Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Supreme Court cowards

Article by Michael Master in World Net Daily

Supreme Court cowards

Michael Master says SCOTUS has rewarded cheating, mob rule, lies & media bias

Dec. 11, 2020, will be known as the day the U.S. Supreme Court shirked its responsibility to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. It ruled that the plaintive (Texas plus 19 other states) had no standing in the enforcement of the contract (the Constitution) concerning election procedures in four other states (Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) even though all 50 states are the principles to that contract.

The Supreme Court punted its responsibility. It ignored Article III, Section 2, of that contract, which states: "The Judicial Power shall extend … to Controversies between two or more States; … In all Cases affecting … those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

"Original jurisdiction" allows the Supreme Court to look at all evidence instead of just the application of law as an appellate court. By declaring a lack of standing, the Supreme Court will not look at the evidence at all.

By its ruling, the Supreme Court and the rulings of lower courts refused to address election fraud in the 2020 election, including:

  • changes to election procedures in violation to the Constitution;
  • ballot harvesting;
  • ballot destruction;
  • more votes than registered voters in several precincts;
  • blatant vote switching by machine software;
  • electronic ballot box stuffing;
  • simultaneous suspension of vote counting in the dead of night in five states controlled by Democrats in three different time zones when Trump was significantly ahead in each, resuming three hours later with Biden then ahead in each;
  • acceptance of ballots that did not meet election requirements and co-mingling those ballots with other ballots so they could not be singled out for review; and
  • statistically unbelievable vote counts where Trump received fewer than 1% of the votes.

The Supreme Court and lower courts rewarded the philosophies of the left, deep state, communists and American oligarchs that might makes right and that the end justifies the means.

The courts rewarded cheating, riots as extortion, mob rule, lies, media bias and the use of the virus from China as justification to deviate from defined legislative election processes.

The ramifications of this will stretch well into the future … might makes right; the end justifies the means. The rule of law is dead.

Those actions of election fraud were criminal, not just violations of the contract between the states. So who is investigating those criminal actions? Since the ones who committed the criminal acts are the ones who should be investigating them, who will be doing the investigations?

The whole world is watching and now understands that America's deep state interferes in elections, even its own elections, and that the U.S. does not have the resolve to fix it. It sees that our courts are powerless to enforce the rule of law against American oligarchs and the deep state, so they look for loopholes like "standing" to get them off the hook.

They are cowards at best and part of the deep state at worst, officials who cannot be trusted to "protect and defend" the interests of we the people as articulated in the U.S. Constitution.

 

 https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/supreme-court-cowards/


 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


‘Collusion’ vs. Collusion

One can lie about “collusion” with impunity. But to speak the truth about collusion is to be smeared as “xenophobic,” “racist,” and “nativist.”


Historians will dissect the origins and spread of the mass hysteria of Russian “collusion.”

The farce infected the media. It discredited the Democratic Party. And it warped the popular culture between 2015 and 2020.

“Collusion” destroyed what was left of respect for the Washington FBI, the CIA, and the liberal news media. When 50 former “intelligence” officers can attest, right before the election, that the Hunter Biden scandal emails are likely Russian disinformation designed to help Trump, then there is nothing much left of the reputation of our once best and brightest.

There are many theories of the origins of “collusion.” Some believe that Hillary Clinton, and her firewalls of the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS that hired Christopher Steele, simply sought a cover counter-narrative to hide her own illegally transmitted and received State Department emails and spin-off scandals.

At the time “collusion” took off, Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were on the tarmac in Phoenix, sexual deviate Anthony Weiner’s wife was emailing with Hillary Clinton, and copies ended up on Anthony’s lurid laptop. The hacked DNC computers and all proof of supposed Russian “collusion” culprits had been mysteriously turned over by the FBI to the Clinton-friendly firm, Crowdstrike, for recovery of lost files.

There were other catalysts for the “collusion” mythology. By 2015, Democrats were embarrassed their Russian “reset” love fest had blown up in its face. Finger-wagging about human rights to a thug like Vladimir Putin—while being terrified of selling offensive weapons to beleaguered Ukraine—was a “talk-loudly-while-carrying-a-twig” prescription for disastrous humiliation.

The left-wing architects of reset, in their arrogance, went from “We can push the weak-hand of Putin” to “Putin is an omnipotent monster” in less than a year. In 2012, they acted as if they were Alger Hiss. By 2016 they were in full Joe McCarthy-mode, hunting for a Russian under every bed.

