Thursday, August 29, 2019


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
ENGLEWOOD, N.J. — A federal appeals court that decides cases in the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware has sent back a lower court ruling that found a buffer zone outside of an abortion facility in New Jersey to be unconstitutional, stating that the court erred in its decision to grant summary judgment to those who are seeking to save the unborn from being killed.
“We conclude that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment because the ordinance was not overbroad,” wrote Judge Theodore McKee, a Clinton appointee, on behalf of a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. “Courts may not strike down a regulation as ‘overbroad unless the overbreadth is substantial in relation to the [regulation’s] plainly legitimate sweep.'”
McKee was joined in the ruling by Judges Thomas Vanaskie, nominated to the bench by then-President Barack Obama, and Eugene Siler, nominated by then-President George H.W. Bush.
The case involves a law passed in 2014 that places an eight-foot buffer zone on the sidewalk adjacent to the entrance of Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood — a facility that, according to its website, offers abortions up to 24 weeks (six months) gestation. Violators are subject to fines and possibly jail time if they step within the prohibited area.
The Third Circuit wrote, based on claims made by the City, that the ordinance was necessary because of “militant activists and aggressive protestors” gathering outside of the abortion facility. It cited that an evangelical church, Bread of Life, “engaged in extremely aggressive, loud, intimidating, and harassing behavior towards patients” and “had ties to other radical anti-abortion organizations.”
Two members of Bread of Life told Christian News Network that they had no idea that the City had written about them in the lawsuit. They expressed concern that they were being “slandered,” stating that the characterization of their outreach activities is false and that they have no affiliation with the abortion opposition groups cited — even having disagreement with them.
The buffer zone was created on this basis, which Bread of Life says is unfounded.
In 2015, a Roman Catholic woman named Jeryl Turco who hands out literature and rosaries outside of Metropolitan Medical Associates challenged the buffer zone ordinance in court. She argued that the law is unfair in that abortion facility escorts may freely engage in free speech on the same portion of sidewalk that she and others are prevented from standing on, all the while blocking her view and drowning her out.
“These ‘escorts’ use various methods to prevent Plaintiff from having any possibility of engaging in a conversational discussion with individuals heading to or from the clinic, including placing themselves as a physical barrier between the individuals and Plaintiff, singing and shouting loudly to drown out the sound of anything Plaintiff says, and trying to persuade individuals to not accept Plaintiff’s literature and rosaries by saying things like ‘You don’t need that,’ ‘Don’t listen to her,’ or ‘She’s lying,'” the lawsuit reads.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) outlined in court that Turco wasn’t engaged in any improper behavior. Attorney Francis Manion told Christian News Network on Wednesday that he is also doubtful that the alleged behavior attributed to Bread of Life is anything like what the City claims it is.
“We did continually throughout the case make the point that, if this stuff is happening, why haven’t you done anything about it? … Why don’t you enforce the law — [such behavior] is already against the law — if that’s really happening? … You don’t need to set up a buffer zone that excludes everybody from the sidewalk,” he stated. “And I think the implication is that it really isn’t as bad as the City is claiming.”
Manion further pondered whether the abortion facility escorts are technically in violation of the ordinance by standing within the buffer zone. He noted that the escorts are simply volunteers and not paid staff, and might not be considered to be agents of Metropolitan Medical Associates. However, if the facility indeed claims the escorts as corporate agents, then the business could be held be civilly liable should an escort-related matter be filed in a court of law.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton, nominated to the bench by then-President George W. Bush, granted Turco summary judgment in the case, finding the buffer zone statute to violate her First Amendment rights.
“Defendant bears the burden to show that alternative measures would fail to achieve its goal,” she wrote. “Defendant did not employ alternative, less restrictive means that were available. … Defendant did not prosecute any protesters for activities taking place on the sidewalk outside of the clinic in the five years prior to the adoption of the ordinance; and Defendant did not seek injunctive relief against individuals whose conduct was the impetus for the ordinance.”
“The right to freely assemble on the public street and sidewalks is also afforded maximum constitutional protection,” Wigenton continued. “Because this Court finds that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to her freedom of assembly claim is granted.”
However, on Aug. 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wigenton too quickly found the ordinance to be overbroad and that she should not have yet granted summary judgment as various claims seem to contradict each other.
“This record contains a multitude of contradicting factual assertions,” McKee wrote. “Some facts suggest that the buffer zones imposed a significant restraint on the plaintiff’s ability to engage in constitutionally-protected communication. Others support Englewood’s position that the buffer zones hardly affected plaintiff’s ability to reach her intended audience.”
“Some facts support plaintiff’s argument that the City had foregone less restrictive options to address the chaotic environment outside of the clinic,” the court continued. “Others show that Englewood considered these options and reasonably rejected them or found them to be ineffective.”
McKee said that because the facts are not settled, Wigenton needs to go back and revisit the matter to find conclusive evidence, stating that neither side is entitled to summary judgment as of yet.
Manion explained in a statement that “[t]he court did not rule that Englewood’s buffer zone was legal, only that the district court didn’t have enough evidence to declare it illegal — yet.”
Two other buffer zone cases, one from Pittsburgh and another from Harrisburg, are still pending before the Third Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued mixed rulings about buffer zones, at times upholding them and other times finding them to be too restrictive.
In 2014, the court unanimously ruled in the case of McCullen v. Coakley that the state of Massachusetts erred in passing a law placing 35-feet buffer zones around abortion facilities as it puts too great of a burden on citizens’ First Amendment rights.
“Petitioners wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks — sites that have hosted discussions about the issues of the day throughout history,” wrote Judge John Roberts. “Respondents assert undeniably significant interests in maintaining public safety on those same streets and sidewalks, as well as in preserving access to adjacent healthcare facilities.”
“But here, the Commonwealth has pursued those interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. It has done so without seriously addressing the problem through alternatives that leave the forum open for its time-honored purposes. The Commonwealth may not do that consistent with the First Amendment.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Seattle Antifa Protestors
Leftist extremists have shown their contemptuousness of and open hostility toward the U.S. President, Donald Trump. They hate him for having the audacity to attempting to preserve our Nation as a Free Republic
New York – -( The ethical systems and political philosophies of individualists and collectivists are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be reconciled with each other.
We see two different value systems of two distinct political and social philosophies, one reflecting the tenets of Individualism and the other reflecting the tenets of Collectivism. Each side frames the political, social, and ethical questions in mutually exclusive ways, as each side emphasizes different values, and, this, in turn, is reflected in the policy choices each side makes, as that side attempts to resolve what it perceives as distinct political, social, and ethical problems and dilemmas.

