Hello My Friends,
While Democrats see their base energized today, we are six months away from the election. And if the Alito draft becomes law, pro-choice Democrats will have to sustain their outrage... View MoreHello My Friends,
While Democrats see their base energized today, we are six months away from the election. And if the Alito draft becomes law, pro-choice Democrats will have to sustain their outrage and fight political battles in virtually all the red states.
Pro-life Republicans, libertarians and conservatives should stand with the Alito Five and what they have done and what, hopefully, they are about to do.
For this is what a vast slice of the party and the conservative movement has fought for, worked for, marched for and prayed for, for half a century.
If Roe is overturned, it is never coming back. It is gone for good. No Supreme Court will ever reinstate it. It will be on the ash heap of history, as President Ronald Reagan used to say.
If Biden, Nancy Pelosi’s House and Chuck Schumer’s Senate majority want to make abortion the issue of 2022 by passing a federal law codifying Roe v. Wade, if they want to die on that hill, it’s their call.
Democrats claim 60% of the nation wants Roe preserved and only 1 in 5 Americans wants Roe overturned.
Why, then, do they not pass that law codifying Roe at the national level and rely upon Roe’s supporters to produce pro-choice laws in the states where they do not today exist?
If the Alito draft opinion survives and Roe is overturned, pro-lifers will have many people to thank.
Foremost among these are President Donald Trump, who elevated to the Supreme Court three of the five justices who voted with Alito, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, who saw to it that these three alone would make it. Just some thoughts of mine.
Best regards,
Stephen
Hello Patriots,
Americans associate May Day with the hanging of flower baskets or the National Day of Prayer. With the Cold War now a distant memory, we seem to have forgotten that May 1, or May Day,... View MoreHello Patriots,
Americans associate May Day with the hanging of flower baskets or the National Day of Prayer. With the Cold War now a distant memory, we seem to have forgotten that May 1, or May Day, while traditionally representing the coming of spring, has been for over a century the most important calendar day of the year for communists, socialists, and anarchists. This was the traditional day in the Soviet Union and the communist bloc countries for massive parades, replete with missiles, tanks, rank upon rank of goose-stepping troops, red flags, and huge posters of Marx and Lenin. This has not changed in countries that are still officially communist, such as China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. In non-communist countries of the world, the communist and socialist parties have continued to hold May Day celebrations, usually under the banner of International Workers Solidarity Day.
According to The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, communist countries and communist parties celebrate May Day “by mobilizing the working people in the struggle to build socialism and communism.” The same source goes on to report: “On May Day the working people of the Soviet Union show their solidarity with the revolutionary struggles of the working people in capitalist countries and with national liberation movements. They express their determination to use all their power for the struggle for peace and building of a communist society.”
Andy McInerney, a staff member of the communist Workers World Party and a leader of the ANSWER Coalition’s illegal alien organizing effort, extolled the glories of May Day in the Spring 1996 edition of Liberation & Marxism. McInerney wrote:
Every year, the ruling classes around the world are again reminded of their vulnerability and of the power of their gravediggers. On May 1, the world working class displays its strength in demonstrations and strikes. May Day — International Workers’ Day — is a reminder to the ruling classes that their days are numbered…. From 1919 onward, the success of May Day in the United States would depend on the success of the communist movement.
“The decision to make May 1st a day of annual demonstrations,” says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, “was made in July 1889 by the Paris Congress of the Second International, to commemorate an action by the workers of Chicago, who organized a strike for May 1, 1886, demanding an eight-hour workday, and held a demonstration that ended in a bloody confrontation with the police.”
The communist encyclopedia’s account of May Day’s origins cited above is deceptive and deficient on several important points. The Chicago strikes and demonstrations of 1886-1888 culminated in the violent Haymarket Square riots, which included the murder of Chicago police officers, when anarchists hurled a dynamite bomb into police ranks. In the aftermath of the terrorist event, Captain Michael J. Shaack of the Chicago Police Department launched an in-depth investigation that resulted in a monumental 700-page book exposing a vast network of communists and anarchists working in concert across the nation, with direct ties to confederates in Europe. Captain Shaack’s expose, Anarchy and Anarchists, demonstrated that what appeared on the surface to many people to be spontaneous, desultory incidents were actually very meticulously planned revolutionary events.
