MARXIST TIM KELLER SAYS PRIVATE PROPERTY NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT

 

MARXIST TIM KELLER SAYS PRIVATE PROPERTY 

NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT

SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2018/11/09/marxist-tim-keller-says-private-property-not-an-absolute-right/; 

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

Carl Trueman laughably claimed Tim Keller couldn’t be a Marxist on one single and solitary ground; Keller is a theist. Apparently, Trueman was unaware that Liberation Theology (to which Keller explicitly subscribes), a tenet of Marxism, was invented by Roman Catholics…who are theists. Keller, of course, is a Marxist by every discernible standard. Furthermore, he repeatedly proves it by his discourse.
Earlier, Keller tweeted this comment, apparently emboldened (and no doubt pleased) by the blue trickle that dominated Tuesday’s election…

Extracting “the Bible’s vision” (whatever that means) for an “interdependent community” (that means communism) aside, Keller’s claim that private property is not an absolute right is as fallacious as it is Marxist. It’s also a claim that no serious Reformed theologian should make. They should not make such a claim because Reformed and Covenant theologians are supposed to believe in the abiding validity of God’s Moral Law. All concepts of private property rights are derived from the Eighth Commandment, which is definitely an “absolute.”
The Journal of Markets and Morality explains that – contrary to Keller’s suggestion – private property rights were indeed absolute under Old Testament law.
They write…
It was at creation that God the Creator committed the world and its resources to humanity (Gen. 1:28–29). It was because the man and the woman were made in the image of God that they were commanded to subdue the created order and to exercise dominion over the whole of it. As a result, God granted dominion to this first human pair under his law, but he did not grant his sovereignty to them, for God alone is Lord and the only sovereign over all.
Along with creation, this dominion was reinforced in the Decalogue’s eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15), which provided for property rights as well. With this command, not only was the principle of individual ownership recognized, but it also thereby regarded as criminal all attempts to take that property from a person in a fraudulent way and to then regard it as one’s own.
However, in an ultimate sense, in Israel all property belonged to the Lord, as Leviticus 25:23 (NIV, 1984) made clear: “the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” Because Yahweh is the one and only Lord and ultimate king over Israel, he was also Lord of the soil and its products. Accordingly, the Holy Land was God’s domain (Josh. 22:19) and that land was the land of Yahweh (Hos. 9:3; Ps. 85:1 [2]; Jer. 16:18). Indeed, this was the very land that had been promised to the Patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 26:4; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 1:35–36). In this article, we will examine the case some have made for a duality of the material and the spiritual realms—a duality that was counter to biblical thought. Then we will examine scriptural themes related to property, theft, land, and Jubilee. We will find that the biblical picture is one in which absolute sovereignty is attributed to God alone, while stewardship responsibilities are attributed to human beings who are accountable to God for the fulfillment of these responsibilities.

Manichaeanism and Modernists

In the past, a strong vein of Manichaeanism in the early church led to a disregard of the material world in favor of the realm of the Spirit. Manichaeanism was a system of religious and philosophical thought that originated in the teachings of an Iranian prophet Mani. Therefore, its adherents renounced the material and physical aspects of life in order to maintain a purity that was required to pass on into the realm of light. This dualism was not biblically derived. Because this world must perish in the eschaton, it therefore must be renounced, this group argued. The world and the flesh were just too hostile to be linked to the spiritual realm. Thus all calls to subdue the earth or the promise of a restored nature and of a resurrected body were usually disregarded by a Manichaean philosophy, or were just left untreated. There is little or no reality to history; history is completely irrelevant to time and eternity, or so this position claimed.
Today’s modernists, however, tend to espouse the exact opposite. They choose the material order of creation rather than the spiritual aspects. Thus, for example, they turn the birth narratives of Jesus into a myth, for (they claim) we must be able to see physical evidences for such happenings and not assert divine intervention as the basis for what takes place. The reality that Jesus will come to claim his realm, his property, and his rule as sovereign over all in heaven and on earth is missed by both the Manichaeans and the modernists for opposite reasons. Scripture, however, affirms the reality of both the material and the spiritual realms. It is a true spirituality that also has a high regard for property and the whole of created order.

Acquisition of Property

Scripture teaches that possessions and property may be acquired, for example, under certain conditions by way of reward. Thus even the ox is to remain unmuzzled as it tramps out the grain (Deut. 25:4) and mortals are similarly entitled to appropriate rewards for their labors (1 Cor. 9:9–11). Moreover, all deliberate withholding of wages that are due workers are roundly condemned (Lev. 19:13), because fairness and justice demands the proper pay for honest labor. On the other hand, any gains made through dishonesty must not be given any place in a believer’s life (Eph. 4:28; Prov. 11:1; 21:6; Hos. 12:7; Mic. 6:10–11). That is exactly how stealing is defined.
Possessions and property may also be acquired through inheritance (Deut. 21:16; Prov. 19:14), but even here there is a warning against discrimination (Deut. 21:16). Later on in Israel, only the eldest son received a double portion according to the Mosaic legislation, but this seems to be roughly equivalent to our laws that allow for the executor of the will (in addition to being an heir) to receive a larger portion than the other heirs who are required to pay the executor for the work of distributing the contents of the parents’ will.
Finally, possessions or property could be gained by industriousness (Prov. 10:4; 13:4; 14:23), wisdom (Prov. 3:16; 24:3), or by the development of insight (Prov. 14:15). The book of Proverbs, in particular, stressed the merits of doing a job with pride, satisfaction, and excellence (Prov. 12:24).

Theft of Possessions and Property

Theft is both a shortcut to obtaining possessions and property by means of avoiding any work to gain such, as well as by an outright denial of God’s law. Wealth, if it comes to a person, will come either as a result of labor, inheritance, or a gift, but it is easy for either the rich or the poor to violate God’s law, because humans are sinners as well.
The eighth commandment, while one of the two shortest in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19), taught that stealing was not only taking another person’s property, but it also included all forms of coercion, fraud, or taking another person’s possessions or property without consent, along with all forms of cheating or harming property by destroying its value in one way or another. Thus theft involved the following: robbing victims directly; using indirect and legal means of gaining benefits not deserved; or by being part of a corporate group that steals, even though you are not a knowing party of all that is going on.
Some have tried to argue on the basis of Proverbs 6:30–31 that thievery in times of necessity is not morally wrong.¹ That, however, is to misunderstand this text in Proverbs, for while it compares the sin of adultery over against that of thievery, it argues that the sin of stealing to satisfy one’s hunger brings less dishonor and public shame than one who commits adultery receives—even though both are violations of the law of God. The thief in this case is to be pitied, but the adulterer earns scorn and contempt; his acts of disgrace violate both the law of God and his own marriage vows.
Private property is both a gift and a certain type of power God has entrusted to humanity as stewards. It was God’s intention that mortals should be equipped with this gift and power and that under God they should exercise dominion over the earth. An attack on the rights to private property in recent centuries has denied God’s law and design by weakening those same property rights. Some people, known as “robber barons,” used their power as corporate bosses to trample the law of God underfoot and appealed instead to evolution with its “struggle for the survival of the fittest,” in what became known as “the law of competition.” Oftentimes, the theory of evolution became an excuse for justifying massive theft in all too many instances where the weak or the poor were the victims. Sensing that property was a form of power, the totalitarian state sought to gain more and more power over private property to be able to subjugate the people. Therefore, private property understood as a gift, given to mortals by God to be used for his honor and glory, was often confiscated in increasing portions to ensure the power of the state or of the corporation. This, too, received criticism and judgment from heaven because God did not intend for his gift to be abused in this manner. This can be seen especially in what the state calls “the right of eminent domain.”