Given this indisputable fact, negotiation and compromise are impossible, as the vision each side embraces for this Country is absolutely at odds with each other.

Thus, we see each side taking completely different policy positions on every major issue: three of the salient, pressing ones, of late, being firearms, abortion, and immigration. But why is that? Why are there such profound differences on social and political issues–such profound differences that each side doesn't even ask the same questions, approaching the issues in such different veins that it is impossible for each side even to begin to understand the other side. It is as if each side is speaking a different language. And this being so, it stands to reason that resolution of political and social issues would reflect demonstrably distinct, antithetical policy choices that make reconciliation between the two sides impossible. It is for this reason that there can be no compromise, no negotiation between the two sides, as any attempt to do so, would be sterile, empty, as one side seeks to preserve the philosophical underpinnings upon which this Nation was created, the free Republic the founders placed their very lives on the line to create and to provide for future generations of Americans; and the other side seeks to rend and replace the Nation the founders created. The profound differences of the two sides being irreconcilable, and so profound, so resolute, and existing on such a basic, elemental level, that the conditions for the possibility of an actual modern civil war unfolding, are very real.* The Radical Leftists and Progressives seek nothing less than to replace our free Republic with no less than a Marxist styled dictatorship, a regime that is visibly at odds with the Nation as it presently exists, and they intend to follow through with their plans. Those individuals who wish to preserve our Nation as a free Republic, as the founders intended, the political Conservative, will never permit or abide by the uprooting of the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as a free Republic, wherein the individual is autonomous and sovereign.
Leftist extremists have shown their contempt of, and open hostility toward, the U.S. President, Donald Trump. They hate him for having the audacity to attempting to preserve our Nation as a Free Republic. These same Marxist, Radical Leftists and Progressives have shown a no less contemptuous attitude and hostility toward the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution.
The Radical Left and Progressives that have virtually taken control of the Democrats and of the Democratic Party, demonstrate open disrespect toward, and, in fact, deep loathing of, and perverse, monstrous abhorrence toward, the founders of our Nation, and have demonstrated their deep, abiding contempt of, and, in fact, open defiance toward, our Nation's Constitution, and toward our Nation's fundamental, natural rights and liberties, toward our Nation's long, glorious history and culture, and toward our Nation's institutions, the entirety of it. The Radical Leftists disrespect of our Country, and of its people, whom they bizarrely and erroneously divide into two disparate, armed camps of victims and overlords (victimizers), is not only extreme in the conception, but pathological in the use. In fact, the very notion that this Nation, a Nation of free citizens, is comprised of two broad classes of people, the oppressed and their oppressors is outright ludicrous, but it does serve their ignoble purpose.
The ruthless and reprehensible designers of disquiet and disruption in our Nation, the social engineers who desire to disrupt and corrupt the orderly operation of society, to weaken and confound the citizenry, have done so, so that they more easily control it. So that they can remold it, reshape it, and insert it anew into the Marxist vision of Hell on Earth they have conceived: a world of vast surveillance and control over the mass of populations; a world where the mass of humanity is reduced to servitude and penury and where those who object, those who dissent, those who demand freedom and liberty are brutally crushed into submission. This cannot be reasonably denied, as there exists mounting evidence to the contrary: the rebellious, disaffected extremists have taken over the Democratic Party. The current Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, hardly a proponent of the Bill of Rights, has been principally silent. She has lost her grip of the House.
Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi
Whether afraid to wrest control from the mutinous Radical Left or otherwise through an attempt to retain a modicum of power through obsequious acquiescence to it, Pelosi herself, has become subservient to the frenzied call for an immediate transformation of the U.S. into a Marxist dictatorship. Those of the Left seek nothing less now than open revolt, audacious in the conception, frightening in scope; but hardly grandiose; simply disgusting, reprehensible, and absolutely insane.
These Radical Leftists, who had sought to reshape society quietly, through the social policies of Barack Obama, and which were to continue through the regime of Hillary Clinton, were dismayed to see the election of Donald Trump and to witness his Administration throwing a wrench into their incremental path to a Marxist world State. And Seeing that their master plan for a quiet progression of the U.S. toward Marxism was failing, possibly could fail, the Internationalist Billionaire architects of a One World Government went to work. Their plans for a one-world political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance would now have to be made plain, to be made obvious to the American people. And they set to work to destroy Trump's Presidency.
They have attempted to do so audaciously, and they continue to do audaciously, attacking and ridiculing the man himself, as well as attacking the President's policies for returning our Nation to its historical roots. And what they desired to do incrementally, they now seek to do quickly, through one major push, one massive frontal assault on the Nation and its Constitution and its people.