American labor unions, recognizing the communist effort to exploit May Day worldwide as well as the communist effort to penetrate and control labor, refused to follow the Marxist-led Second International and instead have traditionally celebrated Labor Day in September.
Jesus rose from the dead. That is certainly the principal belief that propelled the spread of the Christian faith across the Roman Empire, inspiring thousands who persisted in that belief in the face ... View MoreJesus rose from the dead. That is certainly the principal belief that propelled the spread of the Christian faith across the Roman Empire, inspiring thousands who persisted in that belief in the face of either a martyr’s death or loss of fortune or even family. Had these early Christians not believed in the resurrection of Jesus, it is almost certain that Christianity would not exist today, because it would never have existed at all.
So, why did the early disciples of Jesus Christ believe in His resurrection? Is the resurrection of Jesus historical?
When historians attempt to determine what happened in the ancient world, they must rely on what we call legal-historical proof. In the study of history and in the courtroom, we examine evidence and draw conclusions. While we can no longer cross-examine the eyewitnesses who assert they saw the resurrected Christ, we can look at the character of those witnesses. Based upon the evidence that is available, we can certainly draw some reasonable conclusions.
In First Corinthians chapter 15, verses 3-7, the Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth what was apparently an early creed, or statement of belief, on this very subject. “For first of all, I delivered unto you that which I received.” Received from whom? After Paul’s dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus, he made his way to the leaders of the early church in Jerusalem, and spoke to some of them such as the Apostle Peter, and heard first-hand their accounts of the risen Christ.
He told the Corinthians that he was told “how Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he arose the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of more than five hundred brethren at once, whereof many remain unto this present, and some also were asleep. After that, he was seen of James (the half-brother of Jesus, who became the leader of the Jerusalem church).”
“Last of all, he was seen also of me,” Paul concluded, recalling his own encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
This establishes there were a multitude of witnesses who claimed they saw Jesus alive, risen from the dead, after His brutal death on a Roman cross. Clearly, if this were a reference to any other event in the ancient world, historians would not even question its historicity.
Certainly it was an unusual event. One does not expect to see someone at the shopping mall one week after you have been to their funeral. Dead people tend to stay dead.
But we cannot conclude simply from what is the ordinary that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did not happen. By its very nature, however, it is to be expected that it is very much out of the ordinary. If resurrections happened all the time, then the resurrection of one man — Jesus — would be, simply put, no big deal. But, of course, it is a very big deal.
The question is simple. What did happen on that first Easter Sunday?
First of all, we can assume that the tomb where the dead body of Jesus was placed on Good Friday, was empty on Sunday morning. Clearly, if Jesus was in the tomb — dead — that would have been the end of it. But, of course, the tomb was empty.
Why was the tomb empty?
Those who reject the resurrection of Christ cite one of the following alternative scenarios: (1) the disciples stole the body; (2) the enemies of Jesus stole the body; (3) everyone went to the wrong tomb; (4) the Swoon Theory, i.e. Jesus really did not die on the cross; and (5) The Myth Theory — which asserts that the disciples of Jesus never believed or taught that Jesus rose from the dead.
What possible motivation would the disciples of Jesus have had for stealing His body from the tomb? Clearly, they gained no wealth or power from such a claim, but rather faced persecution instead. While some might die for a lie, no one has presented a logical explanation for why the disciples would not only lie about the resurrection, but that they would lie about it for the rest of their lives.
The argument that the enemies of Jesus stole His body is no better. Why would they want to create a resurrection myth of a man and a movement they hated? When the disciples went public with their testimonies that they had not only seen, but had touched and spoken with the risen Christ, if His enemies really did have his body, all they would have needed to do to snuff out the movement was produce His body. But, they did not — because they could not. They did not have His body.
Then there is the proposition that the tomb was just thought to be empty because everyone — the Roman guards, the women disciples, the apostles Peter and John — all just forgot where Jesus was buried and all went to the wrong tomb. Under this reasoning, the body of Jesus has been in some unknown tomb for over two millennia. This is absurd.
Another theory is the so-called Swoon Theory. This is the belief that Jesus did not die on the cross, but just passed out. Under this theory, the Roman authorities allowed a still-alive Jesus to be taken down from the cross, and placed in the tomb of a man named Joseph (under the Wrong Tomb Theory, Joseph also forgot where his own tomb was). There, in the cool of the tomb, He revived, had enough strength after having been flogged and crucified to push away the stone, and then appear to His disciples as “risen from the dead.” Exactly what happened after that, the proponents of the theory are not quite sure.
