The police have finally apologised to Catholic woman arrested for praying silently outside a closed abortion clinic in Birmingham.
Following a six-month investigation, West Midlands Police have confirmed that they will not bring charges against Isabel Vaughan-Spruce.
The police told her that “there will be no further investigation into the alleged matter, and there will be no further action taken”.
They have also said sorry to her for the length of time taken to reach the decision not to prosecute her for silent prayer.
Ms Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for praying in a “buffer zone” surrounding an abortion facility on Station Road, Birmingham, in March.
It was the second time in four months she had been arrested and it came weeks after a judge in Birmingham dismissed the first case brought against her.
The censorship zone, introduced by local authorities via a “Public Spaces Protection Order,” bans prayer among other activities considered to constitute protest against abortion.
The arrest caught worldwide attention when police accused the charitable volunteer of committing an offence by silently praying in her own mind.
In a video which went viral, an officer is heard telling Ms Vaughan-Spruce: “You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offence”.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on INSANITY IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMMON IN OUR OFFICIAL WORLD
Garland Goes Mute About FBI Catholic Probe Bill Donohue September 21, 2023 We learned in January that “traditional” Catholics were being investigated by the FBI for the crime of being traditional Catholics. We were assured by FBI Director Christopher Wray that only one Field Office, in Richmond, was involved. Then we learned that the FBI was also going after “mainline” Catholics, and had developed a plan to spy on them. Then we learned that it wasn’t just one Field Office—agents in Los Angeles and Portland were also involved in the probe. Wray has repeatedly said he knew nothing about Catholics being targeted. In fact, when he testified in July he said that when he first learned about this he was “aghast.” Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, testified on September 20 saying that he, too, knew nothing about this. When he found out, he told Rep. Jeff Van Drew that he was “appalled.” Garland said the same thing when he testified last winter. Let’s assume they are telling the truth—neither man knew anything about those in their employ involved in raping the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. (Garland, by the way, previously said he knew nothing about the firebombing of Catholic churches by Jane’s Revenge in the wake of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.) Let’s also assume they were “aghast” and “appalled” about what happened. What exactly have they done about it? There has been no public record, nor statement of any kind, issued by either Wray or Garland regarding steps taken to hold those accountable for this egregious violation of the First Amendment rights of practicing Catholics. Have disciplinary measures of any kind been invoked? Has there been an internal investigation of the FBI seeking to learn if other agents have also been spying on Catholics? Let’s recall that Catholics were being targeted by the FBI if they were disdainful of Pope Francis, liked the Latin Mass, or if they criticized pro-abortion activists on Twitter (now X). No field agent decided to just dream this caper up because he had nothing else to do. No doubt many agents knew. We need to get to the bottom of this and find out who was involved, what triggered this egregious abuse of power—was it someone in the FBI who concocted this scheme, or was it someone from the outside who crafted it? We also need to know exactly what was going to be done with the information once the probe was completed. To this end, I am writing to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and to Committee member Rep. Van Drew, asking for their cooperation in finding the answers to these questions. Contact Russell Dye, communications director for Rep. Jordan: russell.dye@mail.house.gov
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE FBI IS INVESTIGATING CATHOLICS FOR THE “CRIME” OF BEING TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS
We know he’s not good but isn’t that going a bit far?
Well, judge for yourselves.
A very revolutionary change, sneaked in by Pope Francis during the Covid-19 lockdown, was his Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini of 10 January 2021, universally changing canon law for the whole Church regarding the so-called “lay institutes” of Acolyte and Lector that Paul VI first introduced (in his Ministeria quaedam of January 1973) to replace “First Tonsure,” the minor clerical Orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist and Acolyte and the major Order of Sub-deacon
The lay institutes were just that – “lay” and not clerical.
For the first time, ancillary service at the altar, one of the principal tasks of the clergy, was to be handed over to the laity and the minor Orders sidelined, if not, indeed, abolished.
That immediately raised questions in the minds of many.
For example, if the roles of acolyte and lector were now open to the laity, did that also mean they were now to be open to women?
Oh, no, no, no, said numerous Curial officials, at the time, rapidly attempting to re-assure traditionalists who feared that the change was a very serious break with Catholic tradition (which, of course, it was!).
No, no, that could never happen. The Pope would not allow it.
And so it was… at least up until the pontificate of Pope Francis.
But it did not need a divinely-inspired prophet to be able to tell that, once service at the altar was opened up to the laity, that soon enough “Catholic” Feminists would be clamouring to fulfil the roles. And using all the manipulation, devious wiles, dishonest tricks and emotional blackmail for which Feminists are famous, they commenced a classic Marxist-style campaign and “long march” through the institutions in order to get their way until, obligingly, the right pope came along and capitulated to their shrill and self-worshipping demands.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Pope Paul VI had made it law that only men could serve in the lay institutes but only a naïve self-deluder like Pope Paul VI could have imagined that, once he opened up service at the altar to the laity, that he could keep women out permanently from these new lay roles.
It began soon enough with the so-called “extraordinary ministers” of Holy Communion, who sprang up everywhere with the regularity of mushrooms after summer rain and most of them were women. Seeing a gap through which they could rush to begin to unravel the special vocation of clergy to serve at the altar, many women, bent upon revolutionising the Church, chose to exploit the situation.
In no time women were everywhere and have since come to dominate in churches where the Novus Ordo mass – the Pauline-Bugninian rite of Pope Paul VI and the late, unlamented Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the principal agent of the liturgical revolution of the 1970s – predominates.
But it was not until the pontificate of Pope Francis that their revolutionary efforts paid off. Here is a pope ready to go along with any revolutionary change that might overturn the traditions of the Catholic Church..
Cleverly, he did so during the world-wide pre-occupation with Covid-19 and the near-universal lockdown that shut down half the world for some 2 years.
So it was that most people did not notice this deeply revolutionary piece of legislation passed by Pope Francis – done by motu proprio, of his own motion.
And those that did notice were mostly liberal Modernists and heterodox Catholics who were, of course, delighted at this revolutionary change instigated by, of all people, the Pope.
Most traditionalists and orthodox Catholic did not notice or, if they did, failed to see the revolutionary significance.
It is short but sharp and the key passage is this:
…a doctrinal development has taken place in recent years which has highlighted how certain ministries instituted by the Church are based on the common condition of being baptised and the royal priesthood received in the Sacrament of Baptism; they are essentially distinct from the ordained ministry received in the Sacrament of Orders. A consolidated practice in the Latin Church has also confirmed, in fact, that these lay ministries, since they are based on the Sacrament of Baptism, may be entrusted to all suitable faithful, whether male or female, in accordance with what is already implicitly provided for by Canon 230 § 2.
Consequently, after having heard the opinion of the competent Dicasteries, I have decided to modify canon 230 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law. I therefore decree that Canon 230 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law shall in future have the following formulation:
‘Lay persons who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte. Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.’
Pope Francis goes so far as to claim that he is implementing a “doctrinal development” and yet no doctrinal development can ever contradict the teaching of the past, or the perennial practice of the past, least of all on an issue so central as service at the altar.
Far from being a “doctrinal development,” this latest rupture authorised by Pope Francis is a serious blasphemy.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Apparently, Pope Francis thinks that his own eccentric wishes are now to be called a “doctrinal development.” Once again, he uses the singular “I” and not the traditional pontifical “we” and the result is that the change looks like nothing more than giving way to the spirit of the age against the whole weight of Catholic tradition.
It would be farcical if it were not so tragic.
As St John Henry Newman taught in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, a doctrinal development is inauthentic and no development if it fails to preserve what went before, in continuity of principles and in conservative of the past.[1]
Newman writes:
Thus, the parties in controversy join issue on the common ground, that a developed doctrine which reverses the course of development which has preceded it, is no true development but a corruption.[2]
This, then, is no “doctrinal development” but rather an outright corruption.
Moreover, there is not now, nor ever has been, any “consolidated practice in the Latin Church” which has gone anywhere near confirming that “these lay ministries… may be entrusted to all suitable faithful, whether male or female.”
On the contrary, because the practice was contrary to canon law it could only have been an illegal practice, not a “consolidation.”
Accordingly, the Pope is simply lying and doing so very blatantly, shamefully and shockingly, acting, it must be said, like a veritable antipope.
Few realised just how great a rupture it was and why it was so significant in the great battles over sex and gender that have been plaguing our times.