Whoever gains the nomination of the Democratic Party, and whoever it is that might gain the U.S. Presidency, no longer matters. There are no political Moderates left in that Party who have the Will, the Backing, and the fortitude to wrest control from the dominant Radical Left. Whomsoever in the Democratic Party it is that retakes the White House, will be taking his or her marching orders from the Billionaire Internationalists, and through their minions in the Party. And, as these supra-nationalist, one-world Government organizers have lost patience with a slow, incremental transformation of this Nation into a Collectivist one-world State, expecting, anticipating this Nation's slow but inexorable, assured fall into unceremonious ruin, only to be rebuilt, but only to be rebuilt as a cog of a world super-state, they now seek a rapid advance. Should a “Democrat,” any so-called Democrat, takes over the reins of the Executive Branch of Government, expect to see a rapid political, social, cultural, economic upheaval to occur, and as the new “President” will have the legitimacy of the Office of President, in which to mount the upheaval of this Nation internally, it will be difficult to prevent the metamorphosis of this Nation into a Marxist Hell. And, what will all this mean for the American people?
These Radical Leftists and Progressives desire to erase the very memory of our Nation as it is, and once was, and is ever to be. They seek to wipe the slate clean, to start over; to replace a free Republic and a free People with a thing that died long ago and that should have remained dead and buried long ago–the Marxist Collectivist Dystopian dream of a one-world, borderless, political-social-economic, construct, ruled by an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful Government. This is the Collectivist nightmare of a world devoid of nations, devoid of free citizens, devoid of hope, dreams, and reason; a world containing serfs, drones, and slaves, all controlled by a small cadre of ruthless overseers, intent on containing, constricting dissent, and bending entire populations to their will, the goal of which is to provide uniformity in thought and conduct, along with confounding, oppressive stasis.
*For a detailed account of the major political and social differences between Radical Leftists/Progressives, on the one hand, and Conservatives, on the other, the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the salient differences between the two sides, providing then the reason why compromise between the two is empirically impossible. One side ascribes to the basic tenets of Collectivism, an ideology upon which the social and political philosophy of the Radical Leftists and Progressives is predicated. The other side ascribes to the basic tenets of Individualism, an ideology upon which the social and political philosophy of the Conservatives is predicated, upon which our Nation was founded and upon which it presently exists. We invite interested readers to take a look at two Arbalest Quarrel articles on the subject, both of which were posted on AQ in October 2018: “In the Throes of the America's Modern Day Civil War,” and “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”

Arbalest Quarrel
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The superior general of the Jesuits, Father Arturo Sosa Abascal, has declared “that no country has the right to turn away migrants” because in his view, “the goods of the land are for everyone.” Sosa also claims that “migrants come to make a contribution, which is greater than what they receive from the host country”; never mind the advancement of Islamization, and Germany’s admission that 75% of its migrants face long-term unemployment and life on benefits, and the fact that in Switzerland over 80% of Somali migrants are on welfare.
Sosa knows nothing, or pretends to know nothing, about the Islamic doctrine to conquer the House of War, which is harmful to the Christian faith which he professes to serve, as well as to every aspect of a free society. He is living in the past, in an age when most Western countries once operated on a point system to ensure that immigration was beneficial to the host country. Under such a system, migrants who offered no benefit to a country or who may have been discovered to have a dangerous background or a harmful communicable disease were sometimes turned away. In Sosa’s view, no one should be refused, and all borders should be eradicated.
Sosa is, not surprisingly, a loyal follower of the Pope of Islam — who has incessantly advocated for open-door policies and mass migration. Sosa also believes in that there is a “plan that originated in the United States to force Pope Francis to resign” and “bring in a new one who will discontinuedeepening the path that Francis has indicated and undertaken.”
In Sosa’s flawed reasoning that the land belongs to “everyone,” that “everyone” would include Islamic State fighters who have infiltrated the refugee stream, as well as jihadis from Boko Haram, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and drug lords and the like.
What makes Sosa so dangerous as a Catholic Church leader is that there are many who trust him and follow in his footsteps. He is a blind guide who has chosen to ignore the realities of modern-day migration problems in the West. Unfortunately, this unfit leader has forgotten the victims of jihad and Islamic supremacy.
“Jesuit Chief: No Country Has the Right to Turn Away Migrants,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, August 24, 2019:
The superior general of the Jesuits declared this week that no country has the right to turn away migrants, claiming the land belongs to everyone.
“The challenge for a country that receives migrants is not only reception, but integration, which means receiving the contribution that immigrants bring,” said Jesuit Father Arturo Sosa Abascal in an interview with
“They come to make a contribution, which is greater than what they receive from the host country,” he claimed, seemingly without evidence.
“Italians must remember their own experience,” he continued.
“They came to Latin America, including my country of Venezuela, and they were welcomed; they became part of society in the same way as everyone else, and today they are not considered ‘different’,” he said, drawing a somewhat dubious comparison between the largely legal migration of Italians to South America and Europe’s largely unregulated migrant crisis.
“In Europe we must recognize the contribution that migrants make to the societies that receive them and thank them for it,” the Jesuit added.
Then, in one of his more controversial claims, Father Sosa said that nations have no right to enforce their borders because in the end, the land belongs to everyone.
“Those who live in a given territory have no right to turn away migrants,” he said, “because they have no absolute right to that territory. They do not own it; the goods of the land are for everyone.”….


“To remind those in power of the catastrophic effects 
of illegal immigration.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Uncle of an Italian girl who was raped and murdered by a Nigerian migrant has threatened to show photos of her dismembered body to the Italian parliament if the country’s new government repeals Matteo Salvini’s strict immigration laws.
Following the collapse of Italy’s coalition government, led by populist firebrand Salvini, the 5 star movement is set to form a new coalition with the left of center Partito Democratico (PD).
This prospect led the Uncle of 18-year-old Pamela Mastropietro, who was raped, murdered and dismembered by a Nigerian “cannibal mafia” in the Italian town of Macerata, to threaten to display photos of his niece’s remains to the public.
Marco Valerio Verni has threatened to display blown-up images of the victim, which left her unrecognizable, “To remind those in power of the catastrophic effects of illegal immigration.”
The original hearing into Mastropietro’s murder was held behind closed doors because of the extremely gruesome nature of the photos, but now Verni is vowing to go public with the images if Italy’s new government once again approves the arrival of migrant boats arriving at Italian ports.
“Every day we are bombarded with tearful images of barges loaded with migrants that the Left would like to receive without worrying about the consequences. The same Left that remained silent when Pamela was raped and murdered with unspeakable ferocity,” said Verni.
Innocent Oseghale, Pamela’s murderer, arrived in Italia via a migrant boat. He is currently serving a term of life imprisonment.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Speaking to some reporters on Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden, now a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, said, “White folks are the reason we have institutional racism. There has always been racism in America. White supremacists have always existed, they still exist.”

And, in a Biden administration, this would “not be tolerated.”
Biden is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, largely because of black voters, and apparently wants to double-down on this appeal to increase his chances of actually capturing the Democratic nomination, and to drive turnout among the African-American community in the 2020 general election against President Donald Trump. Biden was actually quite blunt about his motivation, telling reporters that increasing the voter turnout among both blacks and Hispanics will be the “overwhelming focus” of his campaign strategy.
One of the reasons that 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton lost Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to Donald Trump — all states won by President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — was that she failed to generate much enthusiasm in the African-American community, and turnout was down from the previous two presidential campaigns. Biden intends to do what he can to do much better among black Democrats than did Clinton.
Because of this race-based strategy, Biden promised to advertise in black publications, campaign in black churches, in black fraternities and sororities, and at historically black colleges.
It is Trump that Biden blames for rising racial tensions in the country over the past few years, claiming that Trump’s words have stoked the racial divide. According to Biden, Trump’s rhetoric has an “appeal to the worst damn instincts of human nature.”
In contrast to Trump, Biden said, “I’ve never, ever, ever in my entire life been in a circumstance where I’ve felt uncomfortable being in the black community.” Biden added that many make “assertions and assumptions” about black voters that are not accurate, because “a lot of people haven’t spent much time in the [black] community.”
This support that Biden has enjoyed among black voters is assumed to be the reason that Senator Kamala Harris — the California Democrat who is one of Biden’s competitors for the Democratic nod — launched an assault upon Biden during the first presidential debate over his decades-old opposition to school busing. Harris, who is black, evidently believed that Biden’s opposition to school busing, ordered by federal judges to forcibly integrate public schools, would enable her to take some of those black voters away from Biden.
During the debate, Harris coupled her attack on Biden over busing with, “I know you’re not a racist, Joe,” which, of course, was an attempt to plant the idea in the minds of voters that Biden actually was a racist, or at least was not the champion of black voters that he is portraying himself to be.
The Trump presidential campaign shot back at Biden. Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign communications director, dismissed Biden’s charges that Trump uses racist rhetoric as politically motivated. “Having moved on from the Russia Hoax, Democrats are now employing the oldest play in the Democrat playbook: falsely accusing their opponents of racism, extending it even to the president’s supporters. Calling half the country racist is not a winning strategy.”
It is certainly not a healthy move for the country. It is widely believed that race relations were at their best in American history when Obama won the White House in 2008 — after all, the election of a black man to the presidency would have been unthinkable only a few short years earlier. Many hoped, even those who disagreed strongly with Obama’s political philosophy, that his election marked a moment of healing for the country.
But, once in office, Obama and Biden continued to use the “race card” in a callous effort to make sure that the percentage of black voter turnout — the highest in history in 2008 — would not fall off. During his time in office, Obama made public comments about an altercation in Florida between a “white Hispanic” man and a black teenager (Trayvon Martin), in which the teen was killed. “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,” Obama opined, clearly exacerbating racial feelings in the incident. There were other incidents in which it became clear that Obama and Biden were determined to throw gasoline on the fire, all for political advantage.
Because of this, we have seen a definite decline in healthy racial relations over the past decade. Accusations of racism are routinely thrown at political opponents, with little regard as to the negative consequences for race relations.
Now it appears that Biden is prepared to continue this campaign strategy of inciting hatred by one ethnic group against another. While it might be unhealthy for the country, he evidently believes it might win him the White House.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
When William Dudley, a bona-fide insider and tool of the Deep State, wrote that the Federal Reserve should work against the president’s agenda, even if it cost him next year’s election, the reaction came from all quarters: The Fed’s political bias has finally and permanently been exposed for all to see.
Dudley’s credentials are impeccably Deep State: He is a graduate of UC-Berkeley who worked for Goldmann Sachs for more than 20 years, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of directors of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Committee on the Global Financial System, and serves as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and vice-chairman of the Fed’s Open Market Committee.
Thanks to Dudley’s forthright op-ed at Bloomberg on Tuesday, that the veil has been lifted, and many insiders aren’t happy about it. It seems that he has unwittingly exposed the pervasive and carefully crafted myth that the Fed is “objective,” “unbiased,” “neutral,” and removed from all political considerations in conducting its policies. Those policies have been sold as guiding the U.S. economy on paths of low inflation (even as the bank itself is the engine of inflation) and full employment, and nothing more.
Dudley gave lip service to the myth before exploding it: “Staying above the political fray helps the central bank maintain its independence.” But then comes the bombshell: “[Fed] officials should state explicitly that the central bank won’t bail out an administration that keeps making bad choices on trade policy, making it abundantly clear that Trump will own the consequences of his actions.”
Dudley explains just how the Fed could derail the president’s strategy in dealing with the communists running China:
First, it would discourage further escalation of the trade way, by increasing costs to the Trump Administration.
Second, it would reassert the Fed’s independence by distancing itself from the administration’s policies.
Third, it would conserve much-needed ammunition [lower interest rates in the future to restimulate an economy in recession], allowing the Fed to avoid further interest-rate cuts at a time when rates are already very low.
It’s clear from Dudley’s op-ed that he’s miffed that the president had the audacity to criticize repeatedly the actions of the Fed. Other presidents have studiously avoided any public appearance of pressuring the Fed, but not The Donald. Wrote Dudley:
I understand and support Fed officials’ desire to remain apolitical. But Trump’s ongoing attacks on [Fed Chair Jerome] Powell and on the institution have made that untenable….
There’s … an argument that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview. After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and [the] global economy.
Let’s parse that “threat … to the global economy.” This is the global economy run by globalists for which Dudley and his establishment peers have been laboring for decades. Trump is a threat to that global economy by declaring America’s independence and sovereignty, and as a result must be removed from office. Dudley’s tool of choice is interest rates — keeping them high in a world of lower and lower interest rates in the hopes that it will stall the U.S. economy and weaken Trump’s hand in dealing with China.
Lest this sound like a “conspiracy theory,” it’s helpful to note that Jordan Weissmann, writing for the far-left Slate magazine, sees what few have been willing to see or articulate until now. Wrote Weissmann:
What elevates [Dudley’s] piece to truly epic heights of irresponsibility is that, until last year, Dudley served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, widely viewed as the Fed’s second most powerful position.
He is an insider’s insider, and if ever a single piece of writing could fuel conspiracy theories that a cabal of central bankers is out to sabotage Trump’s presidency, this one is it.
Weissmann continued:
This is a very bad scheme that, in the end, would almost certainly undermine the Federal Reserve’s low legitimacy. But it gets worse. Dudley basically says the Fed should try to throw the 2020 election….
It is hard to overstate what a tremendously dangerous concept this is. Dudley is not talking about a conflict between two equal branches of government. If the economy crashes and Democrats don’t want to pass a stimulus because it might help Trump, that would be crappy and inhumane, but it’d also fundamentally be politics. Voters could decide who to hold accountable.
Here, Dudley is effectively talking about an economic coup staged by a group of unelected technocrats.
So it’s a “two-fer”: Dudley’s op-ed is a two-pronged destruction of a pervasive myth that has hidden the Fed’s agenda for decades, and the exposure of the deadly work of Deep State officials to bring the U.S. into a global economic and political system run by them.
For its part, the Fed has had precious little to say except that politics plays no role in their decision-making. Michelle Smith, a Fed spokeswoman, declared: “The Federal Reserve’s policy decisions are guided solely by its congressional mandate to maintain price stability and maximum employment. Political considerations play absolutely no role.”
Absolutely false! As The New American has noted,
In December 1965, Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin was summoned to the ranch of President Lyndon Johnson for a dressing-down. President Johnson, a believer in the fiscal stimulus programs enacted by his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, wanted to cut taxes further, and expected the Fed to do its part by keeping interest rates low. Martin, however, was of the opinion that interest rates should be raised, arousing the ire of the volatile president.
Ushered into what he expected would be a calm meeting with the president, Martin was shocked to find himself being physically shoved around the living room and against the wall by a furious Lyndon Johnson, who kept screaming at him, “Boys are dying in Vietnam, and Bill Martin doesn’t care!” President Johnson had apparently never gotten the memo on the supposed independence of the Federal Reserve from political influences. Cowed by the president’s belligerence, the Fed chairman maintained interest rates very low that year and the next, putting the lie to the Fed’s alleged detachment from tawdry politics.
Or consider the Fed’s blatantly political move late in 2018 to slow the economy deliberately by raising interest rates for the fifth time, declaring it was a “pre-emptive strike” against incipient inflation. The inflation rate (rate of price increases in the private economy) remained docile, but Wall Street investors saw their account balances drop by nearly 20 percent in the selloff that followed.
Ryan Cooper, writing for the liberal The Week magazine, told his readers what Dudley’s op-ed showed: “It’s a perfect demonstration of what is already obvious: America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, is a highly political institution — its heavily rich-friendly politics are just usually obscured behind a technocratic façade.”
Thanks to Dudley’s op-ed, that façade has been ripped away, revealing the men behind the curtain who, until now, have wanted the rest of us to ignore their machinations.
Related article:




 SSG. Douglas M. Ducote Sr.
United States Army (Ret.) CEO Veterans United For Justice Veteran Law Enforcement Join me at Follow me on Twitter @DouglasDucote Facebook: American Patriot By The Grace Of God, and Veterans United For Justice Like My Work? Please consider making a small donation. Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4:

MI SCHOOL DISTRICT Holds Taxpayer-Funded, 2-Day, Mandatory Islamic Training For Public School Teachers

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has uncovered evidence of a well-orchestrated Islamic propaganda campaign aimed at teachers in school systems throughout Michigan and several other states.
Concerned about a two-day mandatory teacher-training seminar on Islam conducted by a Muslim consultant hired by Michigan’s Novi Community Schools District, TMLC filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the workshop.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, commented on the results of their investigation, “We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed—all funded by Novi taxpayers.”
Moreover, during the past five years the school district has presented no teacher-training seminars focusing on Christianity, Judaism or any other religion – only Islam.

Huda Essa Facebook photo.

The hired Muslim consultant was Huda Essa, a resident of the Dearborn area and of Arab descent. She appeared before the Novi teachers in a hijab, the Muslim headscarf, billing herself as an expert in “cultural competency” and “culturally responsive teaching.”

Most disappointing was the fact that of the more than 400 teachers attending the workshop, not one teacher challenged Essa’s denigration of Christianity or attacks on America.
A quick glance at Huda Hessa’s Facebook page, might lead one to believe that she’s working toward a goal of inclusiveness for all students, but upon closer inspection, it appears that her goal is to convince teachers to incorporate far-left social justice teachings in the classroom. At the top of her page, Hessa posts a link to “21 Free Resources for Teaching Social Justice in the Classroom”
that includes links to the radical, anti-Trump, anti-conservative, Southern Poverty Law Center.
With no federal standards for the topic in place, teachers are left to their own devices for creating or finding social justice lesson plans. Our country’s history is rich with resistance, organizing, and civil rights campaigning—but for many teachers, these movements seem new.
If you want to guide your students through conversations about inclusion, diversity, and equity, it’s important to both teach the history and build upon the work of the countless people who contributed to social justice movements throughout the years.
From habeus corpus for Native Americans, to women’s suffrage, to civil rights, none of these freedoms were granted without collective organizing. Unfortunately, many of these stories are invisible. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
In one of her posts of Facebook, Hessa talks about why a “melting pot,” is a dangerous concept in America, and how foreigners should maintain the identities and cultures of their homeland (Sharia law?), and other should learn (convert?) from the customs and cultures of foreign immigrants.
On June 10, Hessa wrote: Serving as the Keynote Speaker to kick off the Orange County Public Schools Summer Academy Conference in Florida was an invigorating experience. I met so many professionals committed to creating a greater future through diversity, equity and inclusion. Our topic was focused on the dangers of the “melting pot”. Too many of us have lost so many of our identities due to this common notion. Instead, we should be a healthy, colorful salad where we reap the benefits of our differences. This allows us to take advantage of what makes this nation so great… a diversity of languages, cultures, histories and perspectives that leads to increased potential, innovation and overall success. ❤️🌎 #socialjustice

