and secessionism.
“China is moving forward in a very serious way, and so is California,” Brown declared. “And we're going in the opposite direction of Donald Trump.”
While Democrats have spent the better part of the previous week waving their arms in the air over a back channel with Russia, one of their faction’s leading governors is openly allying with China against the President of the United States. And the treasonous Democrat media is cheering this betrayal.
Brown and his colleagues are in blatant violation of the Logan Act. Their actions are in violation of the United States Constitution. And all this is another dark step on the road to another civil war.
If the climate confederacy is not held accountable for its treason, the crisis will only grow. (emphasis mine)
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
The American Left and global Left hate President Trump and his America First agenda to the point of irrational behavior. If you are an American patriot you should ask yourself, “Why?”
There are undoubtedly many valid answers as to the why. Here is one extremely valid reason for Leftist irrational behavior toward President Trump: To get sovereign-minded American patriots distracted from recent United Nations action at instituting a one-world government:
The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
The above quote is an exposé at the Canada Free Press (CFP) written by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh about the United Nations instituting a form of global Communism using the earth’s environment as an insidious pretext.
I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. The Draft Covenant is the “Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.”
The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.
The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’
The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.
All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.
In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).
The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”
The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)
The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”
Article 2 describes in detail “respect for all life forms.”
Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
Article 5 refers to “equity and justice,” code words for socialism/communism.
Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
Article 19 deals with “Stratospheric Ozone.” Rex Communis is the customary international law regime applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high seas and outer space.” (p. 72)
Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
Article 31, “Action to Eradicate Poverty,” requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
Article 32 requires recycling, “consumption and production patterns.”
Article 33, “Demographic policies,” demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In the Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of humans can endanger the environment.
Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
Article 37 discusses “Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how “Transboundary Natural Resources” will be conserved, “quantitatively and qualitatively.”
According to the document, “conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these systems are maintained.”
Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.
“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
“Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology” is a similar requirement to the Law of the Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that idea to the market.
Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.
Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
Article 20 is of particular interest because it forces the signatories to DICED “to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, “climatologists” from Hollywood and millennials brainwashed by their professors that CO2 is going to destroy the planet and kills us all, took to microphones and podiums to express their displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.
It did not matter that the President explained in a very logical manner that this accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to steal and redistribute wealth from the United States to the third world while real heavy polluters like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute until 2030 when, at that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution and perhaps China would install smokestack scrubbers.
President Trump explained how many millions of American jobs would be lost and how our energy generation is getting cleaner while we are exploring other forms of energy. Once President Obama declared that the science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called anthropogenic.
Since none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting of ice cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the globalists changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change. Who would object to that term? Everybody knows that climate changes but it is not because of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals who have stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set everywhere sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful beach side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for destroying the planet with our very existence and civilization.
How did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of breathing, and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.
The Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the United Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters, explained, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is the humanity itself.”
Environmentalists tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against the theory that humans are causing climate change. There is certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers, soil, and air but humans are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher when there was no industrial activity or even humans.
The Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and French scientists proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice were six times higher than they are today. There are more serious variables that affect the climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and in oceans, and oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government weather tampering by seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various chemicals in order to “mitigate the effects of global warming.”
Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”
Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
The sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
According to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said that “The Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”
Mayor Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the mayor of Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats, representing 52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states governments, including towns in those states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and confederation.”
These dissenting mayors have not pledged their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution but to the Global Covenant of Mayors, one of the arms of implementation around the globe of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030. Using grants from our own government, the Compact of Mayors and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors have influenced initiatives at the local, city, and state governments, forcing their globalist agenda called “visioning” on the hapless population who are now forced to accept decisions made by mayors and boards of supervisors that are robbing them of freedom of movement, of their property rights, of the use of their cars, of farming, in the name of “transitioning to a low emission and climate resilient economy,” a pie in the sky goal. The real goal is to transform and redistribute the wealth of developed countries and to arrest their development by eventually curbing completely the use of fossil fuels and turning them into a more primitive society dependent on unreliable solar and wind power. Such a global society would have no borders, no sovereignty, no suburbia, no private property, no cars, and would be controlled by the United Nations umbrella of octopus NGOs.
There is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a Convention of States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their own environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).
James Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.com that “Global warming is a myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.”
The scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left without hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense that the massive lie of global warming is true.
India alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the requirements of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the largest developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third world nations that would demand such redistribution of wealth from us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution.
Delingpole cites in the above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles Battig on November 13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
Dr. Charles Battig amply documents the advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives successful examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves from the global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many octopus Agenda 21 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning” onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input into the plans.
Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives. #StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh,Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com
About Us -- Canada Free Press
Canada Free Press (CFP) is a proudly independent, 24/7 news site, updating constantly throughout the day. More than 100 writers and columnists file regularly to CFP from all corners of the globe. CFP rides on credibility and is edited by a lifelong journalist.
Canada Free Press does not sell, loan or give out its mailing list to anyone. You will receive a confirmation email back to the email you entered. You must respond to the email in order to receive our mail out of latest news and opinion.
Although we have been posting to the Internet for more than 14 years, on May 15, 2012 CFP celebrated its eighth anniversary as a daily. Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership.
CFP senior journalist/editor Judi McLeod tries to answer each and every letter sent to CFP by readers. CFP's main ongoing inspiration is to provide accurate and well-researched stories for a loyal readership that are not printed or posted elsewhere.
CFP's Motto: "Because without America there is no Free World" is as meaningful today as it was when first adopted. America and the Free World must …READ THE REST
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC – SEE ALSO HERE) is taking the lead in the legal defense of the lesbian Janet Jenkins against former lesbian turned Christian Lisa Miller. Jenkins and Miller were once lesbian lovers that had united in a civil union in the State of Vermont where same-sex Marriage is recognized.
During the civil union Lisa Miller had a child that has no biological connection to Janet Jenkins. Sometime after the birth of Miller’s child, she became a Christian redeemed by the Blood of Jesus from past sins, which included homosexuality:
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; … (Romans 1: 18-21, 26-28 NKJV)
After becoming a Christian Lisa Miller no longer desired to live in sin with Janet Jenkins in a lesbian relationship. Even though Jenkins had no biological connection to Miller’s child Jenkins demanded visitation rights. In the mean time Lisa Miller moved to the State of Virginia which thankfully still does not recognize same-sex marriages.
Jenkins used the vile favoritism of Vermont law on civil unions filing for and winning visitation rights to Lisa Miller’s child. In the course of this Janet Jenkins decided to bath nude with Miller’s female daughter brainwashing the child about the so-called validity of having two mommies.
The brainwashing incident correctly horrified Lisa Miller. Due to the law giving more credence to the rights of godless lesbians over the rights of Christians, Lisa Miller fled the USA with her child.
AND this is where the Liberty Counsel and Mat Staver enter the picture. Janet Jenkins has named the Liberty Counsel and Staver in the aiding and abetting of Lisa Miller fleeing the Country to escaping lesbian-favoring laws.
Jenkins has acquired the legal resources of the SPLC to sue the Liberty Counsel and Mat Staver out of existence as defenders of the faith of Christian in the United States of America.
Below is an email from Mat Staver appealing for legal funds to combat the SPLC objective. Following the email, I am cross posting a 6/6/17 (also dated as 6/5) article explaining some of the details I have just gone over.
But before the cross posts. I want to point out an acronym used in those posts. That acronym is LGBTQ. If you are a Christian you are fully aware the acronym references the homosexual lifestyle. Just so my fellow Christians can realize just how vile that lifestyle that the Left promotes as normal, let me point out what each letter stands for:
Yesterday, we filed our 116-page "Memorandum Of Law" and other legal documents countering the outrageous lawsuit against both Liberty Counsel and me personally which has been joined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
This is one of the most important filings our team has made because of what is at stake and the vile nature of our adversaries' accusations.
+ + Proof the SPLC wants to destroy us...
The SPLC is a dangerous, multi-hundred million dollar organization that specifically lists Liberty Counsel as a "hate group" on its website. And the SPLC is serving as Lead Counsel in this outrageous case.
Clearly, the SPLC has specifically targeted Liberty Counsel. They want to use this case to publicize their dangerous agenda. Ultimately, they want to destroy us – both Liberty Counsel and me personally. This isn't my opinion. These are the words of the SPLC's Mark Potok:
"Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…"
I simply will not allow that to happen. Not with so many people of faith across the country relying on Liberty Counsel to defend them against attacks by LGBTQ activists and other radicals.
+ + The battle we face...
Our work on yesterday's legal filings consumed many weeks and many hundreds of hours from our legal team. But this battle has just begun.
With the SPLC serving as Lead Counsel against us, this likely will be one of the most intense battles we have yet faced. The SPLC has at its disposal a substantial team of litigators committed to their mission of targeting and destroying those who dare to challenge the radical LGBTQ agenda.