Eminent Domain

The right of eminent domain is the claim of sovereignty by the state over all property within the state. This right is appropriately used when, in the view of the state, a part or a whole of that property was necessary for public, state, or federal use, such as in obtaining the right of way to build a highway through one’s property or to erect some state building on what had been one’s private property. Usually some type of compensation is given to the original property owner, but this was not regarded as a binding limitation on the state.² Moreover, it is an assertion of sovereignty by the state or the legislative body, which Scripture has declared to exist solely in and for God alone.
It is for this reason that God brings judgment on the land; he is the only one with the right of eminent domain (e.g., Ex. 9:29: “so you may know that the earth is the LORD’s”). In fact, God claimed that “the whole earth is mine” (Ex. 19:5), which Deuteronomy 10:12 repeated: “To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.”
R. J. Rushdoony observed that the concept of eminent domain originated in the idea of pagan kingship, even though the term was not generally known and utilized in modern times until the time of Grotius in 1625.³ Eminent domain is located in the concept of natural law, which attributes ultimate law to nature—not to God. As a result, sovereignty is then granted to a temporal power of ruling officials, such as a king or the state. However, the American colonies and states did not at first claim or use this power, but it came about as natural-law concepts grew and English law affected American law. Thus Americans adopted and began to use the concept of the right of eminent domain as natural-law thinking tended to take over in the United States.
Nevertheless, there is no express delegation of eminent domain in the United States Constitution. It is only by assuming with Grotius, as a prior right found in the law of nature, that such authority can be identified and used. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is the word sovereignty found, for it deliberately avoided the use of the term sovereignty. In the Puritan tradition, that word was reserved for exclusive use by God, therefore, it was not shared with mortals, even if they were kings, presidents, and the like.
George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, singled out that the right of eminent domain was to be excluded from the authority of the state of Virginia. The declaration states: “That no part of a man’s property can be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his consent, or that of his legal representatives.”⁴ It was this very same principle that the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution was attempting to introduce. However, the amendment is worded so poorly that it is ineffectual in controlling this concept.
Rushdoony goes on to note that it was not surprising, therefore, that the humanistic concept of the sovereignty of the state was later rivaled by a counterassertion of the sovereignty of the individual, also on humanistic grounds.⁵ Against such natural-law philosophies, the Bible announces the unique sovereignty of the triune God who alone had the sole right to eminent domain over property and persons. If it is asked, “Then how can roads and buildings be built by the state without the tool of eminent domain?” the answer is to use procedures that come from other areas of authority rather than from a statist doctrine of sovereignty.

The Case of Naboth’s Vineyard

There is little doubt that the promise of the land was one of the three major elements in the Abrahamic promise (Gen. 12:7; 15:7; 18–21; 17:8; the other two being the seed and the gospel). Christopher Wright showed how this concept of the centrality of the land was so in pure statistical terms. Out of forty-six references to the promise-plan of God from Genesis to Judges, only seven of the forty-six references do not mention the land. Moreover, twenty-nine have it as the sole feature of its content (cf. Gen. 28:4).⁶
In the days after Solomon, especially, the land of Canaan becomes the focus of an ongoing struggle between the forces of greed, land grabbing, and exploitation. As such it became one of the constant issues mentioned by the prophets as they warned against “add[ing] house to house and join[ing] field to field” (Isa. 5:8)⁷ or other forms of abuse, such as tearing the land away from those who were weak, poor, or disadvantaged in their rights.
One of the best-known cases in Scripture was the case where the prophet Elijah confronted King Ahab and Queen Jezebel over their treatment of poor landowner Naboth. King Ahab coveted Naboth’s land, adjacent to the summer palace in Jezreel, for his own garden. Naboth, however, stood his ground and argued that this was impossible: “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.” (1 Kings 21:3). His appeal was to the Lord himself who in Leviticus 25:23 had said, “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine.”
When King Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth, he went into a sulk until his wife promised to fix everything and get the land for him. This she did by arranging for damaging false testimony against Naboth, which resulted in his being falsely accused, tried, and then executed. Thus Ahab grabbed the land that had formerly belonged to Naboth and his family. In the estimation of Scripture, “There was never anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, urged on by Jezebel his wife” (1 Kings 21:25). No wonder, then, that Harry Orlinsky noted that the land was “the cornerstone of the covenant between God and Israel.”⁸

Removing Boundary Markers on the Land

 In at least five major passages, there was a divine injunction against moving or shifting the ancient boundary markers on any land. For example, it was clearly stated in Deuteronomy 19:14: “Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess.”
This warning was also repeated in Deuteronomy 27:17: “Cursed is the man who removes his neighbor’s boundary stone”; in Job 24:2: “Men move boundary stones; they pasture flocks they have stolen”; in Proverbs 22:28: “Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your ancestors”; and in Proverbs 23:10: “Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless.”
Rome made this crime one that was punishable by death, so seriously did they view such an action. John Calvin found removing the boundary stone to be an act of double deceit, for it was both an act of theft and one of false witness.⁹ Likewise, the Talmud commented on land laws at length, for in the view of the Rabbis, the land was sacred to the Lord.¹⁰
So sacred was property that there is a complete absence of any land or property taxes in biblical law. God clearly intended that these land laws should give stability to society, thus he protected the land from any, and all, taxation. Taxation on property later became a means for ultimately destroying property, and, therefore, it became a form of civil robbery. For example, often beautiful areas of residential living became so heavily taxed that many of those homes and estates, because of their enormously increased taxation, had to be torn down or be sold to a nonprofit organization to escape paying the taxes.
The problem with taxation on the land is that it provides opportunities for the speculative use of land, which often upsets the stability of a community. Thus, in our day, new forms of community or governmental objections, and even hostility, have been raised against religious groups by those wanting to extend property taxes to places of worship. In the end, this form of taxation by the community downgrades the community and its properties as one of the chief anchors in society. The church, then, is blocked from being a part of that community and of being able to insert the needed civility and respect for God, persons, and property among those same people.
In the Bible, the basic tax laws were head taxes or poll taxes, as they were known (Ex. 30:11–16), which was a uniform tax for all. All men over the age of twenty (and only men) paid this tax, which was collected by the civil authority. The cry then arose that the rich should be taxed more heavily, and a more intricate tax code was developed to the point where most were not able to decipher it with any level of equanimity.