Putin, in his Mafioso-style thinking, had kept his part of the reset bargain. He had stayed inert in 2011, as promised in Seoul, South Korea, to aid Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. And in collusionary return, as also promised, Putin got missile defense in Eastern Europe scrapped and, as a bonus, a free hand in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Collusion Delusion

“Collusion” then had allowed befuddled Russian appeasers and naïfs to cover up, and recalibrate themselves as our new version of Cold War hawks. It was as if a supposedly geriatric, and anemic Russia suddenly had transmogrified back into the huge, and global-menacing Soviet Union—or as if the resetters’ own ridiculous placation could be erased by uncovering someone else’s sinister mollification.

But the chief catalyst for the “collusion” hoax was always hatred of the campaign, and then the election, of Donald Trump.

“Collusion” was, as the debased FBI agent Peter Strzok had texted, the “insurance policy” of the administrative state to keep the “smelly,” the “ugly folk,” and “dregs” where they belonged—far, far from power. The cartoonish Steele dossier was reinvented by a corrupt media to be some kind of George Kennan-like policy paper to destroy the Trump campaign, his transition, and his presidency.

“Collusion” took off because so many of those directly involved in its illegality—Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Hillary Clinton—pushed the “collusion” lie, in roles of respected senior “wise men and women” with “security clearances” who knew “what was really going on.”

They were the tired guests and paid analysts on TV predicting “bombshells” and declaring that the “walls are closing in” and announcing “game-changers.” When one dud fizzled out, they went right on to the next empty bomb. They became best-selling apologist authors, Twitter addicts, network morning show habitues, Facebook junkies, and darlings of the celebrity culture. And they were all chronic dissimulators as well. Once one pronounced Donald Trump “illegitimate,” “dangerous,” and “crazy,” then any means necessary were justified to achieve the noble ends of destroying him and what he represented.

“Collusion” spiked CNN and MSNBC’s ratings. It created groupthink safe zones as discredited ossified relics of the past, from Carl Bernstein and John Dean to Dan Rather and Ron Reagan, Jr. were briefly resuscitated on air to offer “historic perspectives.”

But the distractions of “collusion” did hurt Donald Trump, the sum of all their hatreds. “Collusion” was behind the dishonest and embarrassing witch hunt of Robert Mueller’s 22-month $35 million investigation. It was the subtext of a fraudulent impeachment: the supposedly corrupt Trump was too hard on the anti-Russian and supposedly noble Ukrainians. The latter, we now know, were in corrupt liaisons with Biden, Inc. and yet would be the recipients from Trump of sophisticated weaponry banned to them by their left-wing Obama champions. Go figure.

The “collusion” fraud tore the country apart. It destroyed the reputations of James Comey, Robert Mueller, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, network news, and what had been left of the little repute of Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, and Andrew Weissmann.

But again it did achieve its intended effect. For 22 months, it paralyzed the Trump Administration. “Collusion” suppressed coverage of the dramatic gains in the U.S. economy, and suffocated news of historic recalibrations in foreign policy. It baffled foreign leaders who were assured by back-channel, deep-state apparatchiks that Trump would be gone soon.

The “collusion” effort, its proven dishonesty, and its complete failure to remove Donald Trump, did not lead to a hiatus. Much less, after “collusion failed, was there any uneasy peace. Nor was there an embarrassed silence at least to wait until 2020 to re-adjudicate the election of 2016.

No, the abject failure of “collusion’s” outlandish premises, and the impunity given those who destroyed so many lives and hurt the country, only whetted the appetite of the “Resistance.” The slow-motion coup aficionados promised to do better in the next round.

Remember, those who lied under oath, abused government power, broke the law, and unmasked and leaked classified information, to this day, have never been held to account. Nor have the journalists who spread these untruths and demonized any who refuted them. And so with that exemption, the Left pressed on to impeachment and, eventually, remaking the very system of how we voted in 2020.

They destroyed for good the old idea of a presidential “honeymoon,” of bipartisanship itself. From now on, there is not even a low bar for impeachment. There will be no hesitation in appointing a special counsel to investigate a newly inaugurated president, no reluctance to undermine U.S. foreign policy through domestic personal destruction politics.

If the peddlers of collusion never stopped for a second to reflect that they had initially and dangerously sought to appease Putin, they were now even more dangerously seeking to incite Putin’s Russia—still the possessor of 7,500 nuclear weapons, and the valuable traditional triangulating foil to check Chinese expansionism.