Simply put, as we enter the next round of this critical battle to "Save Liberty," I'm once again turning to you for help.
As a result of this and other critical legal cases and ministry priorities, we are approaching our fiscal year end (June 30) still far short of our ministry budget. I don't want to start the new fiscal year handicapped by a financial shortfall that puts our "Save Liberty" efforts at risk.
We know that with the SPLC as Lead Counsel, we will face the most malevolent attacks imagineable. They don't want simply to win their baseless case. They want to destroy us!
Why? So they can take Liberty Counsel out of this battle and leave countless people of faith across the country more susceptible to radical attacks. That's why we must stand and fight. And that's why I need your help to meet this critical ministry shortfall that threatens to weaken our efforts to Save Liberty across this land.
Can I count on your support? Even if you have already helped meet this critical need, please prayerfully consider making a gift today by going here. As always, your contribution is tax-deductible.
Thank you in advance, and may God richly bless you!
P.S. This is a fight for the rights of people of faith against a rising tide of extremism that literally wants to criminalize Christianity! Just yesterday, Liberty Counsel won a hotly contested legal battle on behalf of a pastor who was falsely accused of "crimes against humanity" by a George Soros-backed LGBTQ group. We must defeat this SPLC attack so Liberty Counsel can continue to fight and win! If you can help with a contribution of ANY AMOUNT, please go here:
Has God blessed you in such a way that you can make an over-and-above gift of $5,000 or more to Liberty Counsel at this critical time? If so, please go here and my team will contact you soon. If you prefer, you can always make your contribution by credit card or check here.
BURLINGTON, VT — Today, Liberty Counsel filed a comprehensive response in federal court to the lawsuit backed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the case of Jenkins v. Miller, et al. The legal Memorandum of Law is 116 pages, not counting affidavits. Liberty Counsel also filed a second Motion and Memorandum of Law raising Vermont’s anti-SLAPP, which prevents suits designed to restrict free speech.
While living in Virginia, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins entered into a Vermont same-sex civil union. Lisa gave birth to her biological child, Isabella. For a brief period, they moved to Vermont. There Lisa became a Christian and left the lesbian relationship. Lisa moved back to Virginia and a visitation battle ensued between the laws of Vermont (which recognized the civil union) and Virginia (which did not). Liberty Counsel represented Lisa from late 2004 until she disappeared in September 2009.
A Vermont state court judge granted Janet visitation of Lisa’s biological child, even though she was not the biological or adoptive parent and Vermont precedent did not recognize such parental rights. Isabella knew very little about Janet as she was a baby at the time of the split. Lisa complied with the visitation orders, but she raised concerns to the Vermont judge which he never addressed. Lisa presented evidence that Janet read Heather Has Two Mommies to Isabella and told her she was her mommy. Janet bathed naked with her, which greatly upset young Isabella. Lisa advised the court that Isabella was having emotional problems over the visitation. She began wetting her bed, clinging to Lisa, and even tried to harm herself. The case became a nationally watched legal battle because it was the first case in the country pitting the opposing laws on same-sex civil unions of two different states.
While the litigation and appeals were still proceeding in September 2009, Lisa stopped communicating. She did not respond to emails and her voicemail filled up. The last communication from Lisa was about a week prior to her disappearance in which she stated she was interviewing for a job in Virginia. Without any warning or hint of her plan to disappear, Lisa ceased all communication. We advised the Vermont court we had lost contact with Lisa and requested to withdraw, but the Vermont court denied the request. The withdrawal was later effectuated in 2010.
During the Obama administration, a federal prosecutor filed criminal charges against two Mennonite ministers associated with a Mennonite community in Nicaragua, both of them with the last name of Miller (Ken and Timothy), but with no relationship to Lisa. A third person in Northern Virginia was also charged. All three have been convicted of helping Lisa flee the country. The criminal investigation is complete and at least one of the criminal defendants is on appeal. Lisa had no prior association with the Mennonites.
Janet Jenkins, the former lesbian partner of Lisa, filed a civil complaint in a Vermont federal court in 2012, claiming the alleged defendants participated in helping Lisa flee. The 2012 lawsuit did not name Liberty Counsel, Rena Lindevaldsen or Mat Staver. Lindevaldsen worked on the Lisa Miller case with Liberty Counsel.
In late 2016, Jenkins moved to amend her lawsuit to include Liberty Counsel, Lindevaldsen and Staver. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) then joined the suit as the lead counsel for Jenkins.
The SPLC is a dangerous group because it creates a “Hate Map” listing “hate groups.” Mark Potock, with the SPLC, in an interview admitted: “Our criteria for a ‘hate group,’ first of all, have nothing to do with criminality, or violence, or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological.”
This false labeling has serious consequences. After the founder of Chick-fil-A said he believed marriage is between a man and a woman, Floyd Corkins went online to the SPLC Hate Map, entered the Family Research Council’s (FRC) office in Washington, D.C. fully-armed and carrying Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He intended to commit mass murder and rub the sandwiches in the faces of the dead bodies. Fortunately, the security guard wrestled Corkins to the ground. However, he was shot in the process. Corkins later confessed to the FBI that he sought to kill as many people at FRC after reading about the group on the SPLC Hate Map. Corkins is now in prison, but the SPLC refuses to take down its false and dangerous statements.
Mark Potok is on video in a public meeting stating: “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…”
During the Obama administration, the SPLC frequently visited the White House. The SPLC even peddled its false ideological propaganda for some in the military until their extremism and false reporting got the group removed.
The Philanthropy Roundtable recently published an article about the SPLC pointing out the false labeling. The SPLC even labeled famed surgeon Dr. Ben Carson as a “hater.” The SPLC rakes in millions of dollars each year and has huge financial reserves, causing some to wonder what nonprofit work the SPLC does.
The Motions and Memoranda of Law to Dismiss the suit against Liberty Counsel, Staver and Lindevaldsen dismantle the Jenkin’s lawsuit, which has the sole purpose of harassing and “destroying” Liberty Counsel, Staver and Lindevaldsen. First, Jenkin’s complaint admits that Liberty Counsel, Staver and Lindevaldsen have always maintained they had no knowledge of Lisa’s plan to flee and had no part in her disappearance. Indeed, Lisa was always counseled to obey the court orders. The litigation was still in progress. Without any hint of her plan, Lisa disappeared with Isabella. Second, there are too many legal arguments to list here, but the Memoranda of Law demolishes the baseless complaint.
“The lawsuit by Janet Jenkins, with the backing of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is designed solely to harass and destroy,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “In the nearly eight years since Lisa Miller disappeared, and with the intense investigation conducted on this case by the federal government and Janet Jenkins, there is not one shred of evidence that points to Liberty Counsel, Rena Lindevaldsen or me. But the facts and the law are irrelevant to Janet Jenkins and the SPLC. The SPLC’s motivation for joining this suit is to publicize their dangerous agenda. Ultimately, they want to destroy us. But that will not happen. The truth, a word the SPLC does not like, shall prevail,” said Staver.
Jenkins and the SPLC will have to respond to the legal arguments, and at some point, the federal court will make its ruling.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
ADVANCING THE MISSION THROUGH THREE PILLARS OF MINISTRY
Liberty Counsel produces several multimedia programs dealing with various legal, religious and policy issues, and is active in social media such asFacebook,TwitterandYouTube.
Liberty Counsel sends a Liberty Alert® email to inform subscribers about breaking news, and publishes The Liberator®newsletter to overview current issues and legal cases.
Read more about Liberty Counsel® (sometimes referred to as Liberty Council) in ourAnnual Report.
Natural laws are laws that transcend time, cultures and political institutions. The Declaration of Independence recognizes those laws as “laws of nature and of nature’s God."
The first rights recognized by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are the freedom of religion and speech. Liberty Counsel advances these liberties on behalf of students, teachers, parents, pastors, churches and individuals in their homes, at work and in public spaces.
Liberty Counsel advocates for students who want to pray and thank God in their schools and help Christians gain equal access to host events in public facilities. We protect the right of ministers to speak the truth without fear of government censors, and fight for those who are at risk of losing their religious freedom.
SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE
The Declaration of Independence recognizes that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, including the right to life. This fundamental right applies to every human, from …READ THE REST
Seth Rich was murdered on the streets of Washington D.C. There was a good chance his name would have slipped away except Julian Assange of Wikileaks offered a reward (the 1st of many reward offers from different sources) for info. Why was Assange interested in who killed a DNC staffer who the police claimed (and still claim) was the victim of a random robbery gone wrong.
The Assange hint for the reward is that Rich was the DNC leaker of the DNC emails that helped expose Crooked Hillary, her campaign and the Democratic Party nefariously corrupt.