TMLC inspected dozens of internal school documents, including audio recordings of Essa’s presentation.
The information on Islam she provided to Novi teachers was riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive.
Essa provided no truthful information on Sharia law and jihad, two of the most important aspects of Islam. All references to terrorism were dismissed as having nothing to do with Islam. White Christian males, she suggested, are more dangerous than Islamic radicals.
Essa is the face behind Culture Links LLC, a Michigan-based consultancy. She describes herself on the Culture Links website as an advocate of social justice who encourages children to “take pride in their many identities.”
But, as TMLC discovered from the Novi documents, the one identity Essa does not celebrate is that of patriotic Americans who believe in our nation’s exceptionalism. 
And her message extends far beyond Novi.
Essa’s client list reveals she has been spreading her “trash America first” philosophy to colleges, universities, schools and professional educator associations throughout Michigan, California, Georgia, Texas, Florida and beyond. In Michigan alone her website lists nine school districts as clients – Oakland County Schools, Ann Arbor Schools, L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, Roseville Community Schools, Farmington Public Schools, Dearborn Public Schools, Birmingham Public Schools and Melvindale Public Schools.
Under the banner of promoting diversity, inclusion and a multicultural approach to education, Essa sets about comparing Islam to Christianity, calling them “mostly similar.” The one big difference, she claims, is that Islam is the world’s “only purely monotheistic religion.”
Islam’s holy book, the Koran, came straight from Allah to the prophet Muhammad and, unlike the Jewish and Christian scriptures, has never been altered or changed, she told the Novi teachers. Significantly, the Koran commands Muslims to “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Koran 9:5)
Her message was clear: The Koran is superior to the Bible. But she did not address the fact that it calls for the extermination of Christian and Jews.
While quick to indict America as guilty of “cultural genocide,” Essa was silent on the 1400 years of actual genocides, also known as jihads, in which Muslims wiped out Jewish tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, and slaughtered millions of Christians throughout the Middle East, North Africa and the European Continent. Referring to Islam, Winston Churchill wrote, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
Novi’s Islamic teacher-training is just the latest example of professional Islamic indoctrinators infiltrating U.S. public schools even as Christianity has been forced out of the classroom.
“This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems,”Thompson said. “No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”
Only action by patriotic American parents will put a stop to the indoctrination of teachers and students. They must attend school board meetings and call their board’s attention to the existence of unconstitutional Islamic propaganda whenever they find evidence of it in their children’s schools. And when their board is unresponsive, they must be willing to take legal action to stop it whenever the law permits.
TMLC has several active cases involving public schools bending over backwards to promote Islam while trashing Christianity.
In New Jersey, seventh-grade students at Chatham Middle School were taught “Islam is the true faith,” required to learn the Shahada, or Muslim creed, and forced to watch videos that sought to convert them.
TMLC is representing another student at La Plata High School in Maryland, where pupils in world-history classes were taught that “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian” and “Islam at heart is a peaceful religion.”
Jihad, meanwhile, was introduced to La Plata students as a “personal” spiritual struggle, having nothing to do with using violence to spread the faith. And, like in New Jersey, the Maryland students were forced to learn the Five Pillars of Islam and memorize the Shahada.
Essa spent a great deal of time in her Novi presentation talking about Muslim women, whom she described as victims of Islamophobia on the part of bigoted Americans.
She said her own mother’s decision to wear the hijab was met with “rage” from random Americans. Other hijab-wearing Muslim women have been spat upon, had hot liquids poured on them, been beaten and even killed because they wear the hijab, Essa said, without giving details of when or where these atrocities supposedly occurred.
Essa presented no statistics on hate crimes to back up her claims. FBI crime stats show that anti-Muslim attacks are relatively rare in America and actually fell by 17 percent in 2017. Anti-Jewish hate crimes that year out-numbered anti-Muslim offenses by nearly four to one.
Globally, Christians are the most persecuted of all religious groups, according to the watchdog Open Doors. Of the top-ten most dangerous countries to be a Christian, all but two of them are Muslim-majority nations, according to Open Doors’ 2019 World Watch List.
But Essa’s attempts to con Novi teachers into accepting her anti-American, pro-Islamic worldview didn’t stop with the idea that Muslims are the most persecuted and victimized people.
She said any poor treatment of women in Islamic countries should be attributed to “cultural” differences, not the religion of Islam.
She failed to mention that Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, is reported to have said that the majority of hell would be populated by women (hadith by Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1:28, 301, Vol. 2:161, Vol. 7:124-126). Also absent from her presentation was the Koranic instruction for husbands to beat a disobedient wife (Sura 4:34).
Exercising the art of deception, Essa said Muslims love Jesus and refer to him as “messiah.”
But the word “messiah” has a different meaning for Muslims than for Christians. When Christians speak of Jesus their Messiah, they are referring to God’s “anointed One,” who has the power to forgive sin and grant salvation.
Muslims confer no such divine authority to their Jesus. Under Islam Jesus was only a man, a lower prophet under Muhammad, not the Son of God, and he did not die on a cross or rise from the dead as documented in the gospels.
Essa hammered Novi teachers with the Islamic teaching that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are not to be trusted. Although once pure, they were gradually “corrupted” by unscrupulous men. Only the Koran contains the final, “pure” words of God, she said.
Essa also schooled teachers in the proper use of the phrase “Allahu Akbar!” or “Allah is greatest!” While this is widely known as battle-cry of Muslim terrorists, Essa said it’s really just a refrain that Muslims use to convey feelings of happiness, sadness, anger, or thankfulness while praising Allah.
Essa said the word “Islam” is an offshoot of the Arabic term “Salaam,” which means peace. This is a common ploy used by Muslim apologists to deceive uninformed Westerners.
“Islam” is more accurately translated as “submission” and good Muslims know they must submit to Allah and his Sharia (Islamic law), above all other systems of law.
Essa noted Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion without mentioning that Muslims are forbidden from leaving the faith. Considered apostates, those leaving the faith are subject to severe punishment, up to and including death. And forced conversions have been a well-documented fact of history.
Here are some other facts uncovered by TMLC’s Freedom of Information Act requests:
•     Novi school district has no guidelines for the selection of presenters for teacher-training events.
•    The school district did not fully vet Huda Essa before selecting her as a presenter and providing her with data about the school district and its students.
•     Essa was given access to data from student and teacher surveys.
•    The school district said it had no records that would indicate it ever conducted a factual analysis of Essa’s presentation.
•     The school district signed a contract on August 2, 2017, agreeing to pay Essa $5,000 for her two-day seminar on August 28 and 29, 2017.
The Thomas Moore Law Center is an amazing non-profit group that does an outstanding job of exposing the truth the media ignores. They have given us permission to print their findings in this article.
If you’d like to help the Thomas Moore Law Center in their efforts to uncover and fight back against the Islamification of our schools, go HERE to donate.



Christian scriptures described as “corrupted” while the Koran contains the “pure” word of God.

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan revealed deeply concerning information on a mandatory two-day teacher training session on Islam conducted for public school teachers in the state which denigrated Christianity while presenting Islam in an exclusively positive light.

“We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed—all funded by Novi taxpayers,” explained Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Law Center. He noted that the school district had not sponsored teacher trainings on Christianity, Judaism, or other religions over the past five years, but solely on Islam.

The “cultural competency” expert hired by the Novi Community Schools District in Michigan is Huda Essa of Culture Links LLC, a hijab-wearing woman of Arab descent. After examining numerous documents relating to Essa’s presentation including audio transcripts from her talk, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) found that “information on Islam she provided to Novi teachers was riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive.”

During the two-day training session, Essa “spent a great deal of time in her Novi presentation talking about Muslim women, whom she described as victims of Islamophobia on the part of bigoted Americans,” explains a press release from the TMLC. She described cases where hijab-wearing Muslim women have been attacked or killed for their religious dress but provided no details on when or where these attacks occurred. As the Thomas More Law Center pointed out in its release, “anti-Muslim attacks are relatively rare in America and actually fell by 17 percent in 2017” while “Anti-Jewish hate crimes that year out-numbered anti-Muslim offenses by nearly four to one.”

Essa also claimed that mistreatment of women in Islamic countries is due only to “cultural” differences, and not to the Islamic religion itself, which in fact dictates radically different rules for men and women.

Her presentation repeatedly portrayed Christianity in a negative light, claiming that the Christian scriptures were “corrupted” over time whereas the Koran contains the true and “pure” word of God. Claiming that Christianity and Islam are “mostly similar,” she also asserted that Islam is in fact the world’s “only purely monotheistic religion.”
Teachers attending the training session were taught to believe in a whitewashed version of Islam. Essa told those in attendance that the word “Islam” is a variation on the Arabic word “salaam” which means peace. As the TMLC points out, Islam is more accurately translated as “submission,” since Muslims must submit to Allah and Sharia law before all other authorities. She also described the phrase “Allahu Abkar” as a refrain used to convey strong emotions; she did not mention that this same phrase is used as a battle-cry by Islamic terrorists conducting attacks.
The problematic presentation on Islam was not limited to one Michigan school district. Essa’s website lists nine separate school districts in Michigan as clients and also public schools, colleges and professional organizations in numerous other states including California, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. For the two-day presentation for the Novi Community Schools District, Essa’s organization was paid $5,000. The Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the TMLC further revealed that the district did not fully vet Essa before allowing her to conduct the mandatory training, nor did they conduct a factual analysis of her claims. In spite of the school district’s limited screening process, Essa was given access to data from student and faculty surveys.

“This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems,” Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center said. “No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”
To learn more about the Freedom Center's campaign to halt indoctrination in K-12 schools, please visit  To read the K-12 Code of Ethics CLICK HERE. To order the Freedom Center’s new pamphlet, “Leftist Indoctrination in Our K-12 Public Schools,” CLICK HERE. To donate to the Stop K-12 Indoctrination campaign, CLICK HERE.