Why so significant?
For a number of reasons.
But the starting point is that all previous popes have rejected women serving at the altar and many have, for centuries, condemned the practice as “evil.”
Therefore, to reverse the discipline thereon is a very seriously evil corruption.
Indeed, it is “evil” according to the diachronic teaching and discipline of previous popes right back to Pope St Gelasius I the Great, in the 5th century, and beyond.
The present pope has thus legislated in favour of what his predecessors unambiguously called “evil.”
I might add, in passing, that this also explodes the theory, held by some, including some “trads,” citing Auctorem Fidei #78 of Pope Pius VI (condemning the Jansenist heresy) among other documents, that the universal disciplinary decrees of the Church enjoy a kind of “infallibility” and can never be harmful or noxious to the Church.
Well, sorry to say, but that is precisely what Spiritus Domini is and does.
Some have claimed that Pope John Paul II changed the law to give permission for girl altar servers but that is not correct.
What was approved by him is set out in the Acta Apostolica Sedes of 7 January 1994, page 541, and reads as follows (translated by me from the Latin)
Doubt: Whether, according to the CIC Can. 230, § 2, service at the altar can be among the liturgical functions which the laity, whether men or women, may carry out.
Response: In the affirmative and according to the instructions given by the Apostolic See.
This says virtually nothing other than “follow canon law” and canon law, at that time, stipulated that only viri probati – “proven men” – could exercise the lay institutes and anything else was a mere “temporary appointment” (ex temporanea deputatione) in purely exceptional circumstances.
An appended letter to bishops from the then Prefect of the Congregation, Antonio, Cardinal Javierre Ortas, reminded bishops that any use of girl altar servers is only a “temporary appointment” and that boy altar servers is the norm.
In fact, for reasons of profoundly theological sexual iconography, women were strictly forbidden to fulfil these clerical roles save exceptionally (e.g. in an all-female setting like a convent when it was permitted provided such was done outside the Sanctuary).
It was forbidden to have women serving near the altar within the “sacred chancel” (infra cancellos), that is, they were prohibited from entering the Sanctuary behind the altar rails during the liturgy (even nuns).
The Sanctuary has been likened to the womb wherein divine life is confected and thus it is only appropriate for the male, paternal figure of the priest or clergy to enter therein during the liturgy, like a husband approaching his wife.
The iconography of the church, nave, sanctuary and altar is rich in theological meaning and has been from the time of the Old Testament. To interfere with that is not merely to make a few cosmetic changes but to overthrow the whole imagery and meaning of the liturgy and liturgical space, including its sexual meaning.
This is not, of course, to say that women could not enter the chancel outside the times of liturgical action e.g. to clean the Sanctuary. Similarly, a female gynaecologist can examine the womb of a woman for medical reasons without any suggestion of perversion.
What we are speaking of is entry during the sacred action of the liturgy when the Body of Christ is confected in the Sanctuary just as it was in the womb of the Blessed Virgin.
For this reason, women were forbidden entry to the Sanctuary during such times.
In his encyclical Allatae sunt of 26 July 1775, Pope Benedict XIV renewed the earlier prohibition, saying:
Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.
which prohibition was originally stated more than five centuries earlier by Pope Innocent IV in his letter Sub catholicae professione of 6 March 1254, written to Odo of Tusculum, Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati, opposing this abuse which had crept into some Greek rites. Pope Innocent wrote:
Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry. We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.
Pope Benedict XIV called it the:
evil practice of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass
which had been condemned centuries before by Pope Gelasius I (492−496), the great pope of the liturgy.
Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chapter 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the “evil practice,” which had, in some places, been introduced, of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass.
The 1970 instruction Liturgicae instaurationes, on putting the Council’s decree into effect, reaffirmed reserving service of the celebrant at the altar to males alone.
This was repeated more briefly in the 1980 instruction Inaestimabile donum which said:
Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.
Moreover, at the time of the 1970 and 1980 instructions, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was still in force and it had legislated that:
A woman is not to be the server at Mass except when a man is unavailable and for a just reason and provided that she give the responses from a distance and in no way approaches the altar.
i.e. remains outside the Sanctuary or chancel.
But now Pope Francis, in January 2021, has taken the very seriously evil step of changing the law to allow women permanently to serve in the lay institutes at the altar and not merely exceptionally.
It is no coincidence that this change has occurred at a time of great confusion between the sexes and over the role of sexual differentiation.
It represents not only a capitulation to the transgender ideology that is now becoming widespread, but it actually adds significantly thereto by, in effect, giving it a theologically approving nod and that from, of all people, the Supreme Pontiff.
Once again, this present Pope has laid an axe to the root of sexual differentiation, of the reason why God made us “male and female,” of what makes us man and woman and a human person made in the image and likeness of God Himself.
This Apostolic Letter gives a significant boost to sexual confusion and, worse still, at the altar.
Women at the altar is, in reality, a type of spiritual lesbianism and dressing women in ecclesiastical vestments is a form of spiritual transvestitism.
Since it is occurring in the Sanctuary, and by the altar, this is – spiritually – a victory for sexual confusion by Satan.
And yet few people realise it.
Is it surprising, then, that transgenderism is making such bold public strides in our time?
Upon being told about, or observing women serving at the altar, the reaction is often “oh well, what does it matter? It’s just a couple of girls serving Mass” or “Hey! Stopping girls from serving is sexist” demonstrating a woeful failure to understand the theology and sexual iconography of the liturgy and the Mass and the important, but very different, role of the sexes therein.
As I said the Sanctuary is likened to the womb of the Blessed Virgin, pure and holy and the place wherein divine life – the Body of Christ – is confected, just as He was begotten in the womb of the Virgin.
Now the womb of one woman is most certainly no place for another women to be present during the begetting of human life.
Likewise, the Sanctuary, or Holy Place, during the confection of divine life and the Body of Christ, is no place for a woman.
For a woman to be present in the holy place which is the womb when life is begotten – or meant to be begotten – is a perversion. One woman cannot naturally beget a child with another woman. A child can only be naturally begotten by a man and a woman.
So, too, when women pretend to be priests, to enter the Sanctuary, the Holy Place comparable to the womb of the Virgin, dressed as men in ecclesiastical vestments, and try to confect the Blessed Sacrament, nothing, in fact, is confected.
Thus, for women to enter the Sanctuary, the Holy Place comparable to the womb of the Virgin, dressed as men, and to try to confect the Blessed Sacrament, is a form of spiritual lesbianism and a grave blasphemy against God.
For them to enter the Holy of Holies, the Tabernacle, is an ever graver blasphemy.
In the Old Testament, it was likewise and even more strictly observed.
Only priests could enter the Holy Place and only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies wherein was found the Ark of the Covenant, over-shadowed by the Shekinah, or cloud of glory indicating the presence of God.
Now we, as Catholics, know that the Ark of the Covenant is a symbol of the Blessed Virgin hence, in the Litany of Loreto, she is called “the Ark of the Covenant.”
Leviticus 16 specifies the rules which must be obeyed on pain of death. Leviticus 16.1-15 stipulated what had to be done.[3]
And this was to be done on the Day of Atonement – Yom Kippur – as Leviticus 16.29-30[4]explains.
And only upon that day, once a year, as Leviticus 16.34 makes clear.
There is a mystical Jewish tradition that the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies with a rope tied to his foot. The purpose of the rope, according to the tradition, was to retrieve the high priest’s body in case he died in the course of his duties within the Holy of Holies since no-one but the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and then only on Yom Kippur.
Leviticus could scarcely be plainer that not only the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place were only for the male priesthood but that even the men’s court in the Temple was not to be entered by women.
This sexual and sacerdotal iconography represented thereby was not mere sexism or the belittling of women but, on the contrary, a profoundly theological recognition of the differences between the sexes, between their roles and of the equal importance of their respective roles.
The Holy Place can only be entered by the male figure of the priest and his role is a paternal one. Just as only the husband and father may approach the wife and mother so as to beget a child, so only the paternal figure of the priest may enter the Holy Place, akin to the womb of the Virgin Mary, to confect the divine life through the Holy Sacrifice.