Then BOOM! Seth was murdered. Nothing was taken from Rich’s person. Rich died under mysterious circumstances later in the hospital he was taken.
Many Conspiracy Theorist Clinton watchers began wonder if Seth Rich should be added to the unproven body count of people dying that could have fingered Mr. and Mrs. Clinton for illegal activities. Hmm?
With that quickie summation, I have found a quite detailed post questioning the official record according to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
For a brief review of why there is so much interest in Seth Rich's death, recall the news from August of 2016. At first glance, upon learning of Seth Rich's death, “conspiracy theorists” couldn’t help but notice the rather obvious absurdity of how police labeled his murder a botched “robbery,” when Rich hadn't been robbed of anything. At the time Rich's body was discovered, he still had his wallet, money, watch, cell phone, etc. He was, however, beaten, and then shot in the back, neither of which is consistent with a typical “robbery,” and certainly not a “robbery” where nothing was taken.
In addition to the decision by police not to investigate Seth Rich’s death as murder, what really drew the attention of all the crazy “conspiracy theorists” was the fact that at the time of his murder, Rich was one of five former Clinton “associates” who had become Clinton “adversaries,” all of whom died under very mysterious circumstances over a six-week span leading up to the DNC convention. Looking at both circumstances together, it's hard to fathom how any well-trained, logical member of law enforcement, would not find any need to investigate the potential for possible ties between the two.
When this story first broke, not only did the police see no need to investigate possible ties between the two circumstances mentioned, but when people did start asking questions, terms like “conspiracy theorist" were thrown around, and police refused to investigate further.
In the following video, Right Wing News looks at the recent discovery that Heather Podesta, sister to John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager), served on the board of the Washington DC Police Foundation together with the police chief; the chief who served at the time of Rich’s murder. People have also discovered that comments on Rich’s Reddit account have also been altered to better fit the narrative. And finally, rumors are swirling that the corporate higher-ups are ready to hand Hannity the pink slip very soon. More coincidences? Not likely!
New Evidence Emerges Involving DNC Staffer! - http://bit.ly/2qY7pGv ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New evidence emerges regarding what happened concerning the DNC Staffer. The video takes a look at some of those stunning new details concerning him. There are other new details as well to what happened to the DNC staffer as well!
John Podesta’s Ex-sister In Law is on D.C. Police Foundation Board:
Report Suggests D.C. Metro Police Collusion
According to a recent report, Fmr. Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s ex-sister-in-law serves on the Board of the Washington D.C. Police Foundation along with the police chief who served at the time DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered.
According to the report:
Heather Podesta serves on the board alongside recent Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier, who served as police chief when DNC staffer and widely-reported WikiLeaks source Seth Rich was murdered in July 2016. Lanier stepped down as police chief the next month.
D.C. power broker Heather Podesta is the ex-wife of John Podesta’s lobbyist brother Tony, whose Podesta Group is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the world.
Other board members include representatives of CVS, Enterprise Holdings, Geico, PNC Bank, and Pepco Holdings.
To put Seth Rich’s death into proper context, the following video by TRUTHstream media provides some of the details of the five former Clinton “associates” who had become Clinton “adversaries,” all of whom died under very mysterious circumstances over a six week span leading up to the DNC convention. The five people were: John Ashe, Seth Rich, Joe Montano, Victor Thorn, and Shawn Lucas.
Hillary will stop at nothing to claw her way into the White House; unfortunately, people are dropping dead left and right in her path and, in the case of the last two found dead earlier this week, the mainstream media is pretending not to even notice they are gone...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Seth Rich’s Original Reddit Posts Altered, 663 Comments Deleted
It's obvious a massive cover up of Seth Rich's murder is underway. Deep State operatives are in full cover up mode when it comes to the murder of Seth Rich and they will stop at nothing as evidence mounts.
Remarkably it has been discovered by members of the online community that posts Seth Rich made on Reddit before his death have been altered and 663 comments from the thread have been deleted.
Last Saturday, Twitter user FlickMontana tweeted: “@caitoz Seth Rich’s email was in a comment on his Reddit account, but it was edited out an hour ago.”
@caitoz Seth Rich’s email was in a comment on his Reddit account, but it was edited out an hour ago.
As it turns out 663 comments were deleted and a number of areas in the thread were edited to better fit the false narrative already posted to Wikipedia.
Caitlin Johnstone reported:
Note that there is no asterisk next to the post in the archived version, which means that as of the date that the archive was made (yesterday), it had not been tampered with. This proves that the editing was recent, which proves, obviously, that it was not edited by Rich. If you go to page six in the “comments” section of Rich’s Reddit account now, you will see this version of the post instead:
“Note the asterisk next to the words “1 year ago”, which means the post has been edited,” Johnstone explains.
Moreover, Rich’s most recent post was deleted.
“This one is even more suspicious, because while the actual comment made appears unremarkable, the fact that it is posted in the subreddit r/washingtondc makes it clear that the account belongs to someone in DC, which could tip off future online investigators that they might be looking at Rich’s account even after the email information was deleted. I hope we get an explanation about this from Reddit admin as well,” Johnstone writes.
Report: Sean Hannity To Be Fired by Fox News Over Seth Rich Murder Coverage???
Over the last several weeks we have seen a massive corporate media operation targeting anyone who dares to cover the possible connection between hacked DNC emails, Wikileaks, and the murder of Seth Rich.
The media, with help from leftist groups like Media Matters, has gone into overdrive attacking any news outlet or reporter that even considers the possibility that Rich was murdered because he was the person who gave the emails to Wikileaks in the first place.
Now, one of the more prominent voices who have questioned the official story may soon pay for it with his job.
According to a report by independent journalist Joe Biggs, a source close to Hannity has revealed that the popular Fox News host will be fired sometime next week as a result of his coverage of the Seth Rich conspiracy.
“I had a conversation with a source close to Hannity who showed me an internal email at fox where Adam Housley spoke to Sean and he said he believes he will be fired next week sometime by Fox News for his coverage of the Seth Rich murder,” reported Biggs.
The report also claims that a source within the FBI may soon provide documents that prove that Rich was indeed in direct contact with Wikileaks.
If Hannity is fired it would prove once again that the entire establishment is unbelievably scared about the real details surrounding the horrific death of Rich and essentially wants the entire story squashed for good.
Stay tuned as Intellihub will continue to cover the Seth Rich murder story regardless of any threats or attacks by the deep state shills throughout the media.
Are journalists starting to get to close to the truth in the Seth Rich case?
ABC 7’s Scott Taylor was recently denied a Freedom of Information Act Request that he filed with the Government of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department which requested copies of video footage captured at the crime scene by police officers body cameras and surveillance video captured from the hospital where DNC staffer Seth Rich was taken before his death.
Frustrated with the official response, the investigative journalist tweeted:
“#SethRich Update: Here is denial of my request 4 video of Police Officers body cams at crime scene & Hospital plus surveillance video. pic.twitter.com/VDaRO8m8gT”
Michael is a member of the fast growing un-silent American majority that is sick of the insanity going on in this country right now. He has been accused of being vitriolic, bombastic, sarcastic to the extreme, and probably worse behind his back. Michael is sick of being branded a right wing-extremist, racist, homophobe, warmonger, or whatever other asinine adjectives Liberal Progressives have for the words COMMON SENSE these days. Michael is also a blogger at The Last Great Standand an Attorney.
An Independent Contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) has been busted as a leaker of classified unmasked data to the press. The leaker has been identified as Reality Leigh Winner (what a name for a Lefty Trump-hater).
Because of her access to classified data, I am unsure just how much of her prosecution will be public knowledge. She apparently has confessed, so I hope she is made an example of by sending to a Federal Penitentiary for a number of years. Maybe even give her a bit of the old Guantanamo try.
The Georgia government contractor in Georgia, who works for Pluribus International Corp, was arrested by FBI at her home this weekend. She was able to access the information due to her top secret security clearance.
President Trump has been pushing Justice to go after leakers inside the federal government, which he has identified as “the big story” when it comes to Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Winner’s arrest could signal the federal government is going to aggressively investigate and prosecute individuals who send classified intelligence to news organizations.
Trump and other Republican allies in Washington have made pursuing leakers one of their top priorities, but Winner is the first to face charges for releasing classified intelligence.
According to HuffPost, the NSA figured out it was Winner when they conducted an internal audit. From the audit they determined that the report had been printed by six people. Then when they audited the competes of those six desktop computers, they found that only Winner “had email contact” with the news outlet.
Winner, who had worked for Pluribus since February, reportedly admitted to government agents Saturday that she had printed the report, removed it from her office and mailed it to the news outlet from Augusta. Winner also allegedly “acknowledged that she was aware of the contents of the intelligence reporting and that she knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation,” the FBI affidavit said.