The Real McCoy

Oddest of all in this fixation on Russia, there was a real, far more dangerous collusion that was burrowed deep within the U.S. administrative state, the Democratic Party, corporate boardrooms, Big Tech, professional sports and entertainment, and the media.

If, save for its rusting nuclear arsenal, Russia was shrinking, poor, and spent, not so was China. It was rich, huge, and ruthlessly hellbent on global hegemony—if not by bribery and corruption, then by naked commercial and military force.

If there is a NATO along a much weaker Russia’s borders, until Trump there was nothing much to protect Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan from China.

Russia Today is a clumsy Cold War holdover propaganda outlet. But the Chinese dissemination Borg is huge. It is sophisticated and it is subtle. Beijing, far better than Russia, understands how to unravel a new America, unhinged and obsessed with race, victimization, and “privilege.”

Hollywood has had a field day with casting big-screen, shaved-headed, Orthodox tattooed, Russian mafia killers and brutes as the evil enemies of all noble minority and feminist film heroes. Yet at the same time, progressive studio heads and producers were reassuring the 1.4 billion people in the Chinese market that they would cull darker-skinned minority American actors so as not to offend the innate racism of the Chinese movie-goer. No one said a word about the paradox.

Is suspicion of Chinese collusion paranoia?

Think for a minute.

What country could put 1 million religious dissidents in a gulag archipelago, destroy the semi-independence of Hong Kong, threaten any of its dissident neighbors with commercial destruction, embark on the largest imperialist and colonialist project in two centuries throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe, obliterate the culture of Tibet, militarize, with man-made atolls, the South China Sea, systematize internal surveillance known heretofore only in the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four, nonchalantly practice institutional racism, and infect the planet with a novel virus—and receive almost no official criticism from the United Nations and the governments of the European Union and the United States?

To answer that question, ask what a diverse group of movers and shakers such as Michael Bloomberg, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), the elite universities of the United States, the family of Joe Biden, Lebron James, and Colin Kaepernick all have in common?

Easy. A presidential primary candidate assures us that China is not an authoritarian country as he pours billions into jump-starting Chinese companies.

The erstwhile head of the U.S. Senate’s intelligence committee has had a Chinese spy as her chauffeur for 20 years and a spouse who has millions in joint-Chinese ventures.

A congressman on the House Intelligence Committee was deeply compromised by an attractive young Chinese spy—a fact kept silent for years.

The Department of Education complains that our best universities have failed, again for years, to report tens of millions of dollars in “gifts” from Chinese government-affiliated companies.

Hunter Biden and his familial clique received millions of dollars in Chinese investment monies for no reason other than the “big guy” Joe Biden was or had been vice president.

Our sports icons simultaneously trashed American democracy while keeping mum about Chinese racist dictatorship, the source of their millions in endorsements and franchising.

Remember just those few examples and one realizes that something is gone haywire with those at the very heart of America’s power and cultural influence.

And the most depressing fact of all? Even if we had investigative reporters and crusading congressional representatives, or past administrations before 2016 interested in real collusion, then what could they really have done?

Émile Zola faced less institutional resistance.

How many Wall Street grandees, how many media moguls, how many ex-politicians and bureaucrats (now “consultants” and “analysts”), and how many retired esteemed generals would journalists have had to reexamine to adjudicate whether their public views and corporate policies were warped by Chinese profiteering?

One can lie about “collusion” with impunity. But to speak the truth about collusion is to be smeared as “xenophobic,” “racist,” and “nativist.”

China has piggybacked on the entire diversity/identity politics domestic cancel culture. Accuse a corrupt, clueless but otherwise innocent Russian of “collusion,” and he may well be indicted by Robert Mueller. Accuse a university professor of Chinese military links or espionage, and you are a veritable 19th-century racist raving about the “yellow peril.”

Our elite simplistically conflates the Russian nationalist dictator and kleptocrat Vladimir Putin with the criminal past of the now-defunct Stalinist Soviet Union that killed 20 million of its own. Yet in creepy fashion, it still remains indifferent that Chinese President Xi Jinping, current General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Chinese Central Military Commission, heads a government apparatus that is the direct and unbroken successor to Mao Zedong’s Communist killing machine that wiped out over 50 millions of its own people.

Thank God for world peace that COVID-19 did not originate in St. Petersburg or Vladivostok instead of Wuhan.

