Wednesday, August 14, 2019
TWITTER & GOOGLE SHUT DOWN CONSERVATIVE VOICES
TWITTER & GOOGLE SHUT DOWN
CONSERVATIVE VOICES
One America News Interviews Barry Nussbaum of
the American Truth Project
THE RISE OF CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC JIHADISM IN AMERICAN CIVILIZATION~SELLING US CULTURAL SUICIDE AS A MORAL VIRTUE
THE RISE OF CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC JIHADISM IN AMERICAN CIVILIZATION~SELLING US CULTURAL SUICIDE AS A MORAL VIRTUE
BY JASON D. HILL
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274618/rise-cultural-and-economic-jihadism-american-jason-d-hill;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Two Democratic presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, have agreed to speak before the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The candidates will address the forum during its convention in Houston on August 31, 2019.The ISNA is listed by the United States Justice department as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood which is a terrorist organization linked to several Islamist and Jihadist global political movements. These movements have as their goal the establishment of a global caliphate. This means that their goals are to subject all human beings to Sharia law. In fact, the president of ISNA was quoted in a 2006 film as saying that the organization’s mission was to change the Constitution of America. The organization has as its goals, by means of a jihad campaign, the destruction of western civilization from within.There are several reasonable people who believe that both Sanders and Castro are either ignorant of the ISNA’s real goal, or are simply trying to turn a blind eye to an organization’s radical agenda with the hopes that they can modify the nihilistic and jihadist agenda of the movement.Nothing could be further from the truth. I submit that both Castro and Sanders, given their virulent demonstrations of Americaphobia are directly complicit with the goals of ISNA. They are joining forces with an enemy organization to delegitimize our great republic under the current form of its constitutional configuration. Before analyzing the real motives behind these America-hating politicians, let us briefly examine their stated political visions for America.Bernie Sanders is an avowed democratic socialist. He intends to transform our system of free market enterprise that has lifted millions out of poverty and raised the standard of living for all persons. What does he intend to transform our socio-economic American civilization into? A totalitarian, expropriative government of theft by legalization. Socialism advocates vesting ownership and control of the means of production, capital and land in the community as a whole. Socialism is not a morally neutral system. Any system of governance presupposes an answer to the questions: Are you a sovereign entity who owns your life, work and mind? Is your mind something that can be nationalized and its material contents distributed by the state? Socialists think the answer is yes. They believe the products of one’s efforts belong to the community; that the state and society have a moral and financial responsibility to care for other people’s children; that is, the procreative choices made by those who are strangers to us, and that the most successful and productive people should be the most penalized.This is the socio-economic caliphate Sanders wants established not just in America, but throughout the world. Like ISNA he wants to radically challenge our constitution and change the political DNA of our great republic.Julian Castro is such a political and social ballast that it might not even be worth mentioning his totalitarian agenda for America were it not for the fact that such an agenda is becoming normalized. He wants to establish free healthcare for all illegal immigrants, thereby skirting the laws of the land by appropriating tax dollars for those whose illegals activities would be normalized and legitimized via a governmental fiat of hand whose conferral of a benefit that, even if justified, could only be granted to US citizens. He wants to supersede the rule of law with a dastardly vision of open borders. Castro also wants to eviscerate from all governmental legal codes, the term, “illegal immigrant,” thus blurring the distinction between those who are here legally, and those who are not.Now we begin to see why such candidates are eager to speak before a unit of the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood. All parties are united in their goals of normalizing and mainstreaming that which is not just radical, but inimical to the national security interests of America. All are purveyors of normalizing national security threats to the United States of America; all are interested in making sure that as philosopher Ayn Rand pointed out: The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other—until one day when they are suddenly declared declare to be the country’s ideology.Do Sanders and Castro want an Islamic global caliphate ruling western civilization? If such were the means of establishing their radical totalitarian and anti-America vision for the world—perhaps. I’m not sure. What I am sure of is that in agreeing to speak before such a Jihadist organization they intend to mainstream the radical manifestations of a movement’s philosophy, and to establish it as a common canard among the voices of US citizens. When the sensibilities of all rational persons have been neutralized and dulled into submission, the introduction