There is also a Myth Theory. Under this belief, Jesus’ followers never believed or taught that Jesus rose from the dead. As Denny Kuhn, apologetics professor at Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College, said of this belief: “These stories of Jesus’ Resurrection represent mythological or legendary developments by later Christians long after the earlier eyewitnesses had already fallen off the scene. Accordingly, the claim is that the early followers of Jesus only believed Him to be a wise spiritual and moral teacher, not the Resurrected Lord. After the death of the eyewitnesses, mythical accounts of a divine Jesus who resurrected from the dead gradually crept into Christian belief at a much later date. However, just like the previous theories, the Myth Theory cannot be reconciled with the historical evidence.”
Indeed it cannot. This is why Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is so relevant to this discussion. He specifically cited the resurrection of Jesus as a belief he had “received” from men who had personally witnessed the risen Lord, which takes the belief back to a very short time after the actual event.
Why did they believe they had seen Jesus? It wasn’t just an empty tomb. They saw Jesus. They heard Him speak. They witnessed Him eating a broiled fish. They touched Him. He was not just a disembodied spirit. He was flesh and bones. And, as Paul told the Corinthians, over 500 people testified that they had seen the resurrected Jesus, and most were still alive.
Some have lamely argued that this was a case of “mass hallucination.” According to this theory, the disciples only thought they saw Jesus. Now, one can understand that one person might hallucinate and think they saw Jesus, but it is simply not credible to believe that over 500 were all hallucinating, all at the same time.
These disciples believed so strongly that they had seen a risen Jesus that many endured martyrdom. There is not one single incident that can be cited of a person who at first claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus and later recanted. Not one.
From these early witnesses, we can also create a “chain of evidence,” which is similar to what we do with other historical events. After all, there is not one person living today who could testify to having seen George Washington cross the Delaware River, but no one doubts that it happened. It is considered a historical event. If anyone posited the thesis today that all those Hessians just hallucinated that Washington’s Continental Army defeated them at the Battle of Trenton, that person would — rightly — be laughed at.
And just so with the resurrection. There were, simply put, just too many witnesses. In this case, the Apostle John had his own disciples, prominent among them Ignatius and Polycarp. Ignatius (AD 35-117) was the bishop at Antioch, and he wrote letters about John’s recollections of the resurrection of Jesus with a physical body and His appearance to many. Likewise, Ignatius’ friend Polycarp (AD 69-155) also wrote of John’s remembrances of the resurrection of Jesus.
These two men taught Iranaeus (120-202). Iranaeus wrote of Polycarp’s personal conversations with John in which they discussed the bodily resurrection of Christ. And, Iranaeus related these events to Hippolytus (170-236).
John was exiled as an old man on the island of Patmos, off the coast of Asia Minor. There he wrote the last book of the Bible, The Book of Revelation, in which he not only continued in his belief that Jesus had arisen from the dead, but that He would return physically, in that resurrected body, to the earth.
Why would John persist in his belief that Jesus rose from the dead, several decades after the event? Why did all the other disciples also believe in the resurrection?
The most logical conclusion is that Jesus did, indeed, rise from death. It is clearly a historical event, with overwhelming evidence.
Happy Easter!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GGLSIQrFfQ&t=15s
Scenes from Jesus Of Nazareth (Gethsemane, Crucifixion & Resurrection)
Scenes from: "Jesus Of Nazareth" - Arabic Translated
This is NOT my original Video & I have no intention to use it or gain money from it
Hello My Friends,
The New American has long published a congressional scorecard known as the “Freedom Index” that shows the voting records of every member of the U.S. House and Senate. But now, in a... View MoreHello My Friends,
The New American has long published a congressional scorecard known as the “Freedom Index” that shows the voting records of every member of the U.S. House and Senate. But now, in addition to this index, TNA has produced a much smaller downloadable “Congressional Scorecard” that shows the voting record of just one congressman. Which one? Whichever one you choose! In this episode of “Beyond the Cover,” host Gary Benoit interviews the “Freedom Index” team — Larry Greenley, Christian Gomez, and Peter Rykowski — about the “Freedom Index” and the new “Congressional Scorecard,” including how to access and customize the “Congressional Scorecard.”
https://rumble.com/vsjc5i-how-does-your-congressman-vote-beyond-the-cover.html
How Does Your Congressman Vote? | Beyond The Cover
The New American has long published a congressional scorecard known as the “Freedom Index” that shows the voting records of every member of the U.S. House and Senate. But now, in addition to this
Senate Confirms Justice Who Can’t Say What a Woman Is.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court today by a 53-47 vote.