DOJ’s Rod Rosenstein stated, “Exceptional law enforcement efforts allowed us quickly to identify and arrest the defendant,” he continued, “Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s security and undermines public faith in government. People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.”
Boom. One by one, we will plug all the leaks. No more will America sink!
Keely is a 23-year-old conservative writer for many different sites, including Keepandbear.com. While she lives in Georgia, she grew up in Florida. Keely is pro-life, Christian, and a member of the NRA. When she is not writing, she enjoys going to the range and hiking with her dogs.
In the 1967 – 50-years ago – June 5 -10; Israel fought a war with at least four Arab nations amassing troops on Israel’s border. Begin counting from day one through the last day, you have the Six-Day War.
Israel AGAIN defeated armies much-much larger than the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The Arab nations prepared for invasion for what they believed would be the utter destruction of Israel. Wisely, Israel utterly surprised the Egyptian military front by launching a preemptive attack which destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. Using the shock to Israel’s advantage, the IDF then launched their vastly outnumbered tanks and pushed Egypt out of the Sinai. Then Jordan and Syria launched their invasions unaware that Egypt had gotten their butts kicked in the Sinai. Although there was a less of a surprise, the IDF ultimately prevailed against Syria and Jordan. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria and the land conquered by Jordan in 1948 was taken back which included Israel’s heritage of uniting Jerusalem. Making Jerusalem whole allowed Jewish access to their most holy site left to them – the Western Wall still standing after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.
1/12 | In the first video of the mini-series, find out about the early steps that led to the 1967 Six Day War - a war that changed the future of Israel. Surrounded by enemy neighbors and only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, Israel was vulnerable.
In May of 1967, the state of Israel was only 19 years old. At its inception in 1948, five Arab armies had coordinated a military invasion to prevent the creation of the small Jewish country. But Israel’s War of Independence succeeded in repelling the forces bent on Israel’s destruction. Israel reclaimed sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland, making way for the establishment of a Jewish country after 2,000 years of statelessness and periods of persecution.
Yet despite Israel’s success in creating a new country, it did not enjoy peace with its neighbors. Terrorism and frequent attacks on three borders kept Israel in a perpetual state of alert.
To the north, from the Golan Heights, Syria shelled Jewish communities below on a regular basis. In the South and East, Arab terrorists from Egyptian-controlled Gaza and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank infiltrated and perpetrated attacks on Israeli civilians, killing 400 in the 19 years since Israeli independence.
The attacks reached the point that they were condemned as “deplorable” by then-Secretary General of the United Nations U Thant.
Although the Jewish state had been welcomed into the United Nations and hailed by the international community, its Arab neighbors rejected its very right to exist, preparing to resume a war for Israel’s destruction which they had halted 19 years earlier. The Arab buildup for all-out war was very near.
In this video - the first in a 12-part mini-series - you will learn about the regional atmosphere leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, and find out about the early steps that led to the war that changed the future of Israel.
This video was produced by Jerusalem U in partnership with The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Action Network, the European Jewish Congress and the Center for Israel Education. For more on the dramatic events and impact of the Six Day War, visit sixdaywarproject.org.
Thumbnail Photo Credit: Israel GPO/Moshe Milner -----------
While the military victory was resounding, the Six-Day War created unresolved challenges that Israel grapples with to this day. The war also bolstered America’s pro-Israel community and helped to further reinforce the foundation of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship and America’s pro-Israel community. Learn more: http://fal.cn/SixDayWarReflections
Adam Garfinkle wrote an essay for the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.
The most important lesson of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that there is no such thing as a clean war. That war was very short and stunningly decisive militarily; it has been anything but politically. From the Israeli point of view, military victory solved some serious near-term challenges, but at the cost of generating or exacerbating a host of longer-term ones—some of which may have come along anyway, some not, some of which may have been averted (or worsened) had Israeli postwar policy been different—and we cannot know for certain which are which. To ask whether what has transpired after the war “had to be that way” constitutes an aspiration to levitate the philosopher’s stone.
At any rate, of the war’s many consequences, three stand out as pre-eminent. First, major wars change the societies that fight and endure their consequences. The Six Day War changed the political, social-psychological, and, in at least one key case, demographic balances within all the participating states and a few others besides, with multiple and varying secondary and tertiary effects over the years. Second, despite the war’s after-optic of a smashing Arab loss, it was the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian national movement. And third, the war catalyzed a redirection of U.S. Cold War policy in the Middle East (and arguably beyond) from one teetering on the edge of generic failure to one of significant success.
At this fiftieth “jubilee” anniversary of the war, buckets of ink will inevitably be spilled mooting and booting about such questions and many others; a lot already has been, and I am not reluctant to add to the bucket count. But before doing so, we all need to take a deep breath to inhale as much humility as we can—to remind ourselves what exactly we are doing and what we cannot do when we exhume moldering chunks of anniversarial history for reexamination.
We are so very attracted to anniversaries in the long parade of political history. We love to draw clear lessons from them, if we can—and if we can’t some others will claim to do so anyway. We are also attracted to thinking in terms of parsimonious eras with sharp lines of delineation between them; anniversaries of turning or tipping points help us mightily to draw such lines—which is precisely why we call them epochal. Wars, mostly hot but occasionally cold, figure centrally in the pantheon of such points.
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War is all but universally considered to be epochal in this sense, so the recent ink flow is no wonder as journalists, scholars, memoirists, and others look for lessons and insight as to how those supposed sharp lines that divide eras were drawn. The subtitle of a new book furnishes a case in point: “The Breaking of the Middle East.”
There is a problem here—at least one, arguably more than one. Without yet having read this book, I cannot say for sure that this subtitle is not magnificently meaningful. But I can say for sure that it puzzles me. What does it mean to say that a region of the world is “broken”? Does it imply that before the 1967 Middle East War the region was somehow whole, a description that implies adjectives such as peaceful, stable, and nestled in the warm logic of a benign cosmos; and suggests that regional wholeness also meant that its state or regime units were seen as legitimate by their own populations and by other states and regimes? So on June 4, 1967, the Middle East was whole, and by June 11, it was well on its way to being broken?
All of which is to say that the penchant for reposing great significance in anniversaries is often distortive, because for many it reinforces the right-angled sureties and sharp distinctions—and presumed causal chains leading into our own time bearing those precious, sought-after lessons—that historical reality rarely abides. Only by rounding off the ragged edges, usually with a rasp composed of our contemporary concerns and convictions unselfconsciously pointed backwards, can such artificial categories be devised. Ambiguity annoys most people, and so they go to some lengths to duck it, in the case of getting arms around history by generating categories, boxes, and labels into which to shove obdurate facts. History, meanwhile, remains the sprawling entropic mess it has always been and will always remain.
To employ the anti-ambiguity rasp presupposes, too, that the craftsman commands cause and effect. We can, after all, only simplify a reality we presume to understand in its detail. When it comes to the Six Day War, that means presuming to know how it started and why, how it ended and why, and what the war led to thereafter in an array of categories: how the postwar geopolitical trajectory of the core Middle Eastern region and its periphery spilled forth; how the region’s relationship to the key Cold War superpower protagonists shifted; the war’s impact on the domestic political cultures of participants and near-onlookers; and more besides.
The problem here is that we know with confidence only some of these causal skeins, and, what is more (or actually less), some of what we know has not stayed constant over the past half century. At one point, say thirty years ago, we thought we understood the Soviet government’s role in fomenting the crisis by sending false reports of events in Syria to the Egyptian leadership; after the Soviet archive opened in the early 1990s, consensus on that point has weakened as revisionist interpretations have come forth. Nasser’s moving-target motives at various points in the crisis leading to war seemed clear for a time, until they no longer quite did. Several more examples of elusive once-truths could be cited.
Alas, every seminal event has a pre-context and a post-context: the convolutions of historical reality that give rise to an event and its causal afterflow. The further we get from the event, the greater the still-expanding post-context overshadows the pre-context, because we can see, for example, how various things turned out in 2017 in a way we could not have in, say, 1987. But so much else has happened that must, of necessity, dilute any construction of direct or preponderant causality.
Thus, did the war push Israeli society into becoming more religious, as many have claimed? Did it help shift Israeli politics to the Right by transforming the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, leading Orthodox Israelis to engage on many political issues to which they had been formerly aloof? Or was that a deeper social-demographic trend that would have happened anyway, if differently, war or no war? So we face a paradox: the richer the post-context becomes for any epochal event, the poorer becomes our ability to isolate its downstream impact. As already suggested, we often enough make up for that poverty by exiling natural ambiguity before the demands of our current questions or biases. That is how we predict the past.
Scholars do try to isolate causal threads, of course, but differently because intellectual business models, so to speak, differ. Historians tend to seek out particularities; political scientists tend to search for general rules. Historians like their rocks fresh and jagged; political scientists like theirs rounded by patterns that flow through time. Each to their own intellectual aesthetic.