Given the present U.S. “collusion” hysteria of the anti-Trump Left, had a Russian city been the source of the origin and transmission of the virus, had SARS-CoV-2 been connected to research and experimentation within a Level-4 Russian virology lab, and had the Russians lied about these facts, and, either through laxity or deliberation, allowed the virus to infect the world, kill over 1.5 million, and destroy the global economy, then we would have been on the brink of war.

And all for the sake of “collusion.”


Hungary bans same-sex couples from adopting children

 

The Hungarian parliament has passed a law effectively banning same-sex couples from adopting children.

The legislation put forward by Prime Minister Viktor Orban's right-wing government says only married couples can adopt, with some exceptions for single relatives of the child.

Same-sex marriage is illegal in Hungary, but adoption has been possible if one partner applies on their own.

One rights group called the new laws "a dark day for human rights".

 

 

What are the new rules?

Mr Orban has made sweeping changes to the Hungarian constitution since coming to power in 2010.

An amendment also approved on Tuesday defines family as "based on marriage and the parent-child relation. The mother is a woman, the father a man".

Same-sex couples will now be unable to adopt, even if one of them applies as a single person.

"The main rule is that only married couples can adopt a child, that is, a man and a woman who are married," Justice Minister Judit Varga said.

Single people will now require special approval from the government to adopt.

 

 

Parents must raise their children in a conservative spirit, the constitution now states.

"Hungary defends the right of children to identify with their birth gender and ensures their upbringing based on our nation's constitutional identity and values based on our Christian culture," it says.

The government says the changes are needed as "new ideological processes in the West" have made it necessary to "protect children against possible ideological or biological interference".

In May, Hungary's parliament approved a law that banned transgender people from changing the sex observed at birth on their official documents.

 

 

What has the reaction been?

The new rules have been strongly criticised by rights groups.

"This is a dark day for Hungary's LGBTQ community and a dark day for human rights," said David Vig, director of Amnesty Hungary.

Masen Davis, Executive Director at Transgender Europe, said: "We are deeply concerned for the health and safety of trans children and adults in Hungary in such a hostile climate."

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55324417 

 

 

 Prime Minister Orban has championed anti-immigration and socially conservative policies

 

 


 

Washington Post explores Joe Biden's faith, while embracing language of the Catholic left


Article by Terry Mattingly in Get Religion

 
Washington Post explores Joe Biden's faith, while embracing language of the Catholic left

Any serious discussion of Catholicism and national politics has to include material from the 1960 speech by Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

This would certainly be true — #DUH — of discussions of the life and times of President-elect Joe Biden. I would say the same thing about citing the “personally opposed, BUT … “ approach to doctrine seen in the 1984 speech by the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo at the University of Notre Dame.

Right now, there are Catholics arguing about whether Biden is “a Roman Catholic.” It’s safer to say, at this point, that he is an American Catholic or even a Cuomo at Notre Dame Catholic.

This brings us to the must-read Washington Post story that ran the other day with this headline: “Biden could redefine what it means to be ‘a Catholic in good standing.’ Catholics are divided on whether that is a good thing.” The key words are “in good standing” — referring to Biden continuing to be active in the sacraments of the Catholic faith, as symbolized by him going to Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

In terms of journalism, the good news is that this Post story quotes Catholic voices on both sides of this doctrinal debate. The bad news is that key passages in this report are worded — oh so precisely — in ways that will please Catholics on the doctrinal left and infuriate those on the doctrinal right.

Hold that thought. First, what did Kennedy say in 1960? Here is a crucial summary passage, with JFK stressing that his personal Catholic beliefs would never force his hand when making political decisions.

… (These) are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

Later, a witty critic noted (my online searches haven’t yielded the name) that anyone who knew anything about JFK’s private life would have to say this was the rare example of a presidential candidate making a campaign promise that it was absolutely certain that he would keep.

Kennedy makes his first appearance at the end of the Post article’s overture:

Bishops have already created a working group to deal with the “difficult” situation of his presidency. Priests from Maryland to Fort Worth have preached that the president-elect isn’t even really a Catholic. But to many millions of Catholics who voted for him, Joe Biden and his focus on healing are a compassionate, Pope Francis-like model of their faith.

Catholics’ views on Biden seem to serve as a proxy for what kinds of Catholicism they think most urgently needs to be advanced. Should it be more focused on qualities like engagement and empathy or on purifying doctrine? Is it as interested in Catholic teachings on poverty, refugees and the environment as those on sexuality and reproduction, or should it continue to place abortion law above all?

Despite these divisions, Biden is poised to make his mark on American Catholicism. For the next four years, the country will see its president go to Mass every Sunday, take out a rosary at times of contemplation, and quote his favorite childhood nuns and Catholic poets. And it will watch him try to navigate polarizing issues of special interest to his church that John F. Kennedy never had to take a position on — abortion, LGBTQ rights and climate change among them.

What are the “fighting words” in that passage?

Well for starters, consider: “But to many millions of Catholics who voted for him, Joe Biden and his focus on healing are a compassionate, Pope Francis-like model of their faith.” Conservative Catholics are, of course, opposed to “healing” and “compassion.” Are the Little Sisters of the Poor opposed to “healing” and “compassion”?

Then again, there’s this about the practice of Catholicism: “Should it be more focused on qualities like engagement and empathy or on purifying doctrine?” Why not say “defending” doctrine, when discussing the actions and statements of a politician who has chosen to remain a Catholic — after performing a same-sex marriage ceremony and erasing whatever centrist stances he has previously taken on right-to-life issues?

Continuing on: “Is it as interested in Catholic teachings on poverty, refugees and the environment as those on sexuality and reproduction, or should it continue to place abortion law above all?” At the very least, any discussion of that point would have to cover the views of the most recent three popes (yes, including Pope Francis) on the ways in which the church’s defense of the unborn are rooted in the same sanctity-of-life teachings that define its teachings on poverty, immigration, labor, etc. It might even help to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church on why abortion is such a crucial doctrinal issue.

I could offer dozens of other examples in the article. Here’s another key point: the Post frames all of this as a clash between the life and actions of President Donald Trump and the beliefs of those who consistently back Biden and his supporters in the church. There are many Catholics who have been appalled by Trump’s style and many of his actions who oppose Biden’s recent embrace of Democratic Party orthodoxy on moral and social issues.

Consider this crucial sentence: “Trump drew praise from conservative religious leaders in particular for his emphasis on protecting their religious liberties and exemptions.”

If you have followed FIrst Amendment debates in recent years, you know that the “conservatives” have consistently been defending the old-liberal views seen in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support during the Bill Clinton era. Note that Biden was one of the Democrats who introduced and supported that legislation, which has been used by lawyers on the left and the right to defend the First Amendment rights of believers in a wide variety of faith traditions.

As I said earlier: This article does quote Catholics on both sides. However, the story uses language that frames these debates in ways that weaken or even twist the views of Catholics on the doctrinally conservative side of the debate.

I will end with this one:

Kennedy enjoyed rock star-like support among Catholics, winning 80 percent of their vote; Biden won Catholics by a narrow majority. While in the decades after 1960, Catholics of all political persuasions kept a photo of Kennedy on the wall, next to one of the pope, in 2020 nearly 2.4 million people have watched the Rev. Ed Meeks preach on YouTube an anti-Biden sermon called “Staring Into the Abyss.” Meeks, of Christ the King parish in Towson, is among at least a dozen U.S. priests who made news this fall with sermons challenging Biden’s Catholicism and saying his support of pandemic lockdowns and same-sex marriage are threatening to the American way of life.

But Catholic clergy, like U.S. Catholics, have varying views on Biden. Division among the U.S. bishops over how to react to Biden’s election apparently led to two shifting statements by U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President José Gomez of Los Angeles.

Wait, wait, wait.

Seriously, did all of those priests — and by implication, their conservative bishops — really equate opposing “pandemic lockdowns” with making efforts to defend church teachings on marriage? And they all worded this in terms of threats on the “American way of life,” as opposed to the defense of church doctrine?

I seriously doubt that this is the case. Now, it is certainly true that Catholic leaders have been strong advocates of finding safe ways to return to Mass — honoring social-distancing rules — during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes, it is also true that most have also stressed that, in light of the First Amendment’s protection of religious belief AND practice, churches should not face regulations that are stronger than those applied to similar secular institutions.

Equating debates about whether lockdowns are effective with discussions of how to safely worship in giant sanctuaries — or outdoors, in the open air — is, well, bizarre.

After all, the last time I checked, Biden has been going to Mass — in a mask — in churches in which the clergy are holding worship services for as many worshippers as possible under social-distancing protocols.

There are a few priests who oppose lockdowns, period. Is it accurate or fair to equating that small circle of priests with the number of Catholic clergy and bishops who will defend church teachings on sexuality and marriage?

Trust me: I am aware that it is hard to write articles on issues this complex in a news report, even a fairly lengthy one such as this Post piece. I know that it is almost impossible to please — in discussions of accuracy, even — the gatekeepers and stakeholders on both sides.

At the very least, journalists must be willing to use words, when framing issues during a news report, that make people on both sides uncomfortable at some point. 

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2020/12/14/washington-post-explores-joe-bidens-faith-while-embracing-language-of-the-catholic-left 



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Pandemic Doesn't Break First Lady Holiday Hospital Tradition

 

Melania Trump isn't letting the coronavirus pandemic break a decadeslong tradition of first ladies visiting a Washington children's hospital at the holidays.

She planned her fourth holiday visit as first lady to Children's National on Tuesday, continuing a tradition begun more than 70 years ago by first lady Bess Truman.

The hospital tweaked the holiday program to safely accommodate the visit.

 

 

The first lady will still sit in a chair in front of a towering Christmas tree in the hospital's atrium. But she'll read to a small, socially distanced group of children rather than a big crowd of patients and their families, hospital staffers and singers and dancers.

Her reading of the children’s Christmas story “Oliver the Ornament Meets Marley & Joan and Abbey” will be broadcast over the hospital’s closed-circuit television system so patients can tune in from their rooms.

“During each of my visits to Children’s National, I have felt the warmth that these brave children bring, seen the joy in their eyes and the smiles on their faces,” Mrs. Trump told The Associated Press in a statement. “It always reminds me that the spirit of Christmas is truly alive in each and every one of these courageous children.”

 

 

For more than seven decades, first ladies have “brought holiday cheer to children who are hospitalized and can’t be home during this special time of the year,” Newman said.

Todd Zimmerman, who is writing a series of children’s books featuring the Christmastime adventures of Oliver the Ornament, said the stories also serve to teach children about kindness, especially in the face of bullying.

Zimmerman said he was glad Mrs. Trump's visit would help take the children's minds “off of what they're going through, if only for an hour."

 

 

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pandemic-melania-trump-christmas-holidays/2020/12/15/id/1001572/ 

 


 

 

 

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

Man Chokes In Restaurant, Dr. Jill Biden Springs Into Action To Deliver Educational Lecture



WILMINGTON, DE—As Dr. Jill Biden and her husband went out to eat over the weekend, a man began choking on his Denver omelet. But lucky for him, Dr. Jill Biden was there, and she is a doctor. 

"We need a doctor here!" cried a waiter. "Is there a doctor in the house?"

Dr. Jill Biden sprang into action. "I'm a doctor!" she said, rushing over. "I'm going to need a podium and a microphone, stat!" After a busboy hurried over with the life-saving tools she would need, Dr. Jill Biden thanked him and then began delivering a speech on meeting students' needs at the community college level.

"Thank you for having me here today," Dr. Jill Biden said as the bewildered choking man tried to call for a "real doctor," since he was obviously a misogynistic bigot. "Webster's Dictionary defines education as the action or process of educating." As she continued her intro, the man's face started to turn purple.

"There are three reasons community college being accessible for all is a net gain to society," Dr. Jill Biden said as the man started to lose consciousness. "First, good classes are good for people. We must increase positive educational outcomes by offering good classes for low or no cost. Good classes may include everything from tennis courses and physical education to math and even science."

"In conclusion, community college is good," Dr. Jill Biden said fifteen minutes later, after the man had died. "Thank you."

Dr. Ben Carson also happened to be there but was asked not to interfere as the media assured everyone he's not a real doctor.


What Will Happen to Gun Rights Under the Biden Presidency?

 

Article by Larry Alton in The American Thinker
 

What Will Happen to Gun Rights Under the Biden Presidency?

Any time a liberal candidate is elected to become President of the United States, gun rights and regulations take center stage. Historically, gun sales have surged in the two months between a Democratic presidential nomination and inauguration. And that’s precisely what we’re seeing right now.

A Quick Primer on the Second Amendment

Whenever gun laws and regulations become a key topic of conversation, it’s important to push past the filler and focus on the meat. In other words, start with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and what it says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s it -- nothing more and certainly nothing less. It’s 27 simple words, passed by Congress in 1789, ratified in 1791, and held as law for nearly two and a half centuries.

And while there’s certainly room for disagreement in today’s context, it’s important to remember why the Second Amendment exists.

First off, the right to bear arms is an insurance policy against a government that could potentially become too onerous. And as the American government continues to grow and tighten its grip on its citizens, having the means to overthrow the government (if necessary) is more important and relevant than ever before. (Nobody is saying it’ll ever come to this, but having this option is something that’s integral to protecting the rights of the citizenry.)

Secondly, the right to bear arms gives citizens personal protection against domestic enemies. In the early days of this country, there was no state or national police force -- particularly in rural areas. Instead, wanted criminals had bounties placed on their names and armed citizens were expected to capture them. Armed citizens were also expected to protect their own homes (and help protect their neighbors in times of need). And though police forces have increased in size and geographical reach over the last 200-plus years, they still don’t possess the ability to be anywhere and everywhere at once. The right to bear arms ensures citizens can serve as the first line of defense until law enforcement is able to step in.

Thirdly, the right to bear arms gives citizens the opportunity to be self-sufficient and hunt their own food. And while this was certainly more relevant in the early days of this country, it’s still a significant right in modern times. While not expressly outlined in the Constitution, early records of debates and discussions at Constitutional Conventions show that the right to bear arms was viewed as a necessity for hunting. (In fact, New Hampshire reportedly would not ratify the Constitution unless the right to bear arms was explicitly stated. And their reasoning for the Second Amendment had more to do with hunting and nourishment than it did with protection from an oppressive government.)

Times have certainly changed over the past couple of centuries, but the need for American citizens to have the right to bear arms is more relevant than ever.

“When our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they kept in mind the first law, of nature’s right to self-defense. I think we are again at this critical moment in history, and I agree with [supporters of the Constitution],” one concerned citizen recently wrote in an op-ed piece for the Virginia Gazette. “We may have to decide again to fight a tyrannical government should socialist democrats take control of our government and enforce a socialist ideology on our republic.”

While those on the left often scoff at the idea that they’re supporting a socialist movement, it’s hard for an objective individual to come to any other conclusion. A Joe Biden administration may not be a socialist platform, but it’s trending in that direction. And anytime the government expands, it’s nearly impossible for it to contract back to its original size or orientation. This is true with any part of the Constitution, including gun laws and proposed infringement on the Second Amendment.

What Biden Has Said He’ll Do

There’s always going to be a lot of speculation on what a Biden administration could do, but for now, let’s focus on what Biden has said he will do. Here are a few takeaways that come directly from his official gun control proposal:

  1. Ban on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

“Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons.”

  1. Mandatory Gun and Magazine Registration

“Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.”

  1. Mandatory Gun Confiscation

“Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.”

  1. Ban Manufacturing of All Non-Smart Guns

“Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns. But, right now the NRA and gun manufacturers are bullying firearms dealers who try to sell these guns. Biden will stand up against these bullying tactics and issue a call to action for gun manufacturers, dealers, and other public and private entities to take steps to accelerate our transition to smart guns.”

How Law-abiding Citizens Can Prepare

Whether or not Biden and his administration will be able to pass any or all these laws remains to be seen. However, it’s wise for law-abiding citizens to prepare for the possibility. Here are a few suggestions:

  • If you don’t already own an automatic rifle -- like an AR-15 rifle -- and would like to purchase one, now is your best opportunity to purchase one with the least amount of friction possible.
  • If you already own firearms, now is the best time to load up on ammunition. It’s very possible (even probable) that a Biden-led administration will attempt to dramatically increase taxes on ammunition in the future.
  • Continue to speak up in support of your Second Amendment rights. Gun owners cannot and should not remain silent on this issue.

Putting it All Together

It’s important that we don’t overreact. Emotions are always heightened in the direct aftermath of an election. And as we lead up to Inauguration Day, we must remember that we have a system of checks and balances in place for a reason. While a Biden administration is certainly going to be more oppressive to Second Amendment rights, it’s unlikely that they’ll be successful in totally revoking your right to bear arms.

We must remain vigilant and be prepared to fight for the unalienable rights that our forefathers fought so hard to grant us.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/what_will_happen_to_gun_rights_under_the_biden_presidency.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The SolarWinds Orion Data Breach Highlights a Silent Agenda by Foreign Actors


It started with the Treasury Department notification of “a sophisticated hacking group backed by a foreign government stole information from the U.S. Treasury Department and a U.S. agency responsible for deciding policy around the internet & telecommunications.”