of the radicals’ own agendas will pass into the mainstream uncontested.Sanders and Castro, and other politicians such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib will undermine our republic by making unholy alliances with forces that have as their goals the radical transformation of the socio-economic culture of the United States and western civilization. Another goal they share is the re-socialization of the moral and political sensibilities of those Americans who are highly persuadable; persuadable that is, into becoming enemies of the republic. These socio-economic Jihadists might not be religious Jihadists; however, they are fighting to the death for the method by which the Islamist Jihadists have and are using to win their battle of destruction over the West. First, by neutralizing the moral ammunition defenders of America and the West have at their disposal by positing such ammunition as detrimental and destructive of the of the agency of a group of individuals showcased as permanent victims of the “nefarious and imperialistic West.” This moral ammunition consists in, among other things, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our celebrated and successful form of capitalism, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of association—in total, the complete abolition of individual and property rights.Second, they along with other haters of America are part of a coterie of individuals who are socio-cultural Jihadists operating with impunity right here in our own republic. Their association with ISNA is not accidental or innocent. It is an attempt to bleed to death by thousands of tiny scratches this country of its moral vocabularies of defense and resistance by the normalization and the mainstreaming of goals whose implementation would see the annihilation of America as we know it. Sanders, Castro and sundry politicians may not explicitly desire an America ruled by Sharia law. But they are willing to bed down with those movements and individuals that do, and they are all too ready to defang this country of its bedrock principles. This then allows such political actors to usher into existence a new America: a collectivist America; a totalitarian America; an America whose cultural identity will be destroyed and replaced by a non-vision—if nihilism and wanton destruction for the sake of destruction can be referred to as visions. This, however, is how all social-engineering movements that operate by stealth and subterfuge win their battles, promulgate their ideas and execute their policies.Let us all unmask the Faustian bargains such politicians like Castro and Sanders and others are making with our avowed enemies. No, unlike the Jihadists they will not murder us in cold blood. They will simply sell us cultural suicide as a moral virtue. Their clarion call: Sacrifice who and what we are in the name of some futuristic horror that one day will, somehow, after we are dead, be for the good of our children.We The Living must choose life, and we must choose those values that are conducive to life itself: our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our glorious American sense of life that has inspired millions of Americans and those around the world to aim for an aspirational identity forged in the crucibles of only what a constitutional republic can achieve: freedom; the exercise of our moral conscience and judgments; and the inviolable right to cull life plans for ourselves unobstructed by a totalitarian political institution that would sell its Death Cult as a moral vision.
EPSTEIN'S ISLAND RETREAT RAIDED; DOCUMENTS SHOW PERVERSIONS~BARR PROMISES TO PROSECUTE CO-CONSPIRATORS
THE MAIN RESIDENCE:
EPSTEIN'S ISLAND RETREAT RAIDED; DOCUMENTS SHOW PERVERSIONS~BARR PROMISES TO PROSECUTE CO-CONSPIRATORS
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Billionaire sex pervert Jeffrey Epstein might be dead, but the case prosecutors were building against the Deep State insider will likely now move on to his helpers.Yesterday, the FBI and local police raided the deceased financier’s home on Little St. James, an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. As well, unnamed conspirators whom prosecutors allege helped Epstein have been warned that they will face justice. And last week, new details about Epstein’s major sex-trafficking operation emerged with documents in an Epstein-related case.Federal prosecutors will now turn their attention to the employees and associates who helped him, tops among them Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite who has, apparently, gone on the lam.Raid on Home The raid involved FBI agents, along with U.S. Customs and local law enforcement, who “fanned out in golf carts across Epstein’s estate on Little St. James Island,” the Miami Herald reported.The Herald reported that Epstein purchased the isle for $7.95 million in 1998 and built a “24,000-square-foot private home, swimming pools, cabanas and other structures on a 70-acre swath of oceanfront land studded with palm trees.”Whatever evidence they gathered won’t harm Epstein, whom authorities found hanged in his cell on Saturday. Guards didn’t bother check on Epstein, who was briefly on a suicide watch after a supposed previous attempt, for hours, the Washington Post disclosed.Epstein faced a federal sex-trafficking indictment that alleged he procured girls as young as 14 for sexual trysts, and that employees and associates helped him procure the girls, who then often became procurers as well.Epstein skated on similar sex charges in 2008 when then-federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta, who became President Trump’s labor secretary, cut a deal that permitted Epstein to plead guilty to lesser state charges. Investigative reporter Vicky Ward divulged in the Daily Beast that Acosta cut the deal because Epstein, a member of the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, was connected to “intelligence.”Documents That’s where last week’s document release come in.The documents paint a “a chilling picture” of “hundreds of girls and young women” that Epstein, Maxwell, and their cabal of helpers “trafficked for sex to a number of wealthy business, political and world leaders,” the Herald reported last week.The documents come from a defamation lawsuit that Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre filed against Maxwell in 2015 and settled in 2017. Giuffre said Maxwell recruited her to be Epstein’s masseuse when she worked at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.The documents contain the names of highly influential men, including former Maine Senator George Mitchell, super lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and Britain’s Prince Andrew. All those named deny any participation in such deeds.Epstein, Giuffre alleged, wanted compromising sexual information on the men. Reported the Herald,While there’s no direct evidence contained in the court record substantiating her accounts with prominent men, Giuffre did provide testimony and evidence to corroborate her claims of exploitation at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell through photographs, plane logs, and even a medical record from Presbyterian Hospital in New York where Giuffre was taken by Epstein after a particularly abusive sex episode.A boyfriend she told about the abuse and another a college student Maxwell procured verified Giuffre’s account. The student said Epstein demanded three girls a day.Documents also detail the story of a 15-year-old Swedish girl, the Herald reported, who was “shaking and crying in fear” when she “told a butler who worked for two of Epstein’s closest friends ... that Epstein and Maxwell had physically threatened to harm her and seized her passport to keep her on the island, according to the butler’s statement.”Even as Palm Beach cops were investigating Epstein in 2006, the Herald reported, Maxwell was still helping operate “a pyramid-like scheme the pair operated to lure young girls from around Palm Beach County, focusing on schools, colleges and spas.”Maxwell refused to testify against Epstein and called Giuffre a liar.Democrat power lawyer David Boies, Giuffre’s attorney, told the Herald that she sued Maxwell “to chronicle, in testimony and evidence, the scope of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s sex trafficking operation” because the courts, prosecutors, and even the media had “failed” the girls.Apropos of Epstein’s plea deal in 2008, Vanity Fair reported that the Bush administration permitted it, possibly, to protect Prince Andrew, who posed for a picture with Giuffre that appeared in the Herald. Also in that photo is Maxwell.“The royal family did everything they could to try and discredit the Prince Andrew stuff,” Boies told Vanity Fair. “When we tried to follow up with anything, we were stonewalled. We wanted to interview him, they were unwilling to do anything.”Such were Epstein’s and Maxwell’s perversions they actually expected Giuffre to bear a child for them, she told the Herald.Speaking at the national convention of the Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Attorney General William Barr warned Epstein’s helpers that justice was coming: “Any co-conspirators should not rest easy. The victims deserve justice, and they will get it.”______________________________________________________________SEE ALSO:ELECTRONICS WERE REMOVED FROM EPSTEIN'S"PEDO ISLAND" BEFORE FBI RAIDhttps://summit.news/2019/08/13/electronics-were-removed-from-epsteins-pedo-island-before-fbi-raid/
Judicial Watch investigating Epstein’s death Government watchdog group Judicial Watch is seeking some answers as it launches its own investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death. One America's John Hines caught up with the group's president -- Tom Fitton -- who said the circumstances of Epstein's death look like another scandal for the Department of Justice.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DANGERS OF RED FLAG LAWS
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DANGERS OF RED FLAG LAWS
BY BOB ADELMANN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
As the hysterical cries continue, demanding that government “do something” about gun violence, more thoughtful advisors and commentators are digging more deeply into the dangers of “doing something.” Especially concerning is the rush to implement major infringements of gun rights, with many politicians using the flawed argument that “If even one life is saved, infringements on the rights of many are justified.”This is the siren song of tyranny.Former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said everyone should take a deep breath and step back from the ledge: “I like to remind people that we should never make sweeping policy changes in a state of hysteria. A wiser course of action would be for elected officials to talk people in off the ledge so we can have a reasonable conversation about the horrific incident after things settle down. Emotion-based policy always turns out to be a lousy policy loaded with unintended consequences.”One especially grievous black mark in America’s recent history is the rush to judgment about Japanese Americans in the months after Pearl Harbor. President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order forcibly removing more than 110,000 of them from their homes and into “internment” (read: concentration) camps. They were guilty of nothing more than being Japanese. As Colonel Karl Bendetsen (the architect of the program) put it, anyone with “one drop of Japanese blood” would be taken from their homes by force and placed in concentration camps.The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the incarceration of these American citizens, although their Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated. Modest financial reparations were belatedly made by the federal government to those survivors in 1988, along with an apology.Tony Lovasco (R-Mo.) exposed the danger of thinking that red flag laws could never apply to law-abiding citizens. After all, most people would never dream of shooting up a Walmart store. Wrote Lovasco, “Proponents of gun control (and make no mistake, red flag laws are gun control) want you to think, ‘I’m not like them. This isn’t about me.’ But you are like them, and it is about you. It’s about everyone.”Every American citizen, gun owner or not, has unalienable rights, wrote Lovasco: “The right to face your accuser. The right to due process. The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Every one of these rights is explicitly violated under red flag laws.”Added Lovasco:Such laws often allow a judge to issue an order of confiscation “ex parte”, meaning without you [being] present. Because it’s a civil process, you aren’t entitled to a public defender, or even afforded the opportunity to defend yourself.Once a protective order is issued, law enforcement [officers] are dispatched to search your property and seize your weapons – without criminal charges ever being filed, or even probable cause that an actual crime has been committed.To make matters worse, Red Flag hearings can be adjudicated based on uncorroborated claims made by a single individual. Perhaps it’s an angry spouse, jealous co-worker, or disgruntled neighbor. All it takes is for someone to make a convincing argument that you are a danger to yourself or others, and your property is taken from you and you lose your right to defend yourself.Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined with John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, to expose Colorado’s recently enacted red flag law. Under that law, “anyone at all can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before him is the statement of concern.”Red flag laws have nothing to do with mental health. Only one of the 17 states now imposing red flag laws on their citizens even uses the term. Wrote Massie and Lott: “It’s about figuring out who is going to commit a crime (or suicide). This is the realm of science fiction.”It’s also the theme of Steven Spielberg’s 2002 film Minority Report wherein three “precogs” predict the future criminal behaviors of suspects. As viewers will remember, it did not end well.The Fourth Amendment requirement demanding “probable cause” has been almost completely ignored. As Massie and Lott noted, “Little certainty is needed. Initial confiscations often require just a ‘reasonable suspicion’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch.” In addition, red flag laws typically make no provisions to cover the legal costs incurred by the victim (not suspect) and so many charged will not be able to have an attorney assist them.Finally, wrote Massie and Lott, “It has always been possible to take away someone’s guns but all 50 states have required testimony by a mental-health expert before a judge. Under red flag laws, however, expert testimony will no longer be used.” In addition, “Gun-control advocates argue that it’s essential not even to alert the person that his guns may be taken away. Hence, the 5 A.M. police raids.”Red flag laws don’t work. That’s the conclusion Lott came to in a study he and a professor at the College of William and Mary published last December. After reviewing data from 1970 through 2017, they concluded that “Red flag laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.… These laws apparently do not save lives.”Perhaps most impressive are the questions raised and insights offered by Alan Dershowitz, retired Harvard professor and no friend of either the Second Amendment or President Trump. But he has not let either personal opinion sway his view of the Constitution’s protection of precious God-given rights. Although he voted against Trump in 2016, he defended the president in his book The Case Against Impeaching Trump. He also argued against the Democrats’ investigations into the president, including the Special Counsel investigation by Robert Mueller.Dershowitz asked, “How many law-abiding people are we prepared to deprive of guns to prevent even one mass shooting?” He asked, “Can the government deprive a citizen of a constitutional right based on a prediction?” He asked, “If the government can take your guns based on a prediction today, what will stop it from taking your liberty based on a prediction tomorrow?”These are not “far-fetched” concerns. He noted that the federal government, under a presidential executive order, “detained more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II based on wildly exaggerated predictions of sabotage.”Therefore, wrote Dershowitz, “We should be careful about denying individual rights based on questionable predictions.… When government starts taking away some rights in the interest of safety, all rights are at risk.”Once a red flag law is put in place, it is permanent. As Thomas Jefferson said, “It is in the natural course of events that liberty recedes and government grows.” It is far better to rein in government beforehand than to try to retreive precious rights afterwards.Related articles:
THE REAL REASON CHRIS CUOMO THREATENED A MAN WHO CALLED HIM "FREDO"
"LA CUOMO NOSTRA"
"THE GOOMBAH FROM MULBERRY STREET" WHOM MICHAEL CORLEONE WOULD NOT APPROVE OF EITHER
"THE GOOMBAH FROM MULBERRY STREET" WHOM MICHAEL CORLEONE WOULD NOT APPROVE OF EITHER
THE REAL REASON CHRIS CUOMO THREATENED A MAN WHO CALLED HIM "FREDO"
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
CNN talker Chris Cuomo acted every bit the goombah from Mulberry Street on Sunday when he threatened a man who called him “Fredo,” the name of Michael Corleone’s older, worthless brother in the Godfather films.In a profanity-laced tirade, Cuomo told the man that calling an Italian “Fredo” was like calling a black person the “n-word,” and threatened physical violence.Cuomo, a ham-fisted leftist who spends a lot of time at the gym, didn’t exactly say he’d whack the offender or give him a Moe Greene Special, but he did threaten to work him over if he didn’t shut up.CNN, Cuomo’s employer, thought the Gotti-like explosion was just fine because Cuomo, it averred, was hit with an “ethnic slur.”That isn’t true, and Cuomo was more likely upset at the real implication of being called “Fredo.”Down the Steps You’ll Go Video evidence of the F-bomb-laced reaction went viral last night after it showed up on the Twitter feed and YouTube channel of “That’s The Point with Brandon.”After the fellow called Cuomo “Fredo,” the television host lost his cool. He was, as Michael Corleone might say, “hysterical.”“I thought that’s who you were,” the man said, as Cuomo explained who Fredo is. “Punk-a** b***ches from the right call me ‘Fredo.’ My name is Chris Cuomo. I’m an anchor on CNN.”Fredo, Cuomo said, is “like the n-word for us. Is that a cool f****ing thing?”“You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television,” the man said.The exchange escalated as Cuomo became more irate. “You’re gonna have a problem” the CNN host said.“What are you gonna do about it?” the man asked.“I’ll f***ing ruin your s**t,” Cuomo told him. “I’ll f***ing throw you down these stairs like a f***ing punk.”Cuomo also challenged the man to swing at him and call him Fredo again.Not a Slur Not surprisingly, leftist CNN backed its host because he “defended himself when he was verbally attacked with the use of an ethnic slur in an orchestrated setup. We completely support him.”After that, video of CNN’s leftist Ana Navarro-Cárdenas calling Donald Trump Jr. that same thing surfaced, undoubtedly to the chagrin of Cuomo and CNN because she uttered them on Cuomo’s own program, Prime Time.The Washington Post helpfully provided the perpetually angry Navarro-Cárdenas’ full remark.[Trump Jr.’s] only call to fame was being his daddy’s son.... He didn’t even make the cut that his brother-in-law and sister did to be part of the Oval Office and the White House staff. Daddy kept Fredo back home.As the Post noted, “Cuomo did not push back.”Unsurprisingly, Trump fils tweeted this question: “Does CNN’s head of PR still think ‘Fredo’ is an ethnic slur after watching this? Because if it’s the N word for Italians like @ChrisCuomo says, I don’t understand why Chris seems so at ease with someone saying it here.”Trump Jr. also explained what Fredo really means when used as an insult: “Hey @ChrisCuomo, take it from me, ‘Fredo’ isn’t the N word for Italians, it just means you’re the dumb brother.”As someone born in Rome, whose given name at his baptism in St. Peter’s was Marcantonio, who had a relative in the mob, & who loves Roman history as much as The Godfather and Goodfellas, I would like to submit my credentials as an Italian-American.“Fredo” ≠ N-word. Not at all.Others agreed, the Post reported.All of which points to Cuomo’s real problem: what being called Fredo signifies.Michael, Fredo’s brother in the film, called Fredo “weak and stupid,” and Don Vito Corleone passed Fredo over in favor of Michael as the successor to run the family’s crime empire. Fredo was also a traitor who cooperated with a rival Mafia family to bring down Michael.In other words, Cuomo wasn’t upset about any “ethnic” insult, but instead about the implication that he was, like Fredo, the stupid, weaker brother of Andrew, the governor of New York.“The truth hurts,” as President Trump tweeted.“Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo” As slurs go, the Cuomos have experience.Some political observers believe that Andrew was the culprit behind his father’s now-famous campaign slogan in the Democrat mayoral primary against Ed Koch in 1977. Koch won, but not before Andrew, it was said, unleashed his “Vote for Cuomo, Not The Homo” poster campaign.The Cuomos denied they did it and claimed it was the work of someone who wanted to Cuomo to lose.
____________________________________________________________
MARK DICE HILARITY: "HE ASKED FOR IT"
MONACA, PA: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPEECH TO THE LARGE CROWD ON ENERGY
MONACA, PA: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPEECH
TO THE LARGE CROWD ON ENERGY
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR BIGGEST GUN RIGHTS CASES SINCE 2010
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR BIGGEST GUN RIGHTS CASES SINCE 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)