And the rest of us? How do we chase truth in history? Consider that if you pick up a history book and a memoir old enough to serve as an adjunct to it, you will have in your hands two different perspectives on the political world. An international political history of the 1930s written in the 2010s will take a passage of reality—say about the British, French, and American reaction to the 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia—and might spend two sentences or perhaps a paragraph on it. A memoir written in the 1950s by someone actually involved in debating and shaping that reaction will read very differently, recalling details, sideways connections to other issues, and nuances of policies and personalities bound to be lost in a general text if it aspires to be less than 10,000 pages long. In a history book such a mid-level event is likely to be framed as a consequence of larger forces that were leading to more portentous happenings (say, World War II); in a memoir it is more likely to be framed as both illustration of a synthetic historical moment, akin to a zeitgeist that is fully felt but is recalcitrant to reductionist analysis, and partial cause of what came after. Which do we read; which do we trust?
The answer is both, and wholly neither. How will the Six Day War figure in history books fifty years from now? There’s no way to know, because it will depend at least as much on what happens between now and then as it will on what happened in May and June 1967. But one thing we do know: As the post-context of the war doubles, the thinness and sameness of the description will grow, and be of little help in understanding how the main actors involved saw their circumstances. It will lose a sense of human verisimilitude. Details invariably give way to theme, and narratives grow shorter even as their truth claims grow larger. The thickness of memoirs will retain that sense of human verisimilitude. But what they provide in terms of broader context may suffer from too narrow an authorial aperture, and perhaps a bad memory in service to ego protection, if not other incidental causes of inaccuracy. As with many aspects of life, intellectual and otherwise, tradeoffs spite us in our search for clarity.
The point of all this? Anniversaries are shiny. They attract a lot of attention, much of it self-interested and sentimental enough to lure some people into excessive simplifications if not outright simplemindedness. If someone will bait the hook, someone else will swallow it. We witnessed exactly such a spectacle not long ago at the 100th anniversary of Sykes-Picot, and we’ll see it again a few months hence with the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. But as Max Frankel once said, “simplemindedness is not a handicap in the competition of social ideas”—or, he might have added, historical interpretations. If it gets you on TV talk shows to sell your book, no form of simplification is liable to remain out of bounds these days. After all, what is fake history if not a collection of aged fake news?
Never mind all that: I want people to read this essay, so rest assured that I know what happened and why, and what it all means even down to today. And now that I have donned sequins and glitter, I can be almost as brief and punchy as I am shiny, as is the current custom.
What did the war mean for the region? Plenty. It proved to remaining doubters that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by conventional force of arms. It helped establish Israel’s permanence in the eyes of its adversaries, the world at large, and, to an extent, in the eyes of its own people. That changed Israel’s domestic political culture. It no longer felt to the same extent like a pressure-cooking society under constant siege, and that, along with demographic and other subterranean social trends, ironically loosened the political grip of Israel’s founding generation of leaders, and the Labor Party. Less than a decade after the war Revisionist Zionists came to power for the first time, and now, fifty years later, Israel has the most rightwing government in its history. Did the Six Day War directly cause that? Of course not; but it was one of many factors that steered Israeli politics toward its current circumstances.
The war also began the occupation, first of Golan, the West Bank, and Gaza—in time a bit less of Golan and not of Gaza at all. If you had told typical Israelis in the summer of 1967 that fifty years later the West Bank would still be essentially occupied, neither traded for peace nor annexed, they would have thought you mad or joking. Israel as an independent state was 19 years and a few weeks old on June 5, 1967. The twentieth anniversary of the war in 1987 was about the midpoint of Israel’s modern history, half within-the-Green-Line and half beyond it. Now vastly more of Israel’s history has passed with the occupation as a part of it. Many more Israelis today cannot remember Israel in its pre-June 1967 borders than can—and that includes the Arabs citizens of the state as well as their ethno-linguistic kin living in the West Bank and Gaza.
In Israel there is a huge open debate, and a constant more private discussion beneath it, as to how the occupation has changed the nature of Israeli society. It is a difficult debate to set premises for, because in fifty years a lot is going to change in any modern society, occupation or no occupation. My view, like that of most Israelis I know, is that the occupation has been significantly corrosive of many Israeli institutions. They would like the occupation to end if it could be ended safely; but increasingly most agree that it can’t be, at least anytime soon. The remarkable fact is that, considering the circumstances, the damage to morale and heart, beyond institutions, has not been even worse. Israel’s moral realism has proved resilient. But the damage has not been slight, and of course it is ongoing.
As for the Arabs, the war crushed the pretentions of Arab Socialism and of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Within what the late Malcolm Kerr called “the Arab Cold War” it played in favor of the Arab monarchies against the military-ruled republics and hence generally in favor of the West; but it did not guarantee the safety of monarchical rule everywhere: Just 27 months later the Sanusi kingdom in Libya fell to a young army colonel named Muamar Qadaffi. None of the defeated Arab states lost its leader right away: not Nasser in Egypt, or King Hussein in Jordan, or Nurredin al-Atassi in Syria. But by the late autumn of 1970 Nasser was dead and al-Atassi had been displaced by Hafez al-Assad. Rulers also rolled in Iraq, and the very next year, with the British withdrawal from East of Suez, the United Arab Emirates came into being against its own will.
The war, therefore, was one element—more important in some places than others—in a general roiling of Arab politics (and I haven’t even mentioned stability-challenged zones like Yemen and Sudan), those politics being pre-embedded, so to speak, in generically weak states (again, some more than others). Not that Arab politics was an oasis of serenity before June 1967 either, as a glance at post-independence Syrian history will show. Indeed, the contention that the Six Day War, by hollowing out the pretensions of secular Arab nationalism for all to see, presaged the “return of Islam” with which we and many others struggle today is both true and overstated—in other words, too shiny. The frailties of secular nationalism among the Arab states preceded the war and would have multiplied on account of any number and kind of failures to come, war or no war.
In any event, the political impact of the Arab loss was mitigated by the “Palestine” contradiction that then lay at the heart of Arab politics. “Palestine” was, and remains to some extent, a badge of shame, for it epitomizes the failure of the Arab states to achieve its goals. Yet it is only a badge; the persistence of the conflict, sharply inflected by the 1967 loss, has served as a raison d’être for most ruling Arab elites, their unflagging opposition to Israel as a symbol of legitimacy. In the parlous context of inter-Arab politics, too, the conflict has served as the only thing on which all the Arab regimes could symbolically unite. Non-democratic Arab elites have used the conflict both as a form of street control internally, and as a jousting lance in their relations with other Arab states.
Yet by far the most important consequence of the Arab defeat in 1967 was to free the Palestinian national movement from the clutches of the Arab states. The theory before June 1967 was that the Arab states would destroy Israel in a convulsive, epic war, and then hand Palestine over to the Palestinians. The hysteria that overtook the Arab street leading to war shows how widespread this theory was, and the war itself showed how hollow a promise it was. So the Palestinians took matters into their own hands for the first time, seizing control of the Palestine Liberation Organization from its Egyptian sponsors and reversing the theoretical dynamic of liberation: Palestinians would liberate Palestine, and that victory would supercharge and unify the Arabs to face the hydra-headed monster of Western imperialism. The key bookends of this transformation as it manifested itself in Arab politics writ large were the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, which passed responsibility for “occupied Palestine” from Jordan to the PLO, and the 1988 decision by King Hussein to formally relinquish Jordan’s association with the West Bank, which it had annexed and ruled for 18 years after the 1949 Rhodes Armistice agreements.
But how would the Palestinians themselves, led by the new and authentic PLO, liberate Palestine? They had in mind a revolutionary people’s war, an insurrection focused on the territories Israel newly occupied. It took its inspiration from lukewarm Maoism and its example from the Vietcong. The attempted insurrection in the West Bank failed miserably and rapidly; terrorist attacks mounted from east of the Jordan and across the border with Egypt became the next tactical phase as Palestinian nationalism’s organizational expression fractured. In time, Palestinian use of contiguous lands in Jordan and later in Lebanon to launch repeated terror attacks against Israeli civilians sparked civil wars in both countries. It did not bring about the “liberation” of even one square centimeter of “Palestine.”
Terrorism, however, did put the Palestinian issue “on the map” for much of the world, and now, fifty years later, Palestinians can have a state if their leaders really want one and are prepared to do what it takes to get it—the evidence so far suggesting that they don’t, and won’t. Nevertheless, looking back from fifty years’ hindsight, the Six Day War was about the best thing that could have happened for the Palestinians; that fact that they have not consolidated that windfall politically is their own doing, but everyone’s tragedy.
As to terrorism, it is true that the pusillanimous behavior of many governments in the 1970s, including some allied in NATO to the United States, helped the PLO shoot, bomb, and murder its way to political respectability. So one might venture that by helping to show that terrorism post-Six Day War can work at least to some extent, these governments bear some responsibility for the metathesis of nationalist, instrumentalist terrorism into the mass-murder apocalyptical kind we have witnessed more recently with al-Qaeda and ISIS. To me it’s another in a series of shiny arguments, more superficially attractive than fully persuasive. It is not entirely baseless, however.
But far more important than what the war did for the thinking of the Palestinians was what it did to the thinking of the Arab state leaders whose lands were now under Israeli occupation: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Before the war, Arab support for “Palestine” was highly theoretical, highly ineffectual, and in truth amounted merely to a symbolic football the Arab regimes used to compete with one another in the ethereal arena of pan-Arab fantasies. Now, suddenly, the core national interests of three Arab states—including the largest and most important one, Egypt—became directly and ineluctably entwined with the reality as opposed to the symbol of Israel.
The Egyptians, particularly after Nasser’s death brought Anwar el-Sadat to power, got downright pragmatic. Israel had something these three states wanted—chunks of their land. And the Egyptian and Jordanian leaderships, at least, knew that a price would have to be paid to redeem that pragmatism. Complications aplenty there were, as anyone who lived through the dozen years after the 1967 War knows well. Nevertheless, this critical divide among the Arabs—between state leaders who could afford to remain only symbolically engaged and those who could not—shaped inter-Arab politics then and still does to some degree today. First Egypt in March 1979 and then Jordan in October 1994 paid the price and made peace with Israel. It seemed like forever passed between June 1967 and March 1979, but it was less than a dozen years—quick by historical standards.
While Egypt recovered the entire Sinai through its peace arrangement with Israel, Jordan did not recover the West Bank. The war had shifted the political demography of the Hashemite Kingdom, sending more Palestinians to live among East Bankers—some now refugees twice over and some for the first time. The consequence was to intensify Jordan’s internalization of its problem with Palestinian nationalism: It had lost land but gained souls whose fealty to the monarchy was presumably weak. The benefit of peace to Jordan in 1984, and hence its main purpose from King Hussein’s point of view, was therefore not to regain territory but to strengthen the stake that both Israel and the United States had in Jordan’s stability in the face of future challenge from any quarter, internal and external alike.
Syria, do note, did not follow the Egyptian and Jordanian path to peace, and so the Golan Heights remain for all practical purposes part of Israel. The reasons have to do with the complex sectarian demography of the country, and specifically with the fact that since 1970 Syria has been ruled by a minoritarian sect in loose confederation with the country’s other non-Sunni minorities. The Alawi regime has needed the symbolic pan-Arab mantle of the Palestinian cause more than any other Arab state, particularly as one with a border with Israel. Regime leaders anyway did not consider the Golan to be their sectarian patrimony, but more important, peace and normalization seemed to the Syrian leadership more of a threat to its longevity (and to its ability to meddle in Lebanese affairs) than a benefit. Now that Syria as a territorial unit has dissolved in a brutal civil war, the legacy of 1967 has been rendered all but moot.
Does that mean that Egypt and Jordan essentially sold out the Palestinians, making a separate peace? Well, much political theater aside, yes. But they really had no choice, and not selling out the Palestinians would not have gained the Palestinians what they wanted anyway. That, in turn, left the Palestinians with little choice. Eventually, the PLO leadership also decided to “engage” Israel directly, but without giving up what it still called the “armed struggle.”
Its partial pragmatism, tactical in character, gained the PLO a partial advance for the Palestinians through the truncated Oslo process: a kind of government with a presence in Palestine; some “police” under arms; a transitional capital in Ramallah; wide international recognition; and more. Withal, the “territories” remain under Israeli security control, and the Palestinian economy (jobs, electricity grid, water, and more) remains essentially a hostage to Israel’s.
This has given rise to perhaps the most underappreciated irony in a conflict replete with them: First Israel internalized the Palestinian nationalist problem in June 1967 by occupying at length the West Bank and Gaza, and then the PLO internalized its Israel problem by drifting via Oslo into essential dependence on Israel for basic sustenance and even security support (against Hamas, for example). Note that it was hard for Israel to bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, but very easy to send a tank column into downtown Ramallah ten years later. It’s all so very odd, you may think, but there you have it.
The Bigger Picture
Now to the larger, international scene. What the Six Day War showed was that Soviet patronage of the Arabs and arms sales to them could deliver neither victory to the Arabs nor reflected advantage for the Soviet Union. This devalued the allure of Soviet regional overtures reassured the Western-oriented Arab regimes and hence played directly into the portfolio of U.S. and Western interests: keep the Soviets out, the oil flowing, and Israel in existence (the latter construed at the time as a moral-historical obligation, not a strategic desideratum).
The Johnson administration figured the essence out, which is why in the aftermath of the war it did not do what the Eisenhower administration did after the Suez War of 1956: pressure Israel to leave the territories it had conquered in return for promises that, in the event, turned out to be worthless. It rather brokered a new document—UNSCR 242—calling for withdrawal from territories (not “the” territories) in return for peace.
But it was not until the War of Attrition broke out in 1969 around and above the Suez Canal—a direct follow-on to the Six Day War—that the new Nixon administration codified in policy this basic strategic understanding. To prevent and if possible roll back Soviet inroads in the Middle East, the U.S. government would guarantee continued Israeli military superiority—that was the start of the major U.S. military supply relationship to Israel that endures today (the younger set may not know it, but Israel won the Six Day War with a French-supplied air force). In short, nothing the Soviets could supply or do would help the Arabs regain their lands or make good their threats. The events of the Jordanian Civil War in September 1970, and the way Nixon administration principles insisted on interpreting and speaking about that civil war, only deepened the conviction and the anchors of the policy.
On balance, the policy worked well, despite one painful interruption. By July 1972, President Sadat had sent a huge Soviet military mission packing out of Egypt, and was all but begging the United States to open a new relationship. Egypt had been by far the most critical of Soviet clients in the Middle East, and Sadat’s volte face represented a huge victory for U.S. diplomacy. Alas, neither the victory-besotted Israelis nor the increasingly distracted Americans paid Sadat the attention he craved—so he taunted the Soviets to give him just enough stuff to draw Jerusalem and Washington’s eyes his way: He started a war in October 1973. This also worked, leading as already noted to the March 1979 peace treaty—a geopolitical and psychological game-changer in the region and, ultimately, beyond.
For most practical purposes, Israel’s role as an effective proxy for U.S. power in the Middle East endured through the end of the Cold War, although its benefits paid out quietly, more often than not in what trouble it deterred as opposed to actively fought. And the Israeli-Egyptian relationship—imperfect as it may be—still endures as a guarantee that there can be no more Arab-Israeli conventional wars on the scale of 1967 or even 1973. These are both, at least partially, strategic achievements born of the conjoining of Israeli power and American diplomacy, and—it bears mentioning—these are achievements that were constructed and made to endure pretty much regardless of the state of play in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.
Obviously, the end of the Cold War put paid to the structure of this regional American strategy, its logic dissipated through victory. In that sense, the larger global strategic impact of the Six Day War ended when the Berlin Wall fell. While Israel remains a strategic partner of the United States in the post-Cold War environment, largely through intelligence sharing and other activities, its value as strategic proxy diminished as the focus of U.S. concerns moved east, toward Iraq and the Gulf. In the 1991 Gulf War, for example, Israel through no fault of its own became a complication for American policy—a target set for Iraqi scuds—not an asset, such that the U.S. government pleaded with its Israel counterpart not to use its military power against a common foe.
Amid the sectarian and proxy wars of the present moment in the region, Israeli arms lack any point of political entrée that can aid U.S. policy. Even when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, Israeli intelligence is indeed valuable but we will not see Israeli special forces attacking salafi terrorist organizations far from home. The last thing Israel needs is to persuade still more murderous enemies to gaze its way.
Only if the two parties come to focus on a common enemy—never the case during the Cold War, by the way, when for Israel the Arabs were the threat and for the United States the Soviets were the threat—could a truly robust U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership be born anew. And that common enemy, which could bring in also many Sunni Arab states and possibly Turkey as well, is of course Iran. But we are now very deep into the post-context of the Six Day War, more than six degrees of separation from any plausible causal skein leading back to June 1967.
A Smaller Picture
The war affected the political and social-psychological condition not only of state actors but of some others as well. As the Middle East crisis deepened in May 1967, I was a (nearly) 16-year old Jewish high school student in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like every American who was of age in November 1963 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I suspect that just about every Jew of age anywhere in the world in May and June of 1967 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the war had started, and how they felt when it had ended.
We had been frightened, and afterwards we were relieved and even elated. It turned out that a lot of what we thought was true about the state of affairs at the time was incorrect. That was hardly a unique experience, but more important, over time the effects of the Six Day War on American Jewry and other Jewish communities outside Israel were dramatic—and the triangular relationship between Israel, American Jewry, and the United States has never since been the same.
Figuring it all out has borne its own challenges, surprises, and disappointments. Those on all three sides who thought they knew what was going on—who was dependent on whom, who could count on whom, who had political leverage over whom, and so on—learned better, often the hard way. But none of this has involved armies with modern weapons and high-level state diplomacies interacting; no, it is truly complicated and tends to generate narratives that are very, very shiny—so let’s just leave it at that.
If You Pick Up the Gun, You Roll the Dice
Let us conclude by returning to where we began, using another’s much earlier conclusion as our prooftext. On Saturday, June 3, 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concluded a meeting of his inner cabinet with these words: “Nothing will be settled by a military victory. The Arabs will still be here.”
Eshkol (as well as the out-of-office but still prominent David Ben-Gurion) had counseled patience and restraint to Israel’s confident military leadership as the spring 1967 crisis grew, and only reluctantly came to the decision for war. Keenly sensing the ironies of history—Jewish history not least—he knew that the war would not be politically conclusive. He realized that whatever immediate threats needed to be extinguished, war would not deliver peace and security before, if ever, it delivered mixed and unanticipated consequences. He was right.
Not even the shrewdest statesmen are wise enough to foresee the consequences of a major war: When you pick up the gun, you roll the dice. That, I think, is no shiny lesson, but one more likely for the historically literate to recall the past’s many dull pains. May it help future leaders to control their own and others’ expectations if use force they must.
 I have written on the anniversary of the Six Day War before: See “Arab Loss Had Profound Effect on Politics in the Middle East,” Jewish Exponent, June 5, 1987; “1967: One War Won, a Few Others Started,” Newsday, April 30, 1998; and “Six Days, and Forty Years,” The American Spectator, June 5, 2007.
 Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale University Press).
 See, for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007).
 On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American Interest Online, May 16, 2016.
 For detail on what is meant by “pre-embedded” in “generically weak states,” see my “The Fall of Empires and the Formation of the Modern Middle East,” Orbis (Spring 2016).
 A point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.
 I have written of this triangular relationship elsewhere: “The Triangle Connecting the U.S., Israel and American Jewry May Be Coming Apart,” Tablet, November 5, 2013.
Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago
The Foreign Policy Research Institute, founded in 1955, is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. In the tradition of our founder, Ambassador Robert Strausz-Hupé, Philadelphia-based FPRI embraces history and geography to illuminate foreign policy challenges facing the United States. More about FPRI »
Foreign Policy Research Institute · 1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610 · Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 1.215.732.3774 Fax: 1.215.732.4401 www.fpri.org
There is a problem in cities spread across Europe with Muslim enclaves. These enclaves are a Third-World Muslim brutality transplanted into Europe. The Muslim brutality is so pervasive that they are often dubbed as No-Go Zones for non-Muslims, too often even applying to police authority.
SADLY, America’s Left Stream Media have thrown themselves into full scale Multiculturalist denial of the facts demonstrating No-Go Zones in European Muslim Enclaves is a painful reality. Dear God, even the Conservative to Left Stream Media in Fox News issued an apology for airing the No-Go Zone phenomena in European cities.
European Multiculturalist’s most hated Counterjihadist Fjordman wrote the facts back in April 2017:
In January 2015 The New York Times denied that there are "no-go-zones" -- areas that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to sharia law -- dominated by certain immigrant groups in some urban areas in Western Europe. The American newspaper mentioned this author, alongside writers such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, for spreading this alleged falsehood. The article was published shortly after Islamic terrorists had massacred the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015. Other established media outlets such as the magazine The Atlantic also dismissed claims of no-go-zones.
Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology for allowing its anchors and guests to repeat the suggestion that there are Muslim "no-go zones" in European countries such as Britain and France.
Regarding the subject of "no-go-zones," this is largely a question of semantics. If you say that there are some areas where even the police are afraid to go, where the country's normal, secular laws barely apply, then it is indisputable that such areas now exist in several Western European countries. France is one of the hardest hit: it has a large population of Arab and African immigrants, including millions of Muslims.
In an essay published in February 2016, Stockholm police inspector Lars Alvarsjö warned that the Swedish legal system is close to collapse. The influx of asylum seekers and ethnic gangs has overwhelmed the country and its understaffed police force. In many suburbs, criminal gangs have taken control and determine the rules. The police, fire brigades and ambulance personnel in these areas are routinely met with violent attacks.
In December 2016, the American Jewish documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitztold the story of his venture into Husby. A few seconds after they arrived, five men approached them. They said "You guys gotta get out of here right now." The film crew, being Swedish, turned around and ran for it. Horowitz decided to stay and try to figure this thing out with the men.
Edmund Kozak writing for Lifezette spells out Ami Horowitz’s story of a Swedish No-Go Zone:
Filmmaker Ami Horowitz recently encountered the all-too-real brutality to be found in a Muslim “no-go” zone in Sweden.
“When they dragged me into that building, that’s really when I thought, ‘They’re going to end my life here,'” Horowitz told LifeZette. Horowitz painted a vivid picture of the extent of the danger of Muslim no-go zones in Sweden — even the police fear them, he said.
As Horowitz noted, liberals love to pretend that Muslim no-go zones — Muslim neighborhoods to which even the authorities are afraid to venture and in which Sharia law is the rule and non-Muslims are attacked on sight — are little more than a figment of paranoid conservative imaginations. But as Horowitz would find out for himself, they are very much a horrifying reality.
“Literally moments after I stepped into the town, a gang of five clearly Islamic men approached my crew, and they attacked me without provocation,” he continued. “They repeatedly punched, kicked and choked me, as a number of bystanders watched. Eventually they dragged me into a building, which at the time I assumed was to finish me off. Once inside the apartment building vestibule, they resumed their vicious attack. But seconds later someone opened an apartment door directly above us, and it luckily spooked them enough to run away,” wrote Horowitz.
While it is nearly impossible to gauge the full extent of the no-go zone problem, it is safe to say there are hundreds of no-go areas scattered throughout Europe. A March 2016 report published by the Hungarian government found 900 areas across Europe.
In France alone, where no-go areas are euphemistically referred to as “zones urbaines sensibles” — sensitive urban zones — the government counts over 750 such zones. In Sweden, the number could be “as high as 50, [but] the police who I spoke with … estimated there to be about 20-30,” Horowitz said.
In the United Kingdom, “you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts [of London] when you are working,” a London police officer told Breitbart News in December 2015. Also in December 2015, a police officer from Lancashire in northern England told the Daily Mail that, “there are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission.”
Germany also has its problems with no-go zones. In July 2015, a routine traffic stop in Gelsenkirchen turned into a nightmare when officers tried to carry out their duty. “During the arrest, the two officers were surrounded by about 50 members of a large family who suddenly appeared on the side streets,” local news reported.
The mob tried to intimidate the officers into dropping the arrest, but when that failed, a 15-year-old attacked the officers from behind and started choking one. The situation only returned to calm after backup arrived. “It was only with the summoned reinforcements that the police were able to put the situation back under control and arrest the youthful attacker,” the report said.
It does not take a rocket scientist that violence and murders against Europeans are largely the end result of carte blanche immigration of Muslims. These same Muslims have not and will not assimilate into the Western Culture. Thanks to the errors of Multiculturalism these Muslims are encouraged to retain the Medieval mentality that Islam is stuck in globally.
This Medieval mentality has bred a Muslim hatred into second and third generation Muslims descended from first generation immigrants. Islam teaches superiority over all things non-Muslim. Hence, in refusing assimilation logically leads to resentment of 21st century Westerners not inclined to submit Medieval cultural thinking.
These next-gen Muslims then are attracted to the concepts of what Westerners call Radical Islam. Enter Islamic terrorism into a European society that Multiculturalist politicians are in self-deceived denial which if continues, will likely result in the END of Western heritage that will be subsumed into an Islamized continent.
This Multiculturalist idiocy MUST NOT be allowed to metastasize in America! I wish I could use the phrase “not gain a toe-hold” in America, but thanks to the Obama years, Medieval-minded Muslim have already been brought in en masse to enlarge American-hating Muslim communities that have already formed non-assimilation zones in the U.S. of A.
John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled. President (“Understanding The Threat”) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Please support The Glazov Gang because we are a fan-generated show and need your help to keep going. Make a contribution or set up a monthly pledge. Thank you!
From Minneapolis (MN) to Hamtramck (MI) to Falls Church (VA) to Paterson (NJ) and many other towns and cities across the fifty states, the Islamic Movement is quietly conquering America.
The federal government sleeps, many state governments – including those controlled by Republicans – do their best to accommodate muslims waging Civilization Jihad against America, and the hard-left Marxists – including nearly all of the local and national media – are collaborators in the enemy’s efforts.
As UTT has previously reported, Minneapolis, Minnesota is currently enemy-held territory and will require force to take back.
Hamtramck, Michigan is a small suburb of Detroitistan, and is the first town in America to have a majority muslim city council. This formerly Polish-Catholic town has been overrun by sharia-adherent muslims who have already achieved accommodations for sharia in the community.
Falls Church, Virginia is home to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center. The Muslim Brotherhood leader of Dar al Hijra, Sheikh Shaker Elsayed (former President of the MB’s Muslim American Society), recently gave a lecture promoting female genital mutilation. Dar al Hijra is a jihadi factory whose property is owned by the MB’s bank NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).
Al Qaeda’s Anwar al Awlaki was the Imam of the Dar al Hijra beginning in January 2001 and serving for over a year there.
The community around Dar al Hijra has been taken over by sharia-adherent muslims. Law enforcement calls the two twin apartment buildings in the area “Taliban Towers,” and the number of jihadis in this area of Northern Virginia, only minutes from the nation’s capital, is significant.
Historically, Paterson, New Jersey has been a melting pot of Irish, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Eastern Europeans and others. Christians and Jews made a home in this town approximately 20 miles outside of New York City.
Now, estimates put the number of muslims in Paterson at over 30% of the total population. This number – possibly over 40,000 – makes Paterson, New Jersey the town with the one of the highest concentrations of muslims in the United States. Many Turks and Syrians are a part of the muslim community, but the majority are Palestinians/Hamas. Many citizens are concerned for their safety and security.
What do these four communities – Paterson, Falls Church, Minneapolis, and Hamtramck – have in common?
Muslims concentrated their efforts in these communities, built up their numbers, and then asked for accommodations. Once their numbers were significant enough, they made DEMANDS of local officials to accommodate sharia.
Islamic leaders (read: Muslim Brotherhood et al) purchased numerous plots of land in these communities – often with funds from Saudi Arabia – and began building of Mosques/Islamic Centers, Islamic schools, etc.
Once the mosques were built, land immediately around the mosque was purchased for muslims and, over time, muslims began occupying the land around the mosque up to a radius of approximately 3 miles.
Islamic organizations (read: Muslim Brotherhood) began outreaching to local Christian and Jewish leaders, as well as law enforcement and elected officials with positive results. The majority of Pastors and Rabbis stood/stand with jihadis (“terrorists”) and publicly defend them because the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Interfaith Outreach” efforts work; many elected officials believe they “have to” meet with jihadi leaders to show how “progressive and open minded” they are; and law enforcement remains unaware of the grave threat growing like a cancer in their communities.
Collaborators in the media wrote/write glowing stories about how wonderful the jihadis muslims are and defend them right up to and, in some cases, after they kill Americans (eg New York Times defending Anwar al Awlaki after the U.S. government killed him because he was the Al Qaeda leader in Yemen).
Elected officials defend and even promote the jihadis. Example: Mayor Jones in Paterson, NJ raised the Palestinian flag over the City Hall and declared “Palestinian-American Day.”
Cities which stand up against this onslaught, at least under the previous administration, find themselves fighting a lawsuit from the Department of Justice and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups. In Bernard Township, NJ the town council said no to Islamic leaders’ request to build an Islamic center/mosque for a number of reasons. The DoJ and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Center of Basking Ridge sued and forced the city to allow the mosque be built.
As each day goes by the problem gets worse and the enemy digs in and enhances their fighting positions in the United States.
UTT encourages all Americans to pay attention to what is going on around them in their community. The enemy is inside the wall. A muslim representing an Islamic organization has a 99.9% probability of being a jihadi because all of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are jihadi/hostile as a matter of fact. Islamic leaders may give a friendly appearance, but they want what ISIS an Al Qaeda want – an Islamic state under sharia.
What are you doing to prevent your town from surrendering to the jihadis in your community? Are you holding your leaders accountable? Are you boldly speaking truth? Do you understand the threat?
Sheriffs and Pastors are the most important people in this war. We will attain victory when sheriff’s and their deputies understand the threat and aggressively go after it. Law Enforcement can only do this if the citizens also understand the threat. Pastors are the key to ensuring that happens, so they must speak truth in love to open the eyes of the American people.
Understanding the Threat provides threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, training, and education for federal, state, and local leadership and agencies in government, the private sector, and for private citizens. UTT is the only organization in America which is training leaders, elected officials, law enforcement, military personnel, and citizens, about the Global Islamic Movement and the jihadi networks in communities around the nation. UTT is also the only organization showing security professionals and state leaders how to locate and map out jihadi organizations, locate jihadis, and dismantle the network at the local and state level. While UTT briefs and teaches about many of the threats external and internal to the United States, its primary concern is the threats to the Republic and the West in general from the Global Islamic Movement.
About John Guandolo
John Guandolo is the Founder of UnderstandingtheThreat.com, an organization dedicated to providing strategic and operational threat-focused consultation, education, and training for federal, state and local leadership and agencies, and designing strategies at all levels of the community to defeat the enemy.
Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who took a commission as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served with …READ THE REST
Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.
I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.
There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.
President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.
The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.
If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.
Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:
“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson - It has long – Quotes Database)
The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (The Judiciary – Quotes Database)
And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it Proves – Quotes Database)
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all Powers – Quotes Database)
These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.
My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.
The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.
In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed. Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.
Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.
Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.
Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.
There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.
If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway. The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.
Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue. The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited. It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States. As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.
The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II. The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.
As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish. Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed. If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible). The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point. The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.
We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).
While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue. Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending. Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.
“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”
The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should. Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief. His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.
The executive order is the second one. Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6. The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.
Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.
The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”
Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
Intolerance? The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding. What about Islamic intolerance? How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands. Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite? What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries? Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?
By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security. It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration. Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law. Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?
The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior. Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).
The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.
The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that. The judicial branch’s job is clear. Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear. If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law. What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law. These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.
They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court - again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.
Douglas V. GibbsofPolitical PistachioConservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017Canada Free Press.Com
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose daughter was once a target of ridicule by Kathy Griffin, turned the tables and ridiculed Griffin’s claims of being a victim after Griffin’s publicity stunt gave the comedian more negative publicity than she could have ever imagined.
In 2011, Griffin made a New Year’s resolution that touched on the Palin family.
“I’ve already gone for Sarah, Todd and Bristol obviously,” Griffin said. “But I think it’s Willow’s year to go down. In 2011, I want to offend a new Palin.”
With Griffin already under fire for the photo in which she held a prop resembling the severed head of President Donald Trump, Palin decided the time had come to add her voice to the national clamor against Griffin.
“Kathy Griffin has mercilessly attacked children for years,” Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
“When this ‘celebrity’ (who ‘celebrates her, btw?) traveled all the way to Wasilla and actually knocked on my home’s door to personally humiliate my kids again, I knew she was deranged,” Palin wrote.
Griffin had left a note that read, “Dear Palins who are 18 years old or older (mostly Sarah). I’m doing a funny comedy show on Friday night at the Anchorage Performing Arts Centre. Come see me. I’ll even comp you or at least a two-for. xoxo, Kathy Griffin.”
“You can’t do nicer than that,” Griffin said in a 2010 show, which came not long after Griffin had been poking fun at Bristol Palin about her weight.
However, Palin said there was never anything nice about Griffin.
“The liberal ‘star’ had attacked my teenage daughters for so long — first Bristol then, inexplicably, giddily announced she would ‘go directly after Willow Palin’ despite Willow’s young age and innocence in doing anything to earn the wrath of this attacker,” Palin wrote.
Palin then turned her wrath on the comedian.
“And today Kathy claims SHE is the victim! Kathy’s crocodile tears at her publicity-seeking press conference today mean nothing to mothers who’ve witnessed the ramifications her sick acts have had on precious children,” she posted.
“So, on behalf of Melania Trump and other mothers who’ve tried to protect our children from Kathy’s soulless vile attacks, I’ll bite my tongue in print and not say what I’d actually tell her to her face,” Palin wrote.
But there was something more to come.
“I’ll keep it civil and merely tell her after her ridiculous self-serving statements today: Suck it. Up. Cupcake,” Palin wrote.
Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping and informing people with truth. It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters. The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.
WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast).
Western Journalism has a distinguished team of journalists and support staff who work together to achieve common goals. WesternJournalism.com is a Top 25 Facebook publisher, according to NewsWhip. Fifteen million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, ranking the site as a Top 250 most visited website in the United States, according the site metric tracker, Alexa.
Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles, which are honesty, integrity, and meticulous work ethic. These values are demonstrated through honest and accurate reporting of information and events happening around the world. Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com
This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.