Even the structure of the church has a sexual iconography. The Sanctuary represents the head, Christ, just as, in marriage, the husband represents the head of the family, and the nave represents the body, just as the wife represents the body (and heart) of the family, each sex being vital to God’s plan whereby he unites Himself to the Blessed Virgin, as daughter to God the Father, spouse to God the Holy Ghost and mother to God the Son.
When Scripture says: “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God He created him: male and female He created them” [Gen 1.27], this was no idle passing remark but a statement about the nature of the two sexes and their profound reflection of the image of God.
The complementarity of the sexes, but in differing roles, is a profoundly central part of God’s plan, both from the beginning, before the Fall, and after, in his plan of Redemption, in both of which plans He gives the highest role among mortals to His Virgin Mother, whom many call the Co-Redemptrix, and a model for all women.
The sexual differentiation between men and women is not some random freak of biological evolution but a creation ordinance of God and a reflection of God Himself just as the male imagery of God is no accident but as vital to His plan as is the female imagery of the Blessed Virgin.
And so the role of a priest in both the Old and the New Testaments is a paternal role, reflecting God the Father, just as the role of a mother is a maternal role reflecting the Blessed Virgin and the other half of God’s plan.
Thus, in God’s plan and its sexual iconography, the idea of a female priest is as ludicrous and absurd as a male mother or a naturally pregnant man giving birth naturally to a child.
Likewise, any attempt to give a role to women within the Sanctuary, the Holy Place that is like the womb of the Virgin Mary, is a perversion and a blasphemy and thus, as former popes described it, “evil.”
Any attempt to mix or confuse the roles is thus not only a perversion against the Natural law but, in the context of the Sanctuary and the liturgy, a blasphemy.
And yet Pope Francis has now done so in Spiritus Domini.
This is not just yet another attempt by this pope to rupture Catholic tradition but something far worse: it is a shocking blasphemy and one made all the more so in that it is authorised by the Supreme Pontiff himself in flat defiance of his predecessors, of Catholic tradition and, above all, of God.
Moreover, it further shows the extent to which the perversion of liturgy in most parishes, and the blasphemous entry of women into the Holy Place, has destroyed the theological understanding by the faithful of liturgy, public prayer and the worship of God and has led to a complete loss of the sacred.
This is exactly what happened at the Protestant Reformation. People started using the altar, now placed in the middle of the nave, to lay their hats on and chatted away in church as if they were at a public meeting or in a pub.
Unsurprisingly, then, Catholic worship in many parishes has become little more than a public meeting or, at best, a neo-Protestant hymn sandwich.
The Sacrifice of the Mass and the bloodless re-enactment of Calvary is, in most parishes, no more in the minds of most people attending Mass.
They are no longer “the faithful” but are now merely “congregants” (another ghastly American neologism) as if they were merely “congregating” at a public meeting, not the faithful participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where the Body of Christ is confected in the Holy Place, the Sanctuary, by the paternal, male figure of the priest, acting in persona Christi, and thereafter fed to the faithful, the remainder being later returned to the Holy of Holies, the Tabernacle to be worshipped and adored.
And if it is just a “congregation” of people at a public meeting, or a hymn sandwich, what does it matter who serves alongside the “president” of the assembly? Why not women or, indeed, children or anyone?
The true understanding of the liturgy, the Mass and the worship and adoration of God are then wholly and completely lost and replaced by confusion, perversion, blasphemy, and, in addition, spiritual lesbianism and transvestitism.
And now this utter travesty has been given the sanction and approval of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis.
There could hardly be a more serious corruption.
Editor’s note: for more on the topic of sexual difference and the liturgy, see Peter’s Kwasniewski’s book Ministers of Christ:
[1] Newman, St John Henry, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: Longman, Green & Co, 1909), Part 2, chs. 5, 6 and 7.
[3] “And the Lord spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they were slain upon their offering strange fire: And he commanded him, saying, speak to Aaron thy brother, that he enter not at all into the sanctuary, which is within the veil before the propitiatory, with which the ark is covered, lest he die, (for I shall appear in a cloud over the oracle) Unless he first do these things: He shall offer a calf for sin, and a ram for a holocaust. He shall be vested with a linen tunick, he shall cover his nakedness with linen breeches: he shall be girded with a linen girdle, and he shall put a linen mitre upon his head: for these are holy vestments: all which he shall put on, after he is washed. And he shall receive from the whole multitude of the children of Israel two buck goats for sin, and one ram for a holocaust.”
And Leviticus 16.11:
“After these things are duly celebrated, he shall offer the calf, and praying for himself and for his own house, he shall immolate it: And taking the censer, which he hath filled with the burning coals of the altar, and taking up with his hand the compounded perfume for incense, he shall go in within the veil into the holy place: That when the perfumes are put upon the fire, the cloud and vapour thereof may cover the oracle, which is over the testimony, and he may not die. He shall take also of the blood of the calf, and sprinkle with his finger seven times towards the propitiatory to the east. And when he hath killed the buck goat for the sin of the people, he shall carry in the blood thereof within the veil, as he was commanded to do with the blood of the calf, that he may sprinkle it over against the oracle…”
[4] “And this shall be to you an everlasting ordinance: The seventh month, the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and shall do no work, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you. Upon this day shall be the expiation for you, and the cleansing from all your sins: you shall be cleansed before the Lord.”
James Bogle is a barrister (trial attorney) in practice in Britain for 30 years in constitutional, public and commercial law, a former British cavalry officer, and a writer and historian. He is also a Knight of Malta and was President of the International Una Voce Federation promoting the traditional Roman rite from 2013-2015.
“I want to be clear that we do not seek to decouple or to hold China’s economy back,” declared U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo during her August trip to Beijing.
Well, why not, Madam Secretary? The U.S. should be holding the Chinese economy back. We should be doing more than just that. Washington should be trying to end the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It is time to declare a “people’s war” against the CCP. We are in an us-or-them fight.
The Party certainly thinks that way. In May 2019, People’s Daily, the CCP’s self-described “mouthpiece” and therefore most authoritative publication in China, declared a “people’s war” against the United States.
That phrase carries great meaning. As PLA Daily, an official news website of the Party’s People’s Liberation Army, stated in April, “A people’s war is a total war, and its strategy and tactics require the overall mobilization of political, economic, cultural, diplomatic, military, and other power resources, the integrated use of multiple forms of struggle and combat methods.”
What exactly are “multiple forms of struggle and combat methods“? Although it denies doing so, China’s regime is conducting “unrestricted warfare” against America.
Unrestricted warfare means total war. The regime’s deliberate spread of COVID-19 and support for the Chinese fentanyl gangs, for example, should be viewed in that light. We must remember: In China’s tightly controlled public square, the extermination of Americans is a permitted topic, as the explosive comments of prominent academic Li Yi tell us.
Most Americans have chosen not to see the Chinese regime’s hatred of America. Those who have noticed are probably perplexed by its overheated rhetoric.
Why should Americans be concerned?
The Party, with strident anti-Americanism, is establishing a justification to strike America. As James Lilley, the great American ambassador to Beijing, said, the Chinese always telegraph their punches. They are now telegraphing punches.
They are telegraphing punches when their country is facing severe economic and other problems. For ideological reasons — Xi Jinping is a Maoist at heart — China’s leader is unwilling to adopt those measures that would stabilize the situation. Instead, he is pursuing strategies that are making matters worse.
It can be no coincidence that, as the country’s economy deteriorates and markets fall, China’s external behavior has become even more belligerent. For instance, Beijing, by interfering with Philippine vessels resupplying an outpost at Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea, has been risking war.
As Xi’s regime telegraphs punches, President Joe Biden appears oblivious. On September 10 while in Vietnam, he echoed Raimondo saying, “I don’t want to contain China.”
Going one step further, Biden wished his Chinese counterpart well. “I want to see China succeed economically,” the president said.
Biden’s comments are at best perplexing in light of both China’s malicious actions against America and his awareness that the country, as he proclaimed in August at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Utah, is a “ticking time bomb.” “That’s not good, because when bad folks have problems, they do bad things,” he noted.
Biden’s administration, however, is not adopting adequate measures to defend the U.S. in the face of such an evident danger. For example, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on September 5 said the United States “should continue on a course of ‘small yard, high fence’ set of technology restrictions focused narrowly on national security concerns.”
Sullivan and others are willing to impose, for instance, technology sanctions on China, but they are largely ineffective. The general approach of the Biden administration is to prohibit transfers of technology to military-related parties in China — that’s the reference to “small yard” — but allow transfers to nominally civilian parties.
America cannot enforce Sullivan’s “high fence,” unfortunately.
Xi Jinping has a policy of “military-civilian fusion,” which means that anything a civilian organization possesses can be — and is — pipelined to the Chinese military. In the Communist Party’s top-down system, every individual and entity in China must obey every Party order.
It’s a warning to America: The just-released Mate 60 Pro smartphone of Huawei Technologies contains chips from SMIC, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., China’s largest contract chip maker. SMIC sold those chips to Huawei in violation of U.S. sanctions, including the Commerce Department’s Foreign Direct Product Rule. U.S. sanctions were applied because the chips in the new phone were made with U.S. technology. The U.S. Commerce Department allowed transfers of American technology to SMIC on the condition there would be no transfers to Huawei.
Why would Commerce ever think SMIC would keep that promise? The only realistic solution is to treat all Chinese parties as one and prevent tech transfers to all of them.
Xi’s regime is mobilizing all of the country’s civilians for war. The Chinese leader never misses an opportunity to talk about it. China’s regime is planning to wage a “kinetic” war — the type Americans are used to seeing in the movies — on America.
American parties, especially businesses, should not be enabling the Chinese regime to kill Americans. This means they should not be engaging in any transaction that can strengthen any part of China. We should think of all of China as military.
Americans should take their enemy as it is, not the way they would like it to be. So Secretary Raimondo needs to say that, yes, the United States will take all measures to defend itself from China. And Biden must start telling the world that China is America’s enemy.
People’s Daily in May 2019 issued a commentary titled “United States, Don’t Underestimate China’s Ability to Strike Back.” The Communist Party in that commentary stated this: “Don’t say we didn’t warn you!”
Yes, Americans have been warned. All of China is one military machine, so it is time to declare an American “people’s war” on the Chinese Communist Party.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow and a member of its Advisory Board.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IT IS TIME FOR US TO DECLARE “WAR” ON “THE PEOPLE’S WAR” AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
An impeachment inquiry looms and the shrieks of outrage are beginning.
The Left is now suddenly voicing warnings that those who recently undermined the system could be targeted by their own legacies.
So, for example, now we read why impeachment is suddenly a dangerous gambit.
True, the Founders did not envision impeaching a first-term president the moment he lost his House majority. Nor did they imagine impeaching a president twice. And they certainly did not anticipate trying an ex-president in the Senate as a private citizen.
In modern times, the nation has not rushed to impeach a president without a special counsel investigation to determine whether the chief executive was guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
But thanks to the Democrats, recent impeachments now have destroyed all those guardrails. After all, Trump was impeached the first time on the fumes of an exhaustive but fruitless 22-month, $40 million special counsel investigation—one designed to find him guilty of Russian “collusion” and thus to be removed from office but found no actionable offenses at all.
Instead, dejected Democrats moved immediately for a second try. In September 2019 a few weeks after Trump had announced his 2020 reelection bid, the Democratic House began to impeach the president on the new grounds that he had talked to the President Zelensky of Ukraine and said he might delay offensive arms shipments—unless the Ukrainians could demonstrate that they had ended corruption and, in particular, were no longer influenced by the Biden family quid pro quo shakedowns.
Trump was proven right: the Biden family is not just corrupt, but, in particular, Joe Biden as head of the family and Vice President had intervened in the internal politics of an aid recipient, by threatening not to delay but rather to cancel outright all U.S. aid to Ukraine—unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor.
Shokin was then looking into the misadventures of Biden’s son Hunter, and why the Vice President’s imbecilic son was receiving lucrative compensation on the boards of a Ukrainian energy company Burisma, yet without any demonstrable expertise or education in matters of energy policy.
Since Trump was impeached, we now know that Joe Biden did lie that he had no connection with or even knowledge of his son’s business. And we know that the fired prosecutor believed the Bidens were recipients of bribes. We know that contrary to Biden’s assertions, he was not following State Department policy.
In contrast, the U.S. had, in fact, lauded Shokin’s efforts to repress corruption. In sum, Biden was undermining the stated policy of the U.S. government to protect his son’s—and his own—efforts to leverage money from Kyiv by monetizing the influence of his own Vice Presidency. In some sense, Biden was guilty of the very “treason” charge—altering U.S. foreign policy for personal benefit—by which Rep. Adam Schiff had earlier falsely accused Trump.
Given that reality, it is easy to argue that the House impeached Donald Trump in 2019 for crimes that he did not commit, but which the current president Joe Biden most certainly committed during his Vice Presidency.
But weaponizing impeachment is just one baleful legacy of the Left. There are plenty more of their own precedents that Leftists now would not wish to have applied to themselves:
ü Will the next president have the FBI pay social media censors to suppress the dissemination of any news it feels is unhelpful to the reelection of a Republican president?
ü Is it OK now for the next Vice President to invite his son onto Air Force Two to cement multimillion-dollar deals that benefit both, Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian oligarchs who enjoy government ties?
ü Should a conservative billionaire stealthily insert $419 million late in the 2024 campaign to absorb the work of registrars in key voting precincts?
ü If a Democratic president wins the 2024 election should conservative groups riot at the Capitol on Inauguration Day? Should a conservative celebrity yell out to the assembled crowd of protestors that she dreams of blowing up the White House? And if a Republican wins, should he prosecute any Democratic rioters who once again swarm Washington on Inauguration Day and charge them with “insurrection,” meting out long prison sentences to the convicted?
ü Is Joe Biden now vulnerable to being impeached for systematic family corruption, or using the Department of Justice to obstruct the prosecution of his son in his last days in office, and then being tried in the Senate as a private citizen?
ü If the Republicans gain the Senate, will they move to end the filibuster in agreement with Democratic assertions that it is “racist”and a “Jim Crow relic”?
ü If the midwestern Electoral College “Blue Wall” seems to reappear, or if Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada recreate new blue walls, will there be a conservative effort to end the constitutionally mandated Electoral College?
ü If in 2024 there is a narrow Democratic win in the Electoral College, should conservative celebrities conspire to run ads urging the electors to reject their constitutional duties and not vote following their state’s popular vote that went Democratic? Should a Republican third-party candidate sue to stop a state’s selection of its electors on grounds that the voting machines were rigged?
ü If Supreme Court decisions begin to appear to favor the left, will Republicans talk of packing the court, or have the DOJ turn a blind eye when mobs begin to swarm the homes of liberal justices?
ü Should the conservative media go after liberal judges with serial accusations of corruption?
ü Should the Republican Senate leader assemble a mob of pro-life protestors at the doors of the court and call out Justices Sotomayor or Jackson by name, with threats that they will soon reap the whirlwind they have sowed, given they have no idea of what is about to “hit” them? Should conservative legal scholars urge the country to ignore Supreme Court decisions deemed liberal?
ü Will local prosecutors in red jurisdictions begin filing criminal charges against leading Democratic candidates on various charges, among them accusations of old inflated real estate assessments, campaign finance laws, questioning ballot results, or taking classified documents home?
ü If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton were to run in 2024, will their past illicit behavior gain the attention of a city or state attorney in Utah, West Virginia, or Wyoming?
ü If Joe Biden continues to decline at his present rate, will Republicans demand he be given the Montreal Cognitive Assessment? Will they subpoena Ivy League psychiatrists to testify that an intervention is needed to remove him from office?
ü Will an FBI director and a deputy Attorney General plan to wear wires, and record Biden in his private moments of senility, as a way of convincing the cabinet or Congress that he is demonstrably mentally unfit for office?
ü In the 2024 election, should the Republican nominee hire a foreign ex-spy to compile falsehoods about the Democratic opponent and then seed them among the media, and Department of Justice?
ü Should the FBI hire such a Republican contractor and likewise use him to gather dirt on the Democratic nominee?
ü If there appears incriminating evidence concerning a Republican nominee, should the FBI retrieve such evidence, keep it under wraps, lie about its veracity, and instead go along with media and ex-intelligence officers assertions that it is a fraudulent production of Russian intelligence?
ü Will conservative CIA and FBI directors, and the Director of National Intelligence be given exemptions from prosecutions for systematically lying while under oath in Congress or to federal investigators?
ü Will conservative celebrities ritually on social media, without fear of censorship, brag about ways of decapitating, shooting, stabbing, burning, or blowing up the Democratic nominee?