Land and the Jubilee Year

 The year of “Jubilee” (Hebrew, yobel, Lev. 25) is deeply rooted in the theology and practice of Israel’s concept of land tenure. The Jubilee year occurred at the end of seven sabbatical years (Lev. 25:8–10), which may have coincided with the forty-ninth year. Some contend that it was the year following the seventh seven-year cycle, that is, the fiftieth year, which would mean that the land would lay fallow and the Israelites would have planted nothing for two years. However, this does not seem to be realistic and practical, for Pentecost, another fifty-sequence (although it was fifty days and not years), came on the Sunday that was fifty days after the resurrection Sunday.
One of the central affirmations of the faith of Israel was that the land they occupied belonged exclusively to the Lord; it did not belong to Israel even after they occupied it (Ex. 15:13, 17). Therefore, the land could not be sold permanently, for it belonged to the Lord, and the people of Israel were only residents or “guests” and “tenants” (Hebrew, gerim and toshabim) there (Lev. 25:23). The chief landlord was Yahweh.
Leviticus 25:1–7 opens with an expansion of the fallow-year law (stated also in Ex. 23:10–11). This concept is enlarged in Deuteronomy 15:1–2 into a year in which debts (pledges given for loans) were to be released or redeemed. In Leviticus 25:8–12, the Jubilee is introduced. Two concepts mentioned in 25:10 were at the heart of the whole institution of the Jubilee year: liberty (from the burden of debt and the bondage it had embodied) as well as the return of all ancestral property that had been mortgaged to a creditor.
Verses 13–17 of Leviticus 25 go on to spell out the financial implications of this transaction, for what appeared to have been the sale of the land was in fact only the sale of the use of the land. Therefore, as the year of Jubilee approached, and the years were few, it diminished the value and the cost of the land to the purchaser, depending on the number of harvests the land could produce until the Jubilee.
A theological note is introduced in Leviticus 25:18–22 that encouraged the observance of the Sabbath law. The implication was that obedience would mean that the users of the land trusted the Lord, who could not only control nature but also history. God would reward faithfulness to the Sabbath requirements. This, then, sets us up well for the central verses in this chapter, verses 23–24: “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.”
Chapter 25 closes in verses 25–55 with practical details connected with the Jubilee year. They treat three types of situations: (1) those who have come onto hard times (25–28); (2) a brother whose lot worsens despite several such sales and who needs to be rescued by a kinsman with interest-free loans (35–38); and (3) where there is a total economic collapse of a man so that he and his whole family have had to enter into bonded service to a wealthier family member (39–40). These rules do not apply to houses in a walled city (29–31), nor did they apply to the Levites as a tribe because they did not have an inherited share in the land but were allotted towns and dwellings in Israel (32–34). It is also noted that these rules of redemption and Jubilee provisions applied only to Israelites and not to foreign slaves or resident aliens (44–46).
The Jubilee became the main instrument that preserved the socioeconomic fabric of both the multiple-household land tenure as well as the smallest family land units. Of course, a relative could have redeemed the land at any time, depending on the action of one’s kinsfolk, but the Jubilee occurred only twice a century as a national event. If redemption functioned by itself, without the stabilizing effect of the Jubilee, it could have meant that the land could have fallen into the hands of few wealthy families and the rest of the families in the clan were bound by debt-servitude. The year of Jubilee erased all of that and purposely returned everything back to where it had been before the poorer families got into debt.

Conclusion

The year of Jubilee is very interesting theologically. First, to observe the fallowyear principle required strong faith in God’s care and providence. Second, Jubilee pronounced God’s sovereignty over time, nature, and all the earth. Finally, to remember that the year of Jubilee was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement meant that Israel, with its significance of redemption, and with the remission of all debt and bondage, was not indebted to anyone else but to God himself.
Just as the anticipation of the Jubilee affected all economic values and set a limit on unjust social relationships, so these economic terms became terms of hope for the future, for with the blast of the “trumpet” (yobel), God’s decisive act at the conclusion of time and history would be announced once more (Isa. 27:13; 1 Cor. 15:52). In that day, liberty and release and return and restoration would be offered to God’s people worldwide.
Yet, sovereignty belonged to God alone; mortals and governing officials were merely given dominion over the earth for which they answered to God as steward.
[Editor’s Note: The section from The Journal of Markets and Morality was written by Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., the President Emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Old Testament and Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary]

GLAZOV GANG: EX-INTEL AGENTS UNVEIL TERROR THREAT POST MIDTERMS

GLAZOV GANG: EX-INTEL AGENTS UNVEIL TERROR THREAT POST MIDTERMS 

 

This new Glazov Gang features John Guandolo, an ex-FBI agent and president of Understanding the Threat, and Brad Johnson, a former CIA Station Chief and president of Americans for Intelligence Reform.
John and Brad both unveil The Terror Threat Post-Mid-Terms, revealing the consequences for U.S. National Security.

Don’t miss it!
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Please donate through our new Unified-4-People Campaign or via our Pay Pal account.
And pre-order Jamie’s new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Thank you!

TUCKER CARLSON CLAIMS GAY MAN SUING HIM FOR ASSAULT CALLED HIS DAUGHTER "WHORE", "C--T"

 

 Tucker Carlson & his daughter (left), Juan Manuel Granados (right) (Photo Credit: Tucker Carlson/Twitter, Juan Manuel Granados/Facebook)

SEE: https://www.thelibertytimes.com/latino-immigrant-tucker-daughter/

 

TUCKER CARLSON CLAIMS MAN SUING HIM FOR ASSAULT CALLED HIS DAUGHTER "WHORE", "C--T" 

 Fox News host says he and his son confronted man, threw wine in his face

BY ADAN SALAZAR

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/tucker-carlson-claims-man-suing-him-for-assault-called-his-daughter-whore-ct/; 

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

Fox News host Tucker Carlson says he did not assault a man suing him, but claims he nearly did after the man called his 19-year-old daughter a “whore” and a “cunt.”
In a statement posted to Twitter Sunday, Carlson revealed details of the October 13 encounter with gay Latino Juan Granados at the Farmington Country Club in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Carlson says he was having dinner with his two children when his daughter, on the way back to the table from the bathroom, was approached by Granados and asked how she knew Carlson.
“My daughter had never seen the man before. She answered: ‘That’s my dad,’ and pointed to me,” reads Carlson’s statement. “The man responded, ‘Are you Tucker’s whore?’ He then called her a ‘fucking cunt.’”
Carlson next describes he and his son confronted Granados over the remarks.
“My son asked the man if he’d called his sister a ‘whore’ and a ‘cunt.’ The man admitted he had, and again [became] profane. My son threw a glass of red wine in the man’s face and told him to leave the bar, which he soon did.”
While Carlson denies assaulting the man, he admits he felt like beating Granados with a chair.
“I think any father can understand the overwhelming rage and shock that I felt seeing my teenage daughter attacked by a stranger. But I restrained myself,” Carlson notes. “I did not assault this man, and neither did my son. That is a lie. Nor did I know the man was gay or Latino, not that it would have mattered.”
He added, “What happened on October 13 has nothing to do with identity politics. It was a grotesque violation of decency. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life.”
On Saturday, Granados’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, released grainy cell phone footage of the alleged incident asking for additional witnesses and seeking help with identifying people in the video.
Carlson’s home was targeted by the Smash Racism D.C. Antifa group last week, some of whom chanted, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight!” and “We know where you sleep at night!”

---

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
____________________________________________________________

 

Tucker Carlson And Family Harassed At Country Club – Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Pounces

BY Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

SEE: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2018/11/tucker-carlson-and-family-harassed-at-country-club-creepy-porn-lawyer-michael-avenatti-pounces/;

  

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

 I have an extremely low opinion of attorney 
Michael Avenatti – especially when it comes to how he is treating Tucker
 Carlson. He’s the lowest of bottom feeders and a true scumbag. Leave it
 to that dirtbag to pounce on Carlson when he is targeted by the 
communist left.


Just recently,
 violent Antifa thugs descended on Tucker’s DC home and mobbed it. They 
chanted outside and threatened Carlson and his family. One of them spoke
 of a pipe bomb and they cracked his front door while Tucker’s wife hid 
in a pantry until police could get there. They defaced his driveway and 
car as well. Thankfully, none of Tucker’s four children were there at 
the time. The police are treating it as a hate crime but I don’t think 
anyone has been arrested over it. I doubt they will be. It is DC after 
all.


Antifa chanted, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you 
sleep at night.” “No borders! No walls! No USA at all!” the protesters 
chanted in another video posted to Twitter. “Tucker Carlson, you cannot 
hide from the people you hurt with your rhetoric, your lies, and your 
hate,” the group wrote on Twitter, adding the hashtag 
“#KnockKnockTucker.” Antifa also doxxed Carlson and his family on Twitter.





Now, it’s coming to light that last month Tucker Carlson went to a 
Virginia restaurant with his wife, son, and daughter. His daughter went 
to the bathroom with a friend and returned sobbing. She left the 
restaurant. Her brother went and confronted a man who called her a 
‘whore’ and a ‘c*nt’. The brother threw a glass of red wine on the guy. 
The sleaze just happened to be Latino and gay, which should have been 
beside the point, but that’s what Avenatti and the left focused on. They
 twisted the awful confrontation into somehow being Carlson’s fault and 
falsely accused him of assault. I’m beyond disgusted by this.




This is the full statement by Tucker Carlson in response to Michael Avenatti:



On October 13, I had dinner with two of my children and 
some family friends at the Farmington Country Club in Charlottesville, 
Virginia. Toward the end of the meal, my 19-year-old daughter went to 
the bathroom with a friend. On their way back through the bar, a 
middle-aged man stopped my daughter and asked if she was sitting with 
Tucker Carlson. My daughter had never seen the man before. She answered:
 “That’s my dad,” and pointed to me. The man responded, “Are you 
Tucker’s whore?’ He then called her a ‘f**king c**t.”

My daughter returned to the table in tears. She soon left the table 
and the club. My son, who is also a student, went into the bar to 
confront the man. I followed. My son asked the man if he’d called his 
sister a ‘wh**e’ and a ‘c**t.’ The man admitted he had, and again became
 profane. My son threw a glass of red wine in the man’s face and told 
him to leave the bar, which he soon did.

Immediately after the incident, I described these events to the 
management of the Farmington Country Club. The club spent more than 
three weeks investigating the incident. Last week, they revoked the 
man’s membership and threw him out of the club.

I love my children. It took enormous self-control not to beat the man
 with a chair, which is what I wanted to do. I think any father can 
understand the overwhelming rage and shock that I felt seeing my teenage
 daughter attacked by a stranger. But I restrained myself. I did not 
assault this man, and neither did my son. That is a lie. Nor did I know 
the man was gay or Latino, not that it would have mattered. What 
happened on October 13 has nothing to do with identity politics. It was a
 grotesque violation of decency. I’ve never seen anything like it in my 
life.







Tucker Carlson is letting Avenatti have it with both barrels 

after heaccused his son and himself of assaulting the guy. The media is 

shamelessly running with it and spinning it as a smear against Tucker. 
It’s deplorable and deeply evil. What father out there wouldn’t want to 
clean the clock of some jerk who says something like that to his 
daughter? What brother wouldn’t confront a slug like this? I’m a woman 
and if that had been my daughter, that guy would have regretted his 
words and fast.
Avenatti, the celebrity attorney of porn star Stormy Daniels, posted a
 video on Saturday showing Carlson appearing to say “get the f**k out of
 here” to another man in a heated exchange. So freaking what? Then the 
sharky attorney accused Carlson of “assault on a gay Latino immigrant” 
named Juan in the heated exchange. Throwing wine on someone in my book 
is not assault… it’s a dry cleaning bill. Regardless, Avenatti was not 
there and has no idea what really transpired. He just has the word of 
this reprobate. Tucker did not do anything to the guy… it was his son 
who threw the wine… and the guy deserved it.


Tucker’s daughter was viciously attacked like this simply because 
he’s her father and this guy does not agree with him politically. There 
is no excuse for this kind of behavior. But Avenatti doubled down with 
his dirty lies… he posted anonymous statements that he claims were 
written by witnesses to the event.




One friend of the instigator ‘Juan’ stated that after Carlson’s son 
had splashed wine in Juan’s face: “I saw Juan retaliate to the assault 
by the same means (throwing a glass of wine at him). Immediately after 
that, I saw Mr. Tucker Carlson get very close to Juan’s face and say, 
“Get the f**k out of here” multiple times.” I repeat, so what? 
“Throughout this exchange, I heard Juan respond repeatedly, “I’m not 
going to get out of here, I live here.'”


Another so-called witness statement provided by Avenatti denied that 
Juan had called Carlson’s 19-year-old daughter a ‘whore’ or a ‘c*nt’, or
 that he spoke with her at all prior to being accused of doing so. You 
know that is a flat out lie. Avenatti also accused Tucker of being 
drunk. Neat trick considering Tucker quit drinking 16 years ago. I’d sue
 this guy for defamation of character if I were Carlson. The celebrity 
lawyer also accused Carlson of letting his 19-year-old daughter drink 
wine at the country club. Carlson’s only son is 21.


Tucker Carlson
 wanted to keep the confrontation quiet for his family’s sake. But 
Avenatti just had to air it and spread lies over it. Let this bottom 
feeder investigate all he wants… there’s nothing to find on the incident
 except it was harassment against the Carlsons and should never have 
happened.





The country club revoked the membership of the man accused of verbally

accosting Tucker Carlson’s teenage daughter last month. That at least is good news.


Leftists are madly defending
 not only Antifa but the gay Latino thug who attacked Tucker Carlson as 
well. I don’t always agree with Carlson, but he’s not a homophobe or a 
racist. He does not deserve to be treated this way simply because he has
 a different political view than the communists do.

THE DEMOCRATS' MAGIC MIDTERM BALLOTS

 
THE DEMOCRATS' MAGIC MIDTERM BALLOTS 

 Liberals are meddling in the elections 

right in front of everyone’s eyes

 Florida Fraud Pushes Midterms Into Madness

Democrat-run county finds mysterious trove of missing ballots

 MUST-SEE VIDEO: Broward County Elections Officials Block View as Ballots are Bundled and Bagged in Davie, Florida Voting Center

What are they hiding?

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/must-see-video-broward-county-elections-officials-block-view-as-ballots-are-bundled-and-bagged-in-davie-florida-voting-center/

 

MINNESOTA: THANKS TO LIBERAL TYRANNY, CHRISTIAN FILM MAKERS WILL BE THROWN IN PRISON IF THEY REFUSE TO MAKE GAY FILMS

 

MINNESOTA: THANKS TO LIBERAL TYRANNY, CHRISTIAN FILM MAKERS WILL BE THROWN IN PRISON IF THEY REFUSE TO MAKE GAY FILMS 

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/thanks-liberal-tyranny-christian-filmmakers-will-thrown-prison-minnesota-refuse-make-gay-films/; 

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

(Natural News) The authoritarianism and tyranny of the Left, along with its disdain for Western religion, is on display again, this time in Minnesota where a pair of Christian filmmakers are being threatened by state officials with incarceration if they refuse to make films featuring gays and lesbians.
As reported by CBN News, Carl and Angel Larsen, owners of Telescope Media Group, appeared before the federal 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minn., last week to challenge a state law they say unconstitutionally forces them to produce content that contradicts their core religious beliefs.
The couple, which is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group, said they have already been threatened by state officials with large fines and up to three months in jail if they refuse to comply.
As CBN News notes further:
The Larsens want to enter the wedding industry. However, the state’s Human Rights Act stipulates that if the couple creates films celebrating their Christian beliefs about marriage – that marriage is between one man and one woman – they must also create films about marriage that violate their beliefs, including films promoting same-sex marriages.
“The government shouldn’t threaten filmmakers with fines and jail time to force them to create films that violate their beliefs,” ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a press release from the legal organization. “Carl and Angel are storytellers – they script, stage, conduct interviews, capture footage, select music, edit and more – all to tell compelling stories through film that promote their religious beliefs.”
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of religious rights. In the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the high court ruled that the Colorado commission violated a Christian baker’s First Amendment’s “free exercise clause” when it sanctioned him for refusing to create a cake for a gay couple’s wedding (the fake news New York Times called this a “narrow decision”).
“The neutral and respectful consideration to which (baker-shop owner Jack) Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” (Related: Despite SCOTUS ‘gay wedding cake’ ruling, Colorado Leftists are going after Christian baker Jack Phillips AGAIN.)
The Times claimed that the decision was “narrow” because it appeared to apply specifically to Phillips’ case. The paper noted that Kennedy authored a ruling in 2015 that recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
But in regards to the Larsen’s case, they’re not trying to argue against the right to same-sex marriage. They, like Phillips, are trying to defend their religious expression rights under the First Amendment. And they simply do not believe that two men or two women should be “married” because their faith does not ascribe to it.
The Supreme Court’s Masterpiece decision found “that the government must respect the belief – held by countless Americans from all walks of life – that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Tedesco said. “The 8^th Circuit should reinstate the Larsen’s lawsuit and order the state to stop forcing the Larsens to speak messages about marriage that violate their beliefs.”
As a decision is pending, what’s troublesome is that American citizens are increasingly being forced to defend their constitutional rights by tyrannical Left-wing state governments that are passing laws designed to strip them of those rights under the guise of conveying rights on others.
The First Amendment, in particular, has been abused by the Left, and almost always in an attempt to attack Christianity – to force believers into violating the tenets of their faith.
___________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/client-stories-details/carl-and-angel-larsen 
 

CLIFF KINCAID & PETER LABARBERA: OBAMA'S "PERMANENT REVOLUTION" DEFEATS TRUMP~CONSERVATIVES GO DEEPER INTO DENIAL AFTER MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS

REPUBLICANS WERE WEAK, EVEN AWOL

CLIFF KINCAID & PETER LABARBERA: 

OBAMA'S "PERMANENT REVOLUTION" DEFEATS TRUMP~CONSERVATIVES GO DEEPER INTO DENIAL AFTER MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS

BY CLIFF KINCAID

SEE: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2018/11/obamas-permanent-revolution-defeats-trump/; 

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

 Republicans picked up a few seats in the Senate only
 because unpopular Democrats were up for re-election in conservative 
states, while Democrats could win 40 House seats, the most since 
Watergate. Democrats replaced Republican governors in seven states — 
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, and Maine — 
and captured some 300 legislative seats in state houses all across the 
country. Republicans are weak, even AWOL, on cultural issues, as Obama 
pursues his “Brown is the New White” Rainbow Conspiracy strategy backed 
by Soros, Oprah, and Bloomberg money.

_________________________________________________________ 

The Obama/Soros Machine Beats Trump

BY CLIFF KINCAID

SEE: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2018/11/the-obama-soros-machine-beats

-trump/; 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes.

 The election results are hardly the “great victory” claimed by President Trump.


Republicans picked up a few seats in the Senate, only because 
unpopular Democrats were up for re-election in conservative states, and 
lost the House. However, conservative Senator Ted Cruz barely survived 
in Texas, and the Republican gubernatorial candidate in conservative 
Georgia, Brian Kemp, only has a narrow lead. The conclusion is 
inescapable that the “Brown is the New White” rainbow strategy of Barack
 Hussein Obama is working, putting conservatives on the defensive all 
across the country.


While Obama’s candidates may not have won in several high-profile 
cases, the fact is that Texas and Georgia are now ripe for future 
liberal takeovers. That’s because of the strategy Obama has pursued, 
with the help of Brown is the New White
 author Steven Phillips, who is backed by the billionaire Sandler 
family. A year ago, at an America’s Survival, Inc. conference, analyst 
Trevor Loudon had warned
 of the left’s plan to take the concept of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow 
Coalition and create a new American majority fusing communists, 
progressive whites, minorities, Islamists and immigrants.


Republicans had a great economy going for them. Still, in another 
shocker, Arizona Senate Republican candidate Martha McSally was 
maintaining a very small lead over self-proclaimed bisexual Democrat 
Kyrsten Sinema, a favorite of atheists and secularists. The Democratic 
Party constituency is now full of New Agers and others who “shun religious labels”
 like Sinema. New Age leader Oprah Winfrey campaigned for Democrat 
Stacey Abrams in Georgia, who received more than 48 percent of the vote.





In an example of how the Catholic Church has lost its way, voters in 
liberal but “Catholic” Massachusetts approved Question 3,  allowing men 
into women’s restrooms. Pro-morality and pro-DNA people were crushed at 
the polls. The conservative Boston Catholic Insider reports
 that Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley and the other “spineless” 
Massachusetts bishops “completely caved and copped-out on voicing even a
 word of opposition to the transgender bathroom bill.  Not a peep!”


In a related event, Kim Davis, the Christian clerk from Rowan County,
 Kentucky, lost her re-election race. Supporters of Davis, who had been 
jailed for refusing to sign a “gay” marriage license, were called 
“haters” by Shepard Smith of Fox News. Smith, one of the openly gay Fox 
employees, was never admonished by his corporate bosses for his 
anti-Christian venom.


Trump press secretary Sarah Sanders, who valiantly fights the hostile
 press,  declared the November 6 results “a huge victory for the 
president” because Trump had “spent the last week campaigning heavily 
for Senate candidates and we’re seeing the payoff.” While Trump’s 
campaigning for the November 6 election was significant, it is also a 
fact that the GOP picked up seats because of a quirk of timing —  the 
fact that so many Democrats were up for re-election in 
Republican-oriented states.


On cultural issues, the conservative losses were substantial. 
Michigan voted for marijuana legalization, on the heels of former 
Republican House Speaker John Boehner writing a column for the Wall 
Street Journal calling for complete legalization nationwide. It benefits
 Democrats by creating another constituency for the Democratic Party, a 
process set in motion by former drug abuser and President Obama himself.
 The potheads are people whose love for the weed will keep them coming 
back to the polls to vote for more and cheaper drugs – and then more 
“free” health care to address the damage they cause. Heroin injection 
centers are next on the agenda. This complements the Obamacare takeover 
of the health care system, a process still underway and now confirmed by
 Democratic Party control of the House.


Incredibly, the strategy of legalizing the drug on a state-by-state 
basis may now be officially endorsed by President Trump. National 
Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Senator Cory Gardner has a bill
 co-sponsored with left-wing Democrat Elizabeth Warren to do just that. 
Gardner claims he has Trump’s private support for this approach. Gardner
 had dictated that the Senate GOP campaign arm would not fund pro-Trump 
Senate candidates like Corey Stewart in Virginia.


The Drug-Free America Foundation reports: “Michigan is the 10th state
 to legalize the possession, cultivation, and retail sale of marijuana. 
The other nine states in this failed experiment include: Alaska, 
California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and 
Washington.”  Much of this effort was financed by billionaire hedge fund
 operator George Soros.


Rather than oppose Soros and his drug legalization campaign, Rep. 
Steve Stivers, who leads the National Republican Congressional 
Committee, condemned his fellow Republican, conservative stalwart Rep. 
Steve King, just days before the elections. Stivers called King, who 
defends Western civilization, a white nationalist. King won his race but
 the controversy demonstrates how left-leaning Republicans in charge of 
the Republican caucus in the House will now work to diminish the 
influence of its more conservative members. In short, the House 
Republicans are in a shambles and their strategy of “opposition” to the 
Democrats looks like a mess, or maybe a sham.  Stivers, by the way, had 

predicted that the Republicans would retain their House majority. But it’s

hard to do that when you’re attacking fellow Republicans.


Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the likely new House Speaker, won’t fund the 
border wall. But she is already promising to offer the radical LGBTQ 
“Equality Act” for consideration. Peter LaBarbara of Americans for Truth
 calls it the “Criminalizing Christianity Act” because it would 
“effectively criminalize traditional morality” and outlaw opposition to 
special protected status for sexual minorities. Yet, as he notes, 
Republicans are mostly silent. Forced to vote on such a bill, at least 
some Republicans will go for it, wanting to look fashionable. If the 
“Religious Right” fails to fight these dangerous trends, the GOP could 
then go the way of the British Conservative Party, AWOL on the cultural 
issues.


Not all was lost for conservatives. Staunch conservative Republican 
Rep. Louie Gohmert won big in Texas after he appeared on the Lou Dobbs 
show on Fox and defended criticism of billionaire George Soros. “It’s 
not anti-Semitic to criticize Soros, and Israel issued a statement a 
year ago saying just that,” Gohmert said. Fox had previously banned 
Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch for criticizing Soros on the Dobbs show.
 Then, Fox yanked a pro-Trump ad on the illegal immigration issue. It 
wouldn’t be surprising if Gohmert may now be banned from the channel by 
its corporate bosses, the Murdochs, who are partners with Michael 
Bloomberg in the open borders group, Parnership for a New American Economy.


In a statement
 to The Daily Caller, Rep. Gohmert doubled-down on his criticism of 
Soros: “The alt-left media, including the New York Times, has decided to
 provide an all-out defense of their beloved, self-identified and 
remorseless former Nazi collaborator of Jewish lineage, who even the 
Israeli government knows well is not their friend. George Soros, an 
anti-God, anti-Israel billionaire, is perhaps the largest ever global 
funder of efforts to undermine America’s Constitution. Anyone who puts 
this much effort into the destabilization of America and the destruction
 of Israel deserves to be called out for his actions.”


Such strong statements are increasingly rare for Republicans, some of
 whom are folding like cheap suits in the face of the billions of 
dollars spent against them by billionaires such as George Soros and 
Michael Bloomberg. Rep. King, who has called for a House Committee on 
Un-American Activities to root out subversion, is among the few 
Republicans who continue to speak out about the threat and what is at 
stake.


When Fox News censors respected conservatives like Chris Farrell, you
 know we are in deep trouble. These acts of censorship by the leading 
“conservative” news organization demonstrate why our Roku and YouTube 
channel, America’s Survival TV, is so necessary. We expose Soros and have

done so consistently since our Soros Files conference in 2011. As black

businessman Zubi Diamond said at that conference, 
Soros was the money behind Barack Hussein Obama, and Obama was beholden 
to him. Now the Democrats can count on billions from Bloomberg and 
others. Bloomberg himself said he would be spending a total of $110 
million on the midterm election.


The Obama/Soros machine, now apparently in control of Fox News, is 
alive and well. We can anticipate the channel moving to silence or 
dismiss its pro-Trump commentators, most notably Sean Hannity, probably 
on spurious grounds that they are mixing politics and journalism. As for
 the president, Trump cannot compete effectively unless and until he and
 his advisers understand the “permanent revolution” strategy of Obama and

his billionaire backers. Analyst Trevor Loudon’s speech at one of our

conferences, on the “Rainbow Conspiracy,” is a good place to start

understanding this next phase of the revolutionary struggle.


The White House clearly doesn’t understand the revolutionary forces 
they are up against. Obama and Oprah are not going away. And now, in 
terms of the media, Trump can’t even depend on Fox News.

* America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) President Cliff Kincaid has had a nearly 40-year journalism career that includes serving as a co-host for the debate show “Crossfire” on CNN in the 1980s. He currently appears in a popular film on media bias and anonymous sources that is being shown in the Newseum, the journalism museum in Washington, D.C. Kincaid has written or co-authored more than 20 books and hosts an Internet-based Roku TV channel called America’s Survival TV that is available in more than 60 countries and is also on YouTube. Cliff’s book on Marxist dialectics, The Sword of Revolution, has been translated into Portuguese to reach people in Brazil, where an anti-communist revolution has taken root.
____________________________________________________________

 Communist Radicals Take Control Of 

The House Of Representatives

BY Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | NoisyRoom.net

SEE: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2018/11/communist-radicals-take-control-of-the-house-of-representatives/; 

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

 I guess I’m overly optimistic. I figured the 
Republicans would get both the House and the Senate. They only retained 
the Senate ceding the House to the loony Democrats. It’s not great, but 
then again… the House and the Senate weren’t doing the heavy lifting, 
Trump was.


What this will do however is let the Democrats
 be even more obstructionist in trying to stop President Trump. But 
Trump is a fighter and they may find that if push comes to shove, Trump 
is going to throw them off a cliff. Losing the House in a way may also 
be a gift to Trump. Nancy Pelosi is the nutty gift that just keeps on giving.


It appears as though Pelosi will get her dearest wish and be 
reinstated as Speaker of the House once more. God help us. But having 
that moonbat lead the House does have certain benefits attached. She’s 
78-years-old and something has been not right with Pelosi for a long 
time. She constantly slurs her words, forgets what she’s saying and has 
brain freezes. She’s a Christmas gift to Trump.


“I feel very confident in the support that I have in the House 
Democratic Caucus, and my focus is on winning this election because so 
much is at stake,” Pelosi told reporters in July. Recently, she told The
 Washington Post: “Nobody is indispensable. But I do think that I am 
best qualified to take us into the future, protect the Affordable Care 
Act, to do our infrastructure bill and the rest. Stepping down this 
path, I know the ropes.”





Commie Rep. Elijah Cummings
 (D-MD) stated just a few days ago: “I expect Nancy Pelosi will be 
Speaker, and I believe that she will be Speaker until she decides to 
leave.” She’s served 16 terms in the House and is a machine at raising 
money. But some Democratic leaders want her gone and to install new 
blood as leadership.


From The Daily Wire:



Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) said late last year it was time
 for Pelosi — and other longtime party leaders — to depart and let a new
 generation lead House Democrats. “Our leadership does a tremendous job,
 but we do have this real breadth and depth of talent within our caucus 
and I do think it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of 
leaders,” Sanchez said.


But Pelosi wants the gavel, and while some political watchers say there’ll be

 a fight, many predict she’ll get it.

But Pelosi is not the only ascending Marxist here. Rep. Maxine Waters
 (D-CA), 80, and arguably the most corrupt Democrat in the House, will 
now most likely chair the powerful House Financial Services Committee. 
She has vowed to impeach Trump now more times than I can count. The 
committee oversees the housing, banking, insurance, and securities 
industries, and Waters has big plans if she can head that committee.


“Last August, Waters moved unsuccessfully to subpoena Deutsche Bank 
AG for records concerning ‘internal reviews of the personal accounts of 
the president and his family,’ as well as more information about fees 
levied against the bank concerning lax money-laundering detection 
policies that could have allowed Russian operatives to funnel cash 
without a paper trail,” Fox News reported.


Waters has gone full-blown crazy since Trump came into office. “He 
claims that’s bringing people together but make no mistake, he is a 
dangerous, unprincipled, divisive, and shameful racist,” Waters said in 
February. She has threatened violence not only against President Trump, 
but Republicans in general.