Within hours the origin of that massive data breach was identified by the federal Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency (CISA) as a significant risk to government databases and private sector businesses.  The breach was attributed to computer intrusion through SolarWinds Orion:

WASHINGTON – The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) tonight issued Emergency Directive 21-01, in response to a known compromise involving SolarWinds Orion products that are currently being exploited by malicious actors. This Emergency Directive calls on all federal civilian agencies to review their networks for indicators of compromise and disconnect or power down SolarWinds Orion products immediately.

“The compromise of SolarWinds’ Orion Network Management Products poses unacceptable risks to the security of federal networks,” said CISA Acting Director Brandon Wales. “Tonight’s directive is intended to mitigate potential compromises within federal civilian networks, and we urge all our partners—in the public and private sectors—to assess their exposure to this compromise and to secure their networks against any exploitation.”  (read more)

The Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) also dispatched a warning, and further reporting on the issue pointed out the intrusion itself took place in May of 2020 and the malware was constructed to disguise itself within the SolarWinds’ system.

A cyber security firm, FireEye, found the intrusion door, identified the source code and tracked it to SolarWinds.  FireEye then notified law enforcement and federal agencies who then began reviewing the breach:

(Bloomberg) […] While the hack on FireEye was embarrassing for a cybersecurity firm, Carmakal argued that it may prove to be a crucial mistake for the hackers. “If this actor didn’t hit FireEye, there is a chance that this campaign could have gone on for much, much longer,” Carmakal said.

“One silver lining is that we learned so much about how this threat actor works and shared it with our law enforcement, intelligence community and security partners.” Carmakal said there is no evidence FireEye’s stolen hacking tools were used against U.S. government agencies.

“There will unfortunately be more victims that have to come forward in the coming weeks and months,” he said. While some have attributed the attack to a state-sponsored Russian group known as APT 29, or Cozy Bear, FireEye had not yet seen sufficient evidence to name the actor, he said. A Kremlin official denied that Russia had any involvement.

FireEye’s investigation revealed that the hack on itself was part of a global campaign by a highly sophisticated hacker that also targeted “government, consulting, technology, telecom and extractive entities in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East,” the company said in a blog post Sunday night. “We anticipate there are additional victims in other countries and verticals.” (more)

SolarWinds’ has a massive client list including all the sensitive government agencies and most of the top Fortune 500 companies.  There have been reports that executives at SolarWinds are being reviewed for making stock transactions prior to public notification of the cyber hack.


All of that said, let’s stand back and take a look at the relationship between the Dominion vote counting issues, and the cyber intrusion into SolarWinds’ Orion.

A backdoor into SolarWinds’ is essentially a backdoor breach into the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).  That same agency is in charge of operating all security networks connected to U.S. voting and election security systems, including the Dept. of Homeland Security.  In essence, and as a matter of emphatic emphasis, the breach into SolarWinds’ is a breach into the U.S. election security network.

Considering the hack itself, meaning the implant of the malware itself, has identified no actual extraction, or quantification of extracted, data… Then why else would the malware be implanted – except to coordinate some other activity connected to the doorway?

Perhaps this is the apt metaphor….

If you were going to rob a bank (currency = votes), and the robbery was going to include the deployment of electronic lockpicking (Dominion tabulation machines), you would want to see what countermeasures the alarm company (CISA) would/could deploy to identify your effort and/or stop your success.

In that metaphor the hack of SolarWinds is the way into the alarm company.

Is that what this cyber-intrusion was all about?

The Department of Commerce confirmed a breach in one of its bureaus, and Reuters reported that the Department of Homeland Security and the Treasury Department were also attacked. […] the hackers took advanced steps to conceal their actions.

“Their level of operational security is truly exceptional,” he said, adding that the hackers would operate from servers based in the same city as an employee they were pretending to be in order to evade detection.

The hackers were able to breach U.S. government entites by first attacking the SolarWinds IT provider. By compromising the software used by government entities and corporations to monitor their network, hackers were able to gain a foothold into their network and dig deeper all while appearing as legitimate traffic. (link)

Again, notice how no “harm” has been identified.  No exfiltration of data has been noted in any report…. ergo it was the bad actors inside the system that has been identified as the compromise and not necessarily any adverse outcome that has been quantified.

In essence, the bank (election) was presumably robbed and now the authorities have identified the open backdoor to the bank but nothing seemingly removed.

Was the hack itself simply a version of controlling the alarm company to conceal the operation within the Dominion network election activity?

There are trillions at stake.

Just a thought….