... View MoreSenate Confirms Justice Who Can’t Say What a Woman Is.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court today by a 53-47 vote.
Three leftist Republicans joined Democrats in the historic event. Jackson will be the first justice in U.S. history who doesn’t know the difference between a man and woman because she is not a biologist.
Jackson, a soft-on-crime judge who favors leniency for perverts convicted of possessing child porn, will replace outgoing Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.
What’s A Woman? I Dunno!
President Biden nominated Jackson after promising that his first SCOTUS nominee would be a black woman, and that men, whites, Hispanics, Eskimos, American Indians, and Asian and Pacific Islanders need not apply.
Whether Biden will send federal troops and man-eating police dogs to the court to make sure white justices use separate restrooms and water fountains is unknown. That question aside, Jackson’s confirmation hearings exposed two truths:
Jackson has a soft spot for perverts and weirdos, and she buys into communist “gender” nonsense.
As to the first, GOP senators hammered Jackson on her long record as a friend of child-porn users. Of particular interest was her sentence for Wesley Hawkins, who sent kiddie porn to an undercover detective.
Jackson sent him to jail for a whole three months. The newly minted justice did so despite federal sentencing guidelines of eight to 10 years in the slammer, and a prosecutor’s recommendation for two years.
Speaking to Hawkins at sentencing, Jackson told him, “you were only involved in this for a few months,” and “other than your engagement with the undercover officer, there isn’t an indication that you were in any online communities to advance your collecting behavior.”
Jackson also said the age difference between Hawkins, then 18, and one of the kids in the porn was a mere 10 years.
Before that, though, Jackson spilled the beans about her crackpot leftism.
Under questioning from GOP Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Jackson said she didn’t know what a woman is.
The exchange was revealing either for how crazy judges have become, or that they’ll say anything to avoid inviting the fury of the whackjob left:
Blackburn: Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’
Jackson: Can I provide a definition, no. I can’t.
Blackburn: You can’t?
Jackson: Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.
Jackson also believes that The New York Times’ 1619 Project is real history, and mentioned it prominently during a speech in 2020.
The problem with citing the project, of course, was its central thesis before the Times was forced to correct it. The United States seceded from Great Britain, we were supposed to believe, to preserve slavery. It was a strikingly ignorant, categorically false claim.
One would expect Jackson to know that, given Biden’s claim that she is the brainiest judge since Chief Justice John Marshall. Then again, Biden also thinks his son Hunter is the “smartest man I know.”
No Change in Court Balance
Though Jackson makes her leftist court colleagues look rational, her elevation to the highest court in the land won’t change the balance of the court. The “conservative” wing of the court still outnumbers the leftist wing.
The three Republicans who voted to confirm Jackson were the usual suspects: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah.
Biden doesn’t favor blacks on the high court unless they are leftists. He tried to destroy Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by permitting crackpot Anita Hill to level ridiculous sex-harassment allegations that Biden thought were rubbish. And he vowed to filibuster the confirmation of federal judge Janice Roger Brown if President George W. Bush had nominated her to the court.
Breyer, whom Jackson will replace when he retires this summer, has been an associate since 1994. President Bill Clinton nominated the justice in May 1993, about 18 months before he, Clinton, “did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
https://thenewamerican.com/history-made-senate-confirms-justice-who-cant-say-what-a-woman-is-three-republicans-vote-for-leftist/
History Made: Senate Confirms Justice Who Can’t Say What a Woman Is; Three Republicans Vote for Leftist - The New American
Jackson will be the first justice in U.S. history who doesn’t know the difference between a man and woman because she is not a biologist. ...
Heroes of the Pandemic
The war on early treatments had a distinct political underlying motive beyond vaccine promotion. Democrats, mainstream media, and Big Tech knew their raging smear campaign and... View MoreHeroes of the Pandemic
The war on early treatments had a distinct political underlying motive beyond vaccine promotion. Democrats, mainstream media, and Big Tech knew their raging smear campaign and fruitless impeachment efforts against Donald Trump were going nowhere, for the president’s “America First” agenda materialized in robust economic growth and record-low unemployment. That spelled trouble for Democrats in the 2020 presidential election. When Covid arrived and Trump endorsed HCQ as a “game changer,” they accused him of “trying to kill Americans” with the “unstudied” drug, ignoring its 65-year safety record.</span>
“It’s like saying, ‘Maybe if you inject Clorox in your blood, it may cure you.’ Come on, man!.. What in God’s name is he doing?!” lamented then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. He called Trump’s HCQ endorsement “totally irresponsible” and “counterproductive,” and cited unnamed studies that presumably found HCQ “doing more harm than good.”
In his book on Fauci, Kennedy quotes Dr. Harvey Risch, a leading Yale epidemiologist: “Unless you are an island nation prepared to shut out the world, you can’t stop a global viral pandemic, but you can make it less deadly. Our objective should have been to devise treatments that would reduce hospitalization and death. We could have easily defanged COVID-19 so that it was less lethal than a seasonal flu. We could have done this quickly. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
We really could have. We had all the tools:
Hydroxychloroquine: One of the first American doctors to tackle Covid was Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko, New York-based board-certified physician with more than 20 years of professional experience. He has personally treated thousands of patients and consulted with peer physicians on four continents. In 2020, he penned open letters to the medical community and to Trump, detailing his recommended treatment using a combination of HCQ, the antibiotic azithromycin, and zinc sulfate.
“We know that hydroxychloroquine helps zinc enter the cell. We know that zinc slows viral replication within the cell. Regarding the use of azithromycin, I postulate it prevents secondary bacterial infections. These three drugs are well known and usually well-tolerated, hence the risk to the patient is low.” He continued, “My urgent recommendation is to initiate treatment in the outpatient setting as soon as possible in accordance with the above. Based on my direct experience, it prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prevents the need for hospitalization, and saves lives.”
A 2020 peer-reviewed study of the Zelenko protocol, accepted for publication in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, found it “decreased hospitalizations by 84% and resulted in a 5-fold reduction in death.” This translates into nearly 770,000 needlessly lost lives.
In further testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security in December 2020, Dr. Zelenko reported no Covid deaths among his high-risk patients. These included Holocaust survivors in their 90s, cancer patients, and diabetics, who normally experience up to a 20 percent fatality rate. All patients who followed his early treatment survived, he said.
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling that will make it far harder for pro-abortion forces to challenge the state’s new heartbeat law. The law, passed in May of last year and signed by Go... View MoreOn Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling that will make it far harder for pro-abortion forces to challenge the state’s new heartbeat law. The law, passed in May of last year and signed by Governor Greg Abbott, makes most abortions in Texas illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is often as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in place despite a challenge by the Biden administration. But the high court also allowed a challenge against the law to proceed via a narrow road that allows state laws to be challenged by federal officials who can sue state officials administering the law.
On Friday the Texas State Supreme Court ruled that only private citizens, not state officials, can enforce the law, which allows people to sue an abortion provider or assistant who does the procedure after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. That ruling essentially ends the narrow avenue that existed allowing federal officials to challenge the law.
The Texas Heartbeat Law was written in a way designed to prevent overzealous judicial review. It has long been a tactic of pro-abortion forces to attack pro-life laws on technicalities, allowing pro-abortion judges to create work-arounds or to effectively nullify such laws.
We must feel sorry for Vice President Kamala Harris. She’s in way over her head and is increasingly ridiculed for spewing great gouts of gibberish when she answers reporters.
Her favorable rating is ... View MoreWe must feel sorry for Vice President Kamala Harris. She’s in way over her head and is increasingly ridiculed for spewing great gouts of gibberish when she answers reporters.
Her favorable rating is in negative numbers.
But we must also feel the absolute terror that her boss, President Biden, is 78 years old, shows increasing signs of dementia and that Harris would, should he die or have to resign, take his place.
A sample of Harris’ recent media appearances suggests that Americans must pray, and pray hard, that Biden lasts his full term, then loses reelection to a Republican. If he defeats his next GOP opponent but Republicans take back Congress, they have no choice. They must impeach Biden and Harris to remove them from office so that the Speaker of the House assumes the presidency.
Bad as Biden is, having set the country on a dangerous, self-destructive course, Harris will be worse. Much worse.
Harris’ latest disaster came in answering a question on the NBC’s Today show about sanctions on Russia’s gas and oil industry as punishment for its invasion of Ukraine.
The veep began by lauding Germany for its decision to halt the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline from Russia.
Then she added this:
As it relates to what we need to do domestically as well as what we need to do in terms of this issue generally, we have, as the president said, reevaluated what we’re doing in terms of the Strategic Oil Reserve here in the United States to make sure that it will not have an impact, or we can mitigate the impact on the American consumer.
The average price of gas is $3.61 per gallon, up from $2.53 when Biden took office. SPR holds 727 million barrels of oil. Americans use 15-20 million barrels per day.
Biden has touted his own status as a “good Catholic.” After his private audience with Pope Francis in October, Biden told the press that the pope was “happy I’m a good Catholic.” And — seeming to eith... View MoreBiden has touted his own status as a “good Catholic.” After his private audience with Pope Francis in October, Biden told the press that the pope was “happy I’m a good Catholic.” And — seeming to either forget or just not care that Christ said that when one is fasting, he should keep it to himself (not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing) — Biden made it known Wednesday that he “prayed and met with a cardinal” — which may be where he received the ashes on his forehead, symbolizing that we are “dust, and to dust [we] shall return.” He went on to tell reporters that he gave up “all sweets” for Lent, saying, “I start off with dessert. No ice cream, nothing.”
See, he gave up sweets for 40 days. He must be a “good” and “devout” Catholic.
Except that he isn’t.
Because “good” and “devout” Catholics are called to protect the lives of the unborn — not to sacrifice them to what Mother Teresa (an actual “good” and “devout” Catholic) called a “culture of death.” And Biden — at least in the presidential phase of his life — has been an outspoken champion for the “right” of women to kill their unborn children. He is the ostensible head of an administration that pushes radical pro-abortion legislation such as the Equality Act and the Women’s Health Protection Act. And he has called for abortion to be enshrined into federal law to prevent any opposition to the killing of unborn babies.
Joe Biden may be Catholic (in the sense that he was baptized Catholic and maintains his parish membership), but he is what older catechisms called a “bad Catholic.”
And it is not just this writer denying that Biden is a “good” and “devout” Catholic. In fact, the teaching of the Catholic Church is firm on this point: Catholics who deny or publicly advocate against the Church’s teaching on this issue are in mortal sin and are not “Catholics in good standing.” They are not even supposed to receive communion.
And while the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has failed in its duty to hold Biden accountable by denying him communion (for both his sake and the sake of those who are scandalized by his actions), at least two Catholic organizations have taken him to task.
As Biden answered questions from the press on Ash Wednesday, EWTN reporter Owen Jensen confronted him, asking, “How do you support abortion as a Catholic, defying Church teaching?” Biden started his answer by saying, “I’ll tell you what — I don’t want to get into a debate with you on theology, but you know —” at which point Jill Biden (who jumped into action walking toward Biden and the press as soon as the question was asked) tapped Biden, appearing to call him off of the question. He stumbled over his words for a second and then wrapped up by saying, “I’m not going to make a judgment for other people.”
https://thenewamerican.com/good-and-devout-catholic-joe-biden-creates-confusion-and-discord-by-refusing-to-answer-question-about-how-he-can-support-abortion-as-a-catholic/
Biden Refuses to Answer Question About How He Can Support Abortion as a Catholic - The New American
Biden's clear support for abortion shows that he is not a "good" or "devout" Catholic, and that he has no faith and no integrity. ...
Americans Look North into Canada
Hello, my friends,
Canada failed this week.
Although the country is supposedly a “liberal democracy,” supreme leader Justin Trudeau invoked the country’s emergency... View MoreAmericans Look North into Canada
Hello, my friends,
Canada failed this week.
Although the country is supposedly a “liberal democracy,” supreme leader Justin Trudeau invoked the country’s emergency act to inaugurate a police state in order to clear out the trucker protest from the nation’s capital of Ottawa. There, the truckers had enjoyed barbecues, music, and bouncy houses for kids while calling for an end to mandates forcing Canadians to take a vaccine that is proving to be deadly.
The Trudeau regime — for it truly is a regime in the sense that it is now presided over by an unaccountable strongman — literally sent the cavalry into the crowd to stamp out the protest on Friday, February 18. Cellphone video captured the moment Canadian storm troopers mounted on horseback pushed into the crowd of innocent citizens, literally trampling them into the ground. A horrifying screengrab from a video appears to show one of the horses stepping on the back of a woman lying on the ground. It is highly unlikely she escaped the incident without serious injury.
Canadian journalist Joe Warmington noted the photo of this horrible crime in a column for the Toronto Sun. “Turns out the lasting image of the Freedom Convoy protest at Parliament Hill will not be bouncy castles but that of a woman with a walker being trampled by a police horse,” he wrote.
This was a despicable crime — and not the only one — conducted by officers acting on behalf of a government that has decided it is no longer to be restrained by law. Under the law, the use of the Emergencies Act must be approved by Parliament after it is implemented by the prime minister. Canada no longer is governed by Parliament, however, but instead is a one-man dictatorship — and that one man was “enjoying” the Olympics being held in Communist China while his stormtroopers were beating innocent Canadians in the streets, as Warmington noted on Twitter.
“Martial law, no media allowed to cover it, debate on unnecessary Emergencies Act suspended, bank accounts seized and Justin is watching the Olympics,” the outraged journalist wrote.
Keep in mind, there was no violence at any time during the weeks-long protest in Ottawa. Canadians worried that their rights were being violated by government mandates — the mandates being themselves a crime against human rights — simply sought through peaceful demonstration to reclaim their right to be secure against forced medication. The only violence occurred when Justin Trudeau’s storm troopers busted into the crowd, trampling them with horses and beating them with rifle butts.
How could this have happened in Canada, of all places? One answer is that Canada does not have a Bill of Rights. Instead, Canadians have their “Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Sure, that document purports to offer “guarantees” of “the rights and freedoms” it outlines as belonging to Canadians, but it does so with the important proviso that those rights and freedoms are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law.”
If rights and freedoms can be restricted by “reasonable limits prescribed by law,” then, ultimately, those rights and freedoms don’t actually exist — they are mere privileges to be revoked at the whim of whoever runs the government.
Contrast this with the U.S. Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law except…” Instead, it just states plainly that “Congress shall make no law….” In the United States, the federal government is legally barred from interfering with the exercise of religion, free speech, and assembly, among other things. This is simply not true in Canada.
And so Canada, like most places around the world, has always had the foundation of dictatorship embedded within its system of government, even if the people there have been unaware of it. Certainly, after the events of February 18, most Canadians should be aware of the danger they face.
But citizens of the United States should feel neither smug nor secure within the borders of their great Republic, for lurking within the seat of power in Washington, D.C., lies a heart of darkness, concentrated in the liberal-progressive Deep State and gnawing ceaselessly like a gravitational singularity within the breast of the antique warmonger Joe Biden.
Biden and his handlers and enablers almost certainly look north with glee, admiration, and envy. They would like nothing more than to see the Constitution that restrains their own desires for ultimate and unaccountable power burned to the ground and its ashes consigned to the dustbin of history so that they can rule from Washington as Trudeau does from Ottawa.
Indeed, on February 3, Biden himself made the claim of the Bill of Rights that “there’s no amendment that’s absolute.” Certainly he wishes that were true, but, fortunately for Americans, it is not — the U.S. is not Canada.
But it could easily enough become Canada. There are innumerable threats to the Constitution and its all-important Bill of Rights. These include threats not only from the totalitarian Left represented by Biden but also from some people claiming to be conservatives and libertarians. From that side come activism calling for a new constitutional convention, editorial rumblings that states should consider secession, and even deluded nonsense about the possibility of some future civil war. This latter is to be condemned in the strongest terms as unacceptable, but any threats to the Constitution need to be opposed with all possible vigor.
The Constitution and its Bill of Rights must be respected, honored, revered, and — most importantly — protected, because if it fails and is lost, then so too is freedom lost. And if freedom is lost in the United States of America, then the prospect of freedom anywhere in the world evaporates as little more than a wisp of smoke above an extinguished bonfire.
As American citizens, then, let us pray for our neighbors to the north that this moment of apparent triumph for the partisans of dark, dictatorial rule actually instead lights anew a bright flame of longing for liberty that results in a new flowering of freedom across the north.
In the meantime, let’s renew our vigorous support for our Constitution and Bill of Rights here in our own great Republic.
page=1&profile_user_id=158344&year=&month=
Load More