Next up is weaselly Rep. Adam Schiff
 (D-CA), 58. He truly hates President Trump with a white-hot passion, 
but the media loves him. He will almost certainly head the House 
Intelligence Committee. I shudder to think what Stalinist moves he will 
make from that powerful perch. He says the committee will “investigate 
questions involving Russian money laundering and President Donald 
Trump’s businesses.” Schiff claims his committee will work hand-in-hand 
with Waters’ committee and focus on potential money-laundering schemes 
involving the Trump campaign and Russia, saying he’ll back Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into alleged collusion.


“The question, though, that I don’t know whether Mueller has been 
able to answer — because I don’t know whether he’s been given the 
license to look into it — is were the Russians laundering money through 
the Trump Organization?” Schiff said. “And that will be a very high 
priority to get an answer to — for the reason that, if they were doing 
this, it’s not only a crime, but it’s something provable.”


One of the biggest and most deceptive Marxists out there is Rep. Jerry Nadler
 (D-NY), 71. He will take over the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler 
will work with Schiff to oversee any attempt to impeach Trump. And trust
 me, they will give it their all. Nadler was on the committee when it 
voted to impeach former President Bill Clinton, but he said then that 
the vote was an attempted coup and a “gross abuse” of the impeachment 
power. He apparently doesn’t think that way anymore and is cool with 
doing it to a Republican. What a lying commie hypocrite.


“If the president perjured himself about colluding with Russians, 
that would be worthy of impeachment,” Nadler said in September. “Perjury
 about some real estate deal that happened 10 years ago that the Trump 
Organization took, that would not be an impeachable offense. It would be
 a crime.”


And then there is Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) who is definitely one 
of the most partisan members of the House. He will probably take over 
the House Oversight Committee, where he is now ranking Democrat. 
Cummings has said Trump “is a person [who] calls a lie ‘the truth’ and 
the truth ‘a lie.’” He has vowed to conduct investigations into the 
president. “If I can get documents, it doesn’t matter.”


“Cummings is prepping targets — from the security clearances of 
Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former national security adviser 
Michael Flynn, to digging into how former EPA chief Scott Pruitt was 
able to keep his job for so long—and the list is getting longer by the 
week,” Politico reported on Oct. 2.

There’s nothing like a bunch of aging, hippy communists with a grudge and a lust for power-lost to throw a wrench into making America great again. As The Daily Wire appropriately said, “Here come the crazies!” Giddy up, the inmates are about to lead the asylum and much more violence will follow in their wake.
_________________________________________________________

 Trump’s Victory In The Midterms Was Fake News

BY CLIFF KINCAID

SEE: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2018/11/trumps-victory-in-the-midterms-was-fake-news/; 

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

 A special report from America’s Survival, Inc.


Republican National Committee Ronna McDaniel claims the forecasted 
Democratic Party blue wave tsunami turned into a ripple.  In fact, 
Democrats could win 40 House seats, the most since Watergate. And 
another Watergate is what House Democrats have promised for President 
Trump. Democratic Party moneybags Tom Steyer spent more than $100 
million promoting impeachment. He wants a return on investment.


The actual ripple, meaning something small or practically 
insignificant, best describes the Republican victories in the red states
 of Texas and Georgia. Republican Senator Ted Cruz barely survived, 
winning by three points, and Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate 
Brian Kemp is claiming victory with just over 50 percent of the vote.


Nevertheless, former Fox anchor Eric Bolling, now with CRTV,
 claimed that “the blue wave never came” and that “It was all just fake 
news to try to hurt President Trump.” These deceptions must be 
challenged. The massive conservative defeats on November 6 are the 
result of “progressive” determination and conservative weakness, 
ignorance, and indifference. Fox News, with openly gay Shepard Smith 
spouting anti-conservative and anti-Trump remarks one hour a day, proved
 not to be the effective counter-balance to the liberal media. What’s 
worse, Fox became part of the problem when it banned criticism of hedge 
fund billionaire and Democratic Party donor George Soros.





Republican victories were few and far between. They picked up one or 
two seats in the Senate because unpopular Democrats were up for 
re-election in conservative states. But in Montana, a conservative 
state, Democratic Senator Jon Tester won a third Senate term, beating 
Republican Matt Rosendale for whom President Trump campaigned. In 
Florida, Governor Rick Scott had the legal authority to clean up the 
corrupt county election systems before he became a Senate candidate 
whose “victory” is now in doubt. He invited vote fraud shenanigans from 
the “progressive” political machines.


Trump is a Drag


It’s not fake news to recognize the fact that Trump is so unpopular 
that Republican candidates either can’t win or just barely squeak by in 
states where they should be winning by big margins. The Gallup polling 
organization points out that presidents with job approval ratings below

50 percent have seen their party lose 37 House seats, on average, in midterm

elections. With a loss of possibly 40 seats, that’s worse than the average.

In the race for governor in conservative Kansas, Trump loyalist and Breitbart 
columnist Kris Kobach was defeated by Democratic State Senator Laura 
Kelly. The margin was over 4 points.


The anti-Trump wave was so total that, in Minnesota, radical leftist 
Keith Ellison, the Muslim former Congressman and associate of Louis 
Farrakhan, won the race for Attorney General, after allegations of abuse
 from an ex-girlfriend. He will now spend his time suing Trump.


Bolstered by Sean Hannity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh on the 
campaign trail, Trump was apparently convinced that talking about 
illegal immigration and the economy would save his House majority and 
get conservatives out to the polls. That strategy ignored the social 
issues which can motivate many conservative and Christian voters. 
Meanwhile, Democrats developed political machines and propaganda 
vehicles financed by George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Michael Bloomberg 
that exploited issues such as “climate change” and gun control. In 
addition, Oprah’s New Agers were mobilized on behalf of the Democratic 
Party. We had called this the “Permanent Revolution” in a book published

earlier this year.


On the Republican side, billionaires like the Koch Brothers, Paul 
Singer, Cliff Asness, and Peter Thiel are pushing Trump and the 
Republicans further to the left on social issues.


In one of their biggest victories, self-proclaimed bisexual Democrat 
Kyrsten Sinema, a leftist photographed protesting the U.S. military in a
 pink tutu, beat a military veteran and political moderate, Martha 
McCally, in Arizona. As analyst Peter LaBarbera points out,
 McSally and the Republicans failed to challenge or expose Sinema’s 
oddball beliefs and bizarre lifestyle. In a nearby state, under the 
influence of Big Marijuana, Colorado went “dark blue” and elected a gay 
governor, former Democratic Rep. Jared Polis, who was praised on Fox News.

In the Midwest, Michigan legalized dope.


The current trends have convinced Dr. Brian Joondeph, a conservative

physician, writer, and radio commentator, to conclude
 that Trump could very well be the last Republican president. With Texas
 and Florida (and possibly Georgia and Arizona) flipping from red to 
blue, he notes that an electoral shift has been in the works for 
decades. To dramatize the shift, he notes that Cruz won his Senate seat 
in 2012 by 57-41 percent, a 16 point margin, but on November 6 the 
victory was much smaller, 51-48, barely a 3 point margin. His opponent 
this time, Democratic Congressman Beto O’Rourke, was pro-marijuana and 
once involved in a drunken-driving incident, fleeing the scene of the 
crash.


What’s more, ex-felons are now being given the right to vote in many 
states, adding to the Democratic Party totals. Another Democratic 
constituency, potheads, are growing in numbers and strength. Former 
Republican House Speaker John Boehner is lobbying on their behalf for 
nationwide legalization.


The liberals and their allies have simply worked harder. 
Conservatives can ridicule “community organizing” all they want. But 
since the days when Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s “San Francisco Democrats” 
utilized the political skills of communist preacher Jim Jones and 
homosexual activist Harvey Milk, the idea has been to identify and 
mobilize people and herd them to the polls. The remnants of the 
Jones-Milk apparatus facilitated California’s left-ward drift ever since
 more than 900 Jones followers from the Peoples Temple church people 
killed themselves on November 18, 1978. That sordid story is told in 
Daniel Flynn’s new book, Cult City,
 which explores how these operatives exploit the weak, poor, and 
vulnerable for Marxist revolutionary purposes. Milk, one of Jim Jones’s 
most vocal supporters, was subsequently assassinated, along with San 
Francisco Mayor George Moscone, by a fellow Democrat jealous of their 
political power on November 27, 1978, in what Flynn calls the ten days 
that shook San Francisco.


Brown is the New White


Taking this strategy to a national level, former President Barack Hussein

Obama has pursued, with the help of Brown is the New White
 author Steven Phillips, the creation of a “new American majority” 
fusing communists, progressive whites, minorities, Islamists, dopers, 
homosexuals and transgenders, and immigrants. One can see the success 
even in red states like Texas and Georgia.


Indeed, Kim Davis, the Christian clerk who had been jailed for 
refusing to sign a “gay” marriage license lost her re-election race in 
conservative Kentucky. Establishment Republicans will undoubtedly use 
this defeat as an excuse to reaffirm their determination to avoid 
talking about “controversial” social issues. As LaBarbera notes, you 
can’t even talk about “gay” issues in a negative manner on Fox News 
anymore. Instead, Fox features gay and lesbian personalities such as Guy
 Benson and Tammy Bruce, and libertarians like Greg Gutfeld and 
Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, a former MTV VJ.


A year ago, at an America’s Survival, Inc. conference, analyst Trevor Loudon

had warned of the left’s plan to take the concept of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow 
Coalition and expand it exponentially. What became the Obama/Steve 
Phillips strategy is backed by the billionaire Sandler family, who are also behind

the liberal website ProPublica.


But before conservatives come to grips with the political reality, 
including the anticipated impeachment of Trump, they should scrutinize 
the prognosticators who failed to predict the blue wave and tried to 
deny it even existed at all.


Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose wife was appointed

by Trump as Ambassador to the Vatican, had predicted
 there would “absolutely” be a red wave. In California, Gingrich had 
claimed that the candidacy of moderate Republican John Cox as governor 
would help congressional Republicans hold their seats. Here’s what 
happened: 53 House seats were up, 39 of which were held by Democrats and
 14 by Republicans. Now, after the elections, Democrats will hold a 
42-11 edge. Cox won only 40 percent of the vote against Gavin Newsom.


“We’re probably going to gain seats in governorships,” Gingrich 
added. In fact, Democrats replaced Republican governors in seven states —
 Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, and Maine – 
and captured some 300 legislative seats in state houses all across the 
country. In addition, they captured a majority of state attorneys 
general.


Loose Lips Limbaugh


Radio host Rush Limbaugh, a Reaganite who never voted for 
conservative President Ronald Reagan, had appeared at a Trump rally. He 
eagerly accepted Gingrich’s predictions, with a story headlined,

“Mr. Newt Predicts a Red Wave.”
 He cited a Gingrich column in which Gingrich suggested Democratic 
Senator Bob Menendez might lose in New Jersey to Bob Hugin. Menendez won
 by over ten points. California Democrats, Gingrich said, were “more 
vulnerable than they have been in a quarter century,” another erroneous 
prediction.


Indeed, a story by Dom Calicchio at Fox News captured the depth of the Republican 

electoral disaster in California:


Democrats hold every statewide office, both chambers of the 
Legislature and a 3.7 million advantage in voter registrations… A surge 
in immigrants in recent decades transformed the state and its voting 
patterns. In Orange County, largely white, conservative homeowners once 
delivered winning margins for GOP candidates year after year. But most 
of the state’s new voters, Hispanics, and Asians are Democrats or 
independents. It’s also hard to discount the influence of Trump, who 
lost California by over 4 million votes in 2016. California is home to 
the so-called Trump “resistance,” which has stood in opposition to his 
policies on the environment and immigration.


It’s hard to imagine that Ronald Reagan was governor of California 
before he became America’s best-known and most successful conservative 
president,


Limbaugh, after reciting Gingrich’s predictions, said the Republicans
 would hold the House, “maybe even picking up a couple of seats.” He was
 off by about 40 seats.


Limbaugh, who claims to be right 99 percent of the time, had run a 
story on  his website, based on one of his monologues, “Democrats 
Realize They’re in Trouble as Red Wave Builds.” He quoted an “expert on 
forecast models,” Gerard Francis Lameiro, as predicting there would be a
 red wave in the House with 225 — 228 Republicans elected to office and a
 new Senate with 58 or even 60 Republicans elected to office. The author
 of a book titled, “The Dawning of the New Conservative Era,” his prediction ran

under the headline, “Red Wave Coming in the House and Senate.”


It’s starting to dawn on people that Trump’s great “victory” on 
November 6 isn’t looking so good. Brian Burch of the conservative group 
Catholic Vote notes:


If the Democrats flip the Senate seat in Arizona, and if the 
Democrats steal the Senate seat in Florida, suddenly the Republican 
Senate gain would be reduced to just one new seat. This would return the
 Senate to a 52-48 makeup — which is exactly how we started when 
President Trump took office (until the Alabama special election reduced 
it to 51-49). Losing both Florida and Arizona would mean razor thin 
margins once again on key votes — including judges.


Looking on the bright side, Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., President of the 
Heartland Institute, says, “Senate majority leader [Mitch] McConnell 
should continue to fill the courts with Constitution-friendly judges and
 justices.” But how is that possible when liberal Republican Senators 
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are able to influence the process? 
That’s how and why Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh, who won confirmation
 promising Collins that he would honor the court’s pro-abortion 
decisions and hailed the court’s homosexual marriage ruling. Murkowski 
voted against him anyway.


Now, the victorious House Democrats are threatening to impeach Kavanaugh.


Trump, his enablers, and the Republican Party had no ground game or 
message to match Obama’s “Brown is the New White” strategy. Equally 
shocking, conservative media are hailing their failure as a victory! In 
this case, the “fake news” is coming from Trump supporters and pro-Trump
 websites ignoring reality.

* America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) President Cliff Kincaid has had a nearly 40-year journalism career that includes serving as a co-host for the debate show “Crossfire” on CNN in the 1980s. He currently appears in a popular film on media bias and anonymous sources that is being shown in the Newseum, the journalism museum in Washington, D.C. Kincaid has written or co-authored more than 20 books and hosts an Internet-based Roku TV channel called America’s Survival TV that is available in more than 60 countries and is also on YouTube. Cliff’s book on Marxist dialectics, The Sword of Revolution, has been translated into Portuguese to reach people in Brazil, where an anti-communist revolution has taken root.

TREVOR LOUDON'S "BURN THIS BOOK": KEITH ELLISON'S MARXIST & ISLAMIST ASSOCIATIONS

 THE TRUTH ABOUT KEITH ELLISON &
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

 
 
 
 
 
TREVOR LOUDON'S "BURN THIS BOOK": 

KEITH ELLISON'S MARXIST & ISLAMIST ASSOCIATIONS 

INTERVIEW WITH CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY