The Gordian Knot Protecting Obamagate Secrets By Charles Lipson  Real Clear Politics October 15, 2020 Donald Trump and Republicans are furious that U.S. Attorney John Durham has not brought indictments against senior people who spied on the president’s campaign, lied repeatedly to judges in order to do it, and based their intrusions on specious evidence, which they knew to be false — and had been commissioned by the opposition political party. We know the broad outlines of this coordinated operation, but we still don’t know its full extent, all those involved, and what precise roles they played. Attorney General William Barr promised major developments in this probe by late spring, then mid-summer, then Labor Day, and now sometime after the election. If, as Republicans say (and the evidence seems to show), there was a systematic effort to weaponize federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, the public has a compelling right to know. This need-to-know is urgent because the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Joe Biden, served as the second-highest ranking member of the administration that conducted these acts. Why have Barr and Durham delayed issuing indictments or producing a comprehensive report? There are two ways to view this riddle. The first is that there have been so many practical obstacles to moving quickly, yet properly, to find out what happened. Everything was on hold while bumbling Jeff Sessions was attorney general. The department was, in effect, run by his second-in-command, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel and then let him and his deputy, Andrew Weissmann, operate virtually without restraint. Mueller’s biased, aggressive team seems to have had one overriding interest: take down the president. (Weissmann confirmed as much in his recent kiss-and-tell memoir harshly critical of Mueller for not doing precisely that.) When that prolonged effort fizzled and with Barr in place of Sessions, the Department of Justice could finally investigate how Trump was targeted and who did it. Barr assigned that task to Durham, a nonpartisan, highly respected career prosecutor with previous experience as an independent counsel. Durham met predictable resistance from the same agencies that had committed the very acts being investigated. The CIA, now headed by Gina Haspel, and the FBI, now headed by Christopher Wray, refused to turn over any documents they weren’t forced to. Their resistance significantly slowed Durham’s work. So did the pandemic, which prevented grand juries from meeting to consider the evidence he uncovered. These delays are only half the story. The other half is the inherent, unresolvable tensions between the political and criminal dimensions of this investigation. Career prosecutors are obliged to be concerned only with assembling solid evidence to win criminal convictions, however time-consuming that is.If one indictment is part of a broader picture and might reveal information to other targets, prosecutors keep it secret as long as they can. These procedures pose no problems in ordinary cases. In this case, however, they pose big problems since the crimes being investigated were directed at political figures, had political consequences, and may have been politically motivated. Citizens have a right to know — right now, before another Election Day — how the results of the previous presidential election were undermined by the very agencies who are supposed to be the bulwarks of American democracy. The targeting by the FBI and CIA of Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, and presidency corrupts the very idea of free-and-fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and nonpartisan law enforcement. If that’s what happened, Americans must know who did it. The Gordian Knot here is the unavoidable, unresolvable tension between the proper procedures used to investigate complex, white-collar crimes and the inherently political nature of the crimes being investigated in this case. The logic of law enforcement pulls on one end of the rope. The logic of informed, democratic choice pulls on the other end. One demands secrecy; the other, openness. Both are completely legitimate. Because they pull in opposite directions in this case, the knot keeps getting tighter. Secretive criminal investigations proceed with a logic that is fundamentally different from that of free and open democratic elections. Each has its own timetable, and the gap between them cannot be closed by Election Day 2020. Durham has moved on a legal timetable, not a political one. That’s entirely appropriate. But it comes at a high cost to voters and to the Trump White House. It leaves the attorney general with no way to inform citizens what his department has discovered before they cast ballots. Although Barr could speak about the broad contours of his findings, doing so would seem partisan and, in any case, would be hard to do without naming names. Those names should only be revealed through criminal charges or court cases. Indict or shut up. Violating that cardinal rule was the same mistake FBI Director James Comey made when he discussed Hillary Clinton’s emails and server. Barr and Durham won’t repeat it. So, how can citizens acquire the information they need between now and Nov. 3? How can they find out what senior officials in the Obama administration did to surveil political opponents and cover it up when they lost the election? There aren’t many options. The only realistic one is exactly what President Trump is demanding: Executive branch agencies must release all relevant documents with as few redactions as possible. His demand is entirely political, designed to help him win reelection. Still, he has the legal authority to do it. Whether it helps the country depends on what the documents tell us and whether they disclose any secret intelligence techniques. What we have seen so far is a textbook example of bureaucrats covering their tracks, even if it harms the country they were hired to serve. Although some redactions are necessary to protect national security and on-going criminal investigations, many others were likely made to protect government agencies from humiliation or worse. That self-protection is why the State Department, FBI, and CIA have refused to give up documents. Lower-level bureaucrats have an additional reason. They fear the disclosures will help Trump. Now that Election Day is so imminent, these agencies have even more leverage to keep their secrets. Trump cannot fire the Slow-Walkers-in-Chief, Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel, since doing so would ignite a political firestorm, just as firing Comey did. Wray, Haspel, and their colleagues know that, so they try to wait out Trump and hope for the best. Still, the president does have some levers. John Ratcliffe, who is the director of national intelligence, outranks Haspel and can overrule her. He should do so if he thinks she is stalling to protect her agency or her position. She is vulnerable because she headed the CIA’s London station when Obama’s CIA ran so many anti-Trump operations on her territory. As for Wray, he is Barr’s subordinate in the Justice Department. The AG should override the FBI director unless disclosures would imperil a Durham prosecution. The practical danger is that Wray would complain to the New York Times and Washington Post, just as Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, did. Those friendly publications would undoubtedly reprise their old headlines: “Sources say AG undermining rule of law to help Trump.” As we peer through a glass darkly, we should remember who failed to inform us about these scandals for years, leaving us with so few options now. It was the Democratic House of Representatives and the mainstream media. On the Senate side, the Intelligence Committee was useless, and the two committees that did try to investigate, Judiciary and Homeland Security, were stonewalled by the very bureaucracies they were probing. They are still being stonewalled. The only breach in this cone of self-serving silence came thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, used by Judicial Watch and a few others to obtain government information hidden from our elected representatives. The mainstream media has been an embarrassment. It so revered the Obama administration that, instead of reporting on its officials’ malfeasance, it protected them. It is still protecting them, as well as Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The country’s leading news organizations had zero interest in uncovering serious violations of constitutional norms governing fair elections and unbiased law enforcement. Instead, they leaped head-first down the “Trump-Russia collusion” rabbit hole. They emerged dirty but unbowed. One result is that about half the American public now believes the media is a branch of the Democratic Party. Actually, everyone does, but only half thinks it’s a bad thing. Republican frustration with this coverup is palpable. After four years, they say, we still don’t have a full accounting of how the Obama administration used the powerful tools of law enforcement and intelligence agencies against a political opponent. We ought to know before the election, but we won’t. If the Democrats win and take back the Justice Department, we may never know. Why would a Biden administration ever want to pursue that issue? This veil of ignorance, constructed so assiduously by its malefactors, goes to the heart of our democratic process. It bears directly on the current election. Yet the biggest questions linger unanswered because Congress and the media failed in their duties. Their failure left only federal prosecutors to investigate, and they couldn’t begin until Mueller and Sessions were gone. Durham’s criminal investigation is necessarily secret, and properly so. It moves at its own deliberate pace. For voters, that’s too slow. The alleged crimes are grave, those involved were high-ranking officials plus the Democrats’ 2016 candidate. The party’s 2020 nominee ranked second only to Barack Obama when the crimes were committed. The unhappy result is this whole nettle of serious crimes remains hidden from voters who deserve to know. Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security.  Email Link   https://conta.cc/3dw8VET Rip McIntosh

