Tuesday, October 13, 2020

‘Legendary’: Barrett Asked To Hold Up Notes She’s Using To Answer Questions. She Holds Up A Blank Notepad.

Article by Angela Prestigiacomo in The Daily Wire

‘Legendary’: Barrett Asked To Hold Up Notes She’s Using To Answer Questions. She Holds Up A Blank Notepad.

"That's impressive."

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett held up a blank notepad when Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) asked her to show the public the notes she’s been using to answer the numerous questions spat at her during day two of the confirmation hearings. 

“Most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books, things like that in front of us,” said Sen. Cornyn (video below). “Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?”

Barrett held up a blank notepad.

“Is there anything on it?” asked Cornyn.

“The letterhead that says United States Senate,” the judge replied.

 “That’s impressive,” said the senator.

 

 The moment received praise online from conservatives.

 

 WATCH the moment, below:


 

Early during Tuesday’s hearing, Barrett was asked about her views on Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case that would push the legalization of abortion back to the states if overturned.

Barrett argued that expressing a view on a precedent would signal to litigants “that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” as noted by The Daily Wire. 

“Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe [v. Wade] was wrongly decided?” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pressed.

“Senator, I do wanna be forthright and answer every question so far as I can. I think on that question, I’m gonna invoke Justice Elena Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not gonna grade precedent, give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. … It would be wrong and a violation of the cannons for me to do that as a sitting judge.”

“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” reasoned Barrett.

A frustrated Feinstein pushed again, framing the question as of most importance for “half the population,” noting that it was “distressing not to get a straight answer.” However, she received the same answer from Barrett. 

Asked a third time, Barrett responded, “My answer is the same … It’s a contentious issue … but I can’t express views on cases, or pre-commit to approaching a case any particular way.”

The judge was also asked during the hearing about how she felt about being referred to as a “female Scalia.”

“I would say that Justice Scalia was a mentor. As I said when I accepted the president’s nomination that his philosophy is mine, too,” she responded, according to ABC News. “He was a very eloquent defender of originalism and it was also true of textualism, which is the way that I approach statutes and their interpretation and similarly to what I just said about originalism.”

“If I’m confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett,” emphasized the judge.

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/barrett-asked-to-hold-up-notes-shes-using-to-answer-questions-she-holds-up-a-blank-notepad


Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Iran: UN arms embargo to expire on Oct. 17

 

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:36 AM PT – Tuesday, October 13, 2020

The Ayatollah regime in Iran said it’s looking forward to the expiration of a United Nations arms embargo later this month. On Monday, Iranian officials said the UN Security Council ban on the import and export of weapons by the Islamic Republic will expire on October 17.

Tehran also slammed the U.S. for its calls to extend the UN embargo by stating “it’s not going to happen.” Iran agreed to cease its trade in conventional weapons and freeze its nuclear program under the 2015 nuclear deal in exchange for financial benefits.

The Ayatollah regime now claims the expiration of the embargo will hurt the U.S.

“It is a historic failure for the U.S. that could not push forward with its intentions in spite of applying deception and unlawful actions in a world that has become multilateral,” stated Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran. “The Islamic Republic proved, once again, that America is not the super power it pretends it is.”

 Iran is also refusing to pay $1.4 billion to the family of former FBI agent Robert Levinson who disappeared in the country. The regime claims Levinson had left Iran before his disappearance

 

https://www.oann.com/iran-un-arms-embargo-to-expire-on-oct-17/ 

 


 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

 

at

Democrats: It’s Trump’s Fault We’re Burning Down American Institutions

The left and the right agree that American institutions are under attack. 

They just disagree on what those institutions are 
and who's doing the attacking.



When they aren’t too busy telling us the sky is falling, legacy media love to remind us that war is being waged on American institutions.

“American institutions are ‘under assault’ by Trump,” the Washington Post warns. “The President is winning his war on American institutions,” says the Atlantic, adding “If he’s given a few more years, the damage to American democracy will be irreversible.” 

CNN explains “9 ways Trump has shredded U.S. institutions,” while Bloomberg News’ opinion editor writes about “Trump’s systematic attack on U.S. institutions.”

“Donald Trump from the beginning has seemed to pose a threat to the American system unlike any president in living memory,” writes Francis Fukuyama in Politico Magazine.

“Even for this president, it was a remarkable week of attacks on American institutions,” said The New York Times after the 2018 midterm elections.

Just what are those ambiguous institutions that are so endangered by the Trump administration? Trump’s concerns about voter fraud endanger the electoral process, say the media. He has undermined trust in the intelligence community and in U.S. government overall by publicly noting that subversive surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016 actually happened. He’s also attacking the judicial system by criticizing judges and decisions he disagrees with (although Democrats’ proposal to pack the Supreme Court for partisan motives is apparently no problem). 

The media further accuse Trump of filling government positions with political loyalists, and challenging the vast layers of bureaucracy that have plagued government for decades. Maybe worst of all, Trump has criticized the media establishment itself.

While the left hand-wrings about Trump now, they have spent decades torching American institutions. These institutions are foundational to others like government, the media, and elections.

Nuking The Nuclear Family

Most primally, the institution of the family is now playing defense against decades of leftist attacks. Some attacks are overt, like the Black Lives Matter organization’s expressed goal to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” In July, the Smithsonian released an infographic listing the “nuclear family” as a part of “white culture.” On the same webpage, the Smithsonian urged readers to face their whiteness and “recognize their fragility.”

Meanwhile, The Atlantic cheered “The Rise of the 3-Parent Family,” in a September article tracing the falsified popularity of tri-parent households. The article misrepresented a Pew Research report about the number of children in two-parent households, but this didn’t keep the author from celebrating the supposed demise of organic family structure. “The idea that the default family unit consists of two straight parents and their children is outdated,” she said. 

These attacks on the organic family have been gaining steam since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. With the advent of the Pill and legalization of abortion, sex became more casual and more acceptable outside of marriage. Third-wave feminism discouraged women from raising a family. Predictably, the percent of American children living with their two married biological parents dropped from 87 percent in 1960 to 61 percent in 2014.

While the heightened dangers of growing up in divorced or single-parent homes are certainly not inevitable, they are sobering. Children whose parents are divorced are statistically more likely to make similar choices. A Harvard study found that growing up with a single parent was a significant factor holding back a child’s upward income mobility. The family is the laboratory where a child learns how to interact with the world, and his family circumstances will strongly shape his approach.

Attacks On the Church

Another institution the left fires upon constantly is church. Most recently, arbitrary restrictions from state and local leaders hamstrung churches from congregational fellowship. In California, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and elsewhere, governments have recorded license plate numbers of church attendees, threatened to imprison pastors, and fully banned congregational worship.

Long before COVID-19, leftist attacks on religious freedom were concerning. The Family Research Council published a list of unjust restrictions on religious exercise in 2014. A few of the instances in the 40-page document involved: seniors barred from singing Christmas carols, criticism of a “Mother Theresa” stamp, banning prayer before meals at an Illinois homeless shelter, a high schooler threatened with arrest for praying in her graduation speech, and firefighters forced to participate in a gay pride parade. The updated 2017 report showed that these kinds of attacks had grown by 76 percent in three years. 

While these incidents are increasing, constitutional protections for religious liberty are eroding. In 1990, writing the majority opinion for Employment Division v. Smith, the usually originalist Justice Antonin Scalia re-categorized free exercise of religion as a “hybrid” right, which needed to be combined with another constitutional right to merit full protection. The Smith decision made it easier for laws restricting religious freedom to be upheld.

Just this year, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court redefined Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “sexual orientation” in the word “sex,” making it illegal to fire an employee on the basis of his or her gender identity. While some religious freedom exceptions may exist for now, the court left unanswered how Bostock will interact with free exercise. Lower-court decisions since indicate the answer is in a decided negative.

A Re-telling Of History

Political theorist Edmund Burke envisioned a social contract between current generations, their predecessors, and their descendants. Appreciating past generations and recognizing obligations to future ones encourages us to steward society well, Burke said.

This appreciation for history does not entail blind worship of our forefathers’ actions, but thoughtful evaluation of them. We should recognize our historical faults as we celebrate our historical accomplishments — but neither of these is possible if we do not know our history.

In 2011, before President Obama canceled the tests informing the public of this important metric, The New York Times reported that only 12 percent of high school seniors were proficient in U.S. history. Only 2 of every 100 students could answer a question about Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down racial segregation in schools. Not only are we rapidly forgetting our history, but the history students are learning is deeply critical of the past, and sometimes patently inaccurate.

The 1619 Project, for example, is a set of essays positing that America’s proper beginning was not 1776 but 1619, the “beginning of American slavery.” Curriculum from the 1619 Project has already been taught to students in 4,500 classrooms.

“Nearly everything that has made America truly exceptional,” says the 1619 Project, has come from slavery and racism. These include everything from America’s pop music to “the example it sets for the world as a land of freedom and equality.” Nikole Hannah-Jones, the architect of the 1619 Project, had to issue a correction about her completely unfounded claim that the American War for Independence was fought to preserve slavery.

This year, a Virginia school district also dropped $20,000 for students to have a one-hour conversation with sworn anticapitalist Ibram X. Kendi. They spent another $24,000 on his books for a U.S. history class. Far from history textbooks, Kendi’s books are about “How To Be An Anti-Racist” and “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You.” They monetize anti-white racism. Kendi has also suggested U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was a “white colonizer” for adopting two children from Haiti.

The institutions of family, the church, and history aren’t the only ones necessary for a thriving society. But they are foundational. If we hope to keep other American institutions like our system of government intact, then we must preserve those central fixtures instead of joining the left in blowing them to smithereens.


at

New CDC Report Shows Wearing Masks Didn’t Help for July



When it rains it pours for those that have been berating people for months about SCIENCE & DATA being the only thing to guide us.

Yesterday I wrote about the World Health Organization starting to backpedal on their original claim of locking everything down Now You Tell Us: World Health Organization Now Says Lockdowns Are Bad. Now we have information coming out from the Center for Disease Control saying that for the month of July 70% of those who caught COVID-19 were always wearing masks and 85% claim to often wear them.

As Joe Biden would say…CMON MAN.

From The Blaze…

A survey conducted by over a dozen medical institutions for the CDC and published in Sept. 11’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showed that 85% of those who contracted COVID-19 during July among the study group either “always” or “often” wore face coverings within the 14 days before they were infected. More than 70% of those outpatient individuals who tested positive reported always wearing masks. Just 3.9% reported never wearing a mask.

If anything, mask-wearing has gotten more universal with greater enforcement in the ensuing months, yet the virus continues to spread rapidly.

Recently, the CDC’s own director, Robert Redfield, told a Senate panel that mask-wearing is more effective than a vaccine. Well, have you ever seen 85% of people infected with a particular virus having had a vaccine?!

This survey magnifies the reality of the past few months. Whether it’s Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, Miami, or Argentina, the virus spread wildly months after strict mask mandates have already been in place. The reality is that the pores in surgical masks are about 30 times larger than the average size of SARS-CoV-2 virions, and some of the cheap (but more comfortable) cotton masks that are commonly worn have pores hundreds of times larger than the virus particles.


This is going to get really messy, really quick.


First off, you have the agency that all the countries work in conjunction with deciding that lockdowns don’t work. This was the result of years of no one obviously actually game playing out what could happen if some virus that was anywhere near the plague came along to visit. Everyone in the beginning just took for granted that this was what the best and brightest had decided and we needed to take it with no questions asked. Now we hear that maybe that was not the best course of action.

Then the second phase of this plan was to have everyone mask up. Of course, Dr. Faucci and the Surgeon General of the United States were not for this back in March but they came around. Now we see real data that shows that the mask-wearing is not helping stop the spread. Check out the CDC spreadsheet HERE.

People’s lives have been altered by closing businesses and loss of jobs. That we damn near closed down medical facilities to only cater to COVID for nearly two months meant others’ lives were put at risk for something that didn’t have to happen according to the very experts who told us we needed to do this ASAP.

This has been an emotional response from the get-go and the very people who suggested all these things will walk away whistling while we are all left to pick up the pieces.

Those people suck.


at

Flynn’s Alleged Crime Contradicted by FBI Notes



The 2017 FBI interview of Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn wasn’t based on the controversial Russia investigation, recently released notes from an FBI meeting indicate. If that were the case, it would contradict a necessary element of Flynn’s alleged crime.

Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI. Earlier this year he asked the judge to allow him to withdraw the plea, saying he only signed it because prosecutors threatened his son, and his lawyers gave him bad advice due to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped the case in May after an internal review unearthed evidence suggesting the FBI agents were trying to catch the retired three-star Army general in a lie. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has yet to rule on the dismissal.

The statement of offense attached to Flynn’s plea said his “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

The Russia investigation was taken over several months after the Flynn interview by a special counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller. The probe concluded in 2019 and failed to establish any such Trump-Russia collusion occurred.

But the Flynn interview wasn’t based on the Russia investigation to begin with, as indicated by notes taken by an FBI lawyer from a meeting the day after the interview (pdf).

It’s not clear who took the notes, but they are dated Jan. 25, 2017, and list attendees from the FBI as well as the DOJ National Security Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

The participants talked about the Flynn case, but not about anything related to collusion. Instead, they were discussing the Logan Act, an 18th century law that prohibits private citizens from conducting unsanctioned diplomacy with foreign states. Nobody has been successfully prosecuted under the statute. The last time prosecutors even tried was in 1852.

The FBI was about to close its investigation of Flynn in late 2016, but kept it open under the theory that Flynn violated the Logan Act when he voiced foreign policy preferences of the incoming Trump administration to foreign officials in December 2016 phone calls.

One of the meeting attendees noted that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge a Logan Act violation, the notes indicate.

“Other transition teams,” the notes say, as somebody seemed to make the point that Flynn’s calls were equivalent to what transition teams of other president-elects have done.

“How do you assess § 1001 when you wouldn’t prosecute underlying crime?” said FBI’s then-General Counsel James Baker, the notes say.

Section 1001 refers to making false statements to the government—the law Flynn was eventually accused of breaking.

The law says that to be criminal a lie needs to be “material,” meaning it pertained to the purpose the government was fulfilling at the time.

Baker’s comment indicates the officials were operating on the premise that the FBI’s purpose at the interview was to investigate a potential Logan Act violation of Flynn’s. If that was the case, it would indicate Muller’s prosecutors grafted Flynn’s alleged lies onto the Russia investigation retrospectively.

The prosecutors never explained in what way Flynn’s answers “impeded and otherwise had a material impact” on the Russia probe.

Sullivan acknowledged as much when he was accepting Flynn’s plea in 2018. He concluded the hearing by saying he “had many, many, many more questions. … such as, you know, how the government’s investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality?”

The notes were provided to Flynn’s defense on Oct. 7 as part of the review ordered in January by Attorney General William Barr.

“The FBI knew on January 25, 2017, that none of the statements made by General Flynn to the FBI the day before could be material to any legitimate FBI investigation or action,” Flynn’s lawyers said in an Oct. 7 motion (pdf). “These notes are further exculpatory evidence—standing in direct violation of this court’s Brady order—showing that General Flynn has been innocent all along, which the FBI knew from the beginning.”

The Brady order was entered by Sullivan, as he does in every case, requiring the government to hand over any exculpatory evidence in its possession to the defense.

Last week, Flynn’s lawyers moved to disqualify Sullivan for bias. They said “he grasped at straws” at a recent hearing to try to find reasons to deny the dismissal of the case.

Sullivan responded by setting an Oct. 14 deadline for the DOJ to sound off on the motion.

at

Why Some People Take Q-Anon's Pedophilia Allegations Seriously

Article by Robert Oscar Lopez in The American Thinker

 

Why Some People Take Q-Anon's Pedophilia Allegations Seriously

In Billy Joel's rock classic, "You May Be Right," he has the memorable lines:

You may be right
I may be crazy
But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for.

It's too late to fight
It's too late to change me
You may be wrong, but for all I know,
You may be right.

Billy Joel's classic came back to me as everybody seems eager to bash the "Q-Anon" phenomenon these days.  In one of Joe Carter's usual feints at the Gospel Coalition, he offers a listicle of things Christians should know about Q.  First and foremost, it is "the family of fringe conspiracy theories."

Carolyn Mimbs Nyce at the Atlantic says it is a "new American religion."  And you know that if you're writing in the Atlantic, there's no way to be an American religion, new or old, in a good way.  While at least acknowledging that concern for child abuse motivates many Q proponents, she goes as far as to say that Q is a "rejection of reason and Enlightenment values."

Will Sommer, reporting at the Daily Beast, can scarcely hide his glee in reporting about the ill fated antics of Jessica Brim, whom he calls a "Q-Anon devotee."  Brim "had come to New York because of an internet conspiracy theory video about a 'cabal' of pedophile Democrats" and got arrested over "more than a dozen counts of criminal possession of a weapon ... as well as a marijuana possession charge."  Sommer summarizes her world as a "Facebook page" "filled with references to QAnon, a conspiracy theory that holds that top Democrats like Biden and Clinton are cannibal-pedophiles scheming to undermine Donald Trump."

The New Yorker's Adrienne LaFrance describes Q-Anon the way superstitious people would describe an omnipresent demonic force.  Liberals like to turn descriptions of Q-Anon's conspiracy theories into their own grand conspiracy theory about Q-Anon's dangerous empire of saboteurs, underworld plotters, fanatical ideologues, and terrorists.  Q-Anon, LaFrance tells us, is "more important" than one might think.  In her view, the movement unites many people with the laundry-list obsessions that fearful leftists love to denounce: religiosity, resistance to the Sexual Revolution, affiliations with Trump.

LaFrance is cited as the definitive Q expert by Sarah Posner, author of the subtly titled book Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump.  In a classically manipulative New York Times piece called "The Evangelicals Who Are Taking on Q-Anon," Posner assures us that Q-Anon is not only insane, but also a distillation of the most dangerous extremisms of right-wing white Christianity:

Some white evangelicals speculated about whether Barack Obama was the Antichrist, or just a "sign of the times."  Of course the point was not to actually determine, definitively, whether the first Black president was the Antichrist. The point was to make people wonder aloud about it or post about it on social media.

The message from every major news outlet is simple: Q exemplifies both a criminal mind and psychopathology (see here to consider how people criminalize and pathologize "conspiracy theories").  Any time you hear someone mention Q with scowling contempt, you are having a close encounter with the evil villains of every left-wing doomsday warning: brainless evangelicals, frigid Midwestern Sunday School matrons, macho gun-collectors, gullible mobbers, Clinton-obsessed racists, misogynistic homophobes, cross-burners, Bible-thumpers, locker room bullies, incestuous backwoods druggies on work release.

Since Q-Anon became so vilified, it's no surprise that the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to denounce Q-Anon on October 2, 2020 by a vote of 371-18. The vast majority of the spineless GOP contingent went along with the bluster.  Hilariously, in more than a dozen "Whereas" clauses, the House resolution wanders into its own lunatic fringe, alleging that the Q-Anon crowd contributes to violent crimes, terrorism, anti-Semitism, and seemingly random but newsworthy disturbances such as a man trying to bomb the Illinois Capitol rotunda and another vandalizing a Catholic church.  The resolution even accuses Q-Anon of harming efforts to curtail sex-trafficking by focusing so much on it that they overwhelm hotlines.

The resolution cites the FBI and West Point.  The authors think this is the best time to demand that we place our faith in politicized intel agencies and the military-industrial complex.  Who doesn't want to place his faith in James Comey and Dr. Strangelove?.

Q-Anon, we are told, is crazy. But remember what Billy Joel said in "You may be right." It might be some lunatics America's been looking for.

In a land full of blind men, the one-eyed man is king

If you immerse yourself in the left's sexual beliefs, after a while, their radicalism won't shock you because you think that's how the world is.  You'll be scandalized when someone else is shocked by things that really ought to outrage us.  So it goes in a country where ludicrous notions have become mainstream and the sane people who object are tagged as psychopaths.  It's like the Twilight Zone episode where the pretty blonde is seen as ugly in a world of people with elephant faces.

At first, leftists believed they could make Q go away through their usual sandbagging tactics:

  1. pretending they're not there (the way they buried the Terry Bean and Ed Buck stories),
  2. blacklisting them from media sites (Alex Jones and Groyper treatment),
  3. getting the Southern Poverty Law Center to splatter them all over one of their "hate maps" (the Family Research Council sleight),
  4. mocking them (Westboro Baptist Church),
  5. and digging up dirt about their leadership, the way they smeared religious leaders (Ted Haggard) and Supreme Court nominees (Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett).

Q's warriors are immune to these typical tactics.

Q-followers area persistent and now numerous, so #1 fails.

They are diffuse, so it's impossible to know whom to ban, so #2 fails.

The soldiers in Q's army rally around their common interest in the techniques used by elites to deceive and manipulate large masses of people.  By this time labels like "bigot" and "hater" have become banal, so #3 fails.

Unlike earlier anti-leftist movements, Q began with the unquestioned conviction that global elites are twisted, depraved, and evil.  The movement never went through a phrase of wanting liberal echelons to like them, so they couldn't care less about their detestable opponents making fun of them.  Many emulate David fighting Goliath anyway.  Therefore, #4 fails.

Lastly, Q has no identifiable leaders, so the usual trick of blackmailing or defaming someone at the top for a surgical strike — in essence, #5 — also fails.

Why Q won't go away

Pedophilia may be the most shocking allegation, but it is a refraction of a deep and commonly perceived problem with all the left-wing camps: the left's ideas about children have become frightening.  Whether it's age of consent, family law, adoption procedures, sexual education, sexual media aimed at younger and younger children, the forced exposure to sexually confusing material, or lies about sexual reality, or, yes, direct emotional or physical abuse, the leftist camps have shown a consistent eagerness to force adult controversies onto children who are too young to understand them.

Q was smart to frame the pedophilia discussion by looking at the link between child abuse and networks of power, systems, and ideological agendas.  Q never agreed to a discussion on the left's terms.  Usually, the left likes to make sex abuse a matter of naming, shaming, and punishing famous individuals as mass catharsis.  This left-wing modus operandi of ostracism and revenge creates paradoxes where leftists brand Roy Moore a pedophile with only the flimsiest of evidence, only to hand victory to Doug Jones, endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign or HRC.  HRC was founded by accused abuser Terry Bean and now wants to force schoolchildren across America to learn about adult sexualities through "Welcoming Schools."  If the left were so concerned about pedophilia, why are leftists creating a national system of targeting children for discussions about sexuality away from their parents — a practice associated with grooming?

If charges of organized pedophilia at the highest ranks of society are so delusional, then why is Obama-connected Netflix doubling down on its support of child porn?  Why has California created a legal loophole for twenty-four year-olds to engage in "consensual" sodomy and oral sex with fourteen-year-olds in the name of LGBT equality?  Why have the same leftists who see Handmaid's Tale as a misogynist dystopian tale rallied to support surrogacy and international adoption-on-demand in the name of supporting "gay families," despite the fact that we haven't developed safeguards against child trafficking, as evidenced in cases like Mark Newton and Frank Lombard?  Indeed, the same left that speaks endlessly about "kids in cages" on the Mexican border fought agcontrols of border crossings, which will undoubtedly make child-trafficking more common for black-market adoptions and for sex slavery.

Anybody claiming that same-sex parenting through surrogacy poses no risk of sexual misconduct should look simply at the case of Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, known as Britain's "first gay dad."  He was together with one man for over 30 years, during which they adopted five children via surrogacy.  But then Drewitt-Barlow broke up with his "husband" and started dating Scott Hutchinson, the boyfriend of his surrogate-conceived daughter Saffron.  Hutchinson is half Drewitt-Barlow's age.  This new couple then procured a daughter, Valentina, through yet another surrogacy contract.

Describing the moment his daughter met her little sister for the first time, Barrie said: "It was strange when Saffron first met Valentina.  It crossed my mind that this could have been her baby with Scott and my grandchild."

If the Drewitt-Barlow case looks normal to you, then you're probably not going to understand the mass appeal of Q-Anon.  But here's the punch line: you're crazier than Q ever was if that's the case.

When these issues were raised during the debates about gay adoption, the constant response we heard from the left was that "children don't need to be raised by their mother and father; they only need to be loved."  If you unpack that logic, you'll see the underlying evil.  Q-Anon has figured out that terrible things happen when adults think all children want their "love" all the time.  Stalking, molestation, grooming, trafficking, and harassment of underage people quickly become normalized when the left reserves the right to say the child wanted whatever strange treatment the adults believed they were entitled to force or press upon the child.

If you have any doubts that left-wing adults will project even their weirdest thoughts onto unwilling children, consider the movement to ban "conversion therapy" even for youths who want counseling to avoid homosexuality.  Pro-LGBT fanatics see no problem in deciding what underage people should want or even what kind of sex lives they should desire.

And naturally, the more powerful a person is, the greater the likelihood the person will have the ability to turn his own sick thoughts about children into law, policy, and culture.

Setting aside some examples where people proclaim that Q-Anon got things wrong, we find abundant signs that the basis of Q-Anon's theory — elites promote child abuse through the levers of power — is not crazy at all.

The Q army is not approaching pedophilia the way leftists MeTooed issues of sexual conduct.  The left cast­ it as an individual abomination to smear specific targets such as Roy Moore, Milo Yiannopoulos, Jerry Sandusky, and Joshua Duggar.  The new Q activists are looking at the systemic pedophilia, ironically because the leftists who obsess about "systemic" problems can't make the jump from individual abuse cases to the larger structural deficiencies in our society.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/why_some_people_take_qanons_pedophilia_allegations_seriously.html




Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

The Obama Admin Was Complicit – “They Pushed the Disinformation”

“They Pushed the Disinformation” Against Trump and Flynn


Appearing on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo, Michael Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell cuts through the parseltongue to note the Obama administration was not tricked into allowing a smear campaign against Donald Trump and Michael Flynn; the Obama administration was participating in the creation and pushing of the smear campaign.



  • July 26, 2016 – ¹Brennan informed by campaign operative that Hillary Clinton, political allies and agents were using and pushing Trump-Russia smear.
  • July 28, 2016 – ²Brennan briefs President Obama about smear campaign in White House.
  • July 31, 2016 – FBI Agent Peter Strzok opens Trump investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) based on Trump-Russia collusion smear.
  • FBI begins using Steele-Dossier created by Fusion-GPS and Clinton Campaign as primary justification for ongoing Trump investigation.

Everyone knew exactly what they were doing. No-one was tricked into participating.

Remember, the four-year democrat narrative (pushed relentlessly by media) was how the professional intelligence community worked diligently to verify the Trump-Russia intelligence, and that every aspect briefed to President Obama went through the highest levels of “by-the-book” verification and authentication. Now those same democrats and media voices are claiming the Brennan briefing material was “Russian disinformation.”

The accuracy of the 3-year-old CTH graphics has withstood the test of time. – That’s and example of how brutally obvious this scheme was from the outset.


at