ü Since in many states, the statutes of limitations have not yet expired for arson, murder, assault, looting, and attacks on 1,500 police officers during the summer 2020 riots, will state prosecutors now begin identifying those 14,000 once arrested and mostly released, and begin refiling charges of conspiracy, racketeering—and “insurrection”?
ü Will they also file insurrection charges against those who torched a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic Washington DC church, or conspired to riot and swarm the White House grounds to attack the President of the United States?
ü Will they file charges against Vice President Kamala Harris for “inciting” ongoing violent demonstrations with monotonous, emphatic, and repetitive threats in the weeks before her nomination? Contrary to liberal “fact checkers” at the time of nationwide violence. Harris certainly did not distinguish violent from non-violent protests but implied that they were intimately tied to the upcoming election and beyond. So given the hundreds of police officers injured, the hundreds of millions in property damage, and the dozens killed, what exactly did Harris mean by tying that ongoing summer of often violent protests to Election Day?:
“But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Left is now suddenly voicing warnings that those who recently undermined the system could be targeted by their own legacies.
What shameless act or felonious activity was not evidenced on Hunter Biden’s laptop? Racist attitudes toward Asians? Soliciting prostitution? Felonious use of drugs? Photographed nudity and perverse sex? Admissions to illicit foreign shakedowns?
Hunter all but accused his father President Joe Biden of also being on the foreign take: “I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family… Unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
Hunter’s alleged felonies range from bribery to tax evasion. That he has not yet been prosecuted for anything is scandalous. His exemption is attributable only to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s likely weaponized directives to federal prosecutors to downgrade or forget altogether felony charges against Hunter.
So given such wild behavior, why would not Hunter tone it down, stop the global grifting, cease the reckless behavior—and quit redirecting attention to the likely illegal acts of his father, the President?
Why did not Hunter early on just settle the child support suit filed by his paramour Lundeen Roberts? Why haggle over money for his daughter?
Hunter instead outrageously claimed near poverty. That excuse was hilarious given he flies on private jets and pays nearly $16,000 a month to rent a house in tony, celebrity-ridden Malibu.
Why did Hunter ever get involved with a performance stripper in the first place after his past widely publicized liaisons with prostitutes? Why also with his widowed sister-in-law?
Given Hunter has little or no experience or training in high-stakes international finance and investment—and thus has no market value as an investor or broker. But he was infamous for translating that nothingness into millions in lucre due solely to his ability to monetize the influence of then Vice President Joe Biden.
So why now when under 24/7 scrutiny, would Hunter dare recreate himself as an “artist,” by blowing through straws in his mouth?
His amateurish canvasses somehow have sold for up to $500,000 a pop. Both Biden donors and gamers saw their buys of such mediocre art as gambits either to meet with or profit from his father, Joe Biden.
But would not his painting grift only bring greater prosecutorial scrutiny and greater embarrassment to the president?
Hunter Biden’s attorneys sought to leverage federal prosecutors into agreeing to drop their charges—by threatening to call in as a pro-Hunter witness President Joe Biden himself and thereby likely invoke a constitutional crisis!
In such a scenario, the President under oath would be forced to lie again that he had no knowledge of or involvement in Hunter’s illegal behavior. Or if he admitted the truth that he did, he would thus contradict years of his adamant denials.
Why would Hunter put his father and president in such a publicity circus?
Hunter has lost an incriminating laptop by abandoning it at a repair shop. He has forgotten his crack pipe in a rental car. His illegally registered handgun turned up in a trash dumpster near a school.
So would not the carefree Hunter insist that all the Bidens in the spotlight remain extra careful never to abandon incriminating drugs—especially in the White House?
Yet in a West Wing first, recently cocaine was found lost in an entrance vestibule. Various media outlets claimed it belonged to someone in the “Biden family orbit.”
One of two things explain the continuous reckless behavior of wayward son Hunter Biden:
One, he is either still on drugs or so suffers from past addiction that he has lost all common sense and judgment, and simply cannot control his behavior.
Or, two, Hunter is an embittered, angry son. As the Biden bagman for foreign shakedown cash, he did the dirty work and most risked the legal exposure that made all the Bidens rich.
Yet, instead of familial praise—or so the broke Hunter seems to whine on his laptop—Hunter gets no respect from those he enriched.
And now he, not they, might first go to jail.
As a result, does his continuous recklessness send a not-so-subtle reminder to all the Bidens—his father the “Big Guy” especially?
That is, Hunter is not going to take the fall. He will not end up in prison for decades while the other exempt Bidens continue to enjoy their ill-gotten riches, due to Hunter’s imaginative cons.
No wonder the first family for months moved Hunter into the White House and put him on Air Force One.
Is it now, “Keep Hunter close and self-important—or else”?
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHAT SHAMELESS ACT OR FELONIOUS ACTIVITY WAS NOT EVIDENCED ON HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP?
In the last 20 years, the Left has boasted that it has gained control of most American institutions of power and influence—the corporate boardroom, media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the administrative state, academia, foundations, social media, entertainment, professional sports, and Hollywood.
With such support, between 2009-17, Barack Obama was empowered to transform the Democratic Party from its middle-class roots and class concerns into the party of the bicoastal rich and subsidized poor—obsessions with big money, race, a new intolerant green religion, and dividing the country into a binary of oppressors and oppressed.
The Obamas entered the presidency spouting the usual leftwing boilerplate (“spread the wealth,” “just downright mean country,” “get in their face,” “the first time I’ve been proud of my country”) as upper-middle-class, former community activists, hurt that their genius and talents had not yet been sufficiently monetized.
After getting elected by temporarily pivoting to racial ecumenicalism and pseudo-calls for unity, they reverted to form and governed by dividing the country. And then the two left the White House as soon-to-be mansion-living, mega-rich elites, cashing in on the fears they had inculcated over the prior eight years.
To push through the accompanying unpopular agendas of an open border, mandatory wind and solar energy, racial essentialism, and the weaponization of the state, Obama had begun demonizing his opponents and the country in general: America was an unexceptional place. Cops were racist. “Clingers” of the Midwest were hopelessly ignorant and prejudiced. Only fundamental socialist transformation could salvage a historically oppressive, immoral, and racist nation.
The people finally rebelled at such preposterousness. Obama lost his party some 1,400 local and state offices during his tenure, along with both houses of Congress. His presidency was characterized by his polarizing mediocrity. His one legacy was Obamacare, the veritable destruction of the entire system of a once workable health insurance, of the hallowed doctor-patient relationship, and former easy access to competent specialists.
Yet Obama’s unfulfilled ambitions set the stage for the Biden administration—staffed heavily with Obama veterans—to complete the revolutionary transformation of the Democratic Party and the country.
It was ironic that while Obama was acknowledged as young and charismatic, nonetheless a cognitively challenged, past plagiarist, fabulist, and utterly corrupt Joe Biden was far more effective in ramming through a socialist woke agenda and altering the very way Americans vote and conduct their legal system.
Stranger still, Biden accomplished this subversion of traditional America while debilitated and often mentally inert—along with being mired in a bribery and influence-peddling scandal that may ultimately confirm that he easily was the most corrupt president to hold office in U.S. history.
How was all this possible?
Covid had allowed the unwell Biden to run a surrogate campaign from his basement as he outsourced his politicking to a corrupt media.
Senility proved a godsend for Biden. His cognitive disabilities masked his newfound radicalism and long-accustomed incompetence. Unlike his past failed campaigns, the lockdowns allowed Biden to be rarely seen or heard—and thus as much liked in the abstract as he had previously been disliked in the concrete.
His handlers, the Obamas, and the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren radical Democrats, saw Biden’s half-century pretense as a gladhander—good ole Joe Biden from Scranton—as the perfect delivery system to funnel their own otherwise unpopular leftwing agendas. In sum, via the listless Biden, they sought to change the very way America used to work.
And what a revolution Biden’s puppeteers have unleashed in less than three years.
They launched a base attack on the American legal system. Supreme Court judges are libeled, their houses swarmed, and their lives threatened with impunity. The Left promised to pack the court or to ignore any decision it resents. The media runs hit pieces on any conservative justice deemed too influential. The prior Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer whipped up a mob outside the court’s doors and threatened two justices by name. As Schumer presciently put it, they would soon “reap the whirlwind” of what they supposedly had sowed and thus would have no idea what was about to “hit” them.
Under the pretense of Covid fears, balloting went from 70 percent participation on election day in most states to a mere 30 percent. Yet the rates of properly rejected illegal or improper ballots often dived by a magnitude of ten.
Assaults now followed on hallowed processes, laws, customs, and institutions—the Senate filibuster, the 50-state union, the Electoral College, the nine-justice Supreme Court, Election Day, and voter IDs.
Under Biden, the revolution had institutionalized first-term impeachment, the trial of an ex-president while a private citizen, and the indictment of a chief political rival and ex-president on trumped-up charges by local and federal prosecutors—all to destroy a political rival and alter the 2024 election cycle.
Biden destroyed the southern border—literally. Eight million entered illegally—no background checks, no green cards, no proof of vaccinations. America will be dealing with the consequences for decades. Mexico was delighted, receiving some $60 million in annual remittances, while the cartels were empowered to ship enough fentanyl to kill 100,000 Americans a year.
“Modern monetary theory,” the Leftist absurdity that printing money ensures prosperity, followed. It has nearly bankrupted the country, unleashed wild inflation, and resulted in the highest interest rates in a quarter-century. Middle-class wages fell further behind as a doddering Biden praised his disastrous “Bidenomics.”
Biden warred on fossil fuels, canceling federal leases and pipelines, jawboning lending agencies to defund fracking, demonizing state-of-the-art, clean-burning cars, and putting vast areas of oil and gas-rich federal lands off-limits to drilling.
When gas prices predictably doubled under Biden and the 2022 midterms approached, he tried temporarily to lease out a few new fields, to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to beg the Saudis, and our enemies, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and the Russians, to pump more oil and gas that Biden himself would not. All this was a pathetic ruse to temporarily lower gas prices before the mid-term elections.
Biden abandoned Afghanistan, leaving the largest trove of military equipment behind in U.S. military history, along with thousands of loyal Afghans and pro-American contractors.
Biden insulted the parents of the 13 Marines blown up in this worst U.S. military debacle since Pearl Harbor. He lied to the parents of the dead that he too lost a son in the Iraq war, and when among them later impatiently checked his watch as he seemed bored with the commemoration of the fallen—and made no effort to hide his sense that the ceremony was tedious to him.
Vladimir Putin summed up the Afghan debacle—and Biden’s nonchalant remark that he wouldn’t react strongly to a “minor” invasion of Ukraine if it were minor—as a green light to invade Ukraine.
When Biden did awaken, his first reaction was an offer to fly the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the country as soon as possible. What has followed proved the greatest European killing ground since the 1944-45 Battle of the Bulge, albeit one that has now fossilized into a Verdun-like quagmire that is draining American military supply stocks and killing a half-million Ukrainians and Russians.
Suddenly, there are three genders, not two. Women’s sports have been wrecked by biological men competing as women, destroying a half-century of female athletic achievement. Young girls in locker rooms, co-eds in sororities, and women in prison must dress and shower with biological men transitioning to women by assertion.
There is no longer a commitment to free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union is a woke, intolerant group trying to ban free expression under the pretense of fighting “hate” speech and “disinformation.”
The Left has revived McCarthyite loyalty oaths straight out of the 1950s, forcing professors, job applicants, and students applying for college to pledge their commitment to “diversity” as a requisite for hiring, admittance, or promotion. Diversity is our era’s version of the Jacobins’ “Cult of Reason.”
Race relations hit a 50-year nadir. Joe Biden has a long history of racist insults and putdowns. And now as apparent penance, he has reinvented himself as a reverse racial provocateur, spouting nonsense about white supremacy, exploiting shootings, or hyping racial tensions to ensure that an increasingly disgusted black electorate does not leave the new Democratic Party.
The military has adopted wokeism, oblivious that it has eroded meritocracy in the ranks and slashed military recruitment. It is underfunded, wracked by internal suspicion, loss of morale, and ginned up racial and gender animosity. Its supply stocks are drained. Arms production is snail-like, and generalship is seen as a revolving door to corporate defense contractor board riches.
Big-city Democratic district attorneys subverted the criminal justice system, destroyed law enforcement deterrence, and unleashed a record crime wave. Did they wish to create anarchy as protest against the normal, or were they Jokerist nihilists who delighted in sowing ruin for ruin’s sake?
Radical racial activists, with Democrat endorsement, demand polarizing racial reparations. The louder the demands, the quieter they remain about smash-and-grab looting, carjacking, and the swarming of malls by disproportionally black teens—even as black-on-black urban murders reach record proportions.
In response, Biden tried to exploit the growing tensions by spouting lies that “white supremacy” and “white privilege” fuel such racial unrest—even as his ill-gotten gains, record of racist demagoguery, and resulting lucre and mansions appear the epitome of his so-called white privilege.
This litany of disasters could be vastly expanded, but more interesting is the why of it all.
What we are witnessing seems to be utter nihilism. The border is not porous but nonexistent. Mass looting and carjackings are not poorly punished, but simply exempt from all and any consequences. Our downtowns are reduced to a Hobbesian “war of all against all,” where the strong dictate to the weak and the latter adjust as they must. The streets of our major cities in just a few years have become precivilizational—there are more human feces on the sidewalks of San Francisco than were in the gutters of Medieval London.
The FBI and DOJ are not simply wayward and weaponized, but corrupt and renegade. Apparently, the perquisite now for an FBI director is the ability either to lie while under oath or better to mask such lying by claiming amnesia or ignorance.
Immigration is akin to the vast unchecked influxes of the late Roman Empire across the Danube and Rhine that helped to finish off a millennium-old civilization that had lost all confidence in its culture and thus had no need for borders.
In other words, the revolution is not so much political as anarchist. Nothing escapes it—not ceiling fans, not natural gas cooktops, not parents at school board meetings, not Christian bakeries, not champion female swimmers, not dutiful policemen, not hard-working oil drillers, not privates and corporals in the armed forces, not teens applying on their merits to college, not anyone, anywhere, anytime.
The operating principle is either to allow or to engineer things to become so atrocious in everyday American life—the inability to afford food and fuel, the inability to walk safely in daylight in our major cities, the inability to afford to drive as one pleases, the inability to obtain or pay back a high-interest loan—that the government can absorb the private sector and begin regimenting the masses along elite dictates. The more the people tire of the leftist agenda, the more its architects furiously seek to implement it, hoping that their institutional and cultural control can do what ballots cannot.
We could variously characterize their efforts as destroying the nation to save it, burning it down to start over, or fundamentally transforming America into something never envisioned by the Founders.
Will their upheaval succeed? All the levers of power and money are on the side of the revolutionaries. The people are not. And they are starting to wake up to the notion if they do not stop the madness in their midst they very soon won’t have a country.
Joe Biden lied repeatedly when he claimed he knew nothing of his son Hunter’s influence-peddling businesses.
The President further prevaricated that he had no involvement in Hunter’s various shake-down schemes.
Yet, the media continued to misinform by serially ignoring these facts.
Had journalists just been honest and independent, then-candidate Joe Biden might have lost a presidential debate and even the 2020 election. The public would have learned that Hunter’s business associates and his laptop proved Joe was deeply involved in his son’s illicit businesses.
Later, as the evidence from IRS whistleblowers mounted, the White House stonewalled subpoenaed efforts and sought to craft an outrageous plea deal reduction in Hunter’s legal exposure.
Reporters ignored the Ukrainians who claimed Joe Biden himself talked to them about quid pro quo arrangements.
They again discounted Hunter’s laptop explicitly demonstrated that Hunter was whining that he had handed over large percentages of his income to his father Joe—variously referred to as the Big Guy and a “ten percent” recipient on many deals.
They played dumb about Joe Biden’s use of pseudonyms and alias email accounts to hide thousands of his communications to Hunter and associates.
They attacked the former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who now claims Biden was likely bribed by Ukrainians.
Yet the media can no longer hide the reality that the President of the United States likely took bribes to influence or alter U.S. policy to suit his payers. Those two crimes—bribery and treason—are specifically delineated in the Constitution as impeachable offenses.
In denial, the media has instead pivoted with hysterical glee over various weaponized prosecutions of Donald Trump.
But now, to use a progressive catchphrase, the proverbial “walls are closing in” on Joe Biden.
So will we, at last, expect the media to confront the truth?
Answer—only if Joe Biden’s cognitive and physical health continues to deteriorate geometrically to the point that he can no longer finish his term or run for reelection—and thus becomes expendable.
Such a cynical view of the media is justified given their record of both incompetence and unapologetic deceit.
From 2015 to 2019, we were suffocated 24/7 with lies like “Russian collusion,” “Putin’s puppet,” “election rigging” and the “Steele dossier.”
When all such “evidence” was proven to be a complete fraud cooked up through Hillary Clinton’s stealthy hiring of and collusion with a discredited ex-British spy, a Russian fabulist at the Brookings Institution, and a Clinton toady in Moscow, did the media apologize for their untruth?
Was there any media confessional that perhaps Robert Mueller and his leftwing legal team (the giddy media-dubbed “all-stars,” “dream team,” and “hunter-killers”) proved a colossal waste of time?
Not at all.
Instead, the media went next right on to “the phone call” and “impeachment.”
The country then wasted another year.
The same biased reporters now claimed that the heroic Andrew Vindman had caught Donald Trump fabricating lies about the Bidens—given Joe Biden was a possible 2020 opponent—to force Ukraine to investigate them or lose American foreign aid.
On that accusation, Trump was impeached.
Then the truth emerged that, unlike Joe Biden, Trump never threatened to cancel aid, but merely to delay it.
Trump was right that the Bidens were knee-deep in Ukrainian bribes and influence peddling.
And that the whistleblower had no first-hand knowledge of the Trump call but was spoon-fed a script cooked up by the gadfly Vindman and Rep. Adam Schiff.
The result was journalistic glee that we impeached a president for crimes that he did not commit but exempted another president, Joe Biden, who had actually committed them.
Then came the next hoax of the Russian fabricated facsimile of Hunter’s laptop.
The 2020 Biden campaign along with an ex-CIA head rounded up “51 intelligence authorities” to mislead the country into believing that Russian gremlins in the Kremlin had fabricated a fake laptop.
Ponder that absurd fantasy: Moscow supposedly had created fake nude pictures, fake photos of Hunter’s drug use, and fake email and text messages from Hunter to the other Bidens.
The media preposterously convinced the country that the Russians, and by extension, Donald Trump had once again sandbagged the Biden campaign.
No apologies followed when the FBI later admitted it had kept the laptop under wraps for more than a year, knew it was authentic, and yet said nothing as the media and former spooks misled the country and warped an election.
Now we are enmeshed in at least four court trials on cooked-up charges that could as easily apply to a host of Democrats as to Trump.
For the last eight years, discredited media has never expressed remorse for any of the damage they did to the country. And they will not again when their latest mythological indictments are eventually exposed.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Joe Biden lied repeatedly when he claimed he knew nothing of his son Hunter’s influence-peddling businesses.
The world of conservative media was turned upside down when Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News in April after the network settled a massive lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems.
Carlson began the next step in his media career when he launched his new show Tucker on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
Fox News responded to the show with a cease-and-desist letter informing Carlson’s legal team that he was in breach of his contract with the network.
Carlson is still negotiating his way out of a contract with Fox that’s supposed to run until early 2025.
Tensions are reportedly running high behind the scenes with the cable news giant trying to keep Carlson muzzled through the rest of his contract.
Much of what happened behind the scenes that led to the split between the former Fox host and the network is still a mystery.
Carlson offered his thoughts on being fired from Fox News during an episode of Tucker on X.
Tucker Carlson reveals how being fired from Fox News helped him
Tucker Carlson traveled to the Eastern European country of Hungary for an interview with the country’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.
During an interview with one of Orbán’s top political advisors, Carlson offered some insight into how being fired from Fox News was actually a benefit to him.
Carlson said that being fired kept him from getting too big of a head because it made him realize he was just like everyone else.
He added that he was “grateful” for having gone through it.
“I’ve loved it,” Carlson said. “I mean, thankfully the people I worked with on my show were also fired with me. My executive producer, Justin Wells — we’ve been together for many years, very close — and he got fired two minutes after I got fired, and I said ‘I’m so glad you got fired.’”
Wells and most of the crew behind Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox have migrated over to his new show.
“So, my world hasn’t changed that much actually and I’ve been with the same woman for 39 years, and I have a very large and very close family, and the people I work with haven’t changed, and my dogs — we have a lot of dogs — they’re still there. So, my life hasn’t changed that much.”
Being fired was a humbling experience for Carlson after years at the top of cable news.
“This is my third time being fired as an adult, and I would recommend it to anybody. It’s great to get fired because it keeps you from being a truly horrible person,” Carlson added. “I mean, we’re all sort of horrible people because we’re people. But, getting fired, you know, the problem with men when they’re successful is they start to think they’re Jesus. It just happens. And you get this hubris like ‘I can do anything, I’m so important.’”
Carlson said that Fox News was “really nice” to him during his 14-year run at the network and declined to say anything bad about his former employer.
Tucker Carlson took being fired from Fox News in stride and began building his own media empire.
Deplorable Daily will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FOX NEWS AND TUCKER CARLSON
September 02, 2023Special EditionVictor Davis Hanson’s San Francisco LamentIn Three Parts I first moved to Monterey, California in 1951 when my mother and stepfather purchased and developed the Laguna Seca Ranch into a thoroughbred breeding farm. My wife, Susan, and I moved from New Orleans to live at Laguna Seca and in Pebble Beach between 1967 and 1980, and we experienced California in its golden heyday which makes Dr. Hanson’s portrayal so personally tragic: . Who Destroyed San Franciscoand Why? By: Victor Davis Hanson Part One – August 25, 2023 It should have been impossible to wreck San Francisco. It is the world’s most naturally beautiful city, with perhaps the most ideal bay, harbor, and ports of any coastal metropolis. San Francisco is America’s premier window on the East. It serves as the natural conduit of commercial and cultural exchanges with the rising wealth of Asia and its dynamic economies in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. During World War II, the Bay Area was the shipping point of supply to the Pacific Theater. The same role was true of the Korean and Vietnam wars and could be again if China were to invade Taiwan. The weather is mild year long. Mountains and shorelines are side-by-side. It is the gateway to the wine country of Napa, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties. A mere decade ago, San Francisco’s downtown commercial property was among the most coveted and high-priced in the nation. Prior generations had left behind once state-of-the-art clean and efficient mass transit. They built five majestic bridges across the 1,600 square mile sprawling bay and estuaries that connected the city and its environs to millions of suburbanites. The city has access to the state’s main freeways that head out eastward, northward, and southward. Our ancestors long ago solved San Francisco’s water problems by importing vast amounts of potable water in aqueducts from the distant Hetch Hetchy and California Water Project mountain reservoirs. Silicon Valley had slowly crept into San Francisco, suppling it with some of its trillions of dollars in market capitalization. Not long ago, some of the nation’s major corporations were based in the city itself, including Craigslist, the Gap, Levi Strauss, Lyft, PG&E, Charles Schwab, Salesforce, Twitter, Uber, and Wells Fargo. Two great universities—UC Berkeley and Stanford—bookended the city. Both from their top-ranked graduate and professional schools turned out yearly scores of Bay Area topflight engineers, computer scientists, doctors, lawyers, and business leaders. Four Bay Area California State University campuses—in San Francisco, Vallejo, Hayward, and San Jose—graduated thousands of teachers, nurses, businesspeople, and vocational professionals. The Bay Area Community College Consortium claims 24 of the state’s best junior colleges in the greater Bay Area region. In other words, San Franciscans inherited one of the most successful, multi-tiered, private and public higher education systems in the nation. San Francisco was of course also famous for its role in sparking social change from the Haight-Ashbury/Winterland days to the Gay liberation movement to the Green/Sierra Club/Planet Earth days. At one time, the city’s cable cars, Golden Gate Park, Zoo, Palace of Fine Arts, Fisherman’s Wharf, Ghirardelli Square, and Pier 39 drew in over 25 million tourists each year. Hollywood saw San Francisco as one of its favorite film sites. It is that majestic inheritance that an arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent current generation of San Franciscans destroyed. The present hubristic elite took their inherited wonderland and, in a decade, finally turned it into a moonscape. And it was such a dystopia that many who created it soon wanted no part of it, and so headed off to Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Idaho where they sought a pristine city to work their magic of destruction all over again. The current elite certainly did not deserve the beautiful and functional city that they inherited from far better generations—only in their utopian egotism systematically ruined it, rendering it now more unlivable than Detroit. Watch any on-site, live shots from films of the last seven decades, from the 1950s onward until the last decade—Vertigo (1958) to Bullitt (1968) to even Blue Jasmine (2013). And the incidental city shots reveal little trash on the streets. No blocks of empty windows appear on screen. Hordes are not seen living in filth on the sidewalks. Passersby seems normal and even well-dressed. Of course, film crews of those eras were not subject to serial smash-and-grab car break-ins, the swarming of stores, exempted and routine shoplifting, unpunished carjacking, and no-bail, same-day release of arrested violent offenders. Part Two – August 29, 2023Who were to blame for the San Francisco Inferno? Anarchistic leftwing state laws and ballot initiatives that green-lighted criminal activity? Grasping city, county, and state governments that both raised taxes to the nation’s highest levels and passed crushing regulations—and yet gave the taxpayers mediocre services in return? Radical and inept city attorneys who boasted about their new policies of nonenforcement of existing laws? A mayor and city council who bragged about defunding the police? A guilt-ridden Bay Area political, government, intellectual, and commercial elite who destroyed old customs and traditions, laws, protocols, and decencies, and then fled to their desert, Napa, Marin County, Lake Tahoe, or Pebble Beach tony getaways, to ensure they were never subject to the consequences of their own destructive ideology? Identity politics pressure groups who, for example, for a time had destroyed meritocratic Lowell High School? A narcissistic and atheistic culture of satisfying the appetites, deprecating the nuclear family, and ensuring a negative fertility rate that reflected the self-absorption of the single “emancipated” woman and cool metrosexual hipster? “Community activists” who screamed about “reparations” from a historically liberal state that never permitted slavery, and yet demanded billions owed to the black community without ever noting that young black males were currently committing violent city crimes at twenty and thirty times their city demographics—without a whimper from leaders who were so eager to denigrate, stereotype, collectivize, and demonize every other ethnic group except themselves? But who were the actual culpable who took paradise and rendered it purgatory? And why? First, there was a reign (2004–2022) of mediocre or sinister district attorneys—Kamala Harris, George Gascón, and Chesa Boudin—who collectively weaponized the city justice system by predicating the enforcement of laws on politics and ideology, on the theory of redistributive social justice. None were elected due to any prior record of successful prosecutions and professionalism. All ran for office on claims they either were blessed by the old-boy San Francisco liberal regime or spouted Marxist claptrap to entice an ignorant young cadre of voters. No matter: deterrence was lost. The criminal was assured his violent crimes were understandable, if in theory directed against the well-off and successful. The victimized poor were neglected, the victimized middle class began leaving, and the victimized rich used their security details and distant fourth homes as an easy escape. The homeless were romanticized as victims of the “system,” not as the mentally ill, the drug-addicted, and the criminal, who in the past were either institutionalized, incarcerated—or, if sane, drug-free, and without a warrant, given a free ride out of the city to a clean and humane camping space far from the crowded downtown. The larger cast of the culpable anarchists is enormous, whose policies, votes, appointments, and advocacies ensured the current chaos: the California leftwing supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature, the overwhelmingly Democratic congressional delegations, the two perennially Democratic U.S. Senators, and the cadres of Democratic statewide office holders. Of course, in particular, we should blame the leftwing San Francisco mayors, particularly of the last thirty years who sowed the seeds of destruction long ago that were harvested by an even worse cast of characters presently on the scene. The last Republican mayor was George Christopher who left office nearly sixty years ago in 1964. His departure inaugurated the six-decade elite arrogance of “anything and everything” begun by Democrat John Shelly (1964–68). We should fault especially the most recent mayors—Willie Brown (1996–2004), Gavin Newsom (2004–11), Bill Lee (2011–17), and particularly London Breed (2018–). Under the last three, the city increasingly became filthy and rancid. The homeless population not only exploded but became emboldened by the fact they ruled the streets and faced no consequences for defecating, urinating, fornicating, injecting, harassing, and assaulting the innocent in broad daylight on the streets. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Covid-19 lockdown of the city and state was a near coup de grace to an already hemorrhaging city. Predictably, both he and arch-quarantinist Nancy Pelosi were caught brazenly breaking their own Draconian mask and shutdown rules—Newsom eating at the ritzy French Laundry maskless with a pack of special interest lobbyists, and Pelosi sneaking maskless into a salon to have her hair secretly done. The last California Republican governor was Rhino/liberal Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger who finished his gubernatorial term in 2011. California has not seen a true conservative Republican governor, however, in nearly a quarter century since the end of Pete Wilson’s term in 1999. In other words, bad mayors were empowered by bad legislators and bad governors—and ultimately bad voters—once millions who had voted for Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson had long since left the state. Part Three – August 30, 2023So what happened? In a word, too much astounding wealth and too much abject poverty created a medieval keep surrounded by a village of peasantry outside the high walls. California in general, and in particular the Bay Area, ushered in the greatest concentration of wealth in civilizational history, with some nine trillion dollars of market capitalization from Silicon Valley. An eight-billion-person world increasingly all had an iPhone or Mac and ran Google searches or Facebooked or Tweeted—and their money ended up from Union Square to Sunnyvale. As a consequence, twenty- to forty-somethings believed their astounding riches were proof of their astounding morality, genius, and deserved entitlement. Their utopian legacy was a bankrupt high-speed rail system that will take a half-century and $300 billion to travel quickly from Bakersfield to Merced. They gave us a fantasy world where the more a criminal steals, maims, and kills with impunity, the more the exempted lawbreaker will view such enlightened magnanimity by reciprocating with proper and civilized behavior. Green religion has all but destroyed the once-rich California timber, mining, and gas and oil industries and explains much of the strangulation of the middle class. Bay Area voters and legislators ensured that in times of drought millions of precious acre feet of water flowed out to sea rather than were stored in reservoirs or used to grow food for a hungry state. Only in California and only with the prompt of a Bay Area radical chic, would a state use $500 billion, in part from a “water bond” designed to increase water storage, to blow up four dams and reservoirs that provided clean hydroelectric power, stored precious water in times of drought, ensured flood control during dangerously wet years, and offered recreation to thousands of the despised middle class. On the opposite socio-economic scale came an influx of immigrants from south of the border and Asia. Over a fourth of the state’s current residents were not born in America. California hosted the largest number of unaudited and illegal aliens in the nation. It greeted them with the greatest sanctuary city and county protection racket in America. The state’s schools and culture indoctrinated the newcomers with the paradox that their escape from poverty, violence, racism, and corruption was ironically to a nation and state supposedly even worse than where they came. How odd that many of those who escaped violence and racism, and entered the U.S. illegally, arrived with demands on their hosts for previous bad treatment—on the prompt of the wealthy who had done so well in America. The result of all this chaos is that the state and especially the Bay Area has the greatest number of billionaires in the nation, the most numerous rich zip codes and congressional districts, the highest cost of living, the most expensive homes, gas, and power and food that are unaffordable—to accommodate the largest number of homeless people of any state, the greatest number of people who live under the poverty line, and the most numerous welfare recipients in the country. Translated into the streets of San Francisco that means laws, regulations, and rules do not apply to the underclass since the sheer extent of noncompliance and illegality makes statutes unenforceable. But in financial and psychological recompense, all this statutory cargo most certainly does apply to the middle class who are harried, talked down to, and despised by the elite as a way of squaring the circle of their impotence through harassing the innocent, given they are unable to regulate, tax, and sermonize to the underclass. Add the people, policies, and politicians up, and conclude that if one did not have a current San Francisco, California, one would have to invent it—given the present disaster is the logical and ultimate expression of the classical hubris of excessive pride and arrogance leading to a state of out of control behavior, culminating in nemesis, the inevitable divine retribution that brings warranted punishment for such haughty and arrogant egoists. The final, the surreal paradox? Gavin Newsom may well be the Democratic presidential nominee, edging easily out another San Francisco failure, Kamala Harris. Newsom may well run on the campaign pledge that he wants to replicate for the United States what he did to San Francisco and California. And he could win.If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.Plato
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHO DESTROYED SAN FRANCISCO, AND WHY?
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.