← New Hunter Biden Emails Show Sales of Influence to Chinese Interests – Millions Paid to Biden Family for “Introductions” and Legal “Assistance”…

Understanding What Foreign Governments are Purchasing From The Bidens – There are Trillions at Stake…

Posted on October 15, 2020 by sundance

Amid the latest evidence that Hunter and Joe Biden are selling their ability to influence U.S. institutions to the benefit of foreign governments, I have received numerous requests to once again explain what those foreign interests are purchasing.

Understanding the purchase requires understanding the term “exfiltration” of wealth.  To understand the purchasing system, it becomes necessary to understand the underlying financial & economic constructs; the cornerstone of U.S. wealth. We begin…

President Trump is disrupting decades of multinational financial interests who use the U.S. as a host for their ideological & economic objectives. President Trump is confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place, by DC politicians and billionaire elites, to the detriment of the USA; ie. YOU.

There are trillions at stake.  All else is chaff and countermeasures.

We are already familiar how China, Mexico and ASEAN nations export our raw materials (ore, coking coal, rare earth minerals etc.). The raw materials are used to manufacture goods overseas, the cheap durable goods are then shipped back into the U.S. for purchase.

It is within this decades-long process where we lost the manufacturing base, and the multinational economic planners (World Trade Organization) put us on a path to being a “service driven” economy.

The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.

Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.

The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.

The exact same exfiltration and exploitation has been happening, with increased speed, over the past 15-20 years with “CONSUMABLE GOODS“, ie food. Raw material foodstuff is exported to China, ASEAN nations and Mexico, processed and shipped back into the U.S. as a finished product.

Recent example: Salmonella Ritz Bits (whey); Nabisco shuts New Jersey manufacturing plant, moves food production to Mexico… the result: Salmonella crackers. This is the same design-flow with food as previously exploited by other economic sectors, including auto manufacturing.

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Bunge, Potash Corp, Cargill or Wilmar, stay out of the public eye by design. Most megafood conglomerates have roots going back a century or more, but ever-increasing consolidation means that their current corporate owners may have been established only a few years ago. Welcome to the complex world of Big Ag:

Start with the so-called Big Six [PDF]. Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Bayer, and BASF produce roughly three-quarters of the pesticides used in the world. The first five also sell more than half the name-brand seeds that farmers plant, including varieties modified for resistance to the very pesticides they also sell. Meanwhile, if farmers want fertilizer, a list of 10 other companies, starting with PotashCorp, account for about two-thirds of the world market.

Once the plowing, planting, nurturing, and harvesting are done, around 80 percent of major crops pass through the hands of four traders: ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus. These companies aren’t just financiers, of course—Cargill, for example, produces animal feed and many other products, and it supplies more than a fifth of all meat sold in the United States.

And if you ever had any ideas about going vegetarian to avoid the conglomerates, forget about it: ADM processes about a third of all soybeans in the United States and a sixth of those grown around the globe. It also brews more than 5.6 billion liters of ethanol for gasoline and pours more than 2 million metric tons of high-fructose corn syrup every year. And it produces a sixth of the world’s chocolate. {Continue – and go Deep}

blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/b41097c1-e4c7-42e9-ad94-2e600d31d30eREPORT THIS AD

Multinational corporations, BIG AG, are now invested in controlling the outputs of U.S. agricultural industry and farmers. This process is why food prices have risen exponentially in the past decade.

The free market is not determining price; there is no “supply and demand” influence within this modern agricultural dynamic. Food commodities are now a controlled market just like durable goods. The raw material (harvests writ large) are exploited by the financial interests of massive multinational corporations. This is “contract farming”.

If U.S. supply and demand were the sole aspects of the domestic market price for food, we would see the prices of aggregate food products drop by half almost immediately. Some perishable food products would predictably drop so dramatically in price it is unfathomable how far the prices would fall.

Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.

When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.

♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.

It doesn’t.

Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.

The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.

In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the productsformerly contained within global markets.

The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.

U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.

Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.

That is, global financial exploitation of national markets. 

FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests an raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}ADVERTISEMENTREPORT THIS AD

♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA having been replaced by the USMCA; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.

There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”

What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.

It’s not.

It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.

Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.

EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).

Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.

With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.

In Mexico and underdeveloped countries when government officials take payments from companies, cartels and corporations, we call that system “corrupt”. However, in the U.S. when politicians take the same payments we call it “lobbying”; the process is identical.

EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.

Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.

Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).

‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.

This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.

Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.  They want to return to the status quo where they can purchase and control American wealth.  President Trump stands in their way.

How do I know President Trump stands against them? …WATCH:https://www.youtube.com/embed/tHsZxJlxHYw?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

[Transcript Here]

Words of Christ

October 13, 2020

“I have called you by name, but you have not answered for your faces were turned towards the earth, and you missed therefore My sign in the sky.  I will not continue to grant mercy to My people who have thrown mercy in My face by bowing before idols and dishonoring My Mother.  I am merciful, but I am just, and the transgressions of My people call out for justice. 

Oh how I have longed for you, but alas you have not longed for Me.  You have desecrated My holy places, and have trespassed My laws, and have rejected My everlasting care.  You have proclaimed yourselves as the makers of laws and as the deciders of the sanctity and dignity of life.  But I have written My laws upon your hearts, and therefore you stand not blameless before Me. 

The Rock of My Church is covered with moss and has sought a more comfortable chair, while another entertains among serpents and draws attention to his own words which are bathed in error.  I have sent My Mother again and again for she is your Mother, too, and she has admonished you to walk in righteousness, but you have heeded not her words. 

The gifts that I have given you have been thrown into the dirt, and you have sought gifts instead from those things that have no soul, and therefore your hands are empty.  You have cast My Mother aside and have taken instead a Mother who has no children, and is therefore no Mother at all.  You have dishonored Me for you have dishonored My Mother who was bathed in goodness and love so that I might find a place on earth to dwell.  She is all things human, and I am all things divine, and in her womb I traded not my divinity for humanity but rather merged the two so that mankind could transcend the earth and rest in heaven. 

Oh I have moved the universe and have commanded the wind and the sea, and I have brightened your days and your nights with the sun and the moon and have decorated the tapestry of the night with the stars.  But you have not seen My hand in creation and have instead seen creation alone and have believed that creation was in the hands of men.  Do you not know that with a word I can cause the stars to fall, and with a sigh I can unbridle the winds so that nothing can stand?  Do you not know that with a glance I can unseat the seas, and with a movement of My hand I can split the earth in two? 

Oh the foolishness of men, for I have loved you and have called you unto Myself, but you have turned away and have danced among the vipers who have crawled forth from the rocks.  But alas, you will soon lift your eyes from the earth for there will be no help found on the ground, and you will scan the heavens for a glimpse of My face.  And yet I am always among you, but you have seen Me not. 

Oh how I have longed for you, but alas you have not longed for Me.  I am there upon the altar, and I wait for you to join Me there, but you flee and seek refuge among the things of the world.  But justice comes swiftly, and there will be no place to hide upon the earth.  For you have forsaken the One who has loved you best and who has shed His blood that you might be saved.  And you will cry for your Mother, but you will look to images of wood and clay, and they see and hear not so your cries will not be answered.  But oh there is one who hears your cries and who would wrap her mantle around you and keep you safe, for she is My Mother, and I have given her unto you. 

Oh I have called you by name, but you have not answered.  And now moves the hand of God, and you will be brought low.”

-S

virtuouscitizenship commented on THE CATHOLIC CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT (CCHD), A BRANCH OF THE United States CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, HAS A LONG HISTORY OF PROVIDING FUNDS OF THE CHURCH TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES CONDEMNED BY THE TEACHINGS OF THE Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THE CATECHISM OF THE Catholic Church AND MANY PAPAL DOCUMENTS SUCH AS ENCYCLICALS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS. THIS SCANDALOUS FUNDING OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT OPPOSE THE TEACHINGS OF THE Catholic Church NEEDS TO BE STOPPED BY THE OUTCRY OF ORDINARY CATHOLIC LAITY

2020-10-13  BY MICHAEL HICHBORN US Catholic Bishops Finance Organized Effort to Elect Joe Biden NOTE: At the …

No surprise:

THE INFLUENCE OF SAUL ALINSKY ON THE CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. by LAWRENCE J. ENGEL; Journal Title: Theological Studies. Volume: 59. Issue: 4. Publication Year: 1998  http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/59/59.4/59.4.3.pdf

and

https://gloria.tv/post/KafVaTbaT1VC1TZjD6KZnREg2

Hunter Biden Emails Expose Joe? BY: THOMAS GALLATIN The Patriot Post October 15, 2020 More evidence that Dems impeached Trump for what Biden actually did. What did Joe Biden know, and when did he know it? On Wednesday, smoke began to billow from the smoldering embers of the Biden-Burisma-Ukraine scandal, a scandal that much of the mainstream media has intentionally ignored and social media has taken steps to tamp down. The New York Post broke the story: “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.” According to the report, back in April 2015, after having been on the board of Ukraine energy giant Burisma for just a year, Hunter Biden received an email from Vadym Pozharskyi, Burisma’s number-three executive, appearing to thank him for an invitation to meet his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” reads the email. Significantly, less than eight months later, Joe Biden would engage in his infamous qui pro quo demand, pressuring then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, or risk losing out on a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee. The Post notes, “Shokin has said that at the time of his firing, in March 2016, he’d made ‘specific plans’ to investigate Burisma that ‘included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.’”At a bare minimum, the email’s revelation of at least the invitation for a previously unknown meeting between Joe Biden and a Burisma top exec catches Sleepy Joe in a lie. He has previously and repeatedly claimed that he’d “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” The story surrounding the Post’s acquisition of the information is equally intriguing, sounding like something out of a spy novel. A water-damaged laptop containing the email in question was dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware back in April 2019, whereupon the shop owner uncovered a trove of data including emails and a “12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.” After the mysterious client who dropped off the computer never paid for the repair or returned to retrieve it, the shop owner eventually contacted the FBI. Agents then seized the computer in December 2019, but not before the shop owner had created a copy of the hard drive. This copied hard drive was then later given to Rudy Giuliani’s former lawyer, Robert Costello. After learning of its existence from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, the Post reached out to Giuliani and was given a copy this past Sunday. The Post also highlights another significant email correspondence contained on the hard drive dating from May 2014, shortly after Hunter joined Burisma’s board. Pozharski originated the email exchange with Hunter and his business partner Devon Archer under the subject line “urgent issue.” Pozharski wrote, “We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions.” Hunter responded by asking, “Who is ultimately behind these attacks on the company? Who in the current interim government could put an end to such attacks?” The email exchange occurred the same day that Burisma officially announced it had added Hunter Biden to its board of directors and placed him in charge of its “legal unit [where he] will provide support for the Company among international organizations.” This information conflicts with Hunter’s lawyer’s claim last year that Hunter was “not a member of the management team,” and that “at no time was Hunter in charge of the company’s legal affairs.” Why does all this matter? For one thing, it reveals that President Donald Trump was completely justified in his request of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to have the Bidens’ shady Ukraine dealings investigated. It further shows that members of the deep state were so in the tank for Democrats that, rather than seek the truth, they aided House partisans in launching a ridiculous impeachment charade to spin the Ukraine scandal onto Trump. Democrats impeached Trump for what Joe Biden did — for even having the “gall” to ask what Biden did. Meanwhile, Biden, who has been protected every step of the way by the mainstream media, may now be unable to avoid answering a few questions. (Stay tuned for a planted question and dismissive response at tonight’s town hall.) There is little reason to doubt whether the FBI did indeed seize the laptop and hard drive since the Post’s story includes a photo of the federal subpoena. That the FBI has had this hard drive for the last 10 months with no word of any investigation may indicate that it has been included in John Durham’s ongoing investigation. The Post reported that the FBI directed all questions regarding “its seizure of the laptop and hard drive to the Delaware US Attorney’s Office, where a spokesperson said, ‘My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.’” Mark Alexander concludes: “Hunter Biden’s communications with Ukraine officials have ensnared Joe Biden in a web of BIG lies, and have exposed the Demos’ mainstream media enablers and social media censors for the leftist hacks they are. This confirms what I asserted last January — that Democrats impeached President Trump for high crimes Joe Biden actually committed.” Email Link  https://conta.cc/358zI6u Rip McIntosh

The Privileged Kamala Harris By Bill Shuey October 13, 2020 Kamala Devi Harris Emhoff is Joseph Biden’s selection for vice-president. Here are a few facts about Ms. Harris. [From Wikipedia] Harris married attorney Douglas Emhoff, who was at one time partner-in-charge at Venable LLP‘s Los Angeles office, on August 22, 2014, in Santa Barbara, California. Harris is a stepmother to Emhoff’s two children from his previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. As of August 2019, Harris and her husband had an estimated net worth of $5.8 million.  1. Ms. Harris is touted as “black,” she has characterized herself as “American.”    2. Ms. Harris has characterized herself as a poor little girl of color. Ms. Harris’ mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a cancer researcher and civil rights activist. Ms. Harris’ father, Donald Harris holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California and has been a college professor for years. Not exactly a family history of poverty.    3. Ms. Harris claims that, on visits to her father, she wasn’t allowed to play with the white children in his neighborhood. While this claim is dubious at best, it would indicate that Mr. Harris lived in an upper middle-class neighborhood. Again, a status of privilege.    4. The late Ms. Gopalan and Dr. Harris didn’t immigrate to the United States because it was a horrible racist oppressive nation, they came here for the greater opportunity and found success.  5. Dr. Harris and Ms. Gopalan were well off enough to fund two daughters’ college education and law school. Not the thing of poverty.  6. Ms. Harris isn’t black, she at best is a duke’s mixture of bi-racial genetics. If she is Mulatto, it comes from her father and he would be a second, third, or more generation African by way of Jamaica, not the United States. Therefore, she certainly isn’t a hyphenated African-American. Perhaps she could accurately claim Indian-American or Jamaican-American.    7. In this ongoing chatter regarding white privilege, I can’t think of anyone who better represents privilege more than Ms. Harris. She grew up in upper middle class surroundings, attended a first rate college and law school, and has lived the American dream since. She has about as much in common with the average black as this writer has with a Martian.      8. Ms. Harris’ parents are naturalized citizens. I doubt that the main stream media will have any curiosity regarding when they received their United States citizenship, but if it was after Kamala’s birth, that would make her an anchor baby and unable to become president.    9. Ms. Gopalan immigrated in 1960. Mr. Harris in 1961. When either applied for citizenship and when it was granted for either is unknown.    10. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 requires an alien to apply for a petition for naturalization. Before applying, an alien must be at least 18 years old and must have been lawfully admitted to live permanently in the United States. He must have lived in the United States for five years and for the last six months in the state where he seeks to be naturalized. Unless the Nationality Act was somehow bypassed, Ms. Gopalan couldn’t have been a citizen prior to 1965 and Mr. Harris before 1966. Kamala Harris was born October 20, 1964.  11. Since Ms. Harris is a naturalized citizen, it would appear that neither of her parents were an American citizen at the time of her birth. Otherwise, why would she need to be naturalized?  12. Mr. Biden is suffering from the early onset of dementia and will continue to decline in cerebral awareness. I’ve seen this condition in a couple of my now dead friends, and it is day to day deterioration; some days being better than others. Finally, either gradually or overnight, Mr. Biden will lose his grip on reality. Given his current condition, I doubt it will take four years to become an acute condition. In the case of one of my friends who showed mild dementia, he gave a presentation, finished, walked to his car, and had no idea where he lived. His mental awareness departed just that quickly and never returned.   13. Lastly, if the Democrats are elected to the White House, presuming she is constitutionally eligible, Ms. Harris will become the second bi-racial president. People should vote for the candidate of their choice, but in this situation, they should understand they are actually voting for Kamala Harris for president when they go to the polls. If she isn’t a “natural born” (the offspring of at least one American citizen) it will open a bucket of worms and cause a constitutional crisis to go along with our other ongoing messes. Email Link   https://conta.cc/33Yiedr Rip McIntosh Bill Shuey has a unique writing style which allows him to act as an observer of the action that is taking place. He describes what he sees without the use of profanity or explicit sexual descriptions.  To date Bill Shuey has written a total of 18 books, the last two will be published in late 2020. Bill is a member of the Western Writers’ Association

• Home
• About Us
• E-Mail Guidelines
• Guidelines For Comments
• We Get Questions ….

← President Trump Make America Great Again Rally and Peaceful Protest – Greenville, NC – 1:00pm EDT Livestream…Rudy Giuliani Explains the Biden Family Payoff Scheme… →

Senator Tom Cotton on Big Tech Censorship: “Winter is Coming”…

Posted on October 15, 2020 by sundance

As we shared yesterday, the examples of Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube blocking factual information about Joe Biden’s corrupt financial engagements with foreign entities is an “all-in” election interference effort. In many ways this is an extinction level event for their business model if Joe Biden does not win the election.

These tech and social media companies are worth hundreds of billions and their future financial viability is now directly connected to the 2020 election. Shareholders and stakeholders will begin filing lawsuits as soon as the hammer of FCC, DOJ or legislative regulation drops to break up their previously permitted monopolies.

A Trump victory will destroy these entities; and the likelihood of a Trump victory increases in direct proportion to their efforts to advance censorship…. it is a very unique situation.https://www.youtube.com/embed/TiFT6U0wTXQ?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

.

It’s important to remember… there is a pre-existing DOJ antitrust lawsuit looming that underpins the current position of “Big Tech”; and factually in June of this year we previously shared: “As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.”

CTH has discussed the likelihood of DOJ action against Google previously.  In June of this year AG Barr also mentioned in an interview with Senator Ted Cruz he was likely to have the final DOJ investigation on his desk for a decision within the next few months.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/e91aa265-b336-4f9a-987d-99f434bb8a02REPORT THIS ADblob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/e91aa265-b336-4f9a-987d-99f434bb8a02REPORT THIS AD

Immediately after Barr’s remarks Politico reported  on some of the background DOJ activity which aligned with Bill Barr’s statements and our own research assembly.

WASHINGTON – Justice Department prosecutors expect to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google in the coming months focused on the company’s dominance in online advertising and search, two individuals familiar with the discussions said Friday.

DOJ lawyers and state antitrust officials met online Friday and discussed contours of the expected complaint, according to the people, who weren’t authorized to speak on the record because the investigation is ongoing.

[…] The suit is expected to involve allegations that the search giant has monopolized the advertising technology market. It is also expected to include allegations that Google has taken steps to extend its monopoly over search, such as through contracts with Apple and cellphone makers who use the Android operating system that require it be the default search engine.

The people cautioned that Attorney General William Barr, who did not attend the meeting, has yet to make a final decision on whether to sue, a judgment he could make in the coming weeks. The department would also need to decide what remedy it would seek, such as trying to break up the company or placing limits on its behavior. Whether the state attorneys general would also sign on to the DOJ complaint isn’t yet determined.

Prosecutors are still discussing whether to include other aspects of Google’s conduct related to search, the people said.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment. (read more)

Anyone who has spent time on the internet already knows Google manipulates the internet based on their self-defined ideology.  In August of 2019 a Google employee and whistleblower came forward with documentary evidence explaining how they do it.

Zachary Vorhies went  public with the information in order to help people better understand the scope and scale of Google’s manipulative intent.  [Link to Documents]

Among those documents is a file called “news black list site for google now.” The document is a “black list,” which restricts certain websites from appearing on an Android Google product.  Not surprisingly CTH is listed on the black list.

On May 28, 2020, after President Trump signed an executive order targeting on-line censorship, CTH wrote a twitter thread about it.  There has to be a breaking point where the FCC or DOJ steps in to address these issues, if our constitutional republic is to survive.

[Read Executive Order Here] – In the periphery of this executive action there are indications, and a widespread expectation, the DOJ is close to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc and their affiliated companies. There is a possibility the controlling ideology of ‘big tech’ is about to merge with legal action by the DOJ.

The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.

The issue will not necessarily surface as most would think; via a bias based on conservative -vs- leftist ideology in content manipulation; though those underlying aspects are a part of the larger underpinning we will soon see surface.

Antitrust lawsuits, writ large, are based on “prices”, “costs”, and net “financial” distortions caused by corporations not competing based on open commerce. “Antitrust” in it’s structural form is based on costs and the manipulation of prices.  Essentially, controlled commerce.

In the digital sphere the targeted firms have not opened themselves to liability based on ideology; but rather Google, all subsidiaries and alliances, have opened themselves to antitrust violations through the manipulation and control of financial benefit.

Demonitization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws…. But will they take action? That’s the question.

Antitrust intervention is warranted because the content being generated on these on-line, digital platforms, is being arbitrarily valued by the media company GoogleAds and not the free market. Devaluing certain content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the control enforcer, in this example Google. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that should afford the DOJ the opportunity to step in.  Google (and all subsidiaries) will lose on the substance of their defense because ultimately their business practice has resulted in, and arguably they have engaged in, price fixing.

It will take time, but from an optimistic position if the DOJ take action eventually Google would be forced to settle a lawsuit.  There could be a massive financial settlement in addition to a negotiated Consent Decree. Within the decree terms, we could even see a break-up.

Any antitrust action is only tangentially related to President Trump’s previous confrontation with Twitter and big tech social media based on ideological lines. However, it is easy to see how the two issues will merge.  The monetary distortions are based on ideology.

As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.

This is definitely worth watching…

Advertisements

Destroying the Institutions We Inherited Anywhere ideology trumps science, public service,history, art and entertainment, ruin surely follows. BY: VICTOR DAVIS HANSON   October 15, 2020 In the 21st century, hallmark American and international institutions have lost much of their prestige and respect. Politics and biases explain the lack of public confidence in organizations and institutions such as the World Health Organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Nobel Peace Prize, the Pulitzer Prizes and the Academy Awards. The overseers entrusted with preserving these institutions all caved to short-term political pressures. As a result, they have mostly destroyed what they inherited. The World Health Organization’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is the first person without a medical degree to hold that position. Why? No one really knows. In the critical first days of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, almost every statement issued by Tedros and the WHO about the origins, transmission, prevention and treatment of the virus was inaccurate. Worse, the announcements predictably reflected the propaganda of the Chinese government. The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987 for two purposes: to ensure that during every presidential campaign, candidates would agree to debate; and to ensure that the debates would be impartial and not favor either major party. Unfortunately, in 2020, the commission so far has a checkered record on both counts. Conservatives have argued that the moderators of the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate — Chris Wallace of Fox News and Susan Page of USA Today — were systematically asymmetrical in their questioning. The moderators asked both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence to explain prior controversial quotes and then to reply to critics’ accusations. The moderators did not pose the same sort of gotcha-type “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden or vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Although the vice presidential debate was conducted with proper social distancing, along with screens and testing to protect the candidates, the commission abruptly canceled the second live presidential debate for safety’s sake and insisted it be conducted remotely. Yet White House doctors have cleared Trump, who recently contracted COVID-19, as both medically able to debate and no longer infectious. The public perception was that a remote debate would favor the frequently teleprompted Biden, who has been largely ensconced in his home during the last six months, and would be less advantageous to Trump, who thrives on live, ad hoc television. Susan Page is currently writing a biography of Trump’s chief antagonist, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif). The designated moderator of the now-canceled second president debate, Steve Scully of C-SPAN, once interned for Vice President Joe Biden. The Nobel Peace Prize has been subject to criticism over the years for failing to adequately recognize either diplomatic or humanitarian achievement. Yasser Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organization won the prize in 1994, despite conducting lethal terrorist operations. He allegedly gave the final order to execute U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel and two other diplomats in 1973. In 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize went to President Barack Obama, despite the fact that Obama had only been president for eight months when the prize was announced. Many felt the award was a political statement — aimed at empowering Obama and criticizing the policies of his then-unpopular predecessor, George W. Bush. Much later, Geir Lundestad, the longtime director of the Nobel Institute, confessed that the prize committee had indeed hoped the award would strengthen Obama’s future agendas and wasn’t really in recognition of anything he had actually done. “Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,” Lundestad lamented in his memoir. “In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.” Earlier this year, New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her work on The 1619 Project. She has argued that 1619, the year African slaves first arrived on North American soil, and not 1776 marked the real founding of America. Almost immediately, distinguished American historians cited factual errors and general incoherence in The 1619 Project –especially Hannah-Jones’ claim that the United States was created to promote and protect slavery. Facing a storm of criticism, Hannah-Jones falsely countered that she had never advanced a revisionist date of American’s “real” founding. Yet even the New York Times — without explanation — erased from its own website Hannah-Jones’ earlier description of 1619 as “our true founding.” The annual Academy Awards were once among the most watched events in America. In 2020, however, Oscar viewership crashed to its lowest level in history, due in large part to backlash against the left-wing politicking, sermonizing and virtue-signaling of award winners. Recently, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which oversees the Oscars, announced that it will adopt racial, gender and sexual identity quotas for nominees — refuting the ancient idea of “art for art’s sake” Such ideology has also infected, and thus tarnished, the Grammy and Emmy awards, and left-wing virtue-signaling has also become part of the NFL and the NBA. The lesson in all these debacles is that anywhere ideology trumps science, public service, history, art and entertainment, ruin surely follows. Email Link  https://conta.cc/355JVR7 Rip McIntosh

2020-10-13 

BY MICHAEL HICHBORN

US Catholic Bishops Finance Organized Effort to Elect Joe Biden

NOTE: At the end of this article, we ask that you contact your bishop to demand that all members of Faith in Action be immediately and permanently banned from future funding from the CCHD.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) are funding an organized and direct effort to elect former vice president Joe Biden as the next president of the United States. Faith in Action (formerly the PICO Network) is one of the most heavily funded organizations of the CCHD.  The Faith In Action Network includes forty-nine organizations spread across twenty states.  At least twenty-nine affiliates of Faith in Acton’s network receive funding from the CCHD, comprising more than $1.5 million in the 2019-2020 CCHD grants cycle. Each local affiliate of Faith in Action is a branch from the national organization, which means that every directive and action of the national organization is also the directive and action of the local groups as well.  Those Faith in Action members receiving CCHD funds for 2019-2020 are:

Faith in Action Bay Area – $30,000
Faith in San Joaquin – $25,000
Inland Congregations United for Change – $75,000
LA Voice – $40,000
People Acting in Community Together – $25,000
Sacramento Area Congregations Together – $50,000
San Diego Organizing Project – $50,000
Together Colorado – $50,000
Faith in Florida – $40,000
Faith in Indiana – $40,000
The MICAH Project – $60,000
Brockton Interfaith Community – $65,000
Essex County Community Organization – $75,000
I Have a Future – $60,000
Massachusetts Communities Action Network – $65,000
Pioneer Valley Project – $75,000
United Interfaith Action of Southeastern Massachusetts – $50,000
Worcester Interfaith – $40,000
Michigan Faith in Action – $65,000
ACTIONN – $65,000
Granite State Organizing Project – $40,000
Faith in Essex County – $50,000
NM Comunidades en Acción y de Fe – $55,000
Alliance of Communities Transforming Society – $65,000
Faith in New York – $50,000
Niagara Organizing Alliance for Hope – $65,000
VOICE – Buffalo, Inc. – $65,000
Philadelphians Organized to Witness, Empower and Rebuild – $65,000
Vermont Interfaith Action – $60,000

In 2016, the CCHD awarded the National PICO Network a massive grant of $500,000, which means that Catholic funding has gone to both local members of Faith in Action as well as the national organization.

As will be shown from Faith in Action’s own website and social media feeds, Faith in Action is involved in a consistent and direct partisan push in favor of Joe Biden and against Donald Trump for the 2020 national election.  Not only is this a direct violation of CCHD grant guidelines, but if left uncorrected it displays USCCB complicity with electioneering for an apostate Catholic who supports abortion through all 9-months of pregnancy, has performed two same-sex “marriages,” and is running on a campaign that promises persecution of faithful Catholics throughout the country.

CCHD grant guidelines clearly state that partisan activities are strictly forbidden by CCHD and IRS guidelines:

Both the teachings of the Catholic Church and the regulations of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service prohibit CCHD from engaging in or supporting partisan political activities. Additionally, under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations absolutely are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. 

As such, any organization involved in partisan political activities is ineligible for CCHD funding. Non-partisan voter registration efforts undertaken by applicant groups facilitate civic participation in democracy and are supported by the Church. At the same time, however, any effort that seeks to register voters for one political party over another constitutes partisan political activity. Any group involved in such partisan political activity would be ineligible for funding. [emphasis added]

In addition to this guideline, the CCHD forbids funding to organizations that are members of coalitions which violate Catholic moral teaching:

CCHD CANNOT FUND groups that knowingly participate in coalitions that have, as part of their organizational purpose or their coalition agenda or actions, anything that contradicts fundamental Catholic moral or social teaching, due to the fact that CCHD is an initiative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Examples would be promotion or support of contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, racism, the use of the death penalty, or punitive measures toward immigrants. Prohibited activities include participation in or endorsing actions that promote legislation that contradicts Church teaching (for example, voter guides and other written materials in support of such ballot measures). [emphasis original]

This report will prove that Faith in Action is in direct violation of both CCHD guidelines through its “Live Free” project and through the actions of its leadership and their relationship with a Biden-endorsing Political Action Committee.

Because the scope of electioneering within the Faith in Action network takes place on national, regional, and local levels, the CCHD must immediately defund all Faith in Action members, demand the money to be returned, and forbid all future funding from ever going to members of Faith in Action.  The precedent for taking such measures already exists.  In 2008, the CCHD permanently banned the community organizing network called ACORN from all future funding, due in part to “questions surrounding political partisanship.”

Live Free Project

The Live Free Project is one of Faith in Action’s major national projects. It works primarily around the issues of gun violence and criminal justice, but in recent months has directly promoted and called for the election of Joe Biden and the defeat of Donald Trump in the national presidential election.

Earning $113,000 a year, Faith in Actions’ Director of Urban Strategies and Director of the Live Free project is Rev. Michael McBride.

In 2017, while employed as one of Faith in Action’s highest paid key employees, McBride helped co-found the political advocacy organization called the Black Church Political Action Committee (Black Church PAC).  On the Black Church PAC’s homepage and under the section titled, “Our Founding Members,” McBride’s biography clearly indicates his work for Faith in Action, identified by its former name, PICO.

The first problem with this relationship is that the Black Church PAC, being highly partisan, has directly endorsed Joe Biden for president.  The open and active political activities of McBride as both a Director of Faith in Action and the Black Church PAC have blurred the lines between the two organizations to the point of non-existence.

Of course, Rev. Michael McBride’s work to elect Joe Biden in and of itself does not violate CCHD guidelines. However, he has repeatedly used the Faith in Action Live Free platform to cross promote Black Church PAC partisan activities. This is a direct violation of CCHD guidelines and possibly a violation of IRS rules and regulations.  What this means is that Faith in Action, through one of its directors and on its social media platform, is promoting a PAC that is directly involved in the effort to elect Joe Biden.

There are too many instances of FIA Live Free’s social media being used to promote Black Church Pac activities to list them all.  But bearing in mind that Black Church PAC has declared its open support for Joe Biden, all FIA posts promoting Black Church PAC is driving traffic directly to the promotion of Joe Biden and other Democrats.  Here are a few of the social media posts from FIA’s Live Free Project promoting Black Church PAC:

This is a very recent Facebook video of Black Church PAC voter registration training uploaded by FIA’s Live Free Project :

This is a live-feed posted by FIA’s Live Free Project of an October 5^th Black Church PAC voter drive concert:

This October 01 Facebook post by FIA’s Live Free Project promotes Black Church PAC’s “Souls to the Polls” training session.  Of note is the fact that this session directly instructs participants to find out more about Black Church PAC, which means that FIA is sending people to an organization that has openly endorsed Biden for voting information:

Michael and Ben McBride (both high-level Directors in Faith in Action) made a video response to the first presidential debate on Sept 30 for the Black Church Pac, wherein both describe President Trump as “vile,” “racist,” and “disgusting.” At 7:08, Ben McBride, the co-Director for PICO California, called President Trump “the Klansman in Chief.”

On Sept. 24, FIA’s Live Free facebook page posted Black Church Pac’s “Souls to the Polls” training session.  In the session, Michael McBride tells viewers that their political decisions should be fueled by their rage.

This is an Aug. 18 Black Church PAC video conference promoting the same-sex “marriage” advocacy group called the Human Rights Campaign, posted on the Live Free FB page.

In August of 2020 Live Free was a “Community Partner” in a program called “Into Action”which clearly called for the support of the Biden–Harris ticket.  In Live Free’s tweet promoting “Into Action,” the video promotion starts with a woman holding a purse that says “feminist,” while the next female in the sequence makes an allusion to abortion saying, “My body, my business.”

The entire event was absolutely vile, actively promoting transgenderism and abortion, but we’ll get into that in our next report on Faith in Action.  Here is a clip from the Into Action event of which Live Free and Black Church PAC were “community partners.”  What this clip contains is a very unambiguous call for people to vote for Democrats.  To see the entire Into Action video, click here.

Again, what this shows is that there is an intimate relationship between Faith in Action and the Joe Biden-endorsing Black Church PAC, and this relationship is leading those who follow Faith in Action to embrace the political endorsements and activities of the Black Church PAC.  But Faith in Action’s association with the Black Church PAC isn’t the only activity constituting direct partisan political activity that violates CCHD grant guidelines.

FIA’s Live Free Project Twitter activity is full of negative propaganda regarding President Trump and even calls for the funding of Democrat candidates.

For instance, on October 11, Live Free retweeted direct calls for the funding of Gary Peters, the Democrat Senator from Michigan.

This is clearly partisan behavior. But there’s more.  Some of these re-tweets are crass and vile and perhaps the US Bishops may wish to take a second look at who they are paying to represent their social justice activities.

Here are a few examples:

On September 29, amid a plethora of negative tweets about President Trump, Faith in Action’s Live Free Project retweeted a statement that one “cannot debate a piece of [expiative].”

On October 04, Faith in Action’s Live Free project retweeted a call for people to “vote as if [Biden] is down 27%,” which is essentially a call for votes for Biden.

On October 05, FIA’s Live Free Project retweeted a false claim that Trump’s campaign is engaged in voter suppression.

On October 06, FIA’s Live Free Project retweeted a call to have “Trump removed from power,” while claiming “We are at war with Putin.”

PICO California

PICO California is the regional umbrella for all 19 Faith in Action member organizations in California. Rev Ben McBride (Rev. Michael McBride’s brother) is co-director of PICO California, and at $110,000 a year, his salary is very similar to his brother’s.

PICO California also used social media to promote Black Church PAC activities and make a direct call for the defeat of President Trump, as seen in this Sept 10 retweet by PICO California of Rev. Michael McBride.

PICO California also promoted Black Church PAC’s “Black Church Rocks” and “Souls to the Polls” partisan voter drive efforts on September 21 and October 5:

Faith in the Valley San Joaquin

Faith in the Valley San Joaquin is a member organization of FIA, and was granted $25,000 for the 2019-2020 CCHD grants cycle. It has also joined FIA’s promotion of partisan activities on its social media platforms.

This Aug. 8th Facebook post promoted a Black Church PAC event, saying:

“Yo! The play is in motion; let’s get a win for the Lord and the ancestors! This Monday, years of work coalesce into launching Black-led, Black-centric, Black church organizing ensuring we get Trump out, and our freedom IN! This Black vote this November gonna be epic!” [emphasis added]

These examples from the national, regional and local levels of Faith in Action clearly show an organized effort by leadership within FIA to use the network to push their own partisan projects. The lack of oversight by the CCHD in both its “rigorous” screening process and ongoing grants compliance efforts has allowed the Bishops name to be used by this behemoth community organizing group to stump for party politics. Bishops across the country, many of whom demand that priests violate their own consciences by taking up the CCHD collection, are now directly complicit in the funding of political electioneering.  Faith in Action as a network is in direct violation of the CCHD grant guidelines regarding involvement in partisan politics, and MUST be immediately and permanently defunded, just as was done with ACORN in 2008.  And if the USCCB is unwilling to take such action against Faith in Action, then individual bishops will have no choice but to withdraw from the CCHD collection in the fall.

Contact your bishop and the CCHD and DEMAND that Faith in Action be permanently DEFUNDED!

Click here for the contact information for your bishop.

Click here for the name and email address of your diocesan CCHD director.

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF
Bp. David Talley, Chairman of the CCHD Subcommittee – dtalley@diocesealex.org
Ralph McCloud, CCHD Director 202-541-3367 rmccloud@usccb.org
Lydia Jiles, Grants Administrator 202-541-3210 ljiles@usccb.org
Juan Aranda, Grants Specialist for Area D 202-541-3370 jaranda@usccb.org
Main Number . . . . . . . . . . 202-541-3210
Fax Number . . . . . . . . . . 202-541-3329
Main Email . . . . . . . . . . cchdgrants@usccb.org

Grant Specialists
Area A   Ian Mitchell   202-541-3371   imitchell@usccb.org
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont

Area B   Gene Giannotta   202-541-3211   ggiannotta@usccb.org
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin

Area C   Randy Keesler   202-541-3369   rkeesler@usccb.org
Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee , Virgin Islands, Virginia, West Virginia

Area D   Juan Aranda   202-541-3370   jaranda@usccb.org
Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas

Area E   Sean Wendlinder   202-541-3212   swendlinder@usccb.org
Alaska, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

Filed Under: Catholic Campaign for Human Development Tagged With: Biden, catholic campaign for human development, Catholic Church, CCHD, Donald Trump, election, Joe Biden, POTUS, Presidential Campaign, Trump, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, Vote, Voting

Comments

1. Francis DMello says2020-10-14 at 6:34 AMThanks for sharing this most craziest view of our Bishops attitude! That is why our Holy Cathiolic Church is so messed up! Our Bishops have top do more Adoration And Rosaries before the Blessed Sacrament so that they can ask the Lord Jesus Is this what we need to do, to elect Boden the President who stands for Abortion destroying life.Reply
2. Kevin says2020-10-14 at 7:20 AMThis is beyond a discrace!!!!!!Reply
   • Mike cummo says2020-10-14 at 8:05 AMThe Smoke of Satan has entered the Catholic Church – Christ